Lake Merritt (Oakland, Berkeley, Highland: middle-class, credit, how much)

[Nomadic9460678748]

Originally Posted by sav858

That's a pretty ironic thing to say considering you'll find a very similar attitude among some people in the Bay Area

I don't doubt that it's an attitude to be found almost anywhere, but the intensity and ferocity of many of the claims about Austin and Texas are, in my personal opinion, not rooted in anything. It's more PR than substance.

I can't speak for everyone, but I made amazing friends while living in the Bay Area and never found anyone rude or untoward. I loved my time there. It was a place for adult diversions (ballet, opera, museums, film, etc.,) whereas here it's pretty much centered around the University (football, tailgating, beer, vomit, and the Peter pan syndrome where no one ever 30 ever expects to grow up so long as they continue to work on their art/music/novel).

There's no perfect place. It really all depends on what strikes your fancy. I'm a Texan who has no fancy for Texas.

[BayDude]

I still think I'd rather live in a broke, diverse, geographically-alluring forward thinking state which has been a fine incubator for ideas and commerce.

How forward thinking are you if your broke (Or purposely living in a place thats broke)? LOL as usual liberalism not making sense.

You take the "diversity" I'll take the financial security lol. Diversity is uselless for wall intents and purposes. "Diversity" does'nt pay my bills.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Nomadic9460678748

I'm not your typical Texan. I can't see getting all excited about a big, hot, flat, state with sprawly, architecturally uninspiring cities and no real claim to fame. Let's face it, the last two presidents which came from this state don't exactly have the most admirable of track records now do they? Statistically-speaking Texas usually ranks last in things such as insured, care for the mentally fragile, graduation rates, etc., it speaks volumes about this state's priorities. But if you point out that helping people isn't a crime Texans will point West (to California) for proof that "liberal" policies are the death knell for a state's fiscal strength. Of course, most will do this without having any intimate knowledge of how California found itself in a fiscal abyss, they'll just say, "Well, at least we're not California!" I still think I'd rather live in a broke, diverse, geographically-alluring forward thinking state which has been a fine incubator for ideas and commerce. I have no state pride and have actually been very embarrassed of late to be from this place. The whole TEA party thing and now the governor's willingness to suppress information regarding this state's liberal use of the death penalty.

And Austinites are a very, VERY egotistical bunch in that they think that since they're the closest Texas has to a progressive enclave that it somehow makes it utopia. People say very inhospitable things about people who've moved to Austin from other states (especially Californians) and then blame all of the problems which exist on transplants, as though Austin didn't have problems prior to the population influx.

I'm taking a trip soon to spend a week in Oakland and see my friend dance in a performance. I CANNOT WAIT! I'm really looking forward to going to the Farmer's Market on the lake, having some great food, and then taking a walk around the lake. I'll probably stop somewhere on Lake Merritt with my book and just bask in the glory of being outside of the Lone Chump State.



Yeah, I'm not much for opulence. I can appreciate that people have a taste for certain locales, but I'm a simple kinda gal. Oakland just always felt like home to me. I worked in The City but always felt that San Francisco was more of a convenient playscape (museums, shows, restauraunts, etc), but Oakland was a place you could live, even with all of its ongoing problems. Every person I've ever met who was born and raised in Oakland had a fierce devotion to trying to make it a better place for everyone to live. I admired that so much.

For what it's worth, Oakland will always get much love from me and if I can't ever make it back to stay (*croses fingers REALLY tight*), I'll always have people there to visit and a very large part of my heart remains there.

Yup.

You deserve a rep increase for that!

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Nomadic9460678748

I don't doubt that it's an attitude to be found almost anywhere, but the intensity and ferocity of many of the claims about Austin and Texas are, in my personal opinion, not rooted in anything. It's more PR than substance.

I can't speak for everyone, but I made amazing friends while living in the Bay Area and never found anyone rude or untoward. I loved my time there. It was a place for adult diversions (ballet, opera, museums, film, etc.,) whereas here it's pretty much centered around the University (football, tailgating, beer, vomit, and the Peter pan syndrome where no one ever 30 ever expects to grow up so long as they continue to work on their art/music/novel).

There's no perfect place. It really all depends on what strikes your fancy. I'm a Texan who has no fancy for Texas.

True there is no such thing as a perfect place but some places are better than others

[BayDude]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

True there is no such thing as a perfect place but some places are better than others

Depends on what you define as "better". If you define it as good schools, decent cost of living, nice, down to earth, humble people etc. then the Bay Area is definitely not it. If you like "diversity", grittiness/grimy, year round good weather and urban features such as museums etc then the Bay Area's is "better" for that.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by BayDude

Depends on what you define as "better". If you define it as good schools, decent cost of living, nice, down to earth, humble people etc. then the Bay Area is definitely not it. If you like "diversity", grittiness/grimy, year round good weather and urban features such as museums etc then the Bay Area's is "better" for that.

ummmmmm...nope, some places are just better, that's all LOL!

[BayDude]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

ummmmmm...nope, some places are just better, that's all LOL!

With no ojectively defined definition of what "better" is or means? Then its just your opinion. That's all.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by BayDude

With no ojectively defined definition of what "better" is or means? Then its just your opinion. That's all.

Exactly. Everything we say on here is all our opinions. Just as what you say is your opinion. The person I originally said that too knows what I mean however.

[Nomadic9460678748]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Exactly. Everything we say on here is all our opinions. Just as what you say is your opinion. The person I originally said that too knows what I mean however.

Indeed I do.

[l'étranger]

One finds it amusing, in a sardonic manner of speaking, that those whom the more discerning would most ironically refer to as "free market heroes" accuse others of that which they themselves are guilty, to wit:

"With no ojectively defined definition of what 'better' is or means? Then its just your opinion. That's all."

Oh?

I have read posts here from a number of such self-described persons, numerous "dudes" who have some connection to California and are wont to champion the free market heroically, as it were, irrespective of the market's unheroic actual means and ends. Yet when confronted by bona fide evidence (say, how certain Oakland neighborhoods boast median incomes and educational levels equal to or superior to gated, racially exclusive suburbs) that squarely refutes their intellectually untenable positions, such persons almost always resort to the red herring logical fallacy to avoid addressing his or her errors.

More recently, I have read on these very pages that "no middle class" exists in Oakland, a fallacy refuted by the actual reported earnings and educational level of numerous neighborhoods in Oakland California (Temescal, upper Dimond, lower Laurel, etc.)that make them indeed "middle class. And yet those who hold to their shibboleths will not address this discrepancy between their magical thinking and the world of facts, most often preferring to opine that their opposition articulates, for example, "no ojectively defined definition" and thus pontificate solely "just [their] opinion."

The educated among us recognize this as an example of holding to a double standard, "hypocrisy" for short. For, one cannot advance prejudiced opinions as "fact" while condemning others for same said breach of intellectual integrity.

And then there is the spectacle of those of the putatively conservative, even Libertarian (a messianic form of Conservatism for those who enjoy personal pleasures not in accord with current law) perspective who resort to crude, anti-intellectual, and utterly bigoted epithets such as, "commie," when called to account for their–– how else to put it but straightfowardly–– crude, anti-intellectual, and utterly bigoted posts.

Would that the moderator not moderate his or her responsibilities to, well, respond responsibly on such occasions. Double the standards, one must suppose...

Be that as it may, when one champions areas that boast " nice, down to earth, humble people" (SIC), one ought to conduct himself or herself as a "nice, down-to-earth, humble" person, n'est-ce pas? Otherwise, having already failed the intellectual standards consistent with "informed commentary," whatever his or her political leanings, one merely calls attention to his or her double standard, hypocrisy in other words.

For there is nothing "objective" in championing a standard of behavior to which one does not himself or herself subscribe. That which I describe is "objectionable," as hypocrisy almost always is, and hypocrisy in the service of objectionable, intellectually bankrupt opinions are an untoward vice in service of no virtues.