cottonmather0

I live near Memorial and Gessner and I heard it. Saw some flashes in the sky too. It was loud enough to hear over the TV. It sounded a lot like the end of a big fireworks display.

That's what I thought when I figured out it wasn't coming from my backyard - that it sounded like fireworks.... but at 11:00pm on November 22?

At least now I know I'm not crazy!

Sitting in my recliner tonight, Saturday 11/22, around 11:00. The Tech/OU game just finished on the television. I start hearing banging noises outside. First I think it's the dog in the trash again, then I think someone has broken into my garage. It doesn't stop and I realize it sounds more like fireworks on the 4th of July. Mrs Cottonmather gets out of bed and comes into the room to see what's going on. We go out into the front yard and it sounds like small explosions randomly coming out of the southwest, like in the direction of the Galleria (We live in Timbergrove ~ 18th @ TC Jester).

This goes on for about 10 minutes and then ends with one really loud long rumble, then it's over. I check the Chron, I flip through all the local channels, look on the Ch 13 news which is on late after the football game. Nothing in the news and no sirens or obvious sounds of emergency coming from outside. Weird. I can't imagine there would be a fireworks show going on right now, on this date and this late at night. Maybe a substation blew up? We thought maybe an industrial facility closer to the Loop was exploding. Weird.

Anybody else hear it too? Any ideas?

PuroAztlan is bored with this election already.

I agree, this is boring, but probably not for the same reasons you think so.

You could make it more interesting by explaining why you support Obama. I understand that you apparently don't think the president should get chilly in the grocery store, but that seems like a rather scurrilous reason for your vote.

Please don't just say, "Obama is not Bush/a neocon/mean" or just use the words "hope" and "change". I could say the same things about McCain, but that's not why I am voting for him.

What POLICIES of Obama's do you support and why? Be specific.

I would be happy to respond in kind and perhaps this wouldn't be so boring, no?

Used to be that Honda was really easy to work with and Toyota told people to take it or leave it (I had a Toyota dealer laugh at me one time and say, "My best price is M-S-R-P buddy. Quit wasting my time!").

BUT, given the state of the credit markets right now, I would tend to agree with others here and say that your chances of getting Toyota to play ball are likely better than they used to be.

I'll give my usual advice and that is that your best bet is to work the phones and email and play the dealers themselves off of each other and to not go to the dealership until you have a firm "off the lot" price. There is no need to haggle nowadays and you'll be done sooner if the dealer knows he's competing with others and not just trying to wait you out. Once you are there and talking numbers, they have the advantage and you yourself will not be in your most economic and patient mindset.

You mention Sawyer Heights - what is the preoccupation with labeling dedicated upscale apartment buildings as lofts? This subject has been touched on a million times on this board, but it just makes no sense to me. Same with the complex on W. 18th @ 610. They look like nice apartments from the outside, but for crying out loud, there's an APPLEBEE'S in the parking lot. Those are not lofts! They're apartments.

Mahoney's already way behind in the polls anyway, so this is a non story. The real story here is Rahm Emanuel's attempt to cover it up, especially in light of his involvement and exact opposite behavior in the Mark Foley stuff two years ago.

You were cruising along and then you hit "a speed bump". Why?

Why the ridiculous "self-censoring" when it's not even warranted? People need to quit being "respectful" to those who do not deserve it. The terrorists who flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon were ISLAMIC TERRORISTS (not freedom fighters or misguided and misunderstood souls). And Obama is Marxist. So please, let's get back to calling things what they are.

Why try to deny it? Face it, accept it...embrace it...because "thems the facts".

Obama is what he is. Do you think debating over the shade of blue the sky is a worthwhile thing? Of course not.

Obama's ideas ARE Marxist/Socialist. I've been all through that and there's plenty of evidence online and off to support this claim -- but don't expect me to rehash it. What's more frightening though...is that we do not know the extent or depth of his Marxism...

If he gets in there, we'll find out. Of that I am sure.

A very important lesson I've learned in life is that calling names never fosters a debate, it only makes the other side mad and unwilling to listen. In that post, I did say that he has tendencies that match up quite well with Marxist beliefs, but he doesn't describe himself that way and so far hasn't described his candidacy as part of a historical struggle to overthrow the ruling class, so you run into the problem that anyone you try to have a reasoned conversation with in this country (or nearly everyone) takes the word "Marxist" as an insult when applied to them. If John McCain came out and used that word the press would start throwing around words like "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie" and "dichotomy" and "materialism" and then we would just get bogged down in a semantic debate trying to prove if he met the technical definition of a "Marxist." Why not just talk about the his policies and beliefs themselves and let the debate follow? If the title of this thread was, "I don't want Obama to raise my taxes!" you would get to skip the 50% of the posts objecting to the term and another 25% that threw insults back in return.

I agree about the "ISLAMIC TERRORIST" term, but that's how they describe themselves. Obama doesn't describe himself that way and therefore would argue the point without having to argue bigger ideas. Big difference.

In response to the OP (and in line with my sig images), I thought this was particularly good today. The author, John McWhorter, himself is liberal and black and, in my opinion, a very reasonable and talented writer:

On The Content of His Character

If Obama loses, let's please not assume that racism was the cause.

John McWhorter, The New Republic Published: Thursday, October 16, 2008

In the increasingly unlikely event that Barack Obama does not become president, Martin Luther King's dream would reveal itself as tragically unrealized 40 years after his death. Not, however, because whites were standing in that dream's way, but because of the black people standing alongside them.

Yes, black people. I find myself unable to trust that more than a sliver of black America would be able, if Obama lost, to assess that outcome according to--of all things--the content of his character.

For 40 years, black America has been misled by a claim that we can only be our best with the total eclipse of racist bias. Few put it in so many words, but the obsession with things like tabulating ever-finer shades of racism and calling for a "national conversation" on race in which whites would listen to blacks talk about racism are based on an assumption: that the descendants of African slaves in the United States are the only group of humans in history whose problems will vanish with a "level playing field," something no other group has ever supposed could be a reality.

John McWhorter is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English.

Copyright

Cottonmather, I understand your point but I don't think the paragraph really attacks Obama's argument.

I think a start would be to say "Mr. Obama, we already have an equality of chance because of a lack of an established political elite, X, Y, and Z" - This would contradict Obama's statement - it may help to look around for more context to see who he is speaking to and what he uses to support his argument. Attack these support columns and address them.

You said: "attacking a successful minority in pursuit of electoral support from the less successful majority. At some point the well runs dry and it's disturbing to think that so many people in this country think that's OK." - Are you referring to the "When they came for the A, I said nothing because of X. When they came for the B, I said nothing because of Y. When they came for me, nobody spoke up for us." ?

Which voting sites do not require ID? I think ALL ought to require ID. Voting is sacred and therefore we must ensure that people do not use ID to exclude people, but we should also ensure that as few people as possible try to cheat the system.

Vic, what I was saying in my sleep deprived / alcohol induced post on Wednesday night was that a vast majority of income taxes in the US are paid by a minority of taxpayers (25% of taxpayers pay 86% of taxes and 10% pay 70% and so on... link), so explicitly promising to raise taxes on the minority to share with the majority is a can't lose proposition for politician who only needs a majority of the votes.

"The type and formula of most schemes of philan-thropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. For once let us look him up and consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism until an equilibrium is produced by a readjustment of all interests and rights. They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion

I second the vote for Mytailor.com

You're not going to find anything custom made ("bespoke" is the term for it) for that price range. That would barely cover a single custom shirt at Hamilton's, much less a suit.

Nonetheless, for that price range you can get something decent off the rack that, unless you are a stringbean or an NFL lineman, will probably fit just fine with the proper alterations to the sleeves and pant legs. BB and Jos A Bank both have pretty good sales quite often, or you can go to a department store just about any time.

Cotton, is that any more enlightening than McCain supporters...even on this forum...railing against socialism, when McCain is proposing to buy up home mortgages at full price from lenders and renegotiating them according to their ability to pay? You know, "...to each according to need".

Is it any different than McCain supporters railing against 'out of control spending' when McCain's fiscal policies would increase the National Debt 50% more than Obama's?

Dude, I never said I *liked* McCain (although I am going to have to vote for him), I just said that I think a lot of Obama's support is for vapid and unserious reasons.

Going back to the plumber quote ("spread the wealth around"), the fact that Obama starts from the assumption that "the people behind you" are unable to succeed on their own is antithetical to my personal beliefs and should be to anyone who has studied the history of this country and understands the reasons its economic success over the years. This country is different BECAUSE we don't have an institutionalized upper class or a landed gentry and success is available to anyone. Not everyone is going to succeed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't prevent everyone from succeeding by redistributing the results of their labor.

Here is the full quote:

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama said. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance at success, too."

This is AMERICA. By definition everyone already has an equal chance at success. Inequality of outcome does not mean that not everybody had an equal "chance" so why does the outcome need to be changed? I'm not saying that there isn't more that can be done to improve everyone's chances, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of someone else's outcome. This is what bothers me about the whole trend in this country, recently in my personal perspective but really historically since the end of the Civil War, of attacking a successful minority in pursuit of electoral support from the less successful majority. At some point the well runs dry and it's disturbing to think that so many people in this country think that's OK. There's a very good book about that very subject.

I will be the first to agree that a massive percentage of the electorate, perhaps 90% or more, is comprised of morons voting strictly on the letter at the end of the candidates' names. This is every bit as true for the GOP as the Democratic Party.

Probably so, but I'm not talking about parties, I am talking about Obama. I would argue that to blindly support a party, you would at least have to have some idea about the party's ideology and found something - however tenuous - that you agree with to gain your support. My argument about Obama is that there are many people who simply see having a young black president as a desirable thing, regardless or politics or ideology. I'm not saying that they don't desire his election for no reason or unthinkingly, just that they support him for reasons not relating to the more legitimate issues that should be considered when choosing a president.

Nor am I saying that all of Obama's supporters feel this way, I just get the feeling based on poll results and Obama's relative popularity compared to older white Democrat politicians with similar politics that a very large portion of his support is for reasons other than his ideology.

I don't think this is necessarily the same thing as voting for Tom Delay or Rick Perry just because they're Republicans. It's similar, but not the same.

This thread is exhibit number 1. But, just as the GOP cannot rely on true conservatives to get elected, neither can the Dems rely on intelligent liberals or centrists. There are simply too few intelligent and principled voters on either side to gain a majority of the vote. So, what do they do? The GOP tries to lure the greedy rich with promises of tax breaks, and fills in the gaps with with morality plays on abortion, gays, 'evil doers' and religion. The Dems try to paint the middle class and poor as victims of the rich.

Depending on the climate, the moderates will identify with one group or the other. This year, it is hard not to feel significantly more poor than in past elections. McCain, and other Republicans, are hard pressed to paint themselves as friends of the middle class when they've been as such fiends of the rich in the past. Given the percentage of voters who do not research the issues and candidates, but instead get their info from cable news and talk radio, neither candidate can expect to win on the truth. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the Dow is a better predictor of the winner than the debates.

The fact that morons are also voting for Obama does not does not dilute the research that I have put into my vote. The fact that morons are voting for McCain does not dilute your decision to vote for McCain. They simply make the forum more fun to read.

I dunno. I hear what you're saying, but it still bothers me that we treat voting so flippantly in this country under the ironic pretense that it's a sacred "right" that cannot be abridged so we do nothing to protect it: not asking for ID, making it as easy as possible to register (multiple times, even), and tripping over ourselves to encourage the least informed and uneducated among us to participate. Yes, there are thoughtful people on both sides, but this system we have is screwed up because we end up having to pander to ignorant people who shouldn't have a vote in the first place. Granted, McCain is a special case this year among Republicans (which isn't the same thing as being conservative), but if you are so uninformed and/or ignorant to not have a clear preference this late in process, then your vote isn't going to be a thoughtful one. Why should that vote still be as valuable as that of someone who actually does care enough to have a formed a thoughtful opinion over time?

Why do we have to pander to these people by promising to give them things they haven't earned or playing to their religious and moral beliefs?

I guess we are saying the same thing.

Yes, this is Howard Stern, so feel free to point out that it's obviously selectively edited (surely these aren't the only people he talked to) and the language is going to be bad, but it's also supportive of the OP, fwiw.

All of you Obama is a marxist posters are complete MORONS.

Are you not paying attention to what just happened in our country under a supposedly "conservative" Republican administration? Did you not see that your Great White Hope (McCain) voted for the bailout bill?

We are for all intents and purposes nationalizing banks. We're creating a czar to oversee the security exchange and infusing public money into all sorts of supposedly private ventures. We are even buying private property (mortgages). The big bad marxist revolt has already happened and it looks pretty much like the country we've been for decades already!

You nutjobs sure are amusing.

Nutjob? I hope you're not including me in that group.

What part of not wanting to vote for Obama implies that I approve of what's happening now? I support George Bush because I think he's an honorable and decent man with good intentions and a clear sense of morality, but he's done a terrible job as president the past couple years, this current situation included.

As far as voting for McCain, I can't stand the guy and I think he's running a terrible campaign but he's the lesser of two evils at this point.

I was a Fred Thompson man, myself, during the primaries, and he would be absolutely eviscerating Obama at this point in the debates. But given the current banking situation I think Ron Paul (who I respect a lot) and his constant harping on the Fed and money supply has proven himself to be the most prescient and serious of all of the candidates.

I think his question was pretty clumsily constructed, but he's dead on right that there are many people - of all races - who are voting for Obama solely because they're married to the "coolness factor" of having a young black president in the white house and either don't know or don't care about his politics (which are nothing special in terms of leftist economic populism - his comment yesterday about "spreading the wealth around" was about as telling as could be).

There are also many people - and I know a couple personally - who are NOT voting for Obama solely because he's black, although I would argue that segment is not nearly as large as most Obama supporters try to claim it is.

Couldn't get any takers on the "throw them in jail" title?

Funny stuff.

is being a lobbyist considered a real job?

Sure, it can be. There are plenty of people who are career lobbyists who have spent their entire career in Washington or Austin or wherever whose job it is to know the ropes and how the things work/get done in the system and they sell their expertise to others. It's in the 1st Amendment, even. I don't have anything against that.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with the question - Chris Bell went to work for a Washington firm last year after he didn't win the gubernatorial election, and then 14 months he's running for office again in the state house race. I have two comments:

1.) Most politicians retire to a lobbying firm after actually having been in office for a while where they made the connections and acquired the type of knowledge that that would be helpful in a lobbying context, and

2.) I would consider lobbying a "real job" if someone were to actually treat it that way instead of as a place to kill time until the next election comes around. In the context of Chris Bell, going to work for a lobbying firm is NOT a real job because it just fits in to my point that he is a desperate clinger to a shot at the political lifestyle and getting elected to office - ANY office - someday.

Here's the deal - he hasn't lost that many elections, but it just seems that way because he is CONSTANTLY running for one office or another. At this point for Chris Bell I would consider a "real job" to be anything outside of politics: he should go run a charitable organization or teach in a college somewhere for 10-15 years and then "come back" into politics - I think his brand and public image would improve tremendously.

I had a meeting in an office there last week. The first time I had ever been up past the lobby and it was really cool, in particular the "balconies" which I couldn't tell are usable or not (I assume not).

I didn't notice until today that Chris Bell is back, this time running in a special election for the state legislature. I swear that guy is a joke at this point with all of the different offices he's run for and lost. Oops, I forgot, he got elected to Congress a few years ago and managed to serve just one term.

Why can't some people just take a hint? Is he allergic to having a real job?

As I commented in the Chron story, he's a career politician without the career!

I need to find someone to replace all of the gutters and rotted fascia boards on my house. The storm came through and pulled the gutters off and revealed some pretty nice rot all around the roof. I can't get the existing gutters to reattach and it's better that the wood be replaced, anyway.

I have no idea how expensive or big a job like it, although I don't think it would be that bad. Our insurance settlement was way below the deductible for our policy and even if the cost of repairs is twice what they estimated it's still going to be all out of pocket.

Any recommendations?

The SNL Weekend Update take was pretty good last night:

"OJ Simpson was found guilty this week of armed robbery and stealing a lot of baseball cards... but really it was for murdering two people."

If my wife would let me, I would go collect a lot of wood for cooking and stack it in my backyard. But she's afraid of snakes.

I know a teacher in Baytown who has some extras.

How far separated do they need to be? I have two piles in front of my house right next to each other and I'm trying to figure out why none of it - even the branches - got picked up while the rest of the neighborhood did.

This was taken from my backyard around 1:15 this afternoon.

And it did indeed taken him about 15 minutes to fix the whole thing. Rather interestingly, he didn't bother replacing or fixing the arm that broke, he just stuck a new bell insulator thingie on the stub and reattached the wire. Then he reconnected some of the switches back from the transformer to the line (not sure how these work but they look like big springs) and popped it all shut and told us to go inside and see if the lights were on. They were and I offered him a beer which he graciously declined as it's probably best to be sober in his line of work.

This was not a Centerpoint crew, btw. These guys are with Dominion out of Virginia and they had crews all over Timbergrove today. I counted at least 8 different bucket trucks along with various pickups and other vehicles cruising the streets and pulled up in people's yards. Looks like they're getting pretty granular now with the repairs.

Not to be pedantic, and I am actually agreeing with you, but you are assuming that your neighbor is on the same grid as you. Besides, at least cotton can see some damage. My neighbors and I have inspected all of our lines, and all are up and attached. There is even power at either end of the 2 block stretch. Only the fuse on the transformers need to be reset.

Just the way it is.

EDIT: Oops, almost forgot my signature tagline. "Day 13 without power..."

Yep, our pole is the last one on the line at the end of the block and everyone upstream has their power back. All that's left are the 5 houses served by this one pole.