Taser-wielding Soup Nazi at the local 7-Eleven messing with the wrong guy

 

There is a 7-Eleven across the street from the downtown Seattle office building I work in. There was a time I went there to buy something on a regular basis, and the employees seemed friendly enough. But then the manager started to get more aggressive with the panhandlers hanging around outside, and then with “loiterers” in the store. One day I saw him chase someone out of the store, hitting him on the back with a loud “thud”; I wasn’t sure that was in the employee manual. He apparently decided he had enough and sold that location to another South Asian franchisee, and that one sold it to another.

I hadn’t seen these new operators before when I went into the establishment late in the afternoon last week to purchase a salad bowl and two slices of pizza. I picked up the salad from a shelf and went on to observe what kind of pizza they had; they had two on the warmer: four slices of pepperoni pizza that looked like it had been sitting since early in the morning, dried-up and curling up. The other looked like it had a little more on it, and had just gotten out of the oven; I was resolved to get the slices from that pizza, since it is the customer’s choice, right?

But this would be no ordinary day at your “friendly” 7-Eleven, every one that I’ve ever been to in the last few years in King County operated by South Asians. As I waited in line to complete my purchases, I observed a white male customer at the checkout counter having a “discussion” with the clerk, who frankly looked a little “rough” to me. The customer was being told that his debit card had “insufficient funds.” The customer insisted that this was wrong; he tried to show the clerk on his phone that he had plenty of money left in his bank account, that there must be a mistake. The clerk became belligerent, ordering the customer to “get out of here.” The customer gestured in dismay and left; I thought to myself “that guy is acting like the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld.”

But Soup Nazi wasn’t done yet, not by a long shot. One white customer down, and next up was black customer. He wanted a Big Bite and a slice of the “spicy” pizza, presumably referring to the fresh pizza that I could see had Italian sausage on it. He was told he had to pay for the items first; because of the pandemic, most 7-Elevens now have the customers handle their own food from the “hot” food section, just like they do everything on the shelves, but not at this place. Here, you have to pay first, and they will give you whatever the hell they want to. The Big Bites all looked the same, but Soup Nazi ignored his request for a slice of “spicy” pizza and took out a slice of the old, moldy pizza; the black customer insisted that was not what he ordered, but Soup Nazi was having none of that: “Go, get out of here,” and this customer, probably more out of shock than anything else, “obliged” this asshole.

I was next, the guy everyone thinks is a “Mexican,” so why not make this an “equal opportunity” discrimination fest? But after taking in what I had seen, I was prepared for battle. I put the salad on the counter and told Soup Nazi that I want two slices of the “fresh” pizza. While I was paying for the items with a debit card, I observed him getting the slices of the moldy pizza. I immediately exclaimed that I did not order that, I wanted the “fresh” pizza—give me what I paid for. Soup Nazi left the pizza on the tray and told me to “Get out of here.” Yeah, I was just going to leave having been forced to pay for items I didn’t receive. I pointed at the fresh pizza and told him to give me what I ordered, or would call someone.

Soup Nazi told me to “go ahead”; he even pointed to me on the receipt the customer service phone number. Yeah, like I was going to wait “patiently” listening to the automated “customer service” system for twenty minutes and then be put on hold for an hour. No, I wasn’t going to be cheated like these two other customers. He was actually expecting me to meekly walk out with only half of what I paid for, but I told him I wasn’t going anywhere until I received what I paid for.

This apparently discombobulated the Soup Nazi because what happened next was something he had probably been itching to do to somebody: he reached underneath the counter and pulled out what appeared to be an LED flashlight, and he reached over the counter and quickly touched my elbow with it. I felt a very slight jolt of electricity; apparently this was some low-wattage Taser device. My reaction was a mixture of bemusement and indignation, and in no way did this dissuade me from my purpose; I tend to feel this way when I am convinced I am in the “right.” There were two other customers in the store who saw this, and they decided to split.

The clerk wasn’t alone here; there was another South Asian man who I took to be the “manager,” since he didn’t do anything except wander around. I asked him if he had just seen what the Soup Nazi had done. I told him I was going to call the police on this guy. Soup Nazi went around the counter with his Taser in hand, but the manager stopped him and had an animated conversation with him. The Soup Nazi did as instructed, telling me to wait on the other side of the store while they cooked a “fresh” pizza.

In fact they didn’t do that; they just wanted to make certain that I didn’t see them take two slices from the “fresh” pizza they already had sitting there. Soup Nazi brought it to me, slightly less belligerent than before, realizing that I was the type who could cause some real trouble for them if I reported this to a district manager, and maybe even talked to a lawyer to see if these guys could be sued. He “advised” me to be “nicer” to him next time. Well, there won’t be a “next” time, because that place is just another 7-Eleven I’m crossing off my list.

The Packers are in a better position to play hardball with Aaron Rodgers than he is with the team

 

A day full of personal angst because of package delivery issues, and I just don’t have the time to do a lot of heavy thinking today. But there is one topic that doesn’t require much thinking for me: The Aaron Rodgers Express To Nowhere. The quarterback who is 0-42 in games against teams with winning records when trailing entering the fourth quarter, and who had a backup—Matt Flynn—who was arguably more “clutch,” it  is clear that Rodgers has been taking advise from people he shouldn’t, meaning sycophants, fanatics and people who are not part of the Packer faithful. Sure, I dare him to take ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith’s “advice” and sit out the season.

Next Tuesday is the Packers mandatory mini-camp, and every ambulatory Packer player, including Rodgers, is required to be there, or incur fines which may or may not be waved. But if Rodgers holds out from training camp next month, then the daily fines are mandatory per the CBA. As Mike Florio points out, the Packers really hold all the cards here, given that Rodgers still has three years left on a contract that he doesn’t have the character to honor. In fact, it is in their best interest to call Rodgers' “bluff” and see if he will report or not. The Packers have insisted they will not trade him, and if Rodgers does decide to report for camp, that means he will play for the team—and if he doesn’t and decides to sit out the season, the Packers have in fact no incentive to trade him right away.

The Packers are in fact in a better position to play hardball with Rodgers than he is with the team; the team could potentially recoup up to $35 million this year if Rodgers goes home and pouts.  Furthermore, right now only two teams—the Broncos and the Raiders—seem to be in the “mix” to acquire Rodgers now. But if the Packers wait until later in the season, or even after the season is over, that means there will likely be more teams competing for Rodgers’ services and offering more in exchange. The Packers still control his fate at the present time; after all, Rodgers can’t trade himself—only the Packers can do that.

It doesn’t matter if Rodgers “retires,” and then decides to “unretire” in 2022; he will still be under contract with the Packers, just as was the case with Brett Favre when he “unretired” in 2008. By then, the Packers will see if Jordan Love is any good (I’m not holding my breath on that), or they can get a high 2022 draft pick (from a deal for Rodgers, or if the team “tanks”) and pick up a young quarterback who is ready to play. Who knows what Rodgers will be doing in his “extended” offseason: lie about and get out-of-shape? Hope he’ll get that call from Jeopardy producers? The only way the Packers "lose" here is if Rodgers decides his retirement is permanent and he can't be used as trade bait in the future.

The truth is that for this thing to have “worked” for Rodgers if he really wanted out of Green Bay was to hope that the Packers traded him right away. But he seriously miscalculated by waiting until draft day to make his "desire" known. The Packers insist that they have no intention to trade him, and expect him to play for them this season. GM Brian Gutekunst isn’t quite as “dumb” as some people take him for, especially Rodgers; at least he is a man with a "plan," and not operating purely from juvenile emotion.

Gutekunst is offering Rodgers a lucrative contract extension, even renegotiating TE Robert Tonyan’s contract to free-up cap space. If Rodgers decides to play and gets another chance to prove he isn’t the playoff choke artist he has shown himself to be time and time again, Packer fans will be forgiving. But if he decides he won’t play for the Packers again, the Packers can take their sweet time dealing  him, since any draft picks they acquire for him will be from next year’s draft anyways.

Ultimately, it all falls on Rodgers to be “smart,” and given that this guy is consumed with his personal grudges, one wonders if he is even capable of that, let alone thinking far enough ahead to be accused of being “calculating.” This isn’t a “game” anymore; this is real life, and if Rodgers is comfortable with forfeiting $35 million, so be it. We shouldn’t feel too sorry for him if that kind of money is “nothing” to him. The smart move is to accept a new contract extension, or simply come back for another year, with the “understanding” that he may want to be moved next year.

If you are an "able-bodied single male" out of luck, you are shit out of luck

 

There are all these electronic billboards in Kent and adverts on the side of Metro buses with messages telling people that it is "OK" to “ask for help.” I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that the targeted demographic are women and girls; you never see any of these public displays asking men and boys if they need help, only to lay guilt trips on them.  Now, there are resources that people can go to if they have a problem that is beyond their control. Back in the day when they still had those thick phonebooks, the government and public assistance section had endless pages of assistance programs; the problem was that they were all for women, with or without children.

There was nothing specifically for men or boys—not even the YMCA, long past the time when it was, as the song goes, a place where you can go when you are short on your dough, and no one else cared if you were alive. There are no phonebooks these days, but that doesn’t mean the programs for women are gone. This is a listing on the Seattle.gov website which has a plethora of programs to help women (with or without children) stay off the streets and get a “leg-up” on the competition for work and business: 

http://www.seattle.gov/womenscommission/what-we-do/resources

Observe also that there are 20 separate programs relating to “domestic violence” and “violence against women,” which only shows how much a political issue it is, with all these groups battling each other for public and private funding and the attentions of women who are victims—or those who are easily persuaded that they are; note in my “entertainment” post on May 18,  the commentator in the linked video about yet another “Karen” observed that white women like her seem to think that society gives them “immunity” from consequences when they are verbally and physically abusive (see Amber Heard) toward others, and then pretend to be the “victims” when the real victims of their abuse “unexpectedly” turn it around on them.

You won’t find anything specifically targeted to men. You hear a lot of talk about homeless women, but don’t see many if any on the street because they have greater access to clean, “safe” temporary facilities (like the YWCA).  Filthy homeless shelters with people who may or may not have violent tendencies, “medication” issues or people you wouldn’t trust taking your shoes off at night to be around is about as much “help” a single man in need can expect. Of course there is the state government sponsored “worksource” facilities where they send you out to be “checked out” by an employer, and who don’t have to take you.  Forget it if you don’t have a mailing address or phone number, which is one reason why a lot of homeless men just can’t get out of the hole.

Problems start early for males in this new era of gender “wokeness.” Boys tend to be slower to learn reading and vocabulary skills than girls, yet schools today start teaching reading in Kindergarten instead of the first grade, giving girls a “head start” right out of the gate. Boys are usually forced to read material that doesn’t interest them, thus slowing down the process; what this means is that the failure to help boys who need to catch up on their reading and language skills—and remember, people who speak “well” are stereotyped as being “smarter”—creates disincentives to keep trying and taking school seriously.  Unlike girls, boys have a harder time sitting still, which of course brands them from the outset of being “problem” students. Politicized female teachers bring their own prejudices and stereotypes with them to class, which is particularly important since they dominate the most vulnerable time of a boy’s educational existence, in the early grades.                        

The Financial Times wondered if gender gaps in schools are a zero-sum game, “in which education systems, schools and families have to choose whether to create an environment that promotes either boys’ performance or girls’ performance.” One female educator asked if there was a way to make classrooms more “boy-friendly” without “disadvantaging” girls, she said “It’s a tough question,..Some of education requires the self-regulation and discipline we value in girls.” An exercise in “good” and “bad” stereotyping, but also indicative of the lack of “comfort” that some teachers (especially female) have in dealing with boys. There was even one comment I came across that suggested that co-ed schools today are so geared toward the "needs" of girls that they are now essentially girls schools that boys are allowed in. Thus it isn’t surprising that some boys “fail” in school—and in life.

I’ve had some tough times too, despite the fact I have a college degree—which doesn’t mean a thing when the sight of you only raises the red flags of “concern” in others. But only once have I actually gone down to a local DSHS facility and asked if there was any “help” they could give me. The only thing was one of those EBT food assistance cards. I was informed by the agent that “We just don’t have anything that able-bodied single males are eligible for.” That is pretty much the story for “able-bodied single males,” who society assumes has an “advantage” on everyone else when it comes to jobs, but which isn’t true. Many employers prefer women and Asians for jobs that require “nimble” fingers; jobs that require manual, physical labor, or other “shit” jobs nobody wants to do, is left for many “able-bodied single males,” and those are not any easier to find than any other job. Myself, I’ve never been out of work for more than a few weeks; as a last resort, I’d just sign up with a temp agency, and I’d typically be put to work the next day somewhere, until I found another full-time “adventure.” I have no shame; I’ll do anything for an honest buck.

The Brookings Institute released a study some time ago that noted that the 1996 welfare reform law was geared to favor women and children and ignore impoverished men. It somewhat sarcastically observed that “the major favor the welfare law did for fathers was to pursue them ever more relentlessly for child-support payments. In fact, the law may have intensified the already substantial problems faced by poor fathers”—having to support two households on poverty wages.

The study noted that “Many of the nation’s most serious social problems are caused by poor young males…the strands in this complex web of causality can be thought of in two categories: the ones which young men have control and the ones over which they don’t. If young men could be helped to overcome their inherent disadvantages, and follow simple rules of behavior”—that is “Graduate from high school, don’t commit a crime, get a job and work hard, get married, and have children”—then there might be some hope for them.

However, many young males, especially black males, “are violating each of these injunctions in great numbers and, as a group, appear to be moving in the wrong direction on most of them.” They are not helped by the 1996 welfare law, that offered young mothers both sticks and carrots to “encourage” them to make the right choices. On the other hand, “The public agenda for men includes sticks and, well, sticks. Men do not qualify for case welfare, child care or Medicaid (or at least not before the ACA), and they qualify for an Earned Income Tax Credit that is worth only a tenth as much as the mothers EITC. The only major benefit for which they qualify for is food stamps—to go along with continual pressure from child support and, for many, incarceration. Thus, the carrots are missing.” The tremendous pressure on low-income men “has the effect of creating a huge work disincentive for these struggling young men.”

And many wind up on the street, where there are also those who don’t have “domestic” issues. According to a report by the High Clinicians Network, most homeless are single men, and they are more likely to experience homelessness in relation to homeless families for longer periods, and more often. Relative to the availability of public assistance and health programs to them, single men are at “increased risk for chronic homelessness.” While poverty has a great deal to do with homelessness, “some impoverished people are held more responsible for their plight than others. Discrimination between the ‘deserving and undeserving poor’ in American social policy reflects this discrepancy. For example, poor but able-bodied single adults are expected to rehabilitate themselves without public assistance. Among homeless people, most of these individuals are men, and they, of course, are expected to get by without anyone’s help.

There is also the “common assumption that many homeless men ‘choose’ homelessness as a lifestyle preference." Homeless men are “criminalized” for “loitering, sleeping, urinating or drinking in public places—activities that are permissible in the privacy of a home. This results in giving people a criminal record for noncriminal behavior, which prevents them from getting jobs, housing and needed services. 

In an article in Psychology Today, single people without children—again, usually male—are typically “left in the cold and the dark” when it comes to “qualifying” for public assistance. “People with children often get different opportunities for respite compared to singles purely because of the number of people requiring shelter.” Who wants to bother with a single male who is solely to “blame” for being where he is at? Thus another example of the tyranny of gender politics in this country.

Hypocrisy is everywhere

 

With Michael Flynn “suggesting” a violent military coup and Sidney Powell advocating for a less violent “reinstatement” of Der Fuhrer, can anything get any crazier in this country, thank to Donald Trump?  But then again, perhaps the reason why this world is so difficult to understand is that people are essentially all in some way or another selfish and self-centered. Few actions are truly altruistic; most people do “good” because it makes themselves feel “good.” When people say they are representative of a social movement, they are just a conglomeration of individuals who happen to possess the same petty, self-obsessed considerations.  

Which of course opens up that can of worms called “hypocrisy.” It’s everywhere. Disney has another movie about an “evil” female character (Cruella from 101 Dalmatians), who, we discover, is only less evil than some others, so she can get away with her evil without any suffering any consequences. And then there are some black mothers of children killed by police who are complaining that the Black Lives Movement, and specifically founder Patrisse Cullors, are making a fortune for themselves off the deaths of their sons and daughters; perhaps they feel it wasn’t fair for them not to “cash in” too (just a thought).

The term “liberal” in the social sense is often used to imply people can do as they wish, and that there are no “traditional” guardrails that are subject to the judgment of  moral scrutiny. That may have been true in the 1960s, but that is certainly not true today, particularly in regard to gender issues. It says something about the gender politics of this country when full frontal nudity in a European film can be rated “12”—meaning “acceptable” for a 12-year-old so long as it doesn’t involve actual “sex”—yet a person up to the age of 17 in this country must be blindfolded to such things, and regard it as “unnatural” and “bad.” Isn’t it better to just take the “mystery” out of thing, like they do in a more “mature” society, as Europe pretends to be?

And yet…while it is offensive to women to depict them like this…

 

…it is “OK”  to place in prominent places in Seattle statues of completely naked men and boys:

 

Putting aside the tiny “members” on these figures just short of complete castration, some have accused the statues of the father and son as promoting “pedophilia.” But it is more emblematic of the fact the hypocrisy of social liberalism which has more to do today with who does or doesn’t have the power to impose their real or imagined grievances to the purpose of tyrannizing others. I mean, we live in a country that glorifies violence in films and yet wonder why there are so many mass shootings. Instead we have discuss such “philosophical” questions why we need to “cover” up some things, and not others.

There is plenty of frustrating activity going on all over the world these days, but on the HBO show “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver seems to be scraping the barrel for topics that people actually care about—or don’t. For example, one recent clunker was about black people’s hairstyles, and how the people who are not black react to them. Like, who cares, except people who like being told they have another reason to feel “oppressed.” As mentioned before, some people do “good” because it makes them feel “good,” but doing things that are “bad” also makes them feel good. Take Oliver’s more recent clunker about “sponsored content,” probably his dumbest, most pointless, and least “funny” show ever. It demonstrated that Oliver doesn’t realize that you only have to be racially-insensitive against one group to be so.

The topic was apparently “inspired” by Oliver’s on-going “problem” with “Mexican” food.  He began with deriding “horrifying products” like French’s Crispy Jalapenos, the Velveeta Cheese Liquid Fountain (most likely to put on nachos), and something called Doritos Loaded; in regard to the latter, he claimed that the advertising spot lasted six seconds, which is “how long it stays in your body.” His “commentary” about what most people stereotype as “Mexican” food, even though it is created by people who are not “Mexican,” shows that ugly racist jokes are not “funny,” and a shit excuse to revolve a dumb topic around.

Of course white “liberals” are not the only hypocrites; how about black “liberals”—if that is the right word to call them. Take for example two professors named Andrea Plaid and Christopher MacDonald-Dennis, who last week co-wrote a self-serving, racist op-ed in Newsweek. They claimed that the term “people of color” should cease, because only black people apply. They admit that “people of color” is a term meant to apply to people who are “not white” or “minority.” However, they “say” that when the term is used, “we” really mean “black.” Says who? Says you, self-obsessed “victims.” Take this hypocritical, self-serving “only we matter” comment:

Take for example, police brutality. As America has come to understand finally, the police are disproportionately killing Black people. To use the term “people of color, or even the newly popular BIPOC, which stands for Black and Indigenous people of color, to speak about police brutality obscures Black people’s specific struggle against police brutality.

Of interest is that Newsweek is reporting that a “person of color” sucker punched an Asian woman in New York’s Chinatown. He was described as a “dark-skinned man” in a hoodie, but the video clearly showed him to be a black man. Now, I don’t know if he just picked out a “random” victim, but if he had slugged a white or Latino person, he would be “excused” for it because it was a “reaction” to “systemic” racism. But these days actions such as this allow Asians to be “special victims,” despite the fact that these anecdotal incidents of violence fail to address the notion of many minorities that most Asians have “racist” attitudes toward them—in fact some are more racist than white people.

In any case, if blacks are “disproportionately” the victim of police brutality, it only means that they are disproportionately the perpetrators of all manner of crime; the reality, not surprisingly, is that blacks are in fact less likely to be the victim of police abuse in proportion to their level of perpetration of violent crime, according to Justice Department statistics. White people are the victims of police brutality in proportion to their level of crime, while Latinos tend to be the victims of police abuse at an actual higher rate per their crime rate.

But what is particular despicable about this piece is that it ignores the fact that the white media laps up black grievance for its own self-serving, hypocritical reasons, and in general society pays more attention to black grievance because of the fear of violent action, whether it happens or not. Latinos have also been oppressed, the victims of legal and extra-legal violence and lynching, and  discriminated against in this country for almost two centuries, and their fight for justice predated that of blacks. Yet this history is virtually unknown, because between white and black prejudice and ignorance is a hard place.

George Floyd’s name has become a standard bearer for police brutality, but he isn’t the only one who has died in a similar fashion in the last year or two. In San Diego, Angel Zapata Hernandez died while handcuffed, and one officer knelt on his neck for more than six minutes. Never heard of it? Neither did the BLM protestors in San Diego. In Antioch, CA Angelo Quinto died after suffering a “mental health crisis,” and an officer knelt on his neck for five minutes until he lost consciousness.

In Tucson, AZ Carlos Ingram Lopez died a “gruesome” death after he was detained by police for wandering aimlessly around train tracks. Lopez was handcuffed, left face down on the ground while the officers kneed his face into the pavement for 12 minutes until he went into cardiac arrest and stopped breathing—despite his pleading for water and crying for his grandmother, and telling the officers he couldn’t breathe (there is now a belatedly-released YouTube video of the whole incident from the police bodycam). 

 

 

None of these people were black, and if you listen to people like Plaid and MacDonald-Dennis, that is the reason why their lives don’t “matter.” We can also assume that the “people of color” victims in the recent San Jose mass shooting who were clearly targeted because they were such don’t “matter” because none of them were black.

Still, we can’t let “conservatives” go untouched, since hypocrisy is their main “game.” Stephen Miller and Mark Meadows, who formed a far-right “legal” group called—what else—America First Legal, managed to secure their first “victory” in a far-right judge’s courtroom in the Northern District of Texas. They managed to “convince” the judge that the COVID-19 debt relief provision for “socially disadvantaged” farmers and “prioritizing” grants to restaurants owned by women, veterans and “socially disadvantaged” groups “discriminated” against people who were not in those groups, meaning people who look like Miller and Meadows.

The problem here is that the “socially disadvantaged” have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. One study showed that “active” black-owned businesses declined by 41 percent, Latino businesses by 32 percent, Asian businesses by 26 percent, while white businesses declined by “only” 17 percent. It is apparently not coincidental that most of these businesses are located in minority urban areas where COVID-19 has disproportionately affected the population, and their business. Thus it does show that there is a much greater need for businesses owned by “persons of color” for assistance to get back on their feet due to the pandemic, and the relief bill is, after all, supposed to help people like this. Yet here we see people like Miller and Meadows who have made plain their racist inclinations, able to get their way before a probably racially-insenstive judge.

It is too bad that we can’t leave the hypocritical bullshit to the likes of Fox News, where on their “Media Buzz” show they whined and complained that the “liberal” media was all “abuzz” about news of grand juries being impanelled to hear evidence of criminal acts by Trump and his stooges, and extremist-right commentator Mark Levin doing even more bitching and moaning about how a “Democrat” city (New York) is attempting a “coup” to remove “our president”—that is “his” used-to-be “president.” Further down the sewer, Michael Flynn is in fact “suggesting” a violent Myanmar-like military coup to reinstate Trump. This is where Trump has taken us, when clearly mentally-disabled people are still allowed a forum in which to expectorate dangerous nonsense.