There was an article today in our local paper about a guy who got arrested in a nearby tourist town. He claims it was because he refused to leave a mandatory tip at a restaurant. The owner claims it wasn't really about a few dollars but primarily because the man's group was being "rude and abrasive." Though the actual charge was theft of services. The man said they also were not told of the mandatory gratuity, and did not see notice of it on their menus.
I will start by saying one of my major pet peeves is people who are gratuitously rude to service employees. Some people think because they pay a few bucks to go to an amusement park or eating establishment, it gives them the right to be obnoxious and abusive to anyone who stands in their way. If there's a pickle on your hamburger when you specifically asked for no pickles, then tell someone. You can look annoyed while you're waiting for a new one. You can fill out one of the comment cards. You can even explain to the manager why you're agitated. But there's no need to be a jerk about it and start ranting and raving at everyone like a lunatic. Unless, of course, you've never ever made a mistake in your job. The people you're screaming at probably don't get paid enough to deserve to deal with idiots like that.
(A related memo to service workers: if you're having a bad day and can't be cheery, then at least don't be outright unpleasant. I didn't cause your misery. And everyone in 20 foot vicinity of you doesn't need to hear about how your boyfriend cheated on you)
That said, I object to the whole concept of a mandatory gratuity. It's an oxymoron like preventive war or obligatory volunteerism that some schools require of students. The whole point of a tip is to reward the server(s) based on how good the food, service and atmosphere were. It's supposed to be a merit-based compensation, a bonus. Mandatory tips are not merit-based.
But what bothers me most is the whole idea of someone else telling me how much a server deserves to be rewarded yet making it seem like it's somehow my choice. It's deceptive.
The price of a restaurant item should reflect four things: the cost of the food, the proportional cost of all labor required to run a restaurant, other expenses associated with operating a restaurant (electricity, rent/mortgage, etc) and profit for the owner. When I purchase a burger and fries, I assume that the cost reflects those four considerations.
If an owner thinks his workers are so poorly compensated, I'd much rather they increase the regular prices rather than being presumputous enough to impose a mandatory tip. It's far less disingenuous.
Everything on a bill is for something. $6.95 for a quesadilla. $4.50 for a beer. $3 for a piece of pie. But what's the gratuity for? I'm being forced to pay 15-20% for the honor of sitting in their chairs and giving them my hard earned money?
I won't eat at restaurants that charge a mandatory "gratuity." I'd rather eat at a place with higher menu prices, because at least they're not being so deceptive.
*
Speaking of deception, how about Ticketmaster? I think nearly everyone who likes music has issues (to put it mildly) with Ticketmaster. It's bad enough that their virtual monopoly on ticketing allows them to charge obscene prices. But they gouge you further with some invention called a "convenience charge."
The "convenience charge" is typically anywhere from $8-10 per ticket. Sometimes that's 20% or more of the total cost of the ticket. In other words, you're paying Ticketmaster a 20% fee on top of the face value of the ticket for the convenience of giving them your money.
This is another example of deceptive practices. The face value of the ticket should include everything. It should include remuneration for the band and its entourage. It should include remuneration for the venue hosting the band. It should include both remenueration for Ticketmaster employees and profit for Ticketmaster. The face value of the ticket should be the total cost of all the services you are taking advantage of.
The only extra fee I ought to pay is if I want the tickets mailed to me instead of picking them up at will call, because that's an extra service I'm requiring.
This is why I pretty much don't go to concerts. When a "$35" ticket really costs $45, I'm really not interested in shelling out more than half a days net wages for a two hour (maybe) concert where I'm standing or sitting on the grass the whole time. And they wonder why concert ticket sales are down.
Friday, September 10, 2004
Thursday, September 09, 2004
The relevance of the Electoral College
Abiola, over at Foreign Dispatches, offers what he calls a defense of the Electoral College and cites a Wall Street Journal editorial which purports to do the same.
Except neither he nor the WSJ offered a defense of the Electoral College so much as an attack of a few of the critiques of the Electoral College. There is a big difference.
The most significant problem with the Electoral College is this. In 2000, the guy who finished 2nd in the popular vote won the election. And even hanging chads aside, a lot of people consider the victory of questionable legitimacy. It's hard to explain why a guy should become president of the United States even though more Americans wanted someone else.
This wasn't an example of the Electoral College screwing up. It was an example of the Electoral College working exactly as it was intended. That's the problem. The guy who wins the popular vote not winning the election is not an accident; it's exactly how the Electoral College was supposed to work from time to time, according to the men who wrote the Constitution.
The irony of this is that electors were supposed to elect the best man, even if it's different from the one the plurality or majority wanted. Yet many states have laws REQUIRING electors to vote for the candidate that gets the most votes in that state. It defeats the whole point of having a two-tiered process.
The problem with the Electoral College isn't that it's "so 18th century." The problem is that it causes the most outrage when it functions precisely as it's supposed to function.
It is now accepted that the candidate who gets the most votes in an election should win or that there should be a run off (my preference). If the Electoral College's virtues were so admired, then it would've been widely adopted at all levels. There would be electoral colleges for governors and mayors and county executives. Yet it hasn't been replicated anywhere else in the US.
The Electoral College means that we don't vote for president as Americans. It means we vote as New Yorkers, Minnesotans and Nevadans. It means that, mathematically, an Alaskan's vote is worth far more than a Texan's.
As a practical measure, the Electoral College will not be eliminated any time soon. An interim step would be for states to adopt what is done in Maine and Nebraska. Whoever wins each congressional (House) district gets that electoral vote; whoever wins the entire state gets the two electoral votes alloted for the Senate. That way, if a candidate wins the state by 1 vote, he won't necessarily get 100% of the state's electoral votes.
Such a system would not have prevented Bush from winning in 2000, but that's not the point. The point is not to accept the canard, "No system is infallible so let's not change anything." The point is to create a more perfect union.
Except neither he nor the WSJ offered a defense of the Electoral College so much as an attack of a few of the critiques of the Electoral College. There is a big difference.
The most significant problem with the Electoral College is this. In 2000, the guy who finished 2nd in the popular vote won the election. And even hanging chads aside, a lot of people consider the victory of questionable legitimacy. It's hard to explain why a guy should become president of the United States even though more Americans wanted someone else.
This wasn't an example of the Electoral College screwing up. It was an example of the Electoral College working exactly as it was intended. That's the problem. The guy who wins the popular vote not winning the election is not an accident; it's exactly how the Electoral College was supposed to work from time to time, according to the men who wrote the Constitution.
The irony of this is that electors were supposed to elect the best man, even if it's different from the one the plurality or majority wanted. Yet many states have laws REQUIRING electors to vote for the candidate that gets the most votes in that state. It defeats the whole point of having a two-tiered process.
The problem with the Electoral College isn't that it's "so 18th century." The problem is that it causes the most outrage when it functions precisely as it's supposed to function.
It is now accepted that the candidate who gets the most votes in an election should win or that there should be a run off (my preference). If the Electoral College's virtues were so admired, then it would've been widely adopted at all levels. There would be electoral colleges for governors and mayors and county executives. Yet it hasn't been replicated anywhere else in the US.
The Electoral College means that we don't vote for president as Americans. It means we vote as New Yorkers, Minnesotans and Nevadans. It means that, mathematically, an Alaskan's vote is worth far more than a Texan's.
As a practical measure, the Electoral College will not be eliminated any time soon. An interim step would be for states to adopt what is done in Maine and Nebraska. Whoever wins each congressional (House) district gets that electoral vote; whoever wins the entire state gets the two electoral votes alloted for the Senate. That way, if a candidate wins the state by 1 vote, he won't necessarily get 100% of the state's electoral votes.
Such a system would not have prevented Bush from winning in 2000, but that's not the point. The point is not to accept the canard, "No system is infallible so let's not change anything." The point is to create a more perfect union.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Why I object to militarism
I've been asked why I speak out so frequently against militarism. The answer is very simple. I know people who've been refugees. I know people who are refugees. I've been to a refugee camp. I've seen the conditions in a refugee camp and the effect tens of thousands of refugees can have on the host country. I've seen how the actual consequences of war can differ so wildly from its intended consequences.
When you've been to a refugee camp, suddenly the idea of war as some universally noble, selfless endeavor with only positive results for the 'liberated' evaporates pretty quickly. When you know people who are or have been refugees, suddenly you realize that those most effected by war aren't the guys with the guns and the body armor and people from back home sending them care packages. Suddenly you realized that those most devastated by war are those who didn't choose in some way to be a part of it. Suddenly you realize that while war is occassionally necessary, it's always undesirable and should never be glorified.
When you've been to a refugee camp, suddenly the idea of war as some universally noble, selfless endeavor with only positive results for the 'liberated' evaporates pretty quickly. When you know people who are or have been refugees, suddenly you realize that those most effected by war aren't the guys with the guns and the body armor and people from back home sending them care packages. Suddenly you realized that those most devastated by war are those who didn't choose in some way to be a part of it. Suddenly you realize that while war is occassionally necessary, it's always undesirable and should never be glorified.
Now Russia endorses aggression/pre-emption
Last month, Iran promoted the reckless idea of pre-emptive strikes advocated by President Bush. Far from being revolutionary, pre-emption is nothing more than a euphemism for a long discredited concept: old-fashioned aggression.
Following Iran's endorsement President Bush's pre-emption/aggression principle, Russia has now done the same. Following the country's school hostage nightmare, the BBC reports Russia plans to launch pre-emptive strikes on bases used for training militants, a senior general said earlier. "We will carry out all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world," Gen Yuri Baluevsky said.
Yet again, the president's vision makes us and the world safer.
Following Iran's endorsement President Bush's pre-emption/aggression principle, Russia has now done the same. Following the country's school hostage nightmare, the BBC reports Russia plans to launch pre-emptive strikes on bases used for training militants, a senior general said earlier. "We will carry out all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world," Gen Yuri Baluevsky said.
Yet again, the president's vision makes us and the world safer.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
It's worth noting...
... that even in democracy challenged Russia, people realize that even if there's a great tragedy provoked by terrorists, they can still question the Leader if he deserves it without Chicken Littles screaming that it will cause the country to collapse.
The worst in politics vs the worst in journalism
The whole Sen. Zell Miller-Chris Matthews controversy gives me seriously mixed feelings.
For those not aware, the Georgia Senator all but challenged the MSNBC host to a duel. With Matthews in a separate studio, Miller added, "I wish I was over there, where I could get a little closer up into your face."
The nominally Democratic senator, who supports President Bush's re-election, had just given the keynote address of the Republican convention where he launch a savage assault on John Kerry. Not surprisingly, the accuracy of many of his claims have been rubbished by several groups. But Miller was clever enough gain credibility by being specific, knowing full well that most ordinary viewers were unlikely to read reports of the fact checkers. His attack has been likened to Pat Buchanan's infamous address to the 1992 Republican convention.
As I said, the Matthews-Miller encounter leaves me with seriously mixed feelings. Chris "the Interrupter" Matthews represents the worst in what passes for American political journalism. Matthews is actually more obnoxious than Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly is smug, but Matthews is like the insecure student who's constantly trying to prove to everyone how smart he is.
Matthews sees political "journalism" as something to entertain the masses, not to help them make more informed choices. Matthews thinks politics should be treated in the same way as professional wrestling or Jerry Springer but for an audience that likes to think of itself as enlightened. Politics as a game, rather than something that matters to lives of real people.
Part of me is pleased that someone finally told the insufferable Matthews where to go.
Miller, on the other hand, represents the worst in American politics. He incarnates the insidious mentality that criticism of a president's reckless policies is tantamount to treason. Sure, he said, "It is not their [the Democrats'] patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking."
But he proceded to attack the Democrats' patriotism. "Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief," he snarled.
The fact of the matter, Mr. Senator, is that America is being torn apart by the president's messianic insistence on bloating the size of the American Empire on the backs of other people's sons and daughters.
Miller sniffed, "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."
American troops are used as occupiers. He may not like that politically incorrect fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. They have been ordered to invade and/or occupy countless non-threatening countries throughout the last hundred plus years.
Though Iraq is the most egregious recent example, there is also Cuba, the Philippines, Panama, Grenada, the former Kingdom of Hawaii and numerous others. Haiti and the Dominican Republic have had that "honor" multiple times each.
And that's not counting the countries where we made "regime change" via more stealthful, underhanded methods. There are probably a few countries in the world in which the United States' government has never intervened, sometimes justified though usually not, in any way shape or form, but they are a small minority.
If Miller wants use the euphemism 'liberation' to refer to the unsollicited invasion, occupation and exploitation (or sometimes outright annexation) of a non-threatening sovereign entity, he's free to do so, but most would recognize it as a perversion of the word.
American soldiers are occupiers not because they want to be, but because the president wants them to be.
I don't care that Miller criticized Kerry's policies (he actually did spend a little time on that, even if their verarcity was dubious). But Miller, like many in this country, hold the un-American belief that the president is an elected (sort of), absolute monarch who should be immune from criticism, no matter how horrible the effects of his policies on the nation we all claim to love... though most who hold that belief now, didn't seem hold it under Democratic presidencies.
Criticizing the president, any president, should NEVER be off-limits. Whether you agree with the criticism or not, it should never be impermissible. Ever!
Once criticizing the president is taken off the table, we become an absolute monarchy. In a democratic country, you have an obligation to criticize their leaders when their leaders are doing dangerous and foolish things. Failure to do so in an dereliction of civic duty. Failure to do so may make you complicit with the crimes committed in your name.
Disagreement is necessary for this experiment called the United States to work. Ironic that it was a military man who appreciated this better than some of today's civilians. Gen. George Patton once said, "If everyone thinks the same, someone is not thinking."
Criticizing a president's policies does not put soldiers' lives at risk and it's a slanderous lie to suggest otherwise.
However, sending them unnecessarily and for dubious reasons into harm's way DOES puts their lives at risk.
So let's not forget who's kicking whom.
Miller and his ilk forget that if dissent were unpatriotic, we would all still be singing God Save the Queen.
I'd love to see both Miller and Matthews get their commupence. Maybe they could temporarily suspend the anti-duel laws.
For those not aware, the Georgia Senator all but challenged the MSNBC host to a duel. With Matthews in a separate studio, Miller added, "I wish I was over there, where I could get a little closer up into your face."
The nominally Democratic senator, who supports President Bush's re-election, had just given the keynote address of the Republican convention where he launch a savage assault on John Kerry. Not surprisingly, the accuracy of many of his claims have been rubbished by several groups. But Miller was clever enough gain credibility by being specific, knowing full well that most ordinary viewers were unlikely to read reports of the fact checkers. His attack has been likened to Pat Buchanan's infamous address to the 1992 Republican convention.
As I said, the Matthews-Miller encounter leaves me with seriously mixed feelings. Chris "the Interrupter" Matthews represents the worst in what passes for American political journalism. Matthews is actually more obnoxious than Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly is smug, but Matthews is like the insecure student who's constantly trying to prove to everyone how smart he is.
Matthews sees political "journalism" as something to entertain the masses, not to help them make more informed choices. Matthews thinks politics should be treated in the same way as professional wrestling or Jerry Springer but for an audience that likes to think of itself as enlightened. Politics as a game, rather than something that matters to lives of real people.
Part of me is pleased that someone finally told the insufferable Matthews where to go.
Miller, on the other hand, represents the worst in American politics. He incarnates the insidious mentality that criticism of a president's reckless policies is tantamount to treason. Sure, he said, "It is not their [the Democrats'] patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking."
But he proceded to attack the Democrats' patriotism. "Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief," he snarled.
The fact of the matter, Mr. Senator, is that America is being torn apart by the president's messianic insistence on bloating the size of the American Empire on the backs of other people's sons and daughters.
Miller sniffed, "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."
American troops are used as occupiers. He may not like that politically incorrect fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. They have been ordered to invade and/or occupy countless non-threatening countries throughout the last hundred plus years.
Though Iraq is the most egregious recent example, there is also Cuba, the Philippines, Panama, Grenada, the former Kingdom of Hawaii and numerous others. Haiti and the Dominican Republic have had that "honor" multiple times each.
And that's not counting the countries where we made "regime change" via more stealthful, underhanded methods. There are probably a few countries in the world in which the United States' government has never intervened, sometimes justified though usually not, in any way shape or form, but they are a small minority.
If Miller wants use the euphemism 'liberation' to refer to the unsollicited invasion, occupation and exploitation (or sometimes outright annexation) of a non-threatening sovereign entity, he's free to do so, but most would recognize it as a perversion of the word.
American soldiers are occupiers not because they want to be, but because the president wants them to be.
I don't care that Miller criticized Kerry's policies (he actually did spend a little time on that, even if their verarcity was dubious). But Miller, like many in this country, hold the un-American belief that the president is an elected (sort of), absolute monarch who should be immune from criticism, no matter how horrible the effects of his policies on the nation we all claim to love... though most who hold that belief now, didn't seem hold it under Democratic presidencies.
Criticizing the president, any president, should NEVER be off-limits. Whether you agree with the criticism or not, it should never be impermissible. Ever!
Once criticizing the president is taken off the table, we become an absolute monarchy. In a democratic country, you have an obligation to criticize their leaders when their leaders are doing dangerous and foolish things. Failure to do so in an dereliction of civic duty. Failure to do so may make you complicit with the crimes committed in your name.
Disagreement is necessary for this experiment called the United States to work. Ironic that it was a military man who appreciated this better than some of today's civilians. Gen. George Patton once said, "If everyone thinks the same, someone is not thinking."
Criticizing a president's policies does not put soldiers' lives at risk and it's a slanderous lie to suggest otherwise.
However, sending them unnecessarily and for dubious reasons into harm's way DOES puts their lives at risk.
So let's not forget who's kicking whom.
Miller and his ilk forget that if dissent were unpatriotic, we would all still be singing God Save the Queen.
I'd love to see both Miller and Matthews get their commupence. Maybe they could temporarily suspend the anti-duel laws.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
The president and the war on al-Qaedism
The president's poor public speaking skills have often been the butt of jokes by late-night comedians and Democratic partisans. However, this weekend, this bit him in the hand. The president said of the war on terrorism:
"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
And Vice-President Cheney said Sen. Kerry was causing confusion???
In this case, I think the president absolutely right. Though probably not in the way he intended... whatever he intended.
You're as likely to end terrorism as you are to end poverty or end hunger. It's a nice goal, something to strive for, but not something that's ever going to be fully achieved. Terrorism wasn't invented on Sept. 11, 2001. Terrorism wasn't invented by Arabs or Muslims. And terrorism won't go away when or if Osama bin Laden is captured or killed.
But even the second part of his comments, making terrorism less acceptable, is never going to happen under the president's strategy (such as it is).
Al-Qaedaism, a more appropriate name for our enemy than terrorism, will not disappear just because we invade random, non-threatening countries, occupy them and install puppet regimes. Those things will INCREASE the danger because it gives aid, comfort and ammunition to the extremists. It's getting rid of one terrorist but creating five more. This has already happened in the last two years.
Furthermore, the president can piss on European allies just because they opposed our unnecessary and unjust conquest of Iraq. But he (WE) needs them to fight al-Qaedaism. Europe has a huge Muslim population. Many European countries have had trouble integrating their North African and Middle Eastern populations in larger society. This can be fertile recruiting ground for al-Qaedaism.
An international combat against terrorism requires an international effort. And unless we're prepared to invade every country where there's a potential for extremism (not that I want to give the neo-cons any ideas), we need allies. Allies doesn't mean sycophants or butt kissers; allies mean those who share common critical interests but don't necessarily agree with us on every single issue.
Sure, the president backpedalled (with one foot, since the other was stuck in his mouth) shortly after he said it. But he was right. Even if accidentally.
"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
And Vice-President Cheney said Sen. Kerry was causing confusion???
In this case, I think the president absolutely right. Though probably not in the way he intended... whatever he intended.
You're as likely to end terrorism as you are to end poverty or end hunger. It's a nice goal, something to strive for, but not something that's ever going to be fully achieved. Terrorism wasn't invented on Sept. 11, 2001. Terrorism wasn't invented by Arabs or Muslims. And terrorism won't go away when or if Osama bin Laden is captured or killed.
But even the second part of his comments, making terrorism less acceptable, is never going to happen under the president's strategy (such as it is).
Al-Qaedaism, a more appropriate name for our enemy than terrorism, will not disappear just because we invade random, non-threatening countries, occupy them and install puppet regimes. Those things will INCREASE the danger because it gives aid, comfort and ammunition to the extremists. It's getting rid of one terrorist but creating five more. This has already happened in the last two years.
Furthermore, the president can piss on European allies just because they opposed our unnecessary and unjust conquest of Iraq. But he (WE) needs them to fight al-Qaedaism. Europe has a huge Muslim population. Many European countries have had trouble integrating their North African and Middle Eastern populations in larger society. This can be fertile recruiting ground for al-Qaedaism.
An international combat against terrorism requires an international effort. And unless we're prepared to invade every country where there's a potential for extremism (not that I want to give the neo-cons any ideas), we need allies. Allies doesn't mean sycophants or butt kissers; allies mean those who share common critical interests but don't necessarily agree with us on every single issue.
Sure, the president backpedalled (with one foot, since the other was stuck in his mouth) shortly after he said it. But he was right. Even if accidentally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)