Do ScienceBloggers pander to increase their visibility on the ScienceBlogs site? For example, right now, if you put the word Kansas in each post, it might get highlighted in the "Kansas elections" roundup. Per usual, there's a lot of skill in pandering without appearing to pander. I'm sure Kansas is full of glass quid, for instance.
Well, since a fairly substantial fraction of the scienceblogs traffic is coming direct to Pharyngula, I haven't yet felt any compulsion to pander to the "buzz in the blogosphere" section of the main page. Maybe when my readership evaporates next week when I start my all new, all nude self-portrait series, I'll keep that in mind as a strategy to get a few unsuspecting readers.
Well, since a fairly substantial fraction of the scienceblogs traffic is coming direct to Pharyngula
Hmmm, I wonder if that explains Dr. Free-Ride blogging about Pirates? If anyone tries to move into the cephalopod porn racket though, you should put your foot down.
Somebody using the names Mary Box and Max Ballstein has taken to posting "You can't be [five-digit number here] serious?!?" on a dozen different comment threads. It bugs me, for some reason.
I know Minnesota was recently screwed over on the Twins stadium deal (I still can't see how that was legal). So how do you people feel about deals like this? Are there other folks who post here at PZ's blog who are as dead-set against this giveaway as I am?
Quick outline: Sac County pays between $472 million and $542 million, and then collects $122 million in rent over a 30 year period, for a net loss to the County of up to $420 million. But that's not all. The renters control ALL the revenue (not just for the nights they use it), and the City sells a 100 acre parcel of land (estimated value: $10-$40 million) and then gives that money to the Maloofs (owners of the Kings). But that's not all: County taxes are paid by the County, not the Maloofs.
And, of course, that's not all. But I can't list all the conditions here.
What do you folks think of deals like this (and of the one in Minnesota as well)?
MikeM: Ignoring the fact that these public supporting of professional sports seem to be a waste of money on moral grounds, it seems that a lot of them wind up not being the windfall that they are advertised to be.
MikeM: Ignoring the fact that these public supporting of professional sports seem to be a waste of money on moral grounds, it seems that a lot of them wind up not being the windfall that they are advertised to be.
quork: Well, that's why I tagged on the "they are advertised to be". Yes, they are often a windfall for team owners, but the hype is often that they will create windfalls for others like local concessions or something.
Unfortunately, in California, we are constitutionally prevented from funding education through sales taxes. And in Sacramento, we're right behind New Orleans in terms of flood danger (although I have to admit that it seems like Houston floods one heck of a lot more often than we do); our levees need a lot of work. Our transportation system needs lots of work. No kidding here: On July 7, our house got broken into; our police protection needs a lot of work.
I'd vote for a sales tax hike for those things, but not for a deal where County taxpayers pay $542 million for a building, and we then hand over ALL arena revenues to the chief occupants, for a total of $122 million in rent over a period of 30 years. Add in that the City pays to demolish the current arena; and the owners of the Kings get a "sphere of influence" around the proposed arena, where they get to decide what businesses get built near the arena; and where the City sells 100 acres of land and simply gives that money to the team's owners; and it just makes me want to barf.
That's embarrassingly one-sided. I think the good folks at Fieldofschemes.com say it's the most one-sided deal they've ever seen.
Do ScienceBloggers pander to increase their visibility on the ScienceBlogs site? For example, right now, if you put the word Kansas in each post, it might get highlighted in the "Kansas elections" roundup. Per usual, there's a lot of skill in pandering without appearing to pander. I'm sure Kansas is full of glass quid, for instance.
Well, since a fairly substantial fraction of the scienceblogs traffic is coming direct to Pharyngula, I haven't yet felt any compulsion to pander to the "buzz in the blogosphere" section of the main page. Maybe when my readership evaporates next week when I start my all new, all nude self-portrait series, I'll keep that in mind as a strategy to get a few unsuspecting readers.
"my all new, all nude self-portrait series"
*faints out of sheer fright*
Got to amazon.com and search the books section for panda porn. Note the editor of the top entry.
Who knew?
Hmmm, I wonder if that explains Dr. Free-Ride blogging about Pirates? If anyone tries to move into the cephalopod porn racket though, you should put your foot down.
Somebody using the names Mary Box and Max Ballstein has taken to posting "You can't be [five-digit number here] serious?!?" on a dozen different comment threads. It bugs me, for some reason.
I'm fighting a battle completely unrelated to evolution or global politics here in Sacramento: Publicly-funded sports arenas.
Lots of details are available at sacbee.com, and at the County's website (http://www.ceo.saccounty.net/pio/information/Quality-of-Life-Measure.ht…).
I know Minnesota was recently screwed over on the Twins stadium deal (I still can't see how that was legal). So how do you people feel about deals like this? Are there other folks who post here at PZ's blog who are as dead-set against this giveaway as I am?
Quick outline: Sac County pays between $472 million and $542 million, and then collects $122 million in rent over a 30 year period, for a net loss to the County of up to $420 million. But that's not all. The renters control ALL the revenue (not just for the nights they use it), and the City sells a 100 acre parcel of land (estimated value: $10-$40 million) and then gives that money to the Maloofs (owners of the Kings). But that's not all: County taxes are paid by the County, not the Maloofs.
And, of course, that's not all. But I can't list all the conditions here.
What do you folks think of deals like this (and of the one in Minnesota as well)?
Extra! Extra! Paul Nelson lets word slip about the Discovery Institute's top secret research program! Discussed over at Stranger Fruit
MikeM: Ignoring the fact that these public supporting of professional sports seem to be a waste of money on moral grounds, it seems that a lot of them wind up not being the windfall that they are advertised to be.
Not a windfall for whom?
quork: Well, that's why I tagged on the "they are advertised to be". Yes, they are often a windfall for team owners, but the hype is often that they will create windfalls for others like local concessions or something.
Unfortunately, in California, we are constitutionally prevented from funding education through sales taxes. And in Sacramento, we're right behind New Orleans in terms of flood danger (although I have to admit that it seems like Houston floods one heck of a lot more often than we do); our levees need a lot of work. Our transportation system needs lots of work. No kidding here: On July 7, our house got broken into; our police protection needs a lot of work.
I'd vote for a sales tax hike for those things, but not for a deal where County taxpayers pay $542 million for a building, and we then hand over ALL arena revenues to the chief occupants, for a total of $122 million in rent over a period of 30 years. Add in that the City pays to demolish the current arena; and the owners of the Kings get a "sphere of influence" around the proposed arena, where they get to decide what businesses get built near the arena; and where the City sells 100 acres of land and simply gives that money to the team's owners; and it just makes me want to barf.
That's embarrassingly one-sided. I think the good folks at Fieldofschemes.com say it's the most one-sided deal they've ever seen.