Texas Should Be Kicked Out of the Union
Mar 19th, 2010 | 44 responses
Homer: And how is “education” supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home wine-making course and I forgot how to drive?
Marge: That’s because you were drunk!
Homer: And how.
**********
WaPo:
Historians on Tuesday criticized proposed revisions to the Texas social studies curriculum, saying that many of the changes are historically inaccurate and that they would affect textbooks and classrooms far beyond the state’s borders.
You think? Maybe the historians criticized them because the result isn’t history but right-wing propaganda:
The changes, which were preliminarily approved last week by the Texas board of education and are expected to be given final approval in May, will reach deeply into Texas history classrooms, defining what textbooks must include and what teachers must cover. The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War.
Clearly, Texas is controlled by un-American elements that are, to a man (and woman), utterly insane — even if what they’re doing fits right in with the current truth-denying direction of American conservatism.
The only viable solution, it seems to me, is for Washington to rid the United States of the massive disease that Texas has become. Let it go, for America’s sake as well as for its own. Then it can revise history to its heart’s content, a heart flooded with venom.
(Or perhaps, to make some quick cash, Washington could sell Texas to the highest bidder. Maybe a gaggle of Russian oligarchs. Or maybe trade it — say, to China for Tibet and some significant debt relief, which would be good both for the spirit and for the pocketbook. Or maybe to Spain for Catalonia and the Basque region. Think how much better American cuisine would be if foodie-haven San Sebastian and El Bulli were American — and how much better American soccer would be with Barça on board. I’d certainly throw in, say, Rachael Ray to make that deal happen. Texas is way too valuable, you say, what with the oil and the cattle and the Dallas Cowboys and all? Fine. Then ask for Majorca, too, along with the collected works of Pedro Almodovar. Still not enough. Then target Javier Bardem and Penepole Cruz, as a couple. They’re Oscar winners. America loves them. And they’re hot.)
Otherwise, for a country supposedly so devoted to its founding, and that takes its history to be somehow providential, where, as they say, is the outrage?
**********
Simpsons quote, above, from the episode “Secrets of a Successful Marriage,” Season 5. It first aired on May 19, 1994.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
44 Responses to “Texas Should Be Kicked Out of the Union”
Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We need their natural resources and their universities are pretty good too….and Texas women…can't forget them!
Texas WANTS to be kicked out of the union.
I agree with shannonlee, and I can't tell if the poster is kind of just kidding. I agree that what the Texas schoolboard has done is terrible — I think it would be prudent for non-Texas book customers to specifically mandate (per law, as Texas has done), that they will not be buying books with Texan revisionist history. The Texas market is huge, but it isn't as big as the rest of the country. Most markets have room for two products — one looney bin history book for Texas, and one history book for the rest of us who think that, ya know, Thomas Jefferson was kind of an important founding father and that slavery was on the whole a bad thing for black people.
I know that it's a silly little funny joke to talk about Texas recession, but as I think I've tried to convey on earlier threads, if it actually happened, we'd have one of the worst crises the country has ever seen. First, the civil war that would definitely ensue would be devastating to everyone, in and out of Texas. Second, we'd essentially be giving up on the many many millions of American citizens who currently call Texas home, and who have a great deal of interest in remaining citizens of the US. Can you imagine the humanitarian crisis that we'd be faced with? Mass exodus from and to Texas — we'd have a refugee crisis that would put the Hurricane Katrina mess to shame. As with all such crises, the very wealthy will likely turn out ok, and the poor would be up sh*t creek. As shannonlee also points out, there's a ton of stuff in Texas that's important to the overall US economy, and plenty of other things owned by non-Texans, and non-state entities — oil, roads, infrastructure, etc.
The place I very much agree with the original poster is in that these new standards are blatantly spitting in the faces of our nations' founders and what they stood for. I'm certainly not one to deny the missteps of our founders — in fact, I think it's downright patriotic to look our own flaws and our own ugliness in the face — but to try to *change* history, erase the parts that seem politically uncomfortable for particular groups, that's an ugly tendency that should be nipped in the bud.
I say we send the CIA in there to incite secession, let them seceed, and then go to war with them for their oil and occupy their oil fields. Give the bids to the rights for the wells/drills to all non-Texas-based oil companies.
Your Texan world ranking will drop pretty quickly without federal financial backing. Texas will also have to build from scratch an army and navy/coast guard. Who ya gonna buy your tanks from, China? Importing and exporting suddenly become major problems, especially since an independent Texas won't be a part of NAFTA. Not to mention the fact you'll be vulnerable to Mexican takeover (you think the rest of the US will come rushing to Texas' aid? That ain't John Tyler in the White House you know). And while a slew of far right social and fiscal conservatives may swarm into what they consider 'friendly' territory, every sane Texan with more than 3 brain cells (okay, most of the hippies from Austin) will flee for the border. They call it a 'Brain Drain'. Inside of three years Texas will be in roughly the same shape that Bush/Cheney left the US: pretty F'ed Up.
Here's a brilliant suggestion to the 49 other states: don't rely on Texas to decide your school textbooks.
Here's another brilliant idea, coming from someone who remembers how banal and generic (AND inaccurate!) those school textbooks really were: instead of buying textbooks, why not create a reading list of applicable book titles and have your kids use the local libraries? Yes, I know the libraries are also running into problems with resources and budgeting, but guess what? They got books! And those books tend to have bibliographies and go through their own vetting process.
I must say I was bemused (or is it horrified) by the argument of one board member that they should not teach about Archbishop Romero because nobody knows who he is.
So we should not teach people things unless they know them already ?
“non Texas based oil companies”
Hmmm, would that be Sinclair, Marathon, Occidental, and Crown Central Petroleum?
Exxon = Houston
Chevron = Houston
Shell = Houston
Conoco Phillips = Houston
Couple of minor things:
1. I don't find your reference to Texas and racism to be even remotely funny.
2. Re refugees and the poor: Houston, above and beyond every other American city, opened itself to the vast majority of the poor who sought refuge from the broken levies of New Orleans. Most of this refugee population will remain in Houston, will never return to New Orleans, and will be happier and better off in a well governed Houston, as opposed to the horrifying mess which was New Orleans city government. Which is not to say this significantly uneducated and unskilled population will not continue to see hard times. But is, I guess, to make the racist assertion that they are better off with backward and hateful Houston's lesbian mayor than with progressive New Orleans' black mayor.
I was teasing, mostly. However, since you mention specifics: if we chose to, we would scale the hurdles and become a powerhouse nation. Texas sends more money to Washington than Washington sends to us. We would be freed from that burden, and would be freed from other oppressive Washington regulatory and legislative burdens. Don't believe for a second that we would be without resources to make it happen. And don't think we would not be an economic force – maybe especially if Obamacare passes, for then our massive Medical and Hospital Industry would become a healthcare destination for all of America. Canada too. And Mexico.
Currently, the United States benefits from some of the best and brightest from all over the world relocating to the freest nation in the world: the U.S. of A. If Texas became a nation, we would offer more freedom than the U.S. To the great benefit of the nation of Texas: many of the best and brightest and most resourceful persons in the U.S. would relocate to Texas.
1. I don't know what you're referring to in this. If you've looked over the new Texas education standards, you'd see the whitewashing of all things black. Here's a link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st…
If you think this sort of thing is unacceptable, by all means vote against the board members who have passed these new standards; it does no good to pretend that I'm the bad guy for bringing up that the standards do, indeed, whitewash history. You and the citizens of Texas have the power here, not me. Frankly, I don't find it remotely funny, either; when one is flabergasted by the hatred in the world, sometimes one can only resort to snark.
2. Absolutely, gcotharn, it does seem that Houston has opened it's arms to those who have needed refuge since the flood. This is certainly commendable. I don't think that you can deny though that there was, indeed, a major refugee crisis after Hurricane Katrina, but that was not what I was talking about, in any case. I am speaking of the refugee crisis that would happen if Texas were to secede. Do you think the citizens of Houston would be so kind to the millions of poor who would want to flee Texas during the bloody civil war that would absolutely happen if Texas actually made an attempt at secession? Do you think that a new country who has recently declared its independence and is in the process of its gorey fight for independence against the largest military in the world (the US') would have the sorts of resources to safely and humanely transport those millions? Would they even allow them to leave peacefully?
gcotharn — please disreguard my last comment to you. I was under the impression that you had some grasp on reality. Reading your last comment to Paul Wartenberg has disabused me of such a notion.
Wow…
Pish, Texas is not going to secede. I was having fun with Paul Wartenburg. And no way we would do a military fight with the U.S. If, somehow, against all odds and rational, Texas seceded, it would happen b/c the U.S. allowed it to happen. And it's never going to happen, anyway. But, if it did, Texas would succeed at seceding!
Separately, are you saying your cheap shot:
doesn't imply that Texas is an especially racist state? B/c, if you were not implying a special level of racial ignorance/animus in Texas – as opposed to, say, California or New York or wherever liberals gather – then I retract my previous statement.
Well, much of Texas has been working overtime to demonstrate it's interest in moving backwards intellectually, but since I used to like Austin so much (back in the day) I'm not quite ready to write them off… yet.
“if you were not implying a special level of racial ignorance/animus in Texas”
I would not reflect the overt racism of the Texas school board onto all Texans, no, or even onto Texans in general. However, I would strongly encourage you and other Texans like you to make sure that the school board understands that what they are putting into and taking out of their mandated curriculum does indicate deep-seated racial bias, and that that is unacceptable to you. I would strongly suggest that you vote against those on the board who uphold the racist views that have been voted into law to be taught to young people.
On the other hand, if you do think that the whitewashed history delineated in the new standards upholds the values of Texans in general and yourself in particular, well, then there's no need for you to retract your previous statement. If that's the case, then I meant to imply what you thought I did, and I won't apologize. I do hope that's not the case, though.
“Pish, Texas is not going to secede. “
I very much hope you are correct. It's perhaps a bad habit of mine, but when people talk about pie-in-the-sky political ideas, I do tend to try and analyze why that particular idea would be good or bad, and how. Since we're talking about secession, and there is a sizable number of Texans who genuinely support the idea, I think it's important to actually think about what that would mean for both Texans and for the rest of the US.
I am flattered. I hope you still like me!
There Schaden, I just gave you a point.
Keep Texas, for all its faults, lets get rid of California if we want to jetison a state, Texas is doing pretty well economically. Just keep the Napa Valley.
I wish Don Q. were here, because he hates “the South” too much for his own good but he's really good about one of the more interesting intellectual topics that outweighs gossip among some of us, namely secession and revision of the nation (which in this thread's case should also not neglect expulsion). Don's remarks about such things are good and certainly better than Mikey's feverish hate-filled psychoramata.
Leo, you need to get out more. At least keep Sonoma with Napa if you have the best-known wines on your mind. (Did you know that there are many other viticultural areas in the state, north, central, and south?)
C'mon, Mikey, get real and grow up. You neglect options that Blue Nation states have long earned for themselves for other reasons (failures!). As part of educational reform, for example, Duncan and Obama can just test and review everyone and threaten to demote Texas and other states, and any state that flunks or approves a lousy curriculum like you view Texas gets demoted to territorial status and placed under federal occupation, control, and direction during modernization (you dare not call it “reconstruction”).
(Forfeiture of Congressional representation, Presidential electors, etc. accompany the demotion.)
I think Don Q. would approve of that before going to the length of expulsion and punishing Texas otherwise.
“we would scale the hurdles and become a powerhouse nation.”
This is also possibly going too much in depth to sustain interest from some, but California is at the forefront of being able to secede and succeed on its own.* That not only is a real-world standard by which to gauge sentiment for secession, but also raises the question of what is meant today by the “states,” their residual sovereignty, and if the states were retained but redefined (with or without any formal role of the region, a larger area), what would it take to define such a thing in one's mind — what would be needed for states to be taken seriously by modern liberals? Being able to function much or all on their own, is it.
* The rare Blue Nation secessionists, such as the wacky ones after Bush won in 2004 as well as in 2000, have the option literally adjacent to them at hand, any time: not just seceding but also joining Canada.
(New England, upper Great Lakes portion of the Midwest, Pacific Northwest. More ambitious people would bear in mind the former extent of glaciation which pretty much match the lateral courses of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers, which also constitute the southern reach also of our Midwest. It would force partition of Missouri but otherwise would be a clean state as well as regional break.)
“since I used to like Austin so much”
No wonder. It not only has liberals there, and government, but schools, development, and — trees!
” We would be freed from that burden, and would be freed from other oppressive Washington regulatory and legislative burdens.”
What about territorial boundary resolution, and your retaining your portion of the US federal debt?
(The Saudis, friends of Texas and the Texans of the Middle East, can help you pay the debt part.)
(And you're so big, you may be asked to agree to a transit corridor for I-10 and -20 — the Panhandle may be ceded to the USA in the case of I-40.)
Have you ever read the great volume of literature on Quebec secession and what it may mean?
(You don't have to live everywhere and be interested in everything to appreciate the value of it.)
I've never read anything about secession – by Texas, Quebec, or otherwise. Just sayin: We're number #12!!!
I have enjoyed your musings. I'd be willing for Texas to take it's chances with it's share of the national debt. Texas would have a far easier time paying off it's share than the entire U.S. will have paying off the entire debt. The state of Texas has a balanced budget + $9 Billion in a rainy day fund. It's a start: the state is more solvent than the nation.
Okay, I retract my previous statement. It's a gol-danged lovefest around here.
Texas is one of the nations biggest buyers of school textbooks and many of the big textbook publishers are located in Texas. So textbooks published to meet Texas education standards are sold to other states as well and any changes to those books affect other states.
Other States need to stop buying books published in Texas. . . .
To the not so great state of TEXASS.Most of those people down there are as bat shit crazy as their governor Rick Perrypimple.Yeah,and there are a lot of racists in that state of ignorance!!
True enough, and it was a heck of a fun place to live – before it became so yupperized. If it makes you feel any better I just returned from 9 days in Palm Coast, FL and liked it there too – despite all the bible thumpery that goes on around those parts.
Texass!!Land of the bible blabbin seceding sons a bitches.YAHOO rednecks.Rick Perry for dictator of the year.
If the gov. says we are leaving than I leaving the Marine Corps along with a lot of other people and going to fight for our state. Yall may think u can just conquer again but this is a different time u cant bomb innocents anymore u can’t poison the land with salt like the war of Northern aggression. The U.N. exists now so when I camp on my 200 acres and have made homemade IED’s with C4 to keep out invaders I wonder how many of your soldiers you all are willing to give up their lives to bring us back to the union seeing how Obama stated that he was bringing our troops home from Iraq 6 months after he took office guess what it’s been over a year and it’s still counting. And don’t forget about oh yea Afghanistan yea u really don’t have the troops to fight anyone. We don’t even have the troops to fight Iran if they attacked us at the moment. But it’s okay because as long as liberals don’t believe in war and don’t want to fight in it or support the troops than I’m sure this is exactly what will happen because, America won’t have the troops to stop them when Texas and I’m sure a lot of other states leave this failing union. No country in the history of the world has ever survived 90% debt to GDP, the soviet union collapsed at 88% and we are at 84% how much longer till the U.S. can’t even pay its own troops do u really think the U.S. military is going to go to work for free you have lost your mind would you work 12 or 16 hour days for 5 to 6 days a week for free yea I doubt it. So think about this before u state that the U.S. is going to invade anything Obama is too scared to stand to Iran do you really think he is going to stand up against true Americans.
“Texas will also have to build from scratch an army and navy/coast guard. Who ya gonna buy your tanks from, China?”
First off both the national guard and the state militia are already in place and would go with Texas and you should realize that Global Tactical Systems, BAE Systems, and other military design and production companies are based in and have facilities in Texas. Hell Texas has the Biggest armored base in the country. US may end up buying tanks from Texas. The Idea that Mexico would invade is absurd but then so is the whole idea of “kicking out” Texas. Texas has the largest volume of export trade in the US. Yes there are a lot of hippies in Austin but if you think everyone will flee you don't get Texas at all. Texas produces the oil and natural gas and leads in the tech in the industries.We are massive agriculture producers of everything from oranges to cotton, yes we are the biggest producers of cotton in the US. Our massive economy is a net producer for the feds and the loss would devastate the fed govt. Would Texas be hurt, of course, but that is the nature of what we are talking about. Everyone would lose and lose big. The idea that the rest of the country would be OK is ignorant at best.
Maybe so, but still not as ignorant as Texas.
But they wouldn't choose to, because it would involve paying taxes. Expertise does you no good if you don't have the money to buy equipment.
“Maybe so, but still not as ignorant as Texas”
Wow second grade comebacks are soooo impressive.
Sorry, I just don't have much tolerance for the forces of dumbing down – regardless of which state it happens in. Texas is just making itself an easy target in that regard.
“The state of Texas has a balanced budget + $9 Billion in a rainy day fund. It's a start: the state is more solvent than the nation.”
Actually, I'm introducing the risk of wandering into another subject briefly, but I'll succumb: This illustrates the current problem we have not merely with the USA as a huge debtor, and China as the big creditor, but what has been demonstrated in a recent book I've acquired, explaining the Keynesian theory in a straightforward manner, with what is an individual virtue (savings, control on spending) being seen as a problem for the economy as a whole, or that of a nation for the world.
The book discusses the “problems” created by the East Asian countries, which have a high savings rate, and often large reserves (rainy-day and other funds, sovereign funds), and which are growing economically, are envisioned to be running surpluses (and saving the surpluses), and lists steps they need to increase consumption (and decrease savings, no doubt).
I believe it's fine to analyze that, but it's also essential not to neglect that what we're discussing in such cases is what still is usually agreed to be virtuous, not vicious, behavior by the “saver” nations.
Would we all rather be in a position like the USA now, indebted, deficits and debt, or like China, growing high single digits to low double digits annually, massive surpluses and reserves? I say the latter. That's what I'd want to see the USA become like (with the more refined qualification that even before retiring all the debt, obviously the taxes should be reduced, and the reserves kept to a reasonable limit; too-big reserves indicate too much taxation). I wish we were a creditor, net exporter, running surpluses. I certainly don't view as bad or wrong any state in the USA doing that.
Yes, Texas is in a good position, whether or not it were imagined to secede and go on its own.
…
A side note about what seems good but may be bad, and vice versa, is that I'm far from sold on Milton Friedman's acceptance of a trade deficit, by saying that imports are what get and exports are what we pay, the price, for imports. I dispute that, for I believe there is no direct relation or “tie” in almost all cases of imports specifically to (specific) exports. This is not the barter system.
[Austin]
“it was a heck of a fun place to be in the early 70's as a youth”
I bet. I still sometimes miss the less crowded, expensive, crime-ridden California where I grew up.
“9 days in Palm Coast, FL”
The transition zone — southern pines-coastal plain to the Peninsula proper.
From there all the way north into the mainland, the “blister belt” in the pines and on the coastal plain where the cooling-degree days exceed the heating degree-days each year is the “sleeper” part of the Southeast — not as mild winter as central and southern Florida, but still mild winters, comparing to Southern California. (The peninsula's winters are actually better, warmer, than California's [on the littoral]; the minimum or “floor” is raised in Florida — tropical wet-dry with warm dry winters.)
You're also near the boundary if Florida's peninsula were to be separated from the mainland.
(Suwanee River or east watershed boundary on the Gulf side, St. Augustine-the Cape on the Atlantic side, could be partitioned by existing counties easily; the capital of the peninsular state is Orlando or in Sebring…click, click, click, whirr, whirr, whirr…)
[Where to separate the peninsula from the mainland?]
http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/
http://geology.com/county-map/florida.shtml
http://www.floridagardener.com/misc/zones.htm
http://luddist.com/ImportMedia/normal.GIF
http://luddist.com/ImportMedia/pub/maps/Precipi…
http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/maps/florida…
http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/maps/florida…
“despite all the bible thumpery”
My favorite place I've lived has been in a solid Blue part of St. Louis metro, where my favorite food and music establishment had “Wanted for War Crimes — George W. Bush” posters on the front door of it.
(It was a thriving Eastern neighborhood, too, and a total meeting place of people of all kinds — diversity)
http://www.ucityloop.com/
* * *
“I've never read anything about secession – by Texas, Quebec, or otherwise.”
Well, it's a wealth of reading if you take the subject seriously (even if just as an intellectual outlet).
What you've seen from yourself and by others on this thread about the real-world consequences and problems of secession are instructive, I'm sure you'll agree.
(Possibly separating dry, sparsely populated western Texas from the eastern humid core is the least of it.)
Here are two last notes before yielding the floor again.
1. Territorial claims? Some in the US might agree to an old Texan claim for more, not less, territory.
(Take back the Stovepipe!)
http://www.maps.com/ref_map.aspx?pid=12926
2. Some believe not only that the Senate is “undemocratic” but the set of states is poor because there are so many small states, many with a smaller population (and economy or tax base) than large metro areas.
If we got really ugly about this, not only could we envision a Hitler-Stalin meeting and pact between two states to gobble and divide everything between them in the historical case of Ben Franklin's “the cask,”* but it would be easy to divide the whole Southwest between Califonia and Texas, along the Continental Divide. (Good-bye, Arizona and New Mexico, most specifically, in that extreme case.) The “Divides” are sadly unused when setting correct state (and effective regional) boundaries throughout the USA.
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a…
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/mld/condivl.html
http://www.sangres.com/newmexico/blm/cdnst.htm
(Here is an example from the eastern USA, for those who are curious.)
http://www.gpsinformation.org/jack/Divide/Divid…
Some of you have seen this map before, of a potential nation within a nation, a seperable region.
http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/atlas/images/big1…
Related:
http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/atlas/images/big0…
http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/atlas/images/big1…
http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/atlas/images/big0…
http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/atlas/
* For those who don't know: New Jersey is Franklin's “cask,” being tapped by New York and Pennsylvania. It's easy to envision a consolidation and rationalization that would have New York and Pennsylvania dividing New Jersey between themselves and annexing their respective pieces.
[Where to draw the boundary? Possibly involving a PA-NY territorial exchange at the same time?]
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/surfnj/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2…
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/pricelst/ofmap/ofm30.pdf
I agree it is optimal for a government to not spend all the money, and to thus realize a modest budgetary savings. Separately, if you can figure out how Keynes theories can succeed in the real world, then you are a far better thinker than me (as opposed to merely a “better thinker”!).
Honestly, the book did make me appreciate Keynes, or “beyond Keynes” in that what he was saying (not what libs have done in the West, pathetically selective, deficits all the time as though we are all perpetual victims of everlasting economic inadequacy in need of perpetual stimulus — with inflation if they can get away with that as another opiate of the masses, too, which they may try sometime soon, especially if “needed” or it is “ideal” for us).
The key about Keynes (not limited or restricted to him) is the “macro problem” as the author described it: What is true for individuals (or economic units) is not true for and can be the opposite for the economy as a whole. (Liberals on this site routinely misuse nomenclature of logical fallacies in the course of their emotional and frequently illogical argumentation. What we have with Keynes and the “macro problem” is not only the difference between micro- and macroeconomics, but also the plain argument that during the Depression, viewing the economy as a whole as the same as for individuals was a classic logical fallacy of composition, in addition to explaining why some errors were made.) The additional idea of Keynes about government substituting for individuals or for households when needed follows logically. It is interesting to contemplate our nation in a state of running surpluses and having reserves built up (never mind how they would
tempt and be misspent by politicians). The ideal taxes would be done during good times, with what the following word conveys: “skim” (or “skimming.”) “Raking off the excess” should be how most taxes out to feel.
The crucial point is the main, central one, that the economy as a whole is different from that of the individual or economic unit. Others need not succumb to the hype and legend surrounding Keynes, much confuse and wrongly ascribe authority and legitimacy to what liberals and goverments do in his name instead. Liberals since the 1800s have wanted interventionism as well as centralization as they have exihibited a totalitarian in additition to “statist” tendency (related to “scientism” and a faith in government as an instrument for economic and social engineering, not merely for progress), and Keynes came along at the time of formation of our modern welfare states (and true totalitarianism in Europe, which is more collectivist and authoritarian than we are; “statism” is truly European, not American; we left Britain before the 1850s). Keynes came along to rationalize and even effectively to encourage modern government interventionism in the
economy (as well as the welfare state). He is misappropriated routinely, but what he actually said has a fundamental validity and intellectual appeal. (Think of it as the way to really understand the real basis for interventionism in the world.)
The foregoing comments risk being labled as hyperbolic; basically, Keynes came along and said that what is true for people or households is not the same for the economy as a whole.
That being said, I still find individual or household saving and surpluses to be virtuous, and I will maintain that remains so for surplus-saving nations in the global economy that is its extension.
The book I've read about Keynes (and other subjects) is the third book by Roger Bootle in his trilogy that I enjoyed. (The first book in the series was one of the very few books written about ending substantial inflation several years, ago, and what that means. I've gotten the other two books since then, out of continued interest.) This book (#3) discusses the slump, capitalism, the financial markets, the global economy, and what can be done (including the Austrian option of keeping hands off everything, which he says is wrong).
What is particularly of interest I find in these books by Roger Bootle are that they are among the very few that discuss deflation. (The very few others are by Selgin and Schilling, for example.)
(FYI)
#3
http://books.google.com/books?id=uMCrq3OhPQAC&l…
#2
http://books.google.com/books?id=EUp2jo-3KQkC&l…
#1
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Inflation-Surviving…
Interesting stuff, and thanks for the links.
Most people don't even think of the Eastern Continental Divide (which is not only the logical western boundary for many East Coast actual or possible states, but which solves the question finally of the partition of Virginia and West Virginia), let alone watersheds and how well they apply to the eastern US if we revised the system of states someday.
More for those who are interested:
NY-PA-NJ-related
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/surfnj/…
Delaware
http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/edweb/maps.htm
Hudson
http://www.hudsonwatershed.org/map.html
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/26002.html
(WRI has great watershed maps of many river systems)
(Texas related: Rio Grande…)
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/map_lg.php?mid=397
(… Panhandle trimming…)
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/map_lg.php?mid=391
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/map_lg.php?mid=394
Secession and the details of partition (how, why) are more interesting than bashing Texas righties.