Update on the restaurant robbed after its owner praised the idea of ‘promote what you love’

Updating this morning’s post, police have released surveillance videos of two suspects, identified as white males (one named “Drew”).

Furthermore, the WRAL story gives more indication why Raleigh Raw owner Sherif Fouad thought social media criticism might’ve inspired the robbery: “a sign with the words ‘Black Lives Matter’ was left at the scene.”

WRAL also gives the full quote by Fouad that was supposedly so awful. I guess you have to be a, like, Level 30 social justice warrior or something to squeeze any offense out of this pleasant banality:

Don’t protest against what you hate, you’re only giving that cause more energy. Instead promote what you love. Today we saw that idea in action.

According to WRAL,

Raleigh Raw owner Sherif Fouad said via Facebook that he believes his business was targeted in response to a post he made last week on the Raleigh Raw Instagram page about a group of five people from Chiltern Clinical research, who went into the shop to buy everyone a drink.

“Don’t protest against what you hate, you’re only giving that cause more energy. Instead promote what you love. Today we saw that idea in action,” Fouad wrote.

The post drew criticism from some who took Fouad’s post as an attack on recent protests in Charlotte over the officer-involved shooting death of 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott.

The social media firestorm led Fouad to delete his original post.

“It was insensitive of me at the time,” Fouad said, adding that he didn’t realize that the post would be interpreted as an attack on the “Black Lives Matter” movement or recent protests.

That final quotation is ridiculous. Fouad should not have to be cowed like Orwell’s Parsons just because he couldn’t conceive all the ways some hair-trigger activists might twist and pervert his gentle expression of geniality.

Legislature’s fiscal research staff detail teacher pay increases

According to the Fiscal Research Division of the N.C. General Assembly, Governor McCrory and state legislators have authorized the following average pay increases for teachers over the last four years:

2013-14: 0%

2014-15: 7% average

2015-16: 3.8% average with bonus and 2.2% without bonus

2016-17: 4.7% average

Total (cumulative average): 15.5% (with bonus) or 13.9% (without bonus)

Salary changes for individual teachers depended on their years of experience and other factors.  As such, not all teachers received the same percentage increase every year.

 

Update: A frequent critic of North Carolina Republicans questioned the “cumulative average” figure.  In response to his concerns, it makes sense to emphasize that it is not meant to convey a percentage or percentage point increase over the four years.  It’s value lies in representing the relative effort of the N.C. General Assembly and Governor McCrory to raise the average teacher salary over the last four years.

Shuffling Jobs, Getting Corporate Welfare Payouts

Every corporate welfare package is a little different.  Each one has it’s own little quirks.  This one, as reported by Triangle Business Journal, is particularly clever.

Initially, this sounds pretty typical.  Corning Optical is getting a little over $3 million in various state and local grants to expand an existing facility and add 100 jobs.  That’s bad, but not unusual.  I’ve written about similar situations in Durham, Burlington, Vance County, Forsyth County, Kannapolis

But here’s where it gets almost laughable.  According to that same TBJ piece:

In this case, Corning Inc. (NYSE: GLW) is giving back to Hickory after deciding earlier this year to relocate its Optical Communications headquarters to Charlotte from Catawba County. That move, which is expected to be carried out by the end of 2018, means Charlotte will get 650 headquarters jobs, 500 of which will come from Hickory.

So Corning is going to move 500 corporate jobs out of Hickory, and it’s getting $3 million to replace them with 100 jobs at their production facility.  Really?

Sowell on ‘favors’ to blacks

Another “must read” from Thomas Sowell.

A big “favor” the Obama administration is offering blacks today is exemption from school behavior rules that have led to a rate of disciplining of black male students that is greater than the rate of disciplining of other categories of students.

Is it impossible that black males misbehave in school more often than Asian females? Or Jewish students? Or others?

Is the only possible reason for the disparities in disciplining rates that the teachers and principals are discriminating against black males? Even when many of these teachers and principals in black neighborhoods are themselves black?

But Washington politicians are on the case. It strengthens the political vision that blacks are besieged by racist enemies, from which Democrats are their only protection. They give black youngsters exemptions from behavioral standards, just as the Ivy League chemistry professor gave them exemption from academic standards.

For information on racial disparities in student discipline in North Carolina, read this.  For a discussion of the academic performance of African American boys in North Carolina, read this.

Even promoting niceness out of love is politically incorrect, it seems

Someone please find the actual fault in this. Because it seems like human decency to me, the kind of human decency we’d rather see a lot more of:

Raleigh Raw, which has been using specialized equipment to make cold-pressed juice for about three years, opened its Hargett Street location in April. The shop sells juice, as well as items such as smoothies, matcha beverages (ground green tea), grab-and-go salads and snacks.

On Friday, the store’s social media account posted about people from a local group that came in to buy drinks for other customers and to pass out flowers. The post suggested that other people

— brace yourselves —

“don’t protest against what you hate … instead promote what you love.”

People did nice things, and a proud owner said nice things about people doing nice things in his store, drawing a lesson for people to do nice things everywhere.

Fortunately, there are hair-trigger social activists out there who can, as Delbert Grady might put it, correct them. If you still don’t see the grave social offense in “promote what you love,” read on.

Some took the post, which was later deleted, as criticism of last week’s protests in Charlotte that started after a police officer shot and killed Keith Lamont Scott. On social media, some commenters said they thought Fouad did not support the protests in Charlotte as a way to make change in the community.

Doing nice things for other people out of love can be offensive, you see. A proper social justice warrior has to know when setting a good example for others is counterproductive to the common good, such as when the political message of the day is acting as if rioting, looting, and destroying property at random are good things. An improper sentiment needs correcting.

Well, Raleigh Raw was corrected, sir:

A downtown juice bar and cafe that was the subject of a social media firestorm last week was broken into on Sunday morning.

Thieves took more than $5,000 worth of electronics, cash and merchandise from Raleigh Raw on Hargett Street.

One hopes that treating others with unlooked-for kindness because that’s what you’d like to see more of in society becomes correct again sometime soon.

Clinton charitable giving that benefited … the Clintons

Joe Schoffstall of the Washington Free Beacon dives into the details of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s record of giving money to charity.

Nearly 60 percent of the charitable giving last year by Hillary Clinton’s family charity wound up at the Clinton Foundation, according to tax returns obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Clinton Family Foundation is the charitable vehicle used by the Clintons. It is a separate entity than that of the much larger Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation (the Clinton Foundation). Once the Clintons’ charitable money is placed in the Clinton Family Foundation, they then cut checks to numerous charities.

According to a review of the Clinton Family Foundation’s 2015 Form 990 provided to the Free Beacon by the assistant of Clinton’s tax lawyer, the Clintons disbursed $2,630,500 to charities last year from the family foundation. These donations include $30,000 to Yale University, $50,000 to Georgetown University, $20,000 to the Wildlife Conservation Society, and $25,000 to Hippy USA, among others.
ADVERTISING

However, a majority of the funds from the Clinton Family Foundation ended up at the Clinton Foundation. Of the $2.6 million in charitable giving the Clintons made last year, $1.5 million, or 57 percent of all of the Clinton’s charitable donations, was funneled to the Clinton Foundation.

The Clintons gave $1,042,000 to charity in 2015, Hillary Clinton’s most recent income tax return shows. Of this amount, $1 million—or 96 percent—went to the Clinton Family Foundation.

The Clintons gave $3.7 million in charitable contributions in 2014 with $1.8 million (48 percent) of that amount being kicked to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton initially wrote off millions of dollars on her income tax returns that ultimately ended up at the Clinton Foundation after being passed through the smaller Clinton Family Foundation.

The largest contribution every year since 2007 from the Clinton Family Foundation has gone to the Clinton Foundation, the Free Beacon previously reported.

Between 2007 and 2015, the Clintons have dished out $16,001,450 in total to charity. Of that amount, $15,769,000 went to the Clinton Family Foundation. From the family foundation, $5,812,000 was then funneled to the Clinton Foundation as of 2015—or 36 percent of all the total charitable giving since 2007 marked by the Clintons on their income tax returns.

Leading mainstream media outlets playing up race-based narratives

Amber Randall of the Daily Caller publicizes a particular pernicious element of national media coverage of recent shootings involving police.

The New York Times and The Washington Post bury police officers’ race when they are black, but rush to highlight race when the officer happens to be white, an analysis of two similar cases by The Daily Caller News Foundation shows.

White Tulsa officer Betty Shelby, a five-year veteran on the force, shot Terence Crutcher, who is black, when police came across his car stopped in the middle of the road. Dash cam video appears to show that police tased and shot Crutcher as he walked back to his car with his hands up.

Black Charlotte officer Brentley Vinson shot Keith Lamont Scott, who was also black and who allegedly carried a gun. According to police, Scott ignore multiple warnings to drop his handgun.

In a random sampling of 11 articles from The New York Times on the Tulsa shooting, TheDCNF found that 63 percent of articles mentioned Shelby’s white race and Crutcher’s black race in the same sentence. Thirty-six percent of the articles did not mention the officer’s race, but emphasized that the victim was a black man shot by a police officer.

TheDCNF examined 10 random articles from The New York Times’ coverage of the Charlotte shooting. Only 40 percent of the articles mentioned that the officer involved was black. The rest of the articles sampled referred to the shooting as a black man being shot by an officer.

An analysis of statistics for randomly selected articles from The Washington Post reveals less evidence of bias than the Times, but could point to a slant. Out of 17 articles on the Tulsa white-on-black shooting, 17 percent mention both the race of the officer and man involved. Eighty-two percent of articles just mentioned the race of the victim.

On the Charlotte shooting, TheDCNF examined 14 random articles from The Washington Post. Only 14 percent of the articles sampled mentioned that the officer involved was black. The other 86 percent of articles ignored the officer’s race, but mentioned that the victim was black.

When reporting the Tulsa shooting, The Washington Post emphasized that Shelby, a white police officer, killed Crutcher, an unarmed black man. Alternatively, when reporting the Charlotte shooting, the Post buried that Vinson, a black officer, shot Keith Lamont Scott, a black man.

President as crisis manager

Tevi Troy explains in a Wall Street Journal column why Americans are electing the ultimate crisis manager when the cast their presidential ballot.

The cam­paign has been un­usu­ally focused on ex­actly the char­ac­ter­istics that are es­sen­tial in a time of cri­sis: hon­esty, calm­ness, re­solve. Un­for­tu­nately, the two ma­jor-party can­di­dates are lack­ing in im­por­tant ways. Mrs. Clin­ton’s email scan­dal and re­cent ob­fus­ca­tions about her health un­der­mine her cred­i­bil­ity with the Amer­i­can peo­ple, which is the ba­sis for ef­fec­tive lead­er­ship in a dis­as­ter. With­out it, lead­ers can­not count on get­ting peo­ple to fol­low dif­fi­cult di­rec­tives dur­ing a cri­sis.

In 1976, for ex­am­ple, Pres­i­dent Ger­ald Ford em­barked on an am­bi­tious plan to vac­ci­nate “every man, woman, and child in the United States” against a wor­ri­some strain of swine flu. Ford made sure to be photographed re­ceiv­ing the vac­ci­nation him­self, but most Amer­i­cans did not fol­low suit. Only about a quar­ter of the pop­u­la­tion went along with the pres­i­den­tial di­rec­tive, which was canceled a few months later when the vac­cine was linked to cases of Guil­lain-Barre syn­drome.

Why did so many Amer­i­cans buck Ford’s in­oc­u­la­tion pro­gram? One reason may have been the loss of pres­i­den­tial cred­i­bil­ity fol­low­ing Richard Nixon’s res­ig­na­tion, which pro­pelled Ford into the of­fice. Luck­ily, that swine-flu strain was not as deadly as feared. But if a more vir­u­lent pathogen re­quir­ing mass vac­ci­na­tion were to emerge, would Mrs. Clin­ton or Mr. Trump have trou­ble per­suad­ing most Amer­i­cans to fol­low instructions?

An­other vi­tal as­pect of cri­sis lead­ership is ob­tain­ing the facts be­fore speak­ing and choos­ing words carefully—both ar­eas where Mr. Trump strug­gles. Dur­ing a dis­as­ter words that are in­suf­ficiently mea­sured could cause panic or con­fu­sion. During an­other swine-flu out­break in 2009, Vice Pres­i­dent Joe Biden said on the “To­day” show that he “would tell mem­bers of my fam­ily, and I have, I wouldn’t go any­where in con­fined places now.” It was a care­less statement that threat­ened to drive peo­ple away from air travel and pub­lic transporta­tion. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had to walk back the re­marks.

In the early stages of a cri­sis, the wis­est ap­proach might be to say noth­ing. Im­me­di­ately af­ter the 9/11 at­tacks, Pres­i­dent George W. Bush was con­fronted with a press corps ea­ger for de­tails on what had oc­curred and what would hap­pen next. But con­flict­ing sto­ries were ram­pant and con­fu­sion still reigned. Press Sec­re­tary Ari Fleis­cher held up a makeshift sign for the pres­i­dent, not vis­i­ble to re­porters, with the words “DON’T SAY ANY­THING YET.”