I will say this, Oklahoma City is starting to get a very positive image in Houston among the general public thanks to the Thunder. Any time I had my Thunder shirt on, I usually here "OKC? As in the OKC Thunder?? KD and Westbrook are my boys!!"

Then they would mention their ties to OKC and how they can't wait to go up and see a game. This has happened on four occasions. During the conversation when I tell people I am moving to OKC this year, the common reaction has been they hear it's a nice place.

Well, when you have a Oklahoma reality show like Mudcats being watched by millions of Americans, what can you say? lol...

Hopefully, people after seeing that won't think Oklahoma is the dust bowl.

I will say this, Oklahoma City is starting to get a very positive image in Houston among the general public thanks to the Thunder. Any time I had my Thunder shirt on, I usually here "OKC? As in the OKC Thunder?? KD and Westbrook are my boys!!"

Then they would mention their ties to OKC and how they can't wait to go up and see a game. This has happened on four occasions. During the conversation when I tell people I am moving to OKC this year, the common reaction has been they hear it's a nice place.
Yeah, a number of outsiders probably think Oklahoma doesn't have a bad image, rather they think no image at all, a blank. It's good that Thunder can change that by giving Oklahoma and Oklahoma City a positive image.

never a great idea to pass things that are against federal law
But the key to this are medical marijuana laws that legalize it unconstitutional? Probably not. Oklahoma would rather blow tax money on legal fees trying to defend unconstitutional laws it passes. By the way, the church people didn't go nuts and kill lotteries, casinos and tattoos in Oklahoma.

Progressiveness has absolutely nothing to do with liberal or conservative.

It's about being forward-thinking and innovative; about strong initiates to attract businesses and help them flourish and about a large commitment to improving the quality of life through education, recreation, transportation, etc.

And considering the abysmal ratings the state gets in just about every health and education category, more progressive thinking and action is sorely needed.

There are lots of states in the middle of the country that do a much better job in all these areas.
Oklahomans who want more jobs need to ask themselves why Georgia, instead of Oklahoma, got the huge Kia car factory, even though Oklahoma has experience with having a car assembly plant in the state.

Work on the second one will largely take care of the first. At the same time, the first can only change so much until we take care of the second.


I'm not saying we should aim for Colorado or Connecticut; buy why can't we get to at least the middle ground occupied by states like Kansas and Iowa?

As long was we are continually keeping company with Mississippi and Louisiana when it comes to health and education, a good part of any bad rep will be completely self-inflicted.

If it requires raising taxes at the state level to get that done, forget it. State laws make doing that very difficult. Instead, people more often need to try raising taxes at the city and county levels, if they think that would work to bring about a higher standard of living, while hopefully further paying off in attracting business and industry. MAPS proves how well doing that works. Of course, Republicans will be quick to tell you that they have never heard of raising taxes in order to bring about prosperity.

could not disagree more with this post

Why? Is it because it's the LOW income religious conservatives who changed their party registration to Democrat so they could vote for Randall Terry? Or do political experts believe those were real Democrat votes?

Where are the progressives in Oklahoma, other than in OKC where Councilman Shadid and new State Sen. McAffrey live?

"Oklahoma ranked No. 1 state in prescription painkiller abuse" Doesn't help OK image any.

Neither does web sits that say OKC is "3% safer that other cities in the US" http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ok/oklahoma-city/crime/

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/oklahoma/oklahoma-city.html

"Oklahoma ranked No. 1 state in prescription painkiller abuse" Doesn't help OK image any.


What are they doing about it? I guess lawmakers thought a bigger drug problem in Oklahoma was people fooling around with hashish, so last year they passed a law allowing up to life in prison for making it.

Oklahoma is rated a miserable no. 14 for suicide rate. But cutting the income tax has become a highly important and noble work at the State Capitol. I'm against it, because we've already been slowly cutting the state income tax since Keating was governor, and it doesn't work good in forcing tax revenues to go up. Except in a few spotty places, like the new part of I-40 in OKC, no wonder state highways and bridges, overall, don't seem better since Keating.

Oklahomans who want more jobs need to ask themselves why Georgia, instead of Oklahoma, got the huge Kia car factory, even though Oklahoma has experience with having a car assembly plant in the state.

The south is very popular among foreign automakers for putting US based manufacturing plants. I think they put it in Georgia because of super lax labor laws, proximity to suppliers in Alabama and some aggressive tax breaks.

Also, that's the area I'm from and I'm glad they got something. The textile mills have been vanishing for years, and unemployment in Troup county is brutal(Was as high as 14%, currently at 10% as of end of last year.)

I thing the governor or mayor was stating that having a port was a factor due to the model(s) they would be producing were popular overseas and would be exported. Not that what is being told to the local political leaders or press has to be the real reasons.

This is my first post. I just found the site a few months ago and check in when I can. Interesting topic, as I’m currently away from home and have been telling people about what OK has to offer. I’ve had the opportunity to live on both coasts and travel across the US, but have primarily made Oklahoma my home since I was in HS 20 some years ago.

How I view and attempt to sell OK: Exciting changes to our metro areas; friendly people; great economic outlook; interesting and very diverse terrain and natural beauty; temperate climate (I downplay the wind/tornadoes).

Here are the issues I ALWAYS get asked about: flat terrain/no trees; tornadoes; trailer parks; people (either “good people” or “right-wing whackos”).

So, from my perspective, here are the issues:

#1 – OKC and Tulsa images are fine. Pay no attention to Charles Barkley; he’s an entertainer, analyst, washed up athlete, and poor golfer. Our two large metro areas are true gems, and you should highlight them when possible. If people come into town for business, take them to the places you want to highlight.

#2 – Oklahomans are the number one thing the state has going for it. The people here are genuinely friendly, and will do anything in the world for you.

#2a – BUT, they have to get to know you first. We all know fundamentalist, conservative, right-wing people who would LITERALLY defend to the death, a neighbor who happened to be atheist, liberal, left-wing, and maybe even homosexual, but only if they know you. (Then it’s almost like: “Well, you know, Cameron’s got some serious issues, God bless him, but he’s a pretty good neighbor.”) The problem is outsiders never get to see that side of Oklahomans unless they are forced to relocate here.

Once people move here, they usually don’t want to leave. I have personally spoken to two families here on the east coast, who are moving BACK to OK after jobs took them away for a few years. Over time, more and more people with varying political views will move in, and sometime, within the next 8 or 12 years, the Democratic Party might actually carry a single county in a national election!

Oklahoma isn't as terrible as people say, but it's not perfect, either. I've been living here most of my life, and there are a lot of things to like about the OKC metro area, and it has gotten so much nicer than it was when I was a kid (I'm 29). However, there's still a lot of room for improvement. Oklahoma shouldn't settle for just being "OK".

Let's not overlook the fact that our state government is pretty fricking baffling. Like some of you have said already, the national media picks up on the crazy bizarro laws they try to pass and don't cover the rest of the story, so people get an incomplete portrait.

Also, there's the fact that we keep showing up on "worst" lists such as prescription painkiller abuse, obesity, education, smoking, etc. Without proper context, the meth problem and the painkiller problem both seem to imply that life here isn't so great, when really it's more complicated than that.

I agree that we need a way to encourage more forward-thinking people to stay/come here. It's not that we don't have forward-thinking people-- they're just not in the state government, unfortunately.

What's the proper context of being the #1 abuser of pain meds, making the consumption of a fetus illegal, other crazy laws, poor education, obesity and health?

I've lived here for 4 years and I do like OKC and OK but you need to quit electing crazy folks that come up with these stupid laws that make OK look like the home state of The John Birch Society. There are many other issues affecting the state, listed above, but the politicians seem to focus on the absurd. jmho

I just wanted to chime in here and shoot down any ridiculous ideas that our city's image has anything to do with the lack of an "African-American" scene or "Urban" radio. The whole "Urban" radio is simply the entertainment option for thugs. Listen to the lyrics. Much of it is racist, sexist, violent, and is definitely better suited for DC than Oklahoma City. I'm always concerned when I see young people, of whatever color, being lured in by these thugs who claim to be "musicians." The thump-thump-thump bass of "urban" radio (that has to be played at full volume) is one of the single most irritating things to deal with - especially at 2:30 in the morning. If wanting to keep that whole gangsta crowd out of Oklahoma City hurts our image - bring it on. Don't Detroit my Oklahoma City.

One thing I always tell my out of state friends and visitors is there is plenty to do in and around OKC - and Oklahoma. You just have to look for it - nothing is as obvious like Disney Land / World or Pike's Peak. What really differentiates us here is the cost of living is so low that IF I cannot find it here, I can still afford to go to wherever "it" is.

I just wanted to chime in here and shoot down any ridiculous ideas that our city's image has anything to do with the lack of an "African-American" scene or "Urban" radio. The whole "Urban" radio is simply the entertainment option for thugs. Listen to the lyrics. Much of it is racist, sexist, violent, and is definitely better suited for DC than Oklahoma City. I'm always concerned when I see young people, of whatever color, being lured in by these thugs who claim to be "musicians." The thump-thump-thump bass of "urban" radio (that has to be played at full volume) is one of the single most irritating things to deal with - especially at 2:30 in the morning. If wanting to keep that whole gangsta crowd out of Oklahoma City hurts our image - bring it on. Don't Detroit my Oklahoma City.

Wow, nice POV. Personally, I'm 34, White, and an average American citizen. I don't go around packing a pistol in the back of my pants and slapping women around calling them names. It's not always about the lyrics and trying to imitate them. It's just unfortunate that a lot of kids try to.

Also, I listen to techno...that doesn't make me a homosexual.

Also, I listen to techno...that doesn't make me a homosexual.


Yet.... just kidding lol

Wow, nice POV. Personally, I'm 34, White, and an average American citizen. I don't go around packing a pistol in the back of my pants and slapping women around calling them names. It's not always about the lyrics and trying to imitate them. It's just unfortunate that a lot of kids try to.

Also, I listen to techno...that doesn't make me a homosexual.

It's actually a POV that a lot of people hold but just won't talk about. I think our country is on the way to ruin thanks to "diversity." So as to not completely derail the topic, my point is that the lack of black this and that has NOTHING to do with our image. The less bangers ruining our city the better. "Urban" music hangouts are a magnet for bangers. Not all black folks are bangers either - we've got some great AA posters right here at OKCTalk. Something can be pretty all-encompassing without it being 100%.

The only time I bump in my car is on the highway or when I see people like you cause I like that reaction...ya know, "that dude is white and he's shaking my car". Every city has bangers. Do research and find me one American city to your living standards that doesn't have one banger, please.

Heck, I lived in Chillicothe, MO, (pop. 8,000 or so) and there were still thug bangers there. You will never escape it.

The only time I bump in my car is on the highway or when I see people like you cause I like that reaction...ya know, "that dude is white and he's shaking my car". Every city has bangers. Do research and find me one American city to your living standards that doesn't have one banger, please.

Heck, I lived in Chillicothe, MO, (pop. 8,000 or so) and there were still thug bangers there. You will never escape it.

That was really my point.

Just a post or two above, you said you can listen to that crap and not be influenced. I would argue that you wanting to "bump in the car" - just to get a reaction - is evidence to the contrary. (See below.)


The only time I bump in my car is on the highway or when I see people like you cause I like that reaction...ya know, "that dude is white and he's shaking my car".

You can see people like me?

When you see "people like me"....can you read minds?

No, but it's pretty easy to spot the old White guy that's looking around with the disgruntled look on his face trying to find where that noise is coming from.

Honestly though, I turn it down too when sitting at an intersection. Only really when I'm moving & definitely not within a 2 mile radius of where I live. I don't need anyone breaking into my car.

Here are some interesting facts about medical marijuana:
-Current opinion polls show 70% of Americans are in favor of it, this is a rapid increase. Just ten years ago, less than half of people polled were in favor of it, if memory serves.
-This doesn't mean that 70% of voters are in favor of it. The average voter is much older than the average person capable of voting. This is because old people vote at much higher rates.

My personal view is that medical marijuana will become law in Oklahoma when the baby boomers start thinning out and Generation X ers are the new old people. This would be about year 2030.

It could come about sooner than 2030, especially if Colorado votes to legalize marijuana in November and if Arkansas votes to legalize medical marijuana in Nov. Arkansas has until July 6th to gather enough signatures to vote on the issue. To see how far Oklahoma is behind the rest of the nation in approval for medical marijuana, a creditable poll needs to be taken. However, I think the marijuana issue in Oklahoma is far from popular. Intense apathy rules the issue. Many Oklahoma politicians don't want anything to do with legalizing marijuana, because they think it's a gateway drug, but the gateway theory has been proven to be of little significance.

I personally don't think fully legal marijuana will pass in any state any time soon. CA was the pioneer of medical marijuana and their full legalization ballot failed November 2010, getting about 47% of votes. But even if it did pass, it would be Obama's decision about whether/how to enforce federal law, not a state's rights issue (assuming he gets reelected). If he doesn't get reelected, whatever passes in CO would be rendered virtually meaningless. It seems like Obama is going after the swing voters and would ease enforcement in valuable states like CO and CA if he were reelected.

I personally don't think fully legal marijuana will pass in any state any time soon. CA was the pioneer of medical marijuana and their full legalization ballot failed November 2010, getting about 47% of votes. But even if it did pass, it would be Obama's decision about whether/how to enforce federal law, not a state's rights issue (assuming he gets reelected). If he doesn't get reelected, whatever passes in CO would be rendered virtually meaningless. It seems like Obama is going after the swing voters and would ease enforcement in valuable states like CO and CA if he were reelected.

it is the same with med marijuana ... it is not legal from a justice dept point of view

I'm happy not to have uncontrolled, legalized marijuana here. Or meth. Or coke. Or heroin. We don't need any more impaired or addicted people than we already have, or addicts. Too many people are having a hard enough functioning while sober - let's not hamstring them any further by legitimizing street drugs, or risking a "life sentence" of addiction.

I'm happy not to have uncontrolled, legalized marijuana here. Or meth. Or coke. Or heroin. We don't need any more impaired or addicted people than we already have, or addicts. Too many people are having a hard enough functioning while sober - let's not hamstring them any further by legitimizing street drugs, or risking a "life sentence" of addiction.If the current criminalization were any more successful than were our 52 years of being a "totally dry" state, I might agree with you. However that does not seem to be the case, and the "zero tolerance" approach by the feds in particular is actually damaging to some of us -- non-addicts who have been advised by their doctors that some relief from pain is possible.

As for the "life sentence of addiction" it would be mercifully short if all controls were removed from the really bad stuff and incurable addicts were allowed to OD at will. An added bonus would be that the drug dealers would follow the bootleggers into the dustbin of history, once their product was made legal and freely available at competitive prices.

I have no delusions that such will ever happen in our culture, but I can still dream of a rational universe in which we might live! And I long ago learned to conquer my ties to that much more addicting substance: tobacco. Addiction can be overcome, if one is sufficiently determined to do so... Meanwhile, we ought to try the Edmondson-Cannon approach and enforce existing law to the fullest, against all who break it. That would test our determination at the cultural level.

Why? Is it because it's the LOW income religious conservatives who changed their party registration to Democrat so they could vote for Randall Terry? Or do political experts believe those were real Democrat votes?

Where are the progressives in Oklahoma, other than in OKC where Councilman Shadid and new State Sen. McAffrey live?
Very few folks changed their registration to Democratic, so apparently those that voted for Randall Terry were "real Democrat" voters

Oklahoman (3/4/12) sorry, don't have the link
Political party affiliation changes since Dec. 1


More than 5,000 Democrat and independent voters have swapped their registration to the Republican Party since Dec. 1. The deadline to change party affiliation was Feb. 10 and the application had to be postmarked by that date. Oklahoma has a closed primary, so voters cannot vote in any race other than for their registered party.

Prior >>> Current No. of voters

Ind >>> Dem 340
Rep >>> Dem 405

Dem >>> Ind 452
Rep >>> Ind 341

Dem >>> Rep 3,947
Ind >>> Rep 1,152

Source: State Election Board

The chart implied that the registration changes may be due to the closed primary system and most are changing just so they can vote in the opposing parties primary, possibly to get what they perceive as the weakest candidate selected. And then they will move their registration back for the general election. Of course, for the general, voter registration doesn't matter. While it is certainly possible that this is happening, I would suspect most of these are "permanent" changes as, lets face it, voter apathy is rampant and it is hard enough to get folks out to vote at all, much less take the extra steps of constantly changing one's registration. Sure there are probably a handful of hardcore zealots out there in all 3 camps….

When I turned 21 and first registered to vote, just about ALL races were decided by the Democrats' primary. Many times, no Republican candidate even filed. In those days it was a no-brainer; one had to register as Democrat for the vote to have any meaning.

This past summer, I finally realized that in many cases (such as national offices) the situation had reversed, and the Republican primary was the place where my vote could be most effective.

I'm glad to see that 3,945 other folk agreed with me and my wife! Now if only the state legislators would quit trying to play "payback time" and act like adults, I'd be even happier...

I just wanted to get people's thought on why OKC and Oklahoma for that matter has such a negatvie image nationally. This issue has been discussed on many threads on this site.

Watching the election coverage on Tuesday I heard one of the correspodents on NBC act as though Oklahoma was all low income religous conservatives. Also I keep hearing people say "There's nothing to do in Oklahoma." One of the correspodents on NBA TV covering the Dwight Howard trade made the comment "Better hope Dwight loves the rodeo, because there’s nothing else to do in OKC."

I just don't know what the other cities have that OKC doesn't. We have casinos, we have clubs, we have great restaurants, we have great bars, etc.

I'm not mad about the issue, just curious as to why and what OKC do to change the thinking. I think we are doing a great job now of changing the thinking. But what more can we do?

unfortunately, it's pretty accurate. How do you thnk it will be when we have all those gun owners openly carrying side arms?

I'm happy not to have uncontrolled, legalized marijuana here. Or meth. Or coke. Or heroin. We don't need any more impaired or addicted people than we already have, or addicts. Too many people are having a hard enough functioning while sober - let's not hamstring them any further by legitimizing street drugs, or risking a "life sentence" of addiction.

Most people who want marijuana legalized want it controlled like alcohol and tobacco.

It's amazing how people feel so much safer with what we got now, an illegal, uncontrolled, underground market of marijuana with some kids finding it's easier to get a hold of a joint than alcohol. Little surprise, if that's true, since narcs on the front page of the Oklahoman have admitted before they only seize around 10% of the underground drug market. Oh, well, maybe it would be too frightening of a sight if marijuana was made legal and convenience stores started plastering their windows with huge photos of the marijuana leaf to direct a sale on joints. For now, it seems safer to have sales of it out of sight and out of mind.

Jim Kyle: I have heard that before and I think it was still true when I moved back home in the mid '80s but I have always been a registered Republican (it was a flip of the coin at the time) and didn't really see a need to change registration. While my historical voting ratio would fall on the Republican side, I have voted for several Democrats. Currently I am fed up with both parties and have considered changing to Independant. But with our closed primary system, that would leave me out of being able to vote in those races.

Sounds like my own story, Larry. I've always been Independent at heart, and have never participated in party politics. A pox on both their houses might well be my motto -- and these days I feel more akin to the Libertarians than to either established party. However, our state's voting system being what it is, I have to register as one of the two major parties to have any say in things!

Most people who want marijuana legalized want it controlled like alcohol and tobacco.

It's amazing how people feel so much safer with what we got now, an illegal, uncontrolled, underground market of marijuana with some kids finding it's easier to get a hold of a joint than alcohol. Little surprise, if that's true, since narcs on the front page of the Oklahoman have admitted before they only seize around 10% of the underground drug market. Oh, well, maybe it would be too frightening of a sight if marijuana was made legal and convenience stores started plastering their windows with huge photos of the marijuana leaf to direct a sale on joints. For now, it seems safer to have sales of it out of sight and out of mind.

Bunty - Do you think the underground drug market would go away if marijuana was legalized, taxed and sold in stores? Don't you think other marijuana would continue to be sold, and just marketed differently: "This stuff is way stronger (or cheaper) than that crap you can buy in the store!"? Teenagers, who I assume would still be prohibited from buying/legally smoking would still buy and smoke, and probably at higher levels, as the stuff would be more available.

Anyone who smokes now, and calls it a victimless crime has evidently failed to look south of the border. How anyone can partake with a clear conscious is beyond me. And the "I only smoke what I grow" argument is silly and pointless as there are still tons of the stuff coming across the border.

A more shocking, and possibly effective approach might be to actually prosecute and convict the middle-class white kids who get caught at the same rate as some of the others who get caught and spend time in jail/prison.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks Oklahoma City has an image problem.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2196/2179552382_6dc4f95559_z.jpg?zz=1
On they on dope 'r whut?

Bunty - Do you think the underground drug market would go away if marijuana was legalized, taxed and sold in stores? Don't you think other marijuana would continue to be sold, and just marketed differently: "This stuff is way stronger (or cheaper) than that crap you can buy in the store!"? Teenagers, who I assume would still be prohibited from buying/legally smoking would still buy and smoke, and probably at higher levels, as the stuff would be more available.

Anyone who smokes now, and calls it a victimless crime has evidently failed to look south of the border. How anyone can partake with a clear conscious is beyond me. And the "I only smoke what I grow" argument is silly and pointless as there are still tons of the stuff coming across the border.

A more shocking, and possibly effective approach might be to actually prosecute and convict the middle-class white kids who get caught at the same rate as some of the others who get caught and spend time in jail/prison.

I'm all for legalizing marijuana like alcohol. Doing so would take the underground market for it away from criminals and cartels. People would not have to engage in pushers enticing them to try out something worse, like meth. I don't hear of pushers trying to make money by selling something legal, such as alcohol and cigarettes to kids or anyone else. With alcohol so widely available, what accounts for underage kids saying marijuana is easier to get a hold of than alcohol? Or do you think that is only a ridiculous myth and far from true?

Trying to put more people in overcrowded prisons over marijuana convictions would lead further in wondering where do you house them without crowding out murderers, rapists and child molesters.

An Oklahoma lawyer and former judge has suggested what can be done to do away with the insane laws against marijuana in Oklahoma. Raid frat houses at OSU and OU. Parents would be outraged over the charges and possible severe punishments while demanding their legislators do something about it. Stepping on the toes of rich people can get results.

Marijuana is without a doubt less harmful to health than alcohol and cigarettes. If the result of legalizing marijuana means less partaking of alcohol and cigarettes, then good. Tobacco farmers could turn to marijuana or hemp if made legal. That would be very good, too. Banning marijuana has gone on as a failed experiment upon society more than long enough.

One additional point you didn't mention: once made legal and taxed, as are alcohol and tobacco, the full weight of law enforcement descends on anyone who attempts to create an untaxed underground market. You don't see much moonshine being sold in these parts, nor bootleg cigarettes. Even in the days when our area was "dry" the bootleggers were careful to keep their FEDERAL taxes paid...

If anyone does try the strict enforcement, though, I hope they will also employ the "total confiscation" laws to the fullest. Taking over the frat houses and students' automobiles would be guaranteed to get these laws off the books also!

Just for grins and giggles lets say that 6.25% of Oklahomans are currently spending a hundred dollars a month for marijuana. Lets say that it is taxed at a rate of 20% the state would now be collecting 45 million annually or about 3.75 million monthly. Additionally the cost to regulate the industry would probably be lower than the current cost of enforcement.

Guys, this is about OKC's image. We are off topic discussing politics and laws outside the scope of state powers.

How much does it cost the tax payer when the police take someone to jail then court for a joint or a bag of weed?
Just asking because I have no idea what the answer is but I know it has to be quite a bit from start to finish. I imagine that the Lawyers/Bail bondsmen would be against passing maryjane.

But if you want to change OKCs image then get that on the ballot. Put the dealers out of business and save the tax payer millions of dollars.

In todays DOK editorials, a little blurb about OKC, Tampa and Indianapolis gaining big league status in the latest issue of World magazine.

World Magazine is a Christian news site. Here's the link to the story "Joining the Big Leagues (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/19209)": http://www.worldmag.com/articles/19209

I am a regular churchgoer, but this is the kind of story that contributes to our "image" issues (and, as others have noted, OKC's image is connected to the state's image):

The Oklahoma House has adopted a resolution declaring “Oklahoma - In God We Trust!” as the state’s official motto.

http://normantranscript.com/new/x1119204109/Oklahoma-House-approves-In-God-We-Trust-for-state-motto

The Oklahoma House has adopted a resolution declaring “Oklahoma - In God We Trust!” as the state’s official motto.

well i do trust God more than our Oklahoma legislators...

well i do trust God more than our Oklahoma legislators...

Even atheists trust God more than our legislators.

I know this is an old thread, but this is something I've seen quite a bit on other forums and in the comments section of national headlines any time OKC is mentioned so I want to chime in.

OKC's image problem is still very much alive and well. Some things can't be helped such as the tornadoes and people's fear of severe weather. Other things, such as the perception that this city is backwards, boring, and doesn't offer much for young single people can be changed. Most people on OKCTalk know those stereotypes are outdated, but people that primarily go to other forums or get their info on OKC from other sources don't know that. Living in far NW OKC myself, a part of town where the stereotypes are mostly accurate, only recently have I really branched out to discover what this city really offers in its core and it really is surprising me in a good way. Many of the things I enjoyed in Charlotte are also offered here, I just didn't realize it. It seems to me the stereotype is largely based on what OKC used to be in the late 1980s and early 1990s. My question is, what is it going to take to really show the nation that this city has changed? The national attention this city is getting with the Thunder is helping, but a lot of people still cling to old stereotypes. Friends of mine back in Charlotte really like to make fun of OKC on a frequent basis when we talk. On the flipside, the one friend of mine who actually came and visited OKC from Charlotte was very impressed and said it was nothing like what he envisioned.

Personally, without getting too political, I think its going to take Oklahoma County going blue on a Presidential election map or at least electing a social progressive to a high office. Like it or not, it's not popular in 2013 to be a Republican (and I lean Republican myself). I am not a fan of Shadid and won't vote for him, but the one thing I can say if he wins is having such a social progressive as mayor will help this city's image. In addition to that, it may just take more time. Stereotypes take a long time to develop and they usually last far beyond their truthfulness. Thoughts?

Glad to see you warming up to OKC finally. It generally takes some time, and the best this area offers can sometimes take some exploring.

As far as the "image" of OKC changing, the only thing that will change that is time. And lots of it. The Thunder do help. But little things as well. The Forbes/Fortune/Money Magazine lists for "best of" by themselves are pretty shallow but you'd be surprised how many in the masses get their information from low-data sources like these. And OKC consistently being on them helps a lot. And then there's the constant BLS reports that show OKC as having the lowest unemployment rate of any big city right now. Those are published by newspapers all over the country. Those things add up.

At the same time you will NEVER irradiate stereotypes of places. Everyone judges everywhere. Ever hear the story of the warm, friendly New Yorker or the humble, down-to earth Texan? Likely not. Its a waste of time to try and convince these people that OKC is anything other than their preconceived notion. Frankly most people who view OKC negatively probably are the types that hate all of "flyover county." Oh well, their loss...

I say this as a registered Democrat, but electing someone like Shadid will not change anything about how OKC is viewed just based on the fact he is a social progressive. Yes he's liberal, but he's also bumbling and poorly spoken and will likely just piss everyone off. At this point political affiliation doesn't matter. OKC (and Oklahoma) just need a politician who will be a good public face and won't ramble about Agenda 21, abortion, Obama, etc. The type of gov OKC is allows for the mayor to act as a consensus builder and ambassador, and it is here where Cornett shines, independent of his political persuasion.

Glad to see you warming up to OKC finally. It generally takes some time, and the best this area offers can sometimes take some exploring.

True. I have found OKC to be the kind of place where a lot of people live in their own bubble so I think that makes it a little more difficult to branch out sometimes and therefore makes it more difficult to adjust especially if moving from somewhere with a more cohesive scene. For instance, if you live in Edmond or NW OKC and hang out with people who also live in those areas, its very rare that you will ever go downtown unless its for a concert or a Thunder game.



As far as the "image" of OKC changing, the only thing that will change that is time. And lots of it. The Thunder do help. But little things as well. The Forbes/Fortune/Money Magazine lists for "best of" by themselves are pretty shallow but you'd be surprised how many in the masses get their information from low-data sources like these. And OKC consistently being on them helps a lot. And then there's the constant BLS reports that show OKC as having the lowest unemployment rate of any big city right now. Those are published by newspapers all over the country. Those things add up.

Agreed. Those lists are important because a lot of people rate cities based off them. It's very nice to see OKC starting to make some of them. 10 years ago, there is no way this city would appear on any lists for anything positive at least.



At the same time you will NEVER irradiate stereotypes of places. Everyone judges everywhere. Ever hear the story of the warm, friendly New Yorker or the humble, down-to earth Texan? Likely not. Its a waste of time to try and convince these people that OKC is anything other than their preconceived notion. Frankly most people who view OKC negatively probably are the types that hate all of "flyover county." Oh well, their loss...

OKC has a much worse perception issue than even most of flyover country and in fact its hard to think of any major city that has a worse image problem. People view places like Kansas City, Omaha, Wichita, Des Moines, and even Tulsa much more positively than they do OKC. The only reason I can think of that OKC gets so much dislike from outsiders is A) the conservatism and B) the outdated perceptions that hail from the late 1980s/early 1990s.



I say this as a registered Democrat, but electing someone like Shadid will not change anything about how OKC is viewed just based on the fact he is a social progressive. Yes he's liberal, but he's also bumbling and poorly spoken and will likely just piss everyone off. At this point political affiliation doesn't matter. OKC (and Oklahoma) just need a politician who will be a good public face and won't ramble about Agenda 21, abortion, Obama, etc. The type of gov OKC is allows for the mayor to act as a consensus builder and ambassador, and it is here where Cornett shines, independent of his political persuasion.

Completely agree here. That's why I hope Cornett runs and will vote for him if he does. I am just saying that OKC really needs more outspoken social progressives to help dispel the myth that if you aren't a religious conservative extremist you can't make it here.

Personally, without getting too political, I think its going to take Oklahoma County going blue on a Presidential election map or at least electing a social progressive to a high office. Like it or not, it's not popular in 2013 to be a Republican (and I lean Republican myself). I am not a fan of Shadid and won't vote for him, but the one thing I can say if he wins is having such a social progressive as mayor will help this city's image. In addition to that, it may just take more time. Stereotypes take a long time to develop and they usually last far beyond their truthfulness. Thoughts?
But in Oklahoma, never in history has it been so dang popular to go for the Republican agenda. Being pro God, pro gun and anti gay still highly crucial to get out the vote. So OKC is fortunate to still have at least a couple of state legislators, Democrats, who are at least somewhat on the progressive side and to name two of them: Sen. Connie Johnson and Sen. Al Maffrey.

For what it's worth, I'm pro-God and pro-Gay, pro-legalization of pot, and pro-gay marriage. So where does that put me?

To add to your post, we have a few more progressives besides the two you mentioned but I hear you loud and clear and agree 100%.

I say this as a registered Democrat, but electing someone like Shadid will not change anything about how OKC is viewed just based on the fact he is a social progressive. Yes he's liberal, but he's also bumbling and poorly spoken and will likely just piss everyone off.

I agree with your premise, but Shadid is not "liberal." I'm not even sure he would refer to himself as a "progressive" at this point. He straddles the line somewhere between social justice issues and extreme tea party views. It's hard to characterize his politics but he's far too anti-institutional to be classified as liberal.

For what it's worth, I'm pro-God and pro-Gay, pro-legalization of pot, and pro-gay marriage. So where does that put me?



Well, out in front of the sloping foreheaded neanderthals at the State Capitol.

I agree with your premise, but Shadid is not "liberal." I'm not even sure he would refer to himself as a "progressive" at this point. He straddles the line somewhere between social justice issues and extreme tea party views. It's hard to characterize his politics but he's far too anti-institutional to be classified as liberal.

Has he changed a lot? He was very active in the Green Party and is, or was, buds with Ralph Nader.

When it comes to politics, Oklahoma isn't going to be a bastion of progressive values anytime soon. However, logical conservatives like Mick Cornett who are not afraid to go on shows such as Real Time with Bill Maher and talk up our city help the reputation tremendously. Those who disagree with his politics still respect the fact that he's not Palin-esque - trying to out conservative everyone out there. I think the Wolf Blitzer episode demonstrates that many have a very specific perception of the state.

The image problems go waaaaaayyyyyyy beyond politics and in many areas it is improving dramatically. Thank you Thunder and MAPS.

I think OKC just needs to keep doing what they're doing. We're slowly changing perceptions and the living standard here. To constantly be worried about what others thinks of us reeks of being desperate. It makes OKC seem like the unpopular kid who changes who they are depending on who their talking to at the moment because of the intense desire to want to be liked and accepted. Don't worry about what everyone else thinks of OKC. If we cotinue on this path we're on, the rest will take care of itself.

As far as politically; OKC is OKC. If you want OKC to be like Boston then you best just move to Boston. Imagine if all our cities were a carbon copy of Seattle. Or San Francisco. Or NYC. Or any other bastion of liberalism. How boring would that be? The country needs different types of cities for different types of people. We're not all the same and never will be. Look at Dallas. It's still viewed as conservative but that doesn't seem to have slowed them down any. Not being viewed as liberal and/or progressive is not a death knell for a city.

^^^Good points, traxx.

One thing I want to add though that I should have already mentioned is that I think if/when the liquor laws are ever changed that will help tremendously in improving the image of this city. If there is one area where the conservative mindset really has a huge impact on quality of life its this. Grown adults don't like being told they can't buy cold beer or buy it after 9PM. Other red states are far more liberal in that area than Oklahoma is.

This should help - not.

DreamWorks, Steven Spielberg Plan To Bring Back Tom Joad With New Version Of John Steinbeck's 'The Grapes Of Wrath' - Deadline.com (http://www.deadline.com/2013/07/dreamworks-steven-spielberg-plan-to-bring-back-tom-joad-with-new-version-of-john-steinbecks-the-grapes-of-wrath/)


DreamWorks is in talks with the estate of author John Steinbeck to make a new version of The Grapes Of Wrath.

This should help - not.

DreamWorks, Steven Spielberg Plan To Bring Back Tom Joad With New Version Of John Steinbeck's 'The Grapes Of Wrath' - Deadline.com (http://www.deadline.com/2013/07/dreamworks-steven-spielberg-plan-to-bring-back-tom-joad-with-new-version-of-john-steinbecks-the-grapes-of-wrath/)

Oh for gods sake.

I think OKC just needs to keep doing what they're doing. We're slowly changing perceptions and the living standard here. To constantly be worried about what others thinks of us reeks of being desperate. It makes OKC seem like the unpopular kid who changes who they are depending on who their talking to at the moment because of the intense desire to want to be liked and accepted. Don't worry about what everyone else thinks of OKC. If we cotinue on this path we're on, the rest will take care of itself.

As far as politically; OKC is OKC. If you want OKC to be like Boston then you best just move to Boston. Imagine if all our cities were a carbon copy of Seattle. Or San Francisco. Or NYC. Or any other bastion of liberalism. How boring would that be? The country needs different types of cities for different types of people. We're not all the same and never will be. Look at Dallas. It's still viewed as conservative but that doesn't seem to have slowed them down any. Not being viewed as liberal and/or progressive is not a death knell for a city.

I largely agree with this. OKC has gotten more good press in the last five years than it seems it ever has in history. Cornett serving on the US Council of Mayors really helped us. He used the sounding board to get OKC good -- and even flattering -- attention. It seems like he views representing our image as one of his chief concerns, and I believe he's right. It's just not easy to find someone with the media skills to represent us as well as he has.

Even things some might say are gimmicky, like his "this city is going on a diet" did so much to improve our public image, and raise our city's profile.

Also, because he doesn't have to worry about constantly propping up his conservative bona fides, he has brought many progressive issues to fruition, without controversy. As a person in leadership among all US mayors, he has worked with many people who are far more liberal, but has built bridges with them. Last week, he had Ed Rendell in town to discuss investment in public infrastructure at a Chamber luncheon. I do believe Mick is conservative, but he is also very pragmatic (his is a more nuanced conservatism) and is not afraid to try something deemed "progressive" if he things it's a good idea for our city. That is what I want to see in an elected public official.

It may be a bit early to proclaim this, but Cornett is probably the best mayor we've had in my lifetime. He certainly is the right mayor at the right time.

I think the image problem is more centered around the state as a whole, not OKC. Oklahoma City's national image is greatly improved, and if we keep doing what we are doing it'll only improve even more.

Yea, I remember in a similar discussion a while back someone arguing Tulsa was in a far better position than OKC but after looking at some of the responses to the Olympics in Tulsa it looks like there national image is not significantly different.