Comments on: Childless in Portland

By: JLo

JLo — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:07:02 +0000

I’m not sure I understand the sarcasm here. If there are facts that prove Paul wrong, shouldn’t they quickly be brought to the conversation? And if there aren’t, shouldn’t these arguments simply be labeled as opinions given the limited information available? I was unable to find the wild name-calling, but I pretty easily found legitimate points of debate that demand to be addressed on their merits. If those discussing these matters are unable to do so in civil discourse–as befits a democracy–might we not just admit that and move on?

By: Teresa

Teresa — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:16:08 +0000

Having raised 2 children in the suburbs, I can honestly say that there are many reasons why parents prefer it to the cities. Expense is naturally one of the big deals when raising children. If you live in the city and have a humongous mortgage, and a move to the burbs will cut that mortgage in half - that leaves twice the money for things like after school activities, vacations, and college savings. Also, the urban flight in the 50’s and 60’s have left a legacy of kids who grew up in the burbs. They might like living in the city as young adults, but the comfort level when raising kids is the more familiar suburbs - they understand the lifestyle and that means one less thing to worry about. I suppose entire books can be written about why there are more kids in the burbs than in the city - but I think, in the end, it’s the comfort level of the parents that will decide where the family will live. When the parents have options (we’re talking about fairly affluent families in this respect) they still want to be able to relax - cities may be exciting with lots to do - but they aren’t usually known for relaxation. Oh - and I’m only speaking from my own experience… I have no studies to back up my claim. *grin*

By: Kevin B.

Kevin B. — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:38:26 +0000

Mercury, you’re a braver soul than I, but I admit the thought had crossed my mind too, for both San Francisco and Portland. I’m assuming that lesbian women would also trend lower in child-rearing than their heterosexual counterparts, but as Paul might point out, I have no hard facts to prove that assumption.

By: mercury

mercury — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:29:47 +0000

Mike Barone is a pretty good social critic, been around along time so I won’t question his motives. I will throw open a hypothesis about his thesis, lack of kids in San Francisco and Minneapolis in specfic. I think my hypothesis also might apply for some of those other cities. Why are there so few kids? Gay men don’t have kids. There. Its out of the closet. SF has a very high concentration of gays. Not enough by itself to cause a kiddie deficit. High housing prices contribute. City mismanagement contributes. Having lived in both SF and Minneapolis I know they are both gay cities with leadership attentive to their voters wishes, like any good leadership should. Gay men don’t have child rearing families as their primary interests.

By: Kevin B.

Kevin B. — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:08:06 +0000

Anger indeed. Interestingly, Paul Kerr has twice now attempted to refute your observations with the position that “before one can be considered a player in the larger political debate” they must show a “demonstrated ability to make intellectually honest arguments grounded in fact”– and yet fails to provide any of the same things himself. Sarcasm? Check. Belittling? Check. Refuting opinions with a sentiment that could be summarized by “Nuh-uh, prove it”? Check. Intellectually honest arguments grounded in fact? . . . Uhhhh… Hmm. Interesting.

By: Paul Kerr

Paul Kerr — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:04:17 +0000

Upon re-reading your first post, your plea above that you were merely pointing out “facts” is obnoxious. You claimed that: We’ve all seen the trustfund types in action. They aren’t a new phenomenon– but as Michael Barone points out, their power and influence has grown within the Democratic Party. There is no evidence for this claim, as I have pointed out. You should provide some or retract this statement. AND What’s the downside to voters with money and time? Barone concludes with this: ” The good news for Democrats is that they have found a new source of votes and money. The bad news is that an important part of their core constituency has the characteristic that the British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin ascribed to the press, “power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.” ” You have now publicly supported a sweeping (and serious) indictment of a group of American citizens. You should be able to defend such a claim, but you can’t. The implication that the Dmeocrats have a key group of supporters that are unpatriotic (as Barone claims) is really disgusting. AND But the key point Barone makes is the trustfunders’ guilt. I defy you to produce a shred of reliable data to support his “guilt” claim.

By: Paul Kerr

Paul Kerr — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:53:46 +0000

Betrays me? Please. Your initial claim that the NYT’s facts “add something to the discussion” is false. The discussion was about Barone’s article, which you still can’t defend. Question: You claim that “many others have documented” that lifestyle choices “shade into political leanings.” Who are these others? And by “documented” do you mean “have some data”? Also, you claim that childlessness “certainly says something about lifestyles.” What, precisely? Do you have any data? To what degree do economic factors play a role? Are those lifestyle choices legitimate? If so, why do you bother to write about it at all? I still fail to understand why you accord Barone’s unsupported claims any degree of importance at all. Do you defend his argument RE: the influence of trustfunders? If so, why?

By: Paul Kerr

Paul Kerr — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:36:58 +0000

To clarify, the lines “Actually, it doesn’t. Your claim to the contrary is intellectually dishonest tripe” were referring to this line from the post: “It adds an interesting fact to the discussion”

By: Paul Kerr

Paul Kerr — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:34:35 +0000

Actually, it doesn’t. Your claim to the contrary is intellectually dishonest tripe. You should be embarrassed. That NYT article has no evidence that possessing a trustfund has anything to do with anything. Expensive cities have fewer kids. Shocking. And there is still no good evidence for a number of Barone’s original claims. Stop according this nonsense a degree of importance it doesn’t deserve. Articles like Barone’s serve only to convey the false impression that there is a basis in fact for a (conservative) non-evidence-based belief. To reiterate: Barone’s article represents a frequent problem in public discourse - the lack of standards for being taken seriously…yes, we should all entertain different views, but one needs to demonstrate a certain amount of seriousness before one can be considered a player in the larger political debate. I don’t mean credentials, I mean the demonstrated ability to make intellectually honest arguments grounded in fact.