AtticaFlinch

Like a fat kid with sweat in a Houston summer, my comment was dripping... no, pouring with sarcasm.

Space Aztec gold. Edit: Let me clarify this as I don't mean this purely tongue-in-cheek. When the Spanish realized the New World was not the Orient, they still continued to go. Decades passed before the cost of travel was justifiable by the return on investment. It wasn't until Cortez with the Aztecs, and later Pizarro with the Inca, subjugated and stole huge fortunes that the return on investment was made. Prior to that, the Spanish were using the natives as slave labor to eke out minor profits panning for gold in the islands of the Gulf and the Caribbean. Often though, the rewards didn't outweigh the costs of expedition, both in human lives and in a pure dollar sense. But, they continued going. And despite what you may feel about the ethics of it, they ultimately made themselves rich off unexpected bounty. I guess my point is we don't know the profit potential of space exploration. It could be, in a word, astronomical, but it's still an unknown. We really don't know yet. But to limit our willingness to explore because we can't immediately see a profit motivation is myopic.

Man, that is smoother than anything Billy Dee Williams could dream up.

I'm down with that. Let's shut off those street lamps too. My disagreement with excessive light isn't limited to Downtown.

One costs money and lives. The other costs just money. I don't dispute that warfare has brought about significant technological advancements, but if science were pursued for the sake of knowledge and technology were pursued for the overall advancement of the human species, the same results would likely have occurred. War's only real benefit has been to cull the human population when resources were scant. With the progression of modern day prophylactics and other birth-control methods, all we need now to achieve that end is adequate education and a decent condom distribution system. Now, if we start building X-wing and tie fighters for interstellar war, I might grudgingly come on board.

I've got a costs-be-damned attitude about it. I like discovery for the sake of discovery. Contemplating the enormity of the universe makes my head spin, and I'd like to see further advancements made in unraveling the secrets of the cosmos in my lifetime. While I recognize many advancements and discoveries can be made from Earth, I prefer the tangible nature and the inherent danger of sending a human being out into the ether. I wouldn't wish to limit oceanic exploration as a cost of space exploration either. I think we should open up the entire world's economic checkbooks to all exploratory science. I think it's a far better use for our money than neon lights in Downtown. As far as exploitation of resources, and the lack of easily recoverable resources so far known, and the question as to what benefit it would bring, just remember the Spanish (ie. Columbus) sailed across the Atlantic looking for a quicker way to the Orient for a more effective spice trading route. What they found was another continent entirely and literally tons of gold. Point being, we can't even begin to speculate on the economic benefits for space exploration with what we currently know.

Not coincidentally, Sysco distributes frozen pizza. Not 40s though. You'll have to get your Mickey's from another outlet. I think the East End still has a handful of check cashing/malt liquor distribution centers laying around.

40 years ago this week, Apollo 13 was a pretty big deal. Now, our space disasters barely register in emotional importance. With the shuttle program ending, several key people from NASA's history have called for Obama to rethink cancelling the Constellation program. Is NASA still relevant, and should we continue to send people into space? I say yes, but then again, I'm a Carl Sagan nut.

Your observational skills are starting to fail you. You might try eating more brain food, like salmon or pickled pigs feet.

If you're into religious propaganda, we've got the biggest media player in the business (and right down the street from my old condo - it was hell to get to the grocery store on a Sunday): He's the Howard Stern of the Christian set. He's the king of all Christian media.

No chemical plants or refineries have been built anywhere in the US since the seventies, yet I clearly remember being able to see many stars at night as a Houstonian child in the 80s. I don't buy that it's just the refineries, or even mostly the refineries.

Indeed it does.

If these buildings shouldn't be occupied because of the danger, then certainly we must relocate the poor to new, low-income housing that's been recently built and is up to code so we can destroy the health hazards. Now if only we could find a place to build safe and new low-income housing...

In that case, let's look at it from a purely evolutionary perspective. We evolved as diurnal creatures that occupy the day. Existing outside this niche disrupts our circadian rhythms, and over a long enough timeline this can cause havoc to us psychologically, neurologically and physiologically. Google works just as well on everyone else's computers, so I'll allow you all to do your own research to verify the accuracy of that statement. Now, take this concept and stretch it beyond humanity, to a wacky world where other animals exist, and extrapolate the real impact of light pollution to them. If it causes us mental and physical problems to be bombarded by constant intrusive lighting, imagine what it does to those animals that have little to no comprehension of what they do or why they do it nor the impact of external factors on their behavior. I have no pictures, but here's a little reading material for those who want bigger, better, faster and more powerful night lighting in Houston just for the sake of having it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/light-pollution/klinkenborg-text If there exists no reason (that can be adequately articulated) for more lighting, then we don't need it. This isn't an opinion. It's a conclusion based on what's best for us and the rest of the inhabitants of this planet. Wanting more light for the sake of more light is irresponsible at best.

My opinion is that clouds are made of cotton candy. Disagree or not, it's my opinion and therefore no one can dispute it. I'll never need to justify my words because they're opinions. Reasoned justifications are for those fact-obsessed sociopaths, amirite? Other opinions I have (and that are therefore impossible to disagree with): The Holocaust never happened. Frogs and toads are the same thing, and their urine will give you warts. 2 + 2 = 1 bazillion. Prayer will cure cancer so doctors are unnecessary. All Katy residents are racists. Water is poison; people can survive on Coca-Cola alone. Adult brown bears make excellent playmates for children. A barbed-wire tattoo is unique. The current pope is as good and moral as the last pope. Mountain tops all need to be removed - regardless of whether or not coal is present beneath. Other people have valid opinions.

I disagree. The older I get, the more my patience wears thin for spectacle movies that necessitate a big screen (except Batman movies), and the low-budget character movies I prefer can be seen on any size screen. A movie shouldn't cost as much as a live theater production. I also don't think attending a movie should be an event in and of itself. Valet parking is a ridiculous idea for a movie theater.

RedScare just said that your reason was flawed, but he didn't reject your idea altogether. It appears to me Niche has just been playing devil's advocate and doesn't really care one way or the other, but he did want to hear a compelling reason for your position. I think of the people you listed, I may be the only one who actively disagrees with you, and I don't think I've made one attack. I'm just expressing a differing viewpoint from your own. Why is it you expect me to respect your opinion, but you don't wish to grant me the same regard? I don't understand the mentality of a person who will express a potentially contentious point-of-view and then get upset when people actually have the audacity to disagree. Just because you and I disagree does not mean I'm attacking you. And just because other people want to hear legitimate reasons for your point-of-view doesn't mean they're attacking you either. Geez.

Yes, totally, because she punctuated her reason for not wanting the apartments as being that they may house immigrants, those filthy, unwashed non-American immigrants. In a press release, Ms Parker expressed her disdain for the smells that emanate from immigrant kitchens and complained of all the spices they use in their foods which "really, really upset [her] bowels and make [her] a real stinkeroo for several hours." Then she went on to call them sundry racial epithets which would make an Aryan sailor blush.

How do you figure? Is a progressive lighting scheme an antiquated throwback to a bygone era? Hanuman's idea is as simple a flipping a switch, and if enough people think it's a worthwhile idea it'll happen, regardless of geography or place in time. And if you can't get people to change voluntarily, there's precedent for legislation. During droughts, municipalities have no problem limiting water usage. You can only have your stereo so loud before getting a ticket for noise violation. It wouldn't be that difficult to enact similar measures for nightly light output.

I think your use of the word progressive to describe more lighting is misguided. As the term is often ascribed to liberalism, and as liberalism in general deplores wasted energy and destructive environmental practices, and as having a boatload of lights on at night is wasteful and potentially destructive, I think what you're a proponent of is actually a regressive lighting scheme. No amount of LEED certifications will negate the fact it makes more sense environmentally to leave the lights off than on. I'm in total agreement with Hanuman on this issue. Let's have more dark space in the city. I'd like to be able to point out Orion or the Big Dipper to my children someday* (without having to go to the boondocks to do it). *Why won't anyone think about the children?!!

No. This isn't true at all. I don't give a rat's arse whether or not low-income apartments are built near a mall in Katy. I don't like the immoral and unethical reasons thus far given for the opposition though. Did you read anything I wrote before you decided to deconstruct my position? Wrong again. I suppose if you could rely on your own children and your own already extant poor, then no one would move into the apartments. The market would take care of itself. Bingo Bango! Problem solved! And why should we all feel a need to be ethically correct? Or morally correct? What benefit do I gain by not being a heartless prick? Having no morals nor ethics sure worked out for those Wall Street guys, didn't it? Why should I attempt to be any better than them? Are you closed-minded? Here's a simple test: Justify your reason for not wanting the poor near you, and do it in such a way as you'd feel comfortable justifying it to St Peter at the Pearly Gates should that need ever arise.Look, I may not claim to be a Christian or live under any specific moral banner, but I tend to operate at a high level of personal ethics. And, even though I don't believe in a judgement day, I tend to view many of my decisions through the perspective of needing to someday articulate ethical justifications for my actions. Perhaps you and I come from two opposing schools of thought on this. Perhaps if your own selfish reasons outweigh the welfare of your fellow passengers on this interstellar life raft, then you should go with what you feel is the right thing to do. Just don't expect me to agree with you, or to tell you that you're right. I won't compromise my sense of ethics so you can sleep more comfortably at night. Doubtless this is correct. I totally agree, and like you, I also think we should address the underlying issue and stop putting band-aids (here we go with the band-aids again) on major wounds. Anyhow, being as you brought this up, how should we go about eliminating poverty so there's no need for such things as low-income housing? That is the next obvious step, right? There'd be no low-income housing if there's nobody to fill it up with.

Palin tries to take Obama to task on the nucular issue. Yes, nucular.

Personally, I can't stand a "scene". If a city has a concentrated bar scene like a Bourbon Street, Beale Street or Sixth Street, that's an area I'll go out of my way to avoid. They're full of too many people, most of which are the garden variety douchebags who have a tendency to ruin many a good time, and the drinks and covers are overpriced. The day I pay six bucks for a warm PBR is the day AtticaFlinch is ready for the straight jacket. My preference is for a neighborhood bar, the kind of place with regulars, the kind of place that doesn't need bouncers and is conspicuously free of popped collars.

They totally should have turned it into a movie studio or a (partially) indoor ski slope.

Not to be pedantic... but technically that was an ad hominem attack. Even by the loosest rules. Even if you didn't mean any disrespect. Even if no one was offended. Perhaps we should change the wording from attack to assault (class B misdemeanor).