Yes, today is a day that has more significance for all the partying that it generates in the U.S. than any battle for any cause that it originally was noted for.
The big question now is who will be driving home and not make it as a result of a DUI. To bring everyone up to date, DUI's aren't very well tolerated like in days of old, and with the level to earn a violation for a regular DUI at only a .08 percent blood alcohol level, it's even easier to do that than before.
Did you know that the blood alcohol level used to be up around .14 not that many years ago? The penalties were not that heavy compared to today, but it's still not enough to keep many from spending $20 or $30 dollars on a taxi to go home safely after partying.
Look at Miguel Santana who was stopped driving a city car on his way home from some benefit dinner. The CAO for the city got a DUI and thereafter fell on his sword, getting into rehab after heavily apologizing to everyone for it. I think it was overdone, but who knows how much into drinking Miguel was into? Too bad.
Even with the DUI, Santana probably was more of a worthy role model than most of those on the city council for owning up to the errors of his ways. And his math was definitely miles ahead of whatever the Mayor figured into the budget presentation currently. Jeez, even Mike Hernandez was caught cold as a Council Member scoring and using drugs and then some. AND STILL he refused to resign. Worse yet, NO ONE on the Council even tried to have Mike quit. But of course, he was "a victim" and not any offender. I still am not sure how he was the victime. I think we, the public, were taken for jackasses to allow him to stay at that job.
And with today's raised salaries in City Council, you'd need dynamite to separate any of them from their council seat. (That's another reason for cutting down that exorbitant salary- no one wants to leave that office- it's higher than any other political office holders managing a U.S. city).
City Council members will probably be hitting the party circuits around town. They do enought damage with their regular accpetance of the Mayor's "deals" that I don't see are made in public. There's parking lease money that Tony counts in the budget math, but I don't recall when that shady deal came into effect. Maybe they thought the rest of us were off drinking and wouldn't notice.
You have to give the city council some credit as far as shadiness goes. Start with creating the deceptions that Prop S and Prop R embodied to fool voters to install a 9% phone tax when Zero tax would have happened there if the Council didn't practice to deceive. That was so clearly evil. And as if that was not enough to do to pull the wool over the common voter, the "Ethics Reform" that worked to add another term to each CM's limit was a real "bait and switch."
And lately, it was equalled if not topped by our Council President's last minute "touchdown" for the DWP. It was the work of Eric Garcetti "Badges? What badges? I don't have to show you no stinking badges" move in circumventing that pesky "Brown Act" to get the "emergency" hearing on the DWP rate hike instantly approved on April 15th. It takes effect on July 1 so the emergency was in Eric's imagination, no matter what he claims- but 9 others on the council approve that conclusion and 8 voted "FOR" the rate hike.
Party up y'all. And then guide yourselves accordingly. I do believe there's quite a few items submitted to the D.A.'s "Public Integrity" section based on all the fast and loose spending and maneuvering of council and county board of supervisors actions. If anyone gets stuck from that, I would be very surprised, and probably so would they.
Posts
