Archive for the 'angry people' Category

Moved again…

Published October 24th, 2008 in moving, recession, transit, public transportation, big three, economy, Michigan, rants, poverty, angry people and Detroit. 0 Comments

After five months in D.C., an opportunity to move to Denver, Colorado presented itself. Not ones to pass up an opportunity to try out a city we’ve always thought would be great to live in, we packed up on short notice and drove the Budget rental truck to Denver. We liked D.C. The area had more than enough job, and cultural opportunities, but is just a tad expensive, and slightly hot and humid. Our plan was to stay longer than five months, but some opportunities are too difficult to pass up. Denver is a city with a feeling similar to another city we’ve lived in; Portland, Oregon. Granted, the weather is completely different, as is the geographical location, but the progressive, easy to live in feeling one gets in Denver is the same one finds in Portland. The recreational opportunities, diversity of small and medium sized businesses, and the entreprenurial spirit, also is shared between the two cities. Denver, however, beats the pants off of Portland when it comes to weather. Over 300 days of sun, and nice dry weather combine to create one nice place to locate a city.

The move, new work, new recreational opportunities, and great weather have made it difficult to post much to the Motor(less)city. Additionally, living away from Detroit for any period of time, makes the anger and frustration, which spawned this site, simply melt away. The problems the area faces are arguably worse now than they were when we left in February, but now seem more distant, and frankly, less our problem, and more there problem (and possibly if you are reading this from Metro Detroit - your problem). The Big Three are in more trouble, the real estate market, the job market, the mayor is going to prison (that’s probably actually a good thing in the long run), and the overall health of the economy seems even worse,  but they don’t seem to make me quite as angry anymore. That’s bad. Not for me, but for Metro Detroit. I’m sure I’m not the only one that feels this way either.

Metro Detroit is our home. Our family lives there, and we own a house there, but our commitment to the area is disappearing. We got angry about the reliance on one industry, the lack of foresight on issues such as transit, urban planning, anti-smoking legislation, and recreational opportunities for the state. Our anger on these issues (and others) angered others in Metro Detroit. They wanted us to love the area un-conditionally. “It’s a pretty good place to live” we were always told, as if we were supposed to ignore the glaring poverty, crumbling infrastructure, and absolutely no plan for the future. Ignoring Detroit (and Michigan’s) problems is like ignoring the addiction of a loved one. You may be able to convince yourself that all is well, but it doesn’t change the reality of the situation, and eventually the price will have to be paid.

Leaving Metro Detroit, and eventually losing my anger towards the area, is like giving up on an addicted loved one. It’s better for me, but it’s worse for the one left behind. Eventually you realize that it’s not your responsibility, and the anger subsides. Unfortunately, so does the desire to force change. When enough others find themselves in the same situation as myself, Metro Detroit will have lost the very people it needs to enact the change that is necessary to make the area into what it needs to be in order to survive into the future.

So if my rants are fewer and far between, or less angry, it’s because I just don’t care as much anymore. Sure I hope it turns around. And I hope that one day I have the desire to return and start up a new business in the area, but right now, it’s just not my problem…

On the other hand, I’ve been contacted by someone at least as angry, who has also experienced the possibilities great cities offer, and who would like to get a little bit of frustration off their chest. Hopefully, they’ll be able to put some interesting thoughts on this site.

Common sense prevails…

Published November 7th, 2007 in christians, berkley, intolerance, religion, angry people, rants, politics, politicians and Michigan. 0 Comments

Well, finally, for me at least, some good news. Common sense prevailed over stubborn and misplaced religious conviction or some kind of possibly damaging desire to remain firmly entrenched in the past. As has been reported fairly extensively in the local, and sometimes national and international, news, there has been a fight in Berkley over whether or not to amend the city’s charter to not only allow, but require a 4′ x 4′ minimum nativity scene on the city’s property.

Most people didn’t have a problem with the city’s holiday displays, however somebody did. They contacted the ACLU and together asked the city to remove the religious display, or possibly face a lawsuit. Now some people are going to complain that the ACLU is out to get conservatives or some other b.s., when in fact the ACLU has come to the aid of such, so called, conservative individuals as, Sen. Larry Craig, and none other than Rush Limbaugh. Of course it’s easy to bash someone who defends something you don’t like, but the truth is it’s very difficult to defend something you don’t like, such as individuals who trash talk your organization on the radio on a daily basis. The true testament to the ACLU, is that they will defend anyone’s civil liberties, regardless of political affiliation.

As much as the “Say yes to the nativity scene” folks would like this to be about the ACLU, it wasn’t. After the initial contact from a Berkley resident and the ACLU, the Berkley City Council implemented a plan, originally proposed by the clergy of a local Christian church, to move the nativity scene off of the City’s property, to a location two blocks away on Church property, where it would be displayed without various other Christmas decorations such as presents and Santa Claus, and other religion’s holiday decorations. The beauty of this plan was that those who think the nativity scene represents the true spirit of Christmas get to have a nativity scene unencumbered by distracting non-Christian decorative items, those who don’t believe that the government should be in the business of setting up religious displays at tax payer expense were happy, and the city wouldn’t get sued! Who loses? No one.

Of course someone has to rain on the parade. And that someone unfortunately was the Thomas Moore Law Center, who came into town with a faux citizen action group, claiming that they could tell Berkley citizen’s were upset that they were not going to have a nativity scene (lie number one), that there was an attack on Christian values underway (lie number two), and that the lawsuit would not cost the city of Berkley anything (lie number three).

Well the city didn’t agree. They liked the solution that was already in place. And a whole group of Berkley residents didn’t agree either and formed there own, truly grass roots action group. The group, unlike the “yes” group, did not have outside funding from a group like the Thomas Moore Law Center, was not in partnership with any outside groups, did not bring in citizen’s from other countries (yes, you heard it right, the “yes” group brought in citizen’s of Canada to help in their “cause”), did have all of the Berkley clergy on their side, and the support of all the area’s major newspapers. And after yesterday’s vote, apparently a majority of Berkley’s citizens.

The final result? 55% of voters voted against the charter amendment, and 45% voted for. Fox news made this sound like a close margin of victory, when in reality it was a margin of 10%, which is much higher than the margin of most presidential races.

So common sense prevailed over religious fervor. On election night one disappointed “yes” supporter stated that this was a case of intolerance of Christians. Hopefully she didn’t really believe it, but said it out of anger. This is, of course, not about tolerance or intolerance of the Christian religion. If she wanted to view it as any kind of intolerance, she would have to see that it would be closer to plain old religious intolerance. After all no religious items will be displayed by city hall during any holiday. No one singled out Christianity. It just so happened that the city was violating the first amendment by displaying only Christian holiday display. Of course the “yes” supporters offered to put in a Star of David. But would that do it? Who decides which religious group gets representation? Do the Wickens get a display? How about the Pagans? If the city decides, then that is a clear violation of the first amendment. Also, if this was indeed intolerance of Christians then who is to blame? After all it was a member of a Christian church that proposed the solution. Christian members of the city council supported it, and by the numbers, at least some Christians voted against the charter amendment. So I guess, if it is indeed intolerance of Christians, it was in part at least, carried out by Christians in the community. Do Christians not tolerate themselves?

Intolerance: unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs. This definition explains why if intolerance was shown, it was at least equally shown by those who had proposed or supported the charter amendment. Intolerance, and it’s antonym tolerance, works in more than one direction. Not being able to force a religious display to be paid for, and maintained by tax payer dollars, and displayed on tax payer property, does not constitute intolerance. Insisting that the public must support your religious display, is intolerance.

Fortunately, Berkley will not appear to outsiders (at least those with common sense) to be an intolerant community. We will, hopefully, be able to attract all kinds of people. And that we can’t afford not to do.

I’m sure you’ve all missed me…

Published October 15th, 2007 in angry people, religion, christians, berkley, politicians, politics, Michigan, rants, race and Detroit. 0 Comments

Wow, it’s been a whole month since my last post. How has everyone survived without my witty rhetoric? All one of you have survived just fine I’m sure.

So what’s going on? Well the big holiday tradition of arguing over nativity scenes has begun again. Apparently we’ve forgotten that the holiday’s are supposed to be about love, kindness, sharing, giving, and forgiveness. Instead we threaten each other, call each other names, and insist that our religious display on public property is our god given right. “That’s right, damn it! I can do what ever I want! It’s a free country…”

Here’s the arguments:

“It’s always been that way.” Umm, no it hasn’t…

“The constitution guarantees me the right to display a nativity scene on public property.” Umm, no it doesn’t…  If you think it does, you’re going to have to point out where in the constitution that appears.

“This is what the founding father’s intended.” Umm, no it’s not…   Remeber Thomas Jefferson, and that First Amendment thing…

“Nobody complained about it before.” Umm, not to you, and so what? We used to have slaves. A lot of people were perfectly happy with that set up. Things change. Stop being the “grumpy old man.”

“It’s an attack against Christianity.” Umm, no it’s not… nobody other than people at your church (maybe), cares about your religious beliefs. Nor should they. They’re your beliefs, and you have the right, just as everyone else has, to practice, or not practice what ever religious beliefs you have. That doesn’t mean that you get to tell the government what religion they should support.

Let’s take a look at the First Amendment, (specifically the Free Exercise Clause) for the benefit of those who’ve forgotten their history lessons.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “

So, the first part is pretty clear: ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” That means that laws, such as the charter amendment proposed in Berkley, Michigan, can’t be passed requiring the government to support certain religions. Requiring a “minimum, 4′ by 4′ nativity with proportional figures…” as the language of the proposal contains, would clearly violate the first part of the first amendment. Someone will point out that it says “Congress…”, meaning that it only applies to the Federal government, so of course I have to point to the 14th Amendment as well, which includes the Equal Protection Clause.

Now, of course, this is the part where the person supporting nativity scenes on public property says, “but it also says, ‘or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’, so we should be allowed to display a nativity scene. They always say we, as if it’s everyone, which it’s not, but that’s not the point anyway. What is the point is that our protections in the constitution and it’s amendments protect individual liberties. That means that while you can practice your religion, you can’t force it on others (which would violate their civil liberties, and the first amendment) by creating laws requiring displays of your religious icons on public property.

I have a right to do with my property as I please, however, that right only goes so far as it doesn’t impinge on some one else’s right. Requiring a nativity scene, or any religious icons, on public property infringes on the individuals protection from the establishment of religion by government, however the removal of a nativity scene from public property in no way infringes on any individuals right to practice their own religion. In order for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to violate the clause, “…or prohibiting the free exercise there of…”, there would have to be a law restricting your ability to practice your religion or preventing you from worshiping as required by your religion. The moving of a nativity scene from city hall to a church, does neither of these things. You can still read the bible, pray, go to church, and celebrate all religious holidays. There is no “thinly veiled attack on Christian’s…” There is no burning of churches, bibles, or raiding of church services (at least not Christian ones). Christians are not beat up, jailed, or ridiculed. For crying out loud, the majority of American’s call themselves Christians. If Christian’s are being attacked, who’s doing it? Give me a break…

Smokers suck

Published September 6th, 2007 in angry people, smoking, losers, rants, Michigan and Detroit. 0 Comments

Alright two posts in one day. Why? Because I’m pissed off!

One big difference between Metro Detroit and other areas I like better is the attitude of smokers. Here, it’s a God given right to blow your smoke in others faces. And when you’re done doing that, you can throw your cigarette butt on the ground. Apparently in Metro Detroit a cigarette butt is not garbage. Hey idiots, have you ever heard of an ash tray? They come in every car. No need to throw your butts out the window.

We went to Denver, one of our favorite cities, for vacation, and spent time walking around downtown. The whole day we only came across one smoker. As she walked by she finished up her cigarette. Instead of the usual Detroiter action of throwing the butt on the ground, she bent over (a series of joints that collectively make up the waist that allows this function in advanced human beings) and put her cigarette out on the pavement. Then she stood up straight again, and put the cigarette in the garbage ( which by the way wasn’t overflowing into the street like the ones in Royal Oak usually are)! It was like the clouds broke, heavenly music began playing, and sun beams shown down on us. I couldn’t believe that a smoker could actually act civilized! I’d rarely seen such behavior, and certainly never in Detroit. Next time you stop at a light on Woodward (or any street for that matter), take a look down at the street. Does it look like sh*t? Probably. Do you see thousands of cigarette butts? Probably.

Why don’t people like it here? Yeah, that’s real hard to figure out. Robert Merton wrote about the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy once. Metro Detroiters, by making the area they live in so crappy that no one wants to be here (other than themselves), are creating there own self-fulfilling prophecy where no one wants to live here, and they’ll be able to blame it all on those who have left, while they sit and stew in their burned out shell of a city.

The other night I went for a run. As I ran near Beaumont Hospital, I ran through three clouds of smoke from hospital employees who had to leave the premises to smoke. While I applaud Beaumont’s smoke free policy, I can’t imagine Beaumont putting up with other addictions that interfere with worker productivity. Imagine a sex addict having to take four breaks a day to go have sex for half an hour at a time. The argument that it’s “my right” is complete B.S. There are plenty of things that are your right to do, as long as they don’t interfere with your job, don’t take place during work hours, don’t harm the health of others, and don’t make the employer look bad. Smoking in the surrounding neighborhood does all of these things. If Beaumont’s smokers can’t keep their smoking to before and after work, they should be fired. There are plenty of non-smoking workers who can get more work done in a day, have lower health costs, and need the work just as badly. Hire them. If a smoker wants their job badly, they’ll quit smoking, which Beaumont should be happy to help fund, or they’ll use a nicotine patch during the day, or they’ll manage to make it through a full work day without indulging they’re addiction.

Metro Detroit bars and restaurants are fighting a smoking ban that is already in affect in places such as California, New York, Ireland, and Italy. New York and California, at least, have reported that business is up. As a former smoking relative from California told me, “it allowed non-smokers to actually go to the bar, and enjoy it, and it didn’t stop smokers like myself from going.” Get in the game Detroit. Don’t be an ass backward, backwater, down and out, stick in the mud, ignorant outpost. Please…

VW is leaving Detroit

Published September 6th, 2007 in angry people, jobs, economy, big three, losers, politicians, Michigan, rants, politics and Detroit. 0 Comments

I heard that on the news last night. I haven’t gone and looked it up yet, because I’m betting that the first report I find about VW leaving, will be followed by loads of angry comments blaming Gov. Granholm for it. Just a moment. I’ll go look now.

Wow, talk about angry rhetoric. Seriously, this is what one comment said:

“Michigan is economically dead last.
Extreme liberalism and Bolshevism has failed this state.
Imprison the leaders of the left. Cut all Detroiters off the welfare rolls.
Dismantle the UAW.
RECALL GRANHOLM NOW!”

Thanks, “stinkpig” (yes that’s what he calls himself). So insightful. One blamed Granholm for not regulating the companies enough, though most say Michigan regulates companies too much. What’s so pathetic is those who want to blame one person for all of Michigan’s problems would never blame George Bush for all of the country’s problems. Blaming Jennifer Granholm for all of the area’s problems is not only stupid and wrong, it’s also unhelpful, and probably actually harmful to the area. So what’s the problem? The problem is YOU! Well o.k., not you, you, but the other “yous”, who are probably not even reading this (as if anyone does). The problem is this area sucks, and has sucked for as long as I can remember. It doesn’t suck because of the geography, or even the climate, (though many would argue those two points), it’s the people. Of course it’s not all the people, just the average person who finger point, yet don’t contribute, and don’t want to change (yes, getting a college degree really is a good idea). This area is conservative, and I’m not talking about values. Look up the definition of conservative, and re-read the part about seeking to preserve the status-quo. VW is not the problem. VW is progressive, and progress is not welcome in such a conservative area.

Why does the area suck so much? As I’ve said many times, it’s not the “area”, it’s the people. I just read this on Happynews.com. The writer talks about getting out of your “seat”, in a figurative manner, and trying something new, experiencing something new, meeting new people, and in general seeing things from a new perspective. It reminded me of Detroit. Every time I talk about how great other places I’ve been to or live are, I get someone interjecting how much they love Detroit, and how great it is. “Well, o.k., so the crime’s bad, but you know, there’s good sports teams, and the people are friendly.” What they mean is, “I’m comfortable here, and change scares me. Usually the person saying this is someone who hasn’t had a different job in years, goes on vacation only to places that they know, eat at the same restaurants every time, and have most likely never lived anywhere else. So of course they don’t know what they’re talking about. Here’s a newsflash. People are friendly everywhere! In fact friends from New York asked me why everyone was so unfriendly here. I said people are bitter. They had a good thing going, and they didn’t really have to do anything, and now they’ve had their good thing taken away, and they don’t have a clue as to what to do. They won’t try a new “seat.” The unknown is scarier to them then the shi*ty situation they’re already in.

This is why VW, and anyone who is slightly progressive, is getting the heck out of town. Michigan’s in trouble because we rely on one industry, and three companies to provide the entire economy of the area. Without the Big Three, were would Detroit be? Where are the entrepreneurs? Sure you can find a few, but a thriving area has thousands. And I’m not talking about someone who started a lawn care company, I’m talking about progressive entrepreneurial-ism. We just don’t have it, period. Anyone who feels the way I do is itching to get out. Those who liked Detroit the way it was can stay. They can blame all those who are leaving for there problems, or they can do something about it. My guess is they’ll blame those who leave, and won’t fix it.

Oh yeah, one more thing. It’s not the taxes you idiots! Michigan ranks right in the middle as far as business taxes go, and it ranks pretty darn well as far as individual taxes go. There are two states in particular that have great economies, but rank way below Michigan. They would be New York, and California. If it was taxes, those two states would be in our situation, and they’re not.

Newt slams Detroit…

Published July 31st, 2007 in losers, angry people, politicians, politics, Michigan, rants and Detroit. 0 Comments

Wow, now I feel vindicated. I always said Detroit sucked, now I know Detroit sucks. Thanks Newt!

Apparently Newt thinks Detroit’s a disaster. Newt should know a thing or two about disasters…

Few things anger me more than Detroit’s inability to do anything right, but a self-righteous politician, preaching morality while cheating on his wife would be one of them. Newt should just shut up and go away once and for all…

In other news people died in Detroit again last night while stealing cars, and the Mayor still wants to knock down Tiger Stadium to create a vacant lot…I mean to make way for the wave of new construction about to hit the area…

GM did post it’s second quarterly profit in a row! And, apparently there are a lot of angry people on the left and the right with nothing to do in Metro Detroit. Just read the comments to any story about Michigan or Detroit on the Free Press web site. Everything’s the fault of the Right or the Left, depending on your leaning. Get a life… and maybe a job that keeps you a little busier, or a just a job…

About

You are currently browsing the The Motor(less) City weblog archives for the angry people category.

Longer entries are truncated. Click the headline of an entry to read it in its entirety.