I haven't been to San Francisco yet myself, and I have heard tell of their massive homeless population, but this all seems a bit...skewed. Especially considering the source. It's an interesting piece of propaganda, though, and it speaks volumes about the far right's conception of cities. What I find most interesting is the attempt to paint New York as tame and orderly in opposition to San Fran's off-the-wall liberal madness. Seems to say more about New York than it actually does about San Francisco.
Thoughts?
3 comments:
Setting my outrage aside, I think O'Reilly's subtle use of history is always interesting: His starting point is that SF was once a normal, working class city, only recently corrupted. Yet in every age people like O'Reilly have attacked SF for being a place unafraid of ideas and practices that challenge conservative sensibilities. But much like in NY, the long view suggests to me that these cities have thrived because of, and not in spite of, "tolerance." This version of social economy suggests that American cities play a valid role in collecting and nurturing the cast-off, and that's just not scary enough for O'Reilly. He has coined "SP" to make this seem like a new, immediate threat, whereas to us SPs, Secular Progressivism is the most traditional thing about America.
wunderlost said it right. Not only is O'Reilly a scared homophobe, but he's making it seem like SF is some kind of looming threat. As far as I know it's always been that way. Anyway, luckily only idiots believe what the guy says...so no worries there.
Also, SF looks just like Vancouver. In my opinion, one of the sweetest cities in the world - homelessness and weirdos abound!!
I found it interesting that they kept saying it was "dangerous or scary" but never spoke of any actual violence. Strikes me as a bit of classism.
Post a Comment