NY: The Commie State

 The running joke is Commie-fornia. I think NY, specifically NYC is giving California a run for it's money. NY is becoming a singular example of what happens when there are no personal consequences for illegal, unconstitutional and immoral behavior by government agents.

Lets start with Latitia James who campaigned on corrupt use of her public office. She campaigned on getting Trump and has proceeded to do so. And while she is not the only agent to violate Trump's civil rights via lawfare she serves as THE example. In a properly functioning federal DOJ, James would have been plaed under investigation as soon as the charges were filed. She would have been charged with violating Trump's civil rights as in America, supposedly, crimes are investigated and suspects prosecuted rather than people targeted by the state to make up crimes to charge them with.

Consider judge Engeron. How does a judge come to the conclusion prior to the trial? That such a thing can be done in America where guilt is to be determined by a jury AFTER a trial, his behavior, and indeed the law that allows such activity ought to have gotten an express lane to SCOTUS where a unanimous vote nullifying the law AND removed the judge from office would be rendered.

Not to be outdone, another judge in NY actually said, in public and on record, that the second amendment does not exist in NY state or her court.  How exactly does this judge still have a job? How is it she was not immediately removed from office and her law license revoked? How is she not currently on trial for violating the civil rights of the defendant? How is she literally not having to consider 'learning to code" for the rest of her life as her law degree is worth less than the toilet paper she wipes and flushes with?

A judge has recently ruled that NYS can tell Verizon (and I assume other providers) to charge low income residents $15 for broadband. Really? Since when do we have state agents dictating the prices businesses charge for goods and services? The state has an interest in preventing gouging. The state can, unfortunately tax a business to operate in it's jurisdiction. The state can choose to use money it collects from citizens to subsidize the cost of a good or service, but since when does it have the right to say "you must charge this"? Since when is the state a business partner of a private entity?

I'm sure there are answers to those questions but that there are illustrates how far down the socialism slope NYS has gone down. 

 

AI generated

 

Lastly, I'll revisit the congestion pricing issue because that one really, reaaaaly bothers me. There are various road tolls out there. The justifications for these tolls were to pay for the construction of said bridges or roads. Then it was said that they continuation of said tolls were to maintain those roads. Personally, I think there should be no tolls whatsoever. It is generally known how much it costs to maintain x amount of road and bridges. After all, these agencies budget and forecast all the time.  Implement a tax that covers that cost and everybody pays in. Yes, everyone benefits from the roads whether they drive on them or not. Mail delivery, food delivery, furniture, etc. all travel on various roads many citizens may never ever see in their lives. Chip in.

The point here is that, if there was and is to be a toll, it was paid for by the people who were using the service. I use the bridge, I pay the tax. Fine (this is not a piece advocating taxes). I hate when road tolls are increased but at least I know I'm paying for the good and service.

NYC congestion pricing completely abandons this principle. Drivers are not being asked to pay a toll in order to maintain or even pay for new infrastructure THEY USE. They are being asked to pay an exorbitant amount of money to pay for services and goods used by other people who DO NOT pay for the services and goods paid for by drivers.

I do not use mass transit. The times that I have used mass transit, I have paid my fare. I use the service, I should pay for it. That is fair. If the service is being run below what it costs to maintain and upgrade it, then either the fare is too low or the state agency responsible for it is not properly funded.

Unlike the roads, mass transit does NOT benefit everyone. Food does not travel on the bus or subway. Nor does furniture, fuel. In general, mass transit benefits businesses that are able to have employees shuttled from various areas to and from their offices. Don't believe me? Next time you're in NYC or even outer suburbs, see how many people are on the busses during the week and then look at how many people are on the busses on the weekends.

When the state closed up shop during COVID, MTA finances fell into deep hole as ridership became simply homeless people "enjoying" the newly empty trains. 

Congestion pricing is how NYC figured it could kick it's affordability problem out a few more years. It knows full well that it cannot raise fares to where they would need to be to make the MTA profitable enough to do what it needs to do, so it figured that drivers could be milked instead. The whole "pollution and congestion" angle was just to get the liberals on board. Drivers in NY already pay high fees to register their vehicles every two years.  They pay gas taxes. Then IF they drive into manhattan on a weekday, they usually have to pay for parking unless they are smart enough to sleuth alternate side of the street parking and figure out where and when to get free street parking. Of course this pisses off residents.

But returning to the issue, this is the first time I can think of, where one class of NY residents will be asked to pay a tax for a service they did not use. I think that is a very dangerous trend. I think congestion pricing should have been struck down on that principle alone.  Nobody would accept going to a store and being made to pay for someone other person's goods. This is exactly what is being done here. 

Wait until those people traveling the Queensbridge get their bills for the 3 block drive between the bridge and the nearest highway. Wait until they drop the speed limit to 20MPH and those fines get racked up. Wait until the other tolled bridges have the tolls go up to match the cost of the congestion zone.

They'll still vote for the Democrats who did it to them.

The Chun Li Argument

One after the other, 'Western" institutions continue to beclown themselves as they bend to the cult of trans. The IOC is the latest to ruin its reputation:

A groundbreaking study that was sponsored by the International Olympic Committee and released late last week sought to compare a range of athletic abilities between trans athletes and their cisgender counterparts.

You'll see MSNBC using the propaganda language of "cisgender". 

"But the study that the IOC commissioned, and the University of Brighton conducted, found that while trans women are stronger in some respects, like grip strength, cis women have stronger lower bodies. The study also found that trans women have a similar bone density as their cis women counterparts, which rebuts a frequent refrain from conservatives who’ve argued otherwise to justify banning trans girls and women from sports."

 There are no such things as "trans women". There are men/males and women. Men have, as a group, greater grip strength than women. Hence males have an enormous advantage in things like dead lifts and pullups.

Below is a chart of the average difference between men and women (adult human male and female. respectively):

 

 

 You'll note that the maximum average female grip strength happens between ages 30 and 34. This maximum is dwarfed by males in this 65-69 age range. Even though this is well known in the relevant fields, the IOC actually trying to argue that it's not a big deal.

Per the greater leg strength, here's a piece from PubMed from 2021:

The aim of the present investigation was to compare male and female resistance trained athletes in absolute and relative strength and power performances. Firstly, women had lower maximal strength values when compared to men at bench press (−59.2%), squat (−57.2%), deadlift (−56.3%), and mid-shin pull (MSP, −53.2%). In addition, lower levels of power were detected in females in both the upper (−61.2%) and the lower body (−44.2%). This is consistent with previous studies [5,6] that reported similar differences between men and women in the upper body. The same authors however, reported that women were only 27% less strong than men in lower body strength. The larger differences found in the present investigation between male and female athletes may be related to the strength assessments performed. Some of these maximum strength assessments (e.g., deadlift 1RM), are deeply influenced by the upper-body strength [34]. These findings indeed, are similar to those previously reported for powerlifters of both sexes [35,36,37]. (My underlines)

 27% less strong that men in lower body strength.

Oh.

And that lower body performance is "deeply influences by the upper body strength".

Oh. So like, it doesn't matter if women are built like Chun Li, they are STILL at a competitive disadvantage. 

The 35 trans athletes had to have completed at least one consecutive year of hormone replacement therapy.

35 athletes were on drugs that would have gotten them banned if they hadn't claimed being "trans". How about they test some post op?

"It’s just one study, so we should avoid drawing grand conclusions from it, but, at the very least, the study shows that the bodies of trans women who’ve been on at least one year of hormone replacement therapy are very, very different from cis men’s bodies."

We all know that the actual attempt is to have men who claim they are women compete in women's sports  who have NOT have any surgeries or hormones. 

Aside from that, I'm all here for when these men get brittle bones and have massive breaks during their competitions.

Also, notice that none of these folks are making what should be the obvious accompanying argument: Women on hormones (and surgeries) are not at a disadvantage when competing against men.

NYC Gets Its Bridge Toll

 For those of us with memories that go beyond last week, we know that NYC has been trying to put a toll on the Queensboro bridge for quite some time.  For example

:

"The East River bridges between Queens and Manhattan have been free since 1911. And business, civic and political leaders stood in the shadow of the Ed Koch-Queensboro Bridge on Sunday demanding that it be kept that way..."

 “Tolling the East River bridges would be devastating for Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island residents,” Weprin said in a statement issued by his office. “The people who rely on these bridges are a diverse group of New Yorkers who are trying to make affordable choices in this city and any future transportation plan for New York must take into the account the needs of outer borough residents.”

That's from 2017. Here's 2015 from the AP:

NEW YORK (AP) — Reviving a congestion-pricing idea that has been rejected before, an influential transportation coalition proposed implementing tolls for all cars that cross 60th Street in Manhattan and the free bridges spanning the East River...

The new toll of $5.54 each way with E-ZPass would be charged to drivers crossing 60th Street on every avenue, northbound and southbound, from the West Side Highway to FDR Drive. It would also apply to four major bridges owned by the city: the Queensboro, Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges. That matches the current toll fare on the Queens Midtown and Brooklyn Battery tunnels. Metered taxi cabs would be exempt from all tolls.

Each time this came up Queens polls rejected the plan. Now under the congestion pricing, they got their toll. I don't think outerborough citizens realize what is in store for them in about two months. From the Gothamist:

The MTA has sold congestion pricing as a simple tolling scheme: $15 during the day for vehicles that enter Manhattan south of 60th Street. Drivers are exempt from the tolls if they stay on the FDR Drive, West Side Highway and Battery Park Underpass.

But about two months before the MTA hopes to flip the switch and begin tolling, the agency has confirmed it’s not quite that simple.

Ye olde..bait and switch. Let me give you a scenario that was sold to us. Say you live in NJ and you want to go to JFK. The most direct route would take you over the GW Bridge. That's a $17 toll as of this post. Then down the FDR to the triboro bridge. That toll is currently $9.11 for non NY residents. 

Each way.

We haven't discussed gasoline.

So in tolls alone your out $36 dollars. Now say you decide to not pay that extra $10 and spend your time going further south to the Queensboro bridge. It's "free" but you lose time and burn more gasoline. Your trip cost drops a whopping 47%. Do that enough times and you're saving quite a bit of money. So of course a lot of people make that decision. On a side note, using the Queensbridge during rush hour is, shall we say, a painful experience. When I did that commute, I found paying the toll on the triboro to be a decision that was better for my mental health.

I am also of the opinion that citizens should be able to cross into and out of any borough of NY without paying a toll. Back when the "outer boroughs" were NOT considered a part of NYC, I could see an argument for a toll. A bad argument to be sure, but I could see it. Once they were brought into the fold, I find such tolling ideas fundamentally contrary to free movement.

Anyway, 

Certain exits on both the Queensboro and Brooklyn bridges will be tolled differently. One route on the Queensboro Bridge avoids the toll, while some drivers crossing the Brooklyn Bridge into Manhattan will face an unexpected charge despite taking an exit for the FDR, which is exempt from the toll.

 You can read the entire article but I'll give my explanation here.

The Queens Bridge has NO direct on or offramps that puts you onto a highway like the Verazano or Brooklyn Bridges. The planners KNEW THIS and threw up a plate reader BEFORE any street that gives entrace to the bridge anyway.  When I saw it I knew there was going to be a problem. But the city continued to claim that people going to the bridges would be exempted.  Therefore I expected to see a reader at the entrance to either the upper or lower levels so that drivers who passed under reader one, would be read again at the bridge entrance and given a credit. However, if you didn't pass under reader two (within a specific timeframe), then you paid the congestion fee (which I disagree with anyway but that's another post). No such reader has been installed on the bridge. Therefore since you MUST pass "into the zone" in order to get onto  The Bridge (shout out to MC Shan) outbound, they have effectively tolled that bridge.

When it comes to inbound traffic, there is ONE way to avoid the toll. The upper level off ramp places traffic above the congestion zone. Currently  there is only ONE LANE functioning in that direction. 

One.

I can imagine everyone trying to avoid the toll by trying to get on the upper level, That will not work out for very long (I say no longer than a week). All other inbound lanes dump the driver in the zone with the closest being exactly 2.25 blocks into the zone. That 1/4 is the portion of block 3 that is within the zone before the gantry.  Yes, you will pay anywhere from $3 to $11 to drive 2 blocks to get from the bridge exit closest to the FDR to the FDR.

Yes, the planners in NYC new this and said "Meh. Too bad".

Now they did NOT have to do this at all. Since it is known by all the relevant parties that there is no way to get onto The Bridge, without entering local streets, they could have made a carve out so that the readers would be located on the southern side of the bridge access streets until 2nd avenue and then place them back on streets north of the bridge AFTER the entrance to the bridge from the affected streets. 

Similarly they could have made carve outs for the most direct routes from The Bridge to the FDR. For example the lower level exit that dumps at The Tram should allow vehicles to make the "U Turn" onto the same street the "earlier" exit. Of course the reason you cannot do this is because 1st Avenue is one way, in the opposite direction. Drivers so situated must go another block west, make the right turn, go another block, then make another right to go back east.

Again, it's not their fault. That's how the bridge was designed. How about some eminent domain and knock down those towers and build on and off ramps? Oh right. Too....rich?

I kid. Its not practical or necessary. This is a policy problem not a geography problem.

Speaking of, I understand there is a plate reader ON the FDR.

Why?

Well I believe that eventually they will collect on the FDR south of a certain point. Just like how the speed cameras were posted to, you know, save the children and are now 24/7 revenue generators. They will NOT be satisfied with bending drivers over for driving 2 blocks.

Of course NY residents, well some of them, will complain but they won't do anything about it. They voted in the people who made these decisions and they apparently like it.

They get taxed and are good with illegal aliens running up in their city and getting paid to be there. They're good with rising subway crime and having people who defend themselves or others get  arrested and prosecuted. They are good with fake trials of ex-presidents whom they don't like.

So they're good with this because I guarantee that not a single representative in Albany will lose their seat in the next election over this. 

I see reports of NYC residents complaining about the NJ plates and the lot. These dummies don't realize that the presence of out of state plates (that don't belong to residents) is a sign of money (and therefore tax revenue) INTO the city by people volunteering to come into NY. All that traffic equals money. No traffic means people are not coming into the city and spending money. 

Y'all may find out sooner rather than later how that turns out.

Where Vox Clears Trump of Insurrection

 One of the legs of the "Trump is an insurrectionist" argument is the speech that Trump gave on Jan 6. Those proposing this argument, including the Colorado court, claim that Trump knew or should have known that peopld would take his speech as a call to violence. Indeed, they say that Trump should not have even exercised his right to petition his government BECAUSE such people would likely be in attendance.

Now, sane people know this is a bunk argument even without citing the follow up video that was deleted from Twitter BY Twitter telling people to go home. Now we have Vox making the argument against the Colorado court AND those still hanging onto the chad that is "muh Trump speech":

Now what would this article have to do with anything?

Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a brief opinion accompanying the Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson, the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”

Unless what?

"The speakers words were intended (NOT JUST LIKELY) to produce imminent disorder .

Hence even if they were to argue that Trump's speech as "likely" to produce "imminent disorder", There still could not be a case against him based on that.

The reason Claiborne protects protest organizers should be obvious. No one who organizes a mass event attended by thousands of people can possibly control the actions of all those attendees, regardless of whether the event is a political protest, a music concert, or the Super Bowl. So, if protest organizers can be sanctioned for the illegal action of any protest attendee, no one in their right mind would ever organize a political protest again.

You don't say.

Indeed, as Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett, who dissented from his court’s Mckesson decision, warned in one of his dissents, his court’s decision would make protest organizers liable for “the unlawful acts of counter-protesters and agitators.” So, under the Fifth Circuit’s rule, a Ku Klux Klansman could sabotage the Black Lives Matter movement simply by showing up at its protests and throwing stones.

Or you know, instigators at the Jan 6 rally.

I would expect this to show up in the Jack Smith trial, should it occur.

Babylon Bee on Censorship

 Given the recent censorship applied to this blog, I find the below appropriate. I want to highlight the part where Twitter tried to get them to delete their own post AND check a box stating that they had committed "hate speech". It was a clear example of what these people want (and why I won't give it to them).

The second thing, was when he discusses how people were waiting on BB to back down and just do what Twitter wanted and check the box and get back to "making money". They refused. This is like what I went through when I was put under pressure and eventually fired from my job. People thought I was crazy to leave 6 figures plus a lot of sick pay, over "just a shot". These people like, unfortunately most, did not understand standing on principle. Too many people are beholden to the almightly dollar. Too many people who proclaim "God is in control" and "The Lord is My Sheppard", folded the minute the pressure was applied.

But enough about me. 

Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon says a lot of things. This time, it's an important message about the battle against censorship. pic.twitter.com/ltpeMu40hK

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) April 5, 2024

Fix The Battery Problem

 A change of topic today. For the past year I've been eyeing used BMW i3s. My employment situation severely changed my commute and so I was considering a change in vehicle. At one point I was looking at an 2015(?) i3 REX. Black of course. I knew that the battery range meant I could get to work on the battery (at least in decent weather) but I would be on gasoline on the way home.

But I was wary of the battery. I've had phones, earbuds, and other things with lithium ion batteries and I know that its only a matter of time before they go bye-bye. This particular model was ~19k at the time. I passed on it and went on with my life.

A few weeks ago, I saw an article online where people who recently purchased an I3 discovered they needed to replace the battery. The replacement cost would be between $30k and 70k.  More than the vehicle was purchased for. More than the vehicle was purchased for NEW.  I said then , that once word got out how expensive the battery is, Nobody in their right mind would pay for one of these vehicles. It is literally a wallet destroying time bomb.

Lo and behold, I took a gander at Autotempest.com and saw that the bottom has fallen out from under the i3 and prices have dropped into the mid to upper 4 figure range. It was bound to happen and it underscores a major thing that needs to be addressed if EVs are going to be suitable replacements for gasoline and hybrid vehicles:

The Battery Problem.

Imagine you purchased a car and every year it lost power. Doesn't matter how much maintenance you do or how many miles you do, the engine would lose power.  Eventually you'd get in the car and it wouldn't start.  Now some people would get lucky and get 300k before that happened but on average, it would hit people at 100k (I'm making up numbers here for effect).  Imagine then, you had to replace the engine on this car to the tune of more than the car is worth. Imagine even worse that if you wait too long, there will be NO ENGINE for you to replace it with!

Imagine the second hand market for such a vehicle. Yeah, me neither.

Yeah, battery tech will get better in the future (and hopefully far less exploitative of child labour) but there needs to be a widespread development of third party battery services and suppliers who can provide cost effective replacement batteries for old(er) EVs. If not the environmental waste that will be "old EVs" will be massive.* There needs to be an ability to put new batteries with better range and BMS into older vehicles as well. There is absolutely no reason that an I3 battery cannot be replaced with an upgraded one from a 3rd party. These are carbon fiber vehicle with mostly aluminum appendages. These can go for years. We already know the industry is going out have to move on from Lithium Ion tech. There simply isn't enough of it to replace all gasoline propelled vehicles and the environmental impact is huge (we just don't see it).  When that transition happens, all the current vehicles will be dead if they cannot be retrofitted and nobody in their right mind would pay more than a few bucks for a used one knowing that the battery will go to sleep on them in short order.

So the problem, at least A problem I see that needs to be addressed quickly is the battery replacement problem. I believe the range problem will eventually sort itself out with tech (and not weight 4 tons), but in the end, it is simply not feasible to expect people to dole out 5 figures for a replacement battery or purchase another vehicle (and putting yet another one in the EV graveyard) when their battery degrades too much.

Meanwhile, I continue to look at a 120ah i3 REX (with sun roof) which I too can put a gas tank in the frunk and hope I don't rear end someone.