Matthew Yglesias: A Modest Proposal

A Modest Proposal

My official position is that this sort of talk is unseemly, unpatriotic, and counterproductive. Unofficially, it's pretty funny. The downside is that the USC would have some real military recruitment problems and needing to cross an international boundary every time I want to go to the Apple Store in Arlington, Virginia would be a real pain in the ass. Come to think of it, having a Metro system that crosses an international boundary would be problematic in a variety of ways. Perhaps we can annex some key portions of Northern Virginia and South Florida in exchange for the downstate portions of Illinois. Alberta also probably belongs in Jesusland.

UPDATE: There's actually a semi-serious point to be made here that's relevant to ongoing discussions about the importance of cultural conservatism in US politics, namely that the real lines of cultural cleavage in North America do not track the international boundary very well. Québec is obviously culturally distinct from the rest of Canada in a variety of ways. The American South isn't like the rest of the USA. Meanwhile, the northen portions of the US tend to resemble whichever bits of (English speaking) Canada they happen to be adjacent to.

UPDATE II: To be clear, I didn't create this graphic, and I'm not responsible for the decision to call Red America "Jesusland." It's just something my aunt forwarded me that someone forwarded to her.

November 3, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/58113/1365770

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Modest Proposal:

» He Forgot Manitoba from Not Geniuses
Matt Yglesias forgets Manitoba and Sasketchewan.... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2004 8:12:03 PM

» A place for Kerry voters from social tonic
I saw this over at Matt's blog. I know, I know. Don't worry its just a joke. Funny. [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2004 8:22:29 PM

» Some Re-Districting? from AngryFinger
Matt makes some good points. I'm down for it.... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2004 8:51:37 PM

» Mourning was this morning. Here's a laugh. from Required Reading
Matthew Yglesias: A Modest Proposal I like this idea. I'm sitting here in Texas wishing the culture were different. I expect I have to move somewhere, and this USC combines two of the three better options (West Coast, Canada). Now, [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2004 9:07:18 PM

» Hey, maybe we won't even have to move from Nutbar
Matthew Yglesias: A Modest Proposal [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2004 9:12:42 PM

» The New Geography from The American Mind
Instead of living in a red part of a (*sigh*) blue state, according to Matthew Yglesias ("semi-serious"-ly) I live in... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2004 9:39:56 PM

» Now that's a positive suggestion from Hellblazer
Matt's absolutely right. Officially, this is a bunch of loose talk that's unpatriotic. Although I'm a little bit unclear as to how this can be the case when Jesus Land is always strutting around with the symbol of the only... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2004 9:51:02 PM

» The United States of Canada from Turnspit Daily
Kenny called it first, but Yglesias has the image.... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2004 11:04:29 PM

» United States? from IMHO
I have long held the belief that we ought to allow Texas to secede as various members of the state seem to be forever suggesting, but Matthew Yglesias has a... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 2:46:25 AM

» Aftermath: out or in deep from Mememomi
For the rest, I say if you have a reasonable business/career plan come up to Canada where both reason and compassion still burn bright, or you can go (further) into your communities and assist those unfairly affected by GOP designs. One or the other,... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 7:04:04 AM

» The Best Damn Idea I've Seen Today from Ministry of Minor Perfidy
Matthew's got it right. United States of Canada! Jesusland! I think it can work. [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 9:03:09 AM

» Mandate my ass from Social Tonic
Saw this over at Kos. Not as funny, but certainly more accurate than the United States of Canada/Jesusland map I posted about earlier. George Bush (unfortunately) won the election. But he doesnt really have what I would term a [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 1:30:18 PM

» What Would Johnny Do? from ptalk
Hailing from the bluest state of the union, I lack perspective on what the majority think. But from what I have heard it is not that Bush is conservative, it is that God chose him. 384 years after people fled... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 1:46:44 PM

» What Would Johnny Do? from ptalk
At least the Red Sox won. Hailing from the bluest state of the union, I lack perspective on what the majority think. But from what I have heard it is not that Bush is conservative, it is that God chose... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 2:04:48 PM

» Muito em breve from renas e veados
Retirado do blog de Matthew Yglesias. O Miguel j� tinha falado nas duas Am�ricas, n�s mostramos o mapa - s� n�o v� quem n�o quer. Boss... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 2:20:47 PM

» Muito em breve from renas e veados
Retirado do blog de Matthew Yglesias. O Miguel j� tinha falado nas duas Am�ricas, n�s mostramos o mapa - s� n�o v� quem n�o quer. Boss PS: O Moby concorda plenamente com o mapa. Obrigado pela dica miss detective... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 6:10:23 PM

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 8:12:12 PM

» Losers' First Reaction: Bigotry from The American Mind
Bitterness and vitrol from the Left became bigotry toward Christians. I'd like to think that such mean-spiritedness rests solely with... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 10:46:04 PM

» Being Respectful from Blog of the Moderate Left
....We do that in a thousand different ways, folks, and it's time to knock it off. Because guess what? We need more people to support us. Mocking and ridiculing them won't help. So let's stop doing it. And let's start this cessation by elimina... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 5, 2004 3:02:01 AM

» Mapping the Election from JOLLYBLOGGER - a weblog for jolly beggars
We've all seen the map of the red and blue states, but have you seen the map of the red and blue counties? Here's the USA Today map of red and blue counties from the 2000 election. If you look [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 5, 2004 7:46:53 AM

» Straining to return from Wonk!
Everyone's looking for answers. Even for someone who's apparently found his, I'm still spending a lot of time reading about other people's search for answers. I'm reading about all these people - on Daily Kos, on Political Animal, on [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 5, 2004 9:07:09 AM

» It's the End of the World from L O G O R R H E I C
If you aren't in the know, George W. Bush won a second term as the United States of America's president. There are a lot of things that are flying through my mind about this. But the majority of the people in the United States did vote for him, and he... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 7, 2004 7:58:24 PM

» Why Democrats are blue... from OverMatter
Electoral College election-result maps now nearly always show Democrats as blue and Republicans as red. There have been many explanations as to why, but here are four new (?) theories: 1. Democrats are feeling blue (i.e. depressed) over the many [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 8, 2004 8:14:35 AM

» Jews for Jesusland from Aaron's Rantblog, aka Aaron the Liberal Slayer
I'll take Jesusland over Chomskyland, Burkastan or the Dhimmicratic People's Republic of France any day. As long as Jesusland remains planted firmly in the heretofore pogrom-free soil of the United States. The future is Muslim, European or... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 1:08:00 AM

» Jesusland from slouching toward bethlehem
As the previous graphics have shown, this nation has been torn asunder. I say let the healing begin and, God willing, we will find our way to harmony. Frankly, I don't think the name is right, as the red... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 12, 2004 12:48:09 PM

Tracked on Nov 12, 2004 12:49:27 PM

» Forces rising against the Imperium? from Simon and the Lefties
No calls to take real action as of yet, but the people of California and the Northeast are talking about ... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 14, 2004 11:24:01 PM

» Det�nte in the Culture War, Part I from Quiet Declarations
I've got to admit, I've been stalling. Normally I feel like I can find some political niche to at least try and offer some insight, but with every pundit, columnist, and blogger writing nonstop about the election for two solid weeks there's very little... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 15, 2004 3:17:31 AM

Tracked on Nov 15, 2004 3:21:18 AM

» A new map from gillianic tendencies
Forwarded to me from my dad: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Canada and to the Republic... Oh, never mind. If nothing else, this map puts all of my North American family in the same country, though I could see my grandma wanting... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 28, 2004 2:11:42 PM

» Stupid Letters from Horologium
Hmmm, the lefty revisionists are already working to erase some of their more embarrassing moments. Too bad the internet has some persistence. From today's Seattle Times: State Sen. Bob Morton's proposal to divide Washington into two states is a new... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 3, 2005 11:51:56 PM

Tracked on Mar 4, 2005 12:19:37 AM

» gill from koll
nill [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 11, 2005 4:52:40 AM

» StorageTek from Insure Blog
What does this ruling mean? If it stands up on appeal, it means StorageTek has a monopoly on service for all of its machines. No independent vendor will be able to compete with them for service contracts because no independent vendor... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 11, 2005 5:27:49 PM

» Flow Of Time from L o n g
Here's a bit more about the long tail by Bnoopy.... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 13, 2005 11:04:46 AM

Comments

Yes, we may need to institute some relocation programs, but I could live with that.

Posted by: Chibi | Nov 3, 2004 8:08:14 PM

I can see one obvious problem, right off the bat: Didn't it occur to you that there were parts of Canada, (Quite large parts, as a matter of fact.) that might want to be part of "Jesusland"???

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 3, 2004 8:12:04 PM

The downside is that the USC would have some real military recruitment problems...

Not necessarily. Costa Rica used to make do without an army. You could simply outsource all your military needs to Jesusland in exchange for Canadian beer.

Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Nov 3, 2004 8:12:22 PM

Devolution.

It worked for Scotland.

It worked for Wales.

It can work for the Blue States.

Posted by: tripsarecopsem | Nov 3, 2004 8:13:33 PM

The bigger problem is that Jesusland would reap all of the vacation revenue. Come on, California just isn't that exciting. I'm sure that the Great Lakes hold little appeal. Could you imaging someone coming up from Jesusland to spend a holiday in the USC. How would we take care of our friends in Austin, Atlanta, New Orleans and other reasonable cities? It may be irresponsible, but it's much more fun than working on policy analysis.

Posted by: Brendon Riggs | Nov 3, 2004 8:15:52 PM

Yeah, I'd suggest that, too, but Democrats freak whenever you mention federalism. It's going to take some time for them to get used to the idea that, since they're not going to control the federal government, they might want some local autonomy. They're too used to the situation being the reverse, them on top, and Republicans asking to be left alone.

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 3, 2004 8:16:24 PM

Please just stay the fuck away from us Canadians.
We don't want your cancer-ridden electorate to poison our populace. thirty years ago, hoardes of pot-smoking draft dodgers were okay, but this time it's different.
Sorry, you broke it, you fix it.

concerned canadian

Posted by: timbo | Nov 3, 2004 8:25:32 PM

Don't worry timbo, no matter how bad it gets here, I wouldn't want to unite with you guys. You're too milquetoast. Must be tough to base your whole culture on opposing the more dominant culture to the south.

Oh yeah, you gave us Jim Carrey and Michael J. Fox. Thanks dude. You have Can Con laws for a reason. Enjoy Time Horton's and the Beer Store and your third class status.

Posted by: sloth | Nov 3, 2004 8:33:32 PM

You could go to the Apple Store in Montgomery Mall (yeah, I know - no Metro)

Posted by: Steve Jobs | Nov 3, 2004 8:35:17 PM

Even the Southern *colonies* weren't like the rest of the country. I'm beginning to think we should just let them win the Civil War already. Oh, wait--we already have!

As for the frostbacks, first of all, its *they* that resemble *us* (it's not like 90% of *our* population is 50 miles from the border, and while you can buy Budweiser in Vancouver, try going to a McDonald's in Seattle and asking for back bacon on your Egg McMuffin). Secondly, secession from Jesusland would abandon our brothers in Austin, DC, Cleveland, Santa Fe, New Orleans, etc. But the idea does have some merit: as a former hockey playing American, President Kerry could unify a deeply divided United States of Canada like no other candidate.

Posted by: Adam | Nov 3, 2004 8:35:27 PM

What's the difference between a Canadian and a canoe?

Canoes tip.

Posted by: Just Karl | Nov 3, 2004 8:38:53 PM

Come on, Canada. The only alternative is to keep the entire US controlled by Jesusland -- and what if they decide to invade and convert you for your own good?

Another evil thought: just maybe we could arrange to focus the attention of the Islamic Fascists on Jesusland instead of the U.S.C. (notwithstanding all those Jews in New York City) -- thereby arranging to kill two turkeys with one stone.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Nov 3, 2004 8:39:38 PM

You're in luck, Bruce, since that's what Bin Laden promised to do anyway: Spare any state that voted for Kerry from his target list.

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 3, 2004 8:42:20 PM

Well, personally, Brett, if the world is about to have its first nuclear religious war, I wouldn't at all mind sitting on the sidelines.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Nov 3, 2004 8:44:47 PM

MY, it's actually not hard to eliminate the power of the Southern states. Just combine the dozen or so Southern states in to one giant Southern state (call it say the Old Dominion) and then we'll eliminate the South from having any power in the Senate and deflate their power in the electoral college. And all this you can do without a constitutional amendment but with simply a law by Congress!

Posted by: Dan the Man | Nov 3, 2004 8:45:40 PM

I was going to say something about letting the USC keep Vegas, but in the USC we wouldn't need a Vegas. But Jesusland would need an officially designated decadent zone.

Posted by: Justin Slotman | Nov 3, 2004 8:45:51 PM

You're in luck, Bruce, since that's what Bin Laden promised to do anyway: Spare any state that voted for Kerry from his target list.

Somehow I missed that, Brett. Do you have a citation for this claim?

Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Nov 3, 2004 8:48:20 PM

Sorry, Matt, it won't work. Where will all the tax dollars go if there are no more red states to accept them? Since we're too liberal to cut taxes, we'd have this giant surplus sucking investment out of our economy.

Posted by: dan | Nov 3, 2004 8:57:26 PM

As a native (if long-gone) Albertan, I think Alberta firmly belongs in the USOC. Its two urban centers are more libertarian conservative than cultural conservative, and someone running against socialized medicine couldn't get elected dogcatcher. It only seems Jeebofascist by Canadian standards...

Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Nov 3, 2004 9:01:52 PM

Lovecraft: see

http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3898

"'In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaeda. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every state [wilayah] that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.'"

"MEMRI is claiming that the word used for "state" in this sentence means state as in Rhode Island and New Jersey.

"But while they are right to draw attention to the oddness of the diction, their conclusion is impossible."

For an alternate interpretation, see Mickey Kaus: bin Laden is indeed talkking about US states but *not* about the election (he groups Bush and Kerry together) but about state *secesion*! Kaus quotes

"a 2001 the description of a 1996 interview he gave to, yes, Robert Fisk:

"'Intelligent - and eloquent in Arabic - bin Laden undoubtedly is. But his understanding of foreign affairs is decidedly eccentric. At one point, he even suggested to me that individual US states might secede from the Union because of Washington's support for Israel. [Emphasis added]

"In other words, it may not be that bin Laden's so in touch with American politics that he's reading RealCLearPolitics and counting up electoral votes. He may be so out of touch that he hasn't learned about the Civil War. ... This suggests that while MEMRI's translation may be accurate, the focus of both MEMRI and the NY Post on the current presidential election may be misplaced. Bin Laden may not be offering protection to a state that votes against Bush. He may not be talking about the election at all. He may be looking past the election and attempting to offer protection to states that secede, or follow their own foreign policies. ... P.S.: Note that this interpretation would both fit the translation and explain why bin Laden seemingly lumps Kerry and Bush together. He's not trying to get votes for either man. ..."
http://www.slate.com/id/2108954/

Posted by: David T | Nov 3, 2004 9:04:00 PM

That last video of his.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm

Dan, you seem to have some interesting notions of what's within Congress's authority. But even assuming that was, (It isn't.) why would a Republican Congress want to do that? They'd be more likely to break Texas up into a half dozen new states. (All but one Republican, of course.)

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 3, 2004 9:04:17 PM

How would the Red states sustain themselves without subsidies from the Blue states? Secession would never work.

List of dollar returns for every dollar sent to DC in federal taxes.
Biggest donees.

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

These are the ten states that get the least back from Washington.

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Posted by: JSB | Nov 3, 2004 9:04:58 PM

You're in luck, Bruce, since that's what Bin Laden promised to do anyway: Spare any state that voted for Kerry from his target list.

Somehow I missed that, Brett. Do you have a citation for this claim?

Brett seems to be referring to the discredited MEMRI translation. For an analysis by someone who actually knows Arabic, try Juan Cole at
http://www.juancole.com/2004_11_01_juancole_archive.html#109938356137329197

Posted by: Max | Nov 3, 2004 9:08:26 PM

Brett, I was just handing out logical possibilities not realistic possibilities. That was so duh obvious.

Posted by: Dan the Man | Nov 3, 2004 9:08:51 PM

Slotman:

The Jesuslanders would have New Orleans. That's what worries me. (Jesuslanders sounds awkwards. Should we call them Christlanders? [shudder] wow, that's a scary-sounding word.)

Posted by: Adam | Nov 3, 2004 9:09:16 PM

The downside is that the USC would have some real military recruitment problems

Seriously, if I'm not mistaken California has more casualities in Iraq than any other state. Of course she also has more people than (nearly?) every other state.

There was a column in the LA times a while ago proposing a new nation of New Californyork.

I agree, vegas has to be let in somehow. I hear Montreal is lots o' fun, but its not exactly close to LA.

Posted by: Aaron | Nov 3, 2004 9:09:56 PM

Come on, California just isn't that exciting.

Errr...have you ever been to California?

Posted by: Tom Hilton | Nov 3, 2004 9:11:57 PM

JSB: I've mentioned this another thread, but it bears repeating. I hear a lot of claims about how Republican states tend to be net recipients of federal dollars and Democratic states tend to be net losers. That's true, but it ignores the fact that Republicans tend to have higher incomes than Democrats. If you look at this in terms of individuals instead of states, Republicans are the net payers and Democrats are the net recipients.

Posted by: Xavier | Nov 3, 2004 9:12:02 PM

Somehow I missed "disputed" having the same meaning as "discredited".

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 3, 2004 9:12:42 PM

Come to think of it, having a Metro system that crosses an international boundary would be problematic in a variety of ways.

Perhaps we could get some advice from the folks in Berlin. They made it work.

Posted by: Tom Hilton | Nov 3, 2004 9:13:06 PM

JSB: look up the word sustainable. I hope you know how to ice fish. And ask Grey Davis how well California does without energy from Texas. If you didn't have money, you'd completely worthless.

Posted by: Just Karl | Nov 3, 2004 9:17:16 PM

The bigger problem is that Jesusland would reap all of the vacation revenue. Come on, California just isn't that exciting.

Darn, unless I get a visa, I'll have to cancel my Branson vacation.

Posted by: Aaron | Nov 3, 2004 9:17:51 PM

If you didn't have money, you'd [be] completely worthless.

Thanks Karl, I needed a chuckle.

Posted by: WillieStyle | Nov 3, 2004 9:28:51 PM

Oh, and on the topic of Jesusland:

Oh great! Let's create a nation of fanatical millenial dispensationalists with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire planet.
What's the worst that could happen?

Posted by: WillieStyle | Nov 3, 2004 9:31:04 PM

Bah, we don't need no stinkin Texas-energy. USC could run clean, efficient Nuclear plants ala France, then bury the waste in Jesusland!

Posted by: SAO | Nov 3, 2004 9:34:03 PM

The American South isn't like the rest of the USA

Dear God. You're getting this elitist thing down pat, Matt. What are any of you basing this opinion of the South on? I've lived in NC, TX, IN, and OH. The most liberal place was Austin, in the dreaded, backwards, gun-totin' home state of George W. Bush. A beautiful state it is too. You should visit.

By the way, do you know why Illinois went to Kerry? Chicago. Michigan? Detroit. Oregon? Portland. Pennsylvania? Philly. This isn't some "dumb southerner" thing. It's a rural/suburban vs. urban thing. The American south is very much like the rest of the USA. The big cities are liberal, the other parts are more conservative and more religious.

Posted by: Chris K | Nov 3, 2004 9:42:12 PM

Just Karl,

You mean Texas sell sits oil to California at bargain prices? Gee, I didn't know that.

Anyway, I object to the USC concept. I'd rather just tell the South that all that business about secession is OK after all, and send them off to start their own country.

Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | Nov 3, 2004 9:47:18 PM

Last time I checked, rural/suburban California didn't have any churches the size of Walmarts.

Just a thought, Chris.

Posted by: SAO | Nov 3, 2004 9:48:03 PM

The map doesn't offend me, but I wonder how people in this forum would react to a map that referred to areas with higher jewish populations as "yarmulke land". Would they find it as piercingly witty as "Jesusland"? That it is understood on some level that this thinking is counterproductive is all well and good, but that one actually finds this sort of trite, boring, nonsense funny on another level says a whole lot regarding what the Democrats' electoral problems are. By all means, though, smugly chortle on; it's a regular laff riot!

Posted by: Will Allen | Nov 3, 2004 9:48:29 PM

Brett Bellmore:

Bin Laden did NOT say he would attack states that voted for Kerry. He explicitly said it didn't matter if Kerry or Bush were elected, and when referring to "states" he would not attack, he mentioned Sweden. Not part of the US last I checked.

Posted by: epistemology | Nov 3, 2004 9:52:13 PM

Why not just call it Lower Christendom if you don't like Jesusland?

There is of course one other problem. The blue states aren't all blue. Except for some parts of New England and some stretches of coastline along the pacific, the blue cities and suburbs are swimming in a sea of red counties. So the ex-american parts of the USC are unlikely to be completely contiguous. People in the DC/baltimore area would have to go through Jesusland just to get to NYC.

Posted by: Jeff the Baptist | Nov 3, 2004 9:55:42 PM

I wonder how people in this forum would react to a map that referred to areas with higher jewish populations as "yarmulke land". Would they find it as piercingly witty as "Jesusland"?

If the population was voting on yarmulke issues, then yes.

Posted by: Toadmonster | Nov 3, 2004 9:56:51 PM

Will Allen, the reason why we have no problem making fun of the members of Jesusland is because Jesusland once committed treason against the United States and these treason sympathizers still defend hanging the flag of treason (the Confederate flag). When they finally admit that their act of treason against the USA was wrong and stop calling their act of treason "the war of northern agression", then we will stop making fun of the treason sympathizers.

Posted by: Dan the Man | Nov 3, 2004 9:58:15 PM

he mentioned Sweden. Not part of the US last I checked.

Well maybe we can let them into the USC too. They don't particularly like the EU and that way we'd have a domestic supply of cheap urban furnature and reindeer.

Posted by: Aaron | Nov 3, 2004 9:58:46 PM

Will Allen:

People are angry here (well some are) and humor is an outlet. I'm no Democrat and didn't vote, so maybe shouldn't speak for the others for whom this is more personal, but I would guess that a lot of the people on this site, of Christian and Jewish upbringing, are not religious.

Personally I believe in few things (and certainly not nonsense like god), preferring evidence to faith. I have no problem with religion per se, but it is responsible for much ignorance and violence in history, including our present troubles. Atheists (I don't count myself one; the word implies that the question "is there a god" makes any sense in the real world) regularly are abused as immoral or worse. Unless you stand up against those who put down atheists, you have no right to complain about a little "Jesusland" joke.

Posted by: epistemology | Nov 3, 2004 9:59:54 PM

Are churches so offensive in and of themselves that the size of the church matters? New York City has churches the size of Walmarts. Are you offended by the great cathedrals of the world? After all, Bush won the Catholic vote.

Wouldn't it be nice if California was willing to build clean and efficient nuclear power plants? Maybe once the USC secedes, and the current price of Texas oil is a distant memory for them, it could happen.

Posted by: Just Karl | Nov 3, 2004 10:01:04 PM

Last time I checked, rural/suburban California didn't have any churches the size of Walmarts.

Not sure I get you. But if you're going to make some ignorant statement that the South isn't like the rest of America, then surely you could say that of California.

Anyway, I can't speak for California, but they certainly do have those churches in the Rust Belt. There's one down the street from me here in Indy. You've also described a number of black churches throughout the country.

Posted by: Chris K | Nov 3, 2004 10:05:17 PM

If given the choice, I'd choose to live in Jesusland over the USC. Having lived the majority of my life in the Southern United States, I can safely say that the people there, while having bizarre views on the world, are much more pleasant than those in the northeast and west coast. Also, yes, Austin and New Orleans are both much better than anything the USC states have to offer. And, if I'm not mistaken, many of the Jesusland states either didn't exist at the time, or were not members of the confederacy.

Posted by: Brendon Riggs | Nov 3, 2004 10:07:08 PM

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT unpatroitic, DISSENT is the highest form of patroitism. "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain and right now they most definately do NOT deserve it

Posted by: Chris Wright | Nov 3, 2004 10:15:33 PM

Looking at the map made me think of something. I know that its a given that academics and scientists are going to tend to be blue and college "towns" tend to be pretty liberal but you think its correlation or causation that blue strongholds are home to the countries best university systems (with a few exceptions of course)?

Posted by: Aaron | Nov 3, 2004 10:18:39 PM

Epist,

This could be wrong, but according to a few articles I read, Bin Laden specifically singled out states, meaning territories within a country, rather than using a word which would have meant nation-states. His message was addressed to the people of America, so I'd consider it a safe conclusion.

Here's an excerpt I just found:

"Bin Laden also appears to threaten those Americans who live in states and smaller jurisdictions that vote for Mr Bush. He said, "Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn’t play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." According to one source, "as has been pointed out by professional translators, wilaya "state" here means "US State" (province, duchy, prefecture, principality, county etc, a subdivision of a larger entity) not "Nation", which would be dawla."

Posted by: Chris K | Nov 3, 2004 10:23:39 PM

I'd like to stamp out the myth that Canada somehow has better beer than the US that I've seen here and in another thread. It just ain't true. Yes, their mass-produced, watered-down lagers are marginally better than our mass-produced, watered-down lagers, but most of it is a waste of good water.

The difference is micro-breweries. Canada has a few good ones, but it's nothing compared to the United States. One of their best, Unibroue, was unfortunately just purchased by Sleeman. Sleeman has the distinction of being somewhat better than Coors.

The good news is that the USC will get the areas of the country with the best micros (in particular the Pacific Northwest). I love Toronto, but it's a pain in the ass to get a decent beer. The Beer Store is a pretty good argument against state-run anything.

Posted by: M. | Nov 3, 2004 10:28:24 PM

Got those Walmart sized churches here in Michigan, too. I'm an atheist myself, so they interest me only as architecture, but I don't find them particularly scary.

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 3, 2004 10:34:10 PM

I like your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Posted by: Captain Salty | Nov 3, 2004 10:36:50 PM

It's a good idea but just all wrong.

The good people of Jesus Land would usually dress modestly. They really have no use for all the warm beach front land down south. While the heathens, sorry no offense but after all you're not in Jesus Land, so you must be a heathen, would all be running around next to naked celebrating whatever pagan ritual du jour was fasionable.

Besides I don't want to relocate.

Posted by: IXLNXS | Nov 3, 2004 10:43:13 PM

Why the slur about Alberta? It's a very cool place with great people.

Posted by: David Sucher | Nov 3, 2004 10:44:07 PM

I think it's a splendid idea. Let's try it for a couple decades at least. Once the blue states get a real taste of socialized medicine and the double digit unemployment rates that are so common in the eurotrash countries whose policies they idolize, they'll be ready to come back on board a bit wiser for the wear. As an ex-Californian, current Midwestern, agnostic, I think I'll stick with "Jesusland". At least the folks around here know how to behave themselves.

Posted by: C L Freeman | Nov 3, 2004 10:47:02 PM

Really, if you can't find a decent beer in Toronto you are not trying.

Posted by: sm | Nov 3, 2004 10:48:38 PM

It's all clear, the morning after.

The absolute worst decision ever made in American public life was Lincoln deciding to oppose the South's secession. Absolute worst decision.

Think how much crap the rest of us would have avoided if it had just fallen off in 1861.

Posted by: groundhog | Nov 3, 2004 10:50:01 PM

With the 51-49 margins in places like NH or PA , you can't really hope to build a "blue" America out of these states now can you ?

Posted by: kurio | Nov 3, 2004 11:00:09 PM

I'm MOOOOOOOOOVING TO MONTANAAAAA.
Man, where is Zappa when we need him.

What would Jesus do?

He'd support protection for the minority and the Senate filibuster.

Posted by: fadaf | Nov 3, 2004 11:00:42 PM

The absolute worst decision ever made in American public life was Lincoln deciding to oppose the South's secession. Absolute worst decision.Think how much crap the rest of us would have avoided if it had just fallen off in 1861.

Of course, there's that whole slavery thing. But why start a war for no good reason? And they would have gotten all the blues and rock n' roll. Also Mardi Gras. A good chunk of the oil. Graceland. Miami Beach. William Faulkner. Every democratic president of the last 40 years, and so on...

Posted by: Chris K | Nov 3, 2004 11:10:45 PM

I said it was a pain in the ass to find a good beer in Toronto. I didn't say you couldn't do it. It's just much easier in, say, Portland or Chicago.

Posted by: M. | Nov 3, 2004 11:13:20 PM

Forget the above nonsense.

Invite Israel and Palestine to join the Union as your next state. Jerusalem as
capital. Freedom of religion and no establishment. Own State Police; US
National Guard on semi-permanent watch. Unrestricted Right of Return in
consequence, and unrestricted right to seek a better life in America.
American democracy, American liberties, and your own vote for President. And
anyone who threatens the place is threatening the United Goddam States.

It would be a slog, no doubt; but if fully half your nation is willing to take
on the burden of freedom, and actually it's more than half, you just don't
want it run by incompetents, then I'm sure you're ready to take on the Arabic
Israeli slash Palestinean demographic hump. Moreover, if half your nation is
informed by Christian principles and the other half is red hot on the
principle of anyone being free to worship god as they wish, you've got enough
between you for a picnic lunch.

Best wishes America, from Australia.

Posted by: Jonathan Burns | Nov 3, 2004 11:23:03 PM

It's clear that many here do not realize the massive disparities in GSP per capita between Red and Blue States.

Posted by: WillieStyle | Nov 3, 2004 11:33:58 PM

Freeman: "Let's try it for a couple decades at least. Once the blue states get a real taste of socialized medicine and the double digit unemployment rates that are so common in the eurotrash countries whose policies they idolize, they'll be ready to come back on board a bit wiser for the wear."

My brother and his wife have been in Canada for over a decade and they love it. You are totally, totally full of shit. Probably you are just parroting stuff from some agitprop you read -- or maybe you are a renegade Canadian blaming his personal problems on others. Whatever.

Posted by: Zizka | Nov 3, 2004 11:41:03 PM

Personally, I like it, eh. Though we may need an airlift to bring the Jewish retirees back home from Florida.

Posted by: Marlowe | Nov 3, 2004 11:52:11 PM

Chris K:

I don't know any better than you, not speaking Arabic. The generally accepted translation is that bin Laden referred to state as being country. You haven't answered the general objection that bin Laden clearly stated that Kerry or Bush as president made no difference. And his reference to Sweden as being free from attack, an obvious reference to the sympathies for the Palestinian cause in Sweden. I don't recall a reference to Nebraska or New York, do you?

Posted by: epistemology | Nov 3, 2004 11:53:34 PM

he mentioned Sweden. Not part of the US last I checked.

Well maybe we can let them into the USC too. They don't particularly like the EU and that way we'd have a domestic supply of cheap urban furnature and reindeer.

Not to mention blondes - tall leggy blondes. This idea just keeps getting better and better.

Posted by: Fledermaus | Nov 3, 2004 11:54:05 PM

From the other side of the dividing line:
I suggested to a friend that, should Bush win, the Northeast might want to become a Canadian province. This sounds even better.

Ah, and these two?

JSB: look up the word sustainable. I hope you know how to ice fish. And ask Grey Davis how well California does without energy from Texas.

Well, with hydro from Quebec, BC and Ontario, not to mention oil from the Tar Sands, I think the answer to that one is 'nicely, thank you'.

Once the blue states get a real taste of socialized medicine and the double digit unemployment rates that are so common in the eurotrash countries whose policies they idolize, they'll be ready to come back on board a bit wiser for the wear.

Canadians love our medicare system; it's one of our few 'mom and apple pie' issues. Yeah, sure, all the plastic surgeons in LA would move to Nevada, but is that really a great loss?

oh, and guys? We have a balanced budget.

Great idea.

Posted by: jo. | Nov 3, 2004 11:55:41 PM

I never called it Red America, probably because the word Red still carries two misdirecting connotations (1) Communist, and (2) "read", as in well-read, or even literate. So in the spirit of changing the common term as little as possible while capturing the region's true nature, I now refer to it as Bloody America.

Posted by: some guy | Nov 3, 2004 11:56:42 PM

The Beer Store is a pretty good argument against state-run anything.

So is the Iraq war. Can't we privatize these little wars?

Posted by: epistemology | Nov 3, 2004 11:57:29 PM

In 44 years (JFK was the last one), we have been unable to elect a president who wasn't from the south (or Southern Calif. in the case of Nixon and Reagan). Ford was appointed.

That's a long time.

Posted by: William H. Calvin | Nov 4, 2004 12:15:53 AM

Just keep in mind that Quebec, while undeniably culturally different, is certainly no red province. We have gay marriage and a provincial government split between (on social issues) the nominally left Liberals and the far left PQ.

Posted by: Ruth S | Nov 4, 2004 12:32:02 AM

"In 44 years (JFK was the last one), we have been unable to elect a president who wasn't from the south (or Southern Calif. in the case of Nixon and Reagan). Ford was appointed."

Another way to think of it:

In the last 60 years we've only elected one President from north of Missouri, and he got his head blown off in the South less than 2 years after his inauguration.

Posted by: Petey | Nov 4, 2004 12:40:56 AM

"Democrats for neo-States Rights

Why not advocate for federalism on social issues?

Gay marriage in Massachusettes. The Ten Commandments in courthouses in Alabama. Legalized drugs in Oregon. Stoning of adulterers in Utah.

We can repeal the 14th amendment. Active enforcement of the 15th amendment guaranteeing the federal right to vote should be enough protection.

The commerce clause of the constitution would continue to enable the federal regulation of the economy, and unlike on social issues, there is a national consensus to be found on economics.

Posted by: Petey | Nov 4, 2004 12:52:47 AM

Actually, epistemology, I would consider a map of "atheistland" just as stupid. Like I said, I'm not offended in the least, I'm just puzzled by otherwise intelligent people who find humour in such witless tripe. If it were actually funny, something that people who are intensely interested in poltics are often very poor judges of, any other attributes of such rhetoric would be of secondary interest. The problem is that it is just yawn-provoking.

Posted by: Will Allen | Nov 4, 2004 12:58:21 AM

I thought we had privatized large parts of the Iraq war. It's a good argument against private enterprise.

Posted by: M. | Nov 4, 2004 1:06:59 AM

I'm just one of the dumb uninformed yokels out here in the heartland.

European Unemployment:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/countries/de/de_unemp.html
and
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/countries/fr/fr_unemp.html

The wonders of the Canadian Health Care System (and others)
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#canada
(I won't mention that we subsidize their pharmaceuticals costs...oops.)

Canada's Budget - our debt as a percent of GNP is lower than theirs (and we actually pay for a REAL military!)...and it's lower than it was during most of the Clinton era, I'll add.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/countries/
(You'll have to click about a bit, but I'm sure you hyper-literate libs will have no difficulty.)

As for per capita wages in blue states, I know about the cost of living in the blue states (and there really are no blue states, just blue cities). You can keep your marginally higher salaries.

Tchuss!

Posted by: C L Freeman | Nov 4, 2004 1:10:01 AM

As for per capita wages in blue states, I know about the cost of living in the blue states (and there really are no blue states, just blue cities). You can keep your marginally higher salaries.

I said higher GSP (Gross State Product) not wages. That is, the blue states create the vast majority of the wealth in this country without which wonders like agriculture subsidies and highway funding for South Dakota would be impossible.

Posted by: WillieStyle | Nov 4, 2004 1:13:17 AM

Chris K -

The Suthn' nostalgiacs get this much right: the war was never as much about slavery as it was about preserving the Union.

Lincoln said:

"If I could preserve the Union and not free any slave, I would do it. If I could preserve the Union by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it. If I could preserve the Union by freeing some slaves, and keeping others in bondage, I would do it."

Trent Lott, foreigner. Sounds good to my ear.

Posted by: groundhog | Nov 4, 2004 1:18:42 AM

Alberta is more liberal (social and fiscal) than any American State, even though it is one of the most conservative provinces.

Posted by: Reesonov | Nov 4, 2004 1:54:55 AM

The South can be easily differentiated from the rest of the red states because the metropolitan areas are substantially more conservative. Sure, rural America is conservative, but the metros are relatively much more liberal. Rural america is also losing population a lot faster than the South is, so soon the difference between the two will be even greater.

As for churches the size of Walmarts-- you know the ones where you can't even see the pastor if not for the jumbotron? Well maybe I'm wrong, but in the central valley here in CA; Stockton, Modesto, Bakersfield, you just don't see many of those. When I lived in Baton Rouge on the other hand, I would drive to Florida and see massive churches the size of SUPER-walmarts (yeah, they're growing now). I haven't seen these box-churches anywhere else, although I admit I've never lived in the Midwest.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with all big churches or all Southern churches, I just see the Walmart versions as endemic of the South and of a more consumeristic version of Christianity (i.e. easily digestable and individualistic). With so many people, the sermons are usually canned PC stuff that makes Jesus into your personal life-coach or something. And the crappy watered-down music... "Shine Jesus Shine" is an affront to everything sacred. Bring back the hymns.

Posted by: SAO | Nov 4, 2004 2:00:47 AM

I'm just puzzled by otherwise intelligent people who find humour in such witless tripe.

The reason we laugh is because it is witless tripe, you fool. "Jesusland" perfectly encompasses the bizzarre feeling many liberals have towards that mysterious, primitive, conservative place down there we don't know much about. See Ed Said (or Sam Hunt) for more...

Posted by: SAO | Nov 4, 2004 2:05:23 AM

Freud would be proud of you: the Jesusland looks like fat Texas with its hanging penis in Florida.

Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 4, 2004 3:08:45 AM

If Republican Support corellates with Rural Poverty, maybe there's something to be said for economic development or urbanization?

Posted by: Wrye | Nov 4, 2004 3:16:06 AM

"Like I said, I'm not offended in the least, I'm just puzzled by otherwise intelligent people who find humour in such witless tripe. If it were actually funny, something that people who are intensely interested in politics are often very poor judges of, any other attributes of such rhetoric would be of secondary interest. The problem is that it is just yawn-provoking."

It's hardly that witless, Will. Keep in mind that Bush got his narrow winning margin in this election (and the GOP won six seriously contested Senate races in a row) precisely by drumming up fundamentalist Christian religious bigotry for everything it was worth, according to the exit polls. (See http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_31_dish_archive.html#109951679783584814 .) THEY think it's Jesusland.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Nov 4, 2004 3:45:21 AM

I think the Canadians may have a problem with this.

Posted by: ohollern | Nov 4, 2004 4:30:24 AM

Will Allen,
You seem to missing the information that Christianity is a controlling religion in this country.
Now if you wanted to make a map of greater Israel, and label one section as being Jewish, and another as not Jewish, and have the entire area actually controlled by the Jewish, that would be a laff riot.

Posted by: theCoach | Nov 4, 2004 9:11:29 AM

I'm not sure Canadians would be crazy about this idea. That's a lot of Americans to assimilate. Perhaps you could join one state at a time over 20 or 30 years. That would give time for the "Neighbour" brigades to teach you to spell.

(As for the Bin Laden tape --head over to the Abu Aardvark weblog. He has a post with 52 comments on Arabic etymology re: Dawla. Conclusion seems to be OBL meant 'country' using his typical archiac-style of Arabic.)

Posted by: Ikram | Nov 4, 2004 9:19:31 AM

And don't forget www.marryanamerican.ca

Act now before all the good marriage partners are gone. You don't want to get stuck wityh a --er-- hoser.

Posted by: Ikram | Nov 4, 2004 9:20:50 AM

At least all of wine country is in the USC...which will make our French allies happy!

Posted by: Rich | Nov 4, 2004 10:31:04 AM

One problem I see is that since the Reagan/Mulroney FTA of 1988, our federal government has become infested by US style neocons ( Mr. Chretien was the last of the old guard, which should explain his three terms and forcible removal from office by quisling motherfuckers ). The current administration is anxious to suck as much Bush ass in public as possible, so don't expect much cooperation from the feds. If you do come, though ( and we couldn't stop you if we felt like it, could we? ), bring all your money and weapons with you. 'Blue" America is probably the only thing preventing Jesusland from attacking all us godless communists right now, and you won't be there anymore.

Posted by: trout | Nov 4, 2004 10:44:18 AM

Canada would not let us in. Even the former U.S.A. part of the U.S.C. is very different from the original Canada, and the original Canadians would not want us coming in and outvoting them and messing up their country. I was thinking, what if we gave them extra votes compared to us, or if we weren't allowed to vote at all, but I feel it still wouldn't work. Too many of us with too many problems, and they wouldn't want us to come in with our huge population and crumbling infrastructure.

Posted by: Lowell | Nov 4, 2004 11:03:43 AM

Why not consider asking nicely if individual states might apply for provincehood ?
Good Manners count for much up here, although contrary to what you're probably thinking, that's because with us if you don't learn to be polite early on, you Don't Make It.
If you joined as individual provinces under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government, that would be fine. It's this "Well here we all are, we're in charge now, what time's dinner?" approach that might not play.

Posted by: trout | Nov 4, 2004 11:20:23 AM

If you're sick of beind identified with the United States, but can't pull off getting your whole state annexed by Canada, you can become a Virtual Canadian. See http://VirtualCanadian.org for more info.

Posted by: Todd | Nov 4, 2004 11:59:06 AM

Actually Matthew your rump state is a lot smaller than that, as the Canadians don't want Bush haters and as the below map shows Kerry voting areas are even less.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Seriously as state after state has no (or very few) Democrat counties it does imply that it's not the people at fault, but the politicans.

Posted by: Ral | Nov 4, 2004 12:07:03 PM

Relevant and amusing t shirt

http://www.cafepress.com/ackackack.14388797

Posted by: judson | Nov 4, 2004 12:07:39 PM

A modest, but serious proposal. The only problem remains the question how to achieve the necessary peaceful revolution and subsequent dissolution of the US of A. It would be another War of Independence with all the military advantages being on the side of Jesusland, thanks to the Second Amendment. Can we have the Second Amendment abolished, please? We should start to draft a Constitution...

Posted by: Norbert Finzsch | Nov 4, 2004 12:17:10 PM

Has anyone yet observed the obvious geographic rule about Blue states?

If you have a coastline - but weren't part of the Confederacy - you are Blue. Except for Alaska.

Note that the lakeshores of Ohio and Indiana are the bastions are Blueness there. Also observe that the Pacific coast is distinctly Blue, while the inland portions of California, Oregon, and Washington are Red. Also, notice how counties along the lower Mississippi River are Blue enclaves.

There's something in the water.

Posted by: Grumpy | Nov 4, 2004 12:29:26 PM

Raj -- counties are not people. Winning fewer counties does not on its own signify popular rejection of policies.

Go to Dave Leip's site and compare the county maps for 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. In each election, the Dems won more votes, a higher share of the popular vote, yet fewer and fewer counties.

If you choose to look at a map of the 2004 election results in Canada, you'll find the same thing. The ruling Liberal party won most of the cities, and not much of the countryside. But the difference is that in Canada, winning the cities is enough to for a (minority) government. In the US, the country mouse beat the city mouse, albeit narrowly.

Posted by: Ikram | Nov 4, 2004 12:47:42 PM

If you look at the map of county votes, what you see is a division based on the old Puritan diaspora across the northern tier counties of the midwest, into Iowa, across to Oregon and northern California, with a bit of Scandinavian influence in MN, combined with the educationally and economically more fibrant urban places on the coasts. It's still Yankees versus Cavaliers.

Posted by: knut wicksell | Nov 4, 2004 12:49:22 PM

that mysterious, primitive, conservative place down there we don't know much about

How wonderfully brazen of you. You admit you don't know much about it, yet you feel comfortable calling it primitive.

Posted by: Chris K | Nov 4, 2004 12:57:04 PM

Last time I checked, rural/suburban California didn't have any churches the size of Walmarts.

SAO: Go to Sacramento, and check out Capitol Christian Center. Just for one example. Or drive through the Sierra foothills, or just about anywhere else outside the coastal belt. Sadly, we've got our share of lunatics too.

Posted by: Tom Hilton | Nov 4, 2004 1:22:30 PM

It's not really coast, it's mostly about population density. The more you jam people together in big heaps, the more regimentation they need to keep from treading on each other's feet. They actually need government, more than if they were living spread out.

Whereas if you live in the country, what's the government to you? A distant interloper who sends you bills, mostly. A distant interloper who lives in some big city, and who has very little sympathy for your way of life, in fact.

So, why wouldn't we have different politics?

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 4, 2004 1:25:46 PM

Actually, for rural people government is more like a distant interloper who sends you checks: farm subsidies, highway money, school money, funding for social programs -- all the stuff you'd never be able to do on your own.

If you're going to pretend that government is something for you to grouse about, at least get the reasons for grousing correct. You don't like government because of the REGULATIONS it puts on you:

But you looooove the money.

Posted by: Windhorse | Nov 4, 2004 1:44:49 PM

Lest we have to drive all the way through Canada to get to the other Coast and the Midwest, I propose a West Germany-Berlin style railroad, that makes no stops between NYC and Chicago. Along the way you could look out and ponder the anarchy and poverty that result from doing away with government and taxes.

P.S. Rail travel provided by Amtrak, which the USC has finally been able to get around to fixing up, unhindered by Jesusland's whining about socialized public transportation.

Posted by: Alex | Nov 4, 2004 1:49:32 PM

Windhorse, you DO realize that most people living in rural areas are not farmers, right? And so they don't get farm subsidies. My next door neighbor grows corn, I design automotive parts, and my taxes go to pay his agricultural subsidies. So you think you're winning my vote by providing them?

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 4, 2004 1:59:42 PM

But his subsidies put money into his pocket that goes into your auto parts.

Posted by: fling93 | Nov 4, 2004 2:09:08 PM

Brett, I'm not interested in winning your vote. My point was that your description of federal government was imprecise and incorrect, as was your response to my point. Did I say everyone living in a rural area is a farmer? No. Is is true that farm subsidies are a huge chunk of money that goes to rural areas? Yes. Is that an example that disputes your description of government as an interloper who just sends you bills? Yes.

Further, I gave three other examples of crucial federal money coming to rural areas, among the many I could have chosen. Military bases anyone? Fire? Police?

I appreciate your insight into the composition of rural demographics, though I should note in the interests of full disclosure I that I have family who live in a rural area and are involved in politics whom I visit quite often. I am well aware of both the nature and dynamics of small-town government, a topic I don't think you'd want carefully scrutinized as it might damage the romantic image you've been cultivating of an honest, simple folk who just want big government to leave them alone.

As I said, they love the money and support from the feds as long as no one audits the books.

Posted by: Windhorse | Nov 4, 2004 2:24:51 PM

Amen, Windhorse. There are few bigger hypocrites than those denizens of the US rural heartland who wean themselves on the great myth of their stoic self reliance and disdain of governement. All the while cashing the federal checks paid for us blue staters, who only drive the engine of the US economy.

Posted by: Marlowe | Nov 4, 2004 2:58:25 PM

I guess I should also add that my family was involved in police work (and politics, to some extent) in "the big city" and have found small-town politics in their new home not only as or more corrupt, but particularly resistant to reform.

And man do those country boys resent former policeman coming to their town and making them follow the laws that are on the books. Why do you need laws when your family and friends can control the town with an iron grip like they have for years?

The romantic fantasy of small-town America being bullied about by an unsympathetic federal government is just that -- a fantasy.

Posted by: Windhorse | Nov 4, 2004 3:03:15 PM

Ya, but.....

There are only 30 million or so of us Canuckleheads....

Which, if I'm not mistaken works out to be, what, 29, or maybe 30, EV's.

And what happens when they start pumpin' in FAUX non-stop to pick us off one by one?

Will it be enough to get you over the hump?

Posted by: JW | Nov 4, 2004 3:11:15 PM

But seriously, folks...

We "social conservatives" have a simple agenda. We would like to be able to pass laws to protect things we value very highly, such as marriage and unborn children. The Supreme Court has made it impossible to do this since 1972. The "cultural war" in this country (which has been aptly named our "Uncivil War" could be solved without bloodshed and without secession. The Supreme Court just has to end its second 40 year reign of "substantive due process."

For those of you who aren't lawyers, the first reign of substantive due process lasted from about 1895 to 1935, when the Democrats totally controlled "Jesusland" and Republicans ruled USC. At that time, progressives and populists tried to enact an income tax, amend labor laws, and pass economic legislation. Time after time, the Supreme Court struck it down as a violation of the "right to contract." The "Lochner Era" (named after the famous case of Lochner v. New York) ended when FDR got enough power to pack the Supreme Court. One Justice decided it was better to change his vote than to allow FDR to up the number of judges from 9 to 15 (the famous "switch in time that saved nine") and the New Deal was born.

We can end the Uncivil War by ending substantive due process in the courts for the second time.

Posted by: Scott W. Somerville | Nov 4, 2004 3:38:55 PM

Scott, who or what does marriage need protection from except people who choose to stop being married? As I see it divorce is the only real threat to marriage. Do you think it should be outlawed? And I don't mean to be impolite by pointing out that the divorce rate is highest in the socially conservative states, where people of your political philosophy already hold sway.

As for abortion, a similar social dynamic holds true. The "liberal" countries which have legalized abortion but have excellent social safety nets have the lowest abortion rates (northern and western europe) while the most religious and "conservative" countries that have made abortion illegal have the highest rates (Catholic South America). The abortion rate which was trending downward under Clinton has been climbing dramatically under Bush, by the way. Sociologists believe this is due to the cuts to social programs that make it difficult for people to support unexpected children.

I would think if you really wanted to protect marriage and abortion you would address social ills like poverty rather than just create onerous laws that have the opposite of their intended effect. Brett is always telling progressives that we need to be pragmatic in our dealings with our political opponents, perhaps it's time for social conservatives to factor in social dynamics when they're pressing for an issue and craft solutions that actually work.

[I would be happy to provide links for the relevant statistical info above, by the way]

Posted by: Windhorse | Nov 4, 2004 3:59:25 PM

Scott S--

As a point of clarification, don't believe the 'C' part in USC has ever been governed by a Republican (unless, of course, you count Brian Mulroney, which most of up here in GreatWhiteElNorte do our best not to).

Posted by: JW | Nov 4, 2004 4:26:46 PM

Brett Bellmore: "Windhorse, you DO realize that most people living in rural areas are not farmers, right? And so they don't get farm subsidies. My next door neighbor grows corn, I design automotive parts, and my taxes go to pay his agricultural subsidies. So you think you're winning my vote by providing them?"

Well, Brett, that of course does nothing to change the little fact that, on the average, Blue states are tax providers and Red ones are tax consumers -- which, by itself, totally smashes up the self-flattering myth of Redstaters that they're self-reliant. Farm subsidies, massive and unjustified though they are, are only one part of that income transfer.

As for the reasons: one obvious one is that Red states, on the average, are poorer -- which means that part of that income transfer is morally justified, although again it means that Redstaters should stop the crap about their nonexistent self-reliance. Another part, however, is due to the obscene misapportionment of the US Senate (and, to a lesser degree, the Electoral College) in favor of small and rural states -- which are now disproportionately Red, due to the fact that in the Sixties the Dems decided to cast their political lot with blacks, who are now disproportionately crowded into cities (which, as I say, are outrageously unfairly underrepresented in our semi-democratic political system). Of course, I'm not saying anything on this subject that Grover Norquist hasn't cheerfully said before me ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32629-2003Jun8 ).

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Nov 4, 2004 4:28:03 PM

reminds me of "decades of darkness"

http://www.alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/NorAmerica1855.jpg

Posted by: yoyo | Nov 4, 2004 4:52:58 PM

You fucking retards are driving me crazy.

1. The people who pay the taxes in the blue states ALL VOTED FOR FUCKING BUSH!

2. Self reliance does not require highways, schools, and social programs, IT REQUIRES FOOD, WATER AND ENERGY!

3. Wealth is "created" from NATURAL FUCKING RESOURCES, of which the NE has few and getting fewer. The only thing created in your cities is pollution.

I'm trying hard to be a Southern Democrat, I really am, but you ignorant fuckers grow your first pubic hair and want to talk shit about places you've never been and know nothing about. And for what? Because you can't handle REJECTION? The rest of the country hates you arrogant and haughty fuckers and this thread is exactly why NE liberals are never elected. YOU ARE THE REASON KERRY LOST. YOU ARE AS MUCH A STEREOTYPE AS A SOUTHERN RACIST. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD THAT THE REASON THE WORD LIBERAL IS POISON IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

Posted by: Just Karl | Nov 4, 2004 5:07:38 PM

If all the lefty/liberals who talk about moving up here actually do so, there won't by anyone left on the coasts anyway. And in reply to Brett Bellmore, there aren't any places in Canada that would want to part of Jesusland. Some people might say they want to, but we like our health care, daycare subsidies, and no guns. And speaking of guns, we'd love to have California and New York as long as you get rid of those damn things.

Posted by: Jeff | Nov 4, 2004 5:55:19 PM

Yeah, mercury.

http://curezone.com/dental/mercury_symptoms.asp

Posted by: C L Freeman | Nov 4, 2004 6:21:25 PM

Someone needs to listen to what Just Karl and I have been saying. Republican states are net consumers of government money, but Republicans as individuals are net payers. I know how much you love this "Republicans live off taxes paid by Democrats" meme, but it's completely contrary to the facts. Please let it go.

Posted by: Xavier | Nov 4, 2004 6:34:45 PM

Wealth is "created" from NATURAL FUCKING RESOURCES,

Not in a service-oriented economy. Nowadays it's mostly capital that matters.

Posted by: fling93 | Nov 4, 2004 7:01:33 PM

Fling: a service economy simply passes that dollar around. It doesn't generate any new wealth. The trick is to keep the dollar circulating. You can't sell your haircut back to the market.

Posted by: Just Karl | Nov 4, 2004 7:09:33 PM

No good idea amigos. If that would happen, Jesusland would conduct Mexican war #2. We don't need you cholos grabbing us for a shotgun wedding.

Posted by: Jesus in Mexico | Nov 4, 2004 7:18:37 PM

a service economy simply passes that dollar around.

That's true in any economy. Even in your model, the people buying natural resources pass the dollar to the ones that do who then pass that dollar for other natural resources. That doesn't generate wealth either.

It doesn't generate any new wealth.

I'm no economist, but as I see it, that's why you need to increase the supply of money as the economy grows and velocity increases. Wealth comes from generating value, and value does not necessarily come from natural resources, or else cheap labor and intellectual capital and capital equipment would be worthless and Microsoft would not have any revenues and Matt would not have a job and the Middle East and Africa would have a richer economy than we do. Merely providing a way for someone else to utilize their resources more efficiently creates a lot of value, and one of the strengths of capitalism is that this is properly incentivized.

Posted by: fling93 | Nov 4, 2004 7:28:01 PM

1. The people who pay the taxes in the blue states ALL VOTED FOR FUCKING BUSH!

OoooOH! I never knew! All the employed people in the Northeast and the West Coast voted Bush? 'Cause unless your tax system works much differently than ours up here, everyone who works pays taxes.

2. Self reliance does not require highways, schools, and social programs, IT REQUIRES FOOD, WATER AND ENERGY!

And, of course, you'll be safe as houses, hunched over your fireplace gnawing on a turnip, washed down with a nice glass of well water.

Meanwhile, the U.S.C will participate in the global marketplace, in which food, water and energy are brought to your door via the wonders of international transportation and transmission networks, built and staffed by people educated by universal education, to markets supported by social programs, which ensure that everyone can afford water, energy and food.

When we want a couple of mouldy turnips, we'll come straight to you.

Posted by: jo. | Nov 4, 2004 7:44:51 PM

Oh my god jo that was funny!

Posted by: Windhorse | Nov 4, 2004 7:46:11 PM

Hey down there! Get a grip.

Your country IS a beacon to the world. You have so much to be grateful for and to offer to the rest of us.

You already have over the last 2 centuries.

The country of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower.

You're the home of the "Four Freedoms"; of the Statue of Liberty; Times Square; The Alamo; the Liberty Bell; Mount Rushmore.....Madonna.

You fucking SAVED western civilization in WWII (With our help of course).

You gave Europe the Marshall Plan. (You gave the world one of your greatest....George Marshall).

Get a grip folks.

You survived 1776; the Civil War; Reconstruction;
the Depression; Vietnam; Watergate.....

You'll survive President Bush. You'll get out of Iraq. You'll survive a conservative Supreme Court.

Besides.....you are needed all of you "moderates" in the blue states (or any states).....those of us who didn't get to vote for the "leader of the free world" are counting on you!

And finally...c'mon up for a good canuck beer anytime! Bring your parka.

P.S. re: the comment on Canada's military....we kicked your butt in 1812....don't you forget it.

Posted by: canuck | Nov 4, 2004 7:51:46 PM

Oh, we'd better let Jesusland have Alberta ... they have OIL, you know, so we'd just get invaded if we kept it.

Posted by: JK | Nov 4, 2004 8:01:15 PM

Fling: I cut down a tree and sell it to you. You cut up that tree and sell it as lumber. Jo takes that lumber and makes a chair. Windhose takes that chair and decorates it and sells it to the final consumer who puts it in their home. The first dollar came from that tree.

A service economy requires capital to already exist. You give me a haircut. Then you tip Jo for your lunch. Then Jo pays Windhose to sell his house. No one can resell my hair or the lunch you ate or the house hunting. Nothing has been gained or created.

The money in the middle east comes from oil. Sub-Saharan Africa has few natural resources so they must live as hunter/gatherers and don't have time to sit around thinking up computer programs if they want to eat.

Check out Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jarod Diamond.

Posted by: Just Karl | Nov 4, 2004 8:02:36 PM

Just Karl: I cut down a tree and sell it to you. You cut up that tree and sell it as lumber. Jo takes that lumber and makes a chair. Windhose takes that chair and decorates it and sells it to the final consumer who puts it in their home. The first dollar came from that tree.

No, in this case, I started with the dollar who paid it to you for the tree. The tree didn't create the dollar. In your model, money (capital can be a confusing term, so I'm switching to money) has to already exist as well, because I can't pay the dollar for the tree unless the dollar already existed. Money is created by the banking system, entirely separate and independent from whether an economy is driven by service, technology, natural resources, or labor. Capital has value because it allows you to use resources more efficiently. The amount of natural resources required to do so doesn't matter. Only the efficiency gain.

And of course, an economy can trade services or labor to other economies for natural resources, and vice versa. Countries (and states) that rely mostly on natural resources for their wealth actually tend not to have healthy economies because all of the wealth tends to go to the rich and/or powerful. Especially where extraction of the natural resources is capital-intensive instead of labor intensive, like oil. When the money is not spread around, you don't have very many exchanges and trades, and thus very little economic activity. Not to mention not much of a middle class with a vested interest in the success of the government and economy.

BTW, it looks like that book you recommend has a lot more to do with anthropology, history, and sociology than economics.

Posted by: fling93 | Nov 4, 2004 8:25:22 PM

Ok we can say that you trade me a cow for my tree and then, once you make lumber, you get a cow and chicken, and then for the chair Jo gets two cows, etc. The dollar itself has no value, that's true. But the point is in the end there is still the chair which came from the tree. The chair has more value than the tree. Wealth has been created.

When you take your haircut money and buy lunch nothing is created. The value of my haircut does not increase.

The book is great. It traces the rise of cultures and examines why Western Culture developed wealth faster than various other cultures. The answer is more natural resources.

Posted by: Just Karl | Nov 4, 2004 9:20:33 PM

The chair has more value than the tree. Wealth has been created.

That argues against your theory that all wealth comes from natural resources. The wealth or value added to the tree came from labor, not natural resources. Indeed, most of the wealth in a chair comes from the labor, not the tree.

When you take your haircut money and buy lunch nothing is created. The value of my haircut does not increase.

If you do not get a haircut, your profesional appearance is decreased, which makes it harder to make and keep social and professional contacts, reducing your social capital, thus making it harder for you to get and keep many jobs (especially if you work in, say, marketing or sales where the bulk of your value is in your contacts). Some people are also more productive when they are comfortable, and are more comfortable when their hair isn't too long.

The majority of services are aimed towards corporations. For example, payroll. Companies used to print their own paychecks. Now they pay another company to handle that service for them. This is of value to them because it frees up their resources towards areas where they can be more productive and have the biggest value-add. Thus, this service allows the company to create more with less, thus generating value and wealth. Ditto for accounting and security and database management and word processing and shipping and what have you. All of these services allow companies to be more productive, and thus generate wealth.

It traces the rise of cultures and examines why Western Culture developed wealth faster than various other cultures. The answer is more natural resources.

Perhaps it is, but that was before a lot of what I've been talking about had been discovered. Economies were a lot less productive and efficient back when nobody knew about comparative advantage and the efficiency gains of specialization and trade.

Posted by: fling93 | Nov 4, 2004 9:41:58 PM

"Actually, for rural people government is more like a distant interloper who sends you checks: farm subsidies, highway money, school money, funding for social programs -- all the stuff you'd never be able to do on your own."

Including a lot of stuff we'd just do without rather than pay for on our own. So why are y'all paying for it?

"If you're going to pretend that government is something for you to grouse about, at least get the reasons for grousing correct. You don't like government because of the REGULATIONS it puts on you: "

Yeah, that sucks ass too. A lot more than the taxes, in fact.

"But you looooove the money."

Who doesn't love getting free money from the government? (Well, besides people that actually want to enjoy looking at themselves in the mirror...) The thing is, some of us are stuck sending money to Washington so it can turn right back around and go to our neighbors, and our vote against it doesn't do as much good as it would if that money just went to the state capital and back.

Posted by:

Matthew Yglesias

Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community

A Modest Proposal

TrackBack

Comments