AtticaFlinch

No idea. As far as I know south Dallas is not exactly a corn mecca. A cotton theme would make more sense, since Texas produces 40% of U.S. cotton.

The picture right above the corn is of cotton. Or it's a shell. I don't know. It's hard to tell. It's a weird rendition.

The picture above that is a triangle, or maybe a Mason pyramid. I don't think there's really a unifying theme with the mosaics.

Link

It doesn't show it on your chart, but I've read somewhere very recently that the biggest energy hogs per capita were in Canada. I'm not suggesting that gives us a free pass to run our ACs at 65 degrees in the summer, I'm just saying that all this criticism we level at ourselves (and take from the rest of the world) should actually be leveled at our polite neighbors to the north. Turn off the light when you leave the room, eh.

I went there once for a business function. The upstairs patio has a stellar view, but despite that, it's still not enough to ever make me drink there on my own tab. If a bar employs people to park its patron's cars, it's pretty much not geared towards the chill set. That should have been your first indication that you might prefer some place like Griff's, which most assuredly does not have a dress code.

Why any western country does any business there is sad.

Because beer bongs aren't the only use for a funnel.

No bet.

That mexican joint better be SPECTACULAR(given the neighborhood FABULOUS?) to fill such a huge spot and be profitable.

Robb Walsh is a food critic at the Press.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for either a McDonald's or a funeral home. Either of those will be funny.

b4-u-eat newsletter states Robb Walsh, Bryan Caswell and Bill Floyd will open a Tex-Mex place in the Tower Theater space in Jan 2011. That's a pretty big room for a restaurant.

Ten bucks says it gets a positive write-up in the Press.

Agree completely. I don't think there's anything wrong with stating that you don't get the appeal, but to bash it seems a little trivial.

I missed where anyone bashed soccer.

Some soccer fans - and I'll stick with the general passive-aggressive tone running rampant in this thread and just stick with the word "some" - are taking this a little too personally. (As an aside, Jeebus, that's not directed at you.) It seems to me everybody who doesn't get the sport has asked for clarification in order to increase their understanding, and perhaps even to get to a point where they might enjoy it too. Some people, I won't mention names because again that's not passive-aggressive enough, just choose not to be helpful in this pursuit of knowledge. And that's ok. Some people are natural teachers and other people naturally get frustrated with people seeking knowledge.

But whatever. It's equally as fun to bjtch about people bjtching as it is to bjtch in the first place.

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.

Age discrimination cannot be an overt goal, however can often be achieved in ways that skirt the regulation, for instance by shifting to a less experienced and less costly workforce. Productivity losses are made up for by lower salary; savings from cheaper health plans are the gravy.

If healthcare was socialized, it would save jobs for older employees, and it would save me and my employer money.

Good. Problem solved.

As I already pay a bare minimum of $5,200/year for healthcare, I'd gladly give that in taxes instead. Especially if that meant I wouldn't have to worry about either of my parents getting laid off in favor of younger, cheaper employees.

Did it? I suppose that this website is just a spoof, then.

The history according to Wikipedia is that Chicago withdrew from the Big 10 conference in 1946, then reinstated football as a Division III team in 1969. Sounds like a failed experiment.

It's also important to point out that UH has several times the enrollment of University of Chicago, which is a private school.

So much for my little quip then. I guess the administrators must have taken Hank Hill's criticism of their lack of a football team seriously.

I was going to throw in MIT as the lone example of an institution of higher learning without intercollegiate sports, then I stumbled across this gem.

It appears that not only am I wrong, but that I couldn't be further from right. I suppose it's too costly to operate a university these days without the ad dollars generated from sporting events, even at top tier institutions like Chicago and MIT. Oh well, I still have a bunch of community colleges to back up my... er... point.

Damn it.

Not quite. South African Airways had IAH-JNB service circa 1983 utilizing Boeing 747SP equipment.

In 1983, flying into South Africa was more like flying into the Deep South circa 1920 than into another continent - if the Deep South had a more temperate climate and lions, that is.

Think of athletics as a subset of UH's advertising budget and as an inherent component of its market positioning. The idea is that it pays for itself (directly or indirectly) over time AND enhance the reputation and academic standing of the larger institution.

...and yes, I know that's asinine. Seems to work well, though.

It sure worked for the University of Chicago.

I love the PNW.

In the summer.

The WHO study is fundamentally flawed. It discounted the US healthcare because it did not cover everyone, and the costs were high. That is not to be confused with the fact that our QUALITY of care IS the highest in the world. If you are seeking a specialist in any area, you are seeking that person here in the United States. If you are looking for the highest quality of care possible, you are getting that here. It is unfortunate that our care is so expensive and there are lots of ways that are simple to make things more affordable but all of them revolve around the government loosening the noose around doctors necks, not tightening it as the trend has been.

I'm with you one the first part of the paragraph, but I don't follow you on the last part. I don't think deregulation is the way to go. I think setting reasonable price controls is critical.

I do purchase the healthcare for our business. We recently switched from BlueCross to Aetna b/c Bluecross was asking for a 13% rate increase (later negotiated to a 9% increase). Blue Cross is blaming the government for increased costs...at least to their customers they are. We insure 568 employees give or take, and approximately another 250 dependents and spouses. I can tell you that we pay approximately $2,200 per year per employee for our care. We cover our employees on an 80/20 plan with a $500 deductible and a $2000 max out of pocket, $1,000,000 lifetime max. Kids and Spouses get more expensive, up to the highest of about $900/month if you are family (spouse + children). BlueCross opted to not negotiate with us on our plan this time around and Aetna did negotiate. Our plan is an extremely stable plan with 53 years of experience and a year to year utilization rate of between 73 and 80%. That means on our $2,000,000 policy the insurance company is keeping between 20 & 27% of our premium.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of the cost of insurance does your company subsidize? Meaning, if you pay $2,200/year, how much does the employee pay? The reason I ask is because if I was single, or at least the only person on my plan, I'd be paying out-of-pocket that much on top of my employer's contribution... and I work for an enormous company with a ton of buying power. We use United Healthcare though, and I couldn't hate this UHC more. I loathe my health plan.

The insurance companies are charging an arm and leg b/c the hospitals are charging an arm and a leg, because we have so many people who cannot pay their bills. Adding insurance to all, certainly means more bills will be paid, but at the same time means that more care will likely be dolled out...so we risk the shortage of care issue. When the shortage starts the good doctors, will just charge more than the government pays. We will be creating a 2 tier system of care, where there currently is only one. While the poor certainly cant pay for their care now, they can still get it. What I predict we will see under the new changes, are two tiers of doctors, the good, and the ones who take government care. Access to the good will be limited to only those who can afford it. Then watch our WHO rating plummit. You will be crossing the border to get a Z Pac in Mexico b/c it will be faster and cheaper than waiting to get one here.

If you think about it, we already have a three tier system: those with great insurance, often with supplements; those with standard employer subsidized coverage which is often mediocre at best; those with no insurance. The level of care is vastly different for each tier. Ben Taub's emergency room is one of the busiest in the country, but if you have insurance, the ambulance will park next door at Memorial. If you have the best insurance, you'll probably end up at a place like Methodist. Places like Ben Taub rarely see people with insurance because the care there is so spotty. That place is a wellness factory, and they churn patients out like an assembly line. If you don't have insurance and if your injury isn't immediately life threatening, you may find yourself sitting in the waiting room for up to 24 hours. If you have insurance, you're pushed to the front of the line, regardless of how badly you've been hurt.

Also, I have no idea what a Z Pac is, but I imagine it's already cheaper and more rapidly available in Mexico than here. I won't bother to locate a source on this, but I've read/watched on TV/been told as hearsay (I don't know which) that our prescription drug prices are the highest in the world.

Having just gotten back from my grandfather's funeral and the festivities that followed, and as I prep to go to a cousin's wedding tomorrow...I'm inclined to prefer that our policy focus on satisfying those most capable of appreciating satisfaction. Life for the living! I'd rather subsidize my cousin's honeymoon than my grandfather's end-of-life indignities, his morphine-obscured reality, and even his dying breaths. If he'd had a choice in the matter, no doubt my grandfather would agree. But somebody else was picking up the tab (or rather, we had already paid for it by other means).

And yeah, I know that sounds cold. It sounds like I would support a hard limit on healthcare entitlements, that people do not have a right to healthcare even to sustain their own biological life, and...well, you can imagine all the things I might be okay with regarding human health and dignity. And yeah, what can I say? I'm not Christian. I am not bound to any de facto principle establishing the sanctity of biological life.

Sorry to hear about your grandfather. I know nobody prefers arbitrary death sentences, but like you, I'm not bound by the artificial sanctity dictates either. That's why I hope when it's my time to pass from this mortal coil, euthanasia has progressed from a political taking point to a cultural reality. When people have the ability to choose when it's their time to go, death becomes less arbitrary, and potentially more dignified. As it stands right now, if I develop some sort of terminal illness, the only option I have to not become a burden on my family or the entire healthcare system is some form of ghastly suicide... and life insurance won't pay out on that. By my figures with current law, that leaves me with two options. Either I go skydiving and remove my pack prior to the safety mechanism automatically deploying the parachute or take a trip to the arctic and get into a tickle fight with a polar bear. All other "accidents" I have so far imagined have too big a margin of error where I could survive, alive with a terminal illness and disfigured or paralyzed.

I would imagine that the health care industry would first stop charging 8 bucks for a Tylenol pill and overhead prices, where insurance can save money, and eventually we, the consumers, can get a break on the policies.

But like most things, i think it just may be wishful thinking that I will see it before *I* am planted in the ground (Sorry to hear about G-Pa, BTW).

What you mention about the labor pool shifting a bit makes a great deal of sense, though. It simply hasn't occurred to me that it would be "cool" to be a doctor or a nurse again because the money would be better.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I told my daughter to feel free to put 5 or 10 pillows on me when I start being a burden and my babysitting usefulness is over.

My health insurance costs are through the roof. Just to cover myself, my wife and my <1 year old child, I spend $5,200 per year. And a huge chunck of my insurance costs are subsidized by my employer. There's no telling how much my insurance premiums actually cost. I'd bet my employer covers anywhere from a third to half the costs which means my insurance costs anywhere from $7,666 to $10,400 per year. Not to mention, every time anyone goes to the doctor or gets a prescription filled, there's another cost associated with the co-pay. If we go to the emergency room or even so much as ride in an ambulance, the costs escalate even further. Given my wife's current pregnancy and her need to regularly visit the doctor, and couple that with my daughter's regular check-ups at the pediatrician, I figure my total personal out-of-pocket insurance costs exceed ten grand per year. And, before 2010 is out, I'll have a second child who'll be adding even more to those numbers.

The cost of healthcare is out of hand. We pay more on average than the residents of any other country for healthcare, and I suppose I wouldn't be bothered by that if our system was considered the best in the world. The WHO (back in 2000 - they no longer rank healthcare systems) has the US ranked 37th in the world in terms of healthcare quality. And, I attribute this to the fact our system is fundamentally flawed. Our system is an industry. Our system is designed to put profits over lives and health, and until that entire flawed premise is overhauled, our system will continue to be costly and the quality will continue to be average at best. And, I can see no way to improve upon this (without a complete socialism overhaul) unless we eliminate the insurers. They drive the price points, and they determine the level of care given to individuals. Then, after we throw out these misguided middlemen, we can begin an honest dialog about end-of-life care. I'm all for allowing indivuals and their families to decide whether euthanasia or hospice care makes more sense for themselves, but it's ridiculous we spend so much keeping alive people who've moved well past the point of usefulness to society. One example I'll give is if a person is in their 90s and develops terminal cancer, I seriously don't think it makes any sense to treat it. At that advanced an age, they need to be allowed to choose the hospice or the needle. That's it. It may not be popular to say, but if the economics of the situation is really the most important aspect of the healthcare debate, that issue needs to be addressed honestly.

I don't get it. It never fails - every time a topic hits on soccer, someone pipes up to announce that they don't like or understand the game. Fine, that's their privilege. Don't watch it then.

Considering this is an American based forum, and soccer (excuse me, real football) isn't isn't in the top four most popular or profitable sports here, I don't understand why fans are confused by the fact other people are understandably perplexed by the fans' fervor.

It's like soccer is supposed to somehow justify itself to skeptics. There are people who don't like baseball, but they don't use the Astros topics as a forum to criticize the game itself.

Soccer doesn't have to justify itself, but it sure would be nice if the fans didn't take such a haughty attitude about their sport. I think American soccer fans like to keep the sport esoteric, in that it allows them to carry an elitist attitude about it.

I said I thought the game probably was fun, but that I just don't get it. I'm not pooping all over the game. For some reason though, you've leant the game some level of mythical status akin in cultural importance as the ballgame was to the ancient Mesoamericans. This is a topic about the World Cup. Why should it be off-limits to ask why the game is so popular? Humans are naturally curious creatures, and I think there are a number of us who feel like we're missing out on something that 5 billion people in the world already do enjoy. Why would it be weird that I'd express an opinion about not understanding that?

I have Canadian and Coloradoan coworkers that don't dismiss my lack of understanding in hockey. Rather than say, "You don't get it, then don't watch it," they've tried to explain the sport, and we've even been to an Aeros game together. As a result, I appreciate the sport more than I did previously.

And to the people who always inevitably point to the fact that soccer is the world's most popular sport as a sign of why it's a good sport, I'm going to pull a Niche and point out that this is the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad numerum. McDonald's has sold billions and billions of burgers, but despite the number served, it means neither that their hamburgers are good or good for you.

As for why it's so popular, I thank you 20thStDad for answering my question. It's popular because it's easy to play, the rules are simple and the plays aren't complex. At least somebody answered my general inquiry. Now, where's a good place to go to watch a game where I might find people who don't take the game seriously, and where I can act like a suburban housewife during the Super Bowl and say "Why did that guy do that?" with out getting dirty looks?

Ricco, that's how I understand it too. That's why I, as a proponent of healthcare reform, think this reform law is a turd.

As a general rule, the best place to determine whether a company or industry has abruptly achieved economic rent on some significant order is to glance at historical net operating cash flows.

But glancing at the historical financials for many of the largest health insurers, I get the sense that red ink from the 'Great Recession' is making any kind of price increases a wash. WellPoint (BlueCross BlueShield), CIGNA, and Aetna's 2009 net operating cash flows were off from their highs by 30%, 55%, and 66%, respectively.

Well, that makes sense. Considering most people don't have insurance unless their employer is subsidizing a substantial portion of the costs, and considering so many people are currently unemployed, it stands to reason prices will have to climb in order for the insurers to not show negative growth or financial losses. Of course, these increases are fueling consumer (voter) anger, which could lead to demands for even more drastic healthcare reforms. The need to adhere to traditional measures of capitalistic success (ie growth and profitability) may end up causing the insurance industry to implode upon itself.

The insurance industry is Ouroboros.

I heard a rumor that a homeless shelter was planned for Delano at Leeland/Pease. Does anyone know anything about this?

Right across the street from those newish yuppie townhomes? If it's true, I seriously doubt this will go over very well.

Every time I've watched soccer, it seems the ball movement has no purpose whatsoever. No one seems particularly interested in scoring, nor executing plays, nor doing much really beyond running to the ball and then kicking it out of bounds. Now, I do realize this is not the case, and I also realize if my brain wasn't attuned to American football, basketball and baseball, they would look equally as haphazard and purposeless. I guess I just can't appreciate a game if I don't understand the rules of it or any form of strategy. And, I think at 32, my brain isn't interested in learning rules and strategies for any new games. It's unfortunate, because I bet it's fun.

I think the chron article said they will start raising funds now. Anyone else think that this is just a way to get in or stay in a "major" conference? With all this expansion talk swirling, I think they were forced to release this information, prematurely. Who knows if it will really go through or not.

Maybe not stay in a major conference, but it may have to do with a bid to leave the C-USA. I suspected this too.

With Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri gone from the Big 12 (9?), and if the rest of the teams decide not to jump ship for some other conference, that leaves room available for another competitive team or two to join. UH is an obvious choice, and maybe the guarantee of a new stadium is necessary to ensure their inclusion.

Well that makes one of US!!!

Businesses strive to meet surging demand

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of people in the US who don't love the sport. I'm just saying I don't get it.

We need the surrounding neighborhoods to interact more seamlessly with downtown and a good start is setting up an easy way for people to get to the trains...

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.

I'll watch this with as much fervor as I'd had for the Winter Olympics.