For workers, voters, and consumers: SB384 to extend last call to 4am in CA

From today’s Los Angeles Times Editorial Board:

Last call in California is 2 a.m. That’s when bars, restaurants, nightclubs and any other businesses licensed for on-site liquor sales are legally bound to stop serving alcohol, and that’s when most of those establishments close for the night.

Why 2 a.m.? That’s just the way it’s been in California for the last 80 years, ever since the 21st Amendment ended the national prohibition on alcohol and states were left to set their own laws governing its sale and distribution.

California picked 2 a.m. as the appropriate time to stop pouring libations. So did Colorado, Iowa, Texas and about two dozen other states. Indiana, Tennessee and West Virginia picked 3 a.m., while Alaska, Illinois and New York settled on 4 a.m. Several states, including Nevada and New Jersey, have no state limits at all on when alcohol can be sold. Many states also give cities and counties the flexibility to set their own local rules on alcohol sales. That’s why New Orleans bars can stay open 24 hours a day, while bars in nearby Baton Rouge have to close at 2 a.m.

The point is that there’s no firm science behind last-call laws, no data that prove that 2 a.m. is better than 4 a.m or 6 a.m. or any other time. The laws are more a reflection of a state’s history, its cultural practices and its politics. California is still hewing to a 1935 law dictating that alcohol sales stop from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m., and that blanket prohibition no longer makes sense for cities with thriving music and nightlife scenes that compete for investment and tourism with the likes of New York City, Las Vegas and other late-night cities.

It’s time to give local governments more control over when, where and how alcohol is served. A city like Los Angeles, for instance, shouldn’t have to shut down its bars early each night in deference to a fusty, 80-year-old law. Letting responsible establishments in appropriate neighborhoods stay open later would help create a fun, bustling, vibrant, big-city atmosphere attractive to younger people and tourists — while also generating tax revenue, creating jobs and increasing the earnings of small businesses.

Senate Bill 384 would have California follow the lead of other states that have allowed cities and counties more authority to set rules on closing times. The bill would establish a process by which the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control would allow certain bars, restaurants and nightclubs to sell alcohol between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. — if, and only if, the local government wants to allow extended hours.

There would be lots of hoops to jump through. The City Council or local governing body would have to submit a plan to the department that identifies when and where extended hours would be allowed, how law enforcement authorities would manage the effects and what transportation services would be available. The local authorities could decide to limit extended hours to certain commercial districts only, say, or to allow them only on weekends. The department would need to sign off on the plan. Then individual businesses would need to apply for permission from the ABC, which would require notifying law enforcement and residents within 500 feet of the establishment.

The hoops are designed to address concerns from law enforcement and community activists, who have successfully killed previous efforts to relax the 2 a.m. cutoff amid fears that later hours will lead to more drunk driving and raucous partying. Those are legitimate concerns, although advocates for the bill note that of the 10 states with the highest DUI-related fatalities, only three allow alcohol service after 2 a.m.

The reality is 2 a.m. is unnecessarily early for communities with busy restaurants, music venues and clubs, such as downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood and San Francisco. Why should bars close at 2 a.m., especially if law enforcement can handle the additional patrols and taxis and ridesharing apps, like Lyft and Uber, give revelers more options to get home without a car? State lawmakers should support SB 384 and let cities and counties set a last call that works for locals.

House Republicans Are Trying to Pass the Most Dangerous Wall Street Deregulation Bill Ever

From Mother Jones, June 7, 2017 by Hannah Levintova:
 .
From the earliest days of his campaign, Donald Trump has opposed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Obama-era financial reform law passed in response to the 2008 financial crisis.  Trump has characterized it as a “disaster” that has created obstacles for the financial sector and hurt growth. In April, he repeated his promise to gut the existing law.
.
 .
“We’re doing a major elimination of the horrendous Dodd-Frank regulations, keeping some, obviously, but getting rid of many,” Trump said in a meeting with top executives during a “Strategic and Policy CEO Discussion,” which included the leaders of major companies like Walmart and Pepsi. He added, “For the the bankers in the room, they’ll be very happy.”
.
The Republican Congress shares Trump’s dislike of Dodd-Frank and this week, the House plans to vote on the Financial CHOICE Act, a Dodd-Frank overhaul bill that will, as promised, make banks and Wall Street “very happy” if it becomes law, while undoing numerous financial safeguards for regular Americans. (CHOICE is an acronym for “Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs.”)
.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), takes aim at some of Dodd-Frank’s main achievements: It guts rules intended to protect mortgage borrowers and military veterans, and restrict predatory lenders. It also weakens the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s ability to oversee and enforce consumer protection laws against banks around the country—upending a mix of powers that have helped the CFPB recover nearly $12 billion for 29 million individuals since opening its doors in July 2011. The bill also weakens or outright cuts a number of bank regulations enacted through Dodd-Frank to keep risky investing behavior in check in order to avoid the economic devastation of another financial crisis or taxpayer-funded bailout.

Read the entire article here.

Fox News fires Bill O’Reilly after numerous sexual harassment complaints can’t be contained

After years of promoting one-dimensional politics and anti-government conspiracy non-sense, Fox News finally had the good sense to fire its long time favorite son, the entertainment reporter turned political hack Bill O’Reilly.

O’Reilly has been dogged for years by complaints from women that he sexually harassed them while working for Fox News, and numerous cases have been settled out of court. The total amount of these settlements across several complaints totals something like $13 million, some of which was paid by Fox News Corp. and some by O’Reilly himself.

Needless to say, this takes place after the company parted ways with former-CEO Roger Ailes, after allegations he sexually harassed numerous women, including Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, who sued Fox News Corp. and Ailes for fostering a hostile working environment in which women were regularly treated to unwanted advances and discriminated against on the basis of sex. The media firestorm that led to O’Reilly’s exit was helped significantly by dozens of advertisers pulled the plug on their brands having any association with O’Reilly’s prime time show.

Sexual discrimination and harassment in the workplace continues to be widespread. However, when a sufficiently large audience finds about it thanks to social media and vigilant journalists, it is increasingly hard for large firms to sweep their dirty deeds under the rug.

Read an informed story about this breaking news here.

Kory P. Schaff, Editor

Kellogg’s pulls ads from white nationalists, Breitbart calls for un-American boycott

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

Breitbart News is asking its readers to boycott Kellogg Co. after the cereal maker said it would no longer advertise on the conservative news website.

In a post on Breitbart News on Wednesday, the publication called on readers to sign a #DumpKelloggs petition against the manufacturer, whose brands include Frosted Flakes, Rice Krispies and Cheez-It.

Kellogg on Tuesday said it would pull its ads from Breitbart News after consumers notified the manufacturer that its products were appearing on the site. A company spokesperson told the Associated Press, “We regularly work with our media buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that aren’t aligned with our values as a company.”

Breitbart fought back hard. “Boycotting Breitbart News for presenting mainstream American ideas is an act of discrimination and intense prejudice,” Alexander Marlow, Breitbart News editor-in-chief, said in the Breitbart News article.

The anti-Kellogg petition accused Kellogg of trying to “placate left-wing totalitarians.”

In a statement, Kellogg said, “To be clear, our decision had nothing to do with politics.”

Breitbart News, a hard-right site know for scorched-earth populism, has been popular with the “alt right,” portraying immigration and multiculturalism as threats. The site’s critics say it has explicitly embraced white nationalism.

The site’s former chairman, Stephen Bannon, helped run Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and is now poised to become one of the president elect’s top advisers in the White House. Since the election and Mr. Bannon’s appointment, scrutiny of Breitbart has intensified.