Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If by "bad" you mean "true".

As it had nothing whatever in the way of content, it was neither true nor false.

It was, however, bad.

Originally Posted by James50

Oh for Pete's sake, Odin, get real. There is no thunder. Its barely a whimper.

James50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQX4N5mt_Yg

Can't resist. As a die hard "The Stand" fan.

"This is the way the world ends...
not with a bang, but with a wimper".

T.S. Elliott

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

When I begin to think that your view of the world is based on some sort of derangement or mental illness, I remember that you live in California. If I recall correctly, relatively close to Hollywood. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your perception of what the country is like, what Millenials are like, what's happening in the world and so on, is heavily skewed by your environment. I have no doubt that in California, you could truly believe the far left is the majority in the U.S., rather than a tiny minority, and that the culture is the way you believe it is.

Bullhist! Californians are among the most cosmopolitan of Americans. And even if you wish to smear Hollywood as a factory of fantasy instead of the ostensible hard-boiled realism that you think is reality (and you can't convince me that you aren't a very provincial hick) even Hollywood has to create a ring of truth. If you want to set a filmed drama in Kansas City, it is probably wisest to do the filming in Hollywood -- not Kansas City.

I can't tell you what part of America is closest to a microcosm of America. Tell me where you might see a skyscraper (no, not a grain elevator) juxtaposed with a dairy farm. Tell me where you might see Miami's Art Deco next to New England's salt boxes. Tell me where you might find a synagogue next to a lumber camp.

Sarah Palin showed what a fool she was when she praised rural America as the "Real America" at the expense of everything else.

What you may fail to realize is that the epicenters of leftism and cultural decline that exist in NoCal and SoCal are anomalies, both in terms of America and in the world as a whole. That anomalous quality is reinforced by the fact that people of a like mind from elsewhere leave where they are and move there. And in recent times, the normal people who used to live in California have fled in a mass exodus to other states. California has long been viewed with a combination of amusement and embarrassment by the rest of the country, even in the other few liberal bastions on the east coast. In recent years that amusement and embarrassment has increasingly shifted into disdain and horror. To the rest of the country, California is a crazy relative locked in the basement that we try to pretend isn't there. And it is clear that people in California are oblivious to that fact.

California can take the joke, which is more than I can say about some of the more stolid parts of America. Being able to take a joke is a sign of maturity; humorlessness indicates immaturity. As for the supposed mass exodus from California, it is to urban centers -- not to the rural America of your dreams. That means places like Denver, Chicago, New York City, Boston, Philadelphia... even if it is to Texas it is to the comparatively-sophisticated giant cities like Dallas, Houston, Austin, or San Antonio.

The fact that the state voted for the status quo in 2010 while the rest of the country voted for change, even going to so far as to bring back "Governor Moonbeam" during an escalating budgetary disaster, is a sign that the state is beyond hope. There are simply no sane, normal people left there who can turn things around.

Jerry Brown has been a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. America could use more of that. California rejected the one-size-fits-all Republican Party model for America. California was more livable om 1980 when Jerry Brown was Governor than it is now.

Statements like that make me think "this guy is completely out of his mind", or "there's no way he actually believes that". But as I said, I can see how you might actually be able to believe that if you live in California. You should be aware that you live in a bizarre place that is an object of fascination and loathing for the rest of the country and the world, and you should factor that reality into your assessment of the views of people not in your immediate vicinity.

Maybe you ought to see California before you make blanket judgments about it. San Francisco has a paradise climate and it's pretty safe -- and very pretty. It's extremely cosmopolitan and sophisticated. The Santa Cruz-Monterrey semicircle is almost a dead ringer for the South of France. San Diego is beautiful. too. May I suggest Yosemite National Park? I'd be more selective about Greater Los Angeles.

There are a lot of people in California, no doubt. And it is undoubtedly easy, since so much media is produced there, to be completely unaware of what things are like elsewhere. You never get any messages coming in from the rest of the country, except a few from DC and New York.

...and maybe Seattle, Denver, Chicago, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Boston,

For the more exotic types add Hong Kong, Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo, London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Vienna...

(Empty stereotypes unworthy of response)

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention this probably because it doesn't make any difference anyway. Hollywood is in Los Angeles. I live in San Jose, which is in Northern California, part of the San Francisco Bay area. I don't live near Hollywood except insofar as it and I are in the same state.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention this probably because it doesn't make any difference anyway. Hollywood is in Los Angeles. I live in San Jose, which is in Northern California, part of the San Francisco Bay area. I don't live near Hollywood except insofar as it and I are in the same state.

My mistake. For some reason I though you lived in one of the counties surrounding L.A. Otherwise, my post stands as written.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Californians are among the most cosmopolitan of Americans.

Having gone back and forth to CA for most of my life, I only laugh when Californians engage in this sort of puffery. The truth is that California is the most provincial place in the country. They are the least likely to vacation outside the state. It is near impossible for someone outside California to do business within California. For most Californians, the world ends at Reno and its flyover country until you get to NY. It is a beautiful place but the Sierras, the Great Basin, and the 3 hour time difference from the other main population centers serve as strong isolation mechanisms from the rest of the country - indeed the rest of the world.

I am an optimist about California, but gave up long ago thinking it would ever truly join the rest of the country. It is its own world.

James50

In my area most of my fellow Millies are quite socially liberal, and this is Fargo, NOT San Francisco. Economic attitudes mainly depend on geography; rural Millies, especially those in the Plains and the West tend to be skeptical of government intervention while urban Millies tend to be the opposite. The reason is quite obvious, rural folks, especially those on the High Plains and West, are by necessity much more self-reliant than urban folks and get pissed off when outsiders treat them like idiots that need to be treated like children. The rural poor also tend to be overlooked by urban advocates of social justice.

I grew up on the boundary between the two worlds, hence my ambivalence when it comes to government power.

Originally Posted by James50

Having gone back and forth to CA for most of my life, I only laugh when Californians engage in this sort of puffery. The truth is that California is the most provincial place in the country. They are the least likely to vacation outside the state. It is near impossible for someone outside California to do business within California. For most Californians, the world ends at Reno and its flyover country until you get to NY. It is a beautiful place but the Sierras, the Great Basin, and the 3 hour time difference from the other main population centers serve as strong isolation mechanisms from the rest of the country - indeed the rest of the world.

I am an optimist about California, but gave up long ago thinking it would ever truly join the rest of the country. It is its own world.

James50

I have to agree with you, here. Eric's remark elsewhere that he has no interest visiting with people from "fly-over" states is telling

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

My mistake. For some reason I though you lived in one of the counties surrounding L.A. Otherwise, my post stands as written.

And remains just as asinine.

What James said is true. Californians seem to have a similar insularity towards the rest of the U.S. that Americans have about the rest of the world. That's especially true of California natives.

However, I am not a native Californian. I grew up in Texas, went to college in Florida, lived for 18 years in Seattle, and have visited other parts of the country, including New York, New England, Chicago, Oregon, Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico. What I said about a drift to the left nationwide has nothing to do with California. I did not mean "I look around me and everyone I associate with is a liberal." I meant that the national center of gravity has drifted to the left, so that "conservative" positions today on many issues would have been liberal ones thirty years ago. That's especially obvious on social issues.

But it's true on economic issues, too. Most Americans want higher taxes on the rich, less influence on the government from corporations, stronger unions, etc. I'm taking this not from conversations with my friends but from poll data. Where I live today is utterly irrelevant to that.

You have presented no argument at all, merely a cheap shot. It was, as Eric said, bad even for you.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

.

However, I am not a native Californian. I grew up in Texas, went to college in Florida, lived for 18 years in Seattle, and have visited other parts of the country, including New York, New England, Chicago, Oregon, Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico.

Just curious -- Have you traveled abroad?

Originally Posted by James50

Having gone back and forth to CA for most of my life, I only laugh when Californians engage in this sort of puffery. The truth is that California is the most provincial place in the country.

With one exception, James. New Yorkers are rather quite a bit more provincial than Californians. But otherwise, you are dead-on.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

With one exception, James. New Yorkers are rather quite a bit more provincial than Californians. But otherwise, you are dead-on.

If you mean NY city, they are indeed in the same league with California. I have not found it as true of folks from other parts of NY - particularly western NY which is so close to other cities such as Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toronto.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

If you mean NY city, they are indeed in the same league with California. I have not found it as true of folks from other parts of NY - particularly western NY which is so close to other cities such as Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toronto.

Ah yes; my bad. I forget that all the decent inhabitants of New York State are tarred with the brush of the city. Of course, it is the latter (and its immediate periphery, to be sure) that holds the crown for American provincialism.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ah yes; my bad. I forget that all the decent inhabitants of New York State are tarred with the brush of the city. Of course, it is the latter (and its immediate periphery, to be sure) that holds the crown for American provincialism.

Much of the same no doubt applies to Chicago versus the rest of the state, especially the 70 percent or so south of I-80. It's almost like two different country. The northern 30 percent is predominately blue while the 70 percent below it is no doubt overly red, with the possible exception of some of the area surrounding the U of I main campus in Champaign-Urbana.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Much of the same no doubt applies to Chicago versus the rest of the state, especially the 70 percent or so south of I-80. It's almost like two different country. The northern 30 percent is predominately blue while the 70 percent below it is no doubt overly red, with the possible exception of some of the area surrounding the U of I main campus in Champaign-Urbana.

The definitive case of rural vs urban.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ah yes; my bad. I forget that all the decent inhabitants of New York State are tarred with the brush of the city. Of course, it is the latter (and its immediate periphery, to be sure) that holds the crown for American provincialism.

No, you silly people.

Boston is the Hub, and they will be the first to tell you such.

Originally Posted by James50

Oh for Pete's sake, Odin, get real. There is no thunder. Its barely a whimper.

James50

James, I'm at a low growl myself right now.

And I have a pretty conservative temperament, in contrast to my left-of-center politics.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If by "bad" you mean "true".

Nope, it was just a spectacular example of an ad hominem attack.

Really, there ought to be a fallacy named for slamming someone based on where they live.

Argumentum ad provincialis?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Just curious -- Have you traveled abroad?

Not much, just to Canada and Mexico. I do plan to go to Europe (France specifically, Corsica more specifically with a stopover in Paris first) as soon as I can afford it.

Anyone else looking forward to the results of the 2010 Census? I predict a rise in the urban population followed by declining population in rural areas. This trend has been going on for years.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ah yes; my bad. I forget that all the decent inhabitants of New York State are tarred with the brush of the city. Of course, it is the latter (and its immediate periphery, to be sure) that holds the crown for American provincialism.

The Main Line is the most provincial part of Pennsylvania, hands down--from Paoli to Ardmore there is only one mall (KP--King of Prussia) and the rest of the state doesn't exist... apparently. Snow days don't exist for Main Liners--because there is only one highway (Rt. 30) that they live off of that surprisingly is always clear, and they say Lan CAH-ster instead of Lan-KIS-ter--like the rest of the state does...

To them Pennsylvania stops at Paoli--the fools.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Much of the same no doubt applies to Chicago versus the rest of the state, especially the 70 percent or so south of I-80.

Gotta disagree with you there. Chicago is Big City -- don't get me wrong. But its actually a genuinely cosmopolitan place. Much to the contrast of New York and Cally. Chicago actually goes out to meet the world, rather than just sitting there, expecting the world to come to it (and then assuming that whatever does come to it constitutes the sum total of what is worth encountering in the world).

It isn't a red/blue or an urban/rural thing. Provincialism crosses both those lines.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Gotta disagree with you there. Chicago is Big City -- don't get me wrong. But its actually a genuinely cosmopolitan place. Much to the contrast of New York and Cally. Chicago actually goes out to meet the world, rather than just sitting there, expecting the world to come to it (and then assuming that whatever does come to it constitutes the sum total of what is worth encountering in the world).

It isn't a red/blue or an urban/rural thing. Provincialism crosses both those lines.

Maybe it's because Chicago is a nasty place in the winter. . People in Chicago want to leave it often enough and far away enough to go somewhere else. How exciting is Milwaukee? In the winter, one must go a long way to find a big improvement in the weather and find a place with something worthy of visiting.

San Francisco has practically the same weather all year except for winter rains. Its cosmopolitanism is in its ethnic mix.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Maybe it's because Chicago is a nasty place in the winter. . People in Chicago want to leave it often enough and far away enough to go somewhere else. How exciting is Milwaukee? In the winter, one must go a long way to find a big improvement in the weather and find a place with something worthy of visiting.

San Francisco has practically the same weather all year except for winter rains. Its cosmopolitanism is in its ethnic mix.

Having lived in Chicago since the late seventies, except for a brief, two-year hiatus, I can say Chicagoans only want to leave town during the months of Jan-March and then for only a couple of weeks. The weather is a big deal here, but it always creates opportunity for conversation. The city has its own provincialism, but compared with NYC and LA (both of which I like), it has no illusions about being hip or cool. It has been called the quintessential American city. New York is a world city. LA is the city of "the business" and you have to drive everywhere.

I live downtown. I can get everywhere by EL or by bus. There are sh*tloads of tourists from all over the world, mostly in the summer. You can tell because they walk four abreast down Michigan Avenue gawking at the architecture. I have to say, though, that many of the Chicago suburbs are hideous. But so are many places in the Valley and in the suburbs of New York. I don't know N. California, so I can't say.

People live where they live. Often it's for jobs. Illinois is a complicated state. Rural and urban divide, indeed. And the suburbs have their own individual flavor.

But we have fresh water in Chicago. Lots of it. And that's no small thing, as S. Cal people know.

People who live in Milwaukee love it. It's incredibly livable. And weather is just weather. Some people can't handle it. And it's really not a cultural wasteland, but people on the coasts like to think so, because the culture here is intimate. Small live theater in store fronts and topnotch symphonies. Chicago and Milwaukee are working class kinds of cities, which means stuff gets done without big fanfare. Thus people who don't live here don't know what's going on. We don't get a lot of cool press. We're the overweight guy in a bad suit who makes stuff. When people from here move to New York and LA, they are astonished at how much bs there is and at how little actually gets done. A lot of talk and little action is the general impression from us midwestern city people who move to the coasts--and probably from the non-city types, too.

I hate relentless sun and heat. I'd probably like Northern California and its temperate climate in the summer.

P.S. Don't be surprised if Rahm Emmanuel becomes mayor of Chicago. Chicagoans like people who have access to power.

Originally Posted by annla899

Having lived in Chicago since the late seventies, except for a brief, two-year hiatus, I can say Chicagoans only want to leave town during the months of Jan-March and then for only a couple of weeks. The weather is a big deal here, but it always creates opportunity for conversation. The city has its own provincialism, but compared with NYC and LA (both of which I like), it has no illusions about being hip or cool. It has been called the quintessential American city. New York is a world city. LA is the city of "the business" and you have to drive everywhere.

I hate relentless sun and heat. I'd probably like Northern California and its temperate climate in the summer.

P.S. Don't be surprised if Rahm Emmanuel becomes mayor of Chicago. Chicagoans like people who have access to power.

For the reason you just mentioned, no doubt the opposite scenario occurs in places such as Phoenix. Those who can no doubt long to escape the repressive heat which last for four months or so straight--nearly every day at or above 100.