Hey NewJackson -- we welcome your participation but please keep from getting personal in your comments. Our rule here is to "disagree agreeably." Rick Cleveland does live in Jackson, and I think we can assume that all of the museum folks are very invested in Jackson because they have placed their time, energy and in many cases their own money in those investments in Jackson's attractions and infrastructure.

Like all of y'all I do welcome and appreciate the debate.

I will say that I personally have some reservations similar to Jackson31 -- it's hard to imagine a Costco going into that location and not attracting fast food, auto repair, gas stations and other retail; it seems to be a pretty rare situation where you'd see one big box retailer and absolutely nothing else around it.

Ah, didn't know that. No wonder I love that corporation so much! They'd rather leave a retail space empty and see the area around it decline then have a potential competitor in a location that they've given up on. Classy.

*During his last State of the City address, I remember Harvey Johnson saying he sent materials to Costco to try to get them to locate in the Sam's building when they leave it for Madison.*

That does seem like a logical conclusion that many of us might wish Costco would reach.

*but that doesn't change the fact that this editorial dismisses 99.9 percent of the coverage the NYT has given to Ferguson.*

Except that it doesn't. It uses that specific example to make a broader point.

Mr. THC: I apologize. I incorrectly assumed you could handle a little sarcasm, since you were employing it yourself. (I even used a smiley face!) My bad.

So you agree that the characterization in this particular piece was "particularly inappropriate" but then you criticize its use as an example? I'm not sure that makes sense. And I don't see anything in the editorial that criticizes the NYTimes' body of work on Ferguson.

*If condemning something someone said about Ferguson because it "set off a torrent of criticism on social media" is the standard, you are going to have a lot more editorials to write.*

And if you take one part of an editorial and argue fallaciously from the specific to the general, you've got a lot of Internet commenting to do. :)

*Tell me this though? Do you think Mr. Brown was innocent? Do you think that he had the right to assault a police officer?*

If you're asking me this personally, my response is that I'm not as quick to judgement as you seem to be about this case. I don't *know* that he assaulted an officer, I don't *know* how the officer responded, and I don't know if, in either case, if it was or wasn't excessive force.

You, on the other hand, are including any and all corroborating "evidence" for your point of view -- including some quick leaps to the worst possible conclusion and an uncritical assurance in your personal long-distance forensic analysis -- while ignoring anything that doesn't seem to fit.

I'll just say thing -- I hope the grand jury considers all sides of the argument more completely.

The question in front of them is not "was Mr. Brown innocent" but, rather, where Wilson's actions excessive?

Forrest... probably time to walk back the eye socket argument...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/…

I hadn't seen it yet elevated to the level of an IAD blast, but presumably that characterization will also require some reshaping.

Here's a link to the Utah shooting story: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58304…

Just read this interesting piece, which [makes an excellent point about Hobby Lobby][1], and it points to the problem with the Court's misguided suggestion that a corporation can have religious convictions:

*Give the Hobby Lobby owners' family credit for their deep religious convictions. But if profit-making were truly subordinated to those convictions, which are strongly in opposition to abortion rights, Hobby Lobby would provide paid maternity leave for employees who shun contraception and abortion to have babies. It doesn't.*

[1]: http://www.nationaljournal.com/washingt…