We ordered two catfish dishes when we went. But newsflash to these operators, who claim to be from the 'Big Easy': you do not serve fried catfish with french fries! You serve it with *red beans & rice*! Also, you never ever get caught with only limited (McElhinney) Tobasco sauce! Cutting corners isn't the way to proceed....if y'all wanna succeed.
Phil Stahl Wrote:
"I suggest Esker read: "The Discovery of the Risk of Global Warming," in Physics Today, Jan. 1997, p. 34."
For those interested, I found this website of Weart's which has a lot of his papers, materials etc. on, as part of the American Physical Society's web outreach:
"But this is no time to lash out at those who voted against 2C and for 300. Instead, this is when those who still truly care about the city must accept a humbling defeat and learn from it."
It would be an error and misjudgement of the first magnitude to believe all who voted against 2C "don't care about the city". Fact is, we do! My wife and I regularly relish the parks, and trails....etc. What we didn't relish, and infact despised, was the use of a property tax increase (which would be permanent) to try to correct the city's financial deficiencies.
There HAS to be another way! Note that we earlier (last year) voted for a sales tax increase which we believed to be more equitable because both renters and property owners will have the burden shared. But it is unfair and egregious to expect we property-home owners to take on the whole financial burden.
The City Council needs to get more creative in ways to support the city and sustain services. It also needs to be less cynical in its manipulations, as opposed to reaching first for all the most prominent services to cut and making the most vulnerable hurt - such as people-workers who depend on bus service. When the city does that it compounds our distrust because the Council treats us as dull children or naive waifs.
Put the sales tax up for vote again, maybe in six months. Wifey and I will vote for it!
What we won't vote for is a permanent property tax increase which will punish us on top of higher regular home --property valuations when the recession finally ends and home prices return to normal.
Try to discriminate a bit more Ralph. Both you and Jan Martin have missed the core message delivered by a number of us who also regard ourseleves as progressive.
I used to live in New Orleans (Hampson St.) in the late 60s, and never EVER were fries served with fried catfish.
However, I imagine that maybe since Katrina N'Awlins has had to cut corners. And fries are the option.
Btw, fyi, the catfish dish was on *special*. They offered no side dish option other than fries. Which to me is pathetic.
Now, as a claimed New Orleanian, how do you excuse the absence of McElhinney tobasco sauce or do you?
It is sad that Jan Martin never understood just how inequitable 2C was. It allowed renters, who have no "skin on the table" to cast ballots - while property owners would be the most directly affected.
I voted against it because while it was promoted as having only a "tiny increase" the fact remains that once home valuations return to pre-recesssion standards we all will be shelling out more. I have seen my own property taxes rise by at least 40% since moving here in 2000. Most of the increase arising from pure year to year re-evaluations of my home, but about 20% from the passage of a school (District 11) bond issue which I did *not* vote for.
So, given that combination of factors I could not support 2C. I did vote for a sales tax increase earlier, and would have done so again - if on the ballot- because I regard a sales tax increase as more equitably spread around.
If Martin and others claim that sales taxes can't deliver the big bucks needed, they need to find other ways and means to make the budget work, as opposed to always returning to the property tax well.
The City ought to also look at everything - from wage cuts to pension cuts for city workers, as well as furlough days, not merely at more $$$ via property taxes.
If the city is in as dire straits as claimed, all factors need to be considered, none must be regarded as taboo or a deal breaker.
Lastly, Martin is wrong to take away the message that voters wanted cuts. No, the message was that we don't want our property taxes to have to pay for the services we all need.
Be creative! Find another way!
Mitchell Andrews wrote: "To Phil Stahl ("Consider Barbados," Letters, May 14) I will submit this: There is a country about a thousand miles from Barbados where capitalism has been eliminated: Cuba"
Actually, that's not technically true. Cubans practice a free-wheeling capitalism (outside of the government purview) and it is much more energetic that most Americans practice. For example, there is a staple trade for (U.S. currency) enclave as well as open selling on the streets of any kind of ware./
Tourism, which is big and a huge draw, is also a major capitalist component. (Merely because U.S. tourists can't go there doesn't mean it's off limits to all).
The problem with Cuba is not then the extirpation of capital or capitalism but rather that its major benefits are limited to only those in the central government, which was the same problem for the old Soviet Union.
So what exists in Cuba is a sham. At least in Barbados, major industries (like oil, utilities) are nationalized and uniformly owned by all citizens so there is much less chance to be taken advantage of.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation