The Morning News: Republicans Make It Harder to Change Their Budget, Tom Douglas Backpedals on Minimum Wage Surcharge

Comments

1
A surcharge of 2% is a very reasonable amount to help a business meet increased labor costs. If you can't pay a little more - then you really shouldn't be dining out if you're that poor.
2
Won't the Indiana boycott be over after the discrimnation law is amended?
4
Religion is a virus, and islam is a particularly barbaric and nefarious strain.
5
"World's largest toilet" is a pretty good descriptor for Indiana.
6
@3: What a stingy dude you turned out to be.
7
@5: don't blame the land for its people.

and Somalia is a bigger toilet by far. see yesterday's events. 2 words: scorched earth.
8
Raindrip dear, businesses change their prices all the time in a reflection of changing conditions. Yet they don't generally do a surcharge to point those conditions out. About the only instance I can think of is when transportation companies impose a fuel surcharge.

Douglas' actions were both boorish and somewhat insulting to Seattleites, who largely approve of the increased minimum wage. After all, we are a well educated city with citizens who can understand why prices might have to go up - for whatever reason - without a petty little man making a point of it at his somewhat tedious establishments. I suspect that he imagined this a cautionary message for the tourists and corporate types, who are probably the biggest part of his customer base.
9
Does Douglas run Flying Fish?
10
So wait a minute. I've been hearing claims that Tom Douglas is so awesome he already pays his kitchen people minimum wages that are over the new minimums, so what "increased costs" is he going to have? Stranger Investigators, you should follow up on that shit.
11
@6 holy fuck are you stupid. But by all means keep arguing with straw men.
12
@4. I hate to break it to you, but you too have the virus. "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." Oxford Dictionaries mythology, retrieved 9 September 2012 as quoted in "Religion" on Wikipedia. Even if you are an atheist, agnostic, or humanist you have the virus. They have churches or gatherings for all three of those (and many others), whether you actively participate in those or not.
13
Does Tom Douglas put a separate and special surcharge on receipts when he buys a house or new car?

No?
He wouldn't want to point that out but somehow it's ok to point out an increase in employee wages.

Well, fuck him.
14
@8: What you are forgetting is that it is their prerogative to charge it, and it is your prerogative to pay it or not eat there; but it's not your prerogative to dictate how businesses operate. Got it?
15
And hence, to be fair Catalina, it is also not my business to tell you that it is a good idea or a bad idea. Only the market should be the determinator.
16
@13

Ah. Even the most basic concepts of business too complicated for you? See, I buy my house or car or boat with profits from my business. Buying or leasing the space the business uses that's a fair comparison. Having the city negotiate wage packages rather than the employees raised his business costs, not his cost of living. Clear enough?
Otherwise the answer to the tired lefty envy of money was given when someone asked Twain if a friends money was tainted. It is, he responded. T'ain't yours and t'ain't mine.
17
@14) ''it's not your prerogative to dictate how businesses operate..." 100% FALSE. As businesses that operate within our civic area, we have absolute right and prerogative to say how they do business. We, all of us, do it 100% of the time, and will continue to do so. Sometimes these prerogatives are even made into laws, really!

You really have no reasoning skills and should stop embarrassing yourself.
18
@17

No. The legislative (local, state and federal) authorities have a right to regulate business within the limits of personal property rights. That authority isn't 100%. It isn't absolute. And it is within the rule of law.

It is, like all legal issues in our common law system, in slow flux. Which is good. Things that don't change die. But try going into one of the stores in 'your' community and scooping money from the till and your contention will be shown as what it is- hooey. Unless you do it by stupid shortsighted laws like the $15 an hour for losers one. Then you're golden.
19
@12 you're assuming that @4 identifies as atheist, agnostic, humanist or whatever. Nonreligious people can choose not to be pigeonholed.
20
@18) Everything just sails hopelessly over your head.
21
@17: You absurdly extrapolated what I said from the right of a business to set their own prices to simply babble.
22
@20

If you don't mean the words you use (100%, absolute, etc) I'd recommend you not use them. Otherwise, if someone reads your dribblibgs and uses English definitions to make sense of..., to try to understand their warped nonsense- well that's your own fault, kiddo.

Now, if in the darkened strange recesses of what passes for your mind you nean consumers by their choices regulate business? Not really even then. At most you're going to boycott them out of existence or reward them with your custom. But people like you don't have any faint concept of how to conduct business, never mind how others might manage the details of theirs.
23
You do have to give Seattleblahs points for trying. He was such a sickly child, and as such he was a Mama's boy. She never wanted to correct him, so that's how he turned out.
24
@23

Blah blah pathetic attempt at humor blah blah. Well, you're consistent at any rate.
25
@16 basic communication concepts missed by you, dumbshit.

Pointing out the source of a singular cost that is a condition of doing business in this city is dick-ish. If that's fair game then why not the other things the receipt pays for like Tom's house, or his car.
26
@23) My old ball coach would say, "he's out in left field taking a shit."
I'm just going to assume that blahhs can't figure out what that means, either.
27
@19. You miss the point. By definition, nobody is non-religious. Everyone has a "collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." That is the definition of a religion. There is no such thing as a "non-religious" person.
28
@27, That is not "the definition of religion," that is "the first sentence on the wikipedia page about religion." If you read past the first sentence, wikipedia goes on to say "Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle."

If there is truly no such thing as a "non-religious" person, the necessary corollary is that there is no such thing as a "religious" person. If everyone is religious, it ceases to be a category that defines people. I don't have the actual data to support this, but I assume most people would agree that is not true.

Other sources define religion as follows:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" (Google)

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs" (Dictionary.com)

"the belief in a god or in a group of gods" (Merriam-Webster)

And so on.
29
@27) You miss this point: you have no point.
30
Honestly, I'm about at the end of my rope with Seattleblahs and his lashing out. I've tried "The Total Transformation", and Anger Management seminars. Nothing works. I've half a mind to send him to one of those military schools that advertise in the back of "Sunset" magazine.
31
@28, Go back to those sources and keep reading. Those aren't the only definitions of religion. You will find in the listing of anywhere from 3 to 5 definitions, one similar to the definition quoted in the Wikipedia article, which is a definition quoted from another dictionary.

Everyone is religious. They have a view about God. They have a view about the nature of humans and humanity. If you believe in a God you are a theist. If you believe in no God you are an atheist. If you believe in multiple gods you are a pantheist. You can't escape being religious. Everyone is.
32
@30: I suggest having him over for tea and cucumber sandwiches. It's a great treat for bringing people together.
33
@28, Go back to those sources and keep reading. Those aren't the only definitions of religion. You will find in the listing of anywhere from 3 to 5 definitions, one similar to the definition quoted in the Wikipedia article, which is a definition quoted from another dictionary.

Everyone is religious. They have a view about God. They have a view about the nature of humans and humanity. If you believe in a God you are a theist. If you believe in no God you are an atheist. If you believe in multiple gods you are a pantheist. You can't escape being religious. Everyone is.
34
The only question is which of the thousands of religions, or combinations of religions are you?
35
@31, I sincerely hope you are being intentionally obtuse because you have nothing better to do with your time than argue over the commonly understood, well-characterized definitions of words. Granted, that would be pathetic, but it's better than the alternative.

Having a view about god or humanity does not make a person religious. That's like saying everyone is gay because they have a view of homosexuality. Besides, that is not even supported by the (incomplete) definition of religion you cite from the wikipedia page. Note the words "organized collection of beliefs" and "cultural systems" -- these extend well beyond simply having an opinion about something; they require direct engagement with an institutional system of belief.

There does not exist a credible source anywhere on earth that defines religion as loosely as you do, including the ones you cite.
36
@34 Since you're such a fan, also a Wikipedia entry:
Irreligion (adjective form: non-religious or irreligious) is the absence of religion, an indifference towards religion, a rejection of religion, or hostility towards religion. When characterized as the rejection of religious belief, it includes explicit atheism, religious dissidence, and secular humanism. When characterized as hostility towards religion, it includes anticlericalism, antireligion, and antitheism.
But hey, don't worry — Conservapedia ("The Trustworthy Encyclopedia!") has your back.
37
Raindrop dear, the only thing he will eat is Spaghetti-O's and Mountain Dew. It's impossible to take him anywhere.
38
@36, to quote your quotation, irreligion, "includes explicit atheism, religious dissidence, and secular humanism."

"a-the-ism

[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

Spell Syllables

Examples
Word Origin

noun

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. "

The definition of aetheism is a belief about the non-existence of God. It's a religious point of view.

Full Definition of SECULAR HUMANISM

": humanism 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion "

"nontheistic RELIGION" emphasis mine. So what the definition you supply of irreligion cites as irreligion is described as a "religion".

The question is not whether someone has a religion, but what is their religion. It need not be a theistic religion as in the case of the secular humanist.

39
Are you guys fucking kidding me. Hurpy durp let's argue over what agnostic means. Christ, what a bunch of fucking assholes.
40
@26

Male cheerleaders and the glee club have a ball coach?
I just learned something new.
41
@40: This is actually newsworthy.
GUYS, GUYS, GUYS
SEATTLEBLUES LEARNED SOMETHING! LIKE, HE IS SLIGHTLY LESS IGNORANT THAN HE WAS BEFORE!

At this rate, maybe in a couple hundred years you'll be a decently educated and well-informed citizen.
42
it's cute that georgeingeorgetown is attempting to one-up raindrop and blues on stupidity, but just can't quite pull it off.

Seriously, what a great website this is. Trolls shit all over it and no one cares. More like the seattletimes every day.