So the wonderful girlfriend and I recently decided to move to Portland, leaving our home of the last three years, Seattle. As a born and bred Oregonian, and a (surprisingly) fierce partisan of the Beaver State, take the following with a grain of salt.
Seattle is a great city, with some really fun neighborhoods and good people. I have friends from other parts of the country who come to Seattle and constantly remark on how laid back and informal it is, which is true to an extent. But as someone who is familiar with Portland, Seattle seems vaguely superficial and uptight. This is not to say Seattleites are mean-spirited or less than well-meaning, because by and large that is far from the truth. But there does seem to be a chip on the shoulder in Seattle that you don't see in the Rose City to the south.
I think this difference lays in the fact that Seattle has had (and continues to harbor) aspirations to be one of the great cities of the United States, and hopefully the world. This pluck and determination should be admired, but sometimes it does seem to be half-hearted. No one can get their act together to build a light rail system worth the name, traffic is horrendous and the city is being overrun with trendy and ill-conceived condominiums. I have the feeling that Seattle would be fully engorged with urban sprawl if it weren't bordered on all sides by water of some sort. Now, this isn't to detract from what is clearly the premier city of the Pacific Northwest, and Seattle has taken pains to transform itself into just that. But I don't believe Northwesterners are built for mega-city living, and as a result Seattle often falls on its face when it tries to manufacture big-city glitz and hype.
There seems to be a constant tension in Seattle between the uptight, upwardly-mobile hipster urbanites and the laid-back, psuedo-hippy slacker type which became synonomous with the city in the 90s. I have found that this dichotomy can sometimes even be expressed within the same person. As it is, Seattle is still weirder than most places in the U.S., but the mixture of "strange" to "normal" stands at about 30-70. These tensions can often result in interesting things in Seattle, from the hipster enclave of Capital Hill, with art galleries and cafes on every corner to the weird-is-wonderful neighborhood of Fremont. But too often it leads to something more akin to the overpowering of the amazingly cool blue-collar Ballard district by the "Condo Overlords" and the smothering of actually unique areas.
All of this brings us to our next place of habitation, Portland, Oregon. As I said, I'm not exactly an impartial observer, but Portland seems to be decidedly different from Seattle in one important way. Where Seattle wants to be mentioned in the same breath as New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, Portland seems to have decided that it's OK to be a smaller, more unique city. Portland only wants to be what it is, for the most part. There's no striving to stand astride the globe, no yearning for recognition. In fact, I, and other Oregonians I know, wince a little bit when Porltand becomes the subject of yet another New York Times travel feature or gets a write up from national publications. It's not that we're not proud of our city, far from it. But I always feel like I would rather have Portland remain an under-discovered place where you can always find weird people and strange places. I would say Portland is much closer to 50-50 on the "weird" vs. "normal" scale, a comforatable and exciting balance.
Anyway, maybe after living in Portland for a few years I'll have a different perspective. And maybe all of this could be complete bullshit, as I'm more than happy to admit. But I feel like such bullshit will at least find a bit more appreciation down south, and I look forward to finding that out!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Kinda sums it all up, huh?
I found this at the bottom of my daily "Foreign Policy Magazine Morning Brief" on today's agenda (yes, put aside for a moment that I read such a thing):
"President-elect Obama holds his third press conference of the week. President Bush will be pardoning the Thanksgiving turkey."
"President-elect Obama holds his third press conference of the week. President Bush will be pardoning the Thanksgiving turkey."
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Finally, an end to the sixties?
The accomplishments of the 1960s made Barack Obama's election on Tuesday possible. The generation that emerged from the 1960s made his election necessary.
This is an idea that's been bouncing around in my head for a while now, but is it finally time to close the books on the 1960s? My parents' generation was both the most idealistic and the most compromised in recent history and their battles have been playing out in American politics ever since. Whether it's identity politics vs. "the silent majority," hippies into yuppies or the whole idea of wedge-issue driven elections I hope the election of Barack Obama can finally let this country move on. While Obama was around in the '60s, he was too young to be involved in all the battles and acrimony, and he is truly the first post-Baby Boomer president, something that I am looking forward to immensely.
This is not to say that the '60s did not produce some amazing things. The civil rights movement, the women's rights movement and the general sense of openness and opportunity that emerged from that storied decade set in motion the forces that allowed history to be made this week, and for that my generation and those that follow should be grateful. But the promise of a new, better world that was evident in the early '60s was not kept. Instead that generation chose to side with the worst parts of their youthful ideals, choosing selfishness and greed, division and revenge over community and unity. The "greed is good" '80s, the petty '90s and the fear mongering, xenophobic '00s have been exhausting and a corrective was needed.
I'm genuinely hopeful that this new politics can at last begin to move America away from the extremely self-centered brand of thinking, consuming and living that has driven this country for the last half century and instead foster an idea of community, cooperation and tolerance that has been sorely lacking. And maybe, just maybe, the election of Barack Obama in the face of extreme negativity and fear-mongering can begin to inject a better sense of seriousness and maturity into the American discourse. The whispering campaigns calling Obama a "secret Muslim," a terrorist and a socialist did not work, and in fact may have driven people to finally reject the politics of fear that have been so prevalent in the last 8 years. Rather than resorting to personal attacks and unfounded smears, as both parties have done for a long time, this election was decided on hope for the future and a serious discussion of the real problems that this country faces, an encouraging sign to me.
A part of me is extremely skeptical, I will admit. It is dangerous and foolish to think that this one election can erase all of the mistakes of the past, and it is guaranteed that new mistakes will be made in the future. It is also not wise to ignore the good things that have come from the last generation, of which there are many. That being said, it is time to move on. It is time for my generation to stand up and let themselves be heard, time for us to move beyond the hang-ups of our parents and grand-parents and shape the world in our own image. The real question is, are we strong enough, good enough and united enough to do so? Can we take this historic election as a sign and take responsibility for its consequences, holding our new leaders to their promises of change? This election cannot be about one man, Barack Obama. It has to be about all of us taking charge of our futures, and in this I can only have hope.
This is an idea that's been bouncing around in my head for a while now, but is it finally time to close the books on the 1960s? My parents' generation was both the most idealistic and the most compromised in recent history and their battles have been playing out in American politics ever since. Whether it's identity politics vs. "the silent majority," hippies into yuppies or the whole idea of wedge-issue driven elections I hope the election of Barack Obama can finally let this country move on. While Obama was around in the '60s, he was too young to be involved in all the battles and acrimony, and he is truly the first post-Baby Boomer president, something that I am looking forward to immensely.
This is not to say that the '60s did not produce some amazing things. The civil rights movement, the women's rights movement and the general sense of openness and opportunity that emerged from that storied decade set in motion the forces that allowed history to be made this week, and for that my generation and those that follow should be grateful. But the promise of a new, better world that was evident in the early '60s was not kept. Instead that generation chose to side with the worst parts of their youthful ideals, choosing selfishness and greed, division and revenge over community and unity. The "greed is good" '80s, the petty '90s and the fear mongering, xenophobic '00s have been exhausting and a corrective was needed.
I'm genuinely hopeful that this new politics can at last begin to move America away from the extremely self-centered brand of thinking, consuming and living that has driven this country for the last half century and instead foster an idea of community, cooperation and tolerance that has been sorely lacking. And maybe, just maybe, the election of Barack Obama in the face of extreme negativity and fear-mongering can begin to inject a better sense of seriousness and maturity into the American discourse. The whispering campaigns calling Obama a "secret Muslim," a terrorist and a socialist did not work, and in fact may have driven people to finally reject the politics of fear that have been so prevalent in the last 8 years. Rather than resorting to personal attacks and unfounded smears, as both parties have done for a long time, this election was decided on hope for the future and a serious discussion of the real problems that this country faces, an encouraging sign to me.
A part of me is extremely skeptical, I will admit. It is dangerous and foolish to think that this one election can erase all of the mistakes of the past, and it is guaranteed that new mistakes will be made in the future. It is also not wise to ignore the good things that have come from the last generation, of which there are many. That being said, it is time to move on. It is time for my generation to stand up and let themselves be heard, time for us to move beyond the hang-ups of our parents and grand-parents and shape the world in our own image. The real question is, are we strong enough, good enough and united enough to do so? Can we take this historic election as a sign and take responsibility for its consequences, holding our new leaders to their promises of change? This election cannot be about one man, Barack Obama. It has to be about all of us taking charge of our futures, and in this I can only have hope.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Breaking News: The world has not been swallowed by a black hole!
It's been a while since I wrote anything here, with no excuse other than laziness, but the news this morning got me going. As many know, I am routinely pissed off at local news shows, sometimes with good reason, sometimes just because I'm becoming a bit of a curmudgeon (I love that word, if that says anything). I won't go too far into it, but I can't stand the friendly banter between airbrushed, empty-suit anchors, I resent the weather man and the fact they repeat the weather over and over again with little to no actual idea of what's going to happen. The traffic report is basically useless in Seattle (having only one main highway for the whole area). Most of all, any actually important news story is truncated to the point of meaningless and buried under lurid, blood-spewing sensationalist crime stories. Sure, an assault in Everett or a shooting in Kent is a tragic event, and it should be reported, but do we really need a 5 minute remote shoot of a line of police tape? Aren't there two (count 'em) wars going on? Isn't the US economy going to shit? What about widespread poverty and disease?
OK, I can understand sensationalism when it comes to violent crime to some extent, it gets viewers scared and excited and makes for good ratings. But what about when TV news manufactures sensationalism out of whole cloth? Such was the case when I almost threw my bagel at the screen this morning. Luckily, it's a new TV and I was too groggy to aim.
You may have heard about the Large Hadron Collider, the world's biggest particle accelerator which was recently completed under the French-Swiss border by the European consortium CERN. If not, read about it here. It's exciting stuff, meant to study the conditions of the universe fractions of a second after the Big Bang. We're talking the birth of everything here. This is potentially the biggest advance in science in generations, but of course there are some out there who voiced their concerns, both founded and unfounded. It was an extremely expensive experiment, for one. There's no guarantee it will work either.
Oh yeah, it also may destroy the solar system. When they were planning and building the LHC there was discussion that it could trigger the creation of a black hole, which would swallow the earth and everyone on it, which is a bad thing. After further study and discussion by the most intelligent people on earth, this worry was dismissed by virtually the entire scientific community and the project proceeded. End of story, right? Of course not. Some concerned global citizens actually filed suit against CERN seeking an injunction against the LHC, which was dismissed. This is all an interesting story, and I can understand why it was mentioned in the majority of stories about the Large Hadron Collider. Science can be fun, in an apocalyptic kind of way!
Anyway, back to the newscast this morning. Reporting the facts about the project and mentioning the debate would have made for a good story on this, the first day of operation of the LHC. Instead, your crack team at KOMO 4 News made a report in the "Breaking News" style, with a breathless reporter speaking from the news bullpen, to essentially say "We're not all dead!" She briefly touched on the scientific aspect of the experiment, then rushed headlong into the discredited end of the world talk, painting CERN as a threat to humanity. This completely ignored the fact that, had her report had any credibility, she would not be making it.
The cap to the story was a video of none other than Stephen Hawking, the brilliant Cambridge physicist and foremost authority on black holes, in which Dr. Hawking said through his computer, "There is no danger."
The intrepid reporter's response: "That's what HE says."
Have we become a nation so averse to knowledge, so focused on sensationalism and so in love with anti-intellectualism that we are left with this as "news?" I can only hope that I'm right and that this was an insanely ridiculous story. On the other hand, if I'm wrong, who's going to be around to call me on it?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Lincoln, Obama & How Far We've Yet to Go...
I had one of those moments today in which convergences of thought become apparent, and echoes from the past ring all too true in the present. I've recently begun reading Doris Kearns-Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," and I came across this quote of Lincoln during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates speaking of promises made by the founders in the Declaration of Independence:
"They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality... They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere."
Now, compare those ideas with this, from Barak Obama's speech today regarding race in America, with echoes of the Constitution:
"This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election."
Click on the above text to read the entire speech, it is honest, tough and moving. Now, I don't want to become another Obamaniac trying to cannonize the junior Senator from Illinois. Some would find the comparison to Lincoln overly presumptious, and I can sympathize. But I was struck by the feeling that we have both come a long way since Lincoln debated the issue of slavery with Stephen Douglas in 1858, and how we still have so far to go when it comes to race relations in this country.
That being said, it fascinates me that these two men, seperated by 150 years of history, are making such similar, and powerful, arguements. Whether by design or coincidence, Obama echoes Lincoln's call for progress and continuing to strive for a "more perfect union." While both men realize that no country, including the United States, can ever be perfect, they also understand that only by striving towards that ideal of perfection, by holding the values, hopes and dreams in high esteem can progress ever be attained.
Pointing to the lessons of history, but not being bound by its failures is central to the American idea. Americans are always facing forward, only glancing back to see our accomplishments and overlooking our deficits, a habit that can sometimes annoy me as a student of history, but which makes our society so dynamic and successful. This is only true, however, when we direct that sense of forward motion in a positive direction, and it is for that reason that I have been drawn to Barak Obama. While some will call his language of hope and change empty rhetoric, I see it as a corrective to the overwhelming sense of cynism, of dispair, of fear that has been so prevalent the last few years. The Bush Administration's "War on Terror" has instilled such distrust, fear and hatred that someone needs to stand up and tell the country, and the world, that we have not given up our sense of possibility in the world. For while the US, and the world, will never be perfect, in order to survive we must continue look back on our "standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for."
"They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality... They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere."
Now, compare those ideas with this, from Barak Obama's speech today regarding race in America, with echoes of the Constitution:
"This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election."
Click on the above text to read the entire speech, it is honest, tough and moving. Now, I don't want to become another Obamaniac trying to cannonize the junior Senator from Illinois. Some would find the comparison to Lincoln overly presumptious, and I can sympathize. But I was struck by the feeling that we have both come a long way since Lincoln debated the issue of slavery with Stephen Douglas in 1858, and how we still have so far to go when it comes to race relations in this country.
That being said, it fascinates me that these two men, seperated by 150 years of history, are making such similar, and powerful, arguements. Whether by design or coincidence, Obama echoes Lincoln's call for progress and continuing to strive for a "more perfect union." While both men realize that no country, including the United States, can ever be perfect, they also understand that only by striving towards that ideal of perfection, by holding the values, hopes and dreams in high esteem can progress ever be attained.
Pointing to the lessons of history, but not being bound by its failures is central to the American idea. Americans are always facing forward, only glancing back to see our accomplishments and overlooking our deficits, a habit that can sometimes annoy me as a student of history, but which makes our society so dynamic and successful. This is only true, however, when we direct that sense of forward motion in a positive direction, and it is for that reason that I have been drawn to Barak Obama. While some will call his language of hope and change empty rhetoric, I see it as a corrective to the overwhelming sense of cynism, of dispair, of fear that has been so prevalent the last few years. The Bush Administration's "War on Terror" has instilled such distrust, fear and hatred that someone needs to stand up and tell the country, and the world, that we have not given up our sense of possibility in the world. For while the US, and the world, will never be perfect, in order to survive we must continue look back on our "standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for."
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Obama in '08
Today I participated in my first caucus. I'm an Oregonian by birth and at heart, but since moving to Washington things are a little different. Today was a case in point, as Heidi and I went and congregated with several hundred people to make our choice for president rather than sending a ballot through the mail. The caucus system may be inefficient, but it does make you think about who you choose and why. And that helped to solidify me behind Barak Obama. I've got to come out and say that I truly believe that this is the man who can lead the Democratic Party to victory in November. As much respect as I have for Hillary Clinton, I just cannot resign myself to the amount of baggage she (and her husband) will bring to the White House. Obama brings not just a fresh start, but a message that has the potential to bring more people into the process than have been a part for years. On top of this, Obama is a candidate who stand for unity over partisanship, discussion over attack and intelligence over ignorance. I will be a delegate for Obama to the next level of caucuses, and I will continue to fight for him as long as it is necessary. I urge you to do the same, and if you have any doubts or questions, I urge you to ask me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
