Rants and Raves of a SPPACEY nature.

[ampersand]

I'd love to see a provincial system that each would manage their own fiscal policy and cultural laws. Northeast, Southeast, Midwest/West, Texas/Southwest, Southern California, Northwest. The federal government would be sent back 200 years in terms of size, and just manage monetary policy, upholding the Constitution & army.

I don't think that's enough.

Here's my breakdown:
California (possibly including Nevada)
Arizona/Utah/Wyoming/Colorado/New Mexico
Washington/Oregon/Montana/Idaho/The Dakotas
Texas
Oklahoma/Kansas/Nebraska/Missouri/Arkansas/Southern Illinois
Northern Illinois/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Michigan/Ohio/Indiana/Western Pennsylvania/West Virginia
Eastern Pennsylvania/Greater New York City/Southern-Western Connecticut/New Jersey/Delaware/Maryland/Northern Virginia/DC
The rest of Virginia/Tennessee/Kentucky/The Carolinas/Georgia/Alabama/Mississippi/Louisiana/Florida
The rest of Connecticut/Rhode Island/Upstate New York/Vermont/Massachusetts/New Hampshire/Maine

Nine countries--and if you travel around the US enough this seems about right. Impossible, of course, but if things truly made sense we'd be looking at an alliance of nine (or more) countries. We have at least that many regional cultures. (Probably more--"the south" isn't exactly one fluid area, nor is the upper Midwest.)

The problem is you'd would almost have to divide things by county lines, really. Basically, Anything south of a line parallel to Jefferson City in Missouri would be considered Ozarks and goes with Arkansas. Maybe the eastern part of Washington and Oregon would align itself with Idaho and Montana (I'd put Wyoming and Utah in the same boat too). Western Oregon, Washington the northern third of California would work well, but the south two thirds of California is a completely different cat altogether.

[The Cid]

If you really think about it, though, the US is far too fluid to have such a system broken up like this and have political consensus (at least a majority) in one area. For example, given the influx into Colorado of liberal Hollywood types (especially into Denver), it is likely that Colorado will be a "blue state" by the end of the decade - if not before. It went for Obama in 2008, and the states you lumped it with are "red" states - mostly libertarian or conservative leaning.

That's politically. I'm speaking more culturally. We have at least that many--and as Ampersand noted, likely more, different regional identities in this country. These regions may have political differences, but they have more things in common than they have with like-minded friends on the opposite end of the country. Think of how many different climates we have in America. (Not political climate, weather climate.)

There are times--especially when we travel to different parts of the country--that one wonders if this country is too big for its own good. You wonder how something can be good for two places as wildly different as Southern California and Maine, or West Texas and Greater New York.

[collegestudent22]

If you really think about it, though, the US is far too fluid to have such a system broken up like this and have political consensus (at least a majority) in one area. For example, given the influx into Colorado of liberal Hollywood types (especially into Denver), it is likely that Colorado will be a "blue state" by the end of the decade - if not before. It went for Obama in 2008, and the states you lumped it with are "red" states - mostly libertarian or conservative leaning.

That's politically. I'm speaking more culturally. We have at least that many--and as Ampersand noted, likely more, different regional identities in this country. These regions may have political differences, but they have more things in common than they have with like-minded friends on the opposite end of the country. Think of how many different climates we have in America. (Not political climate, weather climate.)

Even so, it would make more sense to break it up differently. Wyoming's culture is far different than Colorado's. Hell, San Francisco has a much different culture than Santa Maria, and they are in the same state!

There are times--especially when we travel to different parts of the country--that one wonders if this country is too big for its own good. You wonder how something can be good for two places as wildly different as Southern California and Maine, or West Texas and Greater New York.

That, to me, seems to be a much stronger argument for state's rights and less federal interference. I have been to MANY places in the United States without much of a culture change, and that change has far more frequently been small town v. large city.

[collegestudent22]

Rant: "9/11 was a lie." Really, nutso? Fuck, I hate this time of year. 9/11 coming around just seems to bring out all the wackjobs that think it was somehow an "inside job". It wasn't. I don't care what you think you know. You have absolutely no engineering background (of any kind) or demolitions experience. Anyone who does can clearly see that the "official line" (and by that, I mean unbiased publications like Popular Mechanics) is correct. Just shut the fuck up.

[StruckingFuggle]

While it bears remembering that the US certainly has considered terror attacks and other false flag operations, including against their own citizens ... it's rather freakin' unlikely that something as big as 9/11 was one of them.


( though as a curious side note, why is it never considered by nuts that the ones we know of as the hijackers were just dummies / stooges and the planes were hijacked by American operatives and actually crashed? That part would be a lot easier! And it'd get publications like PopMech on their side :p )

[collegestudent22]

While it bears remembering that the US certainly has considered terror attacks and other false flag operations, including against their own citizens

That is a pretty big accusation there. The only thing I have come up with from a study of history has been various "false flag" reasons for war - but even those weren't planned events. They were just used to create an opportunity for allegations for war.

The USS Maine was blown up and helped lead the US into the Spanish-American War, but it was later determined to be an accidental explosion. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is a bit sketchier, but still hasn't been proved to be orchestrated by the US Government (and these things tend to be revealed - they couldn't even hide Watergate, and that was just a hotel break in).

So, I guess, what exactly are you referring to when you say the US has considered attacking its own citizens in a "false flag" operation? The only proposed plan I have found was Operation Northwoods, which was to justify a war with Cuba. However, AFAIK, it was a proposal for simulated and phony attacks on Guantanamo (or ships placed in Cuban harbors for the explicit purpose of sinking them) - which would be conducted by those AT Guantanamo (or on the ships), creating a minimum of real property damage, and no lives actually lost. So it would essentially be pure propaganda.

it's rather freakin' unlikely that something as big as 9/11 was one of them.

Most people claim that we did it so we could get oil. But Afghanistan has almost no oil, and Iraq (which was two years later) has little oil compared to Iran/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait. Hell, that's part of the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait in the 90s. Oh, and we got like, no oil for ourselves. So, there's that.

Regardless, the science and engineering shows that the towers were brought down by the planes. There was no "inside job", no "secondary explosions", and definitely no government involvement. Anyone who believes otherwise is just deluded.

[The Cid]

That, to me, seems to be a much stronger argument for state's rights and less federal interference. I have been to MANY places in the United States without much of a culture change, and that change has far more frequently been small town v. large city.

I don't buy that for a minute. (Not your perceptions--you see what you see--I just never bought into the small town/big city thing. I think it's an overblown comparison made by people who wish to divide us. And yes I realize that's a funny thing to say when the topic is literally dividing America.)

I've been to plenty of big cities. Some are more alike than others--although, as big cities take on identities of their own, each has a few unique properties of its own--like New York and Philadelphia for example. They have some differences, and not just in size, but they're more alike than New York and, for example, Los Angeles. Or Washington DC and Los Angeles. Consider this: politically, Boston and Chicago have a lot of things in common. They also have similar climates (though they're not THAT similar), and there are parts of those cities that reminds a person of the other one. However, they also have vastly different cuisines, tastes in music, attitudes toward other people, driving habits, (road patterns,) architecture, history, and they don't celebrate all the same holidays. (Neither Columbus Day nor Patriots Day is a big deal in Chicago, for example.)

Yes, of course we all have many things in common. Big cities and small towns have many things in common too, despite what some would have you believe. To boot, there are many reasons it kicks ass to live in a country that's so diverse. As much as I think at times it would be a good idea for America to break apart into the nine countries I listed, it would suck to no longer share a country with awesome places like the upper Midwest, or have to get a passport to go get authentic southern cuisine. But the point I'm making is that, in many ways, those countries already exist. (Especially Texas, California, New England and "the deep South," all areas known for intense pride in a regional identity, and all distinctive areas that in many ways FEEL like their own countries. Which I find cool, if I haven't made that clear enough yet.)

[StruckingFuggle]

That is a pretty big accusation there. The only thing I have come up with from a study of history has been various "false flag" reasons for war - but even those weren't planned events. They were just used to create an opportunity for allegations for war.

Look up Operation Northwoods again. They considered a lot more things than that, both abroad and domestic, some of which involved actual murder. And even if it were never implemented, thank god(zilla) - keep in mind that this was a huge document that was not fiercely rejected ... a lot of people in the government, civilian and military, thought that this was not only an almost acceptable idea, but one that they could go through with carrying out. The fact that it was even a serious proposal and not from some fringe element should be plenty damning on its own.

Most people claim that we did it so we could get oil. But Afghanistan has almost no oil, and Iraq (which was two years later) has little oil compared to Iran/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait. Hell, that's part of the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait in the 90s. Oh, and we got like, no oil for ourselves. So, there's that.

Yeah, oil is a dumb reason. Personally I believe that if the US did Iraq for any reason, it was in an attempt at nation building ... which so far seems to have backfired spectacularly. Ah well. Oh and then there were all those no-bid contracts that channeled money into companies that were owned by those who were friends of those in power and making decisions, but I don't think they went in thinking "if we knock them down and offer to pick them up, we'll make a lot of money." I dunno, the whole thing is a clusterfuck and I doubt entirely that those who made the decisions had anything resembling 'pure' motives going into it, and still believe a lot of the grounds for the war were invented or staged or forced, but ... whatever. That's Iraq, though. Fuck, Afghanistan made sense, and seriously, if we wanted a war, we would have invented one for Iraq. Or Iran. Somewhere other than Afghanistan - there's nothing there (actually there's a lot there, probably, if it can be stabilized, in mineral wealth ... hmm), and trying to take Afghanistan has, historically, ended worse than trying to invade Russia in winter.

Besides. If 9/11 was to get to Iraq... There would have been some sort of actual link to Iraq in the whole event.

[collegestudent22]

That is a pretty big accusation there. The only thing I have come up with from a study of history has been various "false flag" reasons for war - but even those weren't planned events. They were just used to create an opportunity for allegations for war.

The fact that it was even a serious proposal and not from some fringe element should be plenty damning on its own.

I don't deny that. But, on the other hand, other nations have actually gone through with such a plan in the past. That is not to excuse the US at all.

Personally I believe that if the US did Iraq for any reason, it was in an attempt at nation building ... which so far seems to have backfired spectacularly.

I don't know about that. I think the Bush administration had decided for various (legitimate, IMO) reasons that Saddam had to go. WMDs were a large part of that - and hindsight being used to condemn that intel as a reason for war is ridiculous.

The nation-building? That's just a part of US war "etiquette". The US has typically spent billions to rebuild nations destroyed in wars the US was involved with. The only difference here being that no one in the nations destroyed can direct the rebuilding or fight the insurgency rebelling against it, so we are doing that too.

a lot of the grounds for the war were invented or staged or forced

Typical of war, though. Once the decision is made, the government will use any "reason" they can find to justify it and get the people on their side - valid, or not-so-valid.

Somewhere other than Afghanistan - there's nothing there (actually there's a lot there, probably, if it can be stabilized, in mineral wealth ... hmm)

Probably will never be used, absent some environmental problem that makes growing opium poppies impossible there. The drug farmers get far more money than they could get with a "legitimate" job.

Besides. If 9/11 was to get to Iraq... There would have been some sort of actual link to Iraq in the whole event.

And it would have been, I dunno, following shortly after, while the memory of the attack is vivid in people's minds.

[Springy]

Rave: DADT was ruled unconstitutional!

[JermCool]

I still don't get this. It was Clinton who implemented DADT through Executive Order, wasn't it? That was my recollection.

If that's the case, why does an activist "Imma gonna legislate from the bench so people will remember meeeeee" judge get a say?

[collegestudent22]

Rave: DADT was ruled unconstitutional!

You realize this means that the UCMJ is now the default. And since its creation in 1950, it has required homosexuals to be removed from the military. DADT was actually a policy designed to PROTECT homosexuals in the military.

If that's the case, why does an activist "Imma gonna legislate from the bench so people will remember meeeeee" judge get a say?

Executive Orders can be unconstitutional as well - just look at FDR's Executive Order 6102 (allowing him to steal your gold for "hoarding") or 9102 (internment of Japanese Americans).

So when, exactly, will the UCMJ be ruled unconstitutional? I mean, it has provisions against adultery, abortion, dueling, sodomy, bounced checks, and "conduct unbecoming". The fact of the matter is that once you sign up for the military, you give up some of your rights. You can't give your opinion on things while wearing a uniform, for example.

[maoof]

I don't know about that. I think the Bush administration had decided for various (legitimate, IMO) reasons that Saddam had to go. WMDs were a large part of that - and hindsight being used to condemn that intel as a reason for war is ridiculous.

An excellent book to give a wider context to our military activities in the Middle East is Crescent of Criss: U.S.-European Strategy for the Greater Middle East. It's nearing 5 years old but is still exceptionally relevant towards pretty much every major facet of our approach in the Middle East. Highly recommended. It's from Brookings. Some parts will anger you, some parts will make you shake your head in horror, but pretty much every part of the book it is reflecting very serious realities in very high places of operation.

[ampersand]

Rant: One of the lead designers from Company of Heroes drives his car in such a way that he protects his pregnant wife against a runaway car. The driver and passengers in the other car were a) stoned and b) trying to help the driver take off his sweater while driving. The action of pulling off your sweater alone while driving should be enough to have your license revoked.

[collegestudent22]

Frankly, the guy did something really stupid. Cars are designed to minimize the impact from front-end crashes. Crumple zones, airbags, etc. only really help in a head-on collision. Likely, they would have both survived had he not swerved.

Really, though, instinct is to swerve and try to avoid the collision. I don't think he thought about it - just acted. It was technically wrong, and likely ended up in his death, but he did act to save his family, so I can't fault him for it....