The type of theist I like and respect...

Monster · May 21, 2014

But I do think the word "racist" is inaccurate.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/...r-sinning-more-racist-to-deny-climate-change/

Roman Catholic priest Rev. Edwards Beck, who believes that denying climate change is a sin, on Wednesday lashed out at game show host Pat Sajak after he compared environmental activists to racists.

On Monday night, Sajak had*taken to Twitter*to attack climate change believers.

?I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night,? the longtime*Wheel of Fortune*host wrote.

?The church has indicated that this is a moral issue,? Beck explained to CNN?s Carol Costello on Wednesday. ?We?re stewards of creation, we need to care for it. This is God?s gift to us. And if you abuse it, then you are really maligning that gift.?

The reverend pointed out that Sajak had not thought the comparison to racism all of the way through.

?What?s interesting to me is ? the racist, unpatriotic ? is how you link the two,? Beck said. ?I think the argument could be made that it is more racist to deny climate change because those being effected by it are the poor. The global poor are effected most by climate change, not the rich, who can afford air conditioning, and who can get around all the deleterious effects of climate change.?

Evangelical Rev. Mitchell Hescox told Costello that he was praying for Sajak to get over his ?angry hatredness.?

?You just have to look at the world around you,? he added. ?You know, the world is changing. And we need to do something about it before it?s too late.?

Michchamp · May 21, 2014

interesting.

I wonder how my climate-change denying Catholic father will react to the news that the Church has taken this position.

"You must choose between your christian god, or big corporations & those they make wealthy, Conservative Man."

"No. NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Anything but that!"

turok · May 21, 2014

I always felt that Sajak's cheerfulness was just a veil to shroud his indifference if not outright contempt for the contestants on WOF, just by listening to him speaking on the show. As far as Vanna White, one would think that she would have retired a decade ago, and let some other younger eye-candy babe press the letters. Funny how she has always been redundant, since even back in the 60s, there were similar game shows such as "Concentration" where each of the board's numbers were mechanically turned...twice. Once to reveal the question, and if answered correctly, again to reveal part of a clue to an image/picture, IIRC.

Gulo Blue · May 21, 2014

michchamp said:
interesting.

I wonder how my climate-change denying Catholic father will react to the news that the Church has taken this position.

"You must choose between your christian god, or big corporations & those they make wealthy, Conservative Man."

"No. NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Anything but that!"

"Pope Francis made the religious case for tackling climate change on Wednesday, calling on his fellow Christians to become “Custodians of Creation” and issuing a dire warning about the potentially catastrophic effects of global climate change."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...we-destroy-creation-creation-will-destroy-us/

"Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday he wants to wake up consciences on climate change during his pilgrimage in Australia."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/12/pope-expresses-worry-abou_n_112300.html

If you want to go back to Pope John Paul II, here's a set of quotes, but they are more general about taking care of the environment:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/climate-change-quotes.cfm

Michchamp · May 22, 2014

Gulo Blue said:
"Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday he wants to wake up consciences on climate change during his pilgrimage in Australia."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/12/pope-expresses-worry-abou_n_112300.html

That was a good place to start. The ecosystem on that continent is already probably way beyond its carrying capacity, and we already know how Australia will look after a few years of strife.

Gulo Blue said:
If you want to go back to Pope John Paul II, here's a set of quotes, but they are more general about taking care of the environment:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/climate-change-quotes.cfm

Yeah, those are more general, but obviously still apply. He hasn't been a very good Catholic, I guess.

turok · May 22, 2014

michchamp said:
That was a good place to start. The ecosystem on that continent is already probably way beyond its carrying capacity, and we already know how Australia will look after a few years of strife.

Yeah, those are more general, but obviously still apply. He hasn't been a very good Catholic, I guess.

My late father was a Master Sargent who was stationed in Australia during WWII, and he showed me some old B&W. pix of him with his platoon and a group of Aborigines. He also had a Japanese Rising Sun war flag that he took from a dead soldier.

He told me that he seriously considered moving us to Australia when we kids were younger, but decided not to b/c of the early death of my grandfather, who left my grandmother a relatively young widow.

Although my father was a deeply religious man, and never missed a Mass or Holyday chuch service unless ill, he always voted Democratic AFAIK. I really don't know when many if not most Roman Catholics began moving to the Republican Right, but perhaps it began with those voting as "Reagan Democrats" in '80.

Michchamp · May 22, 2014

turok said:
...

I really don't know when many if not most Roman Catholics began moving to the Republican Right, but perhaps it began with those voting as "Reagan Democrats" in '80.

I wonder that too in regards to my own family... both sides (Italian & Polish) ended up in Detroit in the 1910's. Except for my maternal grandfather, none of them were educated beyond high school, or even very intellectual & curious, which in my mind discounts any rational explanation for the politics they followed.

On the Italian side at least, they were pretty extreme... a lot of conspiracy theory, John Birch Society anti-communist stuff. In the 90's I remember them reading a lot of UFO-related nonsense as well, and so they were more in the "insane nutjob fascist" camp, and maybe not a very good example of mainstream catholicism & politics.

I wonder sometimes how the hell I was even related to those people...

Having lived through the race riots and a few years of Coleman Young's mayoral tenure before moving to the burbs, race was a huge thing for them, maybe on both sides the overarching motivation, and by the 80's, the GOP was clearly your ticket if you liked to rant about "the blacks."

Gulo Blue · May 22, 2014

turok said:
I really don't know when many if not most Roman Catholics began moving to the Republican Right, but perhaps it began with those voting as "Reagan Democrats" in '80.

Catholics have voted with the popular majority for decades.

2012 Obama
2008 Obama
2004 Bush
2000 Gore (who led in the popular vote)
...and then they voted in line with the winner consistently for the previous few decades.

turok · May 22, 2014

Gulo Blue said:
Catholics have voted with the popular majority for decades.

2012 Obama
2008 Obama
2004 Bush
2000 Gore (who led in the popular vote)
...and then they voted in line with the winner consistently for the previous few decades.

I should have made the distinction between white Roman Catholics, and minorities...most of whom tend to vote Democratic.

Gulo Blue · May 22, 2014

turok said:
I should have made the distinction between white Roman Catholics, and minorities...most of whom tend to vote Democratic.

True, but that's in line with the rest of the white population

2012 Romney 59%, Obama 39%
2008 McCain 55%, Obama 43%
2004 Bush 58%, Kerry 41%
2000 Bush 55%, Gore 41%

So over that past 4 elections, white Roman Catholics voted Republican -3%, -2%, -3%, and spot on relative to the general white population.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_04.html
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_00.html

turok · May 23, 2014

michchamp said:
Having lived through the race riots and a few years of Coleman Young's mayoral tenure before moving to the burbs, race was a huge thing for them, maybe on both sides the overarching motivation, and by the 80's, the GOP was clearly your ticket if you liked to rant about "the blacks."

Although the riots of '67 and the late Coleman Young becoming Detroit's first black mayor played a part, the overarching reason for white flight to the burbs/exurbs was the bussing of students to desegregate schools, and falling property values in the 60s-70s. I watched as my former beloved neighborhoods in NE Detroit began to sprout For Sale signs like dandelions. Snoozing on listing their homes meant losing more of their equity.

Growing up in that area was a lot of fun, and having mature trees, (until Dutch Elm disease resulted in many being cut down) that were so thick that even sunlight couldn't penetrate many canopied blocks...so much so that A/C wasn't necessary. Alleys and huge brick/cement porches to play in/on..we used our imaginations and bicycles to do everything outdoors, and I really wouldn't trade even a week for an entire year of living in the sterile, cookie-cutter suburbs with its strip malls back then.

Its really very sad to see what has happened to the city since '80. My teenaged friends and I used to walk the alleys @ night, but now I wouldn't risk walking down my old neighborhood sidewalk in broad daylight. At least my family's house is still intact & inhabited, the last time I drove by it last summer. I can't say the same for much of the rest of the block, 1/4 abandoned and 1/4 are just gone.

Gulo Blue · May 23, 2014

turok said:
Its really very sad to see what has happened to the city since '80.

One thing that never occurred to me 'til I read it, but is obvious when you think about it, is that since it was the predominantly the wealthy half of the population that left, the impact is dramatically greater than the population numbers show. 50% of the population accounts for about 80% of the wealth.

Michchamp · May 23, 2014

turok said:
Although the riots of '67 and the late Coleman Young becoming Detroit's first black mayor played a part, the overarching reason for white flight to the burbs/exurbs was the bussing of students to desegregate schools, and falling property values in the 60s-70s. I watched as my former beloved neighborhoods in NE Detroit began to sprout For Sale signs like dandelions. Snoozing on listing their homes meant losing more of their equity.

Growing up in that area was a lot of fun, and having mature trees, (until Dutch Elm disease resulted in many being cut down) that were so thick that even sunlight couldn't penetrate many canopied blocks...so much so that A/C wasn't necessary. Alleys and huge brick/cement porches to play in/on..we used our imaginations and bicycles to do everything outdoors, and I really wouldn't trade even a week for an entire year of living in the sterile, cookie-cutter suburbs with its strip malls back then.

Its really very sad to see what has happened to the city since '80. My teenaged friends and I used to walk the alleys @ night, but now I wouldn't risk walking down my old neighborhood sidewalk in broad daylight. At least my family's house is still intact & inhabited, the last time I drove by it last summer. I can't say the same for much of the rest of the block, 1/4 abandoned and 1/4 are just gone.

I know what you're saying. I don't think people realize what a disaster abandoning Detroit was for the area economy. It was a HUGE waste of resources, and wealth. But I suppose it would've taken a well-organized push to oppose it... and not only did you have the social & economic pressure to leave, but the state and suburban governments doing everything they could to facilitate it.

And in that stupid, rich American way, at the time, no one thought anything about the cost of building miles of new highways and roads to sprawl everything out to Clarkston, Rochester, Farmington Hills, etc.

there was a chance recently of us moving back to Michigan (not the Detroit area; west part of the state), but that would mean returning to a completely car-dependent existence... in cookie cutter suburbs. It didn't happen, but while discussing with some family members, I mentioned I was happier in Chicago... kids could walk to school eventually... we can walk to restaurants, bars, etc. There are parks everywhere, and said I didn't really want my kids growing up in that stale suburban life. That provoked a lot of hostility, which surprised me, but maybe on some level they realized it's a shittier lifestyle as well.

I know a few blue-collar Chicago families that stuck it out in the city, and by the mid 2000's were sitting on houses worth $750,000-$1 million. And these were the same properties their grandparents built in the 20's and 30's for a few thousand dollars. The same thing could've happened in Detroit, but instead, each family endured the costs of buying and selling houses a couple times, moving to cheaper and cheaper land, in less dense developments. So dumb.

turok · May 23, 2014

Gulo Blue said:
One thing that never occurred to me 'til I read it, but is obvious when you think about it, is that since it was the predominantly the wealthy half of the population that left, the impact is dramatically greater than the population numbers show. 50% of the population accounts for about 80% of the wealth.

Yeah, that is so true... plus all of the medium and small private and family-owned businesses that were forced to move out or go under as well.

Living or working in the city of Detroit required paying 3% income taxes. I don't know what the annual cost of property taxes were for homeowners and businesses now or then.

Michchamp · May 23, 2014

turok said:
Yeah, that is so true... plus all of the medium and small private and family-owned businesses that were forced to move out or go under as well.

Living or working in the city of Detroit required paying 3% income taxes. I don't know what the annual cost of property taxes were for homeowners and businesses now or then.

that always seemed nuts to me. When did they pass that?

there's no city income tax in Chicago, but lord knows the Machine here would love to get their hands on that.

it actually makes a bit of sense though; if you're working in the city or renting, you're using the city's infrastructure.

turok · May 23, 2014

michchamp said:
that always seemed nuts to me. When did they pass that?

there's no city income tax in Chicago, but lord knows the Machine here would love to get their hands on that.

it actually makes a bit of sense though; if you're working in the city or renting, you're using the city's infrastructure.

No idea of when the city began to assess the income tax, but if I am not mistaken, the city of Pontiac also had a 1% income tax, and I am pretty sure that it still does. After I went on disability retirement from the USPS about 5 years ago, they moved all of their non-retail/non-post office suburban/regional operations to a refurbished/rebuilt former GM plant in Pontiac.

turok · May 23, 2014

michchamp said:
And in that stupid, rich American way, at the time, no one thought anything about the cost of building miles of new highways and roads to sprawl everything out to Clarkston, Rochester, Farmington Hills, etc.

I know a few blue-collar Chicago families that stuck it out in the city, and by the mid 2000's were sitting on houses worth $750,000-$1 million. And these were the same properties their grandparents built in the 20's and 30's for a few thousand dollars. The same thing could've happened in Detroit, but instead, each family endured the costs of buying and selling houses a couple times, moving to cheaper and cheaper land, in less dense developments. So dumb.

Detroit once had a trolley system on the "spokes" of its main drags, such as Gratiot, Van Dyke, and Woodward, but after WWII they were eventually discontinued. The city's residents had one of the highest per-capita incomes in the US during the postwar years, but those of lesser means had only the DSR bus system to travel uptown and downtown.The fact that most owned personal transportation and worked for either the automakers or in a related industry meant that freeways and highways could be built, so instead of subways, we got "ditches."

I am certain that the domestics frowned on anything that would have greatly affected the sale of their vehicles, and did all that they could to discourage mass-transportation. I do not know about Chicago's population density, north, west or south of the city limits, Lake Michigan blocking any development to the east, just as Canada, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, and the St Clair River blocked development to the east (and the south somewhat)

Beyond Detroit's city limits, there was plenty of vacant land to the west and especially north to create sprawl, plus the Interstates of 94, 75, and 96 to facilitate it. But it is more the mile roads that define wealth and social status in the northern suburbs, as well as I 696, the western sprawl is somewhat less defined, having wealth in the cities of Birmingham, Lathrup Villiage, Bloomfield Hills, Farmington Hills, Novi, ect Seems like any city with "Hills" in its name has affluence in Metro-Detroit.

I don't know how Chicago has done so well when compared to Detroit, when it is not known for any major industry...is it Pizza? Wind? Oprah ? Sears? lol. Maybe it is because it is more diversified that Detroit, which has relied primarily upon the foibles of the automotive industry...but still....anything that Chicago does could also be done here.

Michchamp · May 27, 2014

turok said:
Detroit once had a trolley system on the "spokes" of its main drags, such as Gratiot, Van Dyke, and Woodward, but after WWII they were eventually discontinued. The city's residents had one of the highest per-capita incomes in the US during the postwar years, but those of lesser means had only the DSR bus system to travel uptown and downtown.The fact that most owned personal transportation and worked for either the automakers or in a related industry meant that freeways and highways could be built, so instead of subways, we got "ditches."

I am certain that the domestics frowned on anything that would have greatly affected the sale of their vehicles, and did all that they could to discourage mass-transportation. I do not know about Chicago's population density, north, west or south of the city limits, Lake Michigan blocking any development to the east, just as Canada, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, and the St Clair River blocked development to the east (and the south somewhat)

Beyond Detroit's city limits, there was plenty of vacant land to the west and especially north to create sprawl, plus the Interstates of 94, 75, and 96 to facilitate it. But it is more the mile roads that define wealth and social status in the northern suburbs, as well as I 696, the western sprawl is somewhat less defined, having wealth in the cities of Birmingham, Lathrup Villiage, Bloomfield Hills, Farmington Hills, Novi, ect Seems like any city with "Hills" in its name has affluence in Metro-Detroit.

I don't know how Chicago has done so well when compared to Detroit, when it is not known for any major industry...is it Pizza? Wind? Oprah ? Sears? lol. Maybe it is because it is more diversified that Detroit, which has relied primarily upon the foibles of the automotive industry...but still....anything that Chicago does could also be done here.

in regards to the streetcar thing, read this. I've noticed over the years the wikipedia article has gotten more favorable to GM & the other players in the scandal, and included hit pieces on the guys who brought the investigation. Not sure where those edits originated from, or the truth of the matter, but the fact that there was a conviction which was upheld on appeal should be enough.

I've often wondered about the differences between Chicago & Detroit as well. Chicago actually always was significantly larger, and was established as a "big city" before the 20th century. Also, Chicago was unaffected by the streetcar conspiracy thing, and mass transit stayed put here, which meant the city stayed more walkable, and neighborhoods didn't get gouged by huge disruptive freeway construction.

While Chicago suffered from white flight and suburban sprawl as well, the industries downtown (the CBOT, finance/banking & insurance) were more diverse and didn't suffer the declines the auto industry did. Also Chicago has more major universities located in or around the city (DePaul, Loyola, UIC, IIT, UofC, & Northwestern, while Detroit only has... Wayne St. & UDM I think).

Also, the geography of the city limits meant that once you crossed 8 Mile Rd., you were out of Detroit & out of the tax base and voting rolls. Chicago had a lot more areas within its boundaries that stayed... well... "developed" throughout the 60's - 90's urban decline of U.S. cities, so there were places for yuppies to move back to.

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

The type of theist I like and respect...

Forum Manager

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

About Us

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Affiliates