Off to a Rough Start for the Holidays
So now that “Black Friday” with its riots, protests and door buster sales of cheap items nobody actually needs, is over and done with, we can move full forces into the commercial Holiday Season. Hurrah!
So I usually don’t blog about my daughters very often, unless it’s something extraordinary or really cool or they want a little publicity for a worthwhile project. They didn’t sign up for the public light and scrutiny, so normally I leave them out of my writings. But… this Thanksgiving my eldest daughter and her husband came down from Tacoma for the holiday, which is great. They are so young and working so hard to make ends meet and enjoy marriage. They were supposed to be here for two and a half days, but as of this morning (Monday), they are still here. Why? My daughter became rather ill Friday afternoon, and late that night had to go to the ER. Oddly enough, she is on our insurance (she’s under 26!), so she’s even in network as long as she is here. Which is the rub in all of this, as it turns out that she may need an urgent or even emergency surgery this week. We should know later on Monday. On the plus side, as long as she’s here it’s in network. On the down side, she has a job to get back to, and wasn’t planning to be here but for a couple of days.
Do you miss Fun with News and Top 5? Lord knows that I do, so HERE IS THE BEST WAY WE COULD FIND OF BRINGING THEM BACK as best we could…
Taxation is about de-incentivizing something. So when the government rises taxes on tobacco, in theory they are trying to stop people from using it. Likewise for alcohol and buying gasoline, etc. So if the necessity exists for the government to “solve” the “problem” of retail employees having to work on Thanksgiving and/or other holidays, how should they go about doing it? How about a tax? How to do that? Easy! Simply pass a law to REQUIRE THE EMPLOYERS TO PAY DOUBLE TIME on certain holidays, Specifically Thanksgiving. Of course, this will not really solve anything except insure that public sector employees in the the safety rates will get double time on holidays. The bigger question is whether or not this is a “problem” for government to “solve” in the first place?
When you consider that the reason that FDR MOVED THANKSGIVING IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RETAIL SALES before Christmas, you start to realize that a government solution to a non-existent problem is the normal operational procedure.
Speaking of employees forced to work under less than ideal conditions, how about the government doing something to protect VICTORIA’S SECRET SUPER MODELS FROM 2AM CURFEWS?
So how do you feel about the upcoming Legislative session that will include a bill from Democrat Ricardo Lara to set up (and pay for) A CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF NEW AMERICANS? The Senator has said that he wants to set up the office to “help undocumented immigrants by connecting them to legal services, English classes and help applying for relief under the executive actions announced last week by President Barack Obama.” But once again, did generations of “new Americans” previously need an Office of New Americans – either Statewide or nationally? So what is it about these particular “new Americans” that justifies the expense and need for such an office? (Editors Note: By the by, Michigan, Illinois, Tennessee, and New York also have these offices)
Oh and it turns out that the old canard about Hispanics agreeing philosophically with the GOP since they tend to be highly religious, IS NOT TRUE. So now they Latinos hate the right because of religion as well as racism (heavy sarcasm)! Isn’t t possible that the reason the GOP doesn’t actually need the Hispanic bloc is the simple and little discussed truth that as a bloc, LATINO’S DON’T VOTE?
Before we got derailed into another direction, I was telling you how little regard I have personally for the Criminal Grand Jury system. After the events of Ferguson I think that the flaws in the Grand Jury system should be manifest. There is no winning here. If the DA wants an indictment, he/she will get one. If there is no indictment, questions swirl as to whether of not he/she tanked the presentation. Some of this testimony cries for deeper exploration. Some of it is simply superfluous. It’s as if the Prosecution took every piece of whatever related they could find and threw it at the Grand Jury without context or even presentation, and let Justice take her majestic course. Look, I personally happen to believe that Michael Brown DID in fact rob a convenience store. Everything begins there. If that doesn’t happen, there is no shooting. I personally believe that Officer Wilsons account is the most accurate of what happened. It is unlikely to be the complete account, but it is most probably the most accurate. But without cross-examination, without a petite jury judging the physical evidence in an open court, how do we know that? The Criminal Grand Jury system is the closest thing we have to the Star Chamber, and frankly given its abuses and misuses, it is surprising to me that some States still allow its use.
In point of fact, the use of the Criminal Grand Jury is – in my opinion – tantamount to fixing by the Prosecutor. In a criminal matter where and indictment is “wanted” (for lack of better term), it is a forgone conclusion that an indictment will be returned. In the case where an indictment is undesired, well… you can see what happens.
We had a really good discussion about this on CONSTITUTION THURSDAY -The Saturday Podcast some weeks ago, so good in fact that we did it twice. It left me believing that the Preliminary Hearing is the better way to go, as it does a better job of protecting the rights of the accused – and yes, there are rights involved. We hire – elect – District Attorneys based on their “tough on crime” attitudes and conviction rates. But now that we begin to see the manners in which the system could be manipulated by an unscrupulous or even a single-minded prosecutor, doesn’t it make sense to eliminate the Criminal Grand Jury system? The Preliminary Hearing protects the rights of the accused by providing representation and forces the Prosecution into the open.
There’s a couple of problems with the latest screed from the former Bishop of Oxford. First off, he has said that THE KORAN SHOULD BE READ AT CHARLES’ CORONATION. This Church of England “Leader” has some real issues with his own church and feels that including the Koran would “include” non-Christian religions in the ceremony. So… will the Torah be read as well? Putting that aside for a moment, the King/Queen of England is the titular head of the Church of England, so how does including the Koran square with that role? Lastly, who decided that there would ever even be coronation for Charles III?
Posted on December 1, 2014, in News & Notes and tagged Black Friday, Constitution Thursday, Criminal Grand Jury, Family, Franksgiving, FWN, Illegal Immigration, Koran, Latino, Office of New Americans, Prince Charles, Roosevelt, Thanksgiving, Top 5. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.