I've moved to http://tehrm.wordpress.com
See you there!
Monday, July 19, 2010
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The 6 Million Dollar. . . movie theater?
I never really got into the Six Million Dollar Man and I sure won't be getting into this $6,000,000 Warren Theater downtown. Hopefully, I will be permanently banned for all the crap I hope to stir up. I guess I should give some context.
The Fact:
The City of Wichita approved, against the city manager's advice, a six million dollar loan at 1.25% to bail out a business which hasn't turned a profit in years. The loan is interest free for the first five years and must be repaid within 10 years.
The Story:
There's a really rich guy who lives in Wichita, KS and owns, co-owns, operates a number of movie theaters. One of these is in the downtown area and the city of Wichita decided to support this theater so fully that the success or failure of the private business venture would have an economic impact on the city. The city loaned the guy a ton of money for free, basically, and now, after years of consecutive loss, he would like another loan from the city to expand.
Ok, let's list the things that are wrong with this. First, the government (city) became directly involved in a private business venture. I don't know if this is illegal, but it certainly qualifies for irrevocably stupid. As a result of this involvement, the city stands to lose a lot of money if the business fails, and make a meager amount should the business succeed.
Second, the theater hasn't netted profit in years. It has consistently been a losing venture. However, the owners would like to tear out the sports bar (probably the only thing making money) attached to the theater and convert it into another theater. Let's see here- my lemonade stand isn't doing so well. Maybe I need more lemonade?
Third, the owners of the theater did not court any banks for the loan. None. They went straight to the city because a) they knew that no bank would invest in a company that has consistently lost money, and b) they knew that the city would give them money, because it must or stand to lose sums of money.
The lowdown:
Here's what I think about it all (but not all of what I think about it). I think that the city council of Wichita is full of morons, and I plan to hold audience with them to let them know this. I think that the owners of this downtown theater know that the theater will ultimately fail and will use this loan to buy brand new equipment which, once the theater fails, will be transferred to other, more successful theaters owned by the businessmen involved.
The Fact:
The City of Wichita approved, against the city manager's advice, a six million dollar loan at 1.25% to bail out a business which hasn't turned a profit in years. The loan is interest free for the first five years and must be repaid within 10 years.
The Story:
There's a really rich guy who lives in Wichita, KS and owns, co-owns, operates a number of movie theaters. One of these is in the downtown area and the city of Wichita decided to support this theater so fully that the success or failure of the private business venture would have an economic impact on the city. The city loaned the guy a ton of money for free, basically, and now, after years of consecutive loss, he would like another loan from the city to expand.
Ok, let's list the things that are wrong with this. First, the government (city) became directly involved in a private business venture. I don't know if this is illegal, but it certainly qualifies for irrevocably stupid. As a result of this involvement, the city stands to lose a lot of money if the business fails, and make a meager amount should the business succeed.
Second, the theater hasn't netted profit in years. It has consistently been a losing venture. However, the owners would like to tear out the sports bar (probably the only thing making money) attached to the theater and convert it into another theater. Let's see here- my lemonade stand isn't doing so well. Maybe I need more lemonade?
Third, the owners of the theater did not court any banks for the loan. None. They went straight to the city because a) they knew that no bank would invest in a company that has consistently lost money, and b) they knew that the city would give them money, because it must or stand to lose sums of money.
The lowdown:
Here's what I think about it all (but not all of what I think about it). I think that the city council of Wichita is full of morons, and I plan to hold audience with them to let them know this. I think that the owners of this downtown theater know that the theater will ultimately fail and will use this loan to buy brand new equipment which, once the theater fails, will be transferred to other, more successful theaters owned by the businessmen involved.
Monday, February 11, 2008
US secret history in Iran
Most people, in thinking of Iran-America relations, won't remember any further than the hostage situation in the 1979, if they are old enough. However, very few Americans are aware that the United States intervened in Iranian affairs via a regime change in 1953. Oh, America, your zeal for democracy is un... wait, you. . . you did what?
here's another blog talking about the same, and the Folly of Attacking Iran homepage. Spread this video around, and help educate other people so we can learn from the mistakes of the past.
here's another blog talking about the same, and the Folly of Attacking Iran homepage. Spread this video around, and help educate other people so we can learn from the mistakes of the past.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Philosopher + survey = no-no
Seriously, if you happen to issue a survey, don't give it to a philosopher. It simply won't work out. Here's the story.
The Psychology department at Friends U. requires a senior project for graduation, and part of that project is conducting a survey. The survey can be conducted any way the student wishes, but most students use classes as sample groups. One student in particular decided that a course consisting of upperclassman religion majors would best suit her project. The instructor allowed her to come in and issue a survey during the last twenty minutes of class. It should have gone well, and without a hitch. But they didn't account for me.
Apparently, and I do not know when this happened, I've become an over-analyzing prat. I really struggled with the survey. The survey wasn't that probing, and didn't use unfamiliar words. It gauged personal responses to statements of religion and religiosity. Simple survey- to what degree to you agree or disagree with x. But no, I have to demolish and reconstruct the meaning behind each word in the survey.
I seriously dove into the finer points of the world "principle" and how it is inherently personal, and therefore "relative." There were all of these really simple words that I couldn't understand. Not in the sense of "I am an idiot," but that the survey used language with specific meaning, and I couldn't answer the questions because what it asked and what I understood it to ask were two completely different things.
This is what I am talking about when I say "I hate being a philosopher." There are so few points of reference in communication that it's a wonder anything ever goes properly. That we ever come close to understanding anything amazes me, and I don't exaggerate. I certainly don't rule out that two people can't come from similar or identical perspective and arrive at the same conclusion, but the role. . . no, the actuality of "perception as if (dare I say as) reality" destroys me. Daily.
This is a (not) really short note, poorly formed, about how I couldn't take a survey because the words in the survey simply didn't have any meaning to me. I think it's kind of funny. It is the tip of a greater issue I've been dealing with lately, thought, and I don't want anyone to worry, especially those bonded to Christ. I am still quite firmly a Trinitarian-Incarnationalist.
It's just daunting knowing that what I see and know, I can only ever see/know as.
The Psychology department at Friends U. requires a senior project for graduation, and part of that project is conducting a survey. The survey can be conducted any way the student wishes, but most students use classes as sample groups. One student in particular decided that a course consisting of upperclassman religion majors would best suit her project. The instructor allowed her to come in and issue a survey during the last twenty minutes of class. It should have gone well, and without a hitch. But they didn't account for me.
Apparently, and I do not know when this happened, I've become an over-analyzing prat. I really struggled with the survey. The survey wasn't that probing, and didn't use unfamiliar words. It gauged personal responses to statements of religion and religiosity. Simple survey- to what degree to you agree or disagree with x. But no, I have to demolish and reconstruct the meaning behind each word in the survey.
- "Well, what do you really mean by
- wrong"
- principle"
- Satan"
- homosexuality"
I seriously dove into the finer points of the world "principle" and how it is inherently personal, and therefore "relative." There were all of these really simple words that I couldn't understand. Not in the sense of "I am an idiot," but that the survey used language with specific meaning, and I couldn't answer the questions because what it asked and what I understood it to ask were two completely different things.
This is what I am talking about when I say "I hate being a philosopher." There are so few points of reference in communication that it's a wonder anything ever goes properly. That we ever come close to understanding anything amazes me, and I don't exaggerate. I certainly don't rule out that two people can't come from similar or identical perspective and arrive at the same conclusion, but the role. . . no, the actuality of "perception as if (dare I say as) reality" destroys me. Daily.
This is a (not) really short note, poorly formed, about how I couldn't take a survey because the words in the survey simply didn't have any meaning to me. I think it's kind of funny. It is the tip of a greater issue I've been dealing with lately, thought, and I don't want anyone to worry, especially those bonded to Christ. I am still quite firmly a Trinitarian-Incarnationalist.
It's just daunting knowing that what I see and know, I can only ever see/know as.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Friends & Lovers
I attended a retreat called "Journey to Freedom" this past weekend. It's not the first time I've gone, but it was my last as I will be graduating soon. I had no reason to go- only to go. The message is pretty intense. The weekend inundates the attendee with new life truth, and most are left reeling slightly by the end. I was already inline with that thinking, though, so it had little transformative effect. No, what I took away from the weekend is that boyfriend/girlfriend isn't anything like being married.
Dating and similar situations are often referred to as being like marriage, or practice for marriage, but there are no comparisons. It would be to make a comparison using two unique languages. There exist too few, if any, crossovers to form a meaningful dialogue. I'm not entirely sure of what people mean when they say dating is like or similar to a marriage. If they say that dating is like practice, well, that's cart before the horse.
I guess my position needs qualifying, though. Marriage is a three part harmony. A distinct, three part harmony. Sure, the Holy Spirit is involved in every relationship, but within marriage to such an intimate, discrete degree that there can be no comparison to other relationships. Dating is nothing like marriage.
Avoid mimicking marriage in a dating relationship. You simply are not equipped.
Dating and similar situations are often referred to as being like marriage, or practice for marriage, but there are no comparisons. It would be to make a comparison using two unique languages. There exist too few, if any, crossovers to form a meaningful dialogue. I'm not entirely sure of what people mean when they say dating is like or similar to a marriage. If they say that dating is like practice, well, that's cart before the horse.
I guess my position needs qualifying, though. Marriage is a three part harmony. A distinct, three part harmony. Sure, the Holy Spirit is involved in every relationship, but within marriage to such an intimate, discrete degree that there can be no comparison to other relationships. Dating is nothing like marriage.
Avoid mimicking marriage in a dating relationship. You simply are not equipped.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Facelift
You might notice that things are a bit different around these parts. I'm giving the blog a new face, and I'll make posts regularly. So, patience as I get my act together. I'm using the "Minima Black" template as an outline, but I hope for things to be drastically different by the time I'm done. I'm not the biggest fan of straight black color schemes, so that'll be the first big change. Let me know about any suggestions.
In the mean time, check out these links.
Brain Box: How television broke the minds of three generations
George Orwells 5 rules for Effective Writing
20+ Places for Public Domain e-Books
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Keith Olbermann brings it
Video at the link. I took embed out- the page took too long to load. Still worth watching, though!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)