Non Decorum Est

Apparently, the issue of a “dress code” or “decorous clothing” seems to have gone bye-bye in, of all places, Britishland (and to be specific, in Parliament).  Witness this outfit chosen by a Labour MP (of course) to deliver a speech in the House of Commons:

Needless to say, the response from the BritPublic was not complimentary, prompting this classless Trot to respond in kind:

I know, I know, dear Tracy;  perhaps you weren’t any of those things — it just looked  like you were all  of them.  Of course, you were an actress once, which pretty much explains everything.

And just so we’re all clear on the implications of this:  had Boris Johnson not won the last General Election, this harridan would now be a member of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet.

Maybe Not, Eh?

And all this time, I thought that Our Neighbors To The North were supposed to be the good guysApparently not:

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s mandate letter includes regulations targeting the removal of illegal online content “harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.”
Heritage minister Steven Guilbeault’s mandate letter
Firms such as Facebook or Twitter would be required to remove such content within 24 hours or face punishment.
If that seems a bit vague, it is because the definition of “illegal content” is not yet set, but according to iPolitics, Minister Guilbeault has said he will be meeting with Justice Minister David Lametti to clearly define it.

Suiting the action to the word, this little Marxist turd Guilbeault told the Canucki press this past weekend that media outlets would soon require a government license to publish stuff.

Amazingly, the outcry was such that they had to throw the thing into reverse:

Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has done a 180-degree turn on comments suggesting media organisations would be forced to have government licences after a huge backlash.
Minister Guilbeault clarified his and the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s stance on the matter, saying that the government had no intention to force media companies to require licenses to operate in Canada, CTV reports.
After stating that the Liberal minority government “has no intention to impose licensing requirements on news organizations, nor would we try to regulate news content,” Guilbeault went on to add the government would not decide on what would be considered a news organisation either.

Yeah, I believe that like I believe any Marxist bastard’s lies.  If I were a betting man, I’d take short odds on the Liberal apparatchiks having a whole bunch of ways to do all that, anyway.

As the man said (and I paraphrase):  if you think you live in a free society, see who you can’t criticize or satirize;  if it’s the government or any other powerful institution, then guess what?  You don’t.

I know my Canucki Readers are not of this ilk, but they are no doubt still too nice to avail themselves of my usual solution to Marxism:

http://www.pantel-web.de/bw_mirror/history/bwmaps/bw_315_2.jpg

Maybe it’s “No More Mr. Nice Guy” time, my friends.  Just a thought.

Day For Night

Oh FFS, here we go again:

Bosses at Warner Bros. are allegedly considering taking on a female actress to play the role of the iconic chocolatier, after two previous adaptations starred Johnny Depp and Gene Wilder.

Is any male role safe anymore?  Dr. Who, James Bond’s “M”, Ghostbusters and countless other male roles have recently grown tits and vaginas — I mean, Jane  Bond was even considered a while ago.  (“I’d like a strawberry vodkapop… stirred, not shaken.”)

I really want some brave producer (I know, I know) to propose a movie project entitled “John Of Arc” :  the story of a humble French shepherd boy who gets a message from God, becomes a fearless military leader and rallies an army to defeat an English occupation force.  Then he’s captured and burned at the stake.

Nah, that’s just too far-fetched.  Might as well just cast a chick for the role, to get the green light.  Of course, the movie will bomb spectacularly and lose money — but who cares, as long as Teh Womynz get the gig?

Fucking bullshit.

Nope, Probably Not

According to City Journal‘s Steve Malanga, Californication shouldn’t be as bad as people think:

Conservatives and moderates are the most unhappy with the state and most anxious to leave. Liberals, by contrast, are mostly staying put, and some think life in California is just great. Only 38 percent of Democrats said that they were considering leaving, compared with 55 percent of independents and 71 percent of Republicans. Similarly, those characterizing themselves as “somewhat liberal” were least likely to say that they want to go—fewer than four in ten are considering leaving. But 53 percent of moderates, 66 percent of the “somewhat conservative,” and 74 percent of the “very conservative” would like to migrate. Political affiliation, in fact, was more of a predictor of who wants to go or stay than other demographic information, such as race.

I think that the longtime residents of Colorado (to name just one state infested with ex-Californians) might beg to differ with Malanga’s thesis — and I think I know the problem.

Basically, “conservative” Californians coming to, say, Texas probably aren’t conservative at all.  Compared to other Californians, they might be;  compared to conservative Texans, they’re probably more like moderate Democrats.  And the way to establish the truth of this is to find out if during their first year in a new state, these Cali-expats bought a gun  (if they didn’t bring any with them).  If they didn’t buy a gun, they failed the first unofficial test of conservative American citizenship.

This kills me.  I have very dear relatives who are lifelong Californians, and are making serious plans to leave the state.  They are probably more conservative than I am, and are staunch gun owners to boot.  But I’m positive that Uncle Mike and The Angel In Human Form are in no way representative of these modern Joads-in-reverse.

More’s the pity.


P.S.  The above-mentioned relatives (much to my chagrin) are not moving to Texas because of the heat.  But let’s just say that the political makeup of one of the mountain states is about to become a lot  more conservative.

Blacktops

Anyone who’s ever worked in the restaurant business will know exactly what the title of this post means.

Basically, it’s a denigrating [sic]  term that waiters (of all races, by the way) use as shorthand to describe a table of Black customers.  What “blacktop” means is that the servers are highly unlikely to get a tip from that seating.

Black people don’t tip.  (As always, that may not be 100% accurate but, as the bookies say, it’s the way to bet.)

Insty brings it home with this post, and I, as a two-year veteran of Ubering with well over two thousand trips driven, can attest to his friend’s conclusion.  (And bear in mind that about 80% of my annual business comes exclusively from taking executives to the two Dallas-area airports, which means that mostly, the tips are going to be part of the expense account.)

As a one-time statistician, I unconsciously collect data from my own experiences, and I’m going to present Kim’s Hierarchy Of Tipping (in an Uber context) and digging into my experience, here are the percentages of people who tip, by category.

  • White men:  70% — close to 90% of my tip revenue comes from White men, of all socio-economic classes
  • Chinese / Japanese men:  50% — but it’s a tiny number, so the actual revenue is insignificant
  • White women:  25% — and their tips are much smaller than the mens’, and younger women hardly tip at all
  • Indian men:  5% — and that only from the few Indian guys I pick up on a regular basis
  • Older Black men:   5% — if they’re executives, otherwise 0%
  • Younger Black men:  0% — unless  they’re in food service i.e. waiters (see below), in which case it’s about 2%
  • Indian / Black / Chinese women:  0% — I think one  Indian woman once gave me a $2 tip (on a $40 fare).
  • Young White guys, mostly waiters, cooks and bartenders:  close to 100%;  why?  because they understand the value of tipping.  When a young guy tips me $3 on a $4 fare, I know what that represents, and it has nothing to do with percentages.

Here’s the thing:  tipping your service provider isn’t just about the money, although that is important.  What tipping does show that you the customer value  what I as your service provider has given you, and it gives me an incentive to keep providing a good service.

I’ll spell it out from my own perspective.  I get up at about 3.15am and log in to Uber at about 3.45am, working until about 9am.  I provide a courteous, smooth, knowledgeable and (sometimes) entertaining trip, every time.  There’s free water on offer, a phone charger if needed, and I even load and unload my customers’ suitcases.  If a customer has forgotten something like a phone or passport, I stop the clock and turn the car around to fetch it.  I monitor the traffic reports so I can take a different route to avoid congestion.  I keep my car spotless (inside — on DFW roads, I’d have to wash the outside twice a day to keep it as clean).  And on that topic:  it’s not some cab company’s heap that I’m inviting you into, it’s my own personal car.

If I published the compliments that a few (maybe 80 or so) customers have left on my profile over the past two years, you’d think I’d made them all up.  (“Best Uber ride ever!”  and “Great conversation!” are the most common.)  I don’t provide good service;  I provide fantastic  service.

Yet very few people tip.  My tip percentage of total net income is 4.74% (and that is a hard number, because it’s Tax Time).  About a third of what a waiter makes.

And I have to tell you all that if one day I decide to chuck it all in, it’s because excluding White men, people in general are ungrateful assholes.