The Broke-Ass Bride’s Wedding Guide
This is my cousin’s book. It will be released December 17th!
Walmart Installs Surface to Air Missiles to Shoot Down Amazon Drones
Christmas Hymn of the Day – Adeste Fideles
Adeste Fideles (O Come All Ye Faithful)
Luciano Pavarotti and Trisha Yearwood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYQneoYhYYIn Latin:
Adeste Fideles
Laeti triumphantes
Venite, venite in Bethlehem
Natum videte
Regem angelorum
Venite adoremus
Dominum
Cantet nunc io
Chorus angelorum
Cantet nunc aula caelestium
Gloria, gloria
In excelsis Deo
Venite adoremus
Dominum
Ergo qui natus
Die hodierna
Jesu, tibi sit gloria
Patris aeterni
Verbum carofactus
Venite adoremus
Dominum
In English:
Oh, come, all ye faithful,
Joyful and triumphant!
Oh, come ye, oh, come ye to Bethlehem;
Come and behold him
Born the king of angels:
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Christ the Lord.
Highest, most holy,
Light of light eternal,
Born of a virgin,
A mortal he comes;
Son of the Father
Now in flesh appearing!
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Christ the Lord.
Sing, choirs of angels,
Sing in exultation,
Sing, all ye citizens of heaven above!
Glory to God
In the highest:
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Christ the Lord.
Yea, Lord, we greet thee,
Born this happy morning;
Jesus, to thee be glory given!
Word of the Father,
Now in flesh appearing!
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Oh, come, let us adore him,
Christ the Lord.
Hymn # 41 from Lutheran Worship
Composer: John F. Wade
Tune: Adeste Fideles
1st Published in: 1767
Previous:
The Little Drummer Boy – 12/1
I Saw Three Ships – 12/2
On Oprah and Raising Hope
First Oprah, h/t Instapundit we find out that Oprah tells the BBC that Americans disrespect Obama because he’s black.
There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American. There’s no question about that and it’s the kind of thing nobody ever says, but everybody’s thinking it.
Actually, no. The race card has been pulled out time and time again in response to any criticism of the current President of the United States. Of course, being the first black president, the race card had never before been pulled for a President. But that doesn’t make pulling the race card legitimate. Barack Obama was elected, and re-elected, President of the United States. The people knew he was black when they voted for him. The race card is overdrawn, and it’s been canceled.
Oprah attributes to me, and others very like me, thoughts that do not, in fact, exist in our minds. I don’t ever think about him as a black president. I don’t think of him with the more accurate description of half-black and half-white. My first thoughts about anyone don’t have anything to do with their ethnic heritage or the level of melanin in their skin. People who have a problem with President Obama have a problem with him because of his policies. People have a problem with him because of his attitude, his lies, his blame shifting, and more. Just as people had problems with President Bush that had absolutely no association with the color of his skin.
Update: Here’s a good rebuttal to Oprah from Kevin Jackson.
Now to what this has to do with Raising Hope. (episode spoilers follow) The new season started Friday, November 15th with two episodes. The first was “Déjà vu Man”. Virginia comes home and tells Burt that she’s seen Déjà Vu Man again. He appears out of the blue, takes her picture, and disappears just as quickly. She’s seen him ever since she was a little girl. Burt thinks Déjà Vu Man is Virginia’s invisible friend. Burt talks about Cookie Man who has shown up since Jimmy was little when Burt had taken Jimmy to the park. Virginia thinks Cookie Man is Burt’s invisible friend.
Shutdown
Happy Blogiversary to Me
I started this blog on September 28th, 2004. Nine years ago. Wow.
Thoughts on the Fast Food Wage Protesters
I’ve had some thoughts on these strikers. There have been protesters with signs demanding a living wage and saying that the minimum wage is equal to poverty. But generally people don’t remain on minimum wage for long. They get raises and promotions,
The unions want the minimum doubled because most, if not all, of their contracts are based on some multiple of the minimum wage.
There is no hope of actually unionizing these workers, there are far too many “management units”. McDonald’s has corporate stores, but it also has far more franchised stores. These franchisees can own one or more stores. Some own quite a few, but most probably own under 10. It would cost far too much to bargain with each of those “management units”, more than the union could possibly collect in dues. Multiply that by all the different fast food outlets and their franchisees and the unions would probably actually go out of business.
The workers that the unions are goading into trying for a doubling of the minimum wage (and hopes of unionization) really don’t realize what that means. It means giving up part of your paycheck for dues and perhaps giving up your entire paycheck because smaller franchisees can’t keep as many employees at the higher wage, or if they do, won’t keep a lot of their customer base due to higher prices. The workers could lose their jobs due to the franchisee going out of business. But unions sound so good, we all hear about the grand union paychecks, and super good benefits…
I think that the sheer number of “management units” is why we haven’t seen food service or retail workers unions before. I’ve heard talk about unionizing the stores in the mall, but it’s always been only talk. And I’ve heard this for decades. There was talk about it when I used to work in stores at malls when I was in high school and just out of high school. Back when minimum wage was $3.25 per hour.
So, I think the main goal of the unions at this time is to get the minimum wage increased because of the ripple effect it will have on their actual members (not these non-member fast food workers).
Facebook Embedded Posts
I’m Sorry Dave, You Got it Wrong
Dave Weigel writing for Slate says: No, President Obama Didn’t Support a “Stand Your Ground” Law in Illinois. He says this comparing what he says is the Illinois law that was amended by SB 2386. He says:
No: “Stand your ground” is substantively different than what Obama backed in Illinois. He backed a tweak to the “castle doctrine,” which reads like this:
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with her real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.
“Stand your ground” takes the concept of the castle doctrine and turns it into a traveling force field of sorts. Here’s Florida’s language:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It’s a pretty obvious difference, which probably means that the “Obama used to support this” theory is essentially trolling.
Public Act 093-0832 has 3 sections, each of which were amended by SB 2386. Weigel quotes section 3, but ignores section 1 which states:
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
Nothing in either section 3 (quoted by Weigel) or section 1 (quoted above) mentions any limitation of place. Weigel is saying that section 3 is tied to place because he says Stand Your Ground becomes a “traveling force field of sorts”. The only section of the Illinois law that is tied to place is section 2 which says:
Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
Only Section 2 actually relates to a “Castle Doctrine”. Only Section 2 is tied to a place. All three sections were amended by the same wording from SB 2386:
In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
The law does not state a duty to retreat, therefore in Illinois there is no duty to retreat. Illinois is one of 33 states with no duty to retreat. No duty to retreat IS Stand Your Ground.
Links: SB 2386 Public Act 093-0832, 720 ILCS 5/
Instalanche! Thanks Glenn!
Bumper Sticker
Bumper sticker seen recently…
