Timothy Sandefur has a brief description up of his overnight trip to San Fran, one of my favorite cities. He says:
San Francisco is a kind of heaven. Not the boring sort of cotton-wadded hell that they told you about in Sunday school, but a vibrant, living place with lights and style. It is the only city I know, with the possible exception of Boston, that has a personality. Los Angeles has no personality; just plastic surgery. But San Francisco is alive. I consider it proof, by the way, that liberalism is better than conservatism. No sane person would prefer to live in Salt Lake City than San Francisco, notwithstanding the socialism.
I couldn't agree more. San Fran has a life and a style and a personality that LA will never have. The only city in the US at all comparable, in my view, is New Orleans. He's also right that Ruth's Chris is worth the trip for a meal. I've eaten at several of them around the country and the quality has always been excellent. I'm a big fan of high-end steakhouses and Ruth's Chris is consistently top notch.
- Log in to post comments
Since I seem to be posting about things tonight, what's your (anyone's) opinion on Miami? I live near Seattle, and have been only to LA, Chicago and Miami. 1920s-40s buildings aside, it was vibrant and happening. And I have never, ever, seen anywhere else with rabbis on surfboards.
Cities destroy conservatism. I really mean that. In my brief time on this earth, I've lived and been to nearly every major city in the US. LA, liberal, NY, liberal, Boston, liberal, SF, liberal, SD, liberal, Atlanta, liberal, New Orleans, liberal, Miami, liberal. I'll top this off with the most liberal city on earth, Chicago. My evidence is that there are 50 wards in Chicago, 48 of which are democrats, and 50 of 50 voted in favor of Daley last election. Nearly every vote in the City council is 50-0. It used to be 49-1, but the republican has changed (Zell Miller style).
Is this good for the republic? I think not. But until American Democracy is changed so 50 million people in California get the same vote as the 200k in Alaska, things will be fucked up.
It's funny -- I sometimes tune into Clayton Cramer's blog. He now lives out in the boondocks somewhere in Idaho, but formerly lived in or around SF. Cramer, if you weren't aware, has a very healthy obsession with homosexuality.
He keeps on complaining about oh just how horrible SF got, that he had to move away from it. (I think he calls it "Babylon on the Bay.")
Even though I've never been there, based on what I've heard about the city from other folks, it seems to be quite a lovely place.
But the civilized professional folks, who I think comprise the majority of the city's residents, have already spoken with their $. Just look at what the real estate prices are there. And that tells you whether the market shares Cramer's sentiment. Clearly, it doesn't.
It's funny -- I sometimes tune into Clayton Cramer's blog. He now lives out in the boondocks somewhere in Idaho, but formerly lived in or around SF. Cramer, if you weren't aware, has a very healthy obsession with homosexuality.
I sometimes tune into Cramer's blog as well. I might quibble with your use of the word "healthy" here. LOL.
TheEnvoy writes:
Cities destroy conservatism. I really mean that. In my brief time on this earth, I've lived and been to nearly every major city in the US. LA, liberal, NY, liberal, Boston, liberal, SF, liberal, SD, liberal, Atlanta, liberal, New Orleans, liberal, Miami, liberal. I'll top this off with the most liberal city on earth, Chicago. My evidence is that there are 50 wards in Chicago, 48 of which are democrats, and 50 of 50 voted in favor of Daley last election. Nearly every vote in the City council is 50-0. It used to be 49-1, but the republican has changed (Zell Miller style).
Why do you think that is? I mean, why do cities tend to be so much more liberal than the suburbs or rural areas?
Is this good for the republic? I think not. But until American Democracy is changed so 50 million people in California get the same vote as the 200k in Alaska, things will be fucked up.
This makes no sense to me at all. Every individual gets "the same vote", regardless of where they live. California gets far more electoral votes than Alaska in presidential races, proportional to their representation. Same with seats in Congress, of course. The only place there is not entirely proportional representation is in the Senate, where each state gets 2. But the fact that there are fewer senators per capita doesn't seem to actually do anything good for Alaska, or bad for California.
Generally speaking, cities have higher rates of immigration/diverse populations that live there. I believe the traditional right-winged approach is "keep 'em out" and left winged is "let 'em in." If you go through say, South Dakota (I think an accurate impression of the Heartland), you'll find most people are white, own 5-25 acres, and don't really live near each other. Basically cities don't encourage as much self perception of independent free marketing--there isn't enough space. I think this explains why the cities are comparatively liberal, though I can't explain why they're liberal in the first place.
BTW, I figured out the technicalites of my earlier problem. It was on my end. Your wisdom and advise Ed, convinced me to sell my computer for drug money.