When we first moved to Pennsylvania we lived on my in-laws farm in their old house. Because our bedroom was unfinished, we spent a lot of nights sleeping in the living room on the couches. The couch I slept on faced the hallway, and a doorless closet there.
Now my spouse had grown up in part in this house, and had always told stories about it. Mainly about how their older brother and younger brother used to claim to "see things" on the farm. Which, okay, cool, middle of nowhere in pitch black surrounded by woods with no phone.
We lived in a horror movie, so I was ready to accept that if the Amish Axeman ever rode his bloodstained buggy to our door and decided to take us out, we were fucked.
There is apparently a card circulating for people who do not want to wear facemasks. The card states they have a medical condition that prevents them from wearing a facemask, they do not need to disclose it, and that not allowing them to shop is discrimination under the ADA.
It obliquely threatens fines and reporting for not allowing the non-masked to shop in the store.
Please allow me to explain the misconceptions behind this card.
The card assumes that a disability is a free pass. This is not accurate. The ADA requires non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation UNLESS doing so would endanger the health, welfare, or safety of employees or other shoppers.
This week’s simple recipe for folks who can’t cook are dead simple Chicken and Dumplings.
You’re gonna need:
1 chicken breast
2 chicken thighs
2 cans of biscuits (not flaky) (those grand biscuits)
40 oz. of chicken broth
Alright. I know what I said earlier this week. But this is the one time you can boil chicken. Do it on low until that shit is falling apart. Then remove the chicken and take two forks to shred that shit. /2
Get out a big ass pot. Add the chicken stock. Add like 1/4 - 1/2 teaspoon of all the spices but that salt and pepper, of which you want to add about a teaspoon of each. Add the shredded chicken. Start that shit towards a boil.
"Throwing a milkshake/egg/cooked spaghetti on someone is assault."
Let's do a quick Lexplanation on the topic. /1
NOTE: We're speaking generally here, under both the Model Penal Code and the Restatement of Torts. This is not legal advice. Consult an attorney in your Jurisdiction, as You're Jurisdiction May Vary! (YJMV)
First, by Tort definitions you're wrong and right. "Assault" in tort, under the Restatement, requires that someone act as follows:
Oh boy, here I go again, having relations with a hornet's nest.
Rehabilitation of felons requires we, as a society, allow reintegration. We can and should put safeguards into place and remain aware of situations that impact safety, however you can not demand exclusion of a released individual without heightening the risk of recidivism. /2
In mid-February I ran a poll asking what the primary goal of incarceration should be. The overwhelming response given was we should strive to rehabilitate prisoners. In the long run, this is something I agree with. /3
2. He wasn't highly educated. He was a shrewd businessman, and a fair boss, but he wasn't book smart. Instead he was a cigar chomping, hands were one big callus, built like a brick shithouse but squashed down a bit rough man.
3. Every Sunday he would go to the detached garage behind the house he'd built and work on stuff while everyone went to church, then one Sunday he just decided "I'm going to church" and went every Sunday for the rest of his life. /3
Here's the First Amendment in its entirety. It's a short piece of the Constitution that, effectively, has been used over and over again for many purposes, and is the source of one of our most basic liberties: the freedom of speech. /1
Now, as people have pointed out, there is a legal aspect to the freedoms granted, such as the fact it only serves to protect us against government limitation of our speech, and a social aspect, i.e. whether it is such a basic liberty we should seek to uphold it privately. /2
But what tends to be overlooked in these discussions is the fact that the freedom of speech is tied into the freedom of association, as we can see in NAACP v. Alabama, wherein SCOTUS held as follows: