Okay, I have a “con”: Michigan isn’t contiguous to any of those other states.
I love that they put all this effort and money into a billboard, but messed up the abbreviation for Mississippi.
(Via).
Thanks for the catch! And, I have no idea whatsoever what a rubric's cube would be or would do. But…
Much as I like the idea of a rubric's cube, it's spelled Rubik's cube. (Now what would a rubric's cube…
Great response to the Mace bill by AOC (video at link).
@bcb: Sometimes I think the whole election was an elaborate murder-suicide plot that the entire country is carrying out.
@Megalodon: They've made it clear that their first target is trans Americans. They'll get to that mass deportation stuff when…
I don’t know about those other states but I am in favor of letting Texas leave the Union (heck, sometimes I think we should boot them out). Then we should admit Puerto Rico (if they’re agreeable). I think we would gain more culturally than we’d loose and as a bonus we’d still have fifty states… so we wouldn’t have to fiddle with the flag.
It is better to have Texas inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.
Texas is absolutely NOT inside the tent pissing out. Texas is inside the tent pissing on the usual people.
That’s just the latest thing to cross my personal desk. I don’t have time this morning, or I could link to a host of other travesties. Texas might as well be standing in the middle of the tent on a 78 rpm turntable.
Grace
Be careful what you ask for. An exchange of Texas for P.R. would be disastrous for the U.S. Texas would actually thrive on its own. Why wouldn’t it? If there were actually a serious opportunity presented to Texas for a peaceful, negotiation exit from the union, a lot of Texans and would-be immigrants from the other 49 would jump at the chance.
And all of America would breathe an enormous sigh of relief, followed by “good riddance!”
OK, the billboard is funny… but really, finding stupidity among secessionists is like finding gray hair at a Tea Party rally.
Texas is a horrific state but the issue can, and should, be resolved. The existence of the case is almost guaranteed to resolve it eventually.
It’s pretty apparent that for the near future our society will classify people’s gender. In that context, you need to have a way to do the classification. You also need a way to evaluate the classifications of other people–which may be more or less stringent than your own.
That’s part and parcel of a variety of very important larger debates. If California says that someone is male/female, does Texas have to listen to it? Presumably you don’t think that California should listen to Texas; what should be the rule? Can/should we set a minimum set of standards for determining eligibility, and should the more liberal or the more restrictive rule control?
Does it matter what the context is? It already doesn’t matter what the classification is w/r/t marriage in states that permit gay marriage. But of course, there are still a lot of other issues beyond marriage: what should be the minimum status for someone who was born male and who wishes to qualify for extra state assistance as a “women-owned business?” At what point does someone become eligible for other special services or programs which are delineated by sex? We make a lot of distinctions by gender and those don’t seem to be going away.
There’s a general thread which I might summarize as “whatever you say you are, you are.” That works OK in social settings. But it doesn’t work well in government ones.
“And all of America would breathe an enormous sigh of relief, followed by “good riddance!””
…until you saw your fuel bill this winter. Texas has about 30% of the oil refining capacity, oil production, natural gas production capacity of the United States. They’re the leader in wind power too, and ramping up on solar capacity – they already have the biggest single facility. They are the #1 state in just about every energy production category except for coal. For coal, they’re #5. Sure, let’s make them join OPEC and start charging import tariffs on a third of our energy supply. That’s a great plan.
Yeah yeah yeah, we make too much energy and it would be good for Americas to make do with less. I assume you’re a stoop laborer on an organic farm. Everybody else in America, our quality of life is pretty directly related to how much energy we have at our disposal.
Grace, that IS them pissing out. You don’t want to know what pissing in looks like.
gin-and-whiskey:
Yes, and somehow, mysteriously, other states have managed to do it with less damage to most of the people involved, particularly the people hardest hit day in and day out. Many of them aren’t perfect, but a whole lot of them are better about it than Texas.
Which is beside my point. You don’t have to reply if you don’t like me not citing references, because I genuinely do have better things to do this morning and I’m not going to spend hours on Google to re-find the many, many, many instances of Texan urination, but Texas is one of the worst states, and certainly the biggest, when it comes to dumping urine on people who aren’t adult white men.
Robert:
“It could be worse. They’ve only filled the pool with pig shit up to your waist.”
True, but hey, check out this steaming pool of pig shit and how it’s up to my waist. I’d jump for joy, but then it splatters.
Rather than try to feel grateful for the warmth, or the fact that they’re not actively shoving me down with a shovel (except that they are), I’ll just keep on working on finding a way to climb out, thanks.
Grace
I am well aware of that. The first words in my post were “Texas is a horrific state” and I meant it like I said it.
It’s precisely because of their nastiness that uber-conservative states can sometimes be a valuable catalyst. Lawrence v. Texas came out of Texas, and was damn helpful in a lot of other places. It may be that Texas law will–again–provide the catalyst for a larger framework of change and legal machinations.
Assuming that by MI they meant MS, poor Arkansas would be almost totally surrounded. I assume it’s excluded because 1) it has a tradition of democratic populism or 2) it would prevent Texas from being an absolute majority in the new empire (huh, looked it up and with with Arkansas it would Texans would still hold an absolute majority. Wonder what that deal is?)
Talking about Texas succession is silly because:
1) Texans, as a group, don’t want succession.
2) The US wouldn’t let it happen.
yrs–
–Ben
That’s a fascinating case but I’m not clear on why you think it represents such a black eye for the whole state of Texas. Aren’t Nikki and her supporters Texans?
Seems to me this is fundamentally a two-party dispute based on the claim that Nikki may not have been legally married to the man whose death benefits she is claiming. It may seem clear to you that Nikki deserves to win that battle, but the courts and state officials aren’t supposed to decide cases based on who they want to prevail; they’re supposed to decide them according to the law.
To treat a non-serious question seriously – why would they have to annex Illinois and Indiana? Alaska and Hawaii are non-contiguous with the other 48 and they’re considered part of the same country. Hell, there’s a whole ‘nother country between the lower 48 and Alaska.
Do you see the word “contiguous?”
Concerning my idea of letting Texas go (or even booting them out). I am, of course, not being serious because, as Ben Lehman points out, it will never happen. Still, one can dream. I remain convinced that the pros to the U.S. would outweigh the cons.
Just one example, without those Godless Liberals in the Supreme Court sticking there noses into everything, the fundamentalist Christians would quickly transform Texas into a proper theocracy. This would likely be a draw for fundamentalists in the U.S. to leave the country for Texas and soon nonsense like “intelligent design” and idiots like Todd “legitimate rape” Akin would become a thing of the past… or at least so rare they’ll be nothing more than an amusement.
As for worries about oil I am sure the Texans, like good conservatives, will be willing to sell us oil at market prices and if they’re not… well, they need only look at history to see what happens to oil rich countries that don’t play ball with the U. S.
Hmm… now that I think about it, this could end up with an independent Texas being liberated by the U.S. determined to spread democracy to the less enlightened foreigners (who just happen to be standing on top of a shitload of oil). Wouldn’t that be ironic?
Texas would actually thrive on its own. Why wouldn’t it?
Texas, the state, has effectively no government. The elected government is a joke and the only agency with any power is the one that protects oil drillers. Texas has the worst or near worst medical care, education, and infrastructure in the US. It’d be a disaster of a country pretty quick and then the US could buy it back.
As far as where the gas bill, well, Texas oil will have to be sold somewhere, and it’s their only cash crop so I expect there’d be no problem buying some.
It might a valuable lesson to the world to see how a corporate-run state would screw over 99% of the populace and then inevitably self-destruct, though… so maybe the experiment would be worth it.
I just can’t leave a good response here. I keep trying, as a Texas native, to put into words what this type of article and the comments make me feel. I was very put-off, and I’m a liberal Democrat.
There’s a saying in Texas. “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” It’s understandable to hate the backwards politics of Texas, and how they discriminate against trans-persons, and any other number of mistakes the state has made against the people who call it home. Those are bad policies, and a number of good people in Texas agree with you.
To hate the state itself, to actively wish harm upon the residents of that state when you don’t really know jack shit about it other than what you read in the news…..well, there’s another Texas phrase for that – “ya’ll can go fuck yourselves.”
“This type of article?” I don’t think the OP made fun of Texas at all. The billboard isn’t even in Texas. :-p
Don’t make fun of Texas, because 9/11.
Seriously.
Don’t make fun of New York, either.
I used to make fun of New York *all the time*. I made fun of Texas pretty regularly too; I’m an adoptive quasi-Texan, so I was allowed, or so I considered.
One of the best and beautifulest things about the US of A is that we have real states. Our divisions aren’t just lines on a map or different ways to say ‘soda’; they reflect real histories, real peoples, real events. (Of course other nations that have states also have real histories…but usually those histories are so old and dry and distant that they don’t matter much in terms of being a cultural marker. Our stuff happened in grandpa’s day, or on Mom’s side of the family, and right here.)
That has its downsides; prejudice and ugly attitudes. But it has upsides; it embiggens the national fabric or something like that.
When we’re lazy and complacent and comfortable, those negative divisions seem to solidify, don’t they? You’d think it was the other way around, but it’s disasters and catastrophes that jolt us into thinking kindly of one another, even of those hapless New Yorkers or bullheaded Texans. When those motherfuckers slammed into those buildings with our own people as weapons, it was not a tower full of (mostly) New Yorkers. It was suddenly my brothers and sisters and if you aren’t on the side of my brothers and sisters, Texan or Tennesseean or Topekan, then yeah, fuck y’all. Those Texans would run into a building to save your ass, and have, and are doing it right now, so when you make fun of ’em – when I made fun of ’em – were we bad people, or just assholes? I hope just assholes.
But y’all are my brothers and sisters too, and so unfuck y’all (in the nice sense of that word) and let’s try to be nicer to our siblings. There’s enough asshole, we don’t need to make more.
You can’t really think that’s a Texas saying, can you? You might consider getting out of state a bit more.
And be honest, wasn’t it a pleasant surprise that they spelled “contiguous” correctly even if they did have a little trouble using it in a sentence?
Has anyone solved the mystery of who put the thing up? It’s a freaky little logo there at the bottom.
The rule should be that every state, and the federal government, recognizes the gender with which each person chooses to identify.
If any problems came up, the solutions are already in the status quo.
-What if a woman is uncomfortable with the body of another woman in a pubic restroom? (She can use the bathroom at home, as per the status quo.)
-What if a male athlete is uncomfortable with the body of the person he is scheduled to wrestle? (He can choose to forfeit, as per the status quo.)
-What if an elected representative can’t figure out a way to discriminate against a gender group based on their own _private_ definition of that gender? (They can go eat a bag of genitals of their choice, as per the status quo.)
Et cetera.
(To be clear, I am using the phrase “eat a bag of genitals” as a variation on a common metaphor phrase. I do not support human cannibalism.)
I grew up in Texas. I studied Texas government, such as it is, in high school. You can pry my right to make fun of Texas out of my cold dead fingers!
New York too. If Americans give up the right to make fun of NYC the terrorists will already have won…
Seriously, I lived in NYC on 9/11, I very much appreciate the sympathy the country showed then and since, but I see us in the various states as like siblings. A little sibling rivalry and teasing should be acceptable. Just…not in a mean spirited way, please.
Phil, the status quo is not always a peaceable accommodation to the greater good. It is morally admirable of you to take me at my word when I say that my gender identity does not match my gender presentation and that I should use whatever restroom I please regardless of my social presentation; the ‘status quo’ in the Rockies is that if in my pose as a hearty bearded fellow I wander into the lady’s, I’m going to get my ass kicked, moral admirability or no. In another social milieu the status quo might be that there is an expectation of bathroom gender flexibility, and it is the asskicker who will be expected by the mores to stand down and go home to potty if they just can’t handle a little sausage in the taco salad.
There are multiple decent solutions to some issues, and for whatever reason, states will often vary in which decent solution they choose to follow. I don’t know if the timing worked out that way, but it’s perfectly plausible to have one state recognizing civil unions for couples (including gays and lesbians), and another state allowing marriage equality for all, both from good motives, both seeking the good, and both being morally acceptable. It’s certainly all right for us to object to laws we find morally objectionable, but usually “getting most of the way to the goal” is an improvement, not something awful that must be fought.
Federalism, and genuine variations in state laws and even to some degree the common culture, is a reality that needs to be taken into account, not handwaved away.
If Americans give up the right to make fun of NYC the terrorists will already have won…
Seriously, I lived in NYC on 9/11, I very much appreciate the sympathy the country showed then and since, but I see us in the various states as like siblings. A little sibling rivalry and teasing should be acceptable. Just…not in a mean spirited way, please.
I agree, Dianne!
The billboard is supposedly now fixed.
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/10/billboard_on_i-44_asks_missour_secede.php
I propose a compromise: The US lets the states go without fuss or bother…if Wendy Davis is elected the first president.
That may be a true statement, but it seems like a non sequitur. You asked what should be the rule. I replied with what the rule should be. The fact that that is not currently the rule, or that there are people who would have issues with said rule, does not change the correctness of my reply.
I brought up the hypothetical examples as a way to illustrate that the rule can be as simple as I suggested, because the rules to remedy potential issues are already in the status quo.
This is the same response I have for people who get the vapors and pretend that legal same-sex marriage will lead to all kinds of unexpected or unsolvable consequences for business owners whose religions forbid same-sex marriage. These people are wrong; when you remove the specifics of personal prejudice from the equation, the solutions are already in the status quo. (This can be true even if you or I don’t know what the status quo is.) We do not need to be specific about SSM to understand that the law already knows how to deal with a hotel owner whose religion disapproves of the marriages of their guests.
We do not need to be specific about gender to understand that the law already has a solution for when a woman doesn’t like another woman’s body, or for when a man thinks his teammate is too feminine. Individual prejudice may vary–and it always will; my point was just that we aren’t reinventing the wheel, and that this become apparent when you step back from the specifics of individual prejudice.
That said, I don’t think we disagree greatly, and I don’t want to imply that I think you, personally, are exhibiting personal prejudice.
Except:
I also think that it is ethically and legally the right thing to do, not just morally admirable.
Please note that I am not accusing you of anti-trans prejudice. However, the trope of “hearty bearded fellow using the ladies’ room” is common in anti-trans propaganda. In reality, most people whose gender identity does not match their appearance are not large, scary, hairy men, but that trope is frequently brought up as a fear tactic whenever laws that would help protect the rights of trans people (and/or others whose gender presentation is not what’s expected of them) are discussed.
Again, to be clear: I’m not accusing you of exhibiting prejudice. I’m just pointing out that you’re using the same example that is frequently used by people who are, in fact, bigoted.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here, but the reality is there was never a point in history when any state in the union offered only civil unions for all couples (including gay, lesbian, and straight couples). So while it might be theoretically possible for a state, with good intentions, to eliminate the evil of discrimination by dismantling state marriage laws and offering equal rights to all couples in the form of civil unions, the reality is that in the history of the United States, the only states that have had morally acceptable laws with regard to marriage are the ones that offer marriage equality to all adult couples.
The fact that some states offered separate-but-equal status to same-sex couples is certainly more moral than offering nothing at all, but it is absolutely wrong to say that the actions of those states and the actions of states that offered marriage equality are “both morally acceptable.”
(I’ve got no problem with the idea that morality is on a spectrum. For example, a state that had strict laws that slaveowners must treat their slaves humanely is far more moral than a state that allowed owners to torture their slaves, but both states are still gravely immoral.) Yes, getting toward the goal is good. That doesn’t mean that the steps on the way to the goal are just as good as the goal.
Points all well taken. Re: the restroom, it did occur to me (naturally, ten seconds after hitting ‘post’) that it would be easy to interpret what I wrote as a callback to a prejudiced viewpoint; that wasn’t my intent and I appreciate your restraint in conclusion-reaching.