Happy Returns....or maybe not!

As a parent of two little girls nothing beats watching your children open up presents from Santa.  Unfortunately there may be a time when the gifts that are opened may not make it out of the box or the tags removed.  For example, yours truly purchased a gift for his niece which, unbeknownst to me, was on her list to Santa.  Oops!  Santa was scrambling at 9:00pm Christmas Eve to make it up.

With little ones, chances are they will receive clothes for Christmas.  It may be very likely that the child either has the clothing already or the wrong size was purchased.  Easy fix, just bring it back to the store where it was purchased and get the correct size, correct?  Not exactly, especially for Jessica Falcone of Worcester.  

Ms. Falcone received some outfits for her two boys as a gift and they were too big for the children.  Rather than wait for the children to grow into them she decided to bring them back to "The Children's Place" and get the correct size or store credit if they did not have the right size.  She did not ask for cash.  Her return was "denied".  The reason for denial was not what you think it was.  The denial was because she had made "too many returns".  I have never heard of that and how do they know she made too many returns if she did not have a receipt.  According to Ms. Falcone they knew because they scanned her license and that's what came up.  Creepy!!!

Ms. Falcone decided to call the customer service number and it was the same result. "The man was extremely rude and even had the gall to hang up on me" Falcone said.  "I am supposed to just keep the items now and they don't even fit my children, because I reached a return limit? I am so disappointed."

Ms. Falcone then decided to post her displeasure on Facebook.  The Children's Place responded and asked her to provide more information.  Even though they were very polite, their tune did not change and their request was even more ridiculous.  The representative asked Ms. Falcone to provide:

Store where the purchase was made, date of the transaction, estimated time of the purchase, amount of the transaction and payment method (if payment method was a credit/debit/gift card, please include the last four digits of the card). 

"It is utterly embarrassing to call the person who bought the clothes and ask her soooo many questions about the purchase.  They even want an estimated time of transaction??" she said

Nothing says thank you like getting the third degree about the purchase and if you can please provide me some of your credit card information.

I understand that retail stores need to have stringent return policies because of theft and fraud, but this is insane.  The representative was right, The Children's Place has a return policy that states "We reserve the right to limit returns regardless of receipt." What does that even mean?  When it comes to children's toys and clothes there needs to be some leniency around the holidays, no cash needs to be exchanged, but a swap should be allowed.

In a Christmas season where there was one of the largest credit breaches this country has seen, shoppers will be more on edge next year and if companies want to keep them they need to work with them, not against them.  The Children's Place needs to do the right thing and allow Ms. Falcone to exchange the gifts.  This is about doing the right thing, not Ms. Falcone's shopping tendencies.

They are just lucky my wife wasn't returning anything.  It would not have been pretty.

3D

If you don't take it from me, ask my wife

Do The Crime, Do The Time

Earlier this week the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (MSJC) followed suit on the 2012 decision of the U.S. Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Miller vs. Alabama.  In the decision the SJC determined that mandatory life sentences for juveniles who commit murder violates the Eighth Amendment of "cruel and unusual punishment".  This would mean that if a 14 year old boy was angry and decided to kill his math teacher in the school bathroom for no other reason than that he was mad at the world, he would not spend the rest of his life behind bars.  So taking someone’s life should not mean yours is ruined, unless you are of a certain age.

The main reason I have an issue with this judgment, which is now being implemented nationwide, is that I really have problems with legislating from the bench.  Granted, at this time, I don't think our legislators could do a better job, but they are the ones elected to make the laws, not the courts.  I have always had a difficult time with this, not just in this case.  The Constitution's first three words are "We the People..." not "We the Judges....”  The Supreme Court has no accountability to bad laws that it makes.

The SJC came down 5-4 on this decision stating that mandatory life sentences for juveniles do not “guarantee(s) individuals the right not to be subjected to ex-cessive sanctions.”, which is the Eighth Amendment.  That may be so, but wouldn't that apply to all murderers?  I guess this is where the interpretation comes in and the SJC feels the need to write the law.

The SJC argued that the maturity level of the juvenile criminals are not capable of understanding their crimes, therefore should not spend the rest of their lives behind bars.  Justice Kagan wrote in the opinion of the court "We reasoned that those findings—of transient rashness, pro-clivity for risk, and inability to assess consequences—both lessened a child’s “moral culpability” and enhanced the prospect that, as the years go by and neurological devel-opment occurs, his “‘deficiencies will be reformed."  That is a big guarantee on reform.

But the decision violates another amendment, in my eyes.  The 14th Amendment, which provides citizens the equal protection under the law.  The 14th Amendment is hogwash anyway because a 4 year old cannot get a driver’s license, a man cannot attend an all-women’s college, and gays not being able to marry falls under the 14th Amendment.  But if a 16 year old and a 28 year old commit the same crime they are subjected to different sentences. What if the mentioned above did the crime together, one goes to jail for the rest of their life and possibly put to death and the other walks out of jail in a few years?  Doesn't seem to be equal protection to me.

I agree that our juvenile criminals should be reformed to be able to function in society again, but I draw the line at murder.  I also don't have faith in the penal system to do so and Chief Justice Roberts said as much in his dissenting view.  He wrote:

"In this case, there is little doubt about the direction of society’s evolution: For most of the 20th century, American sentencing practices emphasized rehabilitation of the offender and the availability of parole. But by the 1980’s, outcry against repeat offenders, broad disaffection with the rehabilitative model, and other factors led many legis-latures to reduce or eliminate the possibility of parole, imposing longer sentences in order to punish criminals and prevent them from committing more crimes."  

He went on to say. 

"....if a 17-year-old is convicted of deliberately murdering an innocent victim, it is not “unusual” for the murderer to receive a mandatory sentence of life without parole. That reality should preclude finding that mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile killers violates the Eighth Amendment."

The SJC opened a Pandora’s Box with this ruling as longtime juvenile offenders are asking for retroactive releases.  So Maryland, Lee Boyd Malvo (DC Sniper) can technically ask to be released.  According to the SJC the six life sentences that he is serving are cruel and unusual.  His cohort John Allen Muhammed was put to death in 2009.

I am not surprised by the MSJC's decision to uphold this ruling, it's the nature of the Commonwealth.  I truly think the SJC dropped the ball on this one.  If the MSJC wanted to truly support an SJC ruling and legislate from the bench, they should advocate for the SJC decision for consumers to buy wine directly from the vineyards.

3D

If you don't take it from me, ask my wife

The True Reality of Reality TV

Martha Graham once said “What people in the world think of you is really none of your business.”  That may be a little harsh but there is a stark reality to it.  Last week, Phil Robertson, one of the "actors" on the reality show "Duck Dynasty" was suspended by his network because of something he said about his beliefs regarding sin in a GQ interview.  Have we reached the point in our society where a man answers a direct question about his believes and will not come under fire?

Last week, GQ released the interview with Robertson where he says that, and I am paraphrasing here, that homosexuality is "sinful".  It could be said that he compared homosexuality to bestiality.  I did not read it that way but I can see where it could get deciphered that way.  Soon after the comments went public the cable channel A&E suspended Robertson from his show.  A&E felt that the feelings of the public were more important than their star's opinion.  If the outraged masses actually read the article that offended them so much they would have seen a man that was very religious.  His religious overtone was so much that he refers to himself as a "Bible-thumper".

To be honest, I have never watched the show, probably never will.  It just doesn't appeal to me.  The fact that it has been on for five seasons just proves to me the state of television.  But that is immaterial to what is going on.  The man is spewing his religious beliefs on the world and is reciting his literal meaning if the Bible.  Why is he doing it?  Because he can.  There 14 million weekly viewers that tune in and hang on every word this man says.

This is not a First Amendment issue.  The government is not censoring Robertson, his employer is.  I do find it very funny that the liberal media is dismissing Robertson's freedom of speech and religion in this case, but when people were breaking laws, defecating in public and costing municipalities millions of dollars, it was a First Amendment triumph.  Time magazine went as far as naming "The Protestor" Person of the Year.  As unfortunate as it is, there are probably more people who agree with Robertson than the "Occupiers".  But as I stated earlier, it's not about the First Amendment.

I have no personal opinion about homosexuality other than I am not one.  Do I think it's a sin? "He without sin, cast the first stone” My only view on it is that it does not affect my life one iota.  I have grown up with gay friends and have friends who have gay parents and it does not faze me in the least.  It's a lifestyle I do not live and I respect those who live it.  The only thing I ask in return is to respect me as well, and that has never been a problem.

But this situation is not about if homosexuality is a sin or not, it has just been brought to the forefront to ignore the true issue.  The interviewer asked a loaded question and knew exactly the response he was going to get.  That is good journalism.  It is more troubling that the media made this a homosexual issue, because it is clearly not.  If this is truly homosexuality or hate issue then the network would have not have to do anything, the viewing public would have taken care of it.  If A&E was so distraught about moral fiber, then why are they running a "Duck Dynasty" Marathon on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day?  They do know that Robertson will be in those episodes, right?  It’s all about the dollars.  Robertson has the right to say what he said and A&E has the right to terminate him for it.  But they shouldn't do it half way.  They shouldn't take the moral high ground and then look at the bottom line and waver on it.  It is not sending a clear message.  Actually it is not sending a message at all.

As a society we are taking television too literally.  If these types of outrage about television were prevalent when I was growing up then "All in the Family" would not have gotten past the second episode.  "The Jefferson's" would never be "movin on up" because of George's references to white people as "honkies".  What would have been made of Klinger on "M.A.S.H" who cross dressed to get sent home from Korea?  Yes people, he was referring to it as a sickness.  Add a "reality" factor it and it makes for un-watchable television.

Nobody should be surprised by what Robertson said.  If you are, then I suggest you pay attention to what you are watching.  In that same article he also stated that blacks were happier in the south during the 60's.  He also stated that squirrel meat is the best kind of animal meat there is. This man is obviously an old school, Bible belt, Southern redneck, we should not be shocked for a second by anything he says.   For my homosexual friends I will leave you with this passage from Matthew 5:39 "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

In closing I leave you with the words of Les Brown "Someone's opinion of you does not have to become your reality"

3D
If you don't take it from me, ask my wife