Here's where I roll my eyes.
American men are evidently so enamored with football that, when in positions of power, they're apt to subsidize it at the expense of themselves and every one of their constituents. Did I mention that the Georgia Dome is younger than me, and I'm barely old enough to buy liquor? Did I mention that the Falcons have never, not once, won the Super Bowl? Did I mention that our local economy is performing way worse than the national average, and we don't have money to spare? What else is there to mention?
I resolve to boycott the Falcons if I have to pay a red cent for any new monument to corporatized, televised combat ritual that doubles as a warehouse of slave labor (busboys, janitors, security guards who are treated as fully expendable and worthless--I've been there. Ask me about it).
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Fulton Commands Atlanta to Tell the Whole Truth
Some moderately good news arrived today in the form of a Fulton County court order to the City of Atlanta, to divulge many more bidding documents to those concessions providers who lost bids to operate in the airport's new international terminal. Will formal protests follow? Most likely. I can only hope the city has learned that it can no longer get away with the blatant favoritism of the Maynard Jackson era.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The Castle Lives Again
In a story which I've sadly overlooked, the famous old Castle on 15th Street is being converted into a boutique hotel. The building, completed in 1910, had fallen into disrepair by the late 20th century, and was referred to by Mayor Andrew Young as a "hunk of junk" in 1986. Today, it is one of the oldest residential buildings of its size in Midtown, and is certainly a unique reminder of a different era in Atlanta's history; soon, it will once again be inhabited.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
SS-Town? The Springs? The Sandy?
I apologize for not posting yesterday. A friend and I were trying to rid ourselves of the first-week-of-the-year doldrums.
In any case, I found this story interesting (and well-tailored to the AJC's favorite readers, upper-middle-class white suburbanites) just because of how nebulous mailing addresses are in the Atlanta area. I've known people with Atlanta addresses who live in Vinings, Sandy Springs, southwest DeKalb, and Doraville. Indeed, thanks to Sandy Springs never having a distinct mailing address as default, Atlanta is actually listed on my birth certificate as my birthplace, and in all honesty, it looks better there to me than Sandy Springs would.
I'm not troubled by the outcry for a default Sandy Springs mailling address, even though residents already have the option to choose one. If people can't stand to be identified with the city of Atlanta, then it's a good thing that they don't live here, really. Other than financial and name-recognition objections raised by Sandy Springs' own UPS, it seems to be a non-issue at the very least, and at best may help to de-nebulize the Atlanta region, if nowhere else but on paper.
In any case, I found this story interesting (and well-tailored to the AJC's favorite readers, upper-middle-class white suburbanites) just because of how nebulous mailing addresses are in the Atlanta area. I've known people with Atlanta addresses who live in Vinings, Sandy Springs, southwest DeKalb, and Doraville. Indeed, thanks to Sandy Springs never having a distinct mailing address as default, Atlanta is actually listed on my birth certificate as my birthplace, and in all honesty, it looks better there to me than Sandy Springs would.
I'm not troubled by the outcry for a default Sandy Springs mailling address, even though residents already have the option to choose one. If people can't stand to be identified with the city of Atlanta, then it's a good thing that they don't live here, really. Other than financial and name-recognition objections raised by Sandy Springs' own UPS, it seems to be a non-issue at the very least, and at best may help to de-nebulize the Atlanta region, if nowhere else but on paper.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Atlanta Gets Taken To Court
I was hoping not to write about this mess today, but as I couldn't find any more interesting stories on which to comment, I leave you this lengthy description of formal opposition to the airport concessions bidding process.
Hopefully, tomorrow will bring me a refreshing break from this battle, which might escalate further still in the future.
Hopefully, tomorrow will bring me a refreshing break from this battle, which might escalate further still in the future.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Journal Constitution Finally Makes Note of Airport Contracts
Some puzzling aspects of City Hall's secrecy in awarding airport concessions contracts were revealed in this article in the Journal-Constitution. For instance, Mayor Reed has asked City Council to keep much of the process secret to maintain "attorney-client privilege," an easily distorted concept, not to mention a puzzlingly legalistic phrase to show up in such a mediocre newspaper. Also, a Fulton County judge denied a motion to force the city to reveal all contract proposals, and no explanation is given in the article.
It might seem excessive to dwell on this one issue when our city has so many others to correct, but given a shady history of concessions contracts at the airport, it's definitely worth watching.
It might seem excessive to dwell on this one issue when our city has so many others to correct, but given a shady history of concessions contracts at the airport, it's definitely worth watching.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Mayor Reed Throws Another Tantrum
You may recall this mayoral outburst from the heyday of Occupy Atlanta this past October. Well, a tradition of whining and finger-pointing may have already begun at the mayor's office, after he somewhat theatrically accused Common Cause Georgia of being hypocritical in their opposition to the bidding process for airport concessions contracts. Also, in a stunning show of class, Councilman C.T. Martin reminded William Perry, the executive director of Common Cause Georgia, that City Hall "is his [the mayor's] house."
Stay tuned for more top-grade discourse from the mayor and his pals.
Stay tuned for more top-grade discourse from the mayor and his pals.
Monday, January 2, 2012
A Proposal for a More Fair and Representative National Primary System
I apologize, everyone. I'm taking a break from writing about Atlanta today. On another note, have you ever felt that, given the lateness of Georgia's Presidential primary, it's not even worth the effort? Do you feel ignored by the national ballot-counters? I sure do.
(Beware, statistics ahead; also, simplified names of Census racial categories)
The mountains of coverage I've been reading about the various Presidential campaigns in Iowa has unsettled me, I believe rightfully so. Every Presidential candidate bums around Iowa for at least a month, because the voters of this state, along with New Hampshire, have more power in determining the election than any of the rest of us.
And why should they? In addition to being especially agrarian, Iowa is 91% white, and New Hampshire is 94%. These states, though certainly as important as any of the rest, are hardly representative of America as a whole.
At first, I thought a single national Presidential primary date would be an effective solution. It's been pointed out to me, however, that the new presence of super PACs, resulting from the Citizens United ruling, has raised the spectre of dramatically heightened corporate influence in such a national primary. I think I've come up with a compromise that would work well to increase national representation in the primaries, and simultaneously keep a tab on corporate campaign spending.
Ten randomly-chosen states will vote in the primaries on a given Tuesday, say, 31 May 2016. Then ten more will go next week, and so on until all states are accounted for in five weeks' time. The first ten would have to be non-bordering, in order to even out representation in the earliest primaries.
So, let's say that the ten states selected under this new system to go first, on 31 May 2016, were Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, and South Dakota. The combined population of these states is ethnically distributed as follows:
White: 88.3%
Black: 16.3%
Asian: 5.8%
Native American: 1.4%
Pacific Islander: 0.5%
Other: 2.0%
Multiracial: 3.9%
Hispanic of any race: 14.7%
Or if they were Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Texas:
White: 74.3%
Black: 12.1%
Asian: 3.2%
Native American: 0.9%
Pacific Islander: 0.1%
Other: 6.7%
Multiracial: 2.7%
Hispanic of any race: 22.4%
Or, say, California, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Tennessee:
White: 68.5%
Black: 11.9%
Asian: 7.0%
Native American: 0.7%
Pacific Islander: 0.2%
Other: 8.4%
Multiracial: 3.3%
Hispanic of any race: 21.5%
Compare that to Iowa plus New Hampshire:
White: 92.1%
Black: 2.4%
Asian: 1.9%
Native American: 0.3%
Pacific Islander: 0.1%
Other: 1.6%
Multiracial: 1.7%
Hispanic of any race: 4.3%
And compare to the entire US population:
White: 72.4%
Black: 12.6%
Asian: 4.8%
Native American: 0.9%
Pacific Islander: 0.2%
Other: 6.2%
Multiracial: 2.9%
Hispanic of any race: 16.3%
To resolve the inclusion of the District of Columbia, it would randomly be inserted into one of the five primary weeks.
It would result in higher travel costs for candidates, but would even out representation in our political system, by forcing candidates early on to answer to a more racially, regionally, politically and culturally diverse population, representative of the nation at large.
(Beware, statistics ahead; also, simplified names of Census racial categories)
The mountains of coverage I've been reading about the various Presidential campaigns in Iowa has unsettled me, I believe rightfully so. Every Presidential candidate bums around Iowa for at least a month, because the voters of this state, along with New Hampshire, have more power in determining the election than any of the rest of us.
And why should they? In addition to being especially agrarian, Iowa is 91% white, and New Hampshire is 94%. These states, though certainly as important as any of the rest, are hardly representative of America as a whole.
At first, I thought a single national Presidential primary date would be an effective solution. It's been pointed out to me, however, that the new presence of super PACs, resulting from the Citizens United ruling, has raised the spectre of dramatically heightened corporate influence in such a national primary. I think I've come up with a compromise that would work well to increase national representation in the primaries, and simultaneously keep a tab on corporate campaign spending.
Ten randomly-chosen states will vote in the primaries on a given Tuesday, say, 31 May 2016. Then ten more will go next week, and so on until all states are accounted for in five weeks' time. The first ten would have to be non-bordering, in order to even out representation in the earliest primaries.
So, let's say that the ten states selected under this new system to go first, on 31 May 2016, were Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, and South Dakota. The combined population of these states is ethnically distributed as follows:
White: 88.3%
Black: 16.3%
Asian: 5.8%
Native American: 1.4%
Pacific Islander: 0.5%
Other: 2.0%
Multiracial: 3.9%
Hispanic of any race: 14.7%
Or if they were Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Texas:
White: 74.3%
Black: 12.1%
Asian: 3.2%
Native American: 0.9%
Pacific Islander: 0.1%
Other: 6.7%
Multiracial: 2.7%
Hispanic of any race: 22.4%
Or, say, California, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Tennessee:
White: 68.5%
Black: 11.9%
Asian: 7.0%
Native American: 0.7%
Pacific Islander: 0.2%
Other: 8.4%
Multiracial: 3.3%
Hispanic of any race: 21.5%
Compare that to Iowa plus New Hampshire:
White: 92.1%
Black: 2.4%
Asian: 1.9%
Native American: 0.3%
Pacific Islander: 0.1%
Other: 1.6%
Multiracial: 1.7%
Hispanic of any race: 4.3%
And compare to the entire US population:
White: 72.4%
Black: 12.6%
Asian: 4.8%
Native American: 0.9%
Pacific Islander: 0.2%
Other: 6.2%
Multiracial: 2.9%
Hispanic of any race: 16.3%
To resolve the inclusion of the District of Columbia, it would randomly be inserted into one of the five primary weeks.
It would result in higher travel costs for candidates, but would even out representation in our political system, by forcing candidates early on to answer to a more racially, regionally, politically and culturally diverse population, representative of the nation at large.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Happy 2012
I apologize for not posting last night. My festivities were ongoing. Speaking of which, if we have nothing else to look forward to next year, we can buy alcohol seven days a week now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)