Category Archives: Biz, Economy, Gov’t

Historic Shopping Mall Repurposed as Urban Living Space

  By | | ,
Leave a comment
Those who know me (or read this blog) know that I have a bizarre obsession with the tiny house trend. Ever since I was a kid, I was fascinated with “little living spaces” like the insides of campers or boats or the homes I carved out inside the massive snowbanks in our Western New York backyard. Well, it appears the Providence Arcade, America’s first indoor shopping mall, has taken the concept a step further. The historic mall, originally constructed in 1828, had fallen on hard times like most of the malls in America, until a recent renovation repurposed the upper two floors in a unique manner. The second- and third-floor shops have been converted into tiny apartments just big enough for the belongings and budgets of recent grads and others whose housing needs don’t require a three-bedroom-with-den and sprawling screened porch.
 
The tiny, utilitarian spaces provide clean, convenient uptown living coupled with easy accessibility to the shops and restaurants on the first floor. Think about it—the residents have their own private spaces yet are surrounded by like-minded neighbors who they can meet downstairs for a drink, dinner, or a little shopping. The residents have everything they need, and the shops have a built-in clientele, even when the Rhode Island weather isn’t cooperating. I would have loved something like this back when I was footloose and fancy-free, and hadn’t yet accumulated years worth of “stuff” and pets and children all needing their own square footage.
 
Our country’s economy needs more innovation and less regulation, and the Providence Arcade is a brilliant example of both. Follow the link to read further and see more pictures.
 
via: America’s First Shopping Mall is Now Stuffed With Micro Homes
 

High School — Then and Now — Is This What We Want?

  By | | , ,
Leave a comment
Go read this thing. It’s meant to be funny, but it’s so, so accurate. Is this really the direction we want our country to be heading? Where everyone is scared to death of everything that might possibly, conceivably, someday hurt them in some way? The world is not a safe place, people. It never has been. And contrary to what our leaders will have you believe, it’s a heck of a lot safer today than at any time in the past, and that’s despite, not because of, the numerous and sundry safety measures our governments have inflicted upon us. There will always be a balance between freedom and safety. If you don’t care about the freedom to drive a car wherever you’d like to go, to eat and drink the foods you choose, to live your life as you see fit, then don’t try to place those restrictions on others, even if you think your choices are superior. It’s their life, their body, and their decision! We can’t protect everyone from everything without sacrificing the joy of living.
 
via: Gettin High at High School (tickld.com)
 

Rape is NOT an Honor Code Violation

  By | | , ,
Leave a comment
Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the last week, you’ve no doubt read, seen, or at least heard about this Rolling Stone exposé detailing one young woman’s horrifying experience of gang rape at a UVA fraternity house. I recommend reading the article on an empty stomach, because the story will likely sicken you. It’s the sort of thing you read and wonder how one group of human beings could ever do that to another, particularly human beings who are smart enough and dedicated enough to be attending a high profile university. The focus of the article, however, is primarily on UVA’s and many other universities’ mishandling of rape cases and how the federal government is pressuring them to do a better job or face losing federal funding. While I don’t disagree with the sentiment, I fail to see how that’s really the big deal.
 
If you asked a mother and father to adjudicate an incest allegation between two of their children, would you expect an equitable resolution and a satisfactory outcome? For those who couldn’t read my sarcastic tone, the answer is no, of course not. You don’t ask strongly interested parties to adjudicate anything; generally, you ask them to recuse themselves in favor of neutral parties, preferably those with expertise in criminal and legal matters. University administrators and classmates are neither. Like the aforementioned parents, they are highly biased and ill-equipped. And understand, I say this as much for the accused as the accusers. An allegation of rape is not something that should be decided by a bunch of overachieving poli sci majors. Even if the case never makes it to the formal legal system, should students be allowed to be labeled as rapists by a kangaroo court? And potentially be expelled, lose scholarships, or be thrown off athletic teams? Such a ruling could unfairly effect the student’s entire life, if, in fact, they’re not guilty. I’m sorry, but the college honor council should not be imbued with that kind of power.
 
Sexual assault is a serious and despicable criminal act, not an honor code violation. In the FBI’s violent crime statistics, rape is second only to murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Plagiarism and stealing the rival team’s mascot don’t make the list. If a victim chooses to come forward, his or her case should be brought to the police, not the university cheerleading squad. To quote Robby Soave from his article in Reason magazine, “Cheating and raping are not related things. The former is an academic infraction deserving an academic punishment, like expulsion; the latter is a violent crime deserving a rigorous police investigation.” Universities don’t need to get better at handling rape allegations; they need to get the hell out of the way.
 
via: The UVA Rapists Should Not Have Been Expelled – Reason.com
 

Double-Blind or Double-Barrelled?

  By | | , ,
Leave a comment
Anyone who’s read the Unbreakable series knows I have strong opinions about Big Pharma. What they may not know is that those opinions are based on my own experience working as a statistician in the pharmaceutical industry. Ten years of massaging the numbers left me a permanent skeptic. Every time I hear someone talk about such-and-such a drug or treatment being backed by “good science” like double-blind studies, I just roll my eyes.
 
This story in Newsweek focuses on one particular drug, Tamiflu, but it’s just one of many. Trust me, all the positive results are twisted to sound way better than they are, and the side effects are always downplayed or explained away as not related to the drug. Just know this: for every prescription drug you take, every vaccine you receive, every treatment you subject yourself to, it’s the same—neither you nor your doctor nor the FDA knows the true risks and benefits of these chemical concoctions. Caveat emptor.
 
Read the full article here: Big Pharma Plays Hide-the-Ball With Data
 

Johnny Depp Redux

  By | | , ,
Leave a comment
The Disgraceful Entrapment of Jesse Snodgrass: Keep the Narcs Out of Our Schools
Just read this piece by Darcia Helle. It’s amazing, and it’s just what she says: disgraceful. This is an example of law enforcement at its absolute worst—using our children to further their own agendas and budgets, and having nothing whatsoever to do with keeping people safe from serious threats. This school district and police department should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves. Is this what they call service? Is this what we taxpayers are getting in return for our money? They should be the ones serving time.
 

Who’s Your Daddy? Apparently, it’s NYC Mayor Bloomberg…

  By | | ,
Leave a comment
No Sugar Sodas

No Sugar Sodas Allowed

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg once again proves he has a serious God Complex. His latest “food police” proposal involves outlawing sales of any sugar-containing beverage over 16 oz, except for those he deems acceptable, such as fruit juices and milkshakes(!). Put aside for a moment the economic impact of this edict, and let’s focus on what’s really going on here. This guy thinks he knows enough about health and nutrition to tell everybody else how they should live. He actually thinks he’s going to single-handedly do what thousands of educated, talented scientists have so far been unable to do, which is solve the very complex problem of obesity by controlling one tiny piece of the puzzle—what people eat and drink. His arrogance is enough to make me choke on a Diet Coke, and those lovely little chemical concoctions are, by the way, still permitted under his proposal. Mayor Bloomberg, here’s a clue. Some people are convinced that sun exposure will give them skin cancer, while others are concerned about the transdermal absorption of carcinogens and hormone disruptors in common sunscreen products. Some folks think they will die of food poisoning if they drink raw milk, while others are concerned about the loss of nutrients and digestibility of the pasteurized stuff. Some swear off coffee, claiming the caffeine will kill them, while others know that coffee’s been linked to longevity and a reduced risk of diabetes. And we all know someone who consistently drank vodka with breakfast and smoked three packs a day and lived to be 95. The fact is, no health information is absolute for everyone, and even if it was, this is still a free country (at least for now), and that means we should all be free to make lifestyle choices for our own bodies, and then live—or die—with the consequences thereof. In other words, Mayor Bloomberg, last I checked, you’re not the boss of me, and I’d like to keep it that way. Read more about Bloomberg Almighty and his latest crusade against personal liberty in Time Magazine’s Healthland piece or Hot Air’s treatise on the topic.

 

Catholics Fight Obama on Religious Freedom

  By | | ,
Leave a comment
Catholics oppose contraceptionBishops, Cardinals, and other leaders of Catholic organizations are filing suit against the Obama administration, charging that the President’s health care plan infringes on religious freedom. The plan mandates that all employers cover contraceptive services, such as exams, counseling, and prescriptions for contraceptive products. Roman Catholics oppose the use of non-natural methods of contraception (which they consider tantamount to abortion), so the mandate pits the Church squarely against its own stated principles. The administration has suggested that it will make exceptions for religious organizations, but its definition of such leaves out Catholic schools and universities and Catholic publications. Religious leaders have previously tried to come to an agreement with the White House on this issue, but so far have been unsuccessful in finding a compromise. Read more on this issue at Deseret News, The NY Times, or Reuters News Service. You might also want to visit this website, dedicated to the cause.