Stats
Comments Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French
Displaying 1 To 30 Of 39 Comments
i live a stone’s-throw away from the hollywood a-boy and it has saved my bacon many times since moving to the neighborhood in 2005. prior to a recent store remodel, their service counter was often the site of many in-crowd, insider-joke-riddled jibbing and jabbing, which irritated the hell out of me, but they always had answers when i needed them. any opportunity to avoid the ‘depot’ is a good opportunity, so kudos for hittin’ up the locals.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On October 9, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
The folks from the Bicycle Transportation Alliance will be joining me to kick-off the discussion, helping to highlight all the relevant safety issues that every rider should consider. They’ll help highlight best practices for rules of the road as well as cycling-specific laws. Thank you BTA!
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On April 27, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Cascadia Quake – What, Me Worry?
this post is a good reminder that we don’t have to live in fear to at least be informed of the ‘potential’ for natural disaster in our region. we live in a luscious and beautiful place that is not free from the potential perils of natural disaster. by simply being reminded of the potential, we can move to make the necessary steps to ensure we can handle a natural disaster without unnecessary dramatics at a local, personal level.
this piece is also a subtle reminder of the value in becoming as self-sufficient and locally focused as possible. if you can grow your own food, do. if you have room to store a little food for hard times, do. if you don’t know your neighbors, introduce yourself. if you don’t know all the civic resources available to you, find out. times of peace are times of opportunity. make a plan, tuck it away for a rainy day, then get outside and enjoy life.
thanks for the great post, pagent.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On April 22, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
great lineup! too bad there isn’t anyone representin’ the indian/nepalese crowd. just enjoyed some delicious vittles from india chaat house last night (crazy orange panel van @ s.w. 12th and yamhill).
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On April 16, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
The public waste vegetable oil collection program appears to working very well, diverting a good deal of waste oil that may have otherwise entered the waste stream, thereby proving useless to Oregon’s biofuel industry.
According to Encore, they’re currently collecting anywhere from 100 to 300 gallons per month from each drop-off location, and the numbers are rising.
Every time I turn up my thermostat, I’ll thankfully smile at the thought of all those homemade donut-frying experiments, fish fries, and deep-fried turkeys that have contributed to my family’s comfort.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On April 16, 2009 @ 11:48 am
As with most commodities, the market leads the way as to whether a commercial food processor or restaurant gets paid by Encore for their waste oil. Encore adjusts prices for commercial waste oil based on the market conditions for ‘yellow oil’ (waste vegetable oil) –as of today, the commodity price is about 10 cents/pound for ‘dry’ waste oil. To be considered ‘dry’, the oil must be free of water and/or other debris. Commercial waste oil typically isn’t clean enough or water-free to be considered ‘dry’, so it receives a ‘wet’ price, which is lower. Additionally, total oil quantity collected from any given account may alter the price (more oil collected = higher price).
Subsequently, as of today, new Encore grease collection accounts do not receive payments, whereby older, existing accounts may still be receiving payments as part of an earlier agreement at a set price. During the big rush last summer, some Encore customers were receiving payments as high as 35 cents/gallon. As with any market, conditions can and will change.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On April 16, 2009 @ 11:44 am
As a side note, Burgerville generates more than 4,400 gallons of used cooking and frying oil each month. As the article alludes,the company’s grease is now transported to SeQuential Biofuel’s plant in Salem to be processed into biodiesel. Burgerville’s 4,400 gallons of grease are converted to more than 3,330 gallons of biodiesel every month.
Up until about 2007, it used to cost Burgerville more than $2,400 to have their grease hauled away, but the demand for biodiesel has translated into a complete flip-flop in the marketplace, making it a valuable commodity that most waste oil collectors are paying for.
On person’s trash truly is another’s treasure.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On April 16, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Indeed. I imagine it’s up to each person’s perspective… hard to believe that Hefeweizen should be on the same page as Chips Ahoy! Thanks for the kudos.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On April 7, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
Joe Rose wrote an excellent piece in the Oregonian yesterday, laying out the facts as it relates to the general behavior of all people on the road, regardless of transportation choice. Here’s a few highlights:
“…the study did indeed show that bicyclists come to a complete stop only 7 percent of the time, it also showed that motorists stop completely only 22 percent of the time.”
“‘The law says a complete cessation of motion is required,’ said Greg Raisman, traffic safety specialist for the Portland Bureau of Transportation.”
“Regardless of whether they drive an SUV or pedal to work, everyone on the road tends to have ‘selective perception’ in how they view other modes of transportation, he (Randy Blazak, a Portland State University sociologist) said.”
“A 2002 study by England’s Transport Research Laboratory found that when bicyclists violated a traffic law, motorists saw it as symptomatic of reckless attitudes and incompetence among people who choose to bike. However, when they saw another driver breaking the same law, they tended to see it as somehow required by unpredictable circumstances.”
“Of course, there’s also a such thing as ‘transportation envy,’ said Blazak, who often bikes to work. ‘Cyclists have a kind of freedom that people in cars don’t have,’ he explained, ‘including getting around backed-up traffic, going up on the sidewalk, being out in the elements. It breeds a certain amount of resentment and jealousy when you’re stuck listening to a mattress commercial in a traffic jam.”
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On April 9, 2009 @ 8:38 am
thanks. indeed, your personal experience is what is reflected in your comment from march 19 (which used the language that i took as being mischaracterizations). good point, just as my experience certainly may not be that of everyone. terrifying for one may be cake for another.
whatever the case, i find little value in implying that i have found “…Zen-like clarity to ‘learn and appreciate the behaviors inherent in operating the bicycle on city streets, guided by the laws of the road’. i didn’t imply this or write it, so please don’t apply it to me. it has nothing to do with being ‘Zen-like’ (whatever that may be). it’s just a simple case of coming to terms with the situation in a manner that best suits your needs –which you and i seemingly both have.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On March 20, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
thanks for tackling this subject in a thoughtful manner –more discussion can actually be a good thing. a few points:
First, in your comment from march 19 you state, ‘…it (the discrete span of time when you are in motion at a stop, but not moving fast enough for the bike to be stable) can be a terrifyingly long span of time. The idea of going through that panic every single block is a daunting one.’
in my opinion, this is a mischaracterization. ‘terrifyingly’, ‘panic’ and ‘daunting’ do not accurately describe this situation and certainly do little to encourage new riders.
the only thing terrifying about bicycling is knowing that there are other people on the road who do not take care to learn, respect and appreciate the responsibilities inherent in their transportation choice (be it automobile, bicycle, camel, etc.).
whatever the case, i have yet to develop an opinion on whether the idaho stop law would hurt or help. yes, i would love maintaining some of my momentum as opposed to killing it at every stop sign, but i can always use the exercise. i really don’t care whether the law changes as i follow the rules of the road, whatever they may be. i stop at every stop sign because it’s the law. if you choose to break the law (which many people on bikes and people in cars do at stop signs regularly), then you deserve whatever fine you get. hell, i wish i was deputized so i could dole-out fines to people all day long (regardless of their transport choice). people roll through stop signs regardless of their transport choice and as the laws exist today, it is unlawful and punishable. are these laws in the best interest of everyone? good question.
the implications of breaking the stop sign law is contextual. one could argue that enforcing stops for motor vehicles is good, but perhaps unnecessary for bicycles, simply due to the potential for harm incurred during an accident. but this argument is flawed as it makes assumptions for only one component of the collision, when in fact, there are two. subsequently, lawmakers often consider worst-case scenarios when drafting laws; maybe not the most ideal scenario, but it often gets the job done.
lastly, let us not confuse idaho with oregon. i grew up in idaho and cycled in pocatello and boise for years. idaho is not portland, oregon. the law works in idaho because idaho has very few cyclists, thereby making the impact on other roadway users minimal at best. in my opinion it is rogue to assume a law will be just as effective here as it is in idaho. the implications are obviously far greater here in portland alone.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On March 20, 2009 @ 10:12 am
something else worth mentioning: for folks who like to produce their own espresso beverages at home, note that homogenized milk has a tendency to produce microfoam more easily than non-homogenized milk. as the fat molecules are more evenly distributed throughout the homogenized milk, it performs more consistently when frothing.
microfoam is challenging to achieve regardless of what equipment and milk you’re using, so make sure to appreciate the beauty of the next mocha you purchase from stumptown, nw coffee house, albina press, fresh pot, etc.
if you use noris milk for producing microfoam at home, make sure:
1) the milk is super cold
2) the milk is as fresh as possible
3) the milk is shaken considerably just in advance of frothing
4) the frothing pitcher is ice coldlastly, higher fat content milk will produce a more velvety microfoam, so don’t skimp on the whole milk.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On January 24, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
Zoinks! In my haste, I failed to get the right ‘K’ neighborhood… It’s actually Kerns. Nice catch, Sadie. The piece has been corrected.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On January 15, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
Electrical Consumption and My Carbon Footprint
@Jonathan Woodbridge – No doubt, Jonathan, stand-alone wood stoves are superior for total heat output and efficiency. An insert, while leaps and bounds more effective than a fireplace, still loses a good degree of radiant heat into the firebox, and then the chimney. A free-standing stove simply radiates said heat directly into your living space without any need for forcing air around the stove.
We considered a free-standing stove, but the massive footprint required would have destroyed the aesthetic of our bungalow’s living room. Additionally, with two children below the age of 5, it would’ve proven challenging to keep little hands free from scorching, even if we had the space!
Our intention has been to ‘augment’ our B99 biodiesel forced-air furnace with wood, but we have actually relied on the insert far more than anticipated. It’s effective and far less expensive to operate than the furnace. True, the furnace is simply far more effective at heating our home overall (the insert doesn’t heat the whole house), but the insert does a great job in helping us keep the thermostat turned wayyyyyyy down.
This being said, if you have a space that is conducive to a free-standing cast iron stove, they are superior heating devices, often generating enough heat to peel the paint off your walls. It’s an easy way to turn your home into a sweat lodge in no time.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On January 15, 2009 @ 9:38 am
The Portland Tribune is covering this as well:
“According to Metro statistics, when people sorted out their recycling before putting it curbside, recyclables eventually were sent to the right recycling market 99.5 percent of the time. Now that we commingle, only about 80 percent of the right materials end up at the right place.”
and…
“What Metro calls ‘prohibitives’ (nonrecyclable stuff) have risen from 0.5 percent before the new cans were introduced to about 6 percent of recycling material people set out.”
Read more: http://portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=122410857876807300
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On October 21, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Damn straight. This truly is an issue worth discussing again. If you break the rules, and thereby break a law, then you should pay. I have no idea if the Tri-Met signs at the Rose Quarter constitute traffic code and thereby warrant a fine, but in my opinion, they should –for the safety reasons you pointed out.
Is there any way I can be deputized? I’d give out at least a dozen citations every day. Hell, I nearly got nailed by two people on bikes on my 3.5-mile bike commute to work this morning. All because the other people on bicycles failed to respect the traffic signs.
I am hard pressed to believe that the majority of law-breakers on bikes are running stop signs and disobeying other traffic signs because they’re simply ignorant of the rules. We see it every day with people in cars as well. The fact is, people disregard the rules of the road and roll through stop signs, and it’s against the law.
It doesn’t matter if a person is driving a submarine or car, or riding a manatee or a bike, law-breaking asses will be law-breaking asses independent of their mode of transport.
Where’s my badge? I’ve got an appointment with the Rose Quarter.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On August 15, 2008 @ 10:26 am
@Foil – It’s unfortunate that their moderate, selective love for the doctrine empowers the conservative hate-mongers that so deeply riddle their ranks. This is, at its core, the most prescient issue with religious moderates.
The Christian Scriptures provide fertile ground for Sam Harris’ assault on the supernatural: “The idea that the Bible is a perfect guide to morality is simply astounding, given the contents of the book.” He cites passages from the Hebrew Bible that urge violence, including death, for various transgressions and condone slavery, and points out that “If we take Jesus in half his moods, we can easily justify the actions of St. Francis of Assisi or Martin Luther King, Jr. Taking the other half, we can justify the Inquisition.” Because it says many different things, he argues, “people have been cherry-picking the Bible for millennia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise.”
Letter to a Christian Nation was reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle’s Jean Barker in 2006. The review brings up an interesting point regarding Harris’ attack on moderates:
“…Harris’ dismissal of the religious middle ground may backfire by leading moderate Christians to side with conservatives against Harris’ attack rather than acknowledge his points that they agree with. And it’s hard to see how Harris’ uncritical use of logic—as a weapon to eviscerate others’ ideas rather than as a tool to foster understanding—won’t further polarize the debate.”
True enough, but so be it. If you choose to cherry-pick from your faith to suit your own purpose, then you choose to empower the faith as a whole, accepting all strains, regardless of the implications. Lest we not forget 9/11, which was executed by true believers -men who held hard to the fundamentals of their faith, enabled through the political correctness of moderate belief.
Most Americans oppose violence spurred by religious fundamentalism, but few agree on how to address it. In ‘The End of Faith’ and ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’, Harris contends that religion itself–not its more extreme forms–is to blame. As Harris deftly states, “…there are many important differences between religious moderation (…’Christianity as it can be’) and religious fundamentalism. And I agree that these differences have something to do with doubt and the progress of reason on the one hand and a hostility to both doubt and reason on the other. But… I don’t view the boundary between moderation and fundamentalism as ‘solid,’ or even principled…”
He goes on to write:
“First, on my frustration with religious moderates… It is true that your colleagues in the religious middle have taught me to appreciate the candor and the one-note coherence of religious fanatics. I have found that whenever someone like me or Richard Dawkins criticizes Christians for believing in the imminent return of Christ, or Muslims for believing in martyrdom, religious moderates claim that we have caricatured Christianity and Islam, taken ‘extremists’ to be representative of these ‘great’ faiths, or otherwise overlooked a shimmering ocean of nuance. We are invariably told that a mature understanding of the historical and literary contexts of scripture renders faith perfectly compatible with reason, and our attack upon religion is, therefore, ‘simplistic,’ ‘dogmatic,’ or even ‘fundamentalist.’ As a frequent target of such profundities, I can attest that they generally come moistened to a sickening pablum by great sighs of condescension.”
He continues:
“But there are several problems with such a defense of moderate religion. First, many moderates assume that religious extremism is rare and therefore not all that consequential…. religious extremism is not rare, and it is hugely consequential. Forty-four percent of Americans believe that Jesus will return to earth to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years. This idea is extreme in almost every sense—extremely silly, extremely dangerous, extremely worthy of denigration—but it is not extreme in the sense of being rare. The problem, as I see it, is that moderates don’t tend to know what it is like to be truly convinced that death is an illusion and that an eternity of happiness awaits the faithful beyond the grave. They have…’integrated doubt’ into their faith. Another way of putting it is that they have less faith—and for good reason. The result, however, is that your fellow moderates tend to doubt that anybody ever really is motivated to sacrifice his life, or the lives of others, on the basis his heartfelt religious beliefs. Moderate doubt—which I agree is an improvement over fundamentalist certitude in most respects—often blinds its host to the reality and consequences of full-tilt religious lunacy. Such blindness is now particularly unhelpful, given the hideous collision with Islamic certainty that is unfolding all around us.
Second, many religious moderates imagine, as you do, that there is some clear line of separation between extremist and moderate religion. But there isn’t. Scripture itself remains a perpetual engine of extremism: because, while He may be many things, the God of the Bible and the Qur’an is not a moderate. Read scripture more closely and you do not find reasons for religious moderation; you find reasons to live like a proper religious maniac—to fear the fires of hell, to despise nonbelievers, to persecute homosexuals, etc. Of course, one can cherry-pick scripture and find reasons to love your neighbor and turn the other cheek, but the truth is, the pickings are pretty slim, and the more fully one grants credence to these books, the more fully one will be committed to the view that infidels, heretics, and apostates are destined to be ground up in God’s loving machinery of justice.”
And finally, Sam Harris’ nail in the coffin:
“Religious moderates—by refusing to question the legitimacy of raising children to believe that they are Christians, Muslims, and Jews—tacitly support the religious divisions in our world. They also perpetuate the myth that a person must believe things on insufficient evidence in order to have an ethical and spiritual life. While religious moderates don’t fly planes into buildings, or organize their lives around apocalyptic prophecy, they refuse to deeply question the preposterous ideas of those who do. Moderates neither submit to the real demands of scripture nor draw fully honest inferences from the growing testimony of science. In attempting to find a middle ground between religious dogmatism and intellectual honesty, it seems to me that religious moderates betray faith and reason equally.”
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On August 15, 2008 @ 10:14 am
@divebarwife – thank you. Your comment illustrates Sam Harris’ arguments against moderate behavior, perfectly. Moderate religious belief and acceptance of said belief is just as dangerous as fundamentalist beliefs and the acceptance of said fundamentalist beliefs. Why? Because belief leads to behavior that can escalate to unthinkable means.
As Harris writes:
“The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.
This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. Read in context, it should be clear that I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.
When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al Zawahiri, the answer cannot be, ‘because they have killed so many people in the past.’ These men haven’t, to my knowledge, killed anyone personally. However, they are likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what they and their followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. As I argued in The End of Faith, a willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in most cases this is impossible.”
Religious organizations in this country often hide behind their gods, and subsequent non-profit religious designations, to justify hate and intolerance, enabled by an administration that sees said organizations as the great social equalizers. And no, Obama doesn’t offer any help here. In fact, he’s openly called for more funding and support for these organizations. These are organizations that hide behind the guise of moderate religious belief to help propel their agenda, which is, at its core, far from moderate.
To believe that the gods of the Bible and the Koran are anything other than hateful, vengeful megalomaniacs ruling through childish mood-swings is disregarding the texts themselves. Moderates choose to take the pieces that can be easily swallowed and kick the more vile truths underneath the proverbial rug. But these pieces still remain, providing the rock-steady foundation of the their core agendas.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On August 14, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
Religion = Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc… all the same to me.
With all due respect, Betsy, I believe religious moderates are diluting the truth. But I am far too intellectually clunky to comment further. I’ll let Sam Harris do the talking:
“Two myths now keep faith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to foster religious extremism and religious moderation equally: (1) most of us believe that there are good things that people get from religious faith (e.g., strong communities, ethical behavior, spiritual experience) that cannot be had elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se but of our baser nature–forces like greed, hatred, and fear–for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy.”
Harris goes on to add:
“Religious moderation, insofar as it represents an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to spirituality, ethics, and the building of strong communities. Religious moderates seem to believe that what we need is not radical insight and innovation in these areas but a mere dilution of Iron Age philosophy. Rather than bring the full force of our creativity and rationality to bear on the problems of ethics, social cohesion, and even spiritual experience, moderates merely ask that we relax our standards of adherence to ancient superstitions and taboos, while otherwise maintaining a belief system that was passed down to us from men and women whose lives were simply ravaged by their basic ignorance of the world. In what other sphere of life is such subservience to tradition acceptable? Medicine? engineering? Not even politics suffers the anachronism that still dominates our thinking about ethical values and spiritual experience”
Harris then frosts this glorious cake of truth:
“Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word ‘God’ as though we knew what we were talking about. And they do not want anything too critical said about people who ‘really’ believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world–to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish–is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. we must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance.”
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On August 12, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
kester, may good man, i’m not one for fancy things like pearls, so i’ll leave that to the fancy folk. what’s more, my good overalls have a chili stain. that being said, i hear ya barkin’ on the batman front… you can catch me in the back of the regal lloyd cinemas one of these evenings, sippin’ boones from a converse sneaker while that ledger kid whoops some arse.
SAVOR THE OYSTER!
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On July 23, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
since we’re on the subject, i’d like it to be known that i dislike the term ‘camp’, mostly because it’s so often misunderstood.
according to the information superwideweb, when the term first appeared in 1909, it was used to refer to ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical, effeminate or homosexual behavior. by the mid-1970s, the term was defined as “banality, artifice, mediocrity, or ostentation so extreme as to have perversely sophisticated appeal.”
i hardly think that something that’s ‘campy’ is also inherently banal or mediocre at an extreme level. i mean really… camp can be technically brilliant and far from banal/mediocre, and thereby have sophisticated appeal that has nothing to do with perversity.
i think mark booth got closer to the mark with his book ‘camp’, where he defined camp as “to present oneself as being committed to the marginal with a commitment greater than the marginal merits.” i like that he focuses on the commitment to something as opposed to whether said commitment/focus is ‘extreme’. extremism does not necessarily translate to commitment. perhaps i’m just mincing words…
wait, what the hell are we talking about? nevermind… gotta step off the porch… daisy needs a scratchin’.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On July 23, 2008 @ 10:53 am
@dieselboi – my man, the oyster is what i refer to as ‘real portland’: you know, the portland that grew up organically… locally… as opposed to the pompous califacsimile known as ‘the pearl’. i say toss out the pearl and savor the oyster. it’s my own little metaphorical whimsy.
but hey, my take on the pearl is simply my opinion, just as all the opinions on this post are simply opinions. and you know what they say… opinions are like (insert crass term for outer sphincter); everyone has one and most of them stink.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On July 23, 2008 @ 8:06 am
again, the answer is simple:
1) porch
2) liquor
3) stained wife-beater
4) natty cigar
5) 12-gauge shotgun
6) ankle-biters playing with pit-bull in the weed patchscrew the pearl, savor the oyster!
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On July 22, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
It’s definitely the Pearl. All things being equal, some places are just better for wee-ones than others. You can always hit Laurelwood, where the beer is decent, the food is bland, and the atmosphere literally screams children. At times, it’s a reasonable alternative. I’ve also had good child-friendly experiences at Sushi joints and McMenamins, though this latter option is more of a gamble as you end up waiting far longer than any other establishment on the planet.
This being said, having a two-year and four-year old, I feel that the best way to deal with this is simply to stay home and drink on the porch. I do this wearing nothing but boxers and a coffee-stained wife-beater, smartly accessorized with a natty, half-chewed cigar and 12-gauge shotgun.
Screw the Pearl and Savor the Oyster!
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On July 22, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Traffic Police on Ladd’s Addition Bike Route
@hhw – you’re definitely right about what constitutes a legal ‘stop’ for a person on a bicycle. The traffic officer has the right to interpret the law as he/she sees fit. This being said, one officer may require that you come to a complete stop and put your foot down (as is required in some cities), while others may simply judge your reduction in momentum and determine if you indeed stopped your inertia ‘enough’ to signify a top. It’s a bit kludgey, but the police are generally liberal about it, except during stings.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On July 22, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Bikes, cars, wagons, tanks… doesn’t matter what type of conveyance you choose to cart your ass around with. If you roll through, you deserve what you get.
As a 365-day/year, car-free bicycle commuter, I am often irked when I come to a stop sign and have to comply with the slight inconvenience of halting my momentum. So what? I stop. Why? Because it’s the law. You know, that noble concept that keeps us from destroying ourselves quicker than we already are. I’m a man whose life is dictated by rules and I follow the freakin’ law. To reiterate, it is the law to stop at stop signs ‘every single time’ you roll up to one –not just when the cops are staked out.
On my daily commute I consistently see people in automobiles and on bicycles rolling through stop signs. I wish the cops would tag the crap out of all of them. In fact, where’s my freakin’ deputy badge? I’ll do it for them. I’m getting all excited just thinking about it. Oh I’ll be a popular bastard, won’t I?
Early this morning I followed closely behind some chump whom apparently felt that the quiet streets of Laurelhurst provided a free pass for rolling through stop signs. Thanks to the valuable lessons picked up in anger management class, I was able to resist my controlling tendencies enough to keep quiet. True, my tongue was bleeding profusely through my teeth as I clamped down, but hey, we all have to grow. I proceeded to stop at each stop sign, doing my best to set a good example for anyone who may see me on the same street as this law-busting schmuck and assume I’m a lawless ass too.
Again, I’m often irked by stop signs when I’m cruising through the `hood at 7 a.m. and there is clear visibility for blocks and absolutely no one else on the road. I mean, shouldn’t I be able to exercise some judgment? I grew up in Idaho, so I became accustomed to rolling stops for bicycles (they’re legal there). But you know what? This is Portland and we have rules. Oh yeah, by the way, in case you weren’t listening earlier, these rules are the law.
If someone is able to petition the state/city government to change this law to allow rolling stops for people on bicycles, fantastic! I’ll slow down, look both ways, then roll through. But you know what? Last time I checked, the law hasn’t changed to accommodate this behavior. Suck it up you lazy bastards. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On July 22, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Oh the beauty of bureaucracy:
Upstate New York’s looming natural gas nightmare
“On May 29, top state environmental officials assured state lawmakers that plans to drill for natural gas near the watershed that supplies New York City’s drinking water posed little danger. A survey of other states had found “not one instance of drinking water contamination” from the water-intensive, horizontal drilling that would take place across New York’s southern tier, the officials said.
DEC officials told ProPublica and WNYC they were not aware of those incidents, even though that information could have been found through a rudimentary internet search. They apparently hadn’t understood that the new drilling techniques pump trace amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground, and they couldn’t say for sure how New York would dispose of the millions of gallons of hazardous fluids that are the byproducts of this type of drilling.”
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On July 22, 2008 @ 10:34 am
I love Mark Morford:
“Maybe it’s actually not liberal claptrap to want to move toward alternative, sustainable, less pollutive energy sources, to upend the ultimately fatal petroleum economy. Maybe it can be profitable and sound and reasonable and even slightly healthy to disallow Shell and Exxon and the rest from slashing into remote wildlife preserves for no valid reason other than the usual: power, cash, distortion, a brand of outmoded gluttony that shames the world’s spiritual core. You think?
Yes, I realize what I’m asking is sort of futile, that trying to cut and paste a paragraph of logic and common sense and humanity into a bloody, violent book consisting solely of power and greed and deeply ingrained, world-class deceit is a fool’s game. The thoughtful utopian in you can sprinkle all the fairy dust of hope it wants, but the devil just laughs and keeps right on drilling.
Then again, if we don’t ask, if the media doesn’t investigate, if we just sit back and hope market forces take care of everything and let the economy choose our path out of our own self-made disaster, well, do we not merely invite more corruption, a deeply deformed sense of who we are and where we want to go? Or, to put it more technically, are we not just thoroughly f–ed?”
Read the whole column: http://tinyurl.com/5jj2ne
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On July 21, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Thank you for replying to this post. The following numbers provide an interesting perspective on the impact of Portland’s transit system:
MAX and bus ridership / September 2008:
* 8.6 million monthly rides
* Weekly rides totaled 2,031,200 –an 8.8 percent over September 2007
* 331,900 weekday trips were taken on the system –an 8.5 percent increase over September 2007
* Double-digit rush hour trips increases (114,200 trips) –a 12.4 percent compared to September 2007
* Weekend trips totaled 371,700 –up 10.1 percent the previous September overMAX ridership / September 2008:
* Weekly rides on MAX set a new record, averaging 702,300 trips –a 7.9 percent increase over September 2007
* Weekday rides on MAX set a new record, averaging 110,400 boardings –a 7.7 percent increase over September 2007Bus ridership / September 2008:
* Weekly bus trips increased 9.3 percent over September 2007, climbing to 1,328,900 rides
Daily per capita vehicle miles of travel continues to increase across the country, while it peaked in Portland in 1996. A white paper entitled, ‘Portland’s Green Dividend’ (Joe Cortright, July, 2007), translates the reduction in daily per capita vehicle miles traveled to fuel savings of $1.1 billion annually, or 1.5% of all personal income in the region in the year 2005. These savings are then reinvested by people into other sectors of the economy (e.g., housing, entertainment, etc.).
The existence and quality of public transit in Portland enabled my family to sell our only car, enabling us to afford a larger mortgage, which thereby enabled us to afford a home closer in to the city, benefiting further by living in closer proximity to the work/school/life that we desire.
For more information on why transit investment has in fact helped Portland, please review TriMet’s objective review of the Cato Institute report titled, ‘Debunking Portland: The Public Transit Myth’.
Listed here is a brief summary of some of the information contained in the above-linked article:
Light rail and buses are an integral part of a balanced transportation system that also includes roads, freeways, bicycle infrastructure (paths, bike boulevards, etc.), sidewalks, and other modes of transit. Portland area commutes are subject to congestion, but are shorter -20% shorter relative to the 33 most populous cities- due to our growth management strategies and investment in transit.
On September 19, 2007, the Oregonian reported on a Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) survey, noting that, “…the Portland area appears to be fighting the growth in misery behind the wheel better than many other regions.” Without public transit,the TTI survey suggests that the current levels of road congestion in the Portland region would be 21 percent greater. The article notes that while congestion has increased, it has increased more-so across the nation in communities large and small. The article summarizes TTI’s calculation of what auto dependence costs the nation, amounting to $78.2 billion in the cost of fuel and commute time (e.g., lost productivity).
The TTI report credits buses, MAX and streetcars with saving the region 6.7 million hours of rush-hour delay. The average Portland-area commuter saves 8 hours of congestion delay annually –even if they never use the transit. system. TriMet’s 2007 review of the National Transit Database places Portland 11th in the nation as a result of public transit use versus a ranking of 29th in population. Joe Cortright’s paper identifies 100 million hours of travel saved annually in the Portland region due to our transportation and land use planning. The paper values this time saving at $1.5 billion annually for the Portland region, assuming a $15 per/hour value.
Cortright goes on to cite a June 2007 study titled ‘Transportation System Ratings’ (by Bob Moore, Kelly Middendorff and Jill Dehlin), which notes that 60 percent of Portland resident’s rated their transportation system as good or excellent –compared to 35% for all Americans.
Portland has achieved these positive results with comparatively modest road expenditures and with less land consumed by roadways. It is seemingly important to the citizens of the Portland region that transportation investments are well-balanced. For the many who simply can’t drive their own automobile, having a quality and competitive alternative is critical to the region’s livability. As such, an increasingly large percentage of Portlanders are choosing not to drive or own a car.
Based on use and public support, most people in the region benefit daily from a quality of life afforded by a balanced transportation plan that supports a well-considered strategy for how this region should grow. The Portland region’s urban growth boundary, formed in 1979, grew only 1.2 percent, or 3,000 acres, for 23 years up to November 2002, when an additional 18,000 acres were added.
2007 annual ridership finished at 96.9 million trips. Portlanders are not just using transit to avoid peak-hour congestion and parking charges. Saturday MAX ridership of 85,400 is 77% of the weekday total. The strength of light rail ridership has not been at the expense of persons riding the bus. Bus boarding riders per vehicle hour increased from 32 to 34 over the past 10 years.
These statistics reflect public attitudes. A 2006 survey of 1,000 regional residents found that 85% of the public approves the MAX system (66% strongly approve, 19% somewhat approve) and only 8% disapprove. The bus system received similar statistics, with 51% strongly approving and 31 % somewhat approving.
Between 1995 and 2005 overall ridership increased 53% with only a 20% increase in service. Ridership flattened in the summer of 2006, then went back on a rise and has not ceased to expand. While transit remains a minority mode for travel, it is outpacing the 25% growth in vehicles miles of travel and the 16% growth in population over that same period of time. In almost every category, Portland’s integrated transit system appears healthy and well used.
If the argument is against cost, the conversion gains some complexity. Light rail transit does require a significant up-front investment of $22 to $60 million per mile, but it costs less to operate per passenger carried. Over time this cost-efficiency is critical. A light rail train carries 266 riders on average during the peak hours, with loads of up to 332 for some trains. A bus carries 51 riders comfortably or 64 under peak conditions. This five-fold capacity advantage means light rail costs less per passenger. For fiscal year 2007average operating cost per boarding ride for all bus routes was $2.66 or $2.14 for the most productive 16 Frequent Service bus routes. This cost for MAX was $1.48.
While light rail helps to support a compact urban area characterized by comparatively short trips and active community centers, it does not promise redevelopment and prosperity all on its own. This being said, it does provide access and access is a valuable commodity. That value translates into more density, less parking, and new mixes of commercial and residential development. With access that is clean, quiet and less auto dependent, the character of the surrounding development can be more pedestrian-oriented.
Regardless of profession or life-style preferences, everyone benefits from a well-developed and integrated transit system.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On January 23, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
«« Back To Stats Pageoverdramatic? perhaps. hell, i’ll be the first to admit that. read my posts! plenty of drama.
i do use the web and appreciate it for what it is –a means to assist my work, which is a part of my life. i also know where the lines are best drawn for me, yo. and those lines enable me to see more of the real world than my downward-staring brothers and sisters. and yes, there absolutely is every reason to assume that iphone users aren’t capable of finding balance. just walk down the streets downtown, in the pearl, on hawthorne, whatever. downward stares into faceless screens.
in my opinion, the web and personal communication devices are two very different things, even though devices like the iphone combine the two. i don’t interact with the web outside of a desktop. i also don’t use a phone to text, im or what the heck ever else people do on their phones. i own a pre-paid virgin mobile phone that makes calls and occasionally takes them. i use it for calls (that’s all it’s capable of) an average of eight minutes per month. when i’m at the desk, i’m online doing work-work, or mundo-work. if i’m using flickr or twitter, it’s to support direct and indirect association to my work. when i’m not at the desk, i’m living, not staring at a screen.
and yes, my opinions about the iphone do indeed make me feel good… like a schoolgirl in a field of daisies! really, it just makes me feel good not to bump into street signs because my head is so firmly inserted up an iphone’s rear-end.
what, is that the sound of my grinder? sorry, gotta run… too many blades to sharpen today.
» Posted By Jeremy Towsey-French On July 11, 2008 @ 11:50 am
