|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 55 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 25 of 55:
| 
Dec 4 16:07 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:21: Ann Arborites as a group also tend to have a slightly
paranoid idea of what Detroit is like. This is especially amusing since
to many of them, anything east of Carpenter Road seems to be part of
Detroit.
I actually had someone from Chelsea tell me once that they wouldn't want
to live in Ypsilanti because it was "too close to Detroit." The
physical distance between Ypsi and Detroit is signficantly larger than
the distance between Chelsea and Ypsi, but the psychological distance
seems to be something else entirely.
|
remmers
|
|
response 26 of 55:
|
Dec 4 16:40 UTC 2003 |
Heh. I had someone from northern Michigan tell me once that they'd
be very nervous about even visiting anywhere in southeast Michigan
because it's "too close to Detroit".
|
flem
|
|
response 27 of 55:
|
Dec 4 18:15 UTC 2003 |
Southeastern Michigan tends to be more liberal than worthern and western
Michigan. At least in my, admittedly narrow, experience.
|
twenex
|
|
response 28 of 55:
|
Dec 4 18:21 UTC 2003 |
Re: 16: I'd say that rural conservativism and urban left-wingism happens
pretty much everywhere. In 1975 when Franco died, the supposedly
proportional new democratic election system in Spain was explicitly
modified to give more weight to the more conservative rural areas.
RE: #25,26: In England the definition of "Northern England" and "Southern
England" (or rahter, the definition of where one changes into the other)
changes according to whether one is a Northerner or a Southerner. To a
person from Yorkshire or further North, "the South" sdtartsd at the
Southern Border of Yorkshire, whereas to someone from the very south of
England, (London, Essex, Kent, over to Devon), "the North" starts somewhere
above Birmingham, at least 100 miles South of the Southern border of
Yorkshire. Northerners and Southerners alike therefore tend tio forget that
the disputed area pretty much covers "the Midlands".
Also, in the Western Isles off the West Coast of Scotland, "the mainland"
is mainland Scotland, whereas in the Orkney and Shetland Isles, "the
mainland" is the largest island of the group, and mainland Scotland is just
"Scotland". The dialect spoken on the O. and S. Isles is not a form of
Scots English, but a form of English mixed with Norwegian, as before the
Isles became Scottish, they were ihabited by Vikings.
|
bru
|
|
response 29 of 55:
|
Dec 4 19:14 UTC 2003 |
I had a black friend who wouldn't let me drop him off at his house, just at
the end of the street, because he said it wasn't safe for white people on his
street in Ypsilanti.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 30 of 55:
|
Dec 4 19:41 UTC 2003 |
*yawn*
he was playing with your racist fears, stink-o.
|
tod
|
|
response 31 of 55:
|
Dec 4 19:51 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 32 of 55:
|
Dec 4 21:07 UTC 2003 |
re #31: ahhh, I thought it might've been Valdez or Skagway from your
description, but that was based on the assumption that it was the '64
quake. dunno about '59. Valdez was almost completely trashed in '64,
though.
The earthquake's shaking immediately caused failure and
liquefaction of the material along Valdez' waterfront.
A giant portion of the unconsolidated sediments, with
dimensions approximately 1,220 meters long and 183
meters wide, slid into the sea. The landslide carried
the dock area of Port of Valdez and a large portion of
the waterfront. Within two to three minutes after the
landslide, a destructive local tsunami wave, 9- 12 meters
high, slammed into the remaining waterfront. The wave
demolished what was left of the waterfront facilities,
causing the loss of Valdez' fishing fleet, and inundating
about two blocks ot the town. Additionally, the waves
caused the tanks at the Union Oil Company to rupture,
starting a fire that spread across the entire waterfront,
and thus destroying the few structures that were still
standing.
Interesting photo of a fishing vessel, driven onto the shore by
the force of the wave, where it struck and destroyed a Texaco
chemical tanker:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/tsunamis/alaska/1964/photosmaps/1964valdezweb2.jp
g
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 55:
|
Dec 4 21:37 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 34 of 55:
|
Dec 4 21:45 UTC 2003 |
(9-12 meters is 27 to 36 feet, roughly, or between two and three storeys.
Big wave.)
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 55:
|
Dec 4 21:48 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 36 of 55:
|
Dec 4 21:50 UTC 2003 |
I'm assuming that that second link is a put-on..
|
bhoward
|
|
response 37 of 55:
|
Dec 4 23:15 UTC 2003 |
Try this one:
http://www.drgeorgepc.com/Tsunami1958LituyaB.html
|
russ
|
|
response 38 of 55:
|
Dec 5 01:39 UTC 2003 |
Re #11: That's one reason why I've argued that parts of
Detroit should be able to secede and form independent
cities. Smaller cities tend to work better due to greater
responsiveness to citizens, and if the dysfunctional
government can be progressively disempowered the overall
scope of the problem shrinks. Shrink it sufficiently and the
remaining people might find it manageable enough to change.
I find Detroit's complaints about control of the water company
to be whining. The population of 1940's Detroit spread all
across the tri-county area just like its services, and the idea
that the people who stayed in the city should have exclusive
power over an asset which the others had a much larger role in
building is just special pleading.
Besides, if it keeps the Detroiters from using the water company
as another patronage plum it improves things all around.
|
gull
|
|
response 39 of 55:
|
Dec 5 14:24 UTC 2003 |
I think if the suburbs don't like the deal they're getting from Detroit
they can form their own water companies. No one forced them to tie into
the Detroit system, which is straining to keep up with the sprawl the
suburbs have been encouraging. It seems to me that the suburbs want new
areas covered and the old ones upgraded, and they don't want to pay for
any of it.
The suburbs hate Detroit, and if they get control of the water company
they'll no doubt cut off maintenance for everything inside the city
limits and just let it decay.
|
scott
|
|
response 40 of 55:
|
Dec 5 14:49 UTC 2003 |
Except that starting a water company is not simple or easy, especially if you
happen to be located on a river.
|
scott
|
|
response 41 of 55:
|
Dec 5 14:50 UTC 2003 |
"especially if you DO NOT happen to be located on a river"
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 55:
|
Dec 5 14:52 UTC 2003 |
No, it's not easy. They should think about this when they grumble about
someone else charging them for those costs.
|
slynne
|
|
response 43 of 55:
|
Dec 5 15:04 UTC 2003 |
I have to agree with gull. No one is forcing the suburbs to use
Detroit's water system. If they dont want to buy water from Detroit at
the price Detroit sets, they can start their own water utilities. One
doesnt have to be near a river either. Ann Arbor isnt tied into the
Detroit system and gets most of its water from wells.
|
twenex
|
|
response 44 of 55:
|
Dec 5 16:30 UTC 2003 |
Re: 38: Russ, this has been tried before in the
UK and din't work. we ended up consolidating
metrolitanm areas, which had previous been in a
system of "county boroughs" with county-level
responsibilities and home rule, into
"metropolitan counties"; and even after Thatcher
abolished the actual counties because they were
hotbeds of opposition to her government, it was
found necessary to form cross-border
inter-district authorities for certain services
like police, sewage, water-supply, and fire
services.
|
gull
|
|
response 45 of 55:
|
Dec 5 17:08 UTC 2003 |
Even here in Michigan, there are a lot of small cities that are having
to either dissolve or merge with other cities because they're no longer
able to fund services on their own. Hamtramick is one example. I'm not
sure splitting up Detroit is the answer; I think you'd just end up with
a bunch of Hamtramicks.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 46 of 55:
|
Dec 5 18:51 UTC 2003 |
There's no "i" in Hamtramck.
|
slynne
|
|
response 47 of 55:
|
Dec 5 19:57 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, is Highland Park doing all that much better than Detroit?
|
gull
|
|
response 48 of 55:
|
Dec 5 20:22 UTC 2003 |
Re #46: I wondered, but I did a Google search and enough hits came up
with it spelled that way that I was convinced. That'll teach me to use
Google as a spell checker.
|
khamsun
|
|
response 49 of 55:
|
Dec 6 03:48 UTC 2003 |
Re #17: yes, Motown ! (I don't know why, I was seeing Motown in
Minneapolis or Chicago :-[..).About Detroit Techno: I had no clue, never
associated the techno movement with Detroit, but well since I generally
don't like techno, I never paid much attention...
Re #19: scott, if I meet your brother in Oslo where i live now, i
promise we'll have some drinks to Michigan. Sk l ! (And Oslo is such a
small place I maybe shop each day at the same market than him...)
Re #18 & #21: Ann Harbor snobbish ?
Re #24: >organizations that still believe that they will
>start the revolution with a memograph machine and a street
>corner.
kind of hippies or heritage of old good unionism ?
BTW, I was recently reading again "The Jungle" of Upton Sinclair (meat
packing plants in Chicago) and I made the connection with the life of a
famous norwegian writer who spent 3 and then 2 years as a young
scandinavian immigrant in Illinois/Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin.He got
very interested by the anarchists and unionists movements of that time
(end 19th).Then he went back to Norway and gave out some very critical
essays against capitalism in the US.
From all that one gets the feeling that north mid-west has been the
working core of strong industrialization in the US.Truth ?
As candidates are going in the race for next year election, there must
be more "street corners" around ?
Re #28: about north/south. Considering Norway it's rather funny.The
country has a shape like Chile: very long from south to north and very
tight. One can figure you put a line in the geometrical middle to have
south and north parts.No. "south" is the very southern east cost under
the Oslo fjord and in front of Danmark, "west" is the very south-western
coast looking south to the skottish islands (O. & S.)."East" is the very
small piece between Oslo and the southern swedish border."north" is from
the polar circle to the russian border.The big gap in between is
geographically...nowhere. Then they are two words for south: "s r" is
the one to name a southern place _in_ Norway, and "syden" is the one to
name countries in the south _of_ Norway. Ie. almost the rest of the
world after you cross the danish border...
As i am not a native and I began by living in the very north whose
climatical, geographical and cultural characteristics extend to
Trondheim (about 20 hours boat south of polar circle) I always felt Oslo
(600 kms south of Trondheim) is very in the south.But osloers feel they
are really far enough north from the "south".On the phone I must pay
attention to tell people I live in Oslo and not in the south, or they
figure out I'm living about 200 ou 300 kms south of my real place...
Oops, sorry for that long speech.
In used to spend autumn in Scottland, Western Ross, in the mid-90's.
Very very pleasant places (and good whiskies...)
|