Of course this bothers the religious right. And by bothers, I mean makes them very afraid that they will soon have to confront all of their repressed kinky fantasies in their own workplace.
On a related note, Tim Pawlenty has decided that gender transition is just too confusing for children to comprehend. He's probably right. It's better that they're not exposed to that, so they can keep their own gender problems bottled up until they are out in the workforce as a professional, like a teacher or something, then they can make their own decisions about when to....oh. oops.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Bad articles at New Geography.
It's true that Portland, Oregon is not as diverse as most American cities. However, this article is quite stupid and really seems to be a simple attempt at contrarianism, and this one is anecdotal, condescending garbage that really doesn't merit reply.
However, I still feel the need to reply to both. I'll start with the second article, "Sushi Without Japanese". He points out that the majority of Latino immigrants end up working in the agricultural sector across the state, as if this phenomenon is unique to Portland and Oregon. I think it self evidently is not. The same with his complaint that new foreign immigrants tend to cluster in autonomous neighborhoods in Portland. Does he not think that this exists in other cities? Has he ever been to a Chinatown elsewhere? Little Italy? Japantown? Furthermore, these clusters likely actually help the new immigrants. They are surrounded by people who are familiar with the problems that immigrants face, people speak their language, and they are allowed to maintain part of their culture. I really don't see how this is a bad thing. Would he prefer that we require cultural assimilation of all new immigrants? Perhaps everyone should eat a double cheeseburger once a week? Fucking idiotic.
The second article has more data behind it, but it is just as historically ignorant. I'm going to assume that his goal is to call out Portland on our "self congratulatory" nature about how livable our city is because those policies have only been "enabled" by a lack of diversity.
But there's really nothing to call out. Portland is the way that is because there was never a diverse enough population to cause all the problems associated with diversity, so white people never fled the city and left it to decay. That is not something that Portland should be apologizing for, rather it is something that other cities should regret. Minorities, and particularly African Americans, never left the big American cities. The only people who did were white. This sentence in particular pissed me off:
Civic leaders in city after city duly make their pilgrimage to Denver or Portland to check out shiny new transit systems, but the resulting videos of smiling yuppies and happy hipsters are not likely to impress anyone over at the local NAACP or in the barrios.
First of all, does Aaron Renn think that the local NAACP or the residents of the barrios run other American cities? I'm pretty sure they don't. Other cities continue to suffer from underinvestment from the government because white people still run the fucking show. So maybe those videos of smiling happy hipsters with their pretentious lattes and blackberries aren't aimed at the people in the barrios. Maybe they are aimed at the suburban whites who still have most of the political power in this country and who may actually be convinced not to cut bus service because someone that looks like them might actually ride it.
Renn also says that "it's easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics". True, but again, the problem in the other cities is not that Black people don't ride mass transit. Philadelphia serves as the perfect example here where almost all the mass transit riders were minorities (in my limited experience). So I think he is framing this wrong. Minorities ride public transit everywhere. Poor people ride mass transit everywhere. The issue is that, unless you have "Scandinavian demographics", white people choose not invest and not ride mass transit (or send their children to public schools, etc.).
Just to be clear: "progressive" things like investing in public transit do benefit poor people and minorities. The difference is that the riders in those other cities may end up being a different color than in Portland, but that doesn't change the benefits. White people don't ride mass transit in other cities, so they don't fund it because they don't see the benefits. So should Portland be called out because their investment in public transit has benefited the mostly white poor as opposed to the more ethnically diverse poor in other cities?
Lastly, his assertion that cities like Houston "welcomed Katrina victims with open arms" can only be spoken by someone who hasn't ever lived in Texas. I was living there, and there were exaggerated horror stories that circulated (mostly amongst whites) about the havoc that the refugees caused upon arrival. In the Texan white community, the refugees were largely seen as criminals, just like they were depicted on television.
However, I still feel the need to reply to both. I'll start with the second article, "Sushi Without Japanese". He points out that the majority of Latino immigrants end up working in the agricultural sector across the state, as if this phenomenon is unique to Portland and Oregon. I think it self evidently is not. The same with his complaint that new foreign immigrants tend to cluster in autonomous neighborhoods in Portland. Does he not think that this exists in other cities? Has he ever been to a Chinatown elsewhere? Little Italy? Japantown? Furthermore, these clusters likely actually help the new immigrants. They are surrounded by people who are familiar with the problems that immigrants face, people speak their language, and they are allowed to maintain part of their culture. I really don't see how this is a bad thing. Would he prefer that we require cultural assimilation of all new immigrants? Perhaps everyone should eat a double cheeseburger once a week? Fucking idiotic.
The second article has more data behind it, but it is just as historically ignorant. I'm going to assume that his goal is to call out Portland on our "self congratulatory" nature about how livable our city is because those policies have only been "enabled" by a lack of diversity.
But there's really nothing to call out. Portland is the way that is because there was never a diverse enough population to cause all the problems associated with diversity, so white people never fled the city and left it to decay. That is not something that Portland should be apologizing for, rather it is something that other cities should regret. Minorities, and particularly African Americans, never left the big American cities. The only people who did were white. This sentence in particular pissed me off:
Civic leaders in city after city duly make their pilgrimage to Denver or Portland to check out shiny new transit systems, but the resulting videos of smiling yuppies and happy hipsters are not likely to impress anyone over at the local NAACP or in the barrios.
First of all, does Aaron Renn think that the local NAACP or the residents of the barrios run other American cities? I'm pretty sure they don't. Other cities continue to suffer from underinvestment from the government because white people still run the fucking show. So maybe those videos of smiling happy hipsters with their pretentious lattes and blackberries aren't aimed at the people in the barrios. Maybe they are aimed at the suburban whites who still have most of the political power in this country and who may actually be convinced not to cut bus service because someone that looks like them might actually ride it.
Renn also says that "it's easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics". True, but again, the problem in the other cities is not that Black people don't ride mass transit. Philadelphia serves as the perfect example here where almost all the mass transit riders were minorities (in my limited experience). So I think he is framing this wrong. Minorities ride public transit everywhere. Poor people ride mass transit everywhere. The issue is that, unless you have "Scandinavian demographics", white people choose not invest and not ride mass transit (or send their children to public schools, etc.).
Just to be clear: "progressive" things like investing in public transit do benefit poor people and minorities. The difference is that the riders in those other cities may end up being a different color than in Portland, but that doesn't change the benefits. White people don't ride mass transit in other cities, so they don't fund it because they don't see the benefits. So should Portland be called out because their investment in public transit has benefited the mostly white poor as opposed to the more ethnically diverse poor in other cities?
Lastly, his assertion that cities like Houston "welcomed Katrina victims with open arms" can only be spoken by someone who hasn't ever lived in Texas. I was living there, and there were exaggerated horror stories that circulated (mostly amongst whites) about the havoc that the refugees caused upon arrival. In the Texan white community, the refugees were largely seen as criminals, just like they were depicted on television.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Oh Hey They Must Read My Blog.
Washington continues to be a surprisingly progressive city. Gay marriage, fancy modern subway system, what's not to like?
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Aristocrats
Long ago, I accepted that our elected representatives in Congress were beholden to lobbyists and that most of them cared very little about the substance of policy. The only thing that matters is how the juvenile media and the lobbyists will react.
But Joe Lieberman seems to have set a new standard here. He is not listening to lobbyists, and he is not listening to the media. He is simply trying to spite the liberals that worked against him in the last election. Money from the insurance industry probably doesn't even matter at this point.
Just another reminder that, for the most part, we are governed by technocrats (and aristocrats in the case of the Senate) who do not have even the mildest sense of the importance of the things that they do. It's all an intra-governmental game and, for lack of a better word, petty office politics. It's like In the Loop, but less funny.
Oh, by the way, fuck Joe Lieberman.
But Joe Lieberman seems to have set a new standard here. He is not listening to lobbyists, and he is not listening to the media. He is simply trying to spite the liberals that worked against him in the last election. Money from the insurance industry probably doesn't even matter at this point.
Just another reminder that, for the most part, we are governed by technocrats (and aristocrats in the case of the Senate) who do not have even the mildest sense of the importance of the things that they do. It's all an intra-governmental game and, for lack of a better word, petty office politics. It's like In the Loop, but less funny.
Oh, by the way, fuck Joe Lieberman.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Fuck Joe Lieberman
I have read several theories speculating on the possible motivations for Joe Lieberman's almost single handedly destroying healthcare reform, but I honestly don't carfe what his motivations are. He needs to kicked off his committee now, and the Obama administration needs to start treating him like the other 41 obstructionist Senators that just happen to call themselves Republicans instead of Independents.
Fuck Joe Lieberman.
Fuck Joe Lieberman.
Friday, December 11, 2009
The ACLU
Oh fucking hell.
Pretty much everyone that I've told that I work for the ACLU has said something positive, but qualified. Like "Oh they're a cool organization, but I don't support everything they do". Or "They've made some bad decisions", or whatever.
But actually, everyone that I know and talk to, you are wrong. Yes, the ACLU defended neo-Nazis right to march down the street in predominantly Jewish town. Yes, they defended NAMBLA (the most tragically funny organization ever), and they defended those disgusting Theocrats from Westboro Baptist Church.
But really, if you don't let the Nazi's march, or you don't let the Westboro idiots yell at soliders and queers, then it just makes the problem worse. The idiotic movements are exposed as what they are by being out the open. If something is prohibited, it just makes it all that more appealing to those that are predisposed toward these ridiculous movements, and it makes violence more likely. Provocation is what these types of groups specialize in, and letting them march out in the open while you drink a cup of tea and act all gay or Jewish or whatever is probably best way to fuck with them (this is why I advocated a big gay dance party counter-protest to the Westboro people when they came to town instead of an indignant, angry counter-protest). Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that the neo-Nazis and the Westboro people have done more to hurt their cause with any publicity they got because the public's reactions are pretty universally disgust.
Anyway, I digress. The point is, I honestly can't think of a court case that the ACLU has been wrong on. They literally persuaded John Scopes to testify on behalf of evolution at the famous trial. They supported school desegregation, Roe v. Wade, and gay rights time after time.
Like Glenn Greenwald says, the ACLU has been the first and most prominent opponent of all the tough guys that have wanted to establish a police state since September 11. For example of the tough guys who love to start wars that they don't fight in, you can always check the Weekly Standard.
Here's Glenn's response to that article.
Pretty much everyone that I've told that I work for the ACLU has said something positive, but qualified. Like "Oh they're a cool organization, but I don't support everything they do". Or "They've made some bad decisions", or whatever.
But actually, everyone that I know and talk to, you are wrong. Yes, the ACLU defended neo-Nazis right to march down the street in predominantly Jewish town. Yes, they defended NAMBLA (the most tragically funny organization ever), and they defended those disgusting Theocrats from Westboro Baptist Church.
But really, if you don't let the Nazi's march, or you don't let the Westboro idiots yell at soliders and queers, then it just makes the problem worse. The idiotic movements are exposed as what they are by being out the open. If something is prohibited, it just makes it all that more appealing to those that are predisposed toward these ridiculous movements, and it makes violence more likely. Provocation is what these types of groups specialize in, and letting them march out in the open while you drink a cup of tea and act all gay or Jewish or whatever is probably best way to fuck with them (this is why I advocated a big gay dance party counter-protest to the Westboro people when they came to town instead of an indignant, angry counter-protest). Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that the neo-Nazis and the Westboro people have done more to hurt their cause with any publicity they got because the public's reactions are pretty universally disgust.
Anyway, I digress. The point is, I honestly can't think of a court case that the ACLU has been wrong on. They literally persuaded John Scopes to testify on behalf of evolution at the famous trial. They supported school desegregation, Roe v. Wade, and gay rights time after time.
Like Glenn Greenwald says, the ACLU has been the first and most prominent opponent of all the tough guys that have wanted to establish a police state since September 11. For example of the tough guys who love to start wars that they don't fight in, you can always check the Weekly Standard.
Here's Glenn's response to that article.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
More from the Mercury.
Absolutely shocking.
Is someone trying to say that prostitutes don't actually like being prostitutes? That's absurd. Jail time should solve our prostitution problem just like it solved our drug problem.
And lastly, this is perhaps the funniest movie review I've ever read.
Is someone trying to say that prostitutes don't actually like being prostitutes? That's absurd. Jail time should solve our prostitution problem just like it solved our drug problem.
And lastly, this is perhaps the funniest movie review I've ever read.
Once Again
Why I love the Portland Mercury.
P.S. Willamette Week didn't even mention Outside In in their list of 70 non-profits (or something) to give to over the holidays. Fuckers.
P.S. Willamette Week didn't even mention Outside In in their list of 70 non-profits (or something) to give to over the holidays. Fuckers.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
He Just Doesn't Want Gays Stuffing It Down His Throat All the Time.
Only sometimes. It's really hard to give speeches to TV crews with the gays stuffing it down your throat. Or your kid's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)