Oneonta's population makes up roughly one third the population of Otsego County, likely employing most of its Susquehanna Valley inhabitants, and more along the fringes of Delaware County. Since so much of Otsego County's population rests in Oneonta, I thought it adequate enough to use Otsego County statistics for the sake of this argument.
Unfortunately, like most of the nation, it seems Oneonta has been rather stagnant of late. Between 2000 and 2008, Oneonta grew by 0.5%, far lower than the 2.7% growth the whole state of New York has experienced. Paltry in either case, the spike between the two numbers is indicative of the lack of incentive to come to Oneonta.
I can imagine the population shift in Oneonta is mainly due to births vs. deaths. In short, it only looks like population growth because older people are living longer here.
I am not wholly opposed to the Oneonta World of Learning, and as far as I'm concerned, as long as it is privately funded, it flies with me. While I'm not sure of its funding status, the point is rather.. pointless, so to say. What's missing is the community's apathy toward our stagnant bubble of a world; even in a depressed state like New York, we could at least exist with the standards set by the census average!
I propose a lack of ambivalence toward the impending disaster that is Otsego, Oneonta, the sleeping folk north-west of the Catskills. Wake up, please; we need business models, industries that aren't taxed to death, and places for our work force to keep themselves happy, not museums these apathetic majority will scoff at while their children are barely kept fed with the hiking unemployment rates and social services benefits packages.
sources:
Census QuickFacts
Census FactFinder
addendum: I added in the sources, which I carelessly left out.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
I Am Home; Where Are You, Dark Thoughts?
I told people I love America. That's such a lie; I do not, in fact, love America. What has really happened has been a love for the ideals, the fleeting respects of a country that could never really exist.
Where is the existentialist paradise? I do not require much; in fact, I request a country, a state, a plot of land where I am simply not protected from myself. That's what I want; a bare exposure to reality, to catch a glimpse of Cthulu, or some nameless inevitability we call death or kismet.
My God! I could really think you dead, that you could create a real world of suffering. And I know it to be true, that suffering exists. The spark of the glimpse of terror, the finger on the axis of reality, and then to have it yanked away: that is more torturous than any other pain I've thus far encountered. It is an all-encompassing throb from the neck to the pit of the stomach, a scorched line extending outward; a yearning for convalescence from this state of being where people do not follow the golden rule. I do not like being told what to do, or how to do it, on any level; I'm sure no one else does either.
Where is the existentialist paradise? I do not require much; in fact, I request a country, a state, a plot of land where I am simply not protected from myself. That's what I want; a bare exposure to reality, to catch a glimpse of Cthulu, or some nameless inevitability we call death or kismet.
My God! I could really think you dead, that you could create a real world of suffering. And I know it to be true, that suffering exists. The spark of the glimpse of terror, the finger on the axis of reality, and then to have it yanked away: that is more torturous than any other pain I've thus far encountered. It is an all-encompassing throb from the neck to the pit of the stomach, a scorched line extending outward; a yearning for convalescence from this state of being where people do not follow the golden rule. I do not like being told what to do, or how to do it, on any level; I'm sure no one else does either.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The Moon is Full Somewhere
The room is atrocious, yet again; I want to ignore it and just play games or sleep.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Smoke on the Water
This is primarily in response to the lack of energy in this blog about the cigarette ban proposition.
Unlike alcohol, whose effects clearly show even after fifteen minutes of consumption, and are clearly inhibitive and dangerous, tobacco is hardly at the same level of danger.
As doctors become better at diagnosing problems in the lung, we can find more subtle onsets of cancer, emphysema, etc. And within reason, these have been attributed to cigarette smoking. What then, about the folk who do not show negative signs of smoking? They are not necessarily uncommon, and there is likely a similarity between them.
My guess is that they keep their lungs healthy; eg: they use them. The appendix is now a nuisance because people stopped using it centuries ago, and can in fact be deadly to you. With the health of the nation in question, it's no wonder that cigarette smoke pools in the bottom of people's lungs. People also eat until their stomachs either stretch or burst, never bathe, drink themselves into stupors, eat horrible things, etc. etc. etc.
People also let themselves get addicted to things. That's their own fault, not everyone else's.
The idea of cigarette smoke killing you is the same as the statistical fallacies of radiation poisoning. It can and has killed people, though numbers from the Chernobyl incident are skewed if you look at the numbers. Those numbers, too, were suggested by scientists. So were the ridiculous graphs Al Gore hired scientists to skew.
The government is making money off this, and it's the only reason they want to "tax it out of existence". Big brother gives people the impression that nicotine is intensely difficult to break off from. What? That's an argument that targets right at the psychosomatics.
With a little bit of exercise, cigarette smoke should do relatively little, or no, damage on the lungs.
As an aside, smoking is a nice way to break down stress before an exam.
Unlike alcohol, whose effects clearly show even after fifteen minutes of consumption, and are clearly inhibitive and dangerous, tobacco is hardly at the same level of danger.
As doctors become better at diagnosing problems in the lung, we can find more subtle onsets of cancer, emphysema, etc. And within reason, these have been attributed to cigarette smoking. What then, about the folk who do not show negative signs of smoking? They are not necessarily uncommon, and there is likely a similarity between them.
My guess is that they keep their lungs healthy; eg: they use them. The appendix is now a nuisance because people stopped using it centuries ago, and can in fact be deadly to you. With the health of the nation in question, it's no wonder that cigarette smoke pools in the bottom of people's lungs. People also eat until their stomachs either stretch or burst, never bathe, drink themselves into stupors, eat horrible things, etc. etc. etc.
People also let themselves get addicted to things. That's their own fault, not everyone else's.
The idea of cigarette smoke killing you is the same as the statistical fallacies of radiation poisoning. It can and has killed people, though numbers from the Chernobyl incident are skewed if you look at the numbers. Those numbers, too, were suggested by scientists. So were the ridiculous graphs Al Gore hired scientists to skew.
The government is making money off this, and it's the only reason they want to "tax it out of existence". Big brother gives people the impression that nicotine is intensely difficult to break off from. What? That's an argument that targets right at the psychosomatics.
With a little bit of exercise, cigarette smoke should do relatively little, or no, damage on the lungs.
As an aside, smoking is a nice way to break down stress before an exam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
