On 12 Nov 2004 17:05:38 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Means the smart folks moved out to the suburbs and what's left voted
Democrat. Not hard to figure out.

John H

Ah yes, Suburbia. Where everybody lives on a dead end street. Suburbanities
endure private "covenants" requiring them to conform to the neighbors, so that
when it is time to paint the cloned house (with the cloned landscaping) any
thought of individual expression is squelched in favor of the "public good."
Suburbia, the fantasy consumption neighborhood where the economy produces
nothing and the SUV is a god. Suburbia is a land of economic imperialism- all
wealth and resources in Suburbia are extracted from some remote area (the city
to which all commute). Suburbia, the primarily lilly white land of cultural
conformity.

It's no wonder you guys in Suburbia vote Republican, the party reflects the
values to which you subscribe in everyday life.


Would *you* want to live in northeast Washington DC?

I do live on a dead end street, along with a Pakistani family, two
Afghan families, an Afro-American family, two Mexican families, a
Korean family, a Saudi Arabian family, and three other "lily white"
families. I wish we were all wealthy, but I'm the only one who owns a
boat. (A 21'er, not the upper end of the boating spectrum!)

We don't have a homeowners covenant that we've signed, so we can all
paint our houses with purple polka dots if we desire.

Describe your neighborhoods for us, Chuck. Do you live in downtown
Seattle, where all the factories are producing something?

Or were you just being negative?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:16:07 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 12 Nov 2004 07:11:07 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

But there's more to it than that, more to it than the conservative
Right's hatred of same-sex marriage

I cut out the rest of this typical bull**** rant just point something
out.

Just this morning I read an article that was a very interesting - it
concerned the whole gay marriage/civil union thing. It would appear
that the gay community itself is in something of a quandary about what
to do. As one gentleman who headed a national group (can't remember
which one) was quoted in the article "There wasn't any choice - it was
a vote on one aspect of the issue with no other considerations".

There was also an interesting comment hidden in the article about
moving too far too fast which is pretty much my viewpoint. And it is
also my view that one can't make a conclusion about "culture
war"without examining the data more closely - it's one hell of a lot
more complicated that who voted for Kerry and Bush. I noticed that in
this rant, the writer didn't mention that Kerry wasn't for gay
marriage either. :) Hmmm - let me amend that - I didn't quite get
through the whole thing because my eyes glazed over - I wasn't sure if
it was an article or a demonstration of how to call people names
without using any.

Anyway, to head off a huge name calling response, I do not believe
that gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it. I would
prefer that the term be reserved for those who can propagate the
species, but that's not completely necessary. I do believe that those
who are part of the gay/lesbian community are entitled to some sort of
civil recognition as in civil unions, but I'm not wedded to it.

Get it - wedded to it? :)

I'm more concerned about activist judges like Maggie Marshall who
should be sent back to Civics 101 and made to repeat 10,000 times
"Rule of the majority - not rule by a Judge".

By the way, I'm confused about something and perhaps one of the more
progressive members of this august body can enlighten me.

A male homosexual is considered gay and a female homosexual a lesbian.
But the homosexual community, male and female, is considered gay.

How come? I'm just a simple red county country bumpkin so use words
of one syllable please.

Later,

Tom

Maybe the men are *real* happy, so when they're part of the group, the
whole group's happy.

It still doesn't answer the question about how the trash gets taken
out in a gay or lesbian household.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

If you visited the school districts in suburbia, you would be surprised how
diverse they are.

Seems that not all that long ago we had an OT post here from a guy who lives in
Suburbia. As I recall, he was outraged that
"Mexicans" were living in a house in his neighborhood, and he was all but
completely convinced they had to be up to no good in order to afford the
payments. As I recall, the plaintiff went so far as to check property records
with the county to see whether the property was registered to somebody with a
Mexican sounding surname.

Ain't as integrated as you think, but it is somewhat. See the word "primarily"
in my observation. The more expensive, cutting edge suburban neighborhoods will
present an ethnic reflection of the way wealth is held in the US. Those
"suburban" neighborhoods closer to town, built 25-30 years ago, do seem to be
slightly more diverse.

What world do you live in Chuck? In mine people of all economic classes,
all races, all ages and all religions live in suburbia's across the United
States. Suburbia is actually more diverse than most inner city
neighborhoods.

I recently attended a business function at
a new, golf course community in the Cascade foothills- about 20-25 miles from
downtown Seattle. This place is brand new. They are going to hold a PGA
tournament there in 2005 or 2006. The houses are all painted various shades of
beige, all have the same roofing, the same windows, etc. Two or three new
sections are still under construction, and all the $1mm plus houses are painted
various shades of beige. While I didn't go door to door and do a survey, I did
see some diversity while I was there... a number of minorities worked for the
catering company- (but I'll bet you a buck they weren't living in the immediate
community).

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
What world do you live in Chuck? In mine people of all economic classes,
all races, all ages and all religions live in suburbia's across the United
States. Suburbia is actually more diverse than most inner city
neighborhoods.

I recently attended a business function at
a new, golf course community in the Cascade foothills- about 20-25 miles
from
downtown Seattle. This place is brand new. They are going to hold a PGA
tournament there in 2005 or 2006. The houses are all painted various
shades of
beige, all have the same roofing, the same windows, etc. Two or three new
sections are still under construction, and all the $1mm plus houses are
painted
various shades of beige. While I didn't go door to door and do a survey, I
did
see some diversity while I was there... a number of minorities worked for
the
catering company- (but I'll bet you a buck they weren't living in the
immediate
community).



And that snap shot picture certainly is a true representation of all of
suburbia.

My, what a broad brush we paint with Chuck.

On 12 Nov 2004 18:18:54 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

If you visited the school districts in suburbia, you would be surprised how
diverse they are.

Seems that not all that long ago we had an OT post here from a guy who lives in
Suburbia. As I recall, he was outraged that
"Mexicans" were living in a house in his neighborhood, and he was all but
completely convinced they had to be up to no good in order to afford the
payments. As I recall, the plaintiff went so far as to check property records
with the county to see whether the property was registered to somebody with a
Mexican sounding surname.

Ain't as integrated as you think, but it is somewhat. See the word "primarily"
in my observation. The more expensive, cutting edge suburban neighborhoods will
present an ethnic reflection of the way wealth is held in the US. Those
"suburban" neighborhoods closer to town, built 25-30 years ago, do seem to be
slightly more diverse.


Had nothing to do with their country of origin, had to do with their
habits, and the number of people and cars for one house and yard. Get
off your high horse, Chuck, it's not becoming.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:16:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Anyway, to head off a huge name calling response, I do not believe that
gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it. I would prefer that
the term be reserved for those who can propagate the species, but that's
not completely necessary. I do believe that those who are part of the
gay/lesbian community are entitled to some sort of civil recognition as in
civil unions, but I'm not wedded to it.

What I find interesting, the term "gay marriage" makes a difference. Use
the term "civil union" or "domestic partnership" and the issue isn't
nearly as divisive.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...il-union_x.htm

Describe your neighborhoods for us, Chuck. Do you live in downtown
Seattle, where all the factories are producing something?

Or were you just being negative?

I was being half assed facetious, but it seems I struck a nerve mine. :-)

I do live in a neighborhood at the perimeter of downtown Seattle. We have a
large number of neighborhood shops, restaurants, art galleries, a public
library, markets, and other amenities within a ten-minute leisurely walk (yes,
"walk") from our front door. There's a park across the street. I can walk to
the Seattle Center
in about twenty-five minutes, or to the heart of downtown Seattle in about
forty.

There is not a lot of diversity in my neighborhood, either. We've lived here
for many years, but couldn't afford (or wouldn't choose to afford) to buy into
this neighborhood today. There's a limit to what
one should tie up in a non-productive asset such as a house, (or a boat). Like
some of the locations in Suburbia, many urban neighborhoods also present an
ethnic reflection of the way that wealth is distributed in our society.

Difference is, we're smart enough to know that all the "smart people" don't
live in Suburbia, or in "Urbia", either. :-)

Had nothing to do with their country of origin, had to do with their
habits, and the number of people and cars for one house and yard. Get
off your high horse, Chuck, it's not becoming.

Was that you? I remembered the incident, but not the party involved.

My horse has a question: If it wasn't about ethnicity, why were the people
described with an ethnic label? When my neighbor does something I wish he
hadn't done, I don't say "My Anglo Saxon Catholic nieghbor did this or
that..........."

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:37:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:16:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Anyway, to head off a huge name calling response, I do not believe that
gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it. I would prefer that
the term be reserved for those who can propagate the species, but that's
not completely necessary. I do believe that those who are part of the
gay/lesbian community are entitled to some sort of civil recognition as in
civil unions, but I'm not wedded to it.

What I find interesting, the term "gay marriage" makes a difference. Use
the term "civil union" or "domestic partnership" and the issue isn't
nearly as divisive.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...il-union_x.htm

I totally agree with that and it was pretty much the point of the
article.

Hell, I'm like everyone else - I have pejudices that influence my
immediate reactions to concepts and ideas, but let's try and solve
this one without trying to rip each groups throats out. Get it
written into law and let it go.

In MA, Tom "I never met a contribution I didn't keep" Finneran almost
got it done, but couldn't keep the consensus because the Supreme
Judicial Court ordered gay marriage into law. What folks reacted to
in MA was the absolute arrogance on the part of Margaret Marshall who
was going to have gay marriage and she didn't give a damn about what
the citizens thought or said.

If the bozo politicians worked at it, I'd bet we can get it done
quickly with no muss or fuss. Just have to keep the judicial fiats
out of the mix.

And don't give me any crap about masses of red Christian coalitions -
they don't exist. It's little advocate groups that make the most
noise, not the great unwashed proletariat.

Later,

Tom