Have you or anyone you know ever ran up a huge tab at a bar or restaurant and then bolted before paying it?
Okay, so I know this topic is not a current event, but I feel that it is definitely relevant for our age group. I know I am probably not the only server in our class, and any of my fellow servers know the consequences of dining-and-dashing: the server pays for the ticket. I feel that this fact must be shared with everyone.
I work at an upscale restaurant/bar in Omaha, and I experienced this funny little prank first hand. I had been cocktailing...in heels...from 8 p.m. until 2 a.m. and I ended up making less than half of the tips I had earned that night. A foursome ended up in my section and ran up a $45 tab of wine, jack, and scotch. Apparently, the oldies either couldn't handle their liquor or they were just mean-spirited devils, but they definitely up and left before I could even give them their ticket. I informed the doormen, but it was to no avail. They had gotten away. Jerks. I had to pick up the entire ticket...and at the $2.13 I get an hour...$45 is a huge chunk of change. I am actually lucky that their ticket was relatively small, considering I had a number of $300-$400 tickets.
So, the next time you contemplate leaving your waiter or waitress with the tab...regardless of how terrible their service was...just man up and pay it. Karma will definitely repay you.
Recently by Taylor Carter
According to an article published on cnn.com, former police officer Bobby Cutts Jr. is awaiting his sentence for the murder of Jessie Marie Davis and her unborn daughter Chloe. After a 10-day intensive search, Davis was nine months pregnant when she was found wrapped in a comforter in a northeastern Ohio park. Because Davis was pregnant at the time of the murder, execution is a punishment option.
Friends and family of Cutts testified in front of a 12-man jury made up of six males and six females, all white. Cutts also sat at the stand, claiming that the murder of his girlfriend was a complete accident. Apparently, Davis came at Cutts and he accidentally elbowed her in the throat. He proceeded to perform CPR and failed.
This story is definitely controversial due to the race of the convicted. Many people believe that Cutts will recieve an unfair punishment because he is black, and all of the jury members are white. Finding a group of 12 completely unbiased, non-racist people is quite a task...and I feel that the judge should call for a new more diverse jury.
In all of the testimonies, Cutts was complimented for how outgoing, friendly, and involved with the community he was. So far, his story has been discredited by the prosecuters who say that his true intentions were to quit paying child support. His mother also begged the jury to spare his life, saying that "she could not go on without him."
According to cnn.com, there is a heated debate in Berkeley, California over whether or not the city council has the right to kick marine recruiters out of their city. A marine recruiting office resides a block away from the college's campus where anti-war peace protests frequently are held. Apparently, these protests were taken seriously because a bill was passed to the council, and a law was eventually made stating that, "If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders". This new law led to a showdown between pro-war and anti-war groups. The pro-war rioters claim that the actions of the council are "treasonous". Republican lawmakers in Washington have also threatened to withhold funds from the college and city.
I guess I was under the impression that this sort of lawmaking was protected by the constitution. Obviously, the marine recruiting office probably isn't doing too well if it is stationed a block away from Berkeley...one of the most stereotypically liberal colleges in America. How can withholding 2 million dollars of federal funding be justified? Why should a city and college simultaneously be punished for thinking differently than the politicians in the white house? If a citizen truly wanted to join the Marine Corps, Berkeley is in no way stopping them, just making it a little more difficult to get to the sign-up sheet. Americans should have to right to be pro-war or anti-war without fear of having their beliefs threatened.
The New York Time's website recently published an article stating that due to a recent increase in the strictness of health codes, several companies such as General Mills, McDonalds, and Coca-cola have agreed to stop advertising to children under 12. Eventually, the Department of Health and Human Services hopes to make this type of advertising illegal. Trix, the fun fruity cereal we all used to love, will no longer advertise to children with the frustrated bunny. What I don't understand about this whole dilemma is why so much attention is focused on the advertisement of junk food and not on how much time children in this age group spend watching television. You don't lose weight sitting on the couch eating an apple. You lose weight by watching your calorie intake and playing soccer with your buddies in the backyard. Stopping these advertisements takes money away from our economy, and puts advertisers out of work. Perhaps I am just a little partial towards the advertisers because I hope to become one when I graduate, but aren't the parents the ones going out and buying groceries? If I had an obese child, I would unplug the television and stock the fridge with healthy food. If the junk food isn't in the house, 12-year old Johnny can't go out to the grocery store and buy it. There is a lot of blame placed on the wrong people in this situation, and I am a little peeved that the active kids don't get their cocoa-puffs.
According to the New York Times's website, Montclair State University has recently been involved in a dispute between the student government and the staff of their newspaper, the Montclarion. The arguement arose when student body president, Ron Chicken decided to hold a number of private meetings in which he did not allow any members of the press to attend. In order to protect their right to open meetings, the editor of the Montclarion, Karl de Vries, sought legal advice. De Vries paid for the lawyer with funds from the student newspaper, which in turn angered Chicken. The newspaper had also previously published articles criticizing Chicken's decisions.
Chicken removed all funding from the newspaper, making printing it impossible and loosing thousands of dollars from outside advertising clients. The current arguement is over whether or not Chicken is "censoring" the student newspaper. Are Chicken's actions justified?
