I’ll tell you why that is, and I’ll tell you why you Liberal types are so damn fond of kittens: With your "La de dah, let’s let anyone wander back and forth across our borders whenever they wish, with their inexpensive Japanese electronics and fancy burnt Italian coffee, You don’t get that cats are an EVIL aliens species bent on taking over and subjugating us, and it’s only the dogs, most of whom are red-blooded AMERICANS, who would vote Republican if they could, because they’re patriotic and they love Mom and apple pie, and they support good, old-fashioned American institutions like Walmart and Nascar, while you pinko-teva-wearing godless Heathen Liberals figure that if Obama will give you free phones, cats will give you iPads and Grateful Dead tickets, and…
Woah. Rush Limbaugh stole my brain there, for a couple minutes. It’s okay, though: I just chugged a quart of strichnine, and I’ll be better in about 15 minutes…
but cats will still be evil!
(DISCLAIMER: the above is a work of satirical fiction, intended for entertainment purposes only. Any resemblance to persons living, dead, or fatuous, is purely intentional. Do not operate heavy equipment. Do not pass GO; do not collect $200. Don’t you…forget about me, don’t,don’t,don’t you…forget about me. If you or any of your team are captured, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. Don’t Panic!
Did they have contempt for those who were not poor/working-class?
I definitely understand your point although it depends on the town of course. Many working class people care an awful lot about their lawns and gardens you know, and get quite upset if people around them are not maintaining their homes up to what they think should be par, talking about them behind their backs, and so on.
I know my previous house front yard got talked about. I planted it almost all prarie plants and bulbs, very little lawn. Some loved it and some hated it. My next door neighbor was one of those people who pulled out all his grass and resodded because he had a few crabgrass patches and was meticulous …he hated having my garden next door (and just to point out the silliness of some of the sterotypes that people make here, he was Black and I am White and I was, in his mind, the trash to be objected to).
Some points:
[ul]
[li]There seems to be a false dichotomy that people on Team City must want to live in the citiest city that ever citied a city, and vice versa for Team Suburb. The fact that this isn’t the case, I think, contributes to some on Team Suburb appearing (to me, at least) to believe that those on Team City believe that living in suburbs is objectively better and so Team City must have some sort of dark motive.[/li]
[li]There’s nothing unusual or contradictory about saying “cities have A, B, and C but not D or E; suburbs have F, G, and H, but not J or K. I want A, B, F, and J but not C, D, G, or K, so city it is.” Again, I personally could be persuaded to live in an area that counts as suburban but has the features I like about city living; I just don’t want to live in Levittown (and, getting back to the stated subject of the thread, I don’t begrudge it existing).[/li]
[li]East St. Louis is a suburb and I understand it’s much shittier than St. Louis proper.[/li][/ul]
“Professed” in that he’s apparently a “liberal activist” or has he actually said? I could look it up, but I’m not a huge fan of celebrity gossip and I’m not going to look for your cites for you.
You don’t get to say “you’re doing X, but I believe you believe Y. That’s a contradiction, sir, ergo you are a hypocrite.” You sound like the guy on the train to Minsk.
Actually said. He made a bit of a kerfuffle in the news last week because he’s been a fairly vocal opponent of (Republican) school reform strategies, like vouchers.
Don’t ask me why ralph thinks Matt Damon “presumably likes city life but lives in a suburban community”.
Race isn’t irrelevant to this discussion. It would be nice if it were possible to talk about race without immediately having accusations of racism tossed around. But with certain liberals, their white guilt makes this impossible.
Look at what happened here: SlackerInc brought up gangs. He said that some schools in Chicago have 100% gang membership. His solution was to spread them around to the suburbs where gangs aren’t so widespread. I responded to his post with my experience with exactly what he proposed, and I used the word “gangs” in my response. The (predictable) result: I get called a racist by several people for using a “dog whistle” code word.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk about race. I’m saying that it’s not helpful to be so hyper-sensitive to race issues that you can’t allow a conservative to speak certain words, regardless of context, without throwing around accusations of racism. That’s not helpful to the conversation.
It’s strange you automatically equate a distaste for racism with “white guilt”, reminds me of those “Anti-racism is anti-white” robots on youtube comments. No, I don’t have white guilt. My last name is a slave name, no idea where in Africa my ancestors came from.
I don’t “hate” someone just because I don’t want to live next to them. I don’t hate McDonalds, but I wouldn’t be happy if someone built one across the street from my house.
Millions of people like suburbs for the obvious reasons that I and others have stated in this thread. For you to think that’s hatred and bigoted and possibly racist is very odd. I don’t want to live in Appalacia, either. Do I hate the people who live there, too?
Sure. As long as they can afford it and they keep up with the lawncare.
I’ve expressed no desire to control who lives near me. Of course you can’t. But that’s a far cry from simply having a desire to live in a nice neighborhood. Of course most people do want this for their family. It’s telling that you seem to equate the two.
And there are people like me, who choose to live in a neighborhood (doesn’t really matter if it’s suburban or urban) with a diverse mix of folks (ethnically, politically, and socioeconomically), even though they could afford a more “exclusive” situation, mainly because they are left-leaning folks who value diversity for several reasons…
…YET who admittedly feel some “contempt” (by the broader definition) for their low-class, uneducated white neighbors across the street. “Disdain” is probably a better word, because “contempt” implies action to me.
Not something I’m proud of, but nor do I see it as “hypocritical.” Valuing diversity also means putting up with some things you simply don’t like.
East St. Louis (originally “Illinoistown”) was founded in 1797 on the opposite side of the Mississippi from St. Louis, and used to be a major manufacturing and meatpacking center. A bit of a stretch to call it a suburb.
Can you clarify? What are you saying is a problem? Private school, being able to pay for services over an above what is provided by the government? A fictitious caste system? My answer would be the same - not a problem.
How utterly ridiculous. So when a student chooses to take AP Chemistry self segregating themselves from those who don’t, they must really think those other students in regular chemistry are worthless or should be disregarded, or hold them in contempt right? Unless you are using the word contempt in a non-standard way which would make more sense since it seems like you’re not actually speaking English. Just more sweeping generalizations that are absurd.
You should have stuck to the environmental impact reasoning as a cost for suburban life. At least that is somewhat factual. Instead this went the route of trying to shame the people who choose to live in a suburb as racists.
I always thought I lived in suburbia but I guess technically, 15 acres surrounded by 600 acre ranches isn’t really suburbia, it’s the country.
So i guess this means that I’m not only racist against minorities but I’m racist against everyone
There’s enough insanity, stupidity, criminality and general evil in the world that Bone’s daughter is sure to be exposed to plenty of it no matter what school she attends.
But why seek it out?
It would be a good idea when she is old enough to bring her with you to a soup kitchen in a poor area to help out. It’s not a bad thing for kids to be aware of the less fortunate and to be raised to help them. Even a three year old can donate her old toys to charity.
But why deliberately go to school with people living in poverty? Besides ruining her chances at an education, nothing would be a accomplished.
I agree. I went to a very rural rural school district that was roughly half white and half black with abject poverty spread among all of the groups. Both of my parents even taught at the all black schools before they were integrated in 1980 and my father taught at a juvenile delinquent home for a while. Some of my earliest memories were my parent’s taking me to school and playing with all of the poor kids there many of whom went on to be known by their inmate number and a few that eventually made something of themselves.
Based on the logic in this thread, my family should all be some kind of Progressive wonderminds but nothing could be further from the truth as I am sure you could guess. I learned how to get along with people from lots of different groups and have a lot more black friends than average but it really just taught me that I never want to live among poor people again no matter what their race and I won’t feel bad if my kids are spared the same experiences that I had. It simply isn’t worth it on balance. By that logic, you should send your kids into disease infested areas on principle because they will encounter sick people someday.
That’s bullshit though. As I said before, research shows that the higher achieving kids’ presence helps the disadvantaged kids do better, but not vice versa. My two older children are a case in point: They go, and have always gone, to the public school system in our town (in which my wife teaches special ed) which includes the poorest census tract in the state, and a high percentage of kids getting free and reduced lunch (including my kids at one point). Yet on the standardised tests mandated by the state and the federal government via NCLB, they get very few percentile scores below 99, and none below 98.
I would match their aptitude and achievement against the kids of any of the (frankly stuck up) erstwhile friends of mine who send their kids to Catholic school even though they are not Catholic or even religious but clearly do so just to keep them away from the riffraff.
I doubt your claims. But even if your personal experience in your town is true, it’s certainly not the norm. Are you seriously going to argue that poor areas do better at educating kids than rich areas?
So by that research I and you should want our kids to be, relatively, the slightly disadvantaged kids gaining the benefit of being around kids who are to some large degree smarter than them. For most of us our kids, even if they are smart enough to test 98%ile and higher, can go to a school with advanced/Honors/AP classes such that they will be surrounded by kids many of who are smarter than they are, in whose company they are the “disadvantaged” … ergo they get the benefit of being pulled up with no harm to those smarter than them.
As an individual and a parent I take that position more than tongue in cheek: my kid benefits by not being the smartest in the room (especially at the High School level and above). Are your kids currently gaining that benefit?
Of course I am sure you will also insist that your children go to the local Community college instead of the more prestigious college or university that they surely could be accepted by (and maybe even offered money from).
I believe that an educational environment with diversity (in SES, race, ethnicity, political POV, sexual orientation etc.) is of benefit both to the institution and to the all who go there. I do not believe that that benefit trumps all other factors in the real world and would not sacrifice my children’s best interests to any fantasies I may hold about what ideally should be. (Fortunately our schools actually are pretty diverse, especially at the High School level so I have not had to make that choice but that is not a norm, and if the choice was between living where the schools were much better and the other students more high achieving but the population a bit less diverse, and my kids being the smart kids in a sea of underachievers and with teachers bogged down by dealing with issues related to poverty instead of focusing on how to teach more effectively, well, my kids’ best interests come first. Period.)
