progressive cities

The Seduction of Jazz

A few months after college graduation, I moved to a tiny studio apartment in Manayunk, a neighborhood in northwest Philadelphia.  My apartment was on top of a bar tending school and was large enough for a bed and a coffee table, nothing more. To give you perspective, the kitchen stove was about four feet away from where I slept.  I found a picture of my empty apartment below and the photo was taken in the “kitchen”. It was here where I remember first listening to jazz….on purpose. 

My short-lived love affair with jazz started one night after I watched Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris.  I always have romanticized the 1920s but the movie triggered a night’s worth of appreciation. I poured myself a glass a wine, sat on the stool near my window, lit a cigarette, and listened to the sounds of Louie Armstrong while watching the night life below me. That evening was so pleasurable that I made it a weekly habit that lasted about six months…

I later moved in with one of my best friends (shout out to Erika) to a new neighborhood in Philly.  Living with a roommate has a lot more pluses than negatives but you do have less time (and freedom) to enjoy nights alone. It was here where I stopped listening to jazz.

Flash forward to the present, where I am being seduced by jazz for a second time, and again it was triggered by a movie.  Although the film is set in modern times rather than the Jazz Age, La La Land’s one protagonist is a passionate jazz musician (played by Ryan Gosling) who’s dream is to open his own jazz club.  This resurfaced memories of my time in Manayunk and the nights where I suppressed the habit of watching TV, playing video games, or being on my phone but rather indulged in a slight buzz and jazz music.

Originally posted by chazelle

The reasons I find jazz so alluring is because:

  • Jazz was the soundtrack to the Roaring Twenties, a decade that was progressive and rebellious.  Women’s suffrage was at its peak at the turn of the decade and women wanted a new standard for themselves. Women danced, smoked, drank, and talked freely about sex.  African American culture had a big impact on the 20s and females like Bessie Smith took over the radio. The youth took to night clubs and speakeasies to enjoy different styles of jazz.  People were using automobiles and telephones at large scale and motion pictures grew in popularity and accessibility. Those in their teens and twenties rebelled against the cultural norms of the older generations and progressive cities like London, Paris, and New York experienced a new “cultural edge”. In France, the Roaring Twenties are known as the Crazy Years which speaks to the chaotic nature of this decade.

Originally posted by lavieburlesque

  • Jazz is ever-changing.  Ryan Gosling’s character touches on this during a scene in La La Land –> jazz has a improvisational component to it which allows the artist to change up a song every time he/she plays it. This means that if you are listening to a live jazz band/artist, you may never hear that unique version of the song they are playing ever again. The same artist can play the same song over and over but the piece, to those that really listen, is always new.  Jazz also, on a larger scale, has evolved over time, as most genres do.  I encourage you to check out reddit user johno456′s answer to the thread below (also earning him reddit gold) to better understand the changes in jazz throughout the last few decades:
  • Jazz gives me the feels.  Jazz makes me feel optimistic, sexy, and inspired.  I feel mature, yet youthful.  I find the whole experience of listening to jazz very pleasurable.

If you want to dabble, here are some of my recos:

Dream a Little Dream of Me - Ella Fitzgerald

Let’s Get Lost - Chet Baker

Heebie Jeebies - Chick Webb & His Orchestra

The Girl From Ipanema - Amy Winehouse (+ the original version from Gets/Gilberto)

Originally posted by clubyonkidecaballeros

One of my main motivations for deciding to try polyamory was needing to feel like I wasn’t cutting off any dating options.

One of the first pieces of cautionary wisdom I received as a brand-new poly person was: Be forewarned that your dating pool will be smaller than when you were monogamous.

This is true. It may also seem to contradict my very motivation. And yet, it doesn’t.

The key for me is: *I’m* not the one cutting off dating options. If someone I’m interested in isn’t interested in me because I’m poly and (fast-forward to the present day) in two relationships, then that’s *their* decision, not mine.

The thing I couldn’t tolerate any longer, back when I was monogamous, wasn’t the size of my dating pool, per se. It was knowing that I was making the choice to reduce that dating pool to one: whoever my monogamous partner was at any given time. I needed to not be making that decision, because that decision wasn’t one that felt right to me. I needed to be able to decide to date anyone who I was interested in who was also interested in me.

If my being poly meant they weren’t interested in me, so be it. That wouldn’t have been the right relationship for me anyway.

I realize this might be easy for me to say as someone who has lived in progressive cities of a decent size for the entire time I’ve been poly, and who has had pretty good luck with dating. I’ve had options. I haven’t been put in the position of feeling like I need to question whether I’d rather be poly and alone, or in a monogamous relationship.

It’s not that I haven’t been interested, in the time I’ve been poly, in anyone who only wants monogamy, or who I find out is in a monogamous relationship. I don’t really lose sleep over those situations, because I’m fortunate to be happy in my life, and completely content with the decision I’ve made about monogamy as a deal-breaker.

I guess my point is that although my ideal is that I don’t cut off options preemptively, options are cut off plenty for all poly people – because they are for anyone. We generally don’t get to date literally everyone we have ever been interested in, for one reason or another. Even for our own reasons, we may choose not to pursue relationships where there’s mutual interest – due to polysaturation or known incompatibility, or for other reasons. So, polyamory isn’t some magical world where everything unfolds exactly as you fantasize. Fortunately, I’ve realized that I’m fine with that. All that I really need to know is that I’M the one making decisions about whether to pursue intimacy with someone who’s interested in me. After so many years of monogamy, I couldn’t help but feel trapped by that lack of agency. Now I have it, and I thank myself every day for making the commitment to try it.

Two years’ work! Great to see that after two long years of working on my art, I’m still an idiot who forgot to put the coattails on Carton’s coat in the final iteration of the series :)

Johnlock in canon

Holmes and Watson are very much in love with each other and together:

First of all, let’s hear what Doyle calls them: “Sherlock and his Watson”

After knowing Watson for a week: “my dear fellow”  (A Study in Scarlet)

“My friend and partner” the whole time (eg in Red-Headed League).

After knowing each other for three years, Watson once wakes up in the “morning to find SH standing, fully dressed, by the side of [his] bed” at quarter past seven (Speckled Band). Etiquette was exceedingly important, and Holmes openly flouts convention. It is one of his most interesting traits: he does not believe in the law (cf Charles Augustus Milverton) and therefore would not have any problems with anything that opposes jurisdiction if he is convinced it is the right thing to do.

“It may be remembered that after my marriage, and my subsequent start in private practice, the very intimate relations which had existed between Holmes and myself became to some extent modified.” (Final Problem) – if you ignore the past with the marriage (see below) the only thing that remains is the “very intimate” relationship between them.  

Watson certainly is very vocal in his admiration: “the best and the wisest man whom I have ever known” (Final Problem)

The story where Holmes comes back from the dead also shows Watson’s complete devotion: “I find myself thrilling as I think of it, and feeling once more that sudden flood of joy, amazement, and incredulity which utterly submerged my mind”, “When I turned again Sherlock Holmes was standing smiling at me across my study table. I rose to my feet, stared at him for some seconds in utter amazement, and then it appears that I must have fainted for the first and the last time in my life.” (Empty House)

Now to a very conclusive piece of evidence: they are being attacked by a criminal: “In an instant he had whisked out a revolver from his breast and had fired two shots. I felt a sudden hot sear as if a red-hot iron had been pressed to my thigh. There was a crash as Holmes’s pistol came down on the man’s head. I had a vision of him sprawling upon the floor with blood running down his face while Holmes rummaged him for weapons. Then my friend’s wiry arms were round me, and he was leading me to a chair. “You’re not hurt, Watson? For God’s sake, say that you are not hurt!” It was worth a wound – it was worth many wounds – to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask. The clear, hard eyes were dimmed for a moment, and the firm lips were shaking. For the one and only time I caught a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain.“ [Watson reassures him he’s fine] "He had ripped up my trousers with his pocket-knife. "You are right,” he cried with an immense sigh of relief. “It is quite superficial.” His face set like flint as he glared at our prisoner, who was sitting up with a dazed face. “By the Lord, it is as well for you. If you had killed Watson, you would not have got out of this room alive. Now, sir, what have you to say for yourself?”“ (Three Garridebs)

Do I have to comment on this? "Depth of loyalty and love”? He’s supposed to be “an automaton, a calculating-machine”.

Holmes has just drugged them with something that works exactly the same way as in “Hounds” (2.2): “The turmoil within my brain was such that something must surely snap. I tried to scream and was vaguely aware of some hoarse croak which was my own voice, but distant and detached from myself. At the same moment, in some effort of escape, I broke through that cloud of despair and had a glimpse of Holmes’s face, white, rigid, and drawn with horror–the very look which I had seen upon the features of the dead. It was that vision which gave me an instant of sanity and of strength. I dashed from my chair, threw my arms round Holmes, and together we lurched through the door, and an instant afterwards had thrown ourselves down upon the grass plot and were lying side by side, conscious only of the glorious sunshine which was bursting its way through the hellish cloud of terror which had girt us in. Slowly it rose from our souls like the mists from a landscape until peace and reason had returned…”

Aha. So he is dying, but what gives him strength is that Holmes is suffering? And the end is just ridiculously romantic.

Mere minutes later: “"You know,” I answered with some emotion, for I have never seen so much of Holmes’ heart before, “that it is my greatest joy and privilege to help you.”“ (Devil’s Foot)

No comment.

They are breaking into a criminal’s house, and are in danger of being discovered: "I felt Holmes’ hand steal into mine…” (Charles Augustus Milverton) - So when there is a threat, Holmes clearly doesn’t care about propriety, but wants to reassure the doctor instead. What would any author who writes such a scene about a man and a woman very obviously “imply”?

“the man whom above all others I revere” (Thor Bridge) - Hmm… Watson can be quite eloquent.  

But the following quotation/situation is my favourite: “It was in the year ‘95 that a combination of events, into which I need not enter, caused Mr. Sherlock Holmes and myself to spend some weeks in one of our great University towns […] It will be obvious that any details which would help the reader to exactly identify the college or the criminal would be injudicious and offensive. So painful a scandal may well be allowed to die out. With due discretion the incident itself may, however, be described, since it serves to illustrate some of those qualities for which my friend was remarkable. I will endeavour in my statement to avoid such terms as would serve to limit the events to any particular place, or give a clue as to the people concerned.” (Three Students)

Or to give a clue as to what really happened. So… Explanation:

1. In the year 1895 there were the Oscar Wilde trials, which caused a great many men who were more or less openly gay to “go on holiday” for a few months.

2. Universities were supposed to be more progressive than cities. Oscar Wilde met Robbie Ross at uni.

3. The “painful scandal” Watson is talking about here is about three students who are meant to sit a Greek exam, but one of them cheats. That’s not a scandal. Even I’ve helped another student to cheat in a Greek exam (Greek can be a horrible subject), and I’m a model student.

4. They had to flee from London because of the public awareness the spectacular trials had caused.

5. But of course Watson could not say it like that, so he had to invent a virtually new case.

Do we want to know more?

“Partly it came no doubt from his own masterful nature, which loved to dominate (…) those who were around him.” (The Hound of the Baskervilles)

But why did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle create a character who would have been imprisoned if he had been a real person and had the authorities known about his illegal preferences? An important question, and more than one point has to be considered to answer this.

Sir ACD’s Sherlock Holmes was heavily inspired by Poe’s Dupin. Poe wrote three stories about Dupin, an amateur detective living in nearly complete isolation in Paris. These stories are narrated by an unnamed narrator, probably a Briton or an American. And their relationship is quite unequivocally a romantic one. Here parts of the first story, The Murders in Rue Morgue:

“Our first meeting was at an obscure library […] where the accident of our both being in search of the same very rare and very remarkable volume brought us into closer communion. We saw each other again and again […] I was astonished, too, at the vast extent of his reading; and, above all, I felt my soul enkindled within me by the wild fervor, and the vivid freshness of his imagination […] I felt that the society of such a man would be to me a treasure beyond price; and this feeling I frankly confided to him. It was at length arranged that we should live together during my stay in the city; […] I was permitted to be at the expense of renting, and furnishing in a style which suited the rather fantastic gloom of our common temper […] Had the routine of our life at this place been known to the world, we should have been regarded as madmen—although, perhaps, as madmen of a harmless nature. Our seclusion was perfect. We admitted no visitors. […] We existed within ourselves alone. It was a freak of fancy in my friend (for what else shall I call it?) to be enamored of the Night for her own sake; and into this bizarrerie, as into all his others, I quietly fell; giving myself up to his wild whims with a perfect abandon […]”

So… I do not think that I have to explain all that much. The so-called subtext is not even subtext here. Paris was – due to the Napoleonic Laws – known as a place where is was possible to have a homosexual affair in relative safety. So it is reasonable to say that Dupin and his nameless friend were indeed lovers.

Now, Sir ACD chose to take those two characters and their flat and – with some minor alterations – wrote his stories about Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson living at 221b Baker Street in London. His characters are based on two men having a physical relationship with each other, and although why he chose to do this, nobody knows, it is a fact. You could make more of this argument, but I think it is enough at this point.

Sir ACD, the upright Victorian moralist gentleman, hated Sherlock Holmes. He told an actor he may “marry him, murder him, or do anything he liked with him”, which not only shows that marriage and death are essentially the same for Sherlock Holmes, but also – and more importantly here – expresses his disdain for his own creation.

I said I was going to talk about Oscar Wilde. Wilde was born in 1854 (the year of SH’s birth – what a coincidence) and represents a type of decadent man known as the dandy. Holmes is a Bohemian, which was considered about as decadent as dandyism, and their lives follow similar patterns. Interestingly enough, Dorian Gray and The Sign of Four were commissioned during the same dinner by the same editor, and it can be said that the two authors were competitors. Wilde, however, was probably the more popular person, and I believe Sir ACD was somewhat jealous of him. Oscar Wilde’s trials are constantly alluded to in 1895 Sherlock Holmes stories, by the way… 

I mentioned above that he hated Sherlock Holmes. But how do these two things fit? Sir ACD wanted a good reason to hate Holmes. There is the expression “to laugh up one’s sleeve”, I personally I am of the opinion that is precisely what he did.

In the book ‘Archeofuturism’, Guillaume Faye lists what he deems to be the cancers eating away at the social fabric of Europe. They are, as follows:

  1. The demographic colonisation of the northern hemisphere by peoples from the South.
  2. The failure of multiracial society, which is increasingly racist and neo-tribal.
  3. The progressive ethno-anthropological metamorphosis of Europe.
  4. The return of poverty in both East and West.
  5. The slow but steady increase in crime and drug consumption.
  6. The ongoing disintegration of family structures.
  7. The decline of the educational system and the quality of school curricula.
  8. The disruption of the passing down of cultural knowledge and social disciplines.
  9. The disappearance of folk culture and its replacement by the brutishness of masses rendered passive by audio-visual technology.
  10. The progressive decay of cities and communities in favour of sprawling suburbs devoid of all transparency and coherence.
  11. Endemic urban revolts – like a rampant May of ‘68, only worse.

This is what we’re up against, this is what we have to push back and overcome.


Ancient Worlds - BBC Two 

Episode 5 “The Republic of Virtue”

Selinunte (the ancient Selinus of the Greeks), on the southern coast of Sicily, Italy, was a notable Greek city. 

Ancient Selinus was founded by Doric Greek colonists from Sicily’s Megara Hyblea between 650 and 630 BC and it was destroyed in 409 BC. It was one of the most progressive Greek cities in Sicily, second in importance only to Syracuse, and famous throughout Magna Graecia.

In 409 most of Sicily’s other Greek cities were in decline after years of fighting, with their armies weak and disorganized. Among these were Agrigento (Akragas) and Syracuse, Selinunte’s allies. This opened an opportunity for Carthage, who controlled parts of western Sicily and had a great interest in the island. The Carthaginians sent over a vast army and after a nine-day siege Selinunte was taken and most of the defenders put to the sword while the majority of the remaining citizens were taken into slavery. Although the city was repopulated somewhat by the Carthiginians, it never achieved its former beauty, power or prestige. Before the close of the first Punic War with Rome in 250 BC, the Carthaginians removed all the inhabitants of Selinunte to Lilybaeum and destroyed the city. It seems certain that it was never rebuilt.

The Greek archaeological site of Selinunte contains several temples centered on an acropolis.


Archaeological site of Selinunte, province of Trapani, Sicily, Italy

anonymous asked:

share with us your secret intel on the entjs

/assuming relative level of health - some of this might not be secret

- very soft in romance

- protective

- strange

- needs more isolation than any type I’ve ever met. by more I mean “more quality”. they just stop talking to people. 

- usually I find them in “progressive” cities (DC, LA, NYC, etc)

- idealistic

- not doubtful, but willing to go to very specific people when in doubt

- yes they do doubt but it’s hard to explain how they doubt

- go into a tizzy when they are pursuing a romantic interest

- “walk with me, not beside me or in front of me” partners

- surprisingly down for some crazy shit (tert Se)

- very self-reflective; usually interested in books that help them strengthen their sense of self (see: self help or books that embody their values)

- if you doubt them they will trust you less

- can flip between two extremes: 

- indulging purely in sensory [Te-Se] (see: becoming drug addicts, ignoring future consequences) 

- Indulging in strategizing for the future [Te-Ni] without taking care of physical needs or wants [ignoring Se] or emotional needs/wants [inferior Fi]

Might do a big post later.

A very important aspect of solarpunk to me is representation and accessibility. That’s what drew me to it in the first place. It’s a genre that takes into account diversity and progress. Solarpunk cities would truly be multicultural hubs.

The term “melting pot” implies that everybody assimilates into one dominant culture.

A better term would be “salad,” where everybody is allowed to stay connected to their culture and to share their culture if they want to, and where they aren’t pressured to assimilate into a dominant culture.

A lie was sold to the people of Europe and countless other western countries.
It was a lie packaged in a promise of vibrant new cultural experiences.
Of exotic food and music and access to a richer social tapestry.

What was not mentioned in the sales pitch was that those new cultural experiences would also include such things as:
Rampart crime, honor killings, Female Genital Mutilation, Sharia courts, the burka, no-go areas, child marriage, Halal certification schemes, lone-wolf attacks, terrorist conspiracy rings, increasing terrorist attacks and now  the large scale, organized sexual humiliation and rape of women in the center of European cities.
Dear Progressives……….how’s that diversity working out for you?

strawberry-problems  asked:

Hey Olan, I just wanted to ask if you think Nashville TN is accepting or liberal cus I am trans, which is the one that most often gets murdered because of hate crime. I would like to go to college there but I am scared. Do you think I would be fine?

I don’t know about everyone in Nashville, TN but I can tell you this I’ve seen it become more accepting in the last 5 years. Tennessee is a beautiful place with amazing people and Nashville is probably the most progressive of the cities in TN. I’ve lived in Memphis most of my life and it’s got a lot of deep rooted history, old traditions but great BBQ. Now there are older people who are stuck in their ways but Nashville has influx of many young people. Never seen more young people in my life. I think maybe you should give it a visit and feel it out. Visit East Nashville probably the most hip young place you can find. Not sure what school you have in mind. I know that there is some ridiculous bills & laws trying to get passed right now but I doubt they will pass. If they do get passed I doubt they will last long.  

Nashville is a truly great place, it’s one of the fastest growing cities I’ve ever seen. I mean it’s blowing up! It’s not perfect but it’s constantly evolving and growing at insane rates. If you do end up moving to Nash Vegas to go to school and you ever feel unwelcome…. The Soda Parlor can be your safe place and no one in there will ever judge you or treat you without love. But I think you’ll receive a lot of love in Nashville. As Toy Story would say “You got a friend in me” :) Give it a visit though and feel it out :)


How Pittsburgh became a national model for rapid bikeway progress. 

this is a REALLY REALLY long read more where i talk about Being From The South & my views on it and why im ? actually proud of it and stuff? so im putting it in a read more for those of u who dont care which is probably everyone thats okay!

Keep reading

themushroomkiller  asked:

Almost days after homosexual marriage was made legal in the US, campaigns were made to allow for polygamy in the most "progressive" cities. In many ways it is pitiable for the homosexuals because they are are just being used as a bargaining chip to open a vault to pagan relativism. Why is it that the progenitors of a fascist movement never realize they are being used? (Part 2)


I do think there is an agenda which is not of truth, justice, and rational use of science. While everyone who argues to change the law claims to quote science and research, it is true that dishonest people use facts which while true, are bent or molded in a certain way so that the truth is twisted. Out of 10,000 studies on human sexuality, for instance, it is easy to find a hundred which say that gay marriage is perfectly conducive to healthy behavior and wholesome child rearing.

And in the competing studies, people get confused. As a child, I was raised in school with studies which said that divorce was fine–kids could do just as great without a mom, or without a dad. 

Then there were the studies that “proved” that the absence of a mother or father caused irreparable and long term harm. Now, with gay marriage, lo and behold, we have uncovered new truths that kids really do not need a mom or dad in child rearing to grow up healthy and happy. 

The next step, as you stated, is to quote the studies which show that human sexuality is so fluid, so diffused across a spectrum, that it does not matter if you transition to another gender, or transition to sexual “curiosity”, even at a young age. There is no longer such a thing as “protecting innocence” as the call grows to lower even the age of consent.

In some countries, one can make the sexual moves even on a 15 year old, because the law has decided that this is the age at which healthy sexual intercourse can take place. In the U.S. we still call such moves molestation, and the promoters of that sex are still seen as perverts. 

But I think that will change, and perhaps parents will soon be told, legally, not to interfere with their 14 year old daughter’s decision to hook up with some guy she found trolling her social network. However, let me state for the record that all the blame should not be placed on social engineering and political radicals who want to dismantle natural marriages and wholesome families.

Even the most heterosexual marriages and the most old-fashioned families can be places where selfishness and personal convenience wins over the need to safeguard the marriage and family. 

Long before any gay couple asked to be legally married, straight guys were cheating on their wives, divorcing them, and abandoning their families. Long before any lesbian couple asked a traditional baker to make their wedding cake, straight women got fed up with domestic life and said that marriage and family ruined their self-actualization and independence. 

What ushered in legal, gay marriage was a change in the straight couples, who decided that marriage was about their personal needs and desires, not about family and child-rearing. It was the millions of heterosexual couples who passed legal contraception and abortion choice laws, and said that married was about fulfilling their personal neediness for attention and affection.

The straight couples redefined marriage, before gay couples ever did. The underpinnings and solid foundation of Natural Law (that marriage is for making babies and raising stable families), upon which marriage law which understood since at least the Romans, was dismantled in the 50′s and 60′s.

What happened is that the gay couples realized, one day, that if this is the new definition of marriage, as the straight couples decided it, then there unions qualified no less than heterosexual unions. So, society is simply acknowledging a truth which the gay couples pointed out–marriage, in civil law, a long time ago, STOPPED being about children, it STOPPED being about stable families, it STOPPED being about faithfulness to vows “until death do us part”. Civil law is perfectly fine with aborting the kids you don’t want. Civil law is perfectly fine with sex as recreation and not procreation. 

So why not have gay marriage? Gay hookups for neediness, for “me” having the attention of someone cuddling me, who I can then dump and divorce for another person when it feels good for me, really and truly is “equal” to what heterosexual married people do to each other nowadays. 

If marriage is just getting into someone you love, at the moment, in a possibly temporary way, with no regard to the needs of children, or even wanting children, or making little attempt to defend the togetherness of a family, then it would logically follow that “marriage equality” should exist. This is not to excuse the social engineers and radicals wanting to overthrow the old order–it is just to say that blame can be shared in this matter. God bless and take care, Fr. Angel