Latest news with #Shakey's
The Drive
24-07-2025
- Automotive
- The Drive
Tesla's Los Angeles Diner Is a Trojan Horse and a Wake-up Call
The latest car news, reviews, and features. The recent news cycle hasn't been kind to Tesla. Sales are down. Its CEO is locked in a pissing match with the most powerful office on Earth, and its investors are starting to wonder whether its leadership can rise to the moment. And yet, somehow, in the shadow of all that, it seems Tesla actually launched something new for once. Too bad it's not a car. Tesla's newest venture is billed as a 'diner and drive-in,' and its location on Santa Monica Boulevard (where a Shakey's previously stood) reveals it for the suburban eatery and retail destination it is, rather than the convenient service it could be. Under pressure to turn tables and actually make money, Tesla is using congestion fees to pressure its customers into spending less time loitering on the premises. What began as a fancy charging concept is instead a fast-casual, quick-turn restaurant in disguise. True to its 'drive-in' label, customers can send in their orders directly from their cars and be served upon arrival. The smart kitchen even queues up their tickets by driving distance, prioritizing those who will show first, and waiting to fire meals for those driving long distances to keep them fresh—and get existing customers out the door to make room for new ones. The optimization of it is very on-brand in the casual sense of the term, but what does it actually do for Tesla? We've seen such things before, after all. Superchargers made sense, certainly, but then came the tunneling operation, followed by the flame throwers and the tequila. Teslas were going to be the subway, now they're competing with Subway. The F-? And I can't help but ask, what does any of this have to do with selling Cybertrucks? Sure, a marketer could put some English on the notion of offering exclusivity, but Tesla's shilling the basics here, not high-end fare. On top of that, nothing about this concept is new. The truck stop as a concept has existed since the end of World War II. Even if we exclude America's ubiquitous rest stop food court, smaller-scale operations such as Wawa and Sheetz have been churning out made-to-order meals while its customers fuel up for decades. Some of their locations even offer something resembling a rudimentary dining room. The only difference is that neither enjoys the vertical integration of Tesla's approach, where they're selling you the car, the fuel, the snacks and the company line—all in one neatly wrapped package. But above all of that, it's a revenue stream, and one that couldn't have come at a better time. Revenue growth from simply selling cars is becoming a trickier proposition for Tesla, whose sales volumes have been in decline longer than company investors would like. With federal EV incentives going away later this year, Tesla stands to make even less money on each car it sells. Hamburgers it is, then. But at what scale? View this post on Instagram A post shared by 30 Rock (@30rock) As an attraction in Hollywood, the Tesla Diner may well succeed. But as a caricature of an actual service model, its need to turn tables outweighs any fealty to the community it was ostensibly built to serve. There's no room here for R&R it's all about ROI. Tesla owners are already 'hacking' this by showing up with their batteries as close to depleted as possible, extending their visits without risking penalties for overstaying their welcome. So why, in a nation where entire industries have formed around making money off mandatory fuel-ups, are so many people pretending that empty parking lots full of fast chargers are the way to go? America is the land of Buc-ee's and roadhouses. We were doing this nonsense back while Europe was still busy shooting at each other. So why have we gotten so bad at it? When I look at Tesla's cars, I see good ideas wrapped in questionable packages. Its Diner is no different. There's a kernel of genius buried in there somewhere, but it lacks the proper environment in which to thrive. Here's hoping somebody else can seed it, and finally put the 'rest' back in 'rest stop.' Got a tip? Send it our way at tips@
New York Post
10-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
No politics in the pulpit — IRS rule change will ruin reverence
The Internal Revenue Service announced on Monday that it is overturning a restraint on churches and other houses of worship that was supposed to keep them from endorsing candidates for political office. The root of the ban extends back to 1954. Then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson of Texas was running for re-election and faced a primary challenge from a wealthy rancher and oilman. A nonprofit conservative group published materials that recommended voters support Johnson's challenger. In what many believed to be retribution, Johnson introduced an amendment to Section 501 (c)(3) of the IRS code, prohibiting organizations that are tax-exempt from trying to influence political campaigns. Many took this as an attempt to muzzle preachers. But the measure was rarely, if ever, enforced. Many liberal preachers, both black and white, invited mostly Democratic candidates to their services close to elections, giving them tacit, if not outright, endorsements. Their tax-exempt status was never canceled, whether they preached against the Vietnam War or in favor of civil rights. On one level, this is a freedom-of-speech issue, but not all freedoms are necessarily worth exercising. The larger question is: who benefits the most and least from the IRS ruling? Some politicians will benefit, but churches that see this as an opportunity to jump into political waters will be harmed as they will dilute their primary mission. Besides, many churches have members who hold different political views. For the pastor to engage in partisan politics runs the risk of having some of them leave. I would. There has always been a presumption among those advocating for more political involvement by churches that members are ignorant about politics and can't form their own opinions without instructions from their preacher. Organizations — liberal, but mostly conservative — have raised a lot of money promoting a fusion between church and state. I don't attend church services to hear about politics. Neither do I wish to hear theological pronouncements from politicians, many of whom misquote Scripture or take it out of context to fit their political agendas. The mostly defunct Shakey's pizza restaurants used to have a sign on the wall that read: 'Shakey's has made a deal with the bank. The bank doesn't make pizzas and Shakey's doesn't cash checks.' That's how I feel about politics in the pulpit: Politicians and preachers should mostly stay in their own lanes. Where Scripture speaks clearly to a contemporary issue, including marriage, gender, abortion, and the wisdom found in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, I'm ready to listen. But don't let me hear who the pastor prefers in the next election. I am not without information, and neither is anyone else if they take the time to do research. Religious people have an absolute right — indeed, the country needs them — to express their views in the public square. Many of our Founders exercised that right, and the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and other documents reflected their worldview. And yes, colonial preachers frequently based their sermons on politics, praising or denouncing politicians. But that exception shouldn't create a rule. One of the reasons cited for the decline in church attendance in America is that many, especially young people, believe churches are already too political and identified with the Republican Party. For those who disagree, I quote the ultimate church-state moment. When Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, He said: 'My kingdom is not of this world' (John 18:36). That ought to be good enough for everyone to put their priorities in the right order. Cal Thomas is a veteran political commentator, columnist and author.
