Supreme Court rules you can't sue Postal Service

The U.S. Supreme Court just keeps getting weirder and weirder! Their strange reasoning of recent years even applies to issues we don't even think about that much - such as suing the Postal Service.

Yesterday, the court ruled that you can't sue the Postal Service even when it intentionally refuses to deliver mail. This ruling stemmed from a Texas case in which a woman alleged that her local post office was practicing racial discrimination by refusing to deliver her mail. Tenants in a property she owned missed important mail as a result, and some even moved out because they weren't getting their mail.

A federal law already inexplicably shielded the Postal Service from lawsuits when they accidentally lose or ruin mail - which happens a lot, as anyone who reads online message forums for collectors knows. Now - even more inexplicably - the court has unilaterally expanded this protection to "the intentional nondelivery of mail."

If the Postal Service can deliberately withhold mail, then where's the accountability? How are people supposed to get their missing mail? Now the Postal Service can just stick out their tongue, put their fingers in their ears, and say, "Reindeer motion, reindeer motion, nyeh!" There's no longer any remedy for losing mail on purpose.

March for Billionaires draws fives of people

On Saturday, there was a pro-billionaire march in San Francisco that drew a few five people.

Seriously, the March for Billionaires - yes, it actually was called that - had more reporters than participants. Even the San Francisco Chronicle counted only about 3 dozen marchers, and other sources say there were no more than 12.

Why was there an event like this in the first place? The entire point of it was to protest against a proposed referendum in California that would impose a onetime tax on billionaires. Marchers weren't deterred by the laughably low turnout and spouted typical right-wing bullshit when asked about their stance by reporters.

Organizers on Bluesky whined about how rough life is for billionaires. The event's page boo-hooed, "Billionaires get a bad rap. But most of them make our lives much better." The march featured a huge banner that said, "Billionaires build prosperity. Keep them in California!" Another sign said, "Billionaires build the future."

About the only person listening to these clowns is Gavin Newsom. Newsom says that if voters approve the referendum to enact a tax on billionaires, he will ignore the result and veto it.

Have no fear, the February ish is here!

Have no fear and drink some beer! The February issue of The Last Word is here!

This ish talks about the backlash against Flock's spy cameras, toy cars getting ruined, soiled floors at Goodwill, ridiculous old books about the metric system, more right-wing paid trolls, lap desks, priceless videotapes being taped over, the decline of air travel, and more!

So point your pooper here...

https://www.scribd.com/document/989561972/The-Last-Word-2-2026

If that doesn't work, bip on over here...

http://bunkerblast.info/lastword/lw2602.pdf

Another weird bill in Kentucky

A lot of bad bills are being introduced in Kentucky right now - as they always are - but this is among the strangest.

It's hard to follow, but it certainly doesn't look good. In Kentucky, you can already be involuntarily committed just for looking at someone funny, and it appears as if this bill would make it even worse.

Under this bill, if a person is "found by a qualified mental health professional to not meet the criteria for involuntary hospitalization", guess what? They "shall be admitted" to a psychiatric facility anyway. They would continue to be held if a court "reasonably believes" that "probable cause would be found" to hold them.

"Would be found"? So they want to detain people based solely on speculation?

It would also allow you to be institutionalized for up to 360 days.

And, if a facility discharges someone early, a court may review that action.

This bill would also create a new section of law that says that if a court decides that a person isn't eligible to be involuntarily committed, they can still be committed if they don't comply with their "treatment" plan.

One of the aims of the bill is to bring about "a lessening of irrational thoughts." I swear I am not making this up.

Of course, this bill is unconstitutional - and it's not even close. Which of course makes it more likely to pass.

New Jersey requires license and insurance for bikes

The outright war on bicyclists is expanding - under Plastic Surgery Phil.

New Jersey just became the first state in the union to require a license, registration, and insurance just to operate an electric bicycle. This bill was signed into law by the disastrous Gov. Phil Murphy on his last day in office. It applies to every class of electric bike, not just those with higher speeds and power. It imposes an age limit too.

The new law even bans all online electric bike sales for the next year. And it bans selling kits to modify low-speed electric bikes for higher speeds.

One reason why bikes should not be regulated as cars is that they're not cars. It's a simple concept really. Many states have long had stricter rules for more powerful electric bikes, but those are close to moped or motorcycle level. The standard electric bikes being restricted in New Jersey are not. They only differ from regular bikes in that the pedals may be assisted by an electric motor.

National and statewide bicycling and pedestrian organizations opposed the bill. Some noted that it would harm low-income residents the most. But of course, that was the point. It always is. The new law also runs afoul of meeting goals to fight climate change.

In fact, the requirements for even low-speed electric bikes in New Jersey are now far stricter than they were for cars in most of the country 50 years ago.

It's also been noted that New Jersey's new law violates a federal law that defines low-speed electric bikes as consumer products, not motor vehicles. And it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Others have pointed out that the new law is unconstitutional (as if that stops new laws these days). The law is also backed by the auto industry.

In an era in which states and cities seem to be competing in earnest to see which can be the most bike-unfriendly, I think we finally have an undisputed "winner", and it's New Jersey.

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a neighborly day for a neighbor, as I now have 220 photos from September's Pennsylvania trip processed!

All sorts of neet poo goes on up there! There's a state park with the ruins of a railroad bridge, a Mister Rogers statue, and a whole lotta roads!

So point your pooper here...

http://bunkerblast.info/roadpics/pa25.html