The same misguided soul who supported the notion that anything but Duke's is real mayonnaise has veered off into Atlanta's pizza landscape hoping to convince us he found the best pizza in Atlanta. Since Dunwoody isn't Atlanta (was that an "Amen, Hallelujah"?) it seems fitting and proper to disclose the source of the best pizza in Dunwoody.
It turns out not to be the usual suspects. Not Pizza Hut, which did at one time have the best pizza in Dunwoody as it was one of the few Pizza Huts in America to offer wine. But that location now hosts Peter's and while pizza may be on the menu, it is hardly the top item. Then there is the litany of the other non-contenders. The game-named delivery giant, the paternalistic purveyor and the latter day Saint John of Pizza, though SJoP, on a good day can be a worthy contender. Nor is it the perennial home town favorite, as psilocybin takes one only so far on the trip to pizza perfection.
No siree, the best pizza in Dunwoody comes from an unlikely source: Fresh Market. Yes, those store-made deli pizzas can be the best around. As is they are they are pretty good, especially the "supreme" and "veggie". Not overdone, not greasy and with a crust that is neither too thin, too thick nor too doughy. But it needs work. Obtaining the very best, even starting with something so good, requires enhancement, but like hacking Ikea you will take something good and make it excellent. And like anything from Ikea, this work goes better with a couple of beers. That's why Fresh Market sells Foster's Bitter in the oil can.
Unlike Ikea RTA (let alone hacking), the instructions are simple. You need the veggie pizza and one (only one, fatso) link of hot italian sausage. Remove the sausage from the casing, cook, drain, add as the final topping, pizza in the oven, beer in the belly, ten minutes of cook and chill time, and Voilà--best pizza in Dunwoody.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Healthy Perks
Anybody out there in predominantly Republican, self-made Dunwoody ever have a part-time job? Well did anyone who answered "yes" get health insurance coverage with that part-time job? Probably not.
Did you ever wonder why?
Well the answer is simple. You were not in charge of deciding whether you got those benefits or not. See if you had been in charge, like the Dunwoody City Council is for their benefits, you might have deemed yourself worthy of an unusually generous benefits package and like this council intends, awarded yourself a full health insurance package for your part-time job. And remember, you knew this was a part-time job when you took it and you knew the compensation package did not include health care coverage.
Of course this only stands to reason since health costs are the single largest employer payroll-related cost and if you had to pay for it yourself like some other folks, well that would be expensive. Plus it is quite the perk if you can give it to yourself using other people's money, and Dunwoody, in matters large and small, simply cannot exist without other people's money.
But it gets better. See, adding health coverage to your compensation package is a benefit and technically is not a raise. Of course you could have voted yourself a genuine raise, but it wouldn't take effect until the next term, after you've had to face potential voter outrage. And by conveniently scheduling any mention of this back-door raise until after the deadline for anyone to run against you, you all but eliminate any negative fallout from this outrageous, self-serving behaviour. Observant readers will recall that Dunwoody was founded by a referendum vote conveniently scheduled to virtually assure passage. Same song. Second stanza.
See how clever our politicians can be? Just like the ones in Decatur.
Did you ever wonder why?
Well the answer is simple. You were not in charge of deciding whether you got those benefits or not. See if you had been in charge, like the Dunwoody City Council is for their benefits, you might have deemed yourself worthy of an unusually generous benefits package and like this council intends, awarded yourself a full health insurance package for your part-time job. And remember, you knew this was a part-time job when you took it and you knew the compensation package did not include health care coverage.
Of course this only stands to reason since health costs are the single largest employer payroll-related cost and if you had to pay for it yourself like some other folks, well that would be expensive. Plus it is quite the perk if you can give it to yourself using other people's money, and Dunwoody, in matters large and small, simply cannot exist without other people's money.
But it gets better. See, adding health coverage to your compensation package is a benefit and technically is not a raise. Of course you could have voted yourself a genuine raise, but it wouldn't take effect until the next term, after you've had to face potential voter outrage. And by conveniently scheduling any mention of this back-door raise until after the deadline for anyone to run against you, you all but eliminate any negative fallout from this outrageous, self-serving behaviour. Observant readers will recall that Dunwoody was founded by a referendum vote conveniently scheduled to virtually assure passage. Same song. Second stanza.
See how clever our politicians can be? Just like the ones in Decatur.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The Great Mayo Brushup
A poor misguided soul over-equipped with access to media published a blasphemous treatise suggesting a mayonnaise taxonomy in which Duke's is not atop the hierarchy. This shameless heretic goes so far as to assemble a team of "taste testers" who declare Hellman's to be the best tasting mayo by a wide margin.
One take on this is the obvious -- it is stab at satire, revealing the all-to-common budding journalist's desire to pose as this generation's Swift. After all some of the comments on Duke's taste include "vinegary kick" and an afertaste--qualities long associated with Hellman's and never with Duke's. Of course this could be mere incompentence--the inability to keep the various samples straight. They did note one of Duke's strong points, a robust texture that results in tomato sandwiches with adequate mayo which will not simply squirt out the tomato slices all over your plate.
And this brings us to another incredible point, this author made his first tomato sandwich with a single slice of tomato. Perhaps this correlates with the erudite affectation associated with heirloom this and that, as if heirloom is something obtained by means other than death of a loved one, and even if that were possible that this so-called heirloom retained any of its original value. Regardless, one who actually makes a tomato sandwich with only one slice, no matter how thick that slice, is suspect as a judge of anything southern, and there is little more southern than the tomato sandwich.
At the end of the day, what was true remains true: if you're not spreading Duke's, you're spreading crap.
One take on this is the obvious -- it is stab at satire, revealing the all-to-common budding journalist's desire to pose as this generation's Swift. After all some of the comments on Duke's taste include "vinegary kick" and an afertaste--qualities long associated with Hellman's and never with Duke's. Of course this could be mere incompentence--the inability to keep the various samples straight. They did note one of Duke's strong points, a robust texture that results in tomato sandwiches with adequate mayo which will not simply squirt out the tomato slices all over your plate.
And this brings us to another incredible point, this author made his first tomato sandwich with a single slice of tomato. Perhaps this correlates with the erudite affectation associated with heirloom this and that, as if heirloom is something obtained by means other than death of a loved one, and even if that were possible that this so-called heirloom retained any of its original value. Regardless, one who actually makes a tomato sandwich with only one slice, no matter how thick that slice, is suspect as a judge of anything southern, and there is little more southern than the tomato sandwich.
At the end of the day, what was true remains true: if you're not spreading Duke's, you're spreading crap.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Public Schools: Golly How the Truth Will Out
The Department of Education recently published a revealing report on just how well states are doing with setting and achieving academic excellence. You know what academic excellence is right? It's whatever your local school board, principals and teachers say it is. At least this is what was revealed by the DoE report.
Turns out when Georgia says students perform at grade level, they really are well below national performance standards. Often so far below acceptable levels as to be deemed incapable of demonstrating basic understanding of the content. Yet we are told they are not only doing just fine, they in fact are excelling.
How can that be? How can this happen when we have a cadre of well-trained, self-sacrificingteachers educators led by experienced principals and adminstrators who are overseen by some of the best and brightest we can elect to our Boards of Education?
At this point you may be wondering how we can be so sure of their capabilities. You are right to wonder. We, the public, have two critically important sources of information on this matter. Unburdened by modesty, educators will gladly testify to their own amazing work ethic and capabilities. Second, the education machine, those education programs in our colleges and universities represent a multi-billion dollar industry, can supply mountains of data supporting what a great job they, and their graduates, are doing. Of course, with more money it could always improve.
These authoritative sources will tell you that one size does not fit all. That they have a better size chart for the brains of the average Abner and Daisy Mae than some Washington bureaucrat. That these standards are not on a continuum, but are orthogonal. That the dimensionality of the modalities and the dispersion of social paradigms...well, you get the idea.
But perhaps there is a simpler explanation: they are lying. That's right, our "educators" are systematically lying. And this is not a nameless, faceless entity. A "school board". Or the "Department of Education". Or the "administration". Or even the "faculty". No. These organizations exist only because of the people in them. People with faces. People with names. People with paychecks. And apparently people with an agenda. People who will do anything to protect their interest and their agenda. People who lie.
And parents, you see these people everyday in your child's school. It is the principal and she has a name. It is the teacher and he has a name. It is the school superintendent and she has a name. And it is the school board members and they have names. And they are all lying to you.
The lie they tell is both how great they are and, as a secondary consequence of the big lie, how great, how smart, how above average your child is. And every parent wants to hear this---every parent wants to believe this, to believe their child is a budding genius. And these educrats know this. And they use this knowledge to their advantage.
This situation is absolutely incredible. Parents have, with the assistance of tax-supported enablers, deluded themselves into believing their child is magically receiving a world-class education in spite of the fact that they know that Georgia public schools are among the worst in a country falling further behind in world rankings. Then, in any given sample large enough to be statistically valid, most folks are going to be average. MOST. Most students. Most teachers. Most parents. Everyone's child simply cannot be above average.
But it gets worse. In this case, when you consider a larger population, the whole of the United States rather than just Georgia, our contribution to the whole is below average. We have built an education system that consistently turns out below average results whilst paying people to convince us otherwise. And here is the really good part: these propagandists are the same people who produce the below average results in the first place.
Yet there are parents out there, perhaps even reading this, who persist in thinking "well, yes, that may be true, but MY child is receiving one of the best educations in the world." Even with an embedded culture of systemic prevarication it is these parents who have destroyed public education.
Turns out when Georgia says students perform at grade level, they really are well below national performance standards. Often so far below acceptable levels as to be deemed incapable of demonstrating basic understanding of the content. Yet we are told they are not only doing just fine, they in fact are excelling.
How can that be? How can this happen when we have a cadre of well-trained, self-sacrificing
At this point you may be wondering how we can be so sure of their capabilities. You are right to wonder. We, the public, have two critically important sources of information on this matter. Unburdened by modesty, educators will gladly testify to their own amazing work ethic and capabilities. Second, the education machine, those education programs in our colleges and universities represent a multi-billion dollar industry, can supply mountains of data supporting what a great job they, and their graduates, are doing. Of course, with more money it could always improve.
These authoritative sources will tell you that one size does not fit all. That they have a better size chart for the brains of the average Abner and Daisy Mae than some Washington bureaucrat. That these standards are not on a continuum, but are orthogonal. That the dimensionality of the modalities and the dispersion of social paradigms...well, you get the idea.
But perhaps there is a simpler explanation: they are lying. That's right, our "educators" are systematically lying. And this is not a nameless, faceless entity. A "school board". Or the "Department of Education". Or the "administration". Or even the "faculty". No. These organizations exist only because of the people in them. People with faces. People with names. People with paychecks. And apparently people with an agenda. People who will do anything to protect their interest and their agenda. People who lie.
And parents, you see these people everyday in your child's school. It is the principal and she has a name. It is the teacher and he has a name. It is the school superintendent and she has a name. And it is the school board members and they have names. And they are all lying to you.
The lie they tell is both how great they are and, as a secondary consequence of the big lie, how great, how smart, how above average your child is. And every parent wants to hear this---every parent wants to believe this, to believe their child is a budding genius. And these educrats know this. And they use this knowledge to their advantage.
This situation is absolutely incredible. Parents have, with the assistance of tax-supported enablers, deluded themselves into believing their child is magically receiving a world-class education in spite of the fact that they know that Georgia public schools are among the worst in a country falling further behind in world rankings. Then, in any given sample large enough to be statistically valid, most folks are going to be average. MOST. Most students. Most teachers. Most parents. Everyone's child simply cannot be above average.
But it gets worse. In this case, when you consider a larger population, the whole of the United States rather than just Georgia, our contribution to the whole is below average. We have built an education system that consistently turns out below average results whilst paying people to convince us otherwise. And here is the really good part: these propagandists are the same people who produce the below average results in the first place.
Yet there are parents out there, perhaps even reading this, who persist in thinking "well, yes, that may be true, but MY child is receiving one of the best educations in the world." Even with an embedded culture of systemic prevarication it is these parents who have destroyed public education.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Reading the Chicken Entrails
There is much we mere subjects of City Hall can glean from the Great Chicken Debate going on in Warren's World. The superficial topic at hand is whether or not we, the Serfs of Dunwoody, should be allowed more than three live chickens per household as is allowed under current city law.
The debate ostensibly centers around whether the limit should be increased or if this trend towards sustainable poultry will have Dunwoody smelling like a farm instead of just having the image of one on all our signage.
On the "pro" side are council members who lean a bit towards individual freedom and property rights, and who also seem aware of the extensive information and products supporting urban (not just suburban, but URBAN) chicken and egg production for home consumption.
The "con" supporters base their argument on childhood experiences from which they've gleaned that chickens stink and make noise. This isn't the best of arguments but let's give these retired chicken ranchers a good hear.
First we'll ignore the import of the "urban" observation made previously. Then we'll accept the fact that chickens create some stink and hens do indeed cluck. We'll ignore those little nuggets of fertilizer left by the neighbor's dog and we'll consider song birds, well, sonorous. But let's not ignore the fact that everyone in Dunwoody doesn't live in a condo, or a McMansion or a clutter-home. Some folks have yards. Some folks have big yards, some even bigger than their house. Who knew? It would seem obvious to allow those with lots above a certain, reasonable size, say 1/3 acre, a bit of say so regarding their own property and constrain smaller lots to the current restriction with exceptions by way of SLUPs.
Given such a simple solution that protects the individual freedom and property rights on both sides of the issue, on might conclude this is about something other than chickens. Perhaps what we're seeing is much more important than backyard eggs.
We've been presented with a clear separation between those who support individual rights and those acting like frustrated refugees from a powerless home owners association who can now ram their rules down our throats. Perhaps if some of these folks had mucked out a few stables instead of feeding chickens we would have fewer horse-shit ordinances.
The debate ostensibly centers around whether the limit should be increased or if this trend towards sustainable poultry will have Dunwoody smelling like a farm instead of just having the image of one on all our signage.
On the "pro" side are council members who lean a bit towards individual freedom and property rights, and who also seem aware of the extensive information and products supporting urban (not just suburban, but URBAN) chicken and egg production for home consumption.
The "con" supporters base their argument on childhood experiences from which they've gleaned that chickens stink and make noise. This isn't the best of arguments but let's give these retired chicken ranchers a good hear.
First we'll ignore the import of the "urban" observation made previously. Then we'll accept the fact that chickens create some stink and hens do indeed cluck. We'll ignore those little nuggets of fertilizer left by the neighbor's dog and we'll consider song birds, well, sonorous. But let's not ignore the fact that everyone in Dunwoody doesn't live in a condo, or a McMansion or a clutter-home. Some folks have yards. Some folks have big yards, some even bigger than their house. Who knew? It would seem obvious to allow those with lots above a certain, reasonable size, say 1/3 acre, a bit of say so regarding their own property and constrain smaller lots to the current restriction with exceptions by way of SLUPs.
Given such a simple solution that protects the individual freedom and property rights on both sides of the issue, on might conclude this is about something other than chickens. Perhaps what we're seeing is much more important than backyard eggs.
We've been presented with a clear separation between those who support individual rights and those acting like frustrated refugees from a powerless home owners association who can now ram their rules down our throats. Perhaps if some of these folks had mucked out a few stables instead of feeding chickens we would have fewer horse-shit ordinances.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Dunwoody Diversity
Let's be honest here, Dunwoody cannot really be characterized as a champion of diversity. Not before cityhood, and certainly not since--just look at the demographic makeup of the city council. Or city administration. Or the police force. Or...
So when folks in Dunwoody talk about diversity, they're talking age diversity--they're talking old farts. Specifically themselves. Actually, they're talking about themselves in the future tense, denial being what it is and all. And these discussions usually boil down to "Assisted Living" facilities.
One view of these is that they are a deceitful way to introduce high density into a suburban setting. And we all know what high density means. Bad Things[tm].
Another view, that of the aging Dunwoodian who did not adequately prepare for retirement at St. Simons, is they are wonderful things allowing life long Dunwoodians (approximately 3.2% of the current population) to remain Dunwoodians until their timely demise. They tout the wonderful addition old farts make to the community. After all, were it not for the blue hairs, who would attend council and zoning meetings? And who would give us those fifteen minutes of quiet time in queue at the post office drop off? These folks not only keep Wednesday grocery shopping cheap, they often fill the audience at local plays, and offer many opportunities for high schools students to pad resume's with "community service" activities. It's like having little self-storage facilities chock full of grandparents.
So what about the non-demented elderly? Has anybody bothered to ask them? You know who they are: the ones who can choose where to live rather than those moved close to a guilt-ridden child who "needs them nearby to take care of them" (translate: wheel 'em out on holidays so the kids have quality time with gramps which is probably about all the quality time gramps can handle).
Probably not, because anyone who has lived in the 'burbs for any length of time comes to understand this universal truth: suburbs are places dedicated to the worship of children. Every old fart out there knows this and most will gladly share the insight.
This is the way it should be, which is convenient since it's the way it is. And just because suburbs are great places to raise kids doesn't make them ideal for your golden years. Au contraire.
After all, who, who doesn't already have to, wants to put up with soccer moms? Nobody, especially not old farts. Not when they clog streets in their SUVs schlepping the buggers to school. Not when they're at "Ladies Night Out" fawning over some local bartender's exaggerated British accent, tempting him with cleavage that probably violates a city ordinance. And certainly not when they drag their little demons out to restaurants way past their bedtimes when all you want to do is enjoy one of the few nice evenings out left in your allotment.
Then there is the incessant public whining about schools--like they really matter. And the taxes fer crissakes. Why would anyone on a fixed income want to pay the outrageous taxes these incredibly dysfunctional schools demand? And we won't even discuss what having schools littering the city does to concealed carry. Then we have laws and ordinances designed to protect children from themselves and even the remote possibility of exposure to anything deemed "mature". The kind of things that keep old farts' memories alive.
Why would any adult without school age children put up with all this? The answer is: they wouldn't. At least if they can afford not to.
So do we, as a city, want to create public policy that expands this "age diversity" or should we stay true to the mission, the reality of suburban living? Truth be told, what we really want is enough old fart warehousing to support the needs of a demographic that started a family late and now finds itself wedged between raising children and "caring" for the elders. We have enough of that already.
So when folks in Dunwoody talk about diversity, they're talking age diversity--they're talking old farts. Specifically themselves. Actually, they're talking about themselves in the future tense, denial being what it is and all. And these discussions usually boil down to "Assisted Living" facilities.
One view of these is that they are a deceitful way to introduce high density into a suburban setting. And we all know what high density means. Bad Things[tm].
Another view, that of the aging Dunwoodian who did not adequately prepare for retirement at St. Simons, is they are wonderful things allowing life long Dunwoodians (approximately 3.2% of the current population) to remain Dunwoodians until their timely demise. They tout the wonderful addition old farts make to the community. After all, were it not for the blue hairs, who would attend council and zoning meetings? And who would give us those fifteen minutes of quiet time in queue at the post office drop off? These folks not only keep Wednesday grocery shopping cheap, they often fill the audience at local plays, and offer many opportunities for high schools students to pad resume's with "community service" activities. It's like having little self-storage facilities chock full of grandparents.
So what about the non-demented elderly? Has anybody bothered to ask them? You know who they are: the ones who can choose where to live rather than those moved close to a guilt-ridden child who "needs them nearby to take care of them" (translate: wheel 'em out on holidays so the kids have quality time with gramps which is probably about all the quality time gramps can handle).
Probably not, because anyone who has lived in the 'burbs for any length of time comes to understand this universal truth: suburbs are places dedicated to the worship of children. Every old fart out there knows this and most will gladly share the insight.
This is the way it should be, which is convenient since it's the way it is. And just because suburbs are great places to raise kids doesn't make them ideal for your golden years. Au contraire.
After all, who, who doesn't already have to, wants to put up with soccer moms? Nobody, especially not old farts. Not when they clog streets in their SUVs schlepping the buggers to school. Not when they're at "Ladies Night Out" fawning over some local bartender's exaggerated British accent, tempting him with cleavage that probably violates a city ordinance. And certainly not when they drag their little demons out to restaurants way past their bedtimes when all you want to do is enjoy one of the few nice evenings out left in your allotment.
Then there is the incessant public whining about schools--like they really matter. And the taxes fer crissakes. Why would anyone on a fixed income want to pay the outrageous taxes these incredibly dysfunctional schools demand? And we won't even discuss what having schools littering the city does to concealed carry. Then we have laws and ordinances designed to protect children from themselves and even the remote possibility of exposure to anything deemed "mature". The kind of things that keep old farts' memories alive.
Why would any adult without school age children put up with all this? The answer is: they wouldn't. At least if they can afford not to.
So do we, as a city, want to create public policy that expands this "age diversity" or should we stay true to the mission, the reality of suburban living? Truth be told, what we really want is enough old fart warehousing to support the needs of a demographic that started a family late and now finds itself wedged between raising children and "caring" for the elders. We have enough of that already.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Dunwoody Police Parade
Never one to miss a good PR opportunity, the Dunwoody Police Department made a show of farce during the Dunwoody 5K run. This fine morning bore witness to the largest police presence in Northwest Dunwoody, home to Dunwoody's very own Needle Park, in DPD's brief history.
But not without mishap. One patrolman, obviously unfamiliar with the area and unburdened by a map or a sense of direction, got lost and had to flag down a Sandy Springs police officer for directions. Perhaps in an effort to save face, or perhaps to show the DPD's adoring fans that they can indeed write citations, this patrolman wrote up the Needle Park Crosswalk Practice Dummy for jaywalking. No one from the city was available to comment on how this fine would be collected or the consequences of non-payment--one suspects the Dummy will be hauled off to jail for "failure to pay". Odds are this is the last traffic citation in this area until this time next year.
The PR event ended abruptly as the patrolmen had to take an emergency call. Seems one of their two fave councilmen were hosting "Donuts with Deputies" all the way across town. Where they live.
But not without mishap. One patrolman, obviously unfamiliar with the area and unburdened by a map or a sense of direction, got lost and had to flag down a Sandy Springs police officer for directions. Perhaps in an effort to save face, or perhaps to show the DPD's adoring fans that they can indeed write citations, this patrolman wrote up the Needle Park Crosswalk Practice Dummy for jaywalking. No one from the city was available to comment on how this fine would be collected or the consequences of non-payment--one suspects the Dummy will be hauled off to jail for "failure to pay". Odds are this is the last traffic citation in this area until this time next year.
The PR event ended abruptly as the patrolmen had to take an emergency call. Seems one of their two fave councilmen were hosting "Donuts with Deputies" all the way across town. Where they live.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Doraville Falcons
There's been talk.
Talk of the Falcons moving to Doraville. Talk of a stadium where the GM plant now sits. Talk of how this is bad for Dunwoody.
That's right. Some folks seem to think this would be bad for Dunwoody. Somehow they believe this will bring more traffic than the GM plant ever did. Really. That's what they are saying. Of course this is so silly on the very face of it that you're probably wondering what they're really thinking, or what might be their real agenda. Others are simply wondering if they think at all.
True, a stadium, even one near a rail station, would bring in its fair share of cars. On game day--not seven days a week like high density development. It would also bring more than its fair share of shoppers and hungry fans to descend on Dunwoody's Mall and Restaurant Complex. We, the citizens of Dunwoody, would all reap the tax benefits of this commerce and our Toll Trolls would rake in cash like bears catching salmon during spawning season. Yes, there will be some sacrifice. Some must suffer the inconvenience of avoiding Doraville about twelve times a year. But on the other hand, the Doraville cops must deal with the traffic and the City of Doraville must pay to clean up the tailgater's mess.
The most vocal opposition comes from Smart Growth Propagandists abandoned when the Left WingNut Nation moved on to Sustainability. Though "Smart Growth" was superficially stupid from the beginning and has now been proven a failure and contributor to the financial meltdown, they can support no other option for redevelopment of the GM facility. But that doesn't change the facts. A stadium in Doraville is one of the best things that could happen for Dunwoody. It's the kind of Win-Lose proposition we like--we win everybody else's money and well, they just lose.
Anyway. There's been talk.
Talk of the Falcons moving to Doraville. Talk of a stadium where the GM plant now sits. Talk of how this is bad for Dunwoody.
That's right. Some folks seem to think this would be bad for Dunwoody. Somehow they believe this will bring more traffic than the GM plant ever did. Really. That's what they are saying. Of course this is so silly on the very face of it that you're probably wondering what they're really thinking, or what might be their real agenda. Others are simply wondering if they think at all.
True, a stadium, even one near a rail station, would bring in its fair share of cars. On game day--not seven days a week like high density development. It would also bring more than its fair share of shoppers and hungry fans to descend on Dunwoody's Mall and Restaurant Complex. We, the citizens of Dunwoody, would all reap the tax benefits of this commerce and our Toll Trolls would rake in cash like bears catching salmon during spawning season. Yes, there will be some sacrifice. Some must suffer the inconvenience of avoiding Doraville about twelve times a year. But on the other hand, the Doraville cops must deal with the traffic and the City of Doraville must pay to clean up the tailgater's mess.
The most vocal opposition comes from Smart Growth Propagandists abandoned when the Left WingNut Nation moved on to Sustainability. Though "Smart Growth" was superficially stupid from the beginning and has now been proven a failure and contributor to the financial meltdown, they can support no other option for redevelopment of the GM facility. But that doesn't change the facts. A stadium in Doraville is one of the best things that could happen for Dunwoody. It's the kind of Win-Lose proposition we like--we win everybody else's money and well, they just lose.
Anyway. There's been talk.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Practice Makes Perfect
Apparently disappointed with the lack of accidents involving pedestrians along the stretch of Chamblee Dunwoody near the Dunwoody Needle Park the city has re-installed the Pedestrian Practice Dummy. A summer off has taken the edge off our drive-through commuters and this new dummy is expected to provide much needed honing of the skills needed to score some pedestrian hits. Rumor has it this model is improved, incorporating a rubber bladder that spurts a red dye on cars of drivers who serve up a proper windshield hash. This not only adds realism, but allows the city to offer awards to drivers demonstrating skill, agility and endurance. However, without vocal public support it is unlikely the city will allocate funds for this much needed driver recognition.
Also, though it is not official policy, the city is expected to turn a blind eye to motorists who inadvertently commit infractions while practicing in this area. Fact is they have their hands full serving the PCID and operating Toll Trolls.
So ladies and gentlemen...hit 'em with your best shot.
Also, though it is not official policy, the city is expected to turn a blind eye to motorists who inadvertently commit infractions while practicing in this area. Fact is they have their hands full serving the PCID and operating Toll Trolls.
So ladies and gentlemen...hit 'em with your best shot.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Lollipop, Lollipop...
...Oh lolli-lollipop!
"As easy as taking candy from a baby", the saying goes. Turns out it isn't so easy when the baby is the parent of a public school student and the candy is part of the largest entitlement in America. An AJC guest editorial recently suggested that just a small bit of the cost of educating each child be paid by the child's parent as sort of token tuition. Though the amount was trifling, the outrage was anything but.
Letters to the editor excoriating the author generally fell along the lines of "We already pay for our children's education--it's called taxes". And they do pay taxes, but as we all know even well-to-do parents of two or more children are unlikely to ever pay an amount equivalent to the cost of educating their children. Not in property taxes, not in State and Federal Income Tax and not in all three combined. The fact that they are a burden to society is something they really don't like being pointed out.
They like even less the notion that they cannot do what they want (IE: have as many children as they please) without consequence. Doesn't matter if they have one child, ten children or none, it costs the same to educate them. Always has and to their way of thinking, as the entitled, always should. That's the way entitlements work.
These folks would embarrass even Veruca.
"As easy as taking candy from a baby", the saying goes. Turns out it isn't so easy when the baby is the parent of a public school student and the candy is part of the largest entitlement in America. An AJC guest editorial recently suggested that just a small bit of the cost of educating each child be paid by the child's parent as sort of token tuition. Though the amount was trifling, the outrage was anything but.
Letters to the editor excoriating the author generally fell along the lines of "We already pay for our children's education--it's called taxes". And they do pay taxes, but as we all know even well-to-do parents of two or more children are unlikely to ever pay an amount equivalent to the cost of educating their children. Not in property taxes, not in State and Federal Income Tax and not in all three combined. The fact that they are a burden to society is something they really don't like being pointed out.
They like even less the notion that they cannot do what they want (IE: have as many children as they please) without consequence. Doesn't matter if they have one child, ten children or none, it costs the same to educate them. Always has and to their way of thinking, as the entitled, always should. That's the way entitlements work.
These folks would embarrass even Veruca.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
