response 24 of 55:

Dec 4 02:29 UTC 2003

Yeah, for the most part, Michigan laws would be comfortable to liberals.  Not
liberal enough to decriminalize marijuana, but liberal enough to think nothing
of the rather active socialist, communist and survivalist organizations that
still believe that they will start the revolution with a memeograph machine
and a street corner.

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".

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.

response 30 of 55:

Dec 4 19:41 UTC 2003

*yawn*

he was playing with your racist fears, stink-o.

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

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.)

response 36 of 55:

Dec 4 21:50 UTC 2003

  I'm assuming that that second link is a put-on..

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.

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.

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.

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.

response 46 of 55:

Dec 5 18:51 UTC 2003

  There's no "i" in Hamtramck.