Jump to content

AtticaFlinch

Full Member
  • Posts

    2,099
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Everything posted by AtticaFlinch

  1. This is the one point I have a contention with, not because it's not true as for all I know it could be true, but because no one should be surprised anymore when a massive corporation tries to cut costs. That is, after all, the goal of a corporation. To increase profit, corporations must either increase revenue or decrease costs. Playing with health insurance, reducing corporate contributions - or eliminating it altogether - has been a common step for many corporations. With as many people as are in the employ of Walmart (1.2 million in the US alone), health insurance is doubtless going to be one of Walmart's largest controllable expenses - that and overtime. With that many employees, eliminating overtime and cutting health benefits could save them billions of dollars annually, which helps to ensure that I can get my value priced porkchops in bulk without having to concern myself with whether or not I can afford to put fresh diapers on my child. The point is, this behavior is not unique, and this sort of thing isn't Walmart specific. With the new healthcare law as currently in place, a number of corporations, some thought respectable previously, have mulled options to cut employer subsidized programs in favor of the government imposed penalty. Companies like AT&T, John Deere, Caterpillar and Verizon have seriously considered just dropping healthcare altogether. In other words, you aren't mad at Walmart. You're mad at an economic system that allows companies to act unethically in order to remain competitive with other companies acting unethically. You're wasting your breath protesting a Walmart. Even if you were successful in preventing a Walmart from building in the (near) Heights, it won't solve anything. It's like putting a band-aid on a dismembered arm. What you want is massive corporate reform. You want reform of the nature that will prevent companies like Walmart from doing the things you find so reprehensible.
  2. Well then, perhaps you can explain where you got the word spite to describe the position of those not opposed to the Walmart rather than spend your time responding directly to me. As it is, going forward, I'll let your own words respond to your remarks. I won't bother thoughtfully typing out replies as it clearly *yawn* takes too much of my time and I don't want it to be construed as in anyway personal - regardless of the fact I may (or may not) have made it so. If you try to call me to task on it in the future, I'll just claim it was an "opinion" and feign incredulity that you were annoyed or offended at something that was so clearly not directed at you or anyone who shared the same viewpoint that I criticized. If I call all people stupid for holding a thought that I disagree with, and if you happen to be one of those people who I'm supposedly calling stupid, just take a chill pill, because I'm not specifically calling you stupid. I won't ever do that directly. Passive-aggressive comments are a much more effective way of getting that across, amirite? Well had I known you would take it so personally I would have included a disclaimer. Wow. Project much? Now THIS is a good example of framing and mischaracterization, right on cue. Thanks for a good laugh!
  3. I hate Walmart as much as the next guy, but I'm pragmatic about the fact I need to shop there from time to time. Let me put it to you this way, I use Walmart as a last resort always. It's not my first choice retailer, but sometimes I have no other choice. Either I can shop at Walmart or either pay too much for something or go without. I'd love to tell you I can afford to make all my financial decisions based on my personal ethics and political beliefs, but that's not the case. If shopping for my pork chops at Walmart means I can take my family, including my 7 year old stepson, to see Toy Story 3 this weekend versus sitting at home with our thumbs up our butts, I'm going to shop at Walmart. It's pretty simple math and not an opinion. When you live on a budget, sometimes you have to make choices you find personally detestable in order to satisfy others around you. This isn't spite. This is simple economics, and fairly understandable at that. I do on a number of things, but I don't know how calling your characterization of all those not opposed to a new Walmart as being driven by "spite" hyperbolic reflects me projecting at all. Perhaps you and I are using different definitions of the word hyperbole. So you know, I'm using it to reference heightened exaggeration. Perhaps you could provide a different definiton to help me understand your position. Now THIS is a good example of framing and mischaracterization, right on cue. Thanks for a good laugh! I don't see it. Please explain. What have I mischaracterized here that's so hilarious?
  4. Currently Dunvale is the only reasonable choice Walmart for inner-loopers, and when I lived in Greenway, without traffic, that journey took at least 20 minutes one way. Unfortunately, as I work for a living and don't like being inside of Walmarts, particularly that Walmart, at 3 am, I had to share my road space with other people... which made my drive considerably longer. When I lived in Montrose, at minimum an additional ten minutes was necessary for the one way trek to low price territory. I'd have shopped at the Meyerland location more often, but I hated getting in and out of the parking lot there. I really don't see what the big problem is. This is Houston, not Bumfart, Massachusetts. There are more than enough people here who will continue to shop at the smaller, local retailers. All that's happening now is the people who would spend their Walmart dollars in the Heights location are apending it in Dunvale or Meyerland, simultaneously increasing traffic congestion and, by default, air pollution. In other words, building a Heights Walmart will help to save the environment.
  5. You can't help your dreams. I once had a dream that I was having a conversation with a rabbit who wore a top hat and a monocle. And I was on stage in my high school auditorium. Wearing only my underpants.
  6. That's one way to frame it. The quality of life issue does seem to be the primary point of contention for one side, but spite is an askewed mischaracterization of those arguing from the other side. I think convenience and price would have been a better description, but I know that would have interfered with your love of hyperbole. It's happened before. Usually there's more in consideration than simply that a handful of people hate Walmart (ie. ecological or cultural concerns with the construction site). The vocal minority doesn't have the right to dictate the lifestyle for everyone, and when it comes to Walmart, if they think they'll be able to turn a profit, they'll build the store.
  7. I just got home from grocery shopping with the family at Walmart. No one cares much on 1960 though. And before anyone asks, no, none of us were raped or robbed in the parking lot. That could have been due to the torrential downpour going on while I was loading the trunk though. Everyone knows criminals fear the rain.
  8. Because you'll use it too. People always do. And not just you either. As the only inner loop Walmart location, people of all sorts of income brackets will drive in or ride a bus to use it. The Heights is centrally located and not a dangerous neighborhood. It's a pretty obvious choice for any major retailer to set up shop. Plus, it has the added benefit of having the Target in close proximity increasing consumer choice and competition. And don't get me wrong. I hate Walmart. I can't stand the place. I always feel like I need a shower after I leave one. It's obvious the employees hate their jobs. It's obvious the company promotes unethical business practices to keep their prices low. I hate that in their first foray into Mexico, they built a store practically atop the archaeologically priceless site of Teotihuacan. I lived in Austin when they built on the environmentally sensitive Barton Springs watershed despite thousands of protests from residents. I hate that all new Walmarts are built with a McDonald's in them as there's one company I like less than Walmart, and it's McDonald's. Yet, I can't not shop at Walmart from time to time. When you're on a budget or pressed for time, it's the best shopping option, even if it leaves you feeling unclean.
  9. What the heck is going on at Wimbledon?!

  10. Well, most likely, if it's going on a lot sized for an HEB similar to the one on Buffalo Speedway, this lot will only be able to contain one of Walmart's high-end grocery concept stores. I doubt it'll bring in all the riff-raff associated with normal Walmarts.
  11. Yes, it's gross. That said, the pork chops I bought at Walmart on the way home from work tonight were delicious. (The chorizo pizza will have to wait till the weekend. I don't want to subject my coworkers to the next day madness.)
  12. Is it a war if it appears only one side is on he attack?
  13. Not to mention, a poorly-built woodframe house is a bit tough to get sentimental about. It's not just that Houstonians are a bunch of troglodytes who aren't concerned with their history. Just because it's old doesn't mean it needs to be preserved. An area like the Heights needs to judge these on a case by case basis. Or better yet, let the owner of the house decide.
  14. This math fight is fun and all, but really, why can't we find some way to capitalize on the structure? Why should it stand if it's never going to be used again and costs money, regardless of the exact formula used to estimate the costs? I'm a fan of preservation, but frankly Niche, I'm surprised you'd advocate keeping the structure without a definite plan for it. "Because we may one day find a use for it," doesn't sound like the results of the practical cost/benefit analysis you typically apply to most situations.
  15. We can start by passing a city ordinance requiring women to wear sensible shoes to the bars. If the city can mandate air particulate requirements within the bars, surely it's no stretch for the city government to mandate dress codes as well.
  16. Lockmat, it's because you're using Netscape 1.0 as your browser.

    1. lockmat

      lockmat

      Using the same old browser, Chrome...it was like that just for a little while.

  17. This is all very fascinating. Is there an online database for the directory info and the map?
  18. I too am a proud Laker hater.

  19. I considered this possibility too, and the only reason I dismissed it is because I thought those historic cable cars only took real currency and not tokens. Edit: Not to mention, if there was a token, wouldn't it be specific to the rail line, and not to one of the destinations on the rail line? Anyhow, check out this photo: Link
  20. I could be completely off on this, but I'm betting this is a turnstile token. In the 1910s-30s, it wouldn't have been unheard of to make these from a copper alloy. If this is the case, that narrows the search to places named Eden Park that were open in the early part of the last century that would have had a need for turnstile tokens. And, the only Eden Park I can find that fits that description is the rugby stadium in Auckland, New Zealand. This is just a wild guess though. I'd really like to see what the other side of the coin looks like before I state that with any sort of confidence.
  21. Can we see the other side of the coin? Also, in what context was the coin located? Was it buried? On the surface? Next to anything else? So far, I'm thinking this is not local and probably not even from the US.
  22. My curiosity is thoroughly piqued. I'll check my historical coin books when I get home. (Yes, I have those. I used to do some historical archaeology too.) Something tells me this isn't local though. The greenish oxidation would lead me to believe it's a copper or a heavy copper alloy coin. Is that correct? Or, is that just odd colored dirt? Copper's awfully high-end to be making carousel tokens out of.
×
×
  • Create New...