otium cum dignitate

The Dirty Bird

Last Sunday, the Falcons continued their abysmal play and lost badly to the Saints, 31-13, at home at the Georgia Dome.  Michael Vick is partly to blame for the Falcons' collapse, and fans let him know it as he walked off the field after the loss.  Vick responded with his own version of the "dirty bird" and flashed the obscenity shown here at his own fans. 

Michael Vick really needs to remember how to win.  When he first came into the league, he made many mistakes, but he was exciting and fun to watch because his competitivism drove him to make amazingly athletic plays never seen in the NFL before.  Nowadays, he seems like he doesn't really care.  The team sucks, and Vick should only expect more calls for his backup, Matt Schaub, after flipping off his home crowd.

Post-Grads Flocking to the Southeast?

I know my readers are frustrated with my lack of posts this fall,  so here's one to  get things started again.  People who know me  are probably aware of my interest in urban policy, suburbia, city management, etc.  It's one of my favorite topics.  An article somewhat related to these issues in today's NYT caught my eye.

The article, titled "Cities Compete in Hipness Battle to Attract Young," discusses how cities are making an effort to attract today's post-grads by appealing to our social, artistic, and living interests.  According to a recent study, Atlanta is leading the charge among big cities in attracting the "young and restless" from traditional hubs such as New York City, Washington, and Chicago.  Other gainers include Charlotte, Austin, and Portland. 

Austin and Portland make sense to me.  Both cities are known to have progressive local legislatures that put a prerogrative on keeping their cities liveable and dynamic.  Austin is considered a top venue for live music, and residents wear shirts that famously read "Keep Austin Weird."  Portland features one of the most efficient mass-transit systems in the United States, and "smart-growth" policies assure that the evils of suburbia, along with it's mushrooming highways, won't turn the city into a tangle of asphalt, cars, and finely-mowed front lawns. 

Atlanta and Charlotte, on the other hand, are case-studies for disorganized city planning.  Highways dominate the landscape in both cities, and neither locations have viable downtowns as growth has been allowed to expand outwards in all directions.  The article claims that Atlanta is gaining in popularity among young people because of its diversity, 45 universities, and major airport.  Young people are supposedly flocking to Charlotte because of a "new Nascar museum," "frisbee golf," and a "new articifical river for whitewater sports."  Yeah right.

Charlotte and Atlanta are popular among post-grads for one reason: money.  It's just becoming too expensive for young people to afford to live the city-life in places like NYC and Washington.  As an example, in Davidson, NC, a suburb of Charlotte, I paid $275/month for an entire house that I shared with two friends.  In Washington, I pay $1300+/month for a two-bedroom apartment. 

My contention all along is that Atlanta and Charlotte can only maintain this level of growth for so long.  With a transportation system reliant on cars, both cities are facing an impending crisis when oil prices soar again and highways finally reach their capacity.  Charlotte is in a little better shape because it's still a young city and much can be done to steer growth in a more organized direction.  But Atlanta is in trouble.  Young people will be fleeing Atlanta before long when they realize that their commutes to work suck hours from their day, and their gas bills resemble a night of drinks at an expensive bar. 

Republicans Succomb to the Blues

On the surface, the Democrats victoriously "thumped" the Republicans in last week's midterm elections and surprisingly regained control of both houses of Congress for the first time in over 12 years.  But it's going to be a while before we know what this really means for a rejuvenated, and yet divided Democratic party that has lacked a coherent message and direction since the Clinton years.

To me, the most interesting story over the last week has been Joe Lieberman's resounding defeat over Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race.  I wrote a rather impassioned post in August decrying the downfall of Lieberman at the hands of the "netroots" liberals in the Connecticut Democratic primary.    I was happy to see that, as I predicted, Lieberman rode bipartisan support to victory in the general election.

Lieberman's success symbolizes how the "divided" nature of American politics that everyone always talks about doesn't really represent the nation as a whole.  I've been frustrated for years now about the way that social issues and "moral values" have hijacked the U.S. political process.  These pervasive topics mask the real political issues we should be discussing, and falsely depict the American electorate as a bipolar mix of Christian Evangelicals and anti-war super-liberal hippies. 

In reality, swing independent voters made up 26 percent of the electorate in last Tuesday's elections.  They voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats, but this doesn't necessarily indicate a new-found public affinity for liberal ideology.  In Pennsylvania, Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. neutralized the never-ending abortion imbroglio with his pro-life stance and easily defeated Republican Rick Santorum, a former heavyweight in the Senate.  And then there's Montana's new Senator, John Tester (D), who the NYT described as "a pro-gun, anti-big-business prairie pragmatist whose life is defined by the treeless patch of hard Montana dirt that has been in the family since 1916."   

As I mentioned in my prior post on Lieberman, the Democrats cannot win with thinkers like Howard Dean leading the party strategy.  Lieberman's defeat of Democrat-supported Ned Lamont struck a resounding defeat for the internet liberals and made it obvious that the country is not in the mood for a 1960's revival of idealistic liberalism. 

I'm interested to see exactly what the Democrats are going to do over the next two years.  We haven't seen the Democrats with any type of meaningful political control in six years now.  But over that time we have heard a lot of Bush-hating.  Now it's time for the Dems to make good on their promises that they can do better, both in Iraq and at home. 

Now that Mark Warner pulled out, I'm certain about this one:  Obama '08!

   

Election Night 2006

What a perfect time to return to Otium?  Election night 2006.  I've been on a news hiatus for the last few months so it's taken some work over the last few days getting up to speed on the state of American politics.  But i'm feeling somewhat educated now, and I'm ready to fulfill my role as a DC blogger and post my own election night prognosis.

I don't think there's much of a question that the Democrats will, in fact, take the House back tonight.  But Republicans need not completely despair.  Historically, in the sixth year of a two-term presidency, the majority party loses an average of 30+ seats.  The Democrats need only 15  seats to take the House this year.  So if the Republicans only lose 20 or so seats, as is expected, it should be seen as somewhat of a moderate victory, considering how tough this election has been traditionally for the majority party.

The Senate situation is much less clear, although it seems the Republicans will hold the majority, especially considering that a 50-50 situation goes to the GOP with Cheney's tiebreaker.  Here in DC, we've been bombarded with political ads from the Virginia and Maryland Senate races, both of which are hotly contested.  It would be quite the choke for George Allen to lose to Jim Webb in Virginia after being considered a 2008 presidential contender only a few months ago. 

I'll post again tomorrow with my observations and conclusions.  Right now, i'm heading over to Lounge 201 with some friends to watch the returns.