News item: "Carly Fiorina, the former tech CEO, criticized the Obama administration for the 'murder, the mayhem, the danger, the tragedy that we see unfolding in Paris, in the Middle East, around the world and too often in our own homeland.'"
Hey, Carly! It was not all that long ago that you yourself have carried water for the Islamic terrorists.
To my valued client (you know who you are):
I appreciate that you are (usually) current in paying your bills. And I do appreciate that you always cooperate with me when I handle your legal affairs.
This time, however, you have let me down. The package you sent me via international mail caused me lots of grief today. You knew that the original 300+ page document is filed in the courthouse, and that I already have been e-mailed a pdf scan of it by the opposing attorney. I do not need a the hard copy you sent me.
By sending me the COPY that was served upon you, and by sending it in a postal modality that required my signature, I had to drive all the way to the other side of town to the postal unit that handles the Israeli version of Registered Mail (I tried going yesterday, but the office was closed in the afternoons, and my commitments for the morning precluded me going when during yesterday's office hours). Then I had to find parking; the best I could do was about 3 blocks away. And because my name on my relevant Israeli ID documents is in Hebrew, and the package was addressed in English, the postal bureaucrat got into a shouting match with me over whether I was the real intended recipient. (Did I mention that it took them about 15 minutes to locate the package?).
Bottom line: What would, in the USA, amount to a 20-minute excursion at worst, took me over two hours total.
Next time, please don't send unnecessary documents in modes that require my signature!
In order to ensure that you understand the inconvenience you are causing me, my time for this (mis)adventure will be reflected on your next bill.
I am not a great fan of former New York City Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz, who has gone entrepreneurial and has founded the Success Academy franchise for New York City Charter Schools.
Charter schools, you will recall, are chartered to provide education and are an effective admission that the New York City Department of Education's own schools are dysfunctional.
So now, there is whining and moaning from diverse quarters that Success Academy is too strict with its students (including those who pose disciplinary problems) and some reporters from the New York Times (of which I have never been, and do not expect to be in the future, a fan) have uncovered a "got to go" list used by Success Academy to circumvent the mandated expulsion procedures by making life so difficult for the students and their parents that the parents withdraw the students.
My take on it: Perhaps Success Academy is being overly strict with its underage students. And their circumvention of the expulsion regulations does not endear them to me. But why shouldn't the Charter Schools be able to discipline their students?
When I was growing up, there were (and still are today) various military-themed educational institutions (Virginia Military Institute, The Citadel, and Valley Forge Military Academy come immediately to mind) where disciplinary problem children were sent in order to straighten out their behavior. These institutions have many successes to their credit. The main difference between the Charter Schools and the private military boarding schools is that the latter charge tuition, so that the parents, having made the investment, are more prone to back up the school in the imposition and maintenance of a disciplinary regime.
At the Charter Schools, on the other hand, there are some spoiled parents who sabotage the education of their children.
Israel went off of Daylight Saving Time yesterday (Sunday 2 AM).
Meanwhile, the rainy season is now upon us (there are only 2 seasons here, the rainy season and the dry season). It was sunny this morning, when I went into Tel Aviv. The rain started in the early afternoon during the bus ride home.
Back in the States, looks as though Al Sharpton has gotten what his people asked for. Recall, last December, the marchers in New York City who were inspired by Sharpton's demagoguery were chanting "What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!"
Seems that by the time you read this, Sharpton may already have spoken at the funeral of fallen NYPD Officer Randolph Holder. Queries (May already be answered by the time you read this): Why is Officer Holder's family acquiescing in Sharpton's eulogism? And will the NYPD rank and file, who, no doubt, will show up in force at the funeral, turn their backs on Sharpton as they did on Mayor de Blasio last December at the funerals of NYPD officers (posthumously promoted to Detectives) Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos? Just wondering.
Of late, too many American courts have waved through the checkpoints the abuses of the Executive branch on both federal and state levels. We have seen this in matters of firearms restrictions, property seizures, and taxation.
For a change, there is one example of a judiciary that did what it is supposed to do: Prevent the excesses of the Executive Branch. The case is Commissioner v. Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd. The Commissioner appealed a decision from a lower tribunal. The appeal was dismissed. In dismissing the appeal, the Court, disgusted with the Commissioner's practice of appealing on issues already decided by it in prior cases, warned the Commissioner that he would be held personally liable for costs and penalties in future frivolous appeals. The decision in the case can be read here or here; it is well worth the read.
Unfortunately, the above decision will not Directly Impact The Excesses Of Andy Cuomo Or Barack Hussein Obama. The Court Is The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay, India.
Would that the American courts have such gumption to say "No!" to the Executive.