Connect with us

U.S.

Philadelphia City Council Officially Looking Into Banning Bullet-Proof Barriers Stores In Dangerous Neighborhoods

Published

on

(Via The Daily Wire)

On November 2, Philadelphia Councilwoman Cindy Bass introduced a bill to more closely regulate so-called “beer delis.” These establishments are neither restaurants nor convenience stores, but in-betweens that often sell alcohol — including straight shots of liquor — alongside cigarettes, candy, and various foods, according to Bass.

The bill, which was amended on December 4, calls for local “beer delis” to install restrooms, and provide seating areas for their customers. The bill also asks the Department of Licenses and Inspections (L&I) to issue regulations regarding bullet-proof partitions by January 2021.

Prior to the amendment, the bill called for the complete removal of bullet-proof glass, reading: “No establishment shall erect or maintain a physical barrier.” Following backlash, the legislation was altered to allow the L&I to study the matter for three years, then issue regulations regarding the partitions.

The text of the amended bill that pertains to the glass reads:

By no later than January 1, 2021, the Department of Licenses and Inspections shall promulgate regulations to provide for the use or removal of any physical barrier that requires the persons serving the food in any establishment required to obtain a Large Establishment license … either to open a window or other aperture or to pass the food through a window or other aperture, in order to hand the food to a customer inside the establishment.

The argument from Councilwoman Cindy Bass is that many of these stores exploit legal loopholes in order to masquerade as restaurants while simply selling alcohol.

In a December 11 op-ed, Bass writes: “Would you feel safe with an illegal liquor store next door to you, selling shots of cheap booze at 10 a.m. to loitering alcoholics?”

In Pennsylvania, private owners can’t operate liquor stores. That’s what the state Fine Wine and Good Spirits stores do. But private owners can run restaurants that sell alcohol to their customers to drink while they eat.

Bass notes that aside from alcohol, beer delis sell “candy-flavored cigarillos to get kids hooked on smoking and big boxes of cold medicines that can be turned into street drugs,” adding that these establishments contribute to “drunkenness, loitering, noise, disorder, crime, and violence” in the neighborhoods in which they operate.

The Councilwoman then outlines the loopholes she believes beer delis exploit:

The stop-and-go stores have state liquor licenses as if they were restaurants, but they’re not even close. They are in fact liquor outlets. They don’t have 30 seats; most don’t have any. They don’t prepare or serve food; if you ask, most will show you a single plastic cup of dried Ramen noodles. But for years the ineffective state Liquor Control Board has turned a blind eye to the stop-and-gos’ blatant disregard for the law.

Bass concludes her argument by stating that under her legislation, large establishments with 30 or more seats would be allowed liquor licenses, but no bullet-proof partitions, and smaller establishments that don’t qualify as “restaurants” would no longer be allowed to sell alcohol, but they could retain their partitions:

The stop-and-go owners are complaining that my bill would force them to take down their acrylic glass wall. That’s just false. What the bill simply does is require them to be honest and follow the state law: either become true restaurants (with 30 or more seats) that sell alcohol to customers dining on-site, or admit that they are small convenience stores and stop selling alcohol. The ones that are convenience stores can keep their acrylic glass walls.

Prior to the bill being amended, however, Bass told Fox29 that “the plexiglass has to come down.” She added, “We want to make sure that there isn’t this sort of indignity, in my opinion, to serving food through a Plexiglas only in certain neighborhoods.”

Despite the protestations of many beer deli owners, the City Council voted on Thursday, and the amended bill passed 14-3.

Councilman David Oh expressed his concerns over the bullet-proof glass portion of the bill before the vote on Thursday, saying, “If we take down the safety glass, they’re not changing their business model. They’re not moving. What they will do is purchase firearms. I think that is a worse situation than what we have today.”

In order to clarify Bass’ position regarding plexiglass barriers, The Daily Wire contacted the Councilwoman’s spokesperson, Layla Jones.

When we asked what Bass meant when she said: “We want to make sure that there isn’t this sort of indignity, in my opinion, to serving food through a Plexiglas only in certain neighborhoods,” Jones replied:

As Councilwoman Bass said during her speech yesterday in Council, the clientele at these establishments are not willing customers. They are residents with habits and addictions. These are supposed to be sit-down restaurants, but they operate as a hybrid between a liquor store, drug pharmacy and convenience store. There are no stop-n-go establishments in more affluent Philadelphia neighborhoods. But in vulnerable communities in Philadelphia, store owners feel it’s acceptable to serve limited food and ‘get high’ products through a prison-style plexiglass barrier. If these establishments were selling hypodermic needles which are synonymous with heroin use, there would be an immediate call to shut these places down.

We then asked why businesses might not be allowed after January 1, 2021, to use bullet-proof barriers even if they’re complying with all other legal guidelines, Jones said:

This bill is about conforming city law with state law and creating actual sit-down restaurants in all of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods. This bill is not about plexiglass. Several other regulations including seating for 30 or more patrons, square footage requirements and the installation of publicly accessible restrooms will be required by May 1, 2018 at the latest, before L&I is required to create regulations on the use and removal of plexiglass.

We spent a lot of time and effort on a compromise to this bill, to ease store owner concerns but address community outcry. L&I has until January 2021 to create regulations on the use and removal or plexiglass, and the word “use” suggests that after working on the issue L&I may decide there are instances in which plexiglass is acceptable.

As the Philadelphia Department of Public Health Commissioner Tom Farley testified, plexiglass barriers create a special health risk in sit-down restaurant establishments where food is supposed to be consumed on the premises because of increased choking risks. A barrier limits food service staff members’ access to a choking customer or a customer having an allergic reaction. We want both store owners and consumers to be safe.

In the end, it appears the primary defense for possibly removing bullet-proof glass from “beer deli” businesses that sell food and alcohol in dangerous neighborhoods is it could inhibit employees from helping choking customers.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Opinion

News flash! Women’s Lives Now More Than Bearable

Published

on

This is a contentious time for feminism. In the age of #MeToo, Time’s Up, and the Weinstein effect, just a few of the many products of the fourth-wave feminist movement, women are continuing to push forward a certain narrative about men and the Western culture’s effect on women in general. It seems as if the conversation surrounding women and gender equality has seeped into virtually every realm of life: politics, culture, religion, and even medicine and technology. Fourth-wave feminists are expressing their distrust in men in many ways…celebrities are calling out sexual predators in front of public audiences, politicians are using sexual assault as a political tool, and students are marching and demonstrating. Corporations, eager to jump on the “let’s make a political statement” bandwagon, are even using sexual assault as a marketing tool, spouting controversial messages about toxic masculinity and the like. A prime example is the recent Gillette ad, which garnered more than 19 million views on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

Many women are also writing about feminism. One example of this is an article, written last year in celebration of International Women’s Day, that has been circulating on social media for the past few months. The article, entitled “100 Easy Ways to Make Women’s Lives More Bearable” and authored by Dani Beckett, has been shared more than 300,000 times since its publication in March 2018. While we would not exactly call it “viral,” it is no secret that the article’s contents are becoming increasingly normalized, currently believed by a meaningful number of female millenials. Beckett’s article was published in Broadly, a subset of Vice Media, a digital media and broadcasting company that launched Vice, the Canadian-American print magazine that gave rise to Broadly. Broadly, a heavily leftist channel catering to women and designed to “provide a space for us to understand, express, and navigate our identities as we define who we are and where we’re headed next,” has quite a solid readership.

After I kept encountering the article on Facebook for several months, I figured it was probably worth a read, but before reading it, I could not help but linger on the title. How to make women’s lives more…bearable? Bearable means tolerable, able to be endured, not even touching the realm of pleasurable or happy. The title implies that women in this country are struggling so much that someone desperately needs to make their lives “more bearable.” In a country where the vast majority of workplace fatalities befall men, the chief victims of non-fatal violence are men, men make up three quarters of all murder victims, women are outperforming men at all levels of education (they even outnumber men at most medical schools), women win custody battles, and women legally win half the earnings and belongings in a household, apparently women’s lives are not yet bearable enough. I was confused, but intrigued, and proceeded to make my way down the long list of male-targeted demands, some of which are too good not to highlight.

The article is written in an incredibly patronizing tone, as if men in America need to be taught that forcing sex upon a woman is probably not a good idea, as if they apparently grew up in a society that conditioned them to rape. The first item on Beckett’s list is, “Before explaining something to a woman, ask yourself if she might already understand. She may know more about it than you do.” Well, is that not general logical advice for anyone? I know the point is to call men out for supposedly always trying to explain things to a woman, but if you are versed in the basic tenets of communication, then it must be the case that you know not to prematurely lecture someone on a topic you suspect they are already well-versed in, regardless of their gender. And let us suppose this is not the case and you have a habit of being didactical when not needed. Well, then this advice should certainly go for everyone, not just men. The point is, gender has nothing to do with it. There is no evidence that men are somehow more likely than women to try to explain something to women, simply because they are women, before considering whether those women might actually understand the topic. Fourth-wave feminists are pushing the narrative that men inherently feel entitled and better than women, so they feel it necessary to always explain things to a woman without thinking if she might already understand. It is a dangerous and baseless narrative to push forward. While it was certainly true fifty years ago when male professors would not even call on their female students in lecture, today, men DO listen to women, whether they like it or not. By virtue of the professional empowerment of women, which has become normalized in Western society, men listen to women explain things to them every single day. Consider this: women now hold 49% of total faculty positions in American colleges and universities. Women lecture, and men listen.

Beckett then states, “Related: Never, ever try to explain feminism to a woman.” Well, what if she’s wrong? Beckett would tell you, “Trust women. When they teach you something, do not feel the need to go and check for yourself. And especially do not Google it in front of them.” So, if she’s wrong, it doesn’t matter. No one cares about facts anyway. Women are so privileged that they now also have the right to be wrong and to lie without getting called out. This is an important reminder of “Believe all women,” the Left’s mantra during the infamous Kavanaugh controversy. If you feel the need to check something JUST because the person who explained it to you is a woman, then maybe you need to treat your misogyny and perhaps Beckett’s list is actually for you. But we live in a society where women are leaders in every sphere – politics, business, medicine, science, the law. At this point, men get it. The need to overpower women, of which remnants will perhaps always exist, has largely dissipated through the years as evidenced by the fact that women now control 60% of the wealth in the United States, for example. If men are such misogynists, why are they collectively not fighting tooth and nail to tear down successful women? Certainly some are, but it’s virtually impossible to prove patriarchy-enforcing men outnumber matriarchy-enforcing women. Instead of acknowledging that, fourth-wave feminists are resorting to feelings, as opposed to facts, to craft their man-hating narrative. What’s more, they are lowering their standards for women.

Clearly, men and women are different, no matter what radical feminists want you to believe. But even though they are different, every society is founded upon a standard set of basic principles and values that every human, regardless of identity, should be obligated to follow in order to preserve civility. Lying does not all of a sudden become okay for a woman if it’s not okay for a man because women should not get special privileges. That is why Dani Beckett is also mistaken in suggesting “Be kind to women in customer service positions. Tip them extra.” Because they are a woman? This sentiment points directly to the pinnacle of feminists’ hypocrisy. Feminists want women to be treated equally, which naturally entails holding them to the same standards as men. Regardless of whether you are a woman or a man, if you don’t do your job well, then you should not be tipped extra. Regardless of whether you are a woman or a man, your customers should be nice to you if you do your job well because that’s the right thing to do.

Next on Beckett’s list is a whole compilation of demands centered around how to describe women. She states, “Examine your language when talking about women. Get rid of ‘irrational, dramatic, bossy, and badgering immediately.” This implies that women cannot be any of these things, which they most certainly can. Or perhaps it implies that they can be some or all of these things but they should not be called out for it, which once again, means that according to Beckett, we should hold women to a lower standard. Let’s be clear, women should not get free passes just because they are women and their ancestors have suffered through years of misogyny and oppression. If feminists want true equality, then they should not be cutting women slack and lowering their standards for women out of pity. Women are perfectly capable of meeting those standards. Pushing forward women’s rights legislation should not be done out of a need to prop up identity politics. Women deserve equal rights not because they are women, but because they are humans.

If that was not enough, Beckett certainly has more! “Never comment on a woman’s body,” she says. When describing women positively, men should say she is “talented,” “clever” or “funny,” but not “gorgeous” “sweet” or “cute.” Men also cannot call her unique, and “unlike other girls” because all girls are awesome. Long gone are the days when it was flattering for a woman to be told she has a nice physical appearance. And long gone are the days when men were allowed to make their physical attraction, the very basis of biological reproduction, known to women. I am assuming Beckett wants men to assign more value to women than their physical appearance, which is understandable, but assigning more value to personality and assigning some value to physical appearance are not mutually exclusive acts. A 2017 study published in Evolutionary Psychological Science found that most women are likely to choose physical attractiveness over personality and intelligence in potential partners. For a group of people who supposedly hate double standards, fourth-wave feminists sure do love double standards.

And now we arrive at the scariest portion of Beckett’s list: the postgenderism demands. Beckett states, “If you read stories to a child, swap the genders. Cast women in parts written for men. We know how to rule kingdoms, go to war, be, not be, and wait for Godot.” Right, and that is exactly why the parts of Katniss Everdeen, Hermione Granger, Wonder Woman, Lara Croft, Daenerys Targaryen, Mulan, and many, many more have been written. To show that women can indeed rule kingdoms, go to war, and do pretty much anything. Fourth-wave feminists are called “fourth-wave” because they are not the first. The women of the past have already proven that women are powerful and can rule kingdoms. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel by going to extreme measures (i.e. swapping genders) to show something that everyone, barring exceptions, already knows. Perhaps, then, the point of swapping genders is not so much to normalize powerful, masculine women. It is, in fact, to get rid of gender roles altogether. My prediction is that postgenderism will pave the way for fifth-wave feminism.

So why is one article like this one so important? It’s maybe just the opinion of one woman. Except it’s not. Between 70 and 80 percent of college women currently identify as feminists. The contents of Beckett’s article are at least somewhat representative of the mentality of young women in America today, even if some shy away from the label “feminist.” I fear that this association we have started to develop between feminism and fourth-wave values, some of which are exemplified in this article, will only become stronger until, eventually, first and second-wave feminists are shut out entirely. Women who are pro-life are shut out entirely. Women who want other women to be held accountable are shunned and considered anti-feminist. Criticizing obesity, pointing to false allegations of sexual assault, challenging the misconceptions surrounding the pay gap, holding conservative views about female sexuality, and acknowledging core differences between men and women will become wholly incompatible with any definition of feminism. Women should be encouraged to be strong, not feed their victimization complexes. Women should be encouraged to listen to other women, even if they disagree. Fourth-wave feminist indoctrination should not be something we stand for if we want to actually help gender equality.

Continue Reading

U.S.

Republicans Are Weak, Spineless, & Complicit In The Death Of America

Published

on

While Americans continue to be hurt by stagnant wages, internet censorship, and being replaced by automation & migration…. the House of Representatives spent the entire day arguing about what Representative Steve King never said.  Read that again:

The House of Representatives spent the entire day arguing about what Representative Steve King never said.

The Failing New York Times creates yet another fake news story to frame Rep. King as a white supremacist.  Republicans salivated eagerly to be the first in line to denounce King.

I shouldn’t be surprised.  These are the people who refuse to go to bat against internet censorship even when it hurts their own campaign’s ability to win elections.  They refuse to build a wall.

For some reason, the party is taking the lead from 2012 loser (cannot be emphasized enough: loser) Mitt Romney and a California cuckservative is the House Minority Leader.

These are our leaders?  If so, expect to lose bigly in 2020 and beyond.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Second Chance Voters’ Campaign in Florida To Help Felons Vote and Get Jobs

Published

on

Today a new campaign is officially launching in Florida for encouraging Felons to vote, increasing their opportunity through jobs, and lessening the stigma around the issue of felons voting. The ‘Second Chance Voter Campaign’ is lead by experienced Councilman Steve Nadine. With an official launch on their website here at www.SecondChanceVoters.org , you can see the intent of the organization and goals set forth.

Karyn Turk of Red America Radio and Populist Wire is also a leading effort in the campaign, she says

“Although many of us were not for, Amendment Four, before it passed. As Republicans it is of extreme importance that we motivate these voters. This new population is a great opportunity for the GOP. We must work with these voters to educate them on republican candidates and important initiatives”

The Press Release States:

Second Chance Voters is led by Steve Nadine. Steve previously served as a County Commissioner and City Councilman and has also served on Alabama’s Sentencing Commission. These experiences have given him a unique and highly qualified credible resume especially in light of his status as an ex-felon and who served his time and probation.

Second Chance Voters will also be a proactive in leading the efforts to work with local and state leaders to effectively and efficiently implement the important components of The First Step Act:

Second Chance Voters will focus their efforts on the following:

Registering ex-felons and their families to vote.

Creating workforce development programs to provide employment opportunities.

Working with Local and State Leaders on tax incentives and tie-ins with economic development organizations to educate and train those incarcerated in local, state and federal prisons, a step critical to reducing recidivism.

Proving guidance on prison, probation and prosecution reform after the First Step Act is implement.

Creating outreach programs for at risk ex-felons and those who are scheduled to be released.

Conducting research on how The First Step Act reforms will effect local, state and federal prosecution and how it will impact the currently under-funded prison systems.

Launching a “Reforming from Within” initiative which will focus on how vitality important it is to educate the ex-felon and those set to be released that this is their Second Chance to proactively participate in their communities and that they can exercise those rights through voting.

Educating the public about the stigma and discrimination faced ex-felon including efforts to ban “checking the box.” These include the many jobs and professions from which they are restricted.

Lobbying in all states that currently restrict ex-felon voting rights.

A lot of what this Campaign is doing is holding politicians like newly elected Governor Rob Desantis to not hold up this right for Felons who have completed their sentence, fine, and probation. It’ll make sure the rights of Felons are restored as soon as possible, as close to the original intent of Amendment Four. This is going to empower any individual who takes it upon themselves to get their rights that had been previously been disenfranchised.

Founder of the Campaign, Steve Nadine is no newcomer when it comes to politics and especially this issue. Steve has an extensive record as the he was at the forefront of the battle to give rights to ex-offenders. He was most important in creating the ‘Jump Start’ program which offered jobs and opportunities to juvenile offenders who were completed a military-style boot camp.

This will be a great way to not only help felons get on their feet but help realize their larger role in a Democratic society that has left them out of the process.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.