I just had a couple updates to some old posts.
Flag Burning: When I wrote this post, I forgot to mention the other half of what I wanted to say.
While I don't think flag burning should be a crime, I think that people who hear of a protest where flags will be burned should come with forms to help the burners renounce there citizenship. If they really think America sucks so bad, then they obviously don't want to be citizens anymore. Help them out. Are there such forms?
If they are not citizens, suggest that they leave the country whose freedoms they are enjoying and yet they despise. Frankly that would go for citizens too.
Eminent Domain: Rhymes With Right has an article about an eminent domain case where the city "fairly compensated" the owner $14,000 for his property but then sold it to a developer for $60,000. Read all the way to the end and you can get the gist of why we need to be wary of corruption in our government.
Kyoto Protocol: QandO has found an article pointing out how a good portion of the first world countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol are going to fail to meet their goals. These are the countries that pooh-poo'd us for not signing but it appears that they aren't really doing anything to meet their self-imposed obligations.
This isn't an update but Arial wanted me to mention that tonight we passed up free ice cream. We went to the weekly concert put on by the city (and paid for by everyone, even those who don't go). As we were leaving, they were giving away Klondike Bars (which are apparently Kosher, or so we were told). But since we are trying to lose weight we passed it up.
That is will power.
mwz
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Flag Burning
I figured I weigh in on the subject of a constitutional amendment banning flag burning.
I think it's a bad idea because it becomes a crime of intent. Are you burning a flag to protest America or are you giving it a proper farewell? To make a law against burning cloth is silly, even if that cloth symbolizes the US. Would we make it illegal for someone to rip up a Denny's menu if they first said "This Denny's menu represents America and all the people who died defending it." Destroying symbols shouldn't be a crime. Rude, distasteful and moronic yes but a crime, no.
On the same token, I don't understand why Muslims are all pissed about the Koran being pissed on. (Did you see how I used the word "pissed" in two different ways? Now if only I could work in a drunk Brit...) That's pretty sad. My God can handle someone tinkling on His divine word, or more correctly, a book in which his word is written. He might not be terribly happy with the person doing the weeing but that's really between the pee pee man and God. As long as no one is trying to force me to disrespect God, I'm not going to get worked up over it. I figure God can handle the situation on his own.
While I'm on the subject, I don't think I could be a guard at Gitmo. They have to show deference to the koran. To me that is idol worship. I couldn't do it. I think I could pass out korans just as I could pass out any library book, but I wouldn't show it any special attention. It's a book. A book.
In summary, symbols are symbols not the real thing. Don't get them confused.
mwz
219
I think it's a bad idea because it becomes a crime of intent. Are you burning a flag to protest America or are you giving it a proper farewell? To make a law against burning cloth is silly, even if that cloth symbolizes the US. Would we make it illegal for someone to rip up a Denny's menu if they first said "This Denny's menu represents America and all the people who died defending it." Destroying symbols shouldn't be a crime. Rude, distasteful and moronic yes but a crime, no.
On the same token, I don't understand why Muslims are all pissed about the Koran being pissed on. (Did you see how I used the word "pissed" in two different ways? Now if only I could work in a drunk Brit...) That's pretty sad. My God can handle someone tinkling on His divine word, or more correctly, a book in which his word is written. He might not be terribly happy with the person doing the weeing but that's really between the pee pee man and God. As long as no one is trying to force me to disrespect God, I'm not going to get worked up over it. I figure God can handle the situation on his own.
While I'm on the subject, I don't think I could be a guard at Gitmo. They have to show deference to the koran. To me that is idol worship. I couldn't do it. I think I could pass out korans just as I could pass out any library book, but I wouldn't show it any special attention. It's a book. A book.
In summary, symbols are symbols not the real thing. Don't get them confused.
mwz
219
Monday, June 27, 2005
Power Button
Frances has discovered the power button on the cable box. She loves it. Apparently, it doesn't bother her that when she resets the cable box, it switches to channel 15 ( a local access channel). I guess she doesn't like the shows that we pick.
Yesterday, when she was doing it, channel 15 was showing a polka band. She really liked that. She would turn off the box, then turn it back on and dance for a little bit. Then repeat. It would have made her great-grandmother proud (who every week tuned into their local polka show, "Bandwagon").
The button pushing is going to be wonderful.
On a side note, I saw this page at digg. It was hard to keep my laughs from waking the baby. There is a lot of content that could eat up an evening. You have been warned.
mwz
219
Yesterday, when she was doing it, channel 15 was showing a polka band. She really liked that. She would turn off the box, then turn it back on and dance for a little bit. Then repeat. It would have made her great-grandmother proud (who every week tuned into their local polka show, "Bandwagon").
The button pushing is going to be wonderful.
On a side note, I saw this page at digg. It was hard to keep my laughs from waking the baby. There is a lot of content that could eat up an evening. You have been warned.
mwz
219
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Guilt and a Merry-Go-Round
Tonight we went to Babies-R-Us (please invert the "R" as you read that). It is really far away from our house, so we decided to eat out (which is a rare occation now that we have a child). We went to Hardee's because the closest one to our house is near the Babies-R -Us and as I said that is far away. We really like Hardee's so this was our chance to go.
We ordered Frances a Spicy Barbeque Thickburger which she enjoyed very much... Okay, that was for me (and I thought it had to much BBQ sauce). We brought food for Frances.
Now, Frances has started pulling off her bib in the middle of meals. It is really irritating and we really haven't been able to figure out how to stop her from doing it.
But tonight, at Hardee's, Arial gave Frances a "you're making me so sad" face and she stopped tugging on her bib. That was the first time that a guilt trip worked. It's an important development because it means that 1) Frances is able to understand that we have feelings too and 2) that we have a powerful new parenting tool.
Arial wanted to make sure that I marked this occation with a blog entry.
Across the street from Hardee's was a park. So, after supper we walked over to it. The park was old and so was the equiptment. It was the fun equiptment made of metal that you could (potentially) hurt yourself on (but never did). The park had those little horses that you can sit on and they rock. There were big swings (the kind that you could go high enough that it was scary to look down at the peak). There was a free standing metal slide (although it was kind of short) and teeter-totters that only used the power of levers to work. (The park that we go to near our house has this weird spring powered teeter-totter that you can use by yourself. I think it's for lonely children).
But the best peice (and the reason we went over there) was the merry-go-round. It was a real metal merry-go-round. The kind that you could spin so fast that you were afraid to jump on. The kind where there was a hint of real danger when you ventured out toward the edge. It was a little wobbly but was still being greased so it spun smooth when everyone was in the center.
There was the characteristic path around it where no grass grew. Kids were obviously still playing on it. That made me feel happy to know that not everyone was growing up today in a completely sanitary environment. There are still kids risking being tossed off a merry-go-round or worse, being drug around in a circle.
The only worry is that after being raised where everything is completely safe, they might not know that the danger is real. But I guess kids wouldn't care anyway.
So, we pushed Frances on the swing and took a couple spins on the merry-go-round. She seemed to like it. Even though she kept spining her head with the turns, there was a big smile on her face.
I hope when we eventually move that we can find a place near an old park for Frances to play in.
mwz
219
We ordered Frances a Spicy Barbeque Thickburger which she enjoyed very much... Okay, that was for me (and I thought it had to much BBQ sauce). We brought food for Frances.
Now, Frances has started pulling off her bib in the middle of meals. It is really irritating and we really haven't been able to figure out how to stop her from doing it.
But tonight, at Hardee's, Arial gave Frances a "you're making me so sad" face and she stopped tugging on her bib. That was the first time that a guilt trip worked. It's an important development because it means that 1) Frances is able to understand that we have feelings too and 2) that we have a powerful new parenting tool.
Arial wanted to make sure that I marked this occation with a blog entry.
Across the street from Hardee's was a park. So, after supper we walked over to it. The park was old and so was the equiptment. It was the fun equiptment made of metal that you could (potentially) hurt yourself on (but never did). The park had those little horses that you can sit on and they rock. There were big swings (the kind that you could go high enough that it was scary to look down at the peak). There was a free standing metal slide (although it was kind of short) and teeter-totters that only used the power of levers to work. (The park that we go to near our house has this weird spring powered teeter-totter that you can use by yourself. I think it's for lonely children).
But the best peice (and the reason we went over there) was the merry-go-round. It was a real metal merry-go-round. The kind that you could spin so fast that you were afraid to jump on. The kind where there was a hint of real danger when you ventured out toward the edge. It was a little wobbly but was still being greased so it spun smooth when everyone was in the center.
There was the characteristic path around it where no grass grew. Kids were obviously still playing on it. That made me feel happy to know that not everyone was growing up today in a completely sanitary environment. There are still kids risking being tossed off a merry-go-round or worse, being drug around in a circle.
The only worry is that after being raised where everything is completely safe, they might not know that the danger is real. But I guess kids wouldn't care anyway.
So, we pushed Frances on the swing and took a couple spins on the merry-go-round. She seemed to like it. Even though she kept spining her head with the turns, there was a big smile on her face.
I hope when we eventually move that we can find a place near an old park for Frances to play in.
mwz
219
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Two Irritations (3 of 2)
You get one bonus irritation.
I really dislike the practice of eminent domain. I understand the need for roads (and maybe schools) but I can't stand the idea of local governments taking land to sell/give to businesses.
The supreme court ruled today that it is just peachy to take homes that people have lived in all thier lives and sell them to large corporations in an effort to increase the tax base and make new jobs.
The right side of the blogosphere was all over this with condemnations. There are some great posts by QandO, Michelle Malkin and Rhymes With Right). Basically all agree that the government shouldn't take things from individuals and give them to corporations.
You would think that the left side would be angry about giving to corporations part. Both Oliver Willis and Kevin Drum are silent and Atrios gives a half endorsemnt in this entry. He says that he doesn't support the decision but:
And yet he doesn't support the Patriot Act.
[Update] Powerline has a very well thought out post on the subject.
mwz
219
I really dislike the practice of eminent domain. I understand the need for roads (and maybe schools) but I can't stand the idea of local governments taking land to sell/give to businesses.
The supreme court ruled today that it is just peachy to take homes that people have lived in all thier lives and sell them to large corporations in an effort to increase the tax base and make new jobs.
The right side of the blogosphere was all over this with condemnations. There are some great posts by QandO, Michelle Malkin and Rhymes With Right). Basically all agree that the government shouldn't take things from individuals and give them to corporations.
You would think that the left side would be angry about giving to corporations part. Both Oliver Willis and Kevin Drum are silent and Atrios gives a half endorsemnt in this entry. He says that he doesn't support the decision but:
[T]he alternative could've been a conservative written opinion severely limiting the power of eminent domain and the concept of public use, which would've eviscerated a truly necessary government power.What? I guess I should say that I also think it was a bad decision but it's better than if they would have mandated the the current residents were dragged out in the street and murdered. He seems to be so afraid of the government losing some power that he prefers to give it too much power.
And yet he doesn't support the Patriot Act.
[Update] Powerline has a very well thought out post on the subject.
mwz
219
Two Irritations (2 of 2)
The second thing I find irritating about the liberal blogs is their crying about Carl Roves statement (NYT article):
Kevin Drum seems to think that insulting liberals "is patently more despicable than anything Dick Durbin ever said". (Dick Durbin recently likened things happening in Gitmo to things that happened in the holocaust.)
I don't get it. Frank J. at IMAO.us suggested (mostly in jest) "Now, to test our power, I think we should see if we can make a groundswell of anger against something a Democrat says that's completely uncontroversial." I think that is what the Dems are trying to do.
Remember that Carl Rove is Bush's political advisor. He is supposed to be partisan. His job is to make sure his side wins and the other side loses. Given such a task, I'd bet that he would choose to work for the side that he believes in. Is it that bizarre to think that he doesn't think much of liberals.
Are liberals that sensitive that when someone shows them in an unflattering light that they whine and cry? The answer is yes, I guess.
Don't forget that it was the Dems party chair, Howard Dean who said, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for".
Check out Rhymes With Right's entry on this topic. It is very nice (plus he commented on this blog once).
mwz
219
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.Here are some examples of their hysteria.
Kevin Drum seems to think that insulting liberals "is patently more despicable than anything Dick Durbin ever said". (Dick Durbin recently likened things happening in Gitmo to things that happened in the holocaust.)
I don't get it. Frank J. at IMAO.us suggested (mostly in jest) "Now, to test our power, I think we should see if we can make a groundswell of anger against something a Democrat says that's completely uncontroversial." I think that is what the Dems are trying to do.
Remember that Carl Rove is Bush's political advisor. He is supposed to be partisan. His job is to make sure his side wins and the other side loses. Given such a task, I'd bet that he would choose to work for the side that he believes in. Is it that bizarre to think that he doesn't think much of liberals.
Are liberals that sensitive that when someone shows them in an unflattering light that they whine and cry? The answer is yes, I guess.
Don't forget that it was the Dems party chair, Howard Dean who said, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for".
Check out Rhymes With Right's entry on this topic. It is very nice (plus he commented on this blog once).
mwz
219
Two Irritations (1 of 2)
I read a few liberal blogs and there are a couple things that really bother me.
First, I'm really tired of the "chickenhawk" argument. I see it brought up all the time (although right now I can't find an example). The arguement goes that if you aren't willing to enlist and go to Iraq, then you are morally corrupt if you support the decision to go to war. It's such a stupid arguement but it's like their rallying cry.
I need food but I don't want to be a farmer. I need my sewage removed from my house but I don't want to work in a waste treatment plant. I (and my family) need to be kept safe but I don't want to be in the military. I fully support the idea of people growing food, sanatizing waste and waging war for me.
See, we have this neat little system set up where different people do different things to benifit the community. I do my job and it benifits people, in return I get "credits" that I can distribute to other people who benifit me. It's a lot like communism but with incentives. Some people (God bless them) benifit our society by fighting for us. That is their job and they are good at it. Much better than I.
Now, you can debate the virtues of this particular war (and you probably should) but to say that one position is invalid because the person presenting it doesn't meet certain qualifications is stupid.
mwz
First, I'm really tired of the "chickenhawk" argument. I see it brought up all the time (although right now I can't find an example). The arguement goes that if you aren't willing to enlist and go to Iraq, then you are morally corrupt if you support the decision to go to war. It's such a stupid arguement but it's like their rallying cry.
I need food but I don't want to be a farmer. I need my sewage removed from my house but I don't want to work in a waste treatment plant. I (and my family) need to be kept safe but I don't want to be in the military. I fully support the idea of people growing food, sanatizing waste and waging war for me.
See, we have this neat little system set up where different people do different things to benifit the community. I do my job and it benifits people, in return I get "credits" that I can distribute to other people who benifit me. It's a lot like communism but with incentives. Some people (God bless them) benifit our society by fighting for us. That is their job and they are good at it. Much better than I.
Now, you can debate the virtues of this particular war (and you probably should) but to say that one position is invalid because the person presenting it doesn't meet certain qualifications is stupid.
mwz
Night Food
So, I'm trying to get back down to my fighting weight. I've blogged about this before but I lapsed. Basically, I'm on a diet. Not a fancy schmancy one, I'm just exercising and not eating as much. Pretty simple.
I've come to notice a flaw in our culture. It's more like a bug.
In the evenings, I watch tv (I was going to say "I some times watch tv" but I'm not going to be pretentious). I'm usually mildly hungry in the evenings because I no longer snack.
Now here is where the problem lies. Restaurants like to advertise on tv and when they do, they tend to show their food. They make it look as appatising as possible. And that makes me hungry.
I don't blame them, they want to get the word out about their business. But generally, by the time prime time rolls around, I've already had supper. I'm not going to go out and get another meal just because it looks really good. So from their perspective, it isn't really the best time to advertise. All it does is make me hungry.
In a perfect world, restaurants could advertise to me before I eat supper. Then they get the plug in while I might do something about it and I wouldn't have to be reminded of food every 5-15 minutes.
mwz
222
I've come to notice a flaw in our culture. It's more like a bug.
In the evenings, I watch tv (I was going to say "I some times watch tv" but I'm not going to be pretentious). I'm usually mildly hungry in the evenings because I no longer snack.
Now here is where the problem lies. Restaurants like to advertise on tv and when they do, they tend to show their food. They make it look as appatising as possible. And that makes me hungry.
I don't blame them, they want to get the word out about their business. But generally, by the time prime time rolls around, I've already had supper. I'm not going to go out and get another meal just because it looks really good. So from their perspective, it isn't really the best time to advertise. All it does is make me hungry.
In a perfect world, restaurants could advertise to me before I eat supper. Then they get the plug in while I might do something about it and I wouldn't have to be reminded of food every 5-15 minutes.
mwz
222
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Movies
This last Saturday we took Frances to her first movie. Well okay, we went to the drive in and she didn't watch the movies but she still had a great time.
It was a nice evening so before the movies started we pulled out the lawn chairs and sat outside for a while. Frances had a blast watching all the people and looking at her new and strange surroundings. She was so very excited. It was like she knew that she was going to stay up past her bed time.
It got a little chilly so we went inside the car. Frances loved that too. She is always stuck in her car seat when she is in the car but that night she got to crawl around in the front seat. About halfway through the first movie, she finally fell asleep on Arial's lap.
The plan had been to put her in her car seat to sleep. So, at intermission Arial transfered her back into her seat.
That lasted five minutes.
It turns out that she likes to sleep on her stomache (which we knew). She found out that it is hard to roll over to your stomach in a car seat and once you get there, it isn't very comfortable. That woke her up.
Arial had to hold her the rest of the evening (until we strapped her in to go home). Arial said she didn't mind. I hope that was true.
Frances had a hard time getting back to sleep when we got home. We think she wanted to be held all night. But when she did get to sleep she slept until 9:30 so that made up for it some.
Incidentally, we saw Mr and Mrs. Smith and Star Wars III. Both were entertaining and it was a good evening.
mwz
It was a nice evening so before the movies started we pulled out the lawn chairs and sat outside for a while. Frances had a blast watching all the people and looking at her new and strange surroundings. She was so very excited. It was like she knew that she was going to stay up past her bed time.
It got a little chilly so we went inside the car. Frances loved that too. She is always stuck in her car seat when she is in the car but that night she got to crawl around in the front seat. About halfway through the first movie, she finally fell asleep on Arial's lap.
The plan had been to put her in her car seat to sleep. So, at intermission Arial transfered her back into her seat.
That lasted five minutes.
It turns out that she likes to sleep on her stomache (which we knew). She found out that it is hard to roll over to your stomach in a car seat and once you get there, it isn't very comfortable. That woke her up.
Arial had to hold her the rest of the evening (until we strapped her in to go home). Arial said she didn't mind. I hope that was true.
Frances had a hard time getting back to sleep when we got home. We think she wanted to be held all night. But when she did get to sleep she slept until 9:30 so that made up for it some.
Incidentally, we saw Mr and Mrs. Smith and Star Wars III. Both were entertaining and it was a good evening.
mwz
Friday, June 17, 2005
Big Band Music
Tonight we went to see a local big band. Our city puts on free, weekly concerts once a week. Last week was a concert band (like high school but with adults playing) and this week was a "swing" band (think high school jazz band but with adults). They were both pretty decent.
Frances loved it. She stood on our laps and danced a quite a bit. Of course by "dance" I mean bounced and wildly swung her arms. She seemed to especially get excited when a new style of music was played. It was like she would get used to a style and then it would get boring after a while.
On a side note, you can tell that your old when your favorite band comes to town and you don't even bother to try to get tickets but given the chance at a free, family-friendly concert you go no matter what is being played.
mwz
Frances loved it. She stood on our laps and danced a quite a bit. Of course by "dance" I mean bounced and wildly swung her arms. She seemed to especially get excited when a new style of music was played. It was like she would get used to a style and then it would get boring after a while.
On a side note, you can tell that your old when your favorite band comes to town and you don't even bother to try to get tickets but given the chance at a free, family-friendly concert you go no matter what is being played.
mwz
Kyoto
This post is basically to point out this post on QandO about the Kyoto treaty.
The article is about New Zealand overshooting it's greenhouse emissions. Now a good portion wants to pull out of the treaty because instead of getting money, they will have to pay into the system an estimated 1 billion dollars (I don't know if that is NZ dollars or American dollars).
From the article:
I too am glad we stayed out of it. I just wish that people on slashdot would stop posting about it.
You might want to read the QandO post too. They have a different thesis than I do.
The article is about New Zealand overshooting it's greenhouse emissions. Now a good portion wants to pull out of the treaty because instead of getting money, they will have to pay into the system an estimated 1 billion dollars (I don't know if that is NZ dollars or American dollars).
From the article:
When we ratified Kyoto in 2002 one of the reasons Hodgson gave for doing so was that not to ratify would be to set fire to "a very big cheque".It just shows the absurdity of the thing. Why wouldn't underdeveloped countries sign up when it's basically free money? Plus, they can always back out if they need to.
I too am glad we stayed out of it. I just wish that people on slashdot would stop posting about it.
You might want to read the QandO post too. They have a different thesis than I do.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Jealousy Tax
Some people like to call the estate tax the "death tax" because it is the fee that the government charges rich people for their death. I like to call it the "jealousy tax" because the main arguement that I hear in favor of it is "Why should they get all that money?".
There may be some validity to the "redistribution of wealth is good for everyone" argument, but I haven't read enough about it to believe or refute it. But since people only really care about visceral arguments (otherwise there would be no protectionists), I'm going to talk about that one.
Basically, the arguement goes like this: The children of wealthy parents didn't do anything to earn their forturne, they were just lucky enough to be born into a rich family. They didn't have to work for it (working hard is the American way). AlsoI wasn't born into a rich family so therefore they don't deserve to inherit all of their parents money. Some of it must go me. Well, the all knowing, beneficent government, at least.
We'll ignore that a good portion of the people that actually make that argument were born into middle class households and had all of the advantages associated with that (not to say that people can't rise up out of poverty, it's just harder to do). Do they feel guilty when they drive through the ghettos, to the point that they want to give away half of their stuff?
What I really want to point out is how the parents (or ancestors) must feel. They managed to build up this wealth that has others so jealous. If I was extremely wealthy, I would want my children to be taken care of. I would want to give them every advantage that I could (heck I'm not extremely wealthy and I feel that way). If I didn't want to "burden" them with the wealth, that could be my choice but I would also want the option of giving them everything I worked for (or everything I've worked to keep, as the case may be).
I think it's disgusting that people want to dig into the pocket books of other people and still want to believe that they are doing good.
Thou shalt not covet.
mwz
There may be some validity to the "redistribution of wealth is good for everyone" argument, but I haven't read enough about it to believe or refute it. But since people only really care about visceral arguments (otherwise there would be no protectionists), I'm going to talk about that one.
Basically, the arguement goes like this: The children of wealthy parents didn't do anything to earn their forturne, they were just lucky enough to be born into a rich family. They didn't have to work for it (working hard is the American way). AlsoI wasn't born into a rich family so therefore they don't deserve to inherit all of their parents money. Some of it must go me. Well, the all knowing, beneficent government, at least.
We'll ignore that a good portion of the people that actually make that argument were born into middle class households and had all of the advantages associated with that (not to say that people can't rise up out of poverty, it's just harder to do). Do they feel guilty when they drive through the ghettos, to the point that they want to give away half of their stuff?
What I really want to point out is how the parents (or ancestors) must feel. They managed to build up this wealth that has others so jealous. If I was extremely wealthy, I would want my children to be taken care of. I would want to give them every advantage that I could (heck I'm not extremely wealthy and I feel that way). If I didn't want to "burden" them with the wealth, that could be my choice but I would also want the option of giving them everything I worked for (or everything I've worked to keep, as the case may be).
I think it's disgusting that people want to dig into the pocket books of other people and still want to believe that they are doing good.
Thou shalt not covet.
mwz
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Iowa City Wal-Mart Update
Just a quick post. According to this article, Iowa City city council has rightfully approved the rezoning of the land that Wal-Mart purchased.
My favorite quote from the article is from Councilor Mike O'Donnell. He said, "If people were not shopping at Wal-Mart, then Wal-Mart would not be opening in Iowa City".
mwz
My favorite quote from the article is from Councilor Mike O'Donnell. He said, "If people were not shopping at Wal-Mart, then Wal-Mart would not be opening in Iowa City".
mwz
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Wal-Mart
I occationally like to take a look at the school newspaper from my college. It's the Daily Iowan. It is a pretty decent paper, especially if you want to keep up with what's going on in Iowa City. (I don't know why I'm interested, I just am.)
Today, I happened apon this letter to the editor. In it, a resident lets us know that it isn't too late to contact the city council and stop them from re-zoning land to allow Wal-Mart to build a super-duper store.
He says, "[W]e still must let them know that the majority of Iowa Citians do not want this abomination in our midst." Note that when I left when I was last in Iowa City, there were two Wal-Marts in the area, one of which is a super store. Wal-Mart's web page confirms that they are still there. It's not like Wal-Mart is breaking into a brand new market.
I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in Iowa City do, in fact, want "this abomination", otherwise Wal-Mart wouldn't be building it. Say what you will about that corporation but they are not stupid. I'm sure that thier research shows that this new store will be a success.
I think the situation really is that a small minority object to Wal-Mart's buisiness practices and want to impose their will on everyone. If a majority really don't want a new Wal-Mart, then they just won't shop there. They will "vote" with their money.
If this concerned resident was so sure that "the majority of Iowa Citians do not want this abomination in our midst", then he would be happy to let the store open and then close. But I think he knows that it will be different.
mwz
Disclaimer: I don't shop much at Wal-Mart, not because of any principle but because I don't like the quality of their products and our closest store is dirty.
Today, I happened apon this letter to the editor. In it, a resident lets us know that it isn't too late to contact the city council and stop them from re-zoning land to allow Wal-Mart to build a super-duper store.
He says, "[W]e still must let them know that the majority of Iowa Citians do not want this abomination in our midst." Note that when I left when I was last in Iowa City, there were two Wal-Marts in the area, one of which is a super store. Wal-Mart's web page confirms that they are still there. It's not like Wal-Mart is breaking into a brand new market.
I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in Iowa City do, in fact, want "this abomination", otherwise Wal-Mart wouldn't be building it. Say what you will about that corporation but they are not stupid. I'm sure that thier research shows that this new store will be a success.
I think the situation really is that a small minority object to Wal-Mart's buisiness practices and want to impose their will on everyone. If a majority really don't want a new Wal-Mart, then they just won't shop there. They will "vote" with their money.
If this concerned resident was so sure that "the majority of Iowa Citians do not want this abomination in our midst", then he would be happy to let the store open and then close. But I think he knows that it will be different.
mwz
Disclaimer: I don't shop much at Wal-Mart, not because of any principle but because I don't like the quality of their products and our closest store is dirty.
Friday, June 03, 2005
First Steps
Today, Frances took her first steps. She walked (a couple steps) between Arial and I. It wasn't like in the movies. I was barely paying attention. Arial was sittin in our rocking chair and was in the couch right next to it. Frances had a bottle in one hand and was using Arial for support. Then she let go of Arial and took a couple staggering steps to me and grabbed onto my leg.
It was definitely walking. It was kind of a surprise though. I don't know how anyone could get that moment on video, unless they were filming every possible attempt. There have been a lot of times this week that I thought she was going to walk but didn't. But tonight (at 8:56 EST) she just did it.
And that was that.
mwz
It was definitely walking. It was kind of a surprise though. I don't know how anyone could get that moment on video, unless they were filming every possible attempt. There have been a lot of times this week that I thought she was going to walk but didn't. But tonight (at 8:56 EST) she just did it.
And that was that.
mwz
Bloggity Blog Blog
Just about every blog I read has done a post about blogs and how they're so great. Generally, it's about how bloggers can challenge the MSM and hold them to higher standards and blah blah blah.
But I've realized a new "Great Thing About Blogs". As you can see by the side bar, a few of my friends have blogs. I really enjoy reading and commenting on their blogs because even though we are really far apart we can still interact.
I know that we could interact using email or the phone or whatever but for some reason blogging is a lot more like hanging out together. Someone just posts something they find interesting and we can discuss. The threads don't get very long but then there is always a new post to talk about it.
And that is where blogs beat email. Email correspondences tend to die out without someone tending them. If you don't have anything particular to say in response to something that can end the conversation.
But blogs are more ego driven. That's the real reason that I started this blog. I could have started a diary and gotten some of the same benifits but I like the idea that others might read it and say nice things.
Blogs are put a bit more urgency into it. I don't like to go a week without at least two posts because if I actually do get some consistent readers, I don't want to bore them away.
So, with blogs it's more like we are all just hanging out and when people want to say something, they just do. It's good to hear what far away friends are thinking about. It keeps them closer.
Plus, I'm pretty sure that we're all going to get rich with our blogging.
mwz
But I've realized a new "Great Thing About Blogs". As you can see by the side bar, a few of my friends have blogs. I really enjoy reading and commenting on their blogs because even though we are really far apart we can still interact.
I know that we could interact using email or the phone or whatever but for some reason blogging is a lot more like hanging out together. Someone just posts something they find interesting and we can discuss. The threads don't get very long but then there is always a new post to talk about it.
And that is where blogs beat email. Email correspondences tend to die out without someone tending them. If you don't have anything particular to say in response to something that can end the conversation.
But blogs are more ego driven. That's the real reason that I started this blog. I could have started a diary and gotten some of the same benifits but I like the idea that others might read it and say nice things.
Blogs are put a bit more urgency into it. I don't like to go a week without at least two posts because if I actually do get some consistent readers, I don't want to bore them away.
So, with blogs it's more like we are all just hanging out and when people want to say something, they just do. It's good to hear what far away friends are thinking about. It keeps them closer.
Plus, I'm pretty sure that we're all going to get rich with our blogging.
mwz
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Slippery Slope
I was having a conversation with a friend a couple weeks ago about slippery slopes. He was saying that the "slippery slope" argument is often overused and keeps people from compromising. His thesis was that people don't want to give even a little bit from their position because they are afraid that the new position will be chipped at too, until they have lost everything.
What he was saying made sense to me at the time (especially since we were eating at a really good Indian restaurant and that generally makes me agreable).
But then I saw this article (through QandO). Apparently, there was an editorial in the British Medical Journal that called for banning the sale of long, pointy kitchen knives. This has been around the blogosphere and back already, so I'm not going to comment much on that. (Although, next they are going to want to ban all arms... and legs, so that no one can hurt anyone else. I'll be here all week.)
This article made me think about the slippery slope conversation.
I think now that the problem isn't that people rely on the "slippery slope" argument but rather that it is a valid observation. People never argue from a situation in the past, they argue from the current position.
Put another way, let's say there is a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is one extreme position and 10 is the other extreme postion. The current policy/law/social placement is at 9.
People say, let's compromise. The position shifts to a 7.
Then when the topic comes up again, they say "7 is way to high, let's compromise to 5", completely forgetting that 7 was a compromise.
Then when the topic comes up again, they say "5 is way to high, let's compromise to 3", completely forgetting that 5 was a compromise.
The same thing happens again until it's at a 2 or a 1.
The way to shift a population is little by little, compromise by compromise.
A very easy example is dress lengths in America. At one time it was risque for a woman to show her ankles. You know where I'm going with that... I'm not going to type it.
My point is that I think the "slippery slope" is real.
mwz
What he was saying made sense to me at the time (especially since we were eating at a really good Indian restaurant and that generally makes me agreable).
But then I saw this article (through QandO). Apparently, there was an editorial in the British Medical Journal that called for banning the sale of long, pointy kitchen knives. This has been around the blogosphere and back already, so I'm not going to comment much on that. (Although, next they are going to want to ban all arms... and legs, so that no one can hurt anyone else. I'll be here all week.)
This article made me think about the slippery slope conversation.
I think now that the problem isn't that people rely on the "slippery slope" argument but rather that it is a valid observation. People never argue from a situation in the past, they argue from the current position.
Put another way, let's say there is a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is one extreme position and 10 is the other extreme postion. The current policy/law/social placement is at 9.
People say, let's compromise. The position shifts to a 7.
Then when the topic comes up again, they say "7 is way to high, let's compromise to 5", completely forgetting that 7 was a compromise.
Then when the topic comes up again, they say "5 is way to high, let's compromise to 3", completely forgetting that 5 was a compromise.
The same thing happens again until it's at a 2 or a 1.
The way to shift a population is little by little, compromise by compromise.
A very easy example is dress lengths in America. At one time it was risque for a woman to show her ankles. You know where I'm going with that... I'm not going to type it.
My point is that I think the "slippery slope" is real.
mwz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)