Wil. You have implied that I am lying with statistics (well, maybe, you should read “How to Lie With Statistics). You have also implied that I have somehow offended you (well, maybe, you should consider me the expert in this area because I consider other people to be the expert in the business that I am in). You have also implied that you are not tolerant (West Virginia sounds like a terrible place). You have also said, before I called you on it, that first, Seattle is becoming less diverse, but then after I called you on it, that second, Seattle areas like Renton are becoming more diverse. Then to prove your point, which you discounted yourself, you posted links to articles that imply cities like San Francisco and Seattle are becoming profanely gentrified, even though articles posted on this blog, such as “Cities and Growth: In Situ Versus Migratory Human Capital Growth,” declare the benefits that cities offer for people to grow and contribute to society. I reasoned that perhaps neighborhoods in cities are becoming more homogenous, while at the same time, the regions that the cities and neighborhoods occupy are becoming more tolerant and diverse. Conveniently, you haven’t really acknowledged that this could be a possibility, so I would like to pose this question to you. Have you ever thought about how non-smoking policies are making cities less tolerant and diverse? I mean come on, right, having a non-smoking policy in one place or the other reduces tolerance (non-smokers don’t tolerant smokers) and diversity (smokers might not go to places where they can’t smoke). While this may be partly true, the overall argument is ludicrous. Non-smoking policies don’t reduce diversity and tolerance in a palatable way, and actually, can serve to improve public health. You are using the smoking policy argument when you post links to articles that say neighborhoods are changing, becoming more expensive and less accessible, when the real story should be that overall regions are becoming more tolerant, diverse and educated. You are saying that since one place in one city is gentrified, the entire region is following suit. That’s like saying that since people can’t smoke anywhere they want to, tolerance and diversity are threatened. That’s a laugh.

For me, bells always go off when I read a post that vents about unfairness, or another one of society’s slights at justice, that’s written by someone who doesn’t use their real name or just uses their first name. If the person really thought what they were writing, why don’t they back-up their remarks with their name? After some of the comments I have read in this blog post, I can see why both Robert and Wil want to disassociate themselves from their comments. If I lived in the same community, or had a professional relationship with them, the comments from both of these people would make me think twice before continuing the relationship. And somehow, in today’s emotionally super-charged culture, I am the one who looks bad for calling people like Robert and Wil on senseless statements. But, I’m OK with that.

http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/travel/01Surfacing.html?8dpc

I think that you will see it become much less diverse.

Congratulations to Obama for finally becoming the nominee!

As for Robert’s idea that a survey should be conducted in the Seattle area to test my hypothesis that people don’t stay in their houses day and night…. that sounds like a good project for Robert.