dbigtex56

Just a couple of days ago, I was returning from the corner store in time to witness a young man watching his dog drop a load on the sidewalk. As he started to walk away, I said "Excuse me! Here, you can have this," and handed him a plastic bag. He gave me a blank look.

"To pick up after your dog," I explained.

"Oh. Yeah, I meant to bring a bag, but I forgot," he mumbled, and started to walk away.

"That's the point. Here's a bag for you."

"Why are you getting so excited?"

"I'm not. I'm offering you something. You respond by saying 'Thank you', and picking up after your dog."

"What the hell is your problem?"

"I just don't enjoy stepping in it."

Eventually he picked it up. Perhaps the rubbing-in-the-hair technique would have been more easily understood, but I was in a good mood...

Best line from that movie - "Son, you got a panty on your head."

My favorite: "Only if you think round's funny."

She's one of my favorite photographers, as well.

Sorry for going off-topic; have you ever read "Portrait of Myself", Margaret Bourke-White's autobiography?

Fascinating stuff.

Thought this thread deserved a bump. This project is going to have quite an impact on the surrounding streetscape.

Any renderings available?

This is really funny...

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

"I'm a maverick!!!"

I saw that last week - took me a while to find everything, and they add something new every day

Keep clicking on the door - it's hilarious!

You might not want to watch this at work if laughter is discouraged.

Marriage should be redefined for what it is the sanction of a union under God by a church and the governemnt should be out of it entirely and then if people want to contractually obligate the them to who or what they choose to have sex with then have at it

_____________________

I also defy you to show where the right to have a union sanctioned under God is written in the constitution or guaranteed anywhere at all

Interesting ideas! Have you shared your thoughts with your wife? She might be less enthusiastic about losing the rights afforded to her by the government because of her (heterosexual) marriage.

In other words, you view your marriage solely as a union sanctified by the church. Communal property, Social Security benefits, inheritance rights, medical decisions....nah. That's lawyer stuff, and The Government should stay strictly out of it. Write up your own damn contract. Your wife OK with that?

I've heard people claim that it's the homosexuals who are threatening traditional marriage; but you, sir, take the cake.

___________________

True story:

"I don't get why those homos have to push their sexuality on other people. It's not like we straight people (giving his wife's hand an affectionate squeeze) have to flaunt it. Do we, honey?", and she give him an approving, wifely smile.

I'm grateful that Sloane Gallery is preserving and sharing these photographs.

Hope they'll help in persuading people to save the Jim West mansion.

Is this the building across from Pennzoil that once had Sharper Image on the ground floor?

You are correct, sir.

That stucco, Spanish/Mexican restaurant in the 3500(?) block of Main. At least this site is now in use, as an exceptionally ugly parking lot.

That was at the northwest intersection of Main and Berry. It was last a Mexican restaurant called LaPlacca (I think). My mom worked as a bus girl there around 1949-1950 when it was Kelly's Restaurant. Like you said, it is now an exceptionally ugly parking lot.

Thanks EB.

If you have any recollections of your mom's time there, or pictures from that era I hope you'll share them. It was such a pretty building.

This is the building behind One Shell Plaza, at the southeast corner of Rusk and Louisiana with an address of 700 Rusk Street. There's been a Fed Ex office on the ground floor for the past 27+ years; otherwise at street level it's unremarkable.

Graphics in the window suggest that it'll undergo a renovation, including a rebranding as 801 Louisiana Street and a sleek Modern curved entrance. (Lord knows it could use a makeover; the current buckled sheet metal exterior suggests a worn-out 1970's refrigerator.)

The graphics are nice but frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing that entire block of Rusk between Milam and Louisiana wiped out. It has such potential.

I would agree. There is gigantic loophole in how the IRS handles religious organizations. They cannot endorse a particular candidate... but they can advocate for or against an issue. Even if that "issue" is eliminating or restricting rights of an entire class of citizens. And that's where religious organizations win: they meet every Sunday, like clockwork to meet, organize, and plot their next moves. The LBGT community, many alienated by their very churches they grew up in, do not have a similar meeting place/time... or, attend reconciling churches, that are vastly out numbered by non-reconciling religious organizations.

You make some valid points, especially about LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered) people. But, are we a community?

All we share a history of being treated badly because of our sexual orientation or identity. Despite the stereotypes there's no common thread, aside from that of abuse by the larger society. I can honestly say (without Stephen Colbert irony) that a person's consentual, private adult sexual practices no longer take precidence in my regard for individuals. "I don't see it" is fatuous; that it doesn't matter is true.

For some religous (and LBGT) people, strength comes from opposing a scapegoat instead of nurturing our better natures. For example, the gay community (that is, those who frequent gay bars) used to dread election day in Houston. There was a local tradition of raiding bars on election eve. Peoples' professional, financial and social lives could be destroyed, literally overnight. No wonder we had to unite. It was a matter of self-preservation. Now that we no longer fear HPD's wrath, complacency has replaced the outrage which united us.

For believers, it's much easier to point one's finger at "the gays" than to strictly adhere to the Ten Commandments. Anyone here read them lately? They're good. They're tough.

Nah. Let's shop on Sunday and ship Mom off to a nursing home, and find a more appealling spouse. It's The Gays who are causing all the trouble.

I'm tired of believers in cheesy religions getting a free ride.

Sky lanterns are the kind that fill up with hot air and fly away and then set fire to dry fields and roofs. If you find some for sale in Houston, don't light them up around me.

For the irresponsible...

I helped a friend replace his attic ladder in his circa 1930 bungalow.

It was a two man, two hour, two six-pack job. No one got hurt, and it works fine.

Neither of us are professionals.

Not to go off on a tangent, but this seems to confirm and fortify the need to retain IRS prohibitions against religious groups using untaxed dollars to promote their political ends.

Political Endorsements from the Pulpit

IRS Tax Exempt Information for Political Organizations

From the article:

"The short questionnaire that has appeared on the company

But a few pissed off Muslims killed a lot of folks.

I guess the folks killed by good Christians don't matter (i.e., Oklahoma City, 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, the Unabomber, the compound at Waco, ad nauseam....)

Frankly it strikes me odd that there's so few pissed off Muslims; apparently, only 20 or so, most of whom were killed on 9/11.

However, it provides a perfect excuse to put a noose, loosely, around our necks "for our own protection", and a trap door under our feet "for our convenience".

Changed title from "street lights" to "traffic lights"

(...although, there are street lights which burn 24 hours a day, which seems wasteful.)

Merged "Beware of the Monster" with exisiting thread about Mosaic. Removed "going up" from title, and moved from Going Up! to Texas Medical Center.

New Orleans Po' Boys, on South Main - now just part of the wasteland between Alabama and Richmond.

That stucco, Spanish/Mexican restaurant in the 3500(?) block of Main. At least this site is now in use, as an exceptionally ugly parking lot.

Take METRO's statements with a grain of salt.

I've attempted to corresond with METRO on several occasions. My communications were politely worded, concise and specific. Some were suggestions, some were complaints. Some were compliments on exceptional service by their employees.

I have yet to receive a reply.

Perhaps METRO values its riders' feedback. You couldn't prove it by me.

Sadly, the construction program has collapsed

"Sadly"?

Heaven forfend that more rational alternatives be explored!

This comes as no surprise.

Wal-Mart has an ignoble history of determining moral standards for its customers. Remember when they refused to carry Sheryl Crowe's album because they found her lyrics "offensive"? (Offfensive, because she correctly referred to Wal-Mart as the source of a gun used in a senseless killing.)

Cannot find a reference online, but believe it was Wal-Mart who refused to sell - pulled from its shelves - banned sales of the recording of "That's What Friends Are For", the fund-raising song for AIDS research, because the cause was too controversial.

No, you're not understanding me correctly. I am suggesting that before we push ALL new buildings up to the sidewalk, let's first make sure that it will not impact the future rail. There are not THAT many buildings abutting the sidewalk, and even fewer where they abut the sidewalk on both sides of the street in the same location. The rail may be able to work around the few buildings that currently abut the sidewalk. But, if the rail needs more ROW, and new construction restricts the amount of ROW available, rail may become unfeasible on Washington.

I'll maintain my misapprehension that I understand you correctly.

Your point is well taken; there are not that many existing buildings on Washington Avenue which would interfere with some future, wider ROW that METRO may require. Still, they would have to be sacrificed. And yes, it makes sense that we shouldn't construct buildings which are doomed to early destruction.

So far as buildings which do not abut sidewalks on both sides of the street, but might interfere with ROW..should we build a semi-permanent kink into the rail line to accommodate them?

But, if New York lost its core industry, banking and Wall Street, would its tourist draw be enough to sustain it? My gut says no.

You'd have an economy based on theater, fashion and pastrami. It would survive in faded glory; a Yankee New Orleans.

A better discussion, since zoning isn't going to happen, would be whether setbacks and parking requirements should be adjusted for the area, as is being discussed for Midtown. The short answer is yes, but the longer one involves METRO's eventual rail line that will run through the area. If the line runs down Washington, requiring additional ROW along the sidewalks, it would be counterproductive to approve pushing buildings up against the sidewalks, only to make it cost prohibitive to take additional ROW. And, if rail is pushed off of Washington Avenue because we attempted to make it more "pedestrian friendly", then we have actually achieved the exact opposite result.

If I'm understanding you correctly, we must be willing to sacrifice all of the existing buildings which are pushed up against the sidewalks if METRO needs the ROW. That's a tough choice.