Simbha

CNN's Belief Blog today has a story about Pastor Chris Seay of Ecclesia Church in Montrose and his encouragement of the congregation to get tattoos depicting the Stations of the Cross. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/03/inking-for-jesus-dozens-of-church-members-take-lenten-tattoo-challenge/ Many of the readers' comments relate to the tattoos being sacrilegious. Thoughts?

It's probably true that your post was made facetiously, but I'll entertain it... I think the principal 'public' benefits that couple enjoy in our society are joint tax filing and insurance benefits. Both are for rather the same principal reason, I think: reduction of risk to a guarantor of benefits. People in committed relationships are not only bound romantically but - more importantly for the government/insurer - fiscally, as well. People in committed relationships tend to take less risk with their person or things, and their risk of financial destitution is lower. I believe these are the reasons why both government and insurers tend to charge lower fees (taxes or premiums) for their services.

I think what you're saying here is: Let homosexual couples be in a legally binding and recognized relationship and have the socioeconomic benefits of such, but just don't call it 'marriage' because that's a religion-related term. Historically, many cultures had civil marriages, so marriage is not necessarily religious in its origin. The problem that I see with what you're proposing is that, in the US, it is the State - not the Church - that grants marriage certification. Religious ceremonies abound, but they are not recognized legally in and of themselves. In fact, in most areas, the religious institution requires a civil certificate of marriage before proceeding with a religious ceremony. Furthermore, as you've pointed out, the government grants benefits to married couples that are unavailable to unmarried couples. While I don't see this is a pure equal rights issue (as many frame it) - because homosexual men and women are eligible to engage in heterosexual marriages, albeit against their character - I think that in practice it is a form of institutionalized discrimination. This would be resolved under your proposal. At that point, it becomes a matter of semantics. But, if that's the case, a similar argument could be made that any couple that receives legal recognition of their familial commitment should not be regarded as marriage unless they too have gone through a religious ceremony. I, therefore, am not a married man - because my wife and I are not religious people and were instead pronounced as husband-and-wife by a JP. I suppose we are only in a civil union.

As individuals, we understand this; collectively, however, human beings often vilify individuals who we feel have been part of our circle, only to later find that this is not necessarily the case. In Berry's case, he may be concerned about isolating his listener base if it's found that he has even set foot in a gay bar (which, it seems, has now been verified).

Well, I don't disagree with this. My statement wasn't meant to imply that this final design is to my liking - although I do like it - but instead meant to convey that I like the concept you've described, of which this is an example. It is, after all, only a concept at this stage; I'd much prefer that designs be solicited through an open competition, however.

Cool. And, here's the Skeeters' website: http://www.sugarlandskeeters.com/ Edit: Hehe... and it seems they have a sense of humor too. From their website...

I too like looking at 'nature in the city', but Hermann Park isn't that; it's a landscaped park. Memorial's a much better example of a natural setting in a city. I wouldn't at all object if this were built in Hermann.

Well, let's remember that no sport in the world is more popular - in terms of both players and fans - than soccer/football. Houston is home to a large number of latin americans, too. I'm sure they make up a large portion of the regular attendees. This is a good-sized stadium. Capacity of 22,000 puts it at #4 in a ranking of soccer-specific stadiums in the MLS - with only LA, NYC and Toronto having larger capacities. And, in my opinion, it's the best-looking of the lot.

If the Greyhound really is the problem, it doesn't seem as though this property owner/operator is to blame. All I know is that most times I've walked or driven by this property, the police seem to be around interrogating someone.

Just curious if anyone knows the status of this. Did he present the revised design to the Conservancy? Also, I'll throw in my two cents regarding the crowds at Hermann Park. I live about eight blocks away and visit the park on a quasi-daily basis. It's my opinion that the park itself is not overcrowded, even on the weekends. What IS a problem is parking, however. The park is one of the central areas of Houston, yet its parking is pretty bad. While Memorial Park is the largest urban park in the core and Discovery Green is in Downtown, Hermann Park is - in my opinion - the city's central urban greenspace. It's located at the center of the Museum District - one of the city's key offerings for both residents and tourists. I think that the park needs more parking - regardless of any future construction of this lotus-like structure or any other development.

Agreed. This is nicely done. Swing Tree is a good selection for song-choice, too. If you're intending for people to find it on YouTube, I suggest that you improve the tags, but that's not a critique of the video itself.

No idea if this is it, but CultureMap reported about the film starring Ron Jeremy... http://houston.culturemap.com/newsdetail/02-09-12-mega-porn-star-ron-jeremy-crosses-over-for-a-houston-director/

Article on CultureMap today regarding the renewal of the space. Not much information here, but it does seem as though they understand the gravity of the decision... http://houston.culturemap.com/newsdetail/02-16-12-18-25-saying-goodbye-to-the-byzantine-frescoes-menil-examines-how-to-use-the-chapel-left-behind/

Not sure. I got the data from the Census Bureau. I didn't even notice that until you pointed it out. Interesting...

This reminds me of a joke I recently heard and found funny... (Warning: This joke has political connotations.):

The Chronicle reports that the UH Board of Regents has deferred approval of the stadium site until its March meeting, to allow additional study of an alternate site - the current intramural fields. http://blog.chron.co...w-stadium-site/ The apparent advantage of the intramural fields site is that construction there would allow continued use of Robertson until the new stadium is completed. The alternate site would also allow for greater visibility of the stadium from I-45. However, this comes with additional financial costs - of approximately +$45 million (excluding costs of acquiring additional land for parking sites, etc).

I was looking at some census data this morning on city population density, and something struck me... Here's the data for Houston since 1910; note that this is for the city proper... Year -- US Rank -- Population -- Area -- Pop. Density 1910 -- 68 -- 78800 -- 17.4 -- 4529 1920 -- 45 -- 138276 -- 36.5 -- 3788 1930 -- 26 -- 292352 -- 71.8 -- 4072 1940 -- 21 -- 384514 -- 72.8 -- 5282 1950 -- 14 -- 596163 -- 160.0 -- 3726 1960 -- 7 -- 938219 -- 328.1 -- 2860 1970 -- 6 -- 1232802 -- 433.9 -- 2841 1980 -- 5 -- 1595138 -- 556.4 -- 2867 1990 -- 4 -- 1630553 -- 539.9 -- 3020 2000 -- 4 -- 1953631 -- 579.0 -- 3374 2010 -- 4 -- 2099451 -- 599.6 -- 3501 While Houston's density has increased since 1960, it was actually significantly higher before that time. In fact, even now the city has an average density that is lower than it was between the 1910 and 1950 censuses. Now, of course, the reason for this is because of the growth in the city's area - which outpaced that of the city's population - and, so, this only pertains to the city as a political unit. But, I thought it was an interesting tidbit to throw out there for you all.

This HBJ article that came out today cites a study of US Census data that indicates that only 2.57% of Houston-area commuters use public transportation. Top metro areas in the US are as follows: New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA -- 30.46% San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA -- 14.56% Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV -- 13.93% Arcadia, FL -- 12.98% Clewiston, FL -- 12.8% Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH -- 11.91% Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI -- 11.39% Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD -- 9.32% Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT -- 9.24% Elko, NV -- 8.74% Houston comes in second across Texas cities, the full list of which is as follows: Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX -- 2.61% Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX -- 2.57% College Station-Bryan, TX -- 2.44% San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX -- 2.24% El Paso, TX -- 1.85% Laredo, TX -- 1.83% Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX -- 1.56% Corpus Christi, TX -- 1.43% Victoria, TX -- 1.08% Lubbock, TX -- 0.97% The average across all US workers is 4.9%. Houston ranks 74th nationally (out of 942 markets). Austin ranks 72nd. The entire DFW area is ranked 148. The full searchable (by state) database can be accessed at the bottom of this other article.

Here's an article posted by the folks over at Swamplot today - http://swamplot.com/...vie/2012-02-10/ - regarding the area-wide interconnected bayou plan being proposed. It includes this video... By clicking on the 'vimeo' link at the bottom-right of the media player above, it'll take you to the Vimeo site itself with that video. In the suggested links, there are other videos for other cities in the country (e.g., Atlanta, Cleveland).

Nick, I applaud the initiative you're taking here, but I'd advise taking it slower - developing a site plan/scope and determining what the best way to execute is. For example, you're attempting to do something which is geared somewhat toward out-of-towners, presumably. They wouldn't really understand the differences between the areas you've used as categories on your site (e.g., Downtown, Midtown). If you're serious about putting something together, I'm happy to help guide you - but that discussion should occur outside the forum itself so we're not talking about details that are uninteresting to most of the people on HAIF. Please feel free to PM me and we can communicate offline. I agree with Niche's original posting on this matter - that you should strive to build a site that consolidates information from other, existing sites. And, it should probably be professionally designed. Again, we can talk about the details offline. I'll look for your response - either via the thread here or via PM.

Nick, it appears that Telwink hasn't been on the forum since July 2011 and is not following this thread. Your best bet is to PM them; that would be linked to their email address, which may still be active.

Well, I have no interest in building a site, although I'd be happy to support any worthwhile endeavor initiated by someone else. Anyway, there are several sites that focus on the development of new attractions for Houston - most notably ToryGattis's site, Houston Strategies.

Ah! It seems we're talking about two different things... You're referring to the construction of a site that highlights existing Houston-area attractions. I'm referring to the construction of new Houston-area attractions. Yes, I agree that the content relating to such a site would be easy to compile (especially in the way you've suggested) and that the bigger challenge - and the most immediate need - would be in the delivery of the marketing message.

Oh, I don't disagree with either point... The 3-hour remark wasn't meant to be a single session to completion; note the plural on 'sessions'. Regarding the messaging, it's absolutely necessary to capture attention - and one of the most effective ways of doing this is to first develop the appropriate messaging then communicate that through a street statement. However, this forum isn't Kickstarter. Neither I nor Nick nor anyone else is trying to sell a concept here; the purpose of these forums (to me, at least) is to discuss ideas, share opinions, and distribute information. If and when some of these ideas take on project status, then it's correct that appropriate messaging - including the right pitch - needs to be developed. Until then, I personally encourage the free exchange of ideas of any length or breadth. Edit: Well, I do disagree that content is easy. It's the meat on the bones. I'm not suggesting that developing appropriate and effective marketing messaging is easy, but content takes time and attention to detail, too. Neither is a simple thing - which is why entire careers are built focusing on one or the other.

@crunchtastic... You're not the only one on the board with a formal marketing background. I too understand the importance of a street statement or elevator pitch, but in addition to my marketing background, I also have an organizational strategy background. I understand the importance of occasional detail that is not presented in an elevator pitch. Despite what most marketing folks think, not everything in the world revolves around marketing... HAIF discussions aren't pitch sessions. They are forums for discussion, and those discussions are often required to be somewhat detailed if they're to be effectual. For example, in my large post above (#37) I reference several ideas. Even if we were to go forward with any one of these ideas, it would have to be drafted in detail and discussed. Some of those discussions would be elevator pitches, and some of them would be drawn-out 3+-hour-long planning sessions. Not everything in the world is soundbites. And, by the way -- without revealing things I shouldn't in this forum at the moment... I will simply say that, in fact, there are plenty of people who "give a ratfook" about at least some of the ideas - and I and several others are taking some steps to see that they may be realized. I won't promise anything, because these concepts are very large and many external forces can derail them; however, I will simply state that there are people with influence and money who have expressed interest in at least two of the above (#37) concepts. If and when we get to a stage when these can be comfortably revealed without putting people on the spot, I or they will do so. Until that time, it is still valid to open up discussion among a group of people (HAIFers) who have generally shown themselves to be intelligent, knowledgeable and insightful. I look forward to their (including your) continued comments.