jerseyhoya wrote:Detroit

Chocolate City

you're saying they're successfully diversifying from autos into confectionery businesses?

My old census tract in DC was 49% black, 29% hispanic and 19% white. The one that started right across the street was 54% white, 33% black, 10% hispanic.

I'm looking at the income/earnings maps, but have a demographic question: what groups are included in the "other" category? I couldn't find a description in the map key

Judging from some of the incomes data, the economies of many upstate NYS cities/towns are breathtakingly grim

not Dakotas indian reservation grim, but plenty grim

my neighborhood is 44% white, 44% hispanic 10% black, 0% asian, 2% other. what is other


there are two tracts in camden with over 80% of households making under 30k.

25% of my neighborhood growing up has people under 30K. i didn't realize. my current hood is at 47%, one of the lower ones in reading. yay

I'm going to make a new thread about this. People who don't care about politics might enjoy the maps.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm going to make a new thread about this. People who don't care about politics might enjoy the maps.

I support your plan and wish to subscribe to your bolg

This is really really cool.

I love maps more than politics, by the way.

jerseyhoya wrote:Detroit

Chocolate City

i spent about 4 days in the detroit area a couple of years ago and it was clearly a fascinating and educational trip, albeit quite sad. much of the city is a modern day ghost town. you can still see some of the grandeur and splendor of a city that was once on the same level of a new york, chicago, or boston. the racial division in that city is extremely sad. granted i heeded the advice of the locals and stayed out of the area just south of 8mile. but i did enter into some of the older neighborhoods west of downtown and found the african american population extremely friendly and welcoming quite unlike the white suburb where i was staying. they loved that i grew up around philly. i know it's not kc, st. louis or memphis... but they got some real good bbq in that city, clearly underrated.

kopphanatic wrote:This is really really cool.

I love maps more than politics, by the way.

To be fair, loving politics is sorta like loving an airport cavity search from a TSA agent with a hangnail...

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm going to make a new thread about this. People who don't care about politics might enjoy the maps.

i agree.... i love maps, from military to geological to geopolitical and so on. i especially love old maps too.

On roadtrips, I used to love following our route on an atlas.

Historical maps(particularly those showing changes in borders) are awesome.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXdhtuQABHw[/youtube]

see you again in 2 years, Pat. Love this guy. He has so many views I agree with, and he says it like a WIP caller.

anyway, the repeal of DADT passed the house, it SHOULD pass the senate, if a couple senators don't need 'more time' again. objecting to this bill and to the 9/11 responder bill is really beyond the pale.

History tells us that attacking Russia in winter is a big mistake....

BUT NOW IS THE TIME!!

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:History tells us that attacking Russia in winter is a big mistake....

BUT NOW IS THE TIME!!

Where the hell is Tim Gunn when you need him? Make it work, Vladamir!

Kyl and thune sound like morons by saying they'll vote against the bill because of earmarks even though they themselves put in earmarks? Do they think we're that dumb that we don't see what they're doing? I guess they do. My question...well, are we?

Kyl is also dumb on basically everything. One would think republicans would want him to shut up.

pacino wrote:Kyl and thune sound like morons by saying they'll vote against the bill because of earmarks even though they themselves put in earmarks? Do they think we're that dumb that we don't see what they're doing? I guess they do. My question...well, are we?

Kyl is also dumb on basically everything. One would think republicans would want him to shut up.

It's frustrating, but their argument is that "we made mistakes, the people have said no to earmarks so we will no longer support them." Fair enough, my gripe is that instead of being leaders (although I generally agree with ending earmarks) they are chasing public opinion.

Maddow was darn near perfect last night. She went after them for this, although she missed the argument I've pointed out....one that was essentially made by Hannity (ugh), but she did a great job at pointing out the perception of hypocrisy, since neither Thune or Kyl articulated the "we made a mistake" point very well. Also, the use of Christmas as a stall tactic, Jesus H Christ.

kruker wrote:

pacino wrote:Kyl and thune sound like morons by saying they'll vote against the bill because of earmarks even though they themselves put in earmarks? Do they think we're that dumb that we don't see what they're doing? I guess they do. My question...well, are we?

Kyl is also dumb on basically everything. One would think republicans would want him to shut up.

It's frustrating, but their argument is that "we made mistakes, the people have said no to earmarks so we will no longer support them." Fair enough, my gripe is that instead of being leaders (although I generally agree with ending earmarks) they are chasing public opinion.

Maddow was darn near perfect last night. She went after them for this, although she missed the argument I've pointed out....one that was essentially made by Hannity (ugh), but she did a great job at pointing out the perception of hypocrisy, since neither Thune or Kyl articulated the "we made a mistake" point very well. Also, the use of Christmas as a stall tactic, Jesus H Christ.

Um no, what they're doing is letting the other Senators pass the bill with their earmarks, so they get to have their earmarks and also say they voted against earmarks. The principled thing would be to not put in earmarks. The Mississippi Republicans are doing the same thing. They've stuffed more earmarks into the bill than any other state.

I blame Harry Reid. How do minority party Senators get to insert earmarks into bills that they then vote against for having earmarks. I realize you can't cut any state off cold, if you're going to have earmarks in the bill. But how does a little state like Mississippi end up with the most earmarks, when its Senators are in the minority and won't vote for the overall bill? Makes no sense. It's like the stimulus bill that the Republicans skewered Dems over and then went home and gloated about all the pork that they shoved into the bill for their home state. I guess if the majority lets you get away with this crap, you just go for it.

We have Republican governors who got a lot of free national TV face time criticizing the stimulus, saying they would refuse to accept it and then their state not only accepted it but used it for general budget rather than stimulus activities. Just shameless!

That's a possibility, but I'm going with my interpretation because it's less cynical. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they're not being hypocritical, but giving in to "the public's demands," as they said in their press conference. Not a good rationalization, but I need this to keep the frustration at a manageable level.

One thing that I hope comes to fruition is Hannity's pledge to publicly call out all those Republicans who, starting in January, try to sneak earmarks into bills. I forget who published the earmarks list last week, but hopefully these groups and media outlets hold these people's feet to the fire.

When it comes to matters of internet privacy/security, I'm confident that I surpass our most libertarian libertarians. And this kind of blather from nitwits like Gary Locke is what inspires me:

A Call for a Federal Office to Guide Online Privacy

“America needs a robust privacy framework that preserves consumer trust in the evolving Internet economy while ensuring the Web remains a platform for innovation, jobs and economic growth,” the commerce secretary, Gary F. Locke, said in a statement. “Self-regulation without stronger enforcement is not enough. Consumers must trust the Internet in order for businesses to succeed online.”....

from the same article:

....According to a statement issued by the [Commerce] department, global online transactions are estimated at $10 trillion a year.

Uhhhh, Gary - mission accomplished?