Isn't it kind of stupid to bash "liberals" or "liberalism"

[airdvr 200]

There are liberals (like me) who believe in free market capitalism, personal responsibility, limitations on government regulation, and are pro-gun rights.

Umm...yea. They're called conservative liberals

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Gawain 0]

Quote

There are liberals (like me) who believe in free market capitalism, personal responsibility, limitations on government regulation, and are pro-gun rights.

Umm...yea. They're called conservative liberals

Isn't that more "libertarian"?

I ask because out of that short list you cited, I'm curious as to what you agree with liberals, or democrats on?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,467]

>Isn't that more "libertarian"?

Definitely. But for many, there can be only two choices - and they feel they must support one and bash the other. Many americans are hooked on the football-game mentality - two opposing teams, only one possible winner, and only one deserving of any support. By dragging down the other team you support your own.

[billvon 2,467]

>Yes, just as the party we now call "liberals"

You are making a consistent error when you think that "liberal" or "conservative' is a political party. It's like claiming that the democrats are the party of democracy, and the republicans oppose democracy. (Just look at the name!)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

There are liberals (like me) who believe in free market capitalism, personal responsibility, limitations on government regulation, and are pro-gun rights.

Umm...yea. They're called conservative liberals

Isn't that more "libertarian"?

I ask because out of that short list you cited, I'm curious as to what you agree with liberals, or democrats on?

Exactly.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>You're right; except for the ones you meet, the ones you talk to,
>the ones who vote, and the ones who run for office.

You have (quite accidentally, I'm sure) said something good about democrats! You should flip-flop immediately lest your record of denigrating them become besmirched.

You might be right about me reversing my meaning inadvertently.

I was making a sarcastic crack about "democrats are no more philosophically liberal" and saying, in essence, that all of them are. But true, I was meaning that the ones you meet, talk to, etc. are philosophically leftist. I kinda botched the joke, I guess. Happens.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[airdvr 200]

Let's take a look at the candidates stand. I'd say you wouldn't be too far off labeling the Dems as more liberal than conservative.

Barack Obama

Abortion is a woman’s right - Yes
Require hiring more women & minorities - Yes
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits - Yes
Teacher-led prayer in public schools - No
Death Penalty- No
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws -No
Absolute right to gun ownership -No
More federal funding for health coverage- Yes
Privatize Social Security - No
Parents choose schools via vouchers- No opinion
Replace coal & oil with alternatives -Yes
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it - No
Allow churches to provide welfare services - Yes
Repeal tax cuts on wealthy -Yes
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship -Yes
Support & expand free trade- No
Expand the armed forces - Yes
Stricter limits on political campaign funds- Yes
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties - Yes
US out of Iraq- Yes

John McCain

Abortion is a woman’s right - No
Require hiring more women & minorities - Yes
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits - No
Teacher-led prayer in public schools - Yes
Death Penalty- Yes
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws -Yes
Absolute right to gun ownership -Yes
More federal funding for health coverage- Yes
Privatize Social Security - Yes
Parents choose schools via vouchers- Yes
Replace coal & oil with alternatives -Yes
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it - Yes
Allow churches to provide welfare services - Yes
Repeal tax cuts on wealthy -No
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship -Yes
Support & expand free trade- Yes
Expand the armed forces - Yes
Stricter limits on political campaign funds- Yes
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties - No
US out of Iraq- No

For the purposes of general discussion Dem=Liberal Repub=Conservative. We all know that it's not 100% but it's a majority for sure.

Now, which of these issues requires an individual to take responsibility for their actions, and which has the government assumming responsibility?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

There are liberals (like me) who believe in free market capitalism, personal responsibility, limitations on government regulation, and are pro-gun rights.

Umm...yea. They're called conservative liberals

You don't get it. Around the time or Ronald Regan, the GOP began a campaign to vilify the word "liberal" so it became an insult. Now all these years later, you have people on the right equating it to evil!

It's good to see the sheep can be led off the cliff still.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[JackC 0]

Quote

You don't get it. Around the time or Ronald Regan, the GOP began a campaign to vilify the word "liberal" so it became an insult. Now all these years later, you have people on the right equating it to evil!

Exactly. I've been thinking that "liberal" has been used as a dirty word for ages. Although I do wonder if this philosophy owes something to McCarthyism too.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Let's take a look at the candidates stand. I'd say you wouldn't be too far off labeling the Dems as more liberal than conservative.

Barack Obama

Absolute right to gun ownership -No

John McCain

Absolute right to gun ownership -Yes

Oh, "ABSOLUTE" right to gun ownership, huh?

McCain says there's an "ABSOLUTE" right to gun ownership?

Hell, I don't even claim it's an "absolute" right.

I guess you just felt your example needed the appearance of a little more juice than it truly had.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

There are liberals (like me) who believe in free market capitalism, personal responsibility, limitations on government regulation, and are pro-gun rights.

Umm...yea. They're called conservative liberals

You don't get it. Around the time or Ronald Regan, the GOP began a campaign to vilify the word "liberal" so it became an insult. Now all these years later, you have people on the right equating it to evil!

And the people on the left liked the concept so much, they decided to apply it to the term "semi-automatic handgun"!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

You don't get it. Around the time or Ronald Regan, the GOP began a campaign to vilify the word "liberal" so it became an insult. Now all these years later, you have people on the right equating it to evil!

Exactly. I've been thinking that "liberal" has been used as a dirty word for ages. Although I do wonder if this philosophy owes something to McCarthyism too.

Just like a liberal to immediately start looking for someone to blame.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

There are liberals (like me) who believe in free market capitalism, personal responsibility, limitations on government regulation, and are pro-gun rights.

Umm...yea. They're called conservative liberals

Isn't that more "libertarian"?

I ask because out of that short list you cited, I'm curious as to what you agree with liberals, or democrats on?

I think of myself as a small goverment liberal.

I'm certainly not a conservative.

A conservative is a person who believes in the importance of maintaining tradition and the status quo, and is resistant to change and is suspicious of dissent.

That isn't me.

For example, Conservatives are resentful of dissentors, especially of foreign policy. A typical American Conservative will say things like ,"Well, as an American citizen, you do have the right of dissent, but just remember, you're only giving aid and comfort to the enemy!"

To a Conservative, the right of dissent is like a sports trophy. You should be proud that your team fought hard to win it, but you should leave it in its glass case.

I'm a liberal because I value individuality.

The Big Government types (from both sides) disrespect the individual, just in different ways.

Big Government Lefties think you're too incompetent to run your own life, and Big Government Righties think you're too immoral to run your own life.

Both bow down before the Great Idol of the Holy Government, while pointing figures at each other blaming the other side for THEIR big government agendas, while saying that their own big government agendas are absolutely crucial.

I tend to lean a little more towards Democrats than Republicans, only because the Democrats are slightly less warlike than the Republicans, and I feel that the Warfare State is a worse Big Government Program than the Welfare State. although both suck.

Unfortunately, most of the mainstream Republicans are firmly locked into militarism. And this is another problem I have with many (not all) conservatives: In the mind of many Conservatives, Militarism and Patriotism are inextricably linked. This is why Republicans can't seem to challenge the validity of war, ever. Fighting wars is the patriotic thing to do.

There's something a LOT bigger going on here than just Iraq & Al Quaeda. In my opinion, there needs to be a COMPLETE OVERHAUL of the entire way America positions itself on the international stage. The current mindset, held more closely by the Republicans (but also to only a lesser extent by the Democrats) is a recipe for UNENDING, PERPETUAL WAR.

Just like in Orwell's book 1984.

I said I think Democrats suck a little bit less than Republicans, but let's face it: when you start making the Government your Hero, you're going to want it to be the Entire World's Hero too. And the Dems gave us Vietnam.

The only difference is that the Democrats at least do not HAVE to fight wars constantly in order to feel like patriotic Americans. They start stupid wars too, but they can at least challenge the idea of war from time to time.


Oh and by the way, I'm also a Liberal because this country was founded by the Liberals. Yes, a bunch of whiny-ass liberals, fomenting dissent against their leader & whining about individual rights.

The Patriots were a bunch of pain-in-the-ass Liberals.

The Loyalists were the Conservatives, who believed in Empire and abject loyalty to the King.

I think if many of today's mainstream Republican pundits were moved back to 1770, they would have been Loyalists, not Patriots.


(little footnote here: I have no idea why many of the Democrats/big government liberals, want to take away the 2nd ammendment, when they are SUPPOSED to stand up for the rights of the Individual. It would seem to me that a True Liberal, should want to preserve as much of Individual Rights as possible. But I guess it's the old "You're Too Incompetent to be Trusted" mindset.)

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I think of myself as a small goverment liberal.

I'm certainly not a conservative.

A conservative is a person who believes in the importance of maintaining tradition and the status quo, and is resistant to change and is suspicious of dissent.

That isn't me.

Probably a good thing for your. But, your description of a "conservative" missed the target. In fact, it's quite stereotypical.

Quote

For example, Conservatives are resentful of dissentors

You mean in the same way the environmentalists say the "debate is over"? The same way the liberal press asks if Sen. Barack Obama is "black enough"? The same way the anti-illegal-immigration crowd are a bunch of racists?

Sorry, man, I think I understand the point you were seeking to make, but damn if you didn't just spout a bunch of Howard Dean talking points...

Quote

, especially of foreign policy. A typical American Conservative will say things like ,"Well, as an American citizen, you do have the right of dissent, but just remember, you're only giving aid and comfort to the enemy!"

I'll use Haditha as an example:
Murtha on HARDBALL with Chris Matthews
Transcript / May 17, 2006
MATTHEWS: Mr. Murtha, let me ask you about this accusation that you have come out with today, that U.S. service people fighting in Iraq killed civilians in cold blood. What evidence do you have on that now?

MURTHA: Well, "Time Magazine" ...

MATTHEWS: Was this melee? I mean, was this a case of -- when you say cold blood, Congressman, a lot of people think you're basically saying you have got some civilians sitting in a room or out in a field and they're executed just on purpose...

MURTHA: That's exactly what happened.

Here's comments from Sen. Biden:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should step down amid an investigation into whether U.S. troops covered up the suspected intentional killings of Iraqi civilians in Haditha, Sen. Joseph Biden said Sunday.

The Delaware senator is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a potential presidential candidate in 2008. . . .

Biden told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the accountability for Haditha and other alleged atrocities in Iraq should go all the way up to Rumsfeld.

Now, the reality is that so far, all but two Marines investigated have been exonerated, and the two remaining are simply awaiting their day in court, and there is a defamation suit against Rep. Murtha. He and Sen. Biden have yet to retract their statements or apologize to the servicemen and their families.

Then there's Sen. Reid's comments:
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.

So, do comments like these, transmitted all over the world, give comfort to the enemy. Do these not provide psychological aid to them, in the line of thinking that they can inflict further harm on us and prolong the conflict?

Quote

To a Conservative, the right of dissent is like a sports trophy. You should be proud that your team fought hard to win it, but you should leave it in its glass case.

Wrong. The right of dissent should be fought in the arena of ideas. Win or lose though the agenda must move forward. That doesn't mean the debate stops, but it does shift the tone of the debate, and that means not accusing your own of murder when no one knows the truth.

Quote

I'm a liberal because I value individuality.

Yet, it is the liberal democrats that are advocating collectivism.

Quote

The Big Government types (from both sides) disrespect the individual, just in different ways.

Absolutely agree.

Quote

Big Government Lefties think you're too incompetent to run your own life, and Big Government Righties think you're too immoral to run your own life.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Quote

Both bow down before the Great Idol of the Holy Government, while pointing figures at each other blaming the other side for THEIR big government agendas, while saying that their own big government agendas are absolutely crucial.

Fairly on point in my opinion as well.

Quote

I tend to lean a little more towards Democrats than Republicans, only because the Democrats are slightly less warlike than the Republicans, and I feel that the Warfare State is a worse Big Government Program than the Welfare State. although both suck.

While I understand this point, where I disagree is that the democrats have allowed their platform to be taken over by an attitude of "detente" and that is more dangerous than confronting the enemies.

Quote

Unfortunately, most of the mainstream Republicans are firmly locked into militarism. And this is another problem I have with many (not all) conservatives: In the mind of many Conservatives, Militarism and Patriotism are inextricably linked. This is why Republicans can't seem to challenge the validity of war, ever. Fighting wars is the patriotic thing to do.

I think this view is simplistic. The conservative movement did not hinder US operations in the Balkans in the same way that liberal movement has tried to hinder OEF/OIF.

Quote

There's something a LOT bigger going on here than just Iraq & Al Quaeda.

You are correct, it's called Iran.

Quote

In my opinion, there needs to be a COMPLETE OVERHAUL of the entire way America positions itself on the international stage. The current mindset, held more closely by the Republicans (but also to only a lesser extent by the Democrats) is a recipe for UNENDING, PERPETUAL WAR.

No, this country has been under systematic attack for over 30 years. The difference is not whether we are at war, the difference is whether we fight off our enemies. How many more values do we sacrifice in the face of Islamic-fascism?

Quote

I said I think Democrats suck a little bit less than Republicans, but let's face it: when you start making the Government your Hero, you're going to want it to be the Entire World's Hero too. And the Dems gave us Vietnam.

Ding ding ding ding...

Anyway...good post. Challenging mind-set, I think I'm going to make sure there's a spot for you in my administration.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Yes.

In addition to pointing out that radical Islamists are the antithesis of liberalism, the track record of liberalism has afforded the world individual rights, rule of law (versus Divine right of Kings), freedom of speech, freedom of reading material, market economics, the concept of private property, child labor laws, decrease in poverty rates (compare poverty rates of the 1800s in the US when estimates range from 50-75%+ of nation living in poverty to the last 50 years when it varies ~8-12%; decrease in poverty correlates with decrease in crime & increase in GDP), veterans benefits (e.g., Roosevelt’s original GI Bill) … & the weekend. Those are all products of liberalism.

VR/Marg

Reg: "All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Unfortunately, most of the mainstream Republicans are firmly locked into militarism. And this is another problem I have with many (not all) conservatives: In the mind of many Conservatives, Militarism and Patriotism are inextricably linked. This is why Republicans can't seem to challenge the validity of war, ever. Fighting wars is the patriotic thing to do.

I think this view is simplistic. The conservative movement did not hinder US operations in the Balkans in the same way that liberal movement has tried to hinder OEF/OIF.
----------
um, yes that is true. I never meant to imply that Conservatives hindered war efforts, even when they are launched by a Democrat administration. They supported Vietnam when the President was a Democrat too. Conservatives tend to SUPPORT wars.

-----
There's something a LOT bigger going on here than just Iraq & Al Quaeda.

You are correct, it's called Iran.

In Reply To
In my opinion, there needs to be a COMPLETE OVERHAUL of the entire way America positions itself on the international stage. The current mindset, held more closely by the Republicans (but also to only a lesser extent by the Democrats) is a recipe for UNENDING, PERPETUAL WAR.

No, this country has been under systematic attack for over 30 years. The difference is not whether we are at war, the difference is whether we fight off our enemies.
When I said there was something bigger going on here than just Al Quada & Iraq, I meant something more than just going down to the next country on the list.

What I meant was that we need to re-position our country such that the Middle East is no longer our problem. Many Republicans just want to continue war after war after war over there, and continue policing the world. That's like fighting fires, but never actually doing anything about fire safety to prevent the fires in the first place. We are under attack by islamofascists because we are over there in their countries protecting our interests. We need to eliminate those interests and REDUCE our need to protect anything over there.

When you're in a rat's nest, you do not just stay there & continue to fight off the rats. You get out of the rat's nest.

Quote

How many more values do we sacrifice in the face of Islamic-fascism?

Given the conduct of the current administration, I have wondered about this very question myself.




oh, and....Ron Paul for President!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Zero boarded up crack houses.

So your walk stuck to the nicer neighborhoods.

Still no. You’re now 0/3 on assumptions or 0/4(?).


--- - --- - ---

Quote

Well, it doesn't actually have to be boarded-up to be a crackhouse. I've seen and been made aware of crack houses in West Palm Beach; as well as crack apartments. You would not know they were that unless you knew they were that.

I’ll let you be the expert on identification of covert crack houses, condos, or other private residences of illicit drug activity; that skill set, I’m not unhappy to concede, is outside my expertise. Notation of absence of plywood on doors and windows requires no specific training, and absence of boards on windows and doors eliminates “boarded-up crack houses” by simple logic.

Your comment is, nonetheless, an excellent illustration that the incidence of drug activity and distribution cuts across demographics and geography.

To further that & return to the thread topic, by comparison, meth labs are more likely to be found in small towns and rural areas according to the US DOJ. The Council of State Governments Report on Drug Abuse in America – Rural Meth (chaired by the Governor of Alaska) also documents the higher prevalence for meth use in “non metro” areas:

“… rural and small-town youth were more likely than urban juveniles to become substance abusers and that an eighth grader in a rural town is more likely to use illicit drugs than an urban eighth grader. More specifically, when compared to urban eight graders, rural eighth graders are 104 percent more likely to use amphetamines in general. They are 59 percent more likely than their counterparts in large cities and 64 percent more likely than eighth graders in small metropolitan areas to use methamphetamine specifically.”

Is there a valid correlation (setting aside causation) between meth labs and drug use in rural areas and the predominant politics of those areas? (Probably not.)

Both are indicative of illegal behavior. Not of any political leaning.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The difference is not whether we are at war, the difference is whether we fight off our enemies. How many more values do we sacrifice in the face of Islamic-fascism?

Quote

Challenging mind-set …

I concur with the you regarding the threat of radical Islamists, particularly to liberal democracy, as the OP noted.

And as I’ve described before, they “hate” me (educated, independent, feisty female) more than you.

Unless the US decides to use nuclear bombs to devastate the entire Islamic world (from Morocco to Malaysia) transferring a neo-Cold War/Fulda Gap mindset is a deleterious proposition. There’s a binary, light-switch-like mindset in which some view the world as either you’re (1) a wussy liberal appeasing foreign dictators or (2) pushing military invasion. That’s the mind-set that needs challenging in order to have a “clear winner.”

The US excels at hard power (from tanks to planes to ships to electronic warfare); somewhere over the last 20 years, we’ve lost our soft power advantage. America’s public diplomacy faces “a fundamental problem of credibility.” *Both* soft and hard power are important! We used to have both. Soft power was crucial in winning the Cold War and defeating the single most strategically threatening and heinous regime of the 20th Century; no military invasion necessary.

As some PhD historian said in Kansas last fall:

“Public relations was invented in the United States, yet we are miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and our goals. It is just plain embarrassing that al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.”

In that talk, that PhD historian critically highlighted the funding disparity between State and DoD, an ironic and bold statement that has been noted by more than just me.

Some guy from across the pond with a lot of ‘fruit salad’ has expressed this more fully and strategically (because ‘strategic communications,’ about which my favorite PhD historian spoke, is tactics/means):

“The new paradigm is war amongst the people [in the US, more commonly known as ‘asymmetric warfare’ – nerdgirl] where the strategic objective is to win hearts and minds, and the battle is for the people’s will, rather than the destruction of an opponent’s forces.

“The essential difference is that military force is no longer used to decide the matter … The strategic objective being to alter the opponent’s intentions rather than to destroy him.”

It’s not about changing attitudes of ‘terrorists’/coddling insurgents/‘hating America’/historical revisionism/whatever – it’s recognition that the civilian population provides tacit or direct support of the ‘terrorists’, insurgents, and/or radical Islamists and why & how important that is: those are the men (mostly) that in some combination we will have to convince, cajole, capture, or kill (… and compromise with …) if we are to have a clear winner.

Shutting down access to money laundering and bank accounts alone is not the solution either – most radical Islamist activities are funded at low levels.

We can blow things up like no one else can. Really cool innovative technology for blowing things up is not a problem, but can we re-build them? And rebuild them so that when we leave they don’t crumble/disintegrate completely? The latter is not something for which the majority of US military has been traditionally trained.

US foreign policy cannot be treated as a light-switch in which anything other than full-on military intervention is derided, disparaged, or ridiculed.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Remster 24]

Quote

your description of a "conservative" missed the target. In fact, it's quite stereotypical.

Max: I hope you see the irony of saying his view of conservatism is stereotypical, in a thread about using stereotypical definitions of liberalism...

Remster

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

your description of a "conservative" missed the target. In fact, it's quite stereotypical.

Max: I hope you see the irony of saying his view of conservatism is stereotypical, in a thread about using stereotypical definitions of liberalism...

Of course not.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[airdvr 200]

Zero boarded up crack houses.

So your walk stuck to the nicer neighborhoods.

Still no. You’re now 0/3 on assumptions or 0/4(?).

Not assuming anything. I know if you walked down and innercity street and didn't see 4 or 5 boarded up houses out of 20 you walked past you were still in the better part of town.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Not assuming anything. I know if you walked down and innercity street and didn't see 4 or 5 boarded up houses out of 20 you walked past you were still in the better part of town.

From where did you pull that figure? What is your basis for "knowing"?

You do realize that you’re claiming 20-25% of houses are “boarded up crack houses,” yes?

When was the last time you were in a city?

Vacancies are tracked by the US Census & other agencies.
2007 vacancy for urban area across the US: the highest vacancy rate is 7.4% for Orlando FL. Next highest is Las Vegas, NV (4.9%). Atlanta (4.7%). Detroit (4.1%). NYC (2.1%). SF (1.3%). Riverside-San Bernardino (3.8%). LA (1.6%). Houston (3.1%).

Not even coming close to 20-25% figure for vacancies. “Boarded up” is some subset of all vacancies, so that number will be smaller, can’t say how much smaller but definitely less than 20%. And “boarded up crack houses” is an even smaller subset.

In Atlanta’s 13 poorest neighborhoods (an 8.4 sq mile area through which my Saturday morning walk took me), the vacancy rate (again the larger set to which ‘boarded up houses’ and ‘boarded up crack houses’ are smaller subsets) declined from a high of 14% in 1990 to 9.8%.

Out of curiosity, this morning I called & spoke with Officer Ron Campbell of the Atlanta Police Department Public Affairs and asked if there was any area of inner city Atlanta in which there was 20-25% “boarded up crack houses.” His response was “No … no place in Atlanta has that number of crack houses [emphasis on crack houses].” He went on to say that he thought areas of SW Atlanta may be approaching 20% vacancy due to foreclosures. Not crack houses or vacancy caused by other illegal drug activity. Officer Campbell did indicate that there is concern that houses left due to foreclosure may be attractive nuisances for illegal activity and that the APD was increasing patrols of areas with high foreclosure induced vacancy rates for that reason. Proximal factor, makes sense.

Nonetheless … do you have any counter evidence or anecdotal observation (as ‘anecdotal evidence’ is an oxymoron) to support the 20-25% boarded up crack house claim? I'm almost more curious as to what was the thought process that led to that assertion. How did you come to "know" that? And "know" with such asserted authority? Was it anecdotal? Print or other news media? (Which ones?) What was the process? (It's epistomological - 'how do you know what you know.')

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[airdvr 200]

When was the last time you were in a city?

My job takes me to the innercity of Cleveland 2 or 3 times a week.

the highest vacancy rate is 7.4% for Orlando FL. Next highest is Las Vegas, NV (4.9%). Atlanta (4.7%). Detroit (4.1%). NYC (2.1%). SF (1.3%). Riverside-San Bernardino (3.8%). LA (1.6%). Houston (3.1%).

Averages and percentages are a wonderful thing. If the numbers say Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA has almost 5% I'll suggest that those suburbs probably don't amount to much more than .5%. I don't know and I don't have numbers to back it up. But your numbers a skewed to include a very large metropolitan area.

He went on to say that he thought areas of SW Atlanta may be approaching 20% vacancy due to foreclosures.

Hmmm...sounds like 4 out of 20 to me. I'll concede the "crack house" reference if you'll concede 4 out of 20

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I don't know and I don't have numbers to back it up.

Thanks for that acknowledgement.

Quote

But your numbers a skewed to include a very large metropolitan area.

The US Census Bureau numbers are what they are; they're not "mine." My observation was zero boarded up houses on a four mile visual inventory of inner city Atlanta, which logically eliminates "boarded up crack houses." That was your metric not mine.


By what rationale do you disregard the numbers from Atlanta's Economic Empowerment Zone, which was one of the original six Urban Empowerment Zones created by the Clinton administration in 1993 to target revitalization of urban cities (i.e., the subject of this sub-thread) and that have expanded in the Bush administration:

Quote

In Atlanta’s 13 poorest neighborhoods (an 8.4 sq mile area through which my Saturday morning walk took me), the vacancy rate (again the larger set to which ‘boarded up houses’ and ‘boarded up crack houses’ are smaller subsets) declined from a high of 14% in 1990 to 9.8%.

Quote

Quote

He went on to say that he thought areas of SW Atlanta may be approaching 20% vacancy due to foreclosures.

Hmmm...sounds like 4 out of 20 to me. I'll concede the "crack house" reference if you'll concede 4 out of 20

I've shown that assumptions and causation that you've claimed are not valid.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[pirana 0]

Answer to OP:

Looking at it over the long haul, YES!

Liberalism as defined classically was the force responsible for the revolution against rule by divine right, monarchs, witrchcraft, etc.

If it weren't for the liberal movements and accompanying mercantilist development of the 2nd millenium (resulting in establishment of a middle class), everyone not of royal or divine standing would still be covered with shit and eating mud pies.

Liberalism has now become couched in political terms identified with advocates of a welfare state, but all of our mainstream political parties (and arguably, even those outside the mainstream) have liberalism at their roots.

Next question please.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley