Police on trail of 'fat bandit'
Although victims initially suspected that a man who robbed three banks within 90 minutes yesterday was wearing a fat suit as a disguise, police today say the man really is fat guy.
"We don't believe it's a fat suit," Det. Russ Rairey told thestar.com today.
"We just think he is fat."
Early reports indicated the robber must have been wearing a "fat suit" to disguise his identity.
But police now believe the robber is about 5-foot-9 and 300 pounds. His beard, however, is a fake.
The three robberies are not connected to the violent bank robbery on Sheppard Ave. later in which police shot a suspect.
Police can't say yet how the chubby bandit was able to get around so quickly in order to pull off the three robberies within a five-mile radius.
"He was seen leaving the bank on foot, but he's got to have some mode of transportation," the detective said.
His first stop was a TD Bank at Bayview and Moore Aves., then another bank on Glencairn Ave. and finally a third on Marlee Ave., all in the midtown area.
Police believe the "fat bandit" has pulled more than the three bank heists and the violence has been escalating.
He produced a gun in all three holdups yesterday and staff were all quite shaken.
Police are working with the Canadian Bankers Association on coming up with a reward. They hope to make an announcement sometime next week.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Iraq war botched and illegal
Linda McQuaig offers a succinct and dead-on analysis of what passes for an "anti-war" position on the American occupation of Iraq. It's encouraging to see some discussion of the fact that 'criticism' of the war in most mainstream media outlets never goes beyond lamenting the loss of American lives and dollars. It really is sad that there is no prominent serious discussion of whether or not it's right to invade another country - just whether or not they can get away with it.
Sure, there's lots of criticism of the Bush administration for poor war planning, and for squandering U.S. lives and "treasure."
All this is true, but it skirts a more fundamental problem – one that was barely mentioned in all the fifth-year anniversary commentaries last week – that the invasion was a war of aggression carried out in defiance of international law.
This is not a mere technicality. According to the Nuremberg Tribunal, set up by the Allies after World War II: "War is essentially an evil thing ... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime."
Linda McQuaig offers a succinct and dead-on analysis of what passes for an "anti-war" position on the American occupation of Iraq. It's encouraging to see some discussion of the fact that 'criticism' of the war in most mainstream media outlets never goes beyond lamenting the loss of American lives and dollars. It really is sad that there is no prominent serious discussion of whether or not it's right to invade another country - just whether or not they can get away with it.
Sure, there's lots of criticism of the Bush administration for poor war planning, and for squandering U.S. lives and "treasure."
All this is true, but it skirts a more fundamental problem – one that was barely mentioned in all the fifth-year anniversary commentaries last week – that the invasion was a war of aggression carried out in defiance of international law.
This is not a mere technicality. According to the Nuremberg Tribunal, set up by the Allies after World War II: "War is essentially an evil thing ... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime."
There was an interesting post about the possibility of a Walmart moving into the city of Buffalo. Personally, I think it's inevitable as a continuing part of the recent suburbanizatin of Buffalo. By this I don't mean that more and more people are moving to the suburbs - I mean the city itself is becoming more suburban. All of the recent development in North Buffalo - along Elmwood just south of Hertel (Home Depot, etc.), along Delaware around Hertel (from IHOP to Target) - there have been more chains, strip malls and parking lots appearing, making these major arteries feel more like Niagara Falls Blvd. or Sheridan than urban strips.
All of this is a shame, too, because if you look at Hertel in the past 10 years, it's really been developing nicely into a pleasant urban village - lots of walkable shopping and restaurants. Sure, it's always had these things, but in the past few years it's been improving quite a bit. There's also been a recent spurt of both new apartments & condos downtown (600-700 block of Main St.), as well as restoration of older buildings that have been borded up for as long as I can remember (Oak St., I think). If the city wants to grow and improve itself, these are the sorts of areas and projects it needs to push, and stop selling land to strip mall developers who will continue to make any kind of positive urban landscape to develop.
Anyway, one of the commentors there mentioned the idea of Walmart inserting itself as part of a normal city block instead of a big box suburban outlet surrounded by thousands of parking spaces. This is obviously more appealing and could be a sort of catalyst for other development (depending on where it goes) but let's not ignore the fact that it's still Walmart. These are still going to be minimum wage retail jobs, and it's still going to push a lot of local shops out of business. So I'm still opposed. It's just good to see people are thinking about these things. The posts on Buffalo Rising often lead to interesting and intelligent discussions on the city's future.
Will Buffalo be hurt by the big retail giants? Well yes and no so let me explain. Buffalo is an incredibly poor, shrinking and relatively stupid/uneducated/illiterate/non-techology focused city even compared to Rochester one hour east.
The only reason Buffalo has the Airport handling 6 million visitors, and the retail and many other businesses is due to the patronage of the canadians who find it cheaper and believe it or not more convenient. Without the canadians Buffalo wouldnt even have the population or the wealth to attract the walmarts and k-marts that it has now much less higher end retail....and without the canadians Buffalo would have higher fairs than Rochester no doubt.
Now after saying this why did I have to put Buffalo down by saying its "relatively stupid/uneducated/illiterate/non-techology focused" because when people think of small business in Buffalo they think restaurants, retail and hair dressers. In other words low capital and low education.
Buffalonians need to think of small business in terms of high technology, high education, high value services across wide swaths of industry and business. The fact that we Buffalonians think in terms of the lowest intelligence/lowest skill/lowest education/lowest value/lowest technology possible says why we are continuing to fail as a 21st century city.
--------------------------
However...there is opportunity for something different. The front of a Wal-Mart supercenter tends to be shops anyway. The doctor's office, the eye glass store, a Subway, a photo shop, the grocery store, etc. Although, they're all contained behind blank walls. If you put the store basically on a city block you could arrange it so that the front of the store has windows for each individual shop to give it a retail-storefront appearance. Basically make the Wal-Mart an urban retail block in and of itself. The only skin off Wal-Mart's back is that it looks slightly different than all their other stores. But innovation is supposed to be what they're good at. Plus, in my mind, this could fulfill the need for a grocery store in an underserved area, which is a big deal.
Now, having said that, I fully understand that this might squash whatever existing locally owned businesses were trying to germinate in whatever area this thing goes. And that is very bad. But, if its going to happen anyway (as Wal-Mart has a history of doing whatever they want), the city might as well try to make the store part of an urban fabric with built-in potential for adaptive reuse. This would be a small victory in what would otherwise be an unmitigated disaster.
http://buffalorising.com/story/how_will_the_retail_climate_ch#sca
All of this is a shame, too, because if you look at Hertel in the past 10 years, it's really been developing nicely into a pleasant urban village - lots of walkable shopping and restaurants. Sure, it's always had these things, but in the past few years it's been improving quite a bit. There's also been a recent spurt of both new apartments & condos downtown (600-700 block of Main St.), as well as restoration of older buildings that have been borded up for as long as I can remember (Oak St., I think). If the city wants to grow and improve itself, these are the sorts of areas and projects it needs to push, and stop selling land to strip mall developers who will continue to make any kind of positive urban landscape to develop.
Anyway, one of the commentors there mentioned the idea of Walmart inserting itself as part of a normal city block instead of a big box suburban outlet surrounded by thousands of parking spaces. This is obviously more appealing and could be a sort of catalyst for other development (depending on where it goes) but let's not ignore the fact that it's still Walmart. These are still going to be minimum wage retail jobs, and it's still going to push a lot of local shops out of business. So I'm still opposed. It's just good to see people are thinking about these things. The posts on Buffalo Rising often lead to interesting and intelligent discussions on the city's future.
Will Buffalo be hurt by the big retail giants? Well yes and no so let me explain. Buffalo is an incredibly poor, shrinking and relatively stupid/uneducated/illiterate/non-techology focused city even compared to Rochester one hour east.
The only reason Buffalo has the Airport handling 6 million visitors, and the retail and many other businesses is due to the patronage of the canadians who find it cheaper and believe it or not more convenient. Without the canadians Buffalo wouldnt even have the population or the wealth to attract the walmarts and k-marts that it has now much less higher end retail....and without the canadians Buffalo would have higher fairs than Rochester no doubt.
Now after saying this why did I have to put Buffalo down by saying its "relatively stupid/uneducated/illiterate/non-techology focused" because when people think of small business in Buffalo they think restaurants, retail and hair dressers. In other words low capital and low education.
Buffalonians need to think of small business in terms of high technology, high education, high value services across wide swaths of industry and business. The fact that we Buffalonians think in terms of the lowest intelligence/lowest skill/lowest education/lowest value/lowest technology possible says why we are continuing to fail as a 21st century city.
--------------------------
However...there is opportunity for something different. The front of a Wal-Mart supercenter tends to be shops anyway. The doctor's office, the eye glass store, a Subway, a photo shop, the grocery store, etc. Although, they're all contained behind blank walls. If you put the store basically on a city block you could arrange it so that the front of the store has windows for each individual shop to give it a retail-storefront appearance. Basically make the Wal-Mart an urban retail block in and of itself. The only skin off Wal-Mart's back is that it looks slightly different than all their other stores. But innovation is supposed to be what they're good at. Plus, in my mind, this could fulfill the need for a grocery store in an underserved area, which is a big deal.
Now, having said that, I fully understand that this might squash whatever existing locally owned businesses were trying to germinate in whatever area this thing goes. And that is very bad. But, if its going to happen anyway (as Wal-Mart has a history of doing whatever they want), the city might as well try to make the store part of an urban fabric with built-in potential for adaptive reuse. This would be a small victory in what would otherwise be an unmitigated disaster.
http://buffalorising.com/story/how_will_the_retail_climate_ch#sca
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Well, if you moustache such a question....
There is currently an interesting discussion of the beard and society going on at Maltirish, and it has moved me to reflect on my own beard growing experiences. I've grown two beards in my lifetime, neither time for more than a month or two. Anyway, the way I see it, there are two main aspects to the beard - physical and social.
The physical aspect concerns things like grooming and itchiness. A beard can be convenient because it eliminates all that time normally spent shaving. Of course, for those of us with he luxury of only shaving once a week (more out of laziness than a mere lack of facial hair), the time spent trimming a beard isn't really all that much of an improvement. It also becomes necessary because of things like neck itchiness and hairs hanging over the lip from the moustache.
The social aspect of a beard is basically how people see you and react to your beard. Everyone who knew you before the beard will inevitably have questions about why you're doing it and comments on how well (or badly) it's coming in. But people who meet you for the first time are more likely to keep their judgments silent, andmay think you're a hippy, a communist, a Muslim, or a 19th century politician. Of course, once you shave the beard the same people will have a whole new round of questions for you, and perhaps even new-found honesty like finally telling you they never liked your old girlfriend anyway. This is all just something you have to be prepared to deal with.
Obviously, there's more to say on this, but I'm at work right now and can't really offer this subject the attention and depth it deserves. But hopefully the discussion will continue. Also, in the meantime, for those with the luxury of a surplus of facial hair who can choose what style of beard to grow, Wikipedia has a useful and brilliantly-illustrated guide.
There is currently an interesting discussion of the beard and society going on at Maltirish, and it has moved me to reflect on my own beard growing experiences. I've grown two beards in my lifetime, neither time for more than a month or two. Anyway, the way I see it, there are two main aspects to the beard - physical and social.
The physical aspect concerns things like grooming and itchiness. A beard can be convenient because it eliminates all that time normally spent shaving. Of course, for those of us with he luxury of only shaving once a week (more out of laziness than a mere lack of facial hair), the time spent trimming a beard isn't really all that much of an improvement. It also becomes necessary because of things like neck itchiness and hairs hanging over the lip from the moustache.
The social aspect of a beard is basically how people see you and react to your beard. Everyone who knew you before the beard will inevitably have questions about why you're doing it and comments on how well (or badly) it's coming in. But people who meet you for the first time are more likely to keep their judgments silent, andmay think you're a hippy, a communist, a Muslim, or a 19th century politician. Of course, once you shave the beard the same people will have a whole new round of questions for you, and perhaps even new-found honesty like finally telling you they never liked your old girlfriend anyway. This is all just something you have to be prepared to deal with.
Obviously, there's more to say on this, but I'm at work right now and can't really offer this subject the attention and depth it deserves. But hopefully the discussion will continue. Also, in the meantime, for those with the luxury of a surplus of facial hair who can choose what style of beard to grow, Wikipedia has a useful and brilliantly-illustrated guide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)