I've been spending a lot of time up in Minnesota, where they have a Bruegger's Bagel store on every corner. This is a good thing; Bruegger's is my favorite bagel place. We don't have Bruegger's here in Indiana, where Einstein's is the ruling chain. I like Einstein's, but I love Bruegger's.
So I've been eating my fair share of bacon and egg bagel sandwiches, which is a very good thing. But last week I decided to go a little lighter, and ordered a plain bagel with hummus. Imagine my surprise when the clerk rang my bill and came up with a $3.69 charge.
I pointed out to the clerk that a bagel with smear should be $.79. The clerk, in response, pointed to a menu item under the "deli sandwiches" section that said "Hummus, $3.69." That was 70 cents more than a bacon and egg bagel sandwich, and the same price as a turkey or roast beef sandwich. I pointed out this fact, and the clerk offered to put more hummus on my bagel. I replied that this wasn't the point, that the issue here was that I didn't order a sandwich, I ordered a bagel with a bit of hummus spread on it, just like they do with cream cheese and the like. Again, the clerk offered to put more hummus on my bagel. I pointed out that the exact same item at Einstein's cost $.79. The clerk once again offered to spread more hummus on my bagel. One last time, I noted that I could purchase an entire tub of hummus and a single plain bagel for less than the cost of this so-called hummus sandwich. The clerk just shrugged her shoulders. Bah!
At that point I gave up, but did email Bruegger's management about the situation -- after finding out that this was a chain-wide thing, not just a single-store aberration. So far, nothing but a form letter response, but here's hoping. I really like Bruegger's, but find this issue exasperating. Why should a knife-full of hummus cost more than a similar amount of cream cheese? It doesn't make any sense to me.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Immigrants, Part 2
My previous post on Hispanic immigrants proved prescient. As I write these words, Congress is debating sweeping new immigration legislation. The debate is tearing the Republican party apart, as it exposes two wildly contradictory wings of the party.
The first wing, which tends to call itself nativist, can be more accurately described as bigoted and racist. Led by ethically-compromised (and aspiring presidential candidate) Senator Bill Frist, these Republicans want to send Hispanic immigrants back to wherever they came from, before they move into their monochromatic neighborhoods and marry their lily-white daughters. They can make all the "we have to protect America" arguments they want, but the bottom line is that these narrow-minded, hate-filled, quasi-white supremacists hate people of color (any color), and would like to see an all-white America devoid of Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, and all other non-Western European descendants. (They probably don't like the French, either.) Frist and his intolerant ilk are the cleaned-up, pseudo-respectable, 21st century equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan. Short of lynching the Mexicans, they want to deport them.
Opposing these nativists/racists is the corporate wing of the Republican party. Led by the likes of Wal-Mart and other low-paying employers, these Republicans like Hispanic immigrants just fine. That's because the influx of Hispanic workers represent cheap labor to these bald-faced capitalists, and getting rid of them would mean they'd have to hire higher-salaried American workers in their stead. This profit-minded thinking has inspired "moderate" Republicans -- such as John McCain and Arlen Spector -- to endorse an amnesty program for those illegal aliens already here. Though the motivation may be less than pure, it's actually the best idea on the table, and has also been endorsed by the Democratic minority.
There are other Republican views on the issue, of course. President Bush tried to navigate a compromise between the two extreme wings of his party by proposing a three-year "guest worker" program, but the stupidity of the solution only served to piss everyone off. Then there are the security nuts, who think that building a big wall between the U.S. and Mexico will keep terrorists out of the heartland. (But why stop with Mexico -- how about another wall sealing off the Canadian border, and maybe stopping all incoming plane flights, as well?) These viewpoints seem to be subsidiary to the main argument, however, and don't factor much in the current debate.
It's kind of fun to see the Republicans tearing themselves apart on this issue. As noted in the new book American Theocracy, today's Republican party is a fragile coalition of competing constituencies -- much like the Democratic party has always been. But in the Republicans' case, what's good for one segment isn't always good for the others, so it's really just a matter of time before their "small tent" collapses. Social conservatives (religious or racist) can't long live with corporate fiscal conservatives, nor with power-hungry neo-conservatives. I give Bush (and Rove) credit for holding the coalition together, but it's a temporary collaboration that is now starting to fray.
On the immigration issue, here's what I think we should do. First, we need to treat our Hispanic visitors as human beings. That means offering citizenship to all who want it, and offering essential services to all who need them. Second, we need to pay these folks the going wage, so that they're not taken advantage of and so that their presence doesn't depress wages for native American workers. Third, we need to work with the Mexican government to improve living conditions (and increase wages) in our neighboring country, so fewer Mexicans are tempted to head north to better their lot.
Finally, we need to work much harder to assimilate both visiting and resident Hispanics into the American culture. Our latest immigrants are not blending into the American melting pot as previous generations of immigrants did, and that's not good for them or for our country. Our culture becomes richer when new immigrants are added to the mix, and those immigrants need to learn to live and to thrive in their chosen new society. It's not good for Hispanics to live in a parallel version of the United States; separate but equal has never been a winning strategy.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
The first wing, which tends to call itself nativist, can be more accurately described as bigoted and racist. Led by ethically-compromised (and aspiring presidential candidate) Senator Bill Frist, these Republicans want to send Hispanic immigrants back to wherever they came from, before they move into their monochromatic neighborhoods and marry their lily-white daughters. They can make all the "we have to protect America" arguments they want, but the bottom line is that these narrow-minded, hate-filled, quasi-white supremacists hate people of color (any color), and would like to see an all-white America devoid of Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, and all other non-Western European descendants. (They probably don't like the French, either.) Frist and his intolerant ilk are the cleaned-up, pseudo-respectable, 21st century equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan. Short of lynching the Mexicans, they want to deport them.
Opposing these nativists/racists is the corporate wing of the Republican party. Led by the likes of Wal-Mart and other low-paying employers, these Republicans like Hispanic immigrants just fine. That's because the influx of Hispanic workers represent cheap labor to these bald-faced capitalists, and getting rid of them would mean they'd have to hire higher-salaried American workers in their stead. This profit-minded thinking has inspired "moderate" Republicans -- such as John McCain and Arlen Spector -- to endorse an amnesty program for those illegal aliens already here. Though the motivation may be less than pure, it's actually the best idea on the table, and has also been endorsed by the Democratic minority.
There are other Republican views on the issue, of course. President Bush tried to navigate a compromise between the two extreme wings of his party by proposing a three-year "guest worker" program, but the stupidity of the solution only served to piss everyone off. Then there are the security nuts, who think that building a big wall between the U.S. and Mexico will keep terrorists out of the heartland. (But why stop with Mexico -- how about another wall sealing off the Canadian border, and maybe stopping all incoming plane flights, as well?) These viewpoints seem to be subsidiary to the main argument, however, and don't factor much in the current debate.
It's kind of fun to see the Republicans tearing themselves apart on this issue. As noted in the new book American Theocracy, today's Republican party is a fragile coalition of competing constituencies -- much like the Democratic party has always been. But in the Republicans' case, what's good for one segment isn't always good for the others, so it's really just a matter of time before their "small tent" collapses. Social conservatives (religious or racist) can't long live with corporate fiscal conservatives, nor with power-hungry neo-conservatives. I give Bush (and Rove) credit for holding the coalition together, but it's a temporary collaboration that is now starting to fray.
On the immigration issue, here's what I think we should do. First, we need to treat our Hispanic visitors as human beings. That means offering citizenship to all who want it, and offering essential services to all who need them. Second, we need to pay these folks the going wage, so that they're not taken advantage of and so that their presence doesn't depress wages for native American workers. Third, we need to work with the Mexican government to improve living conditions (and increase wages) in our neighboring country, so fewer Mexicans are tempted to head north to better their lot.
Finally, we need to work much harder to assimilate both visiting and resident Hispanics into the American culture. Our latest immigrants are not blending into the American melting pot as previous generations of immigrants did, and that's not good for them or for our country. Our culture becomes richer when new immigrants are added to the mix, and those immigrants need to learn to live and to thrive in their chosen new society. It's not good for Hispanics to live in a parallel version of the United States; separate but equal has never been a winning strategy.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Immigrants
America is a country rife with contradictions, not the least of which is the fact that we are a nation of immigrants who hate immigrants. That is, each previous generation of immigrants hates the following generation of immigrants. It was okay for our grandparents to immigrate, but it has to stop there; we don't want new folks to come in and spoil the fun.
Of course, it's much more complex than that -- although the description is apt. It doesn't matter that all of our families came from somewhere else (save for the few remaining Native Americans, of course -- but that's another story); we resent the intrusion of whomever happens to be immigrating today.
In generations past, however, immigrants eventually were assimilated into the culture. Typically not first-generation immigrants, but by the time the second generation made it to the workplace, they were firmly integrated into American culture. Germans, Polish, Irish, Russians, the country of origin didn't matter; the sons and the daughters of these immigrants became true Americans, in every sense of the word.
This second-generation assimilation doesn't necessarily seem to be happening with today's batch of immigrants, however. Instead of immigrants adapting to the existing American culture, our culture appears to be adapting to accommodate the current generation of Latino immigrants. You see it everywhere, from the growth of Spanish-language media to the de facto bilingualism in locales with large Latino populations. It may be too early to tell, but it appears that today's Hispanic immigrants are retaining their native culture and not fully integrating into the American culture; instead of adding to the melting pot, we're creating a dual culture unlike anything we've seen in the past.
This influx of Hispanic immigrants who are not adapting to the American culture frightens many people. There are many reasons for this -- some justified, some not.
On one level, opposition to Mexican immigration is simple racism -- we don't want those stinking Mexicans living in our neighborhoods. There has always been prejudice against people not like exactly us, people of a (slightly) different color, people who come from a different place, people who speak a different language. Many ignorant citizens are afraid of and therefore irrationally hate Mexicans; they think Mexicans are racially inferior, and a danger to our "American way of life." This argument, of course, is despicable -- but unfortunately widespread. It should come as no surprise that many opponents of Mexican immigration, no matter what arguments they make publicly, are private racists.
On another level, opposition to Mexican immigration is a somewhat rational concern over the allocation of increasingly scarce public resources -- why should we let those freeloading foreigners live off the public dole? The argument doesn't have to be that crass; how we disperse our public funds is a legitimate point of discussion, especially when the Republicans-in-charge keep cutting the budget for essential public services. With class size increasing and extracurricular activities being cut, can we really afford to educate the children of illegal immigrants alongside our native-born children? Of course, this argument tends to ignore the fact that even illegal immigrants make positive contributions to our economy and our society, including contributing to our tax base. I haven't done the math, but it could be argued that the financial impact of today's illegal immigrants is a net positive -- that is, they contribute more to the economy than they take out. This will become increasingly so as the baby boomer generation retires and ages; we'll need as many Mexican immigrants as possible not just to care for the aging boomers, but also to take their place in the job market.
On yet another level, opposition to Mexican immigration is a justified argument against America's increasing racial and cultural bifurcation. In previous generations, we didn't require bilingual accommodation for the immigrant population; we had one unofficial American language, and immigrants were expected to learn it. Yes, the American way of life changed (and, in fact, became richer) due to the injection of immigrant culture, but we didn't expect the existing culture to change completely to accommodate the immigrants; the immigrants were expected to adapt to the prevailing culture, not the other way around. Can America as we know it continue to exist if it adopts too much of the immigrants' Hispanic culture -- or will America become a kind of Mexico North, losing its historical identity? Do we really want a polarized America, with one side composed of affluent Caucasians of European descent and the other composed of poor Hispanics, each side speaking their own language and living in their own isolated cultural cocoon? If we go this route, the ideal of the American melting pot will devolve into separate but unequal societies, separated by an insurmountable cultural divide. This is not the America of our forefathers, but it may be the America we bequeath to our grandchildren.
The answer to the growing immigration problem, alas, is not to put a halt to future immigration. For one thing, we can't stop the tide. Previous generations of immigrants were constrained by how many people could fit into a limited number of boats to cross the ocean to our shores. Today's generation of immigrants have no such constraint; immigrating, legally or illegally, is as simple as walking across our huge and porous physical border. Some politicians advocate building an unimaginably long fence from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, but this is not only impractical but also easily surmounted; there isn't enough fence in America, nor enough border control guards, to protect every linear foot of our border and prevent determined immigrants from scaling or tunneling under such a barrier. No matter what measures we enact, the immigrants will continue to come -- until, that is, there is no benefit for them to do so.
The solution to the influx of Mexican immigrants isn't an American one, it's a Mexican one. To stem the tide of immigrants from Mexico, we must remove the benefits of immigrating. That doesn't mean making things worse for these hard-working immigrants here in America; it means making things better for them in their homeland. If we can work with our neighboring country to improve the conditions for average Mexicans, there will be less reason for them to cross the border to find employment in America. Water always finds its own level, and the reason so many Mexicans are immigrating to the United States is that their economic fortunes are better here. Improve their lot at home, and they won't need to travel north for work; the water level will be equalized.
Until this happens, we have to deal with reality. That doesn't mean deporting illegals who are already here, nor depriving them of basic rights and public services. Give them medical care, give them schooling, give them driver's licenses; treat them like the residents -- legal or not -- that they are. But resist the urge to redefine American culture in their image. It's not racist to insist that newcomers adjust to the existing culture; it's not culturally insensitive to expect visitors to speak our language and adapt to our way of life. If I immigrated to Mexico (or France or China or Germany), I wouldn't expect the citizens of that country to speak my language or change their culture to accomodate me; I'd expect to learn their language and ways. The same should apply here in the United States. We should be gracious hosts, and we should expect our newest vistors to be gracious guests. We can -- and must -- learn to live together.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Of course, it's much more complex than that -- although the description is apt. It doesn't matter that all of our families came from somewhere else (save for the few remaining Native Americans, of course -- but that's another story); we resent the intrusion of whomever happens to be immigrating today.
In generations past, however, immigrants eventually were assimilated into the culture. Typically not first-generation immigrants, but by the time the second generation made it to the workplace, they were firmly integrated into American culture. Germans, Polish, Irish, Russians, the country of origin didn't matter; the sons and the daughters of these immigrants became true Americans, in every sense of the word.
This second-generation assimilation doesn't necessarily seem to be happening with today's batch of immigrants, however. Instead of immigrants adapting to the existing American culture, our culture appears to be adapting to accommodate the current generation of Latino immigrants. You see it everywhere, from the growth of Spanish-language media to the de facto bilingualism in locales with large Latino populations. It may be too early to tell, but it appears that today's Hispanic immigrants are retaining their native culture and not fully integrating into the American culture; instead of adding to the melting pot, we're creating a dual culture unlike anything we've seen in the past.
This influx of Hispanic immigrants who are not adapting to the American culture frightens many people. There are many reasons for this -- some justified, some not.
On one level, opposition to Mexican immigration is simple racism -- we don't want those stinking Mexicans living in our neighborhoods. There has always been prejudice against people not like exactly us, people of a (slightly) different color, people who come from a different place, people who speak a different language. Many ignorant citizens are afraid of and therefore irrationally hate Mexicans; they think Mexicans are racially inferior, and a danger to our "American way of life." This argument, of course, is despicable -- but unfortunately widespread. It should come as no surprise that many opponents of Mexican immigration, no matter what arguments they make publicly, are private racists.
On another level, opposition to Mexican immigration is a somewhat rational concern over the allocation of increasingly scarce public resources -- why should we let those freeloading foreigners live off the public dole? The argument doesn't have to be that crass; how we disperse our public funds is a legitimate point of discussion, especially when the Republicans-in-charge keep cutting the budget for essential public services. With class size increasing and extracurricular activities being cut, can we really afford to educate the children of illegal immigrants alongside our native-born children? Of course, this argument tends to ignore the fact that even illegal immigrants make positive contributions to our economy and our society, including contributing to our tax base. I haven't done the math, but it could be argued that the financial impact of today's illegal immigrants is a net positive -- that is, they contribute more to the economy than they take out. This will become increasingly so as the baby boomer generation retires and ages; we'll need as many Mexican immigrants as possible not just to care for the aging boomers, but also to take their place in the job market.
On yet another level, opposition to Mexican immigration is a justified argument against America's increasing racial and cultural bifurcation. In previous generations, we didn't require bilingual accommodation for the immigrant population; we had one unofficial American language, and immigrants were expected to learn it. Yes, the American way of life changed (and, in fact, became richer) due to the injection of immigrant culture, but we didn't expect the existing culture to change completely to accommodate the immigrants; the immigrants were expected to adapt to the prevailing culture, not the other way around. Can America as we know it continue to exist if it adopts too much of the immigrants' Hispanic culture -- or will America become a kind of Mexico North, losing its historical identity? Do we really want a polarized America, with one side composed of affluent Caucasians of European descent and the other composed of poor Hispanics, each side speaking their own language and living in their own isolated cultural cocoon? If we go this route, the ideal of the American melting pot will devolve into separate but unequal societies, separated by an insurmountable cultural divide. This is not the America of our forefathers, but it may be the America we bequeath to our grandchildren.
The answer to the growing immigration problem, alas, is not to put a halt to future immigration. For one thing, we can't stop the tide. Previous generations of immigrants were constrained by how many people could fit into a limited number of boats to cross the ocean to our shores. Today's generation of immigrants have no such constraint; immigrating, legally or illegally, is as simple as walking across our huge and porous physical border. Some politicians advocate building an unimaginably long fence from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, but this is not only impractical but also easily surmounted; there isn't enough fence in America, nor enough border control guards, to protect every linear foot of our border and prevent determined immigrants from scaling or tunneling under such a barrier. No matter what measures we enact, the immigrants will continue to come -- until, that is, there is no benefit for them to do so.
The solution to the influx of Mexican immigrants isn't an American one, it's a Mexican one. To stem the tide of immigrants from Mexico, we must remove the benefits of immigrating. That doesn't mean making things worse for these hard-working immigrants here in America; it means making things better for them in their homeland. If we can work with our neighboring country to improve the conditions for average Mexicans, there will be less reason for them to cross the border to find employment in America. Water always finds its own level, and the reason so many Mexicans are immigrating to the United States is that their economic fortunes are better here. Improve their lot at home, and they won't need to travel north for work; the water level will be equalized.
Until this happens, we have to deal with reality. That doesn't mean deporting illegals who are already here, nor depriving them of basic rights and public services. Give them medical care, give them schooling, give them driver's licenses; treat them like the residents -- legal or not -- that they are. But resist the urge to redefine American culture in their image. It's not racist to insist that newcomers adjust to the existing culture; it's not culturally insensitive to expect visitors to speak our language and adapt to our way of life. If I immigrated to Mexico (or France or China or Germany), I wouldn't expect the citizens of that country to speak my language or change their culture to accomodate me; I'd expect to learn their language and ways. The same should apply here in the United States. We should be gracious hosts, and we should expect our newest vistors to be gracious guests. We can -- and must -- learn to live together.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
True colors
For five years now, the Bush administration has played the terror and fear card for all that it's worth. Practically anything and everything the administration does is justified as part of the so-called "war on terror;" any critics of administration policies are decried as weak on security and possibly traitorous. The security issue has been the administration's strength; it's earned Bush support from many quarters of the populace who would otherwise be opposed to his disastrous economic and social policies. As long as Bush remained strong on security, all of his ill-conceived foreign interventions, his attempts to restrict the people's civil liberties, his class-busting tax and economic policies, and even his monomaniacal strivings for an all-powerful imperial presidency got pretty much overlooked by a frightened populace.
But no more.
This week, Bush showed his true colors by stridently supporting a deal to turn control of key U.S. ports to a company from the United Arab Emirates -- the same country that financed the 9/11 attacks and has been a haven for terrorists of all stripes. Even Bush's most dyed-in-the-wool supporters were taken aback by the brazen abandonment of U.S. security in favor of what is quite obviously a financial windfall for some members of the Bush administration. Bush's craven support of this deal -- even threatening to veto any attempt to block the deal, when he hasn't yet used a single veto in his six years in office -- speaks to the power of money over all other issues in the Bush administration. It's not really about security, or terrorism, or fighting the Islamist evil-doers; it's about the all-mighty dollar, and about Bush being able to do whatever the hell he wants to do, everyone else (including his former supporters) be damned.
At the very least, Bush's support of the UAE port deal bespeaks a political tone deafness (as pointed out by several members of Bush's own party); at its worst, it's selling out American security for financial benefit. Even worse, Bush seems to think that his actions -- no matter how extreme or politically illogical -- should be strictly obeyed, no questions asked. It's Bush as the power-mad dictator, finally going over the edge in a way that astounds and confounds even his supporters. By insisting on approval of the UAE deal, Bush's actions contradict all the fear-mongering he's instilled in his red-state base; how does he jibe his support of Arab-run port security with his NASCAR-dad supporters' fear of all things Arabic?
It's actually quite humorous to listen to Bush's remaining toadies try to wiggle their way around this one. There are still a few right-wing shouting radio heads that are contorting themselves to all end in an attempt to justify Bush's support for the deal. It's really funny to listen to Rush and Sean and their fellow travelers accuse Democrats (and Republicans) opposed to the deal of prejudice against Arabs, especially when they're the same bloviators who inspired that prejudice among their listeners. It's equally amusing to hear them play down the deal as not at all important to national security, when prior to this every little thing that popped up was played as a major security issue. You can't have it both ways, guys; your hypocrisy is evident even to your red-state listeners.
There are so many crimes Bush has committed against America that this one actually seems minor; it's ironic that the symbolism of the thing elevates it to a level that could be politically fatal to the administration. A new day is dawning over America -- the public is finally waking up and realizing that the emperor has no clothes.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
But no more.
This week, Bush showed his true colors by stridently supporting a deal to turn control of key U.S. ports to a company from the United Arab Emirates -- the same country that financed the 9/11 attacks and has been a haven for terrorists of all stripes. Even Bush's most dyed-in-the-wool supporters were taken aback by the brazen abandonment of U.S. security in favor of what is quite obviously a financial windfall for some members of the Bush administration. Bush's craven support of this deal -- even threatening to veto any attempt to block the deal, when he hasn't yet used a single veto in his six years in office -- speaks to the power of money over all other issues in the Bush administration. It's not really about security, or terrorism, or fighting the Islamist evil-doers; it's about the all-mighty dollar, and about Bush being able to do whatever the hell he wants to do, everyone else (including his former supporters) be damned.
At the very least, Bush's support of the UAE port deal bespeaks a political tone deafness (as pointed out by several members of Bush's own party); at its worst, it's selling out American security for financial benefit. Even worse, Bush seems to think that his actions -- no matter how extreme or politically illogical -- should be strictly obeyed, no questions asked. It's Bush as the power-mad dictator, finally going over the edge in a way that astounds and confounds even his supporters. By insisting on approval of the UAE deal, Bush's actions contradict all the fear-mongering he's instilled in his red-state base; how does he jibe his support of Arab-run port security with his NASCAR-dad supporters' fear of all things Arabic?
It's actually quite humorous to listen to Bush's remaining toadies try to wiggle their way around this one. There are still a few right-wing shouting radio heads that are contorting themselves to all end in an attempt to justify Bush's support for the deal. It's really funny to listen to Rush and Sean and their fellow travelers accuse Democrats (and Republicans) opposed to the deal of prejudice against Arabs, especially when they're the same bloviators who inspired that prejudice among their listeners. It's equally amusing to hear them play down the deal as not at all important to national security, when prior to this every little thing that popped up was played as a major security issue. You can't have it both ways, guys; your hypocrisy is evident even to your red-state listeners.
There are so many crimes Bush has committed against America that this one actually seems minor; it's ironic that the symbolism of the thing elevates it to a level that could be politically fatal to the administration. A new day is dawning over America -- the public is finally waking up and realizing that the emperor has no clothes.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
A tale of two cities
I live in Indianapolis, but have been spending a fair amount of time in Minneapolis. While there is an obvious similarity in names, there are lots of subtle differences between the two cities -- despite the fact that they both purport to be nice, sedate, family-friendly Midwestern cities. Here's some of what I've found.
Nice... and nicer. Both Indianapolis and Minneapolis pride themselves on being friendly cities where everyone is super nice. Only one of those cities lives up to the niceness hype, however, and it's not the one in Indiana. I've lived in central Indiana all my life, and the people there tend to be as rude and insular in a way that blends the worst of big city and small town cultures. Minneapolitans, however, take the niceness thing personally; the concept of "Minneapolis nice" is real, the people here going out of their way to be friendly and polite and genuinely helpful. Score a big one for our northern neighbors, at the expense of those snarky Hoosiers. (Not all Hoosiers are nasty and grumpy, of course, but a lot are -- and my apologies to those truly nice people in the Hoosier state.)
Passive-aggressive. It's probably part of the niceness equation, but Hoosiers are much more aggressive drivers than their northern brethren, who tend to take polite driving to its illogical extreme. Hoosiers are pushy, rude, and extremely lead-footed drivers, constantly cutting one another off in traffic and being somewhat reckless about it. Minneapolitans, in contrast, always let the other driver cut in front of them, hesitate to merge at speed on the interstate (that would be too pushy), and actually cause accidents by stopping to help stranded drivers by the side of the road. Speed is also a factor; Hoosiers tend to drive 15-20 miles over the stated speed limit, while Minneapolitans drive at or under what the signs say. Put another way, a typical Hoosier driver would eat a typical Minneapolis driver for lunch.
Speed freaks. Speaking of speed, let's spend a moment discussing the Greatest Spectacle in Racing -- which is practically unheard of in Minnesota. I'm talking about the Indianapolis 500, and Indy car racing in general. It's safe to say that few people in Minneapolis have ever heard of A.J. Foyt or Johnny Rutherford (Mario Andretti, maybe...); everyone in Indy knows their favorite racers. Sorry Minneapolis; Indy is the home of world-class automobile racing, and all the hockey players in the great white north can't cover the Speedway's five hundred glorious miles.
Hockeyball? Indiana is basketball country (remember the movie Hoosiers?); Minnesota is hockey country. I don't know a puck from a hat trick, but I do know a three-pointer from a three-second violation. 'Nuff said.
Health and beauty. Minneapolis is an amazingly healthy city. In spite of spending more months of the year than I like to think of under near-arctic conditions, Minneapolitans like to get outside and partake of all forms of exercise, from winter sports to summer walks around their ten thousand lakes. (And they have tons of wonderful parks in which to do this.) Indiana, on the other hand, ranks as one of the most unhealthy states in the nation. Hoosiers are, to generalize, fat, out of shape, cigarette smoking, doughnut eating porkers. The people of the Twin Cities are much healthier, in all ways -- slimmer, trimmer, fitter, and less likely to die of lung cancer. Smoking appears to be mandatory in Hoosierland; Minneapolis is pretty much a smoke-free city. As a bonus, Minneapolis is filled with fair-skinned, blonde-haired women; Indy isn't. Guess which burb I like best in this regard...
White... and whiter. Neither Indianapolis or Minneapolis are what you'd call ethnically diverse cities. That said, Indianapolis has a sizeable African-American community, a growing number of Hispanics, and a surprising number of Asian immigrants. Minneapolis has... well, a lot of fair-skinned, blonde-haired, white people. Yes, there are some blacks up north, and a decent number of Asians, but the great white north is just that -- primarily white.
Left and right. Minneapolis is a blue state, primarily Democratic and fairly liberal. Indianapolis is George Bush country, a red state where Democrats aren't just the minority, they're pretty much missing in action. (Believe it or not, many local races don't even have a Democrat on the ballot.) I'm a liberal. I hate living in Indiana. Minneapolis is a much more friendly environment for old-school lefties like me.
Weather... or not. In Indianapolis, the TV weathermen report a winter near-miss like this: "Good news! The winter storm hit north of the city, so we only got a dusting of snow." In Minneapolis, a similar situation is reported like this: "Bad news! The winter storm hit south of the metro area, so we only got a dusting of snow." That's right, the Minneapolitans like their snow -- which means that they're really hating this winter. January was the warmest month in recorded history, and there's barely any snow cover on the ground. Not the normal sub-zero, several feet of snow piled on the ground type of weather they've grown to know and love. Which has the locals complaining, of course. Indy has had a similar uber-warm, near-snowless winter season, and no one is complaining about 50-degree days in February. A marked cultural difference.
Weather, part deux. One last thing about the weather. In normal years (and this year is anything but), Minneapolis is damned cold in the winter time. Indiana, not so much. Minneapolis also gets a shitload of snow, none of which ever melts, which results in streetside piles of Everestian heights. In Indiana, what snow we get (and we do get some) melts within a week or so, so there aren't those imposing snowpiles that last until the spring thaw. The only good thing about Minneapolis winters is that the sun actually shines; you might get 12 inches of snow one day, but it's nice and sunny the next. An Indiana winter is an exercise in bleakness; it's not unusual to go several weeks without the sun ever peeking through the depressing gray clouds. So, yeah, Minneapolis might have testicle-chilling cold, but at least you won't get seasonal affective disorder from too many cloudy days.
Bottom line, I like both places, but I'm starting to like Minneapolis more -- in spite of the weather and the slow drivers. Minneapolis is all that Indianapolis promises to be, but seldom is; Indianapolis is an aging rust-belt city that's not very friendly to singles, strangers, or anyone remotely artistic or high-tech. Minneapolis is a thriving metropolis with lots to offer in the way of both intellectual and physical pursuits; the locals are also more welcoming to individuals of all stripes. Sorry, Indy, but Minneapolis has what it takes -- Indianapolis doesn't.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Nice... and nicer. Both Indianapolis and Minneapolis pride themselves on being friendly cities where everyone is super nice. Only one of those cities lives up to the niceness hype, however, and it's not the one in Indiana. I've lived in central Indiana all my life, and the people there tend to be as rude and insular in a way that blends the worst of big city and small town cultures. Minneapolitans, however, take the niceness thing personally; the concept of "Minneapolis nice" is real, the people here going out of their way to be friendly and polite and genuinely helpful. Score a big one for our northern neighbors, at the expense of those snarky Hoosiers. (Not all Hoosiers are nasty and grumpy, of course, but a lot are -- and my apologies to those truly nice people in the Hoosier state.)
Passive-aggressive. It's probably part of the niceness equation, but Hoosiers are much more aggressive drivers than their northern brethren, who tend to take polite driving to its illogical extreme. Hoosiers are pushy, rude, and extremely lead-footed drivers, constantly cutting one another off in traffic and being somewhat reckless about it. Minneapolitans, in contrast, always let the other driver cut in front of them, hesitate to merge at speed on the interstate (that would be too pushy), and actually cause accidents by stopping to help stranded drivers by the side of the road. Speed is also a factor; Hoosiers tend to drive 15-20 miles over the stated speed limit, while Minneapolitans drive at or under what the signs say. Put another way, a typical Hoosier driver would eat a typical Minneapolis driver for lunch.
Speed freaks. Speaking of speed, let's spend a moment discussing the Greatest Spectacle in Racing -- which is practically unheard of in Minnesota. I'm talking about the Indianapolis 500, and Indy car racing in general. It's safe to say that few people in Minneapolis have ever heard of A.J. Foyt or Johnny Rutherford (Mario Andretti, maybe...); everyone in Indy knows their favorite racers. Sorry Minneapolis; Indy is the home of world-class automobile racing, and all the hockey players in the great white north can't cover the Speedway's five hundred glorious miles.
Hockeyball? Indiana is basketball country (remember the movie Hoosiers?); Minnesota is hockey country. I don't know a puck from a hat trick, but I do know a three-pointer from a three-second violation. 'Nuff said.
Health and beauty. Minneapolis is an amazingly healthy city. In spite of spending more months of the year than I like to think of under near-arctic conditions, Minneapolitans like to get outside and partake of all forms of exercise, from winter sports to summer walks around their ten thousand lakes. (And they have tons of wonderful parks in which to do this.) Indiana, on the other hand, ranks as one of the most unhealthy states in the nation. Hoosiers are, to generalize, fat, out of shape, cigarette smoking, doughnut eating porkers. The people of the Twin Cities are much healthier, in all ways -- slimmer, trimmer, fitter, and less likely to die of lung cancer. Smoking appears to be mandatory in Hoosierland; Minneapolis is pretty much a smoke-free city. As a bonus, Minneapolis is filled with fair-skinned, blonde-haired women; Indy isn't. Guess which burb I like best in this regard...
White... and whiter. Neither Indianapolis or Minneapolis are what you'd call ethnically diverse cities. That said, Indianapolis has a sizeable African-American community, a growing number of Hispanics, and a surprising number of Asian immigrants. Minneapolis has... well, a lot of fair-skinned, blonde-haired, white people. Yes, there are some blacks up north, and a decent number of Asians, but the great white north is just that -- primarily white.
Left and right. Minneapolis is a blue state, primarily Democratic and fairly liberal. Indianapolis is George Bush country, a red state where Democrats aren't just the minority, they're pretty much missing in action. (Believe it or not, many local races don't even have a Democrat on the ballot.) I'm a liberal. I hate living in Indiana. Minneapolis is a much more friendly environment for old-school lefties like me.
Weather... or not. In Indianapolis, the TV weathermen report a winter near-miss like this: "Good news! The winter storm hit north of the city, so we only got a dusting of snow." In Minneapolis, a similar situation is reported like this: "Bad news! The winter storm hit south of the metro area, so we only got a dusting of snow." That's right, the Minneapolitans like their snow -- which means that they're really hating this winter. January was the warmest month in recorded history, and there's barely any snow cover on the ground. Not the normal sub-zero, several feet of snow piled on the ground type of weather they've grown to know and love. Which has the locals complaining, of course. Indy has had a similar uber-warm, near-snowless winter season, and no one is complaining about 50-degree days in February. A marked cultural difference.
Weather, part deux. One last thing about the weather. In normal years (and this year is anything but), Minneapolis is damned cold in the winter time. Indiana, not so much. Minneapolis also gets a shitload of snow, none of which ever melts, which results in streetside piles of Everestian heights. In Indiana, what snow we get (and we do get some) melts within a week or so, so there aren't those imposing snowpiles that last until the spring thaw. The only good thing about Minneapolis winters is that the sun actually shines; you might get 12 inches of snow one day, but it's nice and sunny the next. An Indiana winter is an exercise in bleakness; it's not unusual to go several weeks without the sun ever peeking through the depressing gray clouds. So, yeah, Minneapolis might have testicle-chilling cold, but at least you won't get seasonal affective disorder from too many cloudy days.
Bottom line, I like both places, but I'm starting to like Minneapolis more -- in spite of the weather and the slow drivers. Minneapolis is all that Indianapolis promises to be, but seldom is; Indianapolis is an aging rust-belt city that's not very friendly to singles, strangers, or anyone remotely artistic or high-tech. Minneapolis is a thriving metropolis with lots to offer in the way of both intellectual and physical pursuits; the locals are also more welcoming to individuals of all stripes. Sorry, Indy, but Minneapolis has what it takes -- Indianapolis doesn't.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)