Oops

Everybody told them that it was a monumentally-stupid idea;  but noooooo:

Restaurants Unlimited, a Seattle-based chain with restaurant locations in 47 US cities, announced on Sunday it was seeking Chapter 11 protection, citing “progressive” wage laws.
The company, which has operated since the Lyndon Johnson Administration, said rising labor costs—part of a national trend of government-mandated minimum increases—were part of its decision.

Note the 47 cities affected by these closures (see link).

I would feel more sorry for the soon-to-be-laid-off workers, but I’m betting that most of them supported the higher-minimum-wage idiocy in the first place, so… sucks to be them.  Maybe next time they’ll vote with their brains instead of with their greed.  (Granted, working-class people have trouble making ends meet in liberal shitholes like Seattle and San Francisco;  but the politicians who have caused the high housing prices are the same ones who pushed through the higher minimum-wage thresholds.  So there’s a double whammy here, and yet those idiot voters keep sending them back into office.)

Of course, it’ll be all Trump’s fault (according to the West Coast media).

Challenge Accepted

A whole bunch of people have been getting worried about this development:

Liberals are notoriously loath to take their own side in a fight. But their reticence may well be changing in an age of vigilante, white nationalist terror—openly condoned and supported by an incumbent president who has suggested that his armed devotees won’t stand for his removal from office. Increasingly, the antifa left is arguing—and training—in response. They are worried not only about an armed reckoning following a contested election, but also about rising violence from the paramilitaries loyal to President Donald Trump.

Such paranoid fantasies may be familiar to heavy consumers of YouTube and Reddit, but watching them transposed on to the structures of governance is a novelty. As a result, many leftists and even some liberals are beginning to reconsider their feelings about firearms, joining a loose amalgamation of gun groups, from John Brown Gun Clubs (which take their name from the abolitionist) to the Pink Pistols (an LGBTQ group), Liberal Gun Club, and Socialist Rifle Association. Some of these organizations are moderate and traditionalist, others radical and revolutionary. But all share one implicit goal: to normalize firearms ownership and training among liberals. Some of their members hope such efforts will at least make Republicans think twice before attempting a massacre.

LOL.  They must be thinking about Spanish  Republicans circa 1937 (who, by the way were Communists) and not our flabby Murkin Republicans, who couldn’t massacre the syrup at a pancake breakfast.

Seriously:  do these tools honestly think that conservatives are going to launch a massacre of Lefties in this country?  Given the de-platforming of conservative voices, attacks on people simply for wearing MAGA hats and throwing Republican civil servants out of restaurants — not to mention the Pantifa attacks on peaceful protest marches in Portland and D.C. — I would suggest that it’s the Left  who are far more likely to trigger civil violence.

Then we have this kind of picture, which some find alarming:

Yup;  he sure looks like he means business.

To my mind, though, this doesn’t make for nervousness — it makes the whole thing interesting.

Go on, Pantifa Boys:  show us what you’ve got. Let’s see how it works out for you.

Oh, and one last thought:  if all this “preparation” by the Left means they’re waiting for conservatives / Trump supporters to begin the shooting, they’re going to end up being a lot older than the graybeard in the pic above before they get to put all that training into play.  In the meatime, we have crap like this:

The climate of vigilante violence on the right has elevated racist attacks, hate crimes, and terrorism in our political culture.

What “vigilante violence”?  Fucking shitbrains are starting to believe their own lies.

Quote Of The Day

From Bearing Arms, after the first round of Great Clown Car Debates:

“Pro tip to Democrats: If Elizabeth Freaking Warren sounds like the voice of reason, it might be time to reevaluate your life choices.”

This after she was slammed for not embracing “Australia”-type gun control.

Changing The Rules

We’ve all seen it:  Lefties, anarchists, so-called “liberals” and so on assaulting conservatives, whether on the streets, in restaurants, in gyms, whatever.

The toxicity of the resistance to President Trump has risen in recent days, with the nation’s most respected newspapers publishing rationalizations for denying Trump supporters public accommodation and for doxxing career federal employees, while a journalist found himself under physical attack from the so-called anti-fascist group Antifa, which has stepped up its violent activities since Trump’s election.
The justification for denying public accommodation came from the Washington Post in an op-ed by Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of a farm-to-table restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Wilkinson became famous in June of last year, when she refused to serve White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and and told Sanders and her family to leave the restaurant. Wilkinson’s staff then followed the Sanders group in protest as they tried to find another place to eat.
Wilkinson later told the press she ejected Sanders because the Trump administration is “inhumane and unethical” and because the Red Hen “has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation.”

Really?

“If you’re an unsavory individual,” Wilkinson concluded, “we have no legal or moral obligation to do business with you.” Better to stay home than risk the spittle. (In her new article, Wilkinson discussed the case of The Aviary, a trendy bar in Chicago where a waitress recently spat on Eric Trump, the president’s son.)

Sounds like the stakes are getting a little more serious — especially when the so-called “law enforcement” agencies are looking the other way.

But the real enablers here are the politicians and journalists who’ve championed Antifa, such as the CNN presenter Chris Cuomo, as well as the Portland authorities who have consistently turned a blind eye to the criminal behavior of the group. Indeed, Andy himself was assaulted by an Antifa activist at his gym last month and the Portland Police took no action. And he was punched in the stomach while covering an Antifa May Day protest in Portland while a police officer stood by and did nothing.

And here’s the real take:

Antifa fighters beat up and milkshaked Ngo, apparently because he was there and he was not on their side.

So “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” ?  O-o-o-okay.  Powerline puts it this way:

Liberals act as though they are spoiling for a civil war, or at least a slow-motion approximation thereof. Is that really what they want? Fighting in the streets? And, evidently, the restaurants? Do they have reason to think they would fare well if they actually got what they claim to want?

Just remember, assholes, when some Pantifa Pussy gets a .357 Mag bullet in the face for tossing a concrete-laced milkshake at someone — you started this bullshit, not us.

Escalation can come from both sides, after all.

Scarcity Scare Tactics

Via Insty comes this silliness:

Companies in certain sectors use the same behavioral interventions repeatedly. Hotel booking websites are one example. Their sustained, repetitive use of scarcity (e.g., “Only two rooms left!”) and social proof (“16 other people viewed this room”) messaging is apparent even to a casual browser.
For Chris the implication was clear: this “scarcity” was just a sales ploy, not to be taken seriously.

Well, duh.  The oldest advertising gimmick is to threaten shortages:  “while supplies last”, “today only”, “limited to the first 50 customers”, and so on.

I’ve used Expedia quite a bit for my international travel planning (they usually handle cancellations better than the establishments themselves do), and the “only 1 room left” warning elicits a response from me of, “Oh well… if the room disappears I’ll just have to find another hotel.”

You see, true  scarcity can and does work to drive a purchase decision — World Cup tickets being a good example because it’s one event, one time, one place — but all the artificial scarcity (as above) should get just a shrug from the prospective consumer.

Even more, if the establishment uses it constantly (e.g. Expedia), it becomes just white noise:  unless, of course, the customer is a stupid dickhead, in which case they get what they deserve.

The very best reaction to this ploy is to simply say, “Well, if I miss it this time, I’ll just find another vendor or postpone the purchase until the next sale.”  Department stores, who seem only to sell merchandise when it’s “On Sale”, have learned to their cost what happens when you turn discounted shopping into an everyday event:  people only buy during “sale” periods — which is why department stores are dying.

As for the various online travel sites:  if you do find an unbeatable deal for the hotel stay of your dreams at, say, Expedia, check the same hotel’s rates at one of the other booking sites as a backup before making your decision.  (By the way, if the deal “disappears”, try calling the hotel direct;  I once got a rate lower than Expedia’s “Great Deal” at an Edinburgh hotel during the Royal Military Tattoo Week simply by asking for it.)

And ignore the bullshit.

Out Of The Past 3

Separate But Equal

November 12, 2008
11:16 AM CDT

A German Kurd looks at “parallel” societies within a single country:

The largest group in Germany with an immigrant background – after the Aussiedler or ethnic German resettlers – are the Turks, who were once recruited as guest workers and, unlike many Portuguese, Spanish and Greek economic migrants, did not return to their native country. These people of Turkish origin have now lived in this country for half a century. That would be a success story in itself if the following problem did not exist: many of them are not culturally, religiously, economically, socially or politically integrated. That creates an atmosphere of mutual critical scrutiny. Many issues have been debated in Germany – from the smell of garlic that allegedly wafts from housing blocks where the majority of tenants are from the Orient and how to tie a headscarf so that it doesn’t allow ambiguous assumptions about someone’s loyalty to the constitution and democracy to ethical controversies about specific slaughtering methods that are traditional in some cultures. Nevertheless, there is no subject that people argue about more passionately than Islam. All in all, you could say that although these debates have been vigorously and tirelessly conducted, people still haven’t really got to know one another even after 50 years. That applies to both sides. We stand on the threshold of the others’ home, as it were, but know nothing about them apart from their name. You may consider that good, you may consider that bad; there are equally good arguments for ignorance as there are for interest.

Here’s what I know: nothing creates friction within a society more quickly, or more certainly, than separate-but-equal mini-societies, who do not share a common language, culture, religion or worldview.

It is, despite the writer’s example of Israel, a recipe for failure. (Israel can have a divided society because it allows its security apparatus a degree of freedom unknown in the West.)

Now, I’m not suggesting some monolithic all-or-nothing nation: far from it. Monolithic cultures, and people who advocate them, tend to lead to State-sponsored activities like public beheadings, extermination camps and mass resettlement/expulsion of “the others”.

But there has to be some kind of glue, some common ground, or else humans, by nature, will always be suspicious of “the others”. This is a genetic impulse which is so deeply implanted in the human psyche as to be fundamental, and not capable of change.

So: what common ground, then?

Religion is pointless—too many imaginary friends, too much subjectivity, and (such as in Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states), too much fertile ground for oppression.

Culture is essentially a meaningless basis for a society, especially in a nation of immigrants such as ours, or in a world which has become far smaller since civilization (and its corollary, mechanical progress) increased. We are, in essence, made richer by diverse cultures in a society, as long as one does not exist to the exclusion of the other, or another does not nullify the country’s principle culture.

Language. This is it. Unless people can talk to each other and be understood, there is absolutely no way that hostility and enmity can be prevented, and there is no way that people can come together. And note that I’m not supporting language chauvinism such as has been practiced in France over the years: that way ultimately ends up stultifying not only progress, but the society as a whole. The Language Police are little different, in their rigidity, than the Religious Police.

Note too that I’m not suggesting that retail stores, for example, be disallowed from speaking to their customers in any language they choose—but I am insisting that government should use one, and only one language to communicate with its citizens. (I don’t care, for example, if Mexican immigrants can’t read an IRS form. Call it a “spur to learning”, if you will.) In the long run, while accommodation to non-English-speakers may sound high-minded or even polite, it will end up doing more permanent harm than the temporary inconvenience caused by its opposite policy.

There’s more, of course, a lot more, but that would do for a start.

The very existence of nation-states creates the basis for “parallel societies”—but to create a microcosm of that situation within a nation will simply bring the global turmoil and enmity to people’s front door, instead of keeping it outside the borders.