Restaurant Rules




> I was a happy dishwasher. The entire staff would get served a special
> (not on the menu) dinner prepared by the chefs before we opened. We all
> sat around a large round table and had beer or wine with our meal. Then
> we went to work. Occassionally I'd have to fill pitchers of beer for the
> chefs. Occassionally I'd earn a glass during dishwashing.


I worked at a chinese restaurant while in college and I worked nights,
which would be about 5pm-10 or 11. At about 830 or 9 the cook would
make up a special meal that was not on the menu and all the staff would
pretty much take a 15 minute break and sit down and eat. I remember
one meal they would make where they would make a meal similar to pepper
steak (steak, peppers, onions) and to it they would add thick wedge cut
french fries and it was delicious. I tried to make it at home but
could never get it right.
 

> Think of the dude out back who digs it out of the dumpster 6 hours
> later...
>
> --Blair


I once worked at a steak house where we cut our own steaks; they would
bring in sides of beef and we had meat cutters who would cut them.
They kept careful audits on the meat, and found that a lot of meat was
disappearing. What was happening was the night cook would take one of
those sides of beef and dump it in a trash can and tie the bag off and
throw it in the dumpster with the rest of the garbage (the sides of
beef were shrink wrapped in thick plastic) then an hour or so after the
staff and management was gone, he would return and go into the dumpster
and retrieve the bag of meat. One of the managers was sitting in his
car parked some distance from the restaurant with binoculars and
witnessed the retrieval then drove up and fired the cook for theft.
 
Julia Altshuler wrote:

> There was a good article in the Miami Herald many years ago that put

the homeless population in 3 categories.
>
>
> 1. People who previously had homes. These are people without a

safety net. They're usually poor, but not necessarily. They might be
single or have families. They're the ones who had a tiny apartment and
a low wage job when an event struck that put them on the street. It
could be an accident (broken leg) that put a physical laborer out of his
job. It could be a crime (rape) victim that makes a woman afraid to get
the bus to her job at night. It could be gentrification that puts a
family out of a low-rent apartment such that the parents can no longer
work and live in the same area (no public transportation or
transportation that puts 4 hours on the work day). It could be lay-offs
or economic recession. Sometimes people are victims of their own
stupidity as with people who trust the wrong person (invest savings in
schemes that fail). (Before you judge harshly, remember the stupid
things you've done when you were younger and the safety net that
(family) that didn't put you out on the street while you put your life
back together.)
>
>
> This is the group that's easiest to help with social services. If

the homeless shelter has job training, medical care, transit,
counseling, apartment finding, maybe money to put into paying deposits
for an apartment and electricity, the society can make an investment in
an individual that pays off. The previously homeless can become
contributing, tax-paying members of the society. They might pay the
money for the deposits back, but even if they don't, getting a person a
place to live and a job such that they can bring up their children seems
like a good deal for most of us.
>
> Many times there is some sort of public help that doesn't go quite

far enough. The guy who breaks his leg might get excellent medical care
from a public hospital so that his leg heals, and he can walk and work
again, but he might be out on the street with all his possessions sold
during the 2 weeks he spent in the hospital (if his landlord didn't know
where he was). (Remember, no kind neighborly landlord, no cell phones,
no social worker taking care of things for him.)
>
>
> 2. The mentally ill or mentally handicapped. I've known a few

families where one sister or brother has Down's syndrome or is
schizophrenic (also people suffering from bi-polar and depression), and
the whole family pitches in to take care of the one who can work but
can't quite take care of himself altogether, but not all families have
the resources to do so. I know I don't mind if a portion of my taxes go
to state-supported institutions or halfway houses so that people can get
supervision. Maybe they can work at simple, highly supervised jobs if
they have structure and a place to go at home. If they don't have that,
they can land on the street.
>
>
> 3. Then there are the addicts. This is the hardest group to know

how to feel about or know how to help. Give a hardcore drunk a small
clean apartment, and he'll **** on the floor and sleep in his vomit.
Come up with the best state of the art counseling program, and the
recidivism rate is still amazingly high. Still, that state of the art
drug treatment program is still probably cheaper than jail. The only
thing that works for addicts is letting them bottom out for themselves,
and some of them never do. I don't want to support addicts; I don't
want to jail them, and I don't want them hanging out on the streets.
This one is a puzzle and has been for hundreds of years.
>
>
> There's plenty of overlap in the 3 groups which makes it even harder

to know what to do. You could have a mentally ill alcoholic and someone
who has temporarily taken up drinking because he just lost his job and
his home.
>
>
> I know of no reliable way of knowing whether the guy who hits you up

for a dollar in a public place belongs to any of the 3 groups. It is
hard to gather statistics as to which of the 3 groups is most
represented in a single area since you could have a homeless person who
sometimes sleeps at a relative's house, sometimes at a shelter,
sometimes in the streets.
>
>
> --Lia
>
>
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> These rules are rather amusing and probably true.
> http://blogs.smh.com.au/entertainment/archives/the_tribal_mind/003016.html
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
>


" 12. A restaurant in which one wall is covered with signed black and white
photographs of celebrities is unlikely to be state of the art, even if the
celebrities include Bert Newton. "

Non-state of the art can still be great in this instance. There are some old
restaurants in San Francisco with walls plastered with pictures of
celebrities and sports figures. They serve good quality, hearty old-style
seafood. The atmosphere is great and the food still is too.

cheers,

rox
 
Sheldon wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> > Sheldon lied:
> > >In the US anyone goes hungry it's because it's their choice...

> >
> > False. Do some research and learn something true before posting again.

>
> Seems to me you're the one needs to prove your point, obviously you
> can't because you didn't. You're all keyboard.


You're the one claiming everyone has a choice in a country where it's
clear there's a concerted effort to victimize and marginalize the poor.

I bet you're one of those toads who thinks that everyone on welfare is
just a deadbeat.

--Blair
 
"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:

>
>
> You're the one claiming everyone has a choice in a country where it's
> clear there's a concerted effort to victimize and marginalize the poor.
>
> I bet you're one of those toads who thinks that everyone on welfare is
> just a deadbeat.
>


I believe that Sheldon specifically mentioned that there were resources for the
homeless, like welfare, but that some people choose not to partake.
 
rox formerly rmg wrote:
> " 12. A restaurant in which one wall is covered with signed black and white
> photographs of celebrities is unlikely to be state of the art, even if the
> celebrities include Bert Newton. "
>
> Non-state of the art can still be great in this instance. There are some old
> restaurants in San Francisco with walls plastered with pictures of
> celebrities and sports figures. They serve good quality, hearty old-style
> seafood. The atmosphere is great and the food still is too.


As soon as he said the thing about the walls and the pictures and the
celebrities, I thought of Scoma's.

--Blair
"It's dungy season, too..."
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sheldon wrote:



> > Talking about yourself, eh... typical rationalization of one who is
> > indeed a bum... the poor are poor ONLY because they CHOOSE to remain
> > poor... lazy no account bastards.

>
> Again, you have nothing but your own fantasies that people choose to be
> poor, in direct contravention of reams of data available to anyone the
> past hundred and fifty years.
>
> But since you have no care, you have no interest in seeing the truth.



As is usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. There certainly are
deadbeats, and there are those who are truly needy. There is no good
way to weed out the deadbeats without weeding out some of the truly
needy. That is the price we pay for providing a safety net.

It is possible to provide anecdotal evidence of any number of deadbeats.
It is also possible to provide anecdotal evidence of the truly needy.
Neither exercise is very useful.

--
Dan Abel
[email protected]
Petaluma, California, USA
 
Dave Smith wrote:
>>

> I live in a country that provides social assistance for people in need. Some whine and
> carry on about the taxes we have to pay in order to provide that social safety net. I
> don't. I believe in it and support it. My country is considerably colder than the US,
> so living on the street in most places is not an option. We have shelters for the
> homeless. We have a welfare system and a programs to get those people back on their
> feet..... if they want. From my experience in this country, the homeless don't hang
> out in the small towns of the north. They head for the big cities and congregate in
> the busiest sidewalks of downtown where they can panhandle to the largest crowd. and
> alcoholism and drug use is a huge problem for them.


Thank you. It's about the same in the US... public assistence is
available, but it's generational, not a positive social tool for those
who for whatever reason were bred to always choose the path of least
resistance. The system is broken when it encourages people to not do
anything to help themselves.
 
Dave Smith wrote:
> "Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
> >
> > You're the one claiming everyone has a choice in a country where it's
> > clear there's a concerted effort to victimize and marginalize the poor.
> >
> > I bet you're one of those toads who thinks that everyone on welfare is
> > just a deadbeat.
> >

>
> I believe that Sheldon specifically mentioned that there were resources for the
> homeless, like welfare, but that some people choose not to partake.


And that many partake, and partake, and partake... from cradle to
grave.
 
Dan Abel wrote:
> As is usual, the truth lies somewhere in between.


In between what? I never said there were no deadbeats.

> There certainly are
> deadbeats, and there are those who are truly needy. There is no good
> way to weed out the deadbeats without weeding out some of the truly
> needy.


Actually, you do it by placing other people in close contact with them
to determine their true status.

I nominate Sheldon to live with a family on WIC for one month, just to
find out if they actually are poor by their own choice.

> That is the price we pay for providing a safety net.


Trolling is the price we pay for not walking over to Sheldon's house
and taking his computer away from him. We don't so much tolerate him
as use him to show the difference between **** like him and good people
like us.

> It is possible to provide anecdotal evidence of any number of deadbeats.
> It is also possible to provide anecdotal evidence of the truly needy.
> Neither exercise is very useful.


There are far more needy than deadbeats. The "welfare queen" stories
that Reagan ran on were apocryphal extrapolations from the few known
cases of people who'd defrauded the system using multiple false
identities.

You don't let everyone suffer because one of them might be faking. You
help them all and punish the criminals after you discover their crime.

Sheldon doesn't understand these things.

--Blair
 
Sheldon wrote:
> Thank you.


You're thanking him for disproving your volitional theory of indigence.

Drug and alcohol addiction are not volitional.

Ignorance, on the other hand, is, and you're exhibiting all the signs
of 80 years of chronic ignorance.

> It's about the same in the US... public assistence is
> available, but it's generational, not a positive social tool for those
> who for whatever reason were bred to always choose the path of least
> resistance. The system is broken when it encourages people to not do
> anything to help themselves.


Sheldon, what system are you talking about? Because the one you're
describing does not exist in this country. It only exists in your tiny
mind.

--Blair
 
Sheldon wrote:
> resistance. The system is broken when it encourages people to not do
> anything to help themselves.


Here, buffoon-boy.

Now. You go prove that everyone who /wants/ to get out of poverty,
/can/ get out of poverty. No rhetoric. Facts. And the words
"everyone" and "wants" are not negotiable.

--Blair

http://www.omidyar.net/group/poverty/news/31/

By Jere L Hough (52), Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:26:48 PST
Edited: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:27:53 PST
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

Pam Omidyar began her topic on poverty with these words:

By Pam Omidyar (825), Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:38:12 PST

OK, now I am going to copy from the Barnes and Noble site on this book
(quoted from the publisher):

FROM THE PUBLISHER

"As David K. Shipler makes clear in this study, the invisible poor are
engaged in the activity most respected in American ideology - hard,
honest work. But their version of the American Dream is a nightmare:
low paying, dead-end jobs; the profound failure of government to
improve upon decaying housing, health care, and education; the failure
of families to break the patterns of child abuse and substance abuse.
Shipler exposes the interlocking, problems by taking us into the
sorrowful, infuriating, courageous lives of the poor - white and black,
Asian and Latino, citizens and immigrants. We encounter them every day,
for they do jobs essential to the American economy." We meet drifting
farmworkers in North Carolina, exploited garment workers in New
Hampshire, illegal immigrants trapped in the steaming kitchens of Los
Angeles restaurants, addicts who struggle into productive work from the
cruel streets of the nation's capital - each life another aspect of a
confounding, far-reaching urgent national crises. And unlike most works
on poverty, this one delves into the calculations of some employers as
well - their razor-thin profits, their anxieties about competition from
abroad, their frustrations in finding qualified workers.

SYNOPSIS

No one who works hard in America should be poor, says journalist and
author Shipler, but he found many of them all across the country, and
delves as deeply into the cause and effect of their condition as they
would allow. Some he has followed for years now. One finding is that
the rise and fall of the nation's official economy has almost no impact
on them; another is that they have no time for rage. Annotation ©2004
Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

I think the above is one good starting place.

Here are some other thoughts on

Defining Poverty:

In America:

Poverty is a condition under which single individuals, or entire
families, do not have sufficient economic resources, or money income,
to pay for their basic needs. These needs include things such as food,
housing/shelter, utilities, health care, transportation, and clothing,
among others. In the United States, the Federal government establishes
what is commonly known as the poverty line.

Moving down along the income scale, the poverty line represents the
low-income level at which individuals and families begin to experience
serious difficulties when attempting to meet, or pay for, their basic
needs. The poverty line varies according to family size. Individuals
and families whose incomes fall at or under the poverty line are
considered to be living in poverty. A family whose income exactly
equals the established poverty line has an income that represents 100
percent of the poverty line. By the same token, a family whose income
is lower than the established poverty line has an income that
represents less than 100 percent of such line.

Each year the Federal Department of Health and Human Services revises
the poverty line to account for changes in the cost of living, as
measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), occurred during the
previous year. In addition, the Federal Department of Health and Human
Services publishes a list containing National poverty income guidelines
(a list of poverty lines that vary according to family size). For
example, for a family of 4, the poverty line for 1999 (based on annual
income) is $16,700, while for a family of 3 is $13,880.

In the world:

Wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty Maslow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs#Deficiency_needs
Physiological, safety, love/belonging/esteem Debt Related:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/Causes.asp

Trade Related Poverty:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FairTrade.asp

Very Good site on Causes: http://www.gdrc.org/icm/poverty-causes.htm

Corporate Causes:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations.asp
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations/Rise.asp

Peter Townsend (Poverty In the United Kingdom, 1979) defined poverty as
following:

"Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be
in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet,
participate in the activities and have the living conditions and
amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or
approved, in societies to which they belong. Their resources are so
seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family
that they are in effect, excluded from the ordinary living patterns,
customs and activities."

For my part, I would say that a basic definition of poverty is the
chronic inability for families to obtain the necessities of leading a
healthy and dignified life, even if one or all able family members are
working or seeking work.

I would further say that those in poverty have very few assets, and are
living hand to mouth without savings, or any ability to get by if
disaster or serious illness occurred.
 
Andy wrote:

>It was gross. But back on topic, does this
> happen in other restaurants? I guess...
> probably.


I'm not so bothered by what they do _after_ the customer has finished.

You've reminded me of something I saw in a popular restaurant here in
Colorado several years ago. I noticed a waiter, who thought he was
being unobserved, take a big swig (through a straw) of a customer's
margarita as he was carrying a big tray of them to the waiting diners.

Elaine
 
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
<snip>
> Each year the Federal Department of Health and Human Services revises
> the poverty line to account for changes in the cost of living, as
> measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), occurred during the
> previous year. In addition, the Federal Department of Health and Human
> Services publishes a list containing National poverty income guidelines
> (a list of poverty lines that vary according to family size). For
> example, for a family of 4, the poverty line for 1999 (based on annual
> income) is $16,700, while for a family of 3 is $13,880.
>


which is about 7 bucks an hour for a full time job. ($13880)

minimum wage is 5.15

this makes sense how?

--

saerah (150% of the poverty level atm. we'd be doing ok, except for the
car payments and the auto insurance)

http://anisaerah.blogspot.com/

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams
 
Sheldon wrote:

>
> >
> > I believe that Sheldon specifically mentioned that there were resources for the
> > homeless, like welfare, but that some people choose not to partake.

>
> And that many partake, and partake, and partake... from cradle to
> grave.


Even longer..... there are some welfare families that have been on it for
generations. They have homes and food on the table. It's not what I would want to do
with my life, but you don't have to live on the streets.
 
"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:

> Sheldon wrote:
> > resistance. The system is broken when it encourages people to not do
> > anything to help themselves.

>
> Here, buffoon-boy.
>
> Now. You go prove that everyone who /wants/ to get out of poverty,
> /can/ get out of poverty. No rhetoric. Facts. And the words
> "everyone" and "wants" are not negotiable.


That is a far stretch from his comment about the homeless not availing
themselves of the services provided. He acknowledged that welfare is not a
perfect system, but there is one in place, and many of the homeless choose not
to go on welfare.
 
"Elaine Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Andy wrote:
>
>>It was gross. But back on topic, does this
>> happen in other restaurants? I guess...
>> probably.

>
> I'm not so bothered by what they do _after_ the customer has finished.
>
> You've reminded me of something I saw in a popular restaurant here in
> Colorado several years ago. I noticed a waiter, who thought he was
> being unobserved, take a big swig (through a straw) of a customer's
> margarita as he was carrying a big tray of them to the waiting diners.
>
> Elaine


Perhaps it was the time of day that he was used to having "Happy Hour." You
never know, perhaps he didn't care whether or not whether he was being
observed, but just being his usual self.
I can just see this, 'tis a funny scene.
Dee Dee
 
Dee Dee wrote:

>Perhaps it was the time of day that he
> was used to having "Happy Hour."


I was having lunch with some colleagues from work, so I suspect _any_
time of day was "Happy Hour" for this waiter!

>You never know, perhaps he didn't care
> whether or not whether he was being
> observed, but just being his usual self.


It's possible, although he looked around (a bit furtively, I thought)
after the fact. He realized that I had seen him, but he never missed a
beat. Just kept walking.

>I can just see this, 'tis a funny scene.


I was glad I had ordered iced tea! :)

Elaine
 
"Elaine Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Dee Dee wrote:
>
>>Perhaps it was the time of day that he
>> was used to having "Happy Hour."

>
> I was having lunch with some colleagues from work, so I suspect _any_
> time of day was "Happy Hour" for this waiter!
>
>>You never know, perhaps he didn't care
>> whether or not whether he was being
>> observed, but just being his usual self.

>
> It's possible, although he looked around (a bit furtively, I thought)
> after the fact. He realized that I had seen him, but he never missed a
> beat. Just kept walking.
>
>>I can just see this, 'tis a funny scene.

>
> I was glad I had ordered iced tea! :)
>
> Elaine


Perhaps he spiked your tea so he could have a taste later?
But I think one could tell.
Dee Dee
>