A New Dimension Of Twisted Logic

Channel 25 in Boston reported yesterday that Rosiane Santos, 41, of Falmouth, Massachusetts, was arrested last Friday at a Mexican restaurant in Falmouth for assaulting a man because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” Hat. The man involved, 23-year-old Bryton Turner of Mashpee, was smart enough to record the incident on his cell phone when she began verbally attacking him. The verbal attacks were followed by knocking the hat of off his head multiple times.

The most interesting part of this is found in the concluding paragraphs of the article:

As Falmouth police officers were escorting Santos out of the restaurant, Macarao (bartender Geo Macarao) said she took another swipe at Turner.

“I couldn’t imagine somebody just coming up and hitting them when there’s cops right here,” Macarao said.

“She just tried to grab my hat in front of four officers, not smart,” Turner said.

Santos, a Brazilian immigrant, said while she regrets her actions, she claims she was provoked.

“I had a little bit to drink maybe that’s the reason that I couldn’t walk away but being discriminated for so many times in my life, I just had to stand up for myself,” she said. “He’s not a victim. I am the victim. I have been bullied, OK?”

So let’s look at the logic here for a minute. It was okay for her to assault someone because she had a little too much to drink, she had been bullied in her life, and she had to stand up for herself. How was assaulting a man who simply entered a restaurant to pick up his food standing up for herself?

I think it is time to take a serious look at the attacks on Trump supporters and give the attackers the severest penalties possible. These attacks are not the earmark of a civilized society. President Trump is not responsible for these attacks–the attackers are responsible for these attacks. In November 2016, The Daily Caller posted a list of substantiated attacks on Trump supporters at that time. There have been many more since them. Again, President Trump is not responsible for these attacks–the attackers are. That is something we all need to remember.

 

The Impact Of New York City’s New Minimum Wage

Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial today about the impact of New York City raising the minimum wage over the past four years.

The editorial reports:

Over the past four years, the minimum wage for New York City restaurants that employ more than 10 workers went from $10.50 an hour to $15. That’s a whopping 43% increase. Next year, every restaurant, big and small, will have to pay their workers at least $15 an hour.

A big victory for workers, right? That’s how it’s depicted by the “Fight for $15” crowd. And, yes, if you held a full-time minimum-wage job over those years, your gross income would have gone up by $9,360.

But those massive wage hikes come at a painful cost that backers refuse to acknowledge. They kill jobs. Just like they’re doing right now in New York City.

In just the last three months of last year, 4,000 workers lost jobs at full-service restaurants, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show.

One of the problems here is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the minimum wage. A minimum-wage job should not be an ultimate goal. A minimum-wage job should be a way to enter into the workforce and learn some basic skills–dealing with people, being punctual, having manners, etc. Theoretically these basic skills will allow you to advance to a job that pays better than minimum wage.

The editorial continues:

Even during the Great Recession, restaurant workers didn’t suffer as much as they are now. In fact, over the course of the recession, which lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, the number of restaurant jobs in the city actually increased by 1,800.

It’s getting so bad that fast-food workers now want the city to protect them from getting fired without “just cause.”

Those who keep their jobs aren’t necessarily better off, either.

The Hospitality Alliance survey found that more than three quarters of New York restaurants cut worker hours in 2018 to offset that year’s wage hike. Seventy-five percent say they want to cut hours this year.

“Though the new regulations are intended to benefit employees, some restaurateurs and staffers say that take-home pay ends up being less due to fewer hours — or that employees face more work because there are fewer staffers per shift,” notes Tara Crowl in an article in New York Eater.

The results of a significant increase in the minimum wage in New York City are similar to the results of a significant increase in the minimum wage in Seattle and in Illinois. It seems to me that we need to stop making the same mistakes over and over again and take a good look at the results. Rather than increase the minimum wage, we should be encouraging people to learn the skills they need to get them into jobs that pay better than minimum wage. We should also realize that raising wages too high too fast will create unemployment–not wealth.

The Second Amendment Saves Lives

Status

The New York Post posted a story yesterday about a shooting in a restaurant in Oklahoma City. A man walked into the restaurant and began shooting, injuring two people. A person in the restaurant who had a gun shot the gunman, killing him. The two people shot by the gunman are in the hospital recovering.

How long would it have taken for the police to respond to the incident? Would anyone have had a chance to call the police before being shot? How many people would have been shot before the police got there?

This is an example of the basic fact that the quickest way to stop an evil person with a gun is to have a good person with a gun at the scene. I am not supporting creating ‘the wild west,’ but there have been a few shootings recently where having an armed person at the scene saved lives.

We have the resources to put trained people in our schools with guns. There are a number of ways this can be done without breaking the budgets of the schools. One suggestion I have heard is to ask retired policemen or retired military personnel to stand guard a few days a week in return for tax breaks on their local taxes. There are other ways to do this, but that is one suggestion.

The bottom line is simple–having a well-trained, armed person at the scene of a shooting saves lives.

How To Twist A Story To Fit Your Agenda

The mainstream media is trashing Indiana‘s new law that protects the religious rights of Christians. We can’t have those rights protected, we have to have other rights protected. One of the stories that has repeatedly shown up on Facebook is the story of a pizza place that won’t serve gays. It seems a little odd that a pizza place would even know if a customer was gay, but the story is definitely making the rounds. Well, as usual, the truth is not necessarily what has been posted.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about the pizza place in question. I hope they sue the reporter who wrote the story for serious money–they were slandered.

The article reports:

There were no complaints nor denials of service to anyone ever, but because of their religious beliefs, Memories Pizza stands in ruin and the family who owns it has had their lives threatened countless times. How did the O’Connor family, owners of Memories, find themselves in this situation? They were honest with a reporter in search of a story to fit the media’s narrative.

Alyssa Marino is a reporter with ABC 57 News in South Bend, Indiana. With her state in the center of a hurricane over religious freedom, Marino must’ve thought she’d had a coup – a devout Christian business owner willing to speak on camera about their religious beliefs and how it impacts the operations of that business.

…When owner Crystal O’Connor told Marino, “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” she had to know she’d struck gold.

Marino had her headline, “RFRA: Michiana business wouldn’t cater a gay wedding.” O’Connor’s quote was in paragraph three. The chyron on the screen for the report read, “Restaurant denies some services to same-sex couples.”

And that is how you twist a story to smear someone who holds a belief different than the one you are promoting.

Speakeasy Restaurants???

CBS 2 in New York City posted an article Wednesday about an investigation they had done into New York City’s illegal dinner parties. There are a number of underground supper clubs operating in the city, and they are as of yet, unregulated.

The article reports:

But some critics have concerns about these unregulated dinner parties.

“It definitely falls into a gray area,” said Leon Lubarsky, owner of Letter Grade Consulting.

Lubarsky’s staff of retired New York City health inspectors advises restaurants on health regulations.

When asked if the underground restaurants should be regulated, Lubarsky told Leitner, “Yes, they should be regulated by the same system that regulates every restaurant in New York City.”

The article continues:

But if caught hosting an underground dinner party, the hosts could be fined $2,000 and ordered to shut down.

The price to get into one of these underground supper clubs ranges from $40 to several hundred. Some of the hosts say they are in it simply for the love of food, while others hope to turn a profit.

I have very mixed emotions about this. In Massachusetts I was involved in a church that was offering a monthly free dinner to whoever wanted it. Our kitchen help had to be certified, all food had to be cooked on the premises, and all ingredients posted. The rules were there to protect those eating the food. My feeling is that if the hosts (or hostesses) of these dinner parties are charging for the dinners, they should be regulated–they are essentially operating a restaurant–in their homes or wherever. I also wonder what would happen if anyone got sick after one of these dinners. Would the host (or hostess) be at risk of being sued?

I am not a big fan of government regulation–I think taking salt off of the table at restaurants or banning large sodas is stupid. However, I do think that food preparation should be overseen by the Board of Health in order to protect the public.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Common Sense Takes A Vacation

Actually common sense has taken a lot of vacations lately, but some are a little stranger than others. CBS News in St. Louis reported yesterday on an incident at a Denny’s in Belleville, Illinois, where a police detective was asked to leave because her gun was making a patron feel uncomfortable. The Belleville police chief has responded by asking his policemen not to eat at Denny’s. If I were a criminal wanting to rob a restaurant, I now know that there will be no armed policemen in Denny’s at any time to stop me. Way to go.

The article reports:

The department says the detectives were out of uniform but wearing their badges, when manager David Rice asked them to either leave or put their guns in their vehicle.

Rice, told the detectives that one of their weapons, specifically a female detective’s gun, was making another diner feel uncomfortable.

As the officers were leaving, without their food, General Manager Michael Van walked up and corrected the manager and said it was fine for them to stay, but the officers said it would be too awkward and they left.

Denny’s corporate office has apologized for the incident, stating, “Denny’s policy permits law enforcement officials to carry their firearms in the restaurant and we regret any misunderstanding.”

The person who complained needs to rethink their complaint. If there are armed policemen in a restaurant, the chances of anyone being harmed by a criminal with a gun are reduced considerably. The patron was actually safer with the armed policemen in the restaurant than without.

One of the purposes of the Second Amendment was to have an armed citizenry that would be able to defend itself from criminals and from a tyrannical government. As the discussion of gun bans and which guns to ban continues, has it occurred to anyone that in order to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, citizens need to have weapons equal to what the government has. The colonial fathers owned and knew how to use weapons as powerful as those owned by the government. Private citizens did not own cannons, but their muskets were as powerful as the government muskets. Those attempting to ban certain guns might want to consider that. Also, concerning multiple rounds of ammunition, if you are hunting and wound rather than kill a wild boar and he is coming after you, do you want to take the time to reload?

Enhanced by Zemanta