Injustice Delivered: Pizza Hut Demotes Delivery Guy For Defending Himself

Dec. 30, 2012 - I don't usually go for boycotts, but Pizza Hut needs to be on the receiving end of one for this. Sam Swicegood, college student and pizza delivery man in Maryland, defended himself against attackers while delivering pizzas. His mistake: He used a "weapon." To show him their moral support and compassion, Pizza Hut demoted him.

The trouble began as Swicegood tried to deliver pizza. He said he was "sucker punched" and his glasses flew off his face. Dropping the pizzas, he swung a piece of a tent pole he had up his sleeve.

“It’s a little fiberglass [rod] I had up my sleeve not thinking I would actually have to use it but more or less having a little comfort up my sleeve,” recalled Sam. Swicegood faced five attackers and said those odds “is just not a good situation to be in.” The rod is part of a tent pole, he explained, and it might have saved him from being more seriously injured. Hat tip to Freedom Outpost.

Swicegood said he was attacked previously, "so before he got out of his car, he grabbed something to protect himself," reported Fox News Balitmore on Dec. 28. Fox News also said that one of Sam’s co-workers was held at gunpoint last month and robbed "in the same area Sam was attacked; luckily in Sam’s case police arrested 3 out of 5 of the individuals - all of which are juveniles."

Pizza Hut: Now crap in my eyes.

Pizza Hut's outrageous reaction to Swicegood protecting himself: They demoted him, making him a cook earning less money than as a driver. Why? Because he violated Pizza Hut's no-weapon policy that forbids drivers from being armed.

Comment:  Suppose, instead of the tent pole rod, Swicegood hit his attackers with a pizza box? Those boxes are stiff and have sharp corners. You could take an eye out with ont. Could a Pizza Hut box be considered a weapon? After all, any solid object could be used as a weapon. A ball point, for example, is not a "weapon" until it is intentionally plunged into somebody's throat. 

Sam Swicegood deserves to work for a better employer. Here's a link to his resume. Additionally, there is a Facebook group now called "Support Sam Swicegood," so please check it out, "Like" it and share it. And the next time you want to go out for pizza, forget about Pizza Hut. At the Facebook page, somebody wrote the following:

Keep the pressure on Pizza Hut to reverse their silly decision to demote someone for protecting their life while delivering their product. I am not saying they need to be armed, but if in the course of defending oneself they pick something up to use as a defensive instrument, they should not be demoted or fired.

Pizza Hut Corporate Office Headquarters
14841 Dallas Parkway 
Dallas TX 75254
Phone: 800-948-8488

The Cruel Boycott Of The Gulf Coast

I’ve never heard of an accidental or unintentional boycott, but the five southern Gulf Coast states are suffering under one right now. The causes are different, but the effects of shunning those states is at least as devastating as the boycott of Arizona. By now, we’re all aware that some people are calling for a boycott of Arizona because of their recently passed immigration laws (SB 1070, modified by HB 2162). Those who want the boycott of Arizona feel that the state's law is unfair to Hispanics and Latinos. I don’t agree with their position, but confess that I understand their motivation: Harm Arizona to force them to comply with their wishes. The people who are shunning Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida don't have that kind of motivation. Rather, their own thoughtless selfishness is causing them to, in effect, punish them. Whether it’s a boycott of Arizona or a boycott of a business, boycotters always have the motivation of, and intention to, send a statement of disapproval by means of economic punishment. Yet, nobody disapproves of the Gulf Coast states. They disapprove of the BP oil spill that is making them victims. By shunning those states, the victim is being punished. Since the BP oil spill, tens of thousands of people have decided to not vacation in the coastal areas of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida because of their irrational fear of the BP oil spill. Many people who have vacationed there for years are going elsewhere, and many others who have never been to those states are doing the same. Although it’s not literally a boycott, the harsh effect is the same: Economic hardship caused by business lost. The drop in tourism to the region amounts to a massive, tacit boycott of states, businesses and hard working residents. Stephen Perry, president of the New Orleans Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau, proposed the $500 million figure as a reasonable sum for lifting tourism in the Gulf states. He did not say whether the money should come from the $20 billion escrow fund for damages that BP promised at the urging of President Barack Obama. The city of New Orleans has asked BP for $75 million to use for marketing. Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have sought $55 million from BP in a joint request from SouthCoast USA, a nonprofit trade association that helped revive tourism after Hurricane Katrina. More at Huffington Post... Compare that with the meager $250,000 that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has approved in state funds “for a marketing campaign to help her state combat its negative associations with illegal immigration and its controversial new immigration law.” Source: CBS News The oil spill in the Gulf, of course, is different from Arizona’s immigration law in many ways. The spill is a natural disaster. The illegal immigration problem is a legal disaster. Whereas SB 1070 will be the law in every square inch of Arizona when it takes effect on July 28, the oil spill is affecting a relatively tiny percentage of each of the five Gulf states. The spill, in fact is affecting less than one percent of the entire area of any of those states. If you visit Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama or Florida you will find many wonderful attractions that are completely untouched by BP’s rogue oil. There is more to do in any of those states than just walking along the ocean beach. There is freshwater fishing, for example, in beautiful inland lakes, streams and rivers - all untouched by the oil. Hundreds of historical sites beckon throughout the South, and there’s incredible cuisine even without some of the local saltwater varieties available. A number of the best golf courses in the world can be found down there. I can’t list all of the thousands of wonderful things to do in those states, but it seems a shame that so many people have such limited imaginations that they didn’t figure this out for themselves before deciding to cause additional economic harm to the hundreds of thousands of innocent Gulf Coast residents. The opposite of any boycott is a “buycott,” where people who support the target of those opposed to its policies. The five Gulf Coast states need a buycott. Those who support an “Arizona Buycott” should also consider a “Gulf Coast Buycott.” There are tens of thousands of Americans there who need your tourism dollars, and would love to see your smiling faces. Finally, a note of irony: Many of those who call for a boycott of Arizona because they say SB 1070 makes the state “dangerous” for illegals. They don’t take into account, however, the fact that Phoenix became the “kidnapping capitol of America” because of illegals involved in criminal activity. SB 1070 is an attempt to curb the kidnapping and other crime in Arizona. Meanwhile, the boycotters are silent on the virtual narcotics-fueled civil war in Mexico, a nation whose own civil rights violations are legion. RELATED: Task force urges campaign to clarify law, reassure tourists that Ariz. is 'safe and welcoming' Washington Examiner BP oil spill: Florida tourism suffers, 4th of July gloomy... Examiner.com Oil Spill Economic Recovery Task Force (Florida govt site) Texas tourists arrive to back SB 1070 azstarnet.com Revised text of Arizona immigration law (SB 1070; HB 2162) Tucson Sentinel Arizona tourism damaged by SB 1070... New York Daily News Louisiana Attractions LouisianaVacation.org Alabama Tourism Department Louisiana Office of Tourism State of Florida Travel Information State of Texas Tourism

James Meeks: No Annenberg Challenge

So, Illinois Senator James Meeks, a radical priest from Chicago's south side, continues with his boycott threat against the Chicago Public Schools. They plan to bus students from poor areas of Chicago out to wealthier suburban school districts and register the students there. (State law allows this but, ironically, we still can't get school vouchers for our students.) Meeks and other religious leaders say it is unfair that schools are not doled money equally. But that's not the point of this post. Rather, my point here is to highlight the hypocrisy of the Left and the supporters of the Meeks Boycott. Barack Obama, a product of the corrupt Chicago-Cook County Democrat Political Machine, joined forces with the Annenberg Challenge several years ago in a proclaimed effort to "fix" the Chicago Public Schools. They got $500 Million with which to accomplish that stated goal. They have not succeeded. Meeks is not asking his friend Barack Obama for any of that money. Obama hasn't offered any of it. What actually happened with the half billion dollars remains a mystery, compounded by the secrecy surrounding it and the fact that the Annenberg Challenge (run out of the University of Illinois-Chicago) was co-founded by an Obama buddy and unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. When three of Chicago's most prominent education reform leaders met for lunch at a Thai restaurant six years ago to discuss the just-announced $500 million Annenberg Challenge, their main goal was to figure out how to ensure that any Annenberg money awarded to Chicago "didn't go down the drain," said William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers, who was at that lunch table in late 1993, helped write the successful Chicago grant application. [Source...] The Annenberg Challenge was "announced in December 1993 at the White House, Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg's $500 million "Challenge to the Nation" became the largest public/private endeavor in U.S. history dedicated to improving public schools." [Source] Half a billion dollars, folks, of government grant money. But the socialist wealth redistributors, like Meeks, plan to go to the suburbs and attempt to steal their classroom space and their tax dollars for their own use. The only difference between this and a full blown communist revolution is that Meeks and Company will (a) not use weapons to achieve their goal and (b) the use of buses will be anything but "green," and we all know that good communists would never do anything to harm the planet. The Annenberg Challenge web site has the audacity to make this claim: Chicago Annenberg Challenge contributed groundbreaking research to the field of education concerning how to improve schools. By offering support through professional development and technical assistance, teaching and learning improved, the quality and quantity of professional development increased, and the community became more knowledgeable and better equipped to create successful school reform. [Source] That's an incredible piece of fluff, hyperbole to the max. HAVE WE SEEN real improvement in the Chicago schools? We have not. If we had, would Meeks be pursuing his desperate boycott gimmick to highlight the fact that Chicago's public schools are woefully failing? Anger is building in the suburban communities. An angry reader of the Daily Herald wrote on August 23, "Get off your duffs and stand up and make yourself heard by saying 'NO' to Sen. Meeks and his group of church leaders. Keep our higher tax dollars where they belong... in our own suburbs for our own children and let the tax dollars that Chicagoans pay go toward their own children's education." [Source] Where is "leader" Jesse Jackson in all of this? Nowhere, really, but then Jackson has become marginalized of late. The Chicago Tribune noted this recently: The boycott is the brainchild of the Rev. James Meeks, a former Jackson protege and state senator who straddles the worlds of politics and church-based activism just as Jackson once did. Jackson has mostly steered clear of the boycott, an issue that has divided Chicago's African-American community, with some arguing that the stay-out-of-school message is confusing and unwise. [Source] The angry reader, quoted above, has a point. Meeks and his follower claim that the suburbs should open their classrooms to kids from the city based on the fact that suburban communities (some, not all) spend more per student than CPS does. Okay, so let's follow that logic all the through. Some cities spend more per person on some services than do others, so should people from Rockford, for example, be bused into Chicago to enjoy services here that you and I pay for with our tax money? What about states? States fund different things at different levels. And so on. People in Wilmette generally spend more per child on clothing, automobiles, ice cream, comic books, and a myriad of other things. Should we bus inner city Chicago kids to Wilmette to claim their "fair share" of those things, too? To follow the Meeks philosophy to its ultimate conclusion would result in chaotic reshuffling of people to gain access to services paid for by others. It would require a lot of buses burning a lot of fossil fuel.