I really don't think she's all that hot-- I think she's a great athlete, and that's what should be focused on, not her shapely form, makeup-caked face, or overdone hair.

I disagree with the idea that a woman has to whore out pictures of her body to get ahead in a male-dominated field. That doesn't mean I don't think she should have done this-- I think the industry should work in a different way. And women shouldn't be objectified so much. But that's not gonna happen, I don't think, until we live in a society like the one in The Giver or Brave New World.

a few points to make:
---
The restaurant/pub owner/manager was dumb because of all the negative publicity. he/she will easily lose more than $16 worth of business. I blame the manager because if the service was shitty, then they didn't have enough staff (or people called off and no one was brought in as replacement), or that that groups particular waiter/waitress was being lazy because he/she knew that they *automatically* get a tip for parties of 6, so they focused on other tables.
if it was the manager who called the cops, then the owner should have stepped in (the next day or sooner) and dropped the charges before it goes to court, and give them free meals or something. even if it was a "contract" as in written on the menu or told in person, if they got shitty service, they shouldn't have to pay for it. The soup nazi might be funny on Seinfeld, but in real life, in most locations, he wouldn't stay in business.
---
In general, I think it is ok for a restaurant to add a "mandatory" gratuity (oxymoronic or not) to large groups because they are more difficult to handle. They take up more space, stay longer, and are louder than multiple smaller groups combined.
I'm also ok with it being called gratuity, as opposed to a "fee" because it removes ambiguity, such that people aren't tipped twice, and customers aren't asking about the "fee". p.s. The IRS definition for this is "autogratuity".
---
waiters and waitresses make less than minimum wage (usually $2-$3 hourly). for their federal taxes they have to report 100% of their tips to be legal. Employers are required to report all charged tips, and cash tips are estimated based on previous tax year filings for similarly situated employees (- 2%), at least monthly. (For example if all waitstaff made an average of 17% tips for the past year, the employer has to report 15% of gross sales for that employee to the IRS). If the waiter/waitress makes less than minimum wage with their combined $3/hour + tips, the employer must make up the difference to bring them to minimum wage for the hours worked. (But if they are that bad, they would probably get fired)
---
as a teenager, I worked as a busboy in a restaurant. maybe some larger chains are handled differently, but here it was up to the waitress to give the busboys (or busgirl) a portion of the tips they made (this is tipping-out, goes for bartenders as well as busboys). Since I knew the general price of everything on the menu, and also how many customers there were that night, I knew which waitresses were cheapskates and which ones tipped their busboys well. Guess which ones got priority?
---
I think it is a self-perpetuating cultural flaw in America that requires this tipping system. In several other parts of the world, family is more important, as well as dedication to employers. People works together as a team, and they take pride in their work. So, if a waiter does a good job, it makes the restaurant look good, and if they do a bad job, they feel ashamed. American culture rewards individual achievement so much more, that it leads toward apathetic employees and employers. Everyone is thinking of "how can I get ahead?" and so most employers don't care about employees, because there is no more loyalty. People switch jobs and companies much more frequently now than 50 years ago, or even 30 or 20 years ago. It comes down to money and individual gain.
So what's this have to do with tipping? If everyone automatically got tipped the same amount, then the waitperson would have little incentive to do a good job (or NOT do a shitty job, as exampled here). Whereas if they are rewarded based on performance, then they will consistently do a better job. If we switched to a system of "0% tips, raise menu prices, raise wages" then you'd have some good employees, but a whole lot who "don't give a shit" and do the bare minimum to not get fired, and overall quality of service would go down, but prices would stay the same.
Not tipping works in asia - because the staff take pride in their work, without the feeling of individual entitlement.
---
Lastly I'm surprised that no one linked to this video during this thread -
http://www.videosift.com/video/3rd-Rock-From-The-Sun-Tipping-Like-It-Should-Be
---
that is all, thanks for reading.

I think this is an excellent devise. It shows the feebleness of trying to get ahead in the world.

I want one for my TV.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

All good points. I would simply say that it's not Obama's style to use the bully pulpit to hammer away at opponents. Instead he's using it to make it clear that he's bending over backwards to try to get some Republicans to work with him in good faith. He'll keep that up long past the point where even the most addle-minded cable news watcher will agree that he gave the opposition a chance to come half way.

As for "letting the other team get ahead", he's got this disconcerting habit of letting the news cycle run wild when it's all breathless about some made up issue, like lipstick on a pig, or death panels. Usually he emerges after 3-4 days of nonstop cable hyperventilation, and then comes out, and says "can you believe the kind of crazy things they're saying?", explains what he's really trying to do, and goes back about his business. It worked out in the campaign, and I suspect it will work again now.

As for the rest, here's my view as an armchair political analyst of what the whole "Obama is dumping the public option" thing was really about: it was a trial balloon. He wanted to drop that out there, see what the reaction was, then deny it. That's exactly what they did.

Mid-week, they dropped hints that they were ready to "go it alone" and pass a bill without Republican support. That too was a trial balloon. They dropped it out there, waited to see the reaction, and then denied it.

So, what were the reactions to the first trial balloon? From liberals, sturm and drang, and threats of primarying everybody they could in 2010. From the Republicans (who the balloon was really for), we got cries of "not good enough". They said co-ops were too much. Asked if the co-ops were dropped, they said employer mandates needed to go. Asked if that were dropped, would they vote for the bill, they were noncommittal. Message received.

To the second? Short-lived, but intense support from liberals. From the Republicans, not much -- you can't really ramp up your rhetoric from cries of fascism and socialism, or pull back support from 0 votes offered. Blue Dog Dems mumbled a bit of concern, but they certainly didn't come out in strong opposition.

To me, that pretty much means it's just a matter of when they give up on Republicans, not if.

In any case, there's not much incentive for Obama to make any big changes in strategy now, while Congress is in recess. They don't come back until September 8th, and I suspect they'll continue to push bipartisanship for only just a bit longer, maybe until mid-October. Then they're going to go it alone.

And when they do, no sane person will dispute that he gave Republicans every opportunity to reach a reasonable compromise with him.

NetRunner, I'd really like to believe Obama "lets the other side get ahead" as part of a clever strategy he devised, but I don't think so. Remember, it was only a week or so ago that the White House was ready to throw the public option under the bus, until the progressives reminded him and many Democratic congressmen who got them elected. Why would he show a willingness to cave unless he thought it was necessary to secure some sort of 'victory'?

Leadership involves many things, including appearances. And when he starts to signal that he's willing to throw away important provisions of key legislation just to satisfy a small group of people, it makes him look weak. So I really can't see how his actions in this case could be part of a grand strategy, because it only weakens his appearance in the long run. Why should the Republicans work with the Democrats at all in the future, when they know Obama will start caving as long as they throw a few obstacles in the his path?

Obama needs to stick to his guns on the important issues, and health care reform is a VERY important issue. If he's going to give in to the Republicans on all the major legislation, then it makes no difference who won last November. And then I'm one step closer to applying for Canadian citizenship. And I'm not a hockey fan. So do you see how this is really hurting me?!

To me, this all feels familiar.

Remember how Hillary was saying Obama wasn't ready for the 3am phone call, and Obama pretty much didn't say anything about it for a week? I thought Obama was gonna lose.

Remember how Obama kicked the snot out of Hillary on Super Tuesday, and for a month solid afterwards, but the press acted like all that mattered were the primaries in Ohio and Texas? I thought Obama was gonna lose.

Remember how Hillary didn't concede after all the primaries were over, even though she'd lost, and Obama didn't say anything about it? I thought Obama was gonna lose.

Remember how the polls did a total reversal when McCain picked Palin? I thought Obama was gonna lose.

Remember how liberals were worried Bush was going to rig the election for McCain? I thought Obama was gonna lose, even if he won.

Remember how the stimulus package was being blocked by Republicans, who demanded that the entire bill be turned into tax cuts or made half the size? I thought Obama was gonna lose.

So now, here we are, with every currently published draft of the bill containing a public option, and the Republicans lying, yelling, and screaming, thinking Obama is going to lose.

Why?

Because that's what the pundits on the corporate-run TV networks are saying? Because Obama isn't firing back at them with both barrels like FDR or Truman might have?

By all means, get mobilized. Get angry. Get worried about the fate of the bill. Follow slinkerwink's diaries, and follow the calls to action. Sign up for Democracy for America's mailing list. If you aren't already on the list, go to Organizing for America and sign up, then look for events in your area. Visit FireDogLake's action page for the public option, and call your Rep and push them to sign the pledge.

Don't expect Obama to just make this happen on his own. He needs his supporters to drown out the morons who would rather see people go sick than see taxes on people who make more than $250,000/yr go up by 1%, because they're worried about socialism or death panels.

But most of all, don't count him out. He does this. He lets the other side get ahead. He scares the living crap out of us, and makes us doubt whether we'll win. Then, when you're sure he's lost, he does something that reminds you why you supported him in the first place, the tide turns, and before you know it he's won, handily.

So don't let your concern turn to despair. Just keep fighting. The pieces are already in place, all we need to do is remind these people who they work for.

When we win, we're gonna feel silly about how worried we are right now.

Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves? We need aliens to shoot at first.

Democracy is not purely something to achieve. It's not a noun it's a verb. Democracy is a verb, an organized action as a means to an end. The word democracy has been sloganized and propagandized just like socialism, communism, and fascism. The words have lost their meaning.
Like the 'war on terrorism'. Terrorism is a verb, how can you have a war on a verb...a war on an action...a war on a tactic...
Anyway... my point is that if you want a government that reflects the peoples' interests that is what the democratic process is supposed to achieve. A question to be asked is...is your government representing the interests of the population as a whole?

Not meaning to sound nitpicky here, and am posting here instead of on the thread as it's slightly off topic, and I'm not wanting to show you up, and I agree with your sentiment, but what do you mean
"Terrorism is a verb?"
'Terrorism' is a noun, isn't it?
'To terrorise' is a verb.

the whole ism thing changes a verb into a noun.

Or am I missing something completely?


At mrk871
Well said. You're absolutely right. Sometimes I get ahead of myself and should check myself when I'm on a rant.

She has a Narcissitic Borderline Personality Disorder, a mental illness. So, she can function quite well, but she really BELIEVES that she has capabilities she does NOT possess. She is not intellectually able to handle most any job without signifcant assistance. She is a great actress, but has little empathy for others. Her own family has been used as props for her emotional fulfillment.

Her speeches (as at the Republican Convention) were prepared by others. She read it well. She lied about the teleprompter breaking down and that she gave it spontaneously. (The techicians and others saw the teleprompters working perfectly.) Google Palin and lies. She has a pathological history of lying.
She also has a history of getting revenge with anyone who crosses her. She is far too unstable to hold any public office. Those who support her without question are identifying with her lack of education and struggles, as someone tryiny to get ahead...but don't be hooked by her manipulations...she's a user.

You came out with this feature just days after I bought a bunch of stuff from Amazon. I bought two games, 2 Blu-Rays, a Blu-Ray player for my folks, and some other shit. Get ahead of the curve, will ya!

As soon as I need to buy something else, I promise to do it through VS. I'm actually excited to try it out.

You get ahead in whatever you can, I guess. This guy? He eats bricks.

>> ^blankfist:
^No. No. Absolutely not. That's my point. No collusion to create unfair legislation.


Except that Grover Norquist and his ilk are not going to stop influencing our politics, so unions have every right to be as political as they want to be.

If you talk about unions in any business here in America there is a 90% chance that you will be fired within the week.

The only way the working class is going to get ahead is by organizing.

That's one way to get ahead.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I see whining about using B-Hussain-O's middle name... I see whining about "but Obama's deficit is STIMULUS..."... I see pointless diversions saying "Bush!" when no one is debating that Bush sucked.
What I don't see is any substantive denial of the fact that Obama is - in fact - increasing the deficit faster than any President in US history. Because he is. Quit being such Obama zombies and at least try to scrape together the gonads to have some intellectual honesty.


Shhh... This is the happy moment, when we're all supposed to love the man. Eventually, popular opinion will turn, THEN we can all look back and say how much we've always hated him and his deficit spending. You're getting ahead of the regularly scheduled programmed emotional response. It's not about intellect. It's about emotion and HOPE! HOPE, for the FUTURE! And OTHER meaningless inspirational sayings and platitudes! Now is not the time for THOUGHT, now is the time for LOVE! WEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

I'd like to sign up for a gang now. Get ahead of the rush.