|
Since the last page or so has included a lot of "I heard this about Portland's history of planning..." here's a reminder that you should seek out anything written by Carl Abbott regarding the urbanization of the West, specifically Portland.
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Portland is nice to visit and all, but seriously, you guys voted down fluoridated drinking water. It's one thing for folks to freak out about GMOs or even vaccines (neither WA or OR are great on those counts) but fluoridated drinking water? That's really loving nuts to be against. I'd honestly say rejecting vaccination is substantially worse than rejecting water fluoridation.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I'd honestly say rejecting vaccination is substantially worse than rejecting water fluoridation. Both are pretty stupid. Its the left's version of denying climate change. People just don't understand science.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
effectual posted:Do you drink pure grain vodka or rainwater? Look, rather than trying to be cute, just get to your point. Edit: Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I'd honestly say rejecting vaccination is substantially worse than rejecting water fluoridation. Sure, but WA and OR both suck on the vaccination front, while at least WA has fluoridation. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 13:41 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:WA and OR both suck on the vaccination front, while at least WA has fluoridation.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:As long as you rub it on your teeth (toothpaste), the entire topic is pointless. From the CDC: quote:Water fluoridation prevents tooth decay mainly by providing teeth with frequent contact with low levels of fluoride throughout each day and throughout life. Even today, with other available sources of fluoride, studies show that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by about 25 percent over a person's lifetime. So no, the entire topic is not "pointless", especially if you're poor or otherwise lack access to proper dental care. This poo poo was known years ago and yet the state of Oregon decided "nope, we know better than those silly doctors and scientists".
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:So no, the entire topic is not "pointless", especially if you're poor or otherwise lack access to proper dental care. This poo poo was known years ago and yet the state of Oregon decided "nope, we know better than those silly doctors and scientists". First off, it wasn't a state-wide vote, it was just the city of Portland. Fluoridation is not state-mandated in either Oregon or Washington. And secondly, the city of Portland enjoys better significantly better tooth decay statistics than the rest of the country. I would have voted for fluoridation, but if they don't want to have fluoride in their water, that's ok. Getting up on a high-horse as if no one knows how fluoride works in Portland is really stupid, and it makes you look like you don't know about all the other sources of fluoride available. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:33 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Or the history of the fight to preserve the Bull Run watershed from development and resource extraction that has been ongoing for decades. Its a lot more than just dumb, science hating hippies hollering about chemicals and Eddie Bernays.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Kaal posted:First off, it wasn't a state-wide vote, it was just the city of Portland. Fluoridation is not state-mandated in either Oregon or Washington. And secondly, the city of Portland enjoys better significantly better tooth decay statistics than the rest of the country. I would have voted for fluoridation, but if they don't want to have fluoride in their water, that's ok. Getting up on a high-horse as if no one knows how fluoride works in Portland is really stupid, and it makes you look like you don't know about all the other sources of fluoride available. I was pretty loving clear about why arguing that "there are other sources of fluoride" is a bad argument. I posted a whole poo poo ton of material from the CDC, did you not bother to look? Adding fluoride to water still increases health regardless of other sources being available, it especially helps children and the poor, it's the cheapest solution out there, and it pays off $36 for every $1 spent. So no, it's not "ok" for a supposedly liberal population to vote against basic health reforms and end up loving children and the poor in the process. I don't care if you think I'm being arrogant, but when people vote to gently caress children over because they're too stupid to understand basic science, they deserve to be mocked. 800peepee51doodoo posted:Or the history of the fight to preserve the Bull Run watershed from development and resource extraction that has been ongoing for decades. Its a lot more than just dumb, science hating hippies hollering about chemicals and Eddie Bernays. You could, you know, actually try to link preservation of the Bull Run watershed to fluoridation of water. We're big of preserving watersheds up north as well, yet there's fluoride here in the water. And all the anti-fluoride stuff I saw was a bunch of science-hating hippie bullshit so why not show some examples? A link? Something? Edit: Here, let me loving start for you: Clean Water Portland - 12 Reasons to Vote No Oh look, it's a bunch of anti-science bullshit! I'm shocked! Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 17:13 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Ive explained this so many times the last couple years that I keep this on hand: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/occupy-wall-street-psychology/ Thanks for the link to that article. It drives me loving crazy reading rants by people about how certain jobs don't deserve to be paid XYZ.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:
It's pretty funny that on the one hand you're reducing any argument against water fluoridation to "drat hippies", while also somehow accusing Portland of being only "supposedly liberal". Meanwhile, Washington is also below the national average for per capita water fluoridation. Shine on Crazy Diamond.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:24
|
|
drat Hippies!!!!!!!!!
|
Since Sawant has shown to be successful in the Seattle city council, I wonder if she will start aiming higher and run for state congress / senate. That would be insane if she got on bigger political landscape.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It's pretty funny that on the one hand you're reducing any argument against water fluoridation to "drat hippies", while also somehow accusing Portland of being only "supposedly liberal". Meanwhile, Washington is also below the national average for per capita water fluoridation. Shine on Crazy Diamond. I'll be more than happy to discuss non-hippy reasons for going against fluoridation of tap water once someone actually posts them. A few already mentioned that toothpaste has fluoride, and my response was to point out that fluoridation of water was cheaper and more effective than toothpaste alone. Why does this not count in your mind? Why did you ignore it when I talked about it twice? By the way, the discussion was Seattle vs. Portland. My earlier references to WA and OR in general were specifically talking about other issues like vaccination. How about you actually respond to what I'm saying rather than ignoring it? After all, you're the one supporting worse health outcomes for children and the poor. Maybe you should actually justify that poo poo. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 17:44 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Redistricting may prevent her from a second term on city council, and there's no chance for higher office than that.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:I'm in SA's Whatcom County branch, where we're trying to get our own 15 Now started, as well as working on other issues. Do you go to the meetings at WWU?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Since Sawant has shown to be successful in the Seattle city council, I wonder if she will start aiming higher and run for state congress / senate. That would be insane if she got on bigger political landscape. I think she needs to stay put for a few cycles if possible, as a proof of concept that the sky hasn't and won't fall due to spooky socialismmmmm
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Forecasting what Sawant should do is way premature. Wait until she's been in office more than a few months.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Or the history of the fight to preserve the Bull Run watershed from development and resource extraction that has been ongoing for decades. Its a lot more than just dumb, science hating hippies hollering about chemicals and Eddie Bernays. Do you have any examples of anti-fluoride material that isn't total bullshit? Because I certainly didn't see any in the runup to that vote.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Yeah, it was a lot more than "hippies" that voted against it as well, Portland also has its own hard right edge to it at times as well. If anything it was a real grab bag coalition that got riled up about it. It didn't help it was a low turn out local election in late May. I think the push against fluoridation is as hell as well but you take the good with the bad. That said, it would suck if this thread just turned into a OR v WA or PDX v SEA slap fight because to be honest both states have similarities but also their own unique problems.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Republicans posted:If that actually gets any traction I worry for my boss's health. Not that that it's too much consolation but Occupy had a much more successful foothold in Tacoma then it ever had in Seattle. Because it was smaller it was less about herding cats than getting useful bodies. I know of many of the same activists coming to the cause, if a bit slowly due to fatigue from the slog that was Tacoma's Occupy. As red as Tacoma tends to be, there won't be nearly as much push back if certain parties can get in line behind. (Longshoremen's, IBEW, teamsters, UW, and, University of Puget Sound just off the top of my head) They have no real objection, but vocal support from these groups would go a LONG way and would be relatively easy with the right kind of outreach. 253 Goon's with idea's would be useful, or someone to make some call's, connections count.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Kaal posted:First off, it wasn't a state-wide vote, it was just the city of Portland. Fluoridation is not state-mandated in either Oregon or Washington. And secondly, the city of Portland enjoys better significantly better tooth decay statistics than the rest of the country. I would have voted for fluoridation, but if they don't want to have fluoride in their water, that's ok. Getting up on a high-horse as if no one knows how fluoride works in Portland is really stupid, and it makes you look like you don't know about all the other sources of fluoride available. Presupposing fluoridation'd be redundant with what they're already doing isn't an argument; it's hand-waving. The simple fact of the matter is that it works very well. Edit: I think fluoridation just doesn't fit the desired image of what water should be. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 19:29 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:As red as Tacoma tends to be What? Did you mean to say Graham or something?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That said, it would suck if this thread just turned into a OR v WA or PDX v SEA slap fight because to be honest both states have similarities but also their own unique problems. If I wanted to make this about SEA vs. PDX, I would have posted the current Western Conference table.  The fluoridation issue just strikes me as something so bizarre for a major world city like Portland. This isn't something trivial like who pumps your gas, it's a serious public health issue.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What? Did you mean to say Graham or something? Eastern Pierce County War Zone.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:If I wanted to make this about SEA vs. PDX, I would have posted the current Western Conference table. One could also point to the NBA playoffs. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Did you ever post on the Penny Arcade forums as "thanatos"? highme posted:One could also point to the NBA playoffs. Like, the Mariners have substantially better attendance, to say nothing of the Sounders.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
If the Mariners have better attendance than the Sonics did, poo poo was dire. Safeco looks barren in any recent photo I've seen. Oh yeah, the Reign & Thorns tangle for the first time this season on Saturday (at the same time as Game 3 in the Spurs/Blazers series). They're the top 2 teams in the league right now, so it should be drat entertaining. highme fucked around with this message at 20:36 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
highme posted:One could also point to the NBA playoffs. Touche my friend, touche.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What? Did you mean to say Graham or something? Graham votes on the same Pierce County ballot.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
highme posted:If the Mariners have better attendance than the Sonics did, poo poo was dire. Safeco looks barren in any recent photo I've seen. Though, looking at it, it looks like more people just go to baseball games. Then again, the Sonics had the 25th highest attendance that season (out of 30 teams). The Mariners are placed similarly in MLB (and 29th as a percentage of capacity, .1% above Cleveland). And then there's soccer, where the LA Galaxy (whose average attendance is the second-highest in the league) was about half of Seattle's in 2013 (a lot of that is obviously stadium capacity, but still: suck it PDX). I guess what I'm really saying is that we should give the Mariners to somebody else, and convert their stadium to a real-grass soccer field for the Sounders and to hold World Cup events (like the qualifiers). Ham Equity fucked around with this message at 21:46 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Maaaaayyyyybeeeeee. If that was you, I remember your masterful trolls of the gamer libertarians. I was one of them then and would get so angry when you'd make some factually accurate statements that I couldn't refute. I reevaluated my political beliefs since then and like I said, I'm joining SA. SyHopeful fucked around with this message at 00:38 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:We won't count the 2008/09 season, since I think the Sonics took an attendance hit when people found out they were moving. So, Sonics 2007/08 average attendance was about 16k; the Mariners average attendance the same year was 32k. The Mariners attendance last season was 22k. I'd like to introduce the idea that Seattle was a really lovely team during a period of a lower level of talent in the NBA overall, after a long period of bad basketball from their last legendary run ('96 finals). Compared to the Sacramento's slow slide into lovely/bad basketball ('02 WC finals), Seattle supported their team more before the team went up for sale. This is avoiding the larger question if an NBA arena and team are good for Seattle. But Seattle didn't fail to support the Sonics, the Sonics failed to succeed in Seattle. Tigntink posted:I think she needs to stay put for a few cycles if possible, as a proof of concept that the sky hasn't and won't fall due to spooky socialismmmmm It's been said before, but the post-Charter 19 elections are probably going to shitcan Sawant once national party money gets spent as a targeted campaign to kill SA and its representatives root & branch. The sitting POTUS made his first official visit a fundraising visit in the rich SEA neighborhood; her run on the city council will be short, if at least entertaining.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Gerund posted:I'd like to introduce the idea that Seattle was a really lovely team during a period of a lower level of talent in the NBA overall, after a long period of bad basketball from their last legendary run ('96 finals). Compared to the Sacramento's slow slide into lovely/bad basketball ('02 WC finals), Seattle supported their team more before the team went up for sale. And I'm really anything but a basketball expert, so I bow to your superior knowledge, and admit that Seattle was totally unfairly robbed of their basketball team. Gerund posted:It's been said before, but the post-Charter 19 elections are probably going to shitcan Sawant once national party money gets spent as a targeted campaign to kill SA and its representatives root & branch. The sitting POTUS made his first official visit a fundraising visit in the rich SEA neighborhood; her run on the city council will be short, if at least entertaining. But yeah, she's probably gonna be screwed out of that seat come next elecion; she could maybe make a run at one of the at-large seats, but I have a feeling those are gonna be really rough races. It's gonna be interesting to see, but quite far out.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Sawant did make a run at Frank Chopp, and did okay (pulled 30%, considering she was running as a Socialist against the incumbent Speaker of the House, I think it was a pretty outstanding performance). She could try to make another run at that, or at one of the state senate seats, assuming she performs well on the council (so far, so good). Nov '15 is not really that far out for a race nowadays. At this point if you haven't shaken hands with at least one of the potential seat-holders for your district you're not actually politically active in your new district. Its only about convincing 44,001 people to vote for you now, and it is rumored that some current state legislators such as Bob Hasegawa might dip their toes into the city politics after seeing how well Murray seized power of the mayor by dint of being an insider technocrat. It still is a knife party waiting to see who announces they'll go big as the at-large, though.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Nov '15 is not really that far out for a race nowadays. At this point if you haven't shaken hands with at least one of the potential seat-holders for your district you're not actually politically active in your new district. Yeah, but her district is pretty well-off. It'd be a rough beat for her, there. Honestly, the only reason I supported the district charter amendment is because it put a bunch of the current city council members into the same districts, and I desperately wanted to see a loving shakeup there. Most of them are completely loving useless (though, the people who replace them will probably be just as useless).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Seattle puts on a show when it comes to caring about the NBA, but nobody actually went to the games while they were here. You my friend have been successfully hoodwinked by Team Bennett/Stern. Until Bennett bought the team, the Sonics got much better support than the M's, and for a much longer period of time. Only a Major League style tank-and-move made the last year or two look bad at the gates, and it infuriates me that a large swath of NBA fans from other markets bought the story.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Since Sawant has shown to be successful in the Seattle city council, I wonder if she will start aiming higher and run for state congress / senate. That would be insane if she got on bigger political landscape. Sawant's first run was for the WA legislator against Frank Chopp, where she got 29% of the vote. The goal behind the campaigns, though, is not specifically to get Sawant up in higher places, but to build movements and inspire lots of third party progressive candidates. What we'd really like to see is labor breaking from the Democrats and pushing it's own progressive candidates. Or Occupy groups, or the Green party, or other socialists or left independents running for office. Elections aren't the end-all-be-all; they're only part of a movement. Right now, though, elections are a great way to reach people, connect with them, and create pressure on politicians that will win us some small victories. Where Sawant goes next will completely depend on what the political landscape is like at the time. And yeah, as Gerund points out, there's going to be a huge amount of money leveled against SA and any candidates they run. The whole 15/h issue and Sawant caught big business completely unprepared. That's not likely to happen again. Big piles of money will also make poo poo like the stronger $15/hour charter amendment a bitch to pass. As far as left candidates aiming high goes, Mike Lapointe is running for Congress against Rick Larsen again (Lapointe is a cool dude). It's pretty unrealistic he'll win, but the more independent people we have challenging the establishment, the better chance we have of upset victories (at the best) and pulling the Democrats left (at worst). Especially for the huge amount of races that have no challenger or are in left enough districts that Republicans don't even bother to run. AShamefulDisplay posted:Do you go to the meetings at WWU?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Sawant's first run was for the WA legislator against Frank Chopp, where she got 29% of the vote. The goal behind the campaigns, though, is not specifically to get Sawant up in higher places, but to build movements and inspire lots of third party progressive candidates. What we'd really like to see is labor breaking from the Democrats and pushing it's own progressive candidates. Or Occupy groups, or the Green party, or other socialists or left independents running for office. Elections aren't the end-all-be-all; they're only part of a movement. Right now, though, elections are a great way to reach people, connect with them, and create pressure on politicians that will win us some small victories. The Washington jungle-primary makes SA viable in the near-term but those no-serious-challenger districts turn into conservative or true regressive targets quick enough once the right wing machine gets familiar enough with running in local elections and find a path to run as a conservative" serious" "Democrat". And labor will never abandon a national party whole cloth for one or two local seats won by a party without serious goals. Because at this point SA needs to get serious about winning seats and burrowing so deep into the machine that a chigger would be jealous. A party that treats the campaign as a 'movement' isn't a party of governance and won't long be a party in government.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Forecasting what Sawant should do is way premature. Wait until she's been in office more than a few months. Especially since Seattle is moving to district council seats, it will be interesting to see if she runs again and in which district or I think there were like two at large seats still that she could try running for. It will be very interesting next election.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Reason posted:Especially since Seattle is moving to district council seats, it will be interesting to see if she runs again and in which district or I think there were like two at large seats still that she could try running for. It will be very interesting next election. Ideally, this time there will be a slate of left candidates, not just Sawant running alone. That's what we tried to push for last time, but SA ended up being the only group to run anyone. The idea being not that we'd actually get a majority on the council (though that would be amazing), but that the council would be pressured to pass progressive legislation for fear of actually being voted out of power. That, and campaigns are an excellent opportunity to build awareness and networks around key issues. Edit: Gerund posted:The Washington jungle-primary makes SA viable in the near-term but those no-serious-challenger districts turn into conservative or true regressive targets quick enough once the right wing machine gets familiar enough with running in local elections and find a path to run as a conservative" serious" "Democrat". Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 02:48 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 02:34
|
|