I do appreciate not being harassed by cops or having people at target assume I'm up to no good if I wander in wearing pajamas to buy cold medicine when I'm sick, but the sunburns are a bitch.
Yes, though a subway would have been far more expensive. The thing that really stymied Portland was the anti-sprawl laws. Sure, that is a good goal but they didn't increase density laws so they ended up with shortages or housing, commerical space, and office space. The growth has to come some where so legalize one or the otger (or some combination of the two).
I don't think that's the [full] answer, but it's in the right direction. I won't focus on the anti-sprawl laws, because that's another topic in of itself, but I do think it does play a part in all of Portland's woes and boons, to which you've pointed out some of the effects. Going back to the light-rail, a subway alignment certainly would have been more expensive, but would have facilitated longer trains (the MAX runs two-car trains; Twin Cities Metro runs three-car trains on their two light rail lines. @Ancalagon Seattle runs four-car trains?), which would have facilitated stations not being spaced every 2-3 blocks through downtown and the Lloyd District. That also would have helped headways as now the tracks are now on a separate row and not subject to the downtown/Lloyd District grid. With that said, I think this is a hindsight issue, as I don't believe planners could have foreseen the effects of their design planning out, and MAX was one of the first, if not the first, system to be built following the demise of the streetcars.
As Kurt Tucholsky wrote, nature has given woman some heavy burdens to carry, but we men have to shave.
In order to obtain an answer to the question, “Why is X?” you must first demonstrate X. In this case, X = outrage. Where’s the outrage?
From this article:https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e2b598d8c00_story.html?utm_term=.936765f2c5e7 How does a simple affirmation do this? This is just hysterics. A simple sign that wouldn't be questioned if it said "it's ok to be black, asian, latino, whatever" is "sparking racial division". Why is this?
Yes, what was meant to outrage has merely annoyed. But why is it offensive? Simply because it was intended to be (as indeed @K. informed you in the very first reply). Apparently no racial divisions were even sparked, despite the best efforts of the sign-hangers. Just a big pile of fail.
Since it was not the statement itself which is offensive, but the intention behind making it, which was definitely to “spark racial divisions,” anybody interested in keeping the peace could rightfully be offended. I would guess that racists were delighted.
But how can saying "its ok to be white" spark racial divisions when if you replaced white with any other group not make the news?
Obviously, it can’t. But the people who put the signs up thought it would, and wanted it to. Are you for real? Obvious fake is obvious.
Yea its a fake. It's just to point out the hypocrisy how one message is fine and the other isn't. What I want to know is why?
Again, the message is not the issue. And it should tell you something that you have to concoct an imaginary scenario in order to find any hypocrisy.
This thread makes me embarrassed to be white. We deserve to be replaced or whatever those inbred alt-right morons think is going to happen.
Best case scenario is our offspring are mocha. I volunteer to have the white fucked out of me. Asians or latinas for preference.
Why did so many white people lose their shit over the phrase "Black lives matter?" What's controversial about those three words?
I believe he provided a specific example so it is not imaginary. I would question how representative that example is but... He did have people claiming it was some how racist to hold a sign saying "It is ok to be white." So, I would say you are a bit off the mark with your response.
See bolded bits, but also -- Seriously. It's just 4 lines, two in @Quest's post and two in @Anduril's. Was it really too much to ask for you to just read that to understand what the imaginary bit is they are talking about?
Nobody claimed it was racist. They claimed it was “part of a concerted national campaign to foment racial and political tension,” which it clearly was. The imaginary scenario was about “it’s okay to be black” signs being celebrated in the media, which never happened.
I see white people all the time being successful and they seem to be at the top everywhere. So it seems to be ok to be white. The only people who seem to feel it is not ok to be white are uneducated and poor white people who cannot get ahead and were hoping for a free ride on skin color. It is not that it is not ok to be white, but rather that it is not ok to be a stupid white racist. Perhaps people like @Anduril should educate themselves and stop blaming other people for their fail?
