This old Volokh post on the topic is basically reasonable, though possibly wrong. Matt's plan to have something else (a subset of current D.C.) be the federal district should avoid the constitutional issues, which is a plus.
Why is there any justification for this? The District was created specifically so that is would not be a State. Why is that so hard to understand?
Splitting California into multiple states makes more sense.
It's very easy to understand, and very difficult to justify having the number of people living in an unrepresented area which currently do. I'm not one to give no weight to the fact it's traditionally one way, but giving it the weight you do doesn't make much sense to me either.
Why is there any justification for this? The District was created specifically so that is would not be a State.
By people who imagined a much smaller, less permanent population, let alone one drawn from the nations traditionally underrepresented underclass.
Why is there any justification for this? The District was created specifically so that is would not be a State. Why is that so hard to understand?
Because there are people who live there and are not represented in congress. If nobody lived there, there would be no justification.
The places where people live could also be made part of Maryland or Virginia.
The Volokh post linked in 1 is quite sensible. Two Senators for a little tiny city makes no sense whatsoever. Two Senators for Delaware doesn't make any sense either, but we can't do anything about that. Let's not make the situation worse.
The smaller Federal District with no housing element and the return of the remainder to Maryland makes more sense than a new state. Oh, and independence for Puerto Rico and the overseas territories, whether they like it or not.
Having a district that was not a state made sense when the federal government was weak by modern standards - a state containing the capital could exert undue influence. But now that the federal government is so much more powerful, the denial of voting rights to the District's citizens is more salient as an issue.
So why have a miniaturized federal district at all? Make everything north of the Potomac Maryland, and treat the federal buildings just like federal buildings in every other state (with a strengthened role for the Capital Police, Park Service, etc.).
By people who imagined a much smaller, less permanent population, let alone one drawn from the nations traditionally underrepresented underclass.
I'm sure the people who created DC would have been just fine not giving the "nations traditionally underrepresented underclass" a vote. Anyway, DC is gentrifying rapidly, it's no longer majority black. The non-poor DC population has way more influence over the Senators that are here then the rest of the country does anyway, giving them their *own* Senators would just compound the disadvantage.
I'll have a three-minute pwngg, please.
5: Virginia already took back their part.
Having a district that was not a state made sense when the federal government was weak by modern standards - a state containing the capital could exert undue influence. But now that the federal government is so much more powerful
Anyway, DC is gentrifying rapidly, it's no longer majority black. The non-poor DC population has way more influence over the Senators that are here then the rest of the country does anyway, giving them their *own* Senators would just compound the disadvantage.
A recipe for even more of a plutocracy than we now have. A powerful state that only rich people live in that controls the Federal government. What could go wrong?
Also, yggles' outline of the proposed Federal District resembles a hand giving the thumbs up. What could go wrong?!?!
Not only did VA get their part back, they got more. In 1945, as part of the creation of National Airport, VA got land (some islands and mud flats) that had been DC's. So retrocession has happened recently too. (Note that Congress kept control of the airport while letting VA have jurisdcition over the land. Sneaky.)
Two Senators for a little tiny city makes no sense whatsoever.
NO! IT IS YOU WHO MAKE NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!
Actually, that land grant to VA wasn't retrocession. It would have been retrocession if it had gone to Maryland. To VA it was just a gift.
Actually, OK, I was a bit off, as of 2006 DC is still 56.5% black, down from 66% in 1990. 38% white, up from 30%. But you have to remember, almost every one of those white people is a lobbyist or political hack of some kind! Giving them their own Senators would be disastrous!
Sometime in the next decade, I'm sure DC will go below 50% black.
more seriously, pls to defend why 2 senators makes sense for Wyoming but not for DC. For Bonus, incorporate comparisons to current and past city states.
I'll be getting some popcorn for this. :) Please proceed.
I'd be happy for DC to become a state for the sole purpose of pissing TLL off, but giving representation to the people who live there would be a good thing too.
Keeping people from voting is a big part of the Republican strategy, and they've been completely successful in DC.
(Yes, I understand that the real villains were Democrats like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. And oh yes, Robert Byrd.)
Sometime in the next decade, I'm sure DC will go below 50% black.
Laying out your nefarious plans in a blog comment is legally ill advisable.
Well, Michael, for one Senators are not apportioned by population. Statehood for the various territories became fore ordained when California became a state in 1850.
more seriously, pls to defend why 2 senators makes sense for Wyoming but not for DC.
It DOESN'T make sense for Wyoming, that's the whole point. But we're stuck with it. We're not stuck with two Senators for DC. Two wrongs don't make a right, my friend.
I said this once in comment 6. Does no one listen to what I have to say?
The non-poor DC population has way more influence over the Senators that are here then the rest of the country does anyway, giving them their *own* Senators would just compound the disadvantage.
"Sure, giving the poor and dienfranchised the right to vote sounds nice, but you have to consider that it gives yet more power to the already overly influential rich!! (OMG! I KNOW! RIGHT!?!) So we should reject the idea of a Democratic Republic."
18: Why's that? Every other major city seems to be going the opposite direction, and it seems like that should be a fairly powerful force keeping DC from getting too far over 50% white.
9: Anyway, DC is gentrifying rapidly, it's no longer majority black
Really? Is this true? Huh.
Adding everything north of the Potomac to Maryland would suck for Baltimore, I can tell you that, in terms of even more money and influence weighted to the southeastern part of the state (the part that's already basically DC-driven). But that's a practical concern, and it's not like other states don't suffer from something similar; in theory, yes, stripping DC down and giving some portion of its residents representation makes sense. In Maryland, yes.
No, I haven't read the linked post or the Volokh post.
"Well, Michael, for one Senators are not apportioned by population. ."
This is an argument against the existence of the senate?
"It DOESN'T make sense for Wyoming, that's the whole point. But we're stuck with it. We're not stuck with two Senators for DC. Two wrongs don't make a right, my friend."
wait, you're trolling me, right?
But you have to remember, almost every one of those white people is a lobbyist or political hack of some kind! Giving them their own Senators would be disastrous!
What are you talking about?
Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming are four states because of a nineteenth century political deal. If they were one state, they'd still be smaller than average.
Politics is about cutting deals. I don't think that this is a deal that can be cut, but none of the arguments against it are powerful. It's just a political reality.
Folding DC into Maryland or Virginia just to give them representation would be fine, too. But seriously, regardless of what PGD says, these are Negroes we're talking about. Negroes.
Really? Is this true? Huh.
I disproved my own false claim in comment 18! Does no one listen to anything I have to say!#@
25: white flight from cities has stopped, and in many places the urban core is gentrifying (although pretty slowly in most places). It's happening faster in DC because there are a huge number of high-paying jobs in the city, and also because the city government has been investing a ton in condo conversion, etc.
"Two wrongs don't make a right".
??
It's not like disproportionate representation is like baby raping.
"well, DC, we just realized that the American system is just imperfect! I know! We feel really bad about it. BUT, while it's wrong that you have no say in your government, it would ALSO BE wrong to make this imperfect system of ours any bigger. What? No, no, we have no plans to fix the system, we'll just leave it the way it is. I'm afraid we're stuck, my friends. We just can't give you the same rights everyone else has because it offends our principles!"
I'd be in favor of folding DC into Maryland or VA for Senate voting purposes. DC is more culturally similar to Maryland, but putting it in VA would seal the deal on turning VA blue, so that would be nice.
PGD, by the one-drop rule DC is ALL BLACK.
DC is more culturally similar to Maryland
Really? I guess maybe comparing it to all of Maryland under some hand-wavy "Northern" rubric, but for some reason I have the sense that NoVa is more a continuation of DC than Maryland's DC suburbs. That could be wrong (Virginia bias by me), or maybe you're doing a Roanoke-DC vs. Baltimore-DC comparison? Or something else?
white flight from cities has stopped, and in many places the urban core is gentrifying (although pretty slowly in most places).
Remember, I'm in Chicago. We're the ones along with New York that everyone visits to try to figure out how to revitalize a large city center. We've still been moving toward minority-majority (I think it's happened by now, actually) because of the Mexican immigration inflow and because white people are moving out of the non-core areas (as are some blacks, admittedly). I guess DC doesn't really have a poorer white population to get forced out, nor a big influx of Mexicans.
On the bright side, I think I figured out why your guys' restaurants suck.
Sometime in the next decade, I'm sure DC will go below 50% black.
2014, according to Rob Goodspeed. It's still majority black now, though, and will be plurality black for a while longer.
PGD my friend, I don't think this is a case of "two wrongs don't make it a right," I think it falls distinctly under the purview of my man Bill's favorite saying, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
31: I disproved my own false claim in comment 18!
My comment crossed with (my reading of) yours.
white flight from cities has stopped, and in many places the urban core is gentrifying (although pretty slowly in most places). It's happening faster in DC because there are a huge number of high-paying jobs in the city, and also because the city government has been investing a ton in condo conversion, etc.
This is interesting, if true. Surely there have been a huge number of high-paying jobs in DC for some time; and I know that MD, as far north as Balto, is seeing increasing numbers of home-buyers who work in DC who couldn't afford homes further south. So. Are we talking a younger demographic of white people who are buying these condos?
Have you lived in DC, Stanley? I mean, if you live in Virginia of course you're going to feel that DC is a continuation of NoVA, because NoVA is the most DC-ish part of Virginia and you probably haven't spent much time in Maryland. But I think PG County is way more similar to DC than Fairfax or even Arlington county is.
Plus I think the areas of Maryland that are contiguous with DC make up a bigger proportion of the state than the areas of VA that are contiguous with DC.
Really, the DC metroplex itself (DC, nearby MD, NoVA) would be a more logical and fun sort of state then metro DC itself, which is tiny and not culturally separate from the surrounding area in any way besides political boundaries.
Have you lived in DC, Stanley?
Nope. Mostly I swoop in for concerts or random parties with strangers from the internet. That's why I was asking, yo.
And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.
Shorter James Madison: The authority to set things up this way is ultimately derived from all y'all, and you'll find "sufficient inducements" in this new district, so no whining.
Really, the DC metroplex itself (DC, nearby MD, NoVA) would be a more logical and fun sort of state
This is true. Those areas are all of a piece.
I know that MD, as far north as Balto, is seeing increasing numbers of home-buyers who work in DC who couldn't afford homes further south.
It's worth noting that many of these people absolutely could afford to buy in DC, just not homes they'd like in the bits of DC where they want to live.
On the bright side, I think I figured out why your guys' restaurants suck.
why is that? I'm very curious, because they do.
Mostly I swoop in for concerts
Should I see Nada Surf tomorrow?
42: Thinking about it more, it might be the general sense that the "Federal Goverment" extends further into VA, what with the Pentagon and the CIA HQ. That could be what's skewing my perception.
Should I see Nada Surf tomorrow?
Actually, I rather like have no opinion whatsoever about Nada Surf.
Actually, I spend a lot of my time trying to pretend the Pentagon and the CIA don't exist, so maybe that skews my perception. Monolithic DC leans Virginia, while Funky DC leans Maryland.
I think it would make more sense to make the non-federal district parts part of the two surrounding states, and make sure they have their own voting representative(s), rather than give two new Senators (guaranteed insiders) to a small city whose population is somewhat transient.
Sometime in the next decade, I'm sure DC will go below 50% black.
I thought that the reblackification of DC was supposed to start in January, beginning with 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
52: How many kids you think Obama has? Sheesh.
Dozens of Kenyan relatives will come live in the White House.
Dozens of Kenyan relatives will come live in the White House
This sounds like the premise of a movie I definitely don't want to see.
Eh, still a step up from the Billy Carters and Neil Bushes of the world.
Nobody's suggested the obvious answer yet?
DC should become an independent nation.
Matt F's link in 40 is helpful: my question had been whether the increased proportion of non-blacks was due simply to an increased non-black population or due to blacks leaving the city. The numbers at the link show that it's very roughly equal, but with an edge toward simply increased non-black population.
thanks, Matt.
57: BUT WHO WILL WE GOVERN?
At least, we'd need to start by annexing the Pentagon so we can still conquer shit.
59: no can do. On the other hand, go-go tourism would be an important revenue stream.
47.1: Oh, I was just making a crack about how any American culinary city will somewhat suck without a strong immigrant backbone that actually gets everything done. That said, I guess DC just isn't much of a cultural city and food is part of that. Hopefully it gets better.
47.2: I don't know about Nada Surf, but you certainly should see Love Is All on Saturday night!
It's always good to see people paying attention to the question of statehood, but speaking as a DC resident, these schemes are all a bit beside the point.
The contours of the problem are well established both among voting rights activists and the legislature they're lobbying. Eleanor Holmes Norton nearly got a vote last session of congress; if all goes well, she will this time around. Then we can start talking about statehood -- but that's a fight that will probably take decades and may never be won. We're definitely not joining Maryland; we're definitely not getting Arlington back; and nobody outside the city cares about the issue enough to go to the trouble of amending the Constitution. Also, it's probably worth pointing out that the situation is more complicated than is generally acknowledged by virtue of the home rule question and the payments from the feds to the city. Just getting congress's fingers out of city government would be a major first step.
This sounds like the premise of a movie I definitely don't want to see.
We'll call it The Feds Must Be Crazy. It will provoke racial outrage, but the swipple crowd will find it charming.
Sort of a Beverly Hillbillies/Zulu mashup, maybe.
EXPAND DC to include NoVA (out to the WVa border, not actually very far), the Maryland suburbs, the MD western shore below Annapolis, and VA down to Quantico. Now Virginia is a Republican state again, so they won't be as upset about two more Democratic senators. Plus DC is now a fair-sized state, with urban and rural space and a somewhat diverse population, mountains, bayshore, and some good wine-growing country.
Note, however, that the border must be gerrymandered so that our part (DC) includes the Inn at Little Washington.
65 really screws Maryland. But we might consider the deal if you give us back Delaware.
What? Delaware never belonged to the Calvert family.
The obvious solution is retrocession to Maryland -- but we have the Baltimoreans (who won't even let us have a better national anthem) and the Virginians to contend with. Why Virginians? Because if downtown Washington was part of Maryland, people crossing the river for work would have to pay taxes.
The status quo isn't fair, but fortunately few are really forced to endure it.
66: I'd consider that as well. Consider, mind.
we have the Baltimoreans (who won't even let us have a better national anthem)
What's that, now?
67: Did so. Its in the original charter, but was stolen by William Penn. Rightfully, its a part of Maryland.
I plan to run for governor, one day, on a platform to use the Maryland National Guard to invade Delaware and occupy its tollbooths.
I plan to run for governor, one day, on a platform to use the Maryland National Guard to invade Delaware and occupy its tollbooths.
Then dejectedly fly home on your fusion-powered air-scooter when you realize they finished automating the tollbooths way back in 2031.
Googling around, I see that the Calverts tried to claim Delaware, and tried to drive the Dutch out. Without success.
I realize that with my stands on giving Florida back to Spain and Texas back to Mexico (and California too, if they'll take it) I ought to be in favor of returning southern Delaware to Holland and northern Delaware to Sweden. Nope.
70 -- But the charter didn't include lands already settled by Europeans. So no Delaware. That's the theory, anyway.
Sweden can have Northern Delaware. It's a dump. I want Southern Delaware because its got the beaches.
I'll take my share of Prince George's County back, if it's being offered.
75: oh gawd.
74: True, southern Delaware beaches are nice. Not that one believes in property lines in the first place.
67: Did so. Its in the original charter, but was stolen by William Penn. Rightfully, its a part of Maryland.
Also, "http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Yankee-Pennamite_Wars">Wilkes-Barre should be part of Connecticut.
73: My understanding is that the Dutch came to Delaware in 1629 and left in 1631. They didn't come back for years. Maryland got its charter in 1632, at which point Delaware was not settled by Europeans. So, I'm standing by my statement that Delaware is rightfully Maryland, as per the charter from the King.
69 -- H.R. 485 from the 100th Congress didn't kill itself.
79: Darn straight. I had ancestors in those wars. From Connecticut.
Those Pennsylvanians are a bunch of land grabbers.
69, 81: The National Anthem is awesome. Why would anyone want to replace it anyway?
OK, not only did I link wrong, but I linked to a URL that apparently can't be linked to. Serves me right for not using Wikipedia.
65 really screws Maryland. But we might consider the deal if you give us back Delaware.
How about we straighten out the Neck, give you those parts of VA and WV that are further north than Germantown?
One side of the chesapeake bay is Delaware, the other side is Maryland and Virginia. Easy.
I mean really, this is a fucking peninsula, it looks ridiculous to have that border there separating Delaware from the ultra-hinterlands, and plumb foolish to have that Virginia thing way down at the bottom.
80 -- I wouldn't be surprised to see the Calverts coming out on the wrong end of that one. Not, as Pars says, that it's anything but a not-so-polite fiction anyway. Anyone in the mood for transparent nonsense ought to take a look at the exchange of pamphlets between Roger Williams and John Cotton on the subject of the Crown's right to grant title to land in North America.
plumb foolish to have that Virginia thing way down at the bottom.
But we have ponies there! Real, live, wild ponies! You can't have our ponies.
From 2: Splitting California into multiple states makes more sense.
I'd rather argue this.
California should be four states.
Delaware gets the ponies, the Commonwealth of Columbia gets Silver Spring and Chevy Chase, and Connecticut gets Wilkes-Barre. Virginia can have a plot of land the size and shape of Wilkes-Barre taken from anywhere in Connecticut.
YOU GET NOTHING! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!
91: Okay, maybe. But you guys take parts to-be-determined of both the Shenandoah Valley (it's lovely, really; I'm sure you'll enjoy it) and Southside Virginia as yet to be determined. We'll figure out contiguity later.
Wow. Gerrymandering is fun!
Wait! I've got it!
Make DC part of California!
89: Constitutionally prohibited, I think. Still, we'd be happy to annex NoCal/Baja Oregon and develop a reefer-based economy.
Okay, 93 made me laugh my head off. I mean, out loud. A guffaw, if you will. Ahem.
88: The Maryland ponies are better than the Virginia ponies anyway. In Maryland, you go out on Assateague, the ponies are everywhere. Stealing your trash, shitting your your campgorund. Its awesome. In Virginia, the ponies are fenced off and you can't see them from the road except at extreme distance. What fun is that?
Thought experiment for those of us who don't fully understand CA political divisions: how would it be divided into two, three, four, or more different states? Be honest. Show your work.
98: Well, for one, we don't let our ponies eat trash, you rube.
Yeah, I'm sure your ponies eat Kobe steaks, plus one.
100: South Coast, San Francisco Bay State, Inland Shithole, and Jefferson.
91: It might not surprise you that my opinion has long been that the Shenandoah River is the true southern border of Maryland....
89: Constitutionally prohibited, I think.
Shouldn't be, if California and Congress both agree to it.
100: That's probably why they don't want to socialize with you. Plus, the yearly kidnappings.
99: the beach: San Diego to halfway up the Central Coast
SWPL-ville: Big Sur through the Russian River, including the whole Bay Area
the slums: the central valley from Sacramento south, to include the Inland Empire east of the LA basin.
the wilderness: north of Sacramento, including the coast north of say Salt Point.
Damn, 102 totally pwned me with the exact same divisions too. So they must be natural.
I lived in Sacramento (inland shithole!) and loved it. BUT THAT'S JUST BECAUSE I'M NOT RICH, SMART, BEAUTIFUL, OR FAMOUS ENOUGH TO LIVE NEAR THE COAST.
106 was pwned, but also?
the wilderness: north of Sacramento, including the coast north of say Salt Point.
It's called Jefferson!
Look, pony-fuckers, keep your filthy hands off California.
PGD is splitting up Sacramento between three regions, looks like.
110: hey, I don't care what you Inland Shithole dwellers think, with your ponies and your professors named Ari Kelman. South Coast for the South Coasters!
The Maryland ponies are better than the Virginia ponies anyway. In Maryland, you go out on Assateague, the ponies are everywhere. Stealing your trash, shitting your your campgorund. Its awesome. In Virginia, the ponies are fenced off and you can't see them from the road except at extreme distance.
Oh, wow. See, I keep forgetting: I keep thinking Assateague Island is MD, Chincoteague is too, right? Oh, no, it isn't. I haven't been to the latter, but at the former, while I don't remember any stealing of trash, it's kind of nice to have to watch out for the ponies, and respect the ponies who are right there sharing space and walking paths with you. That's just cool and good.
On the other hand, maybe on Chincoteague, it's not the ponies who are fenced off from the humans, but the humans who are fenced off from the ponies.
111: it's a little like Jerusalem that way.
I lived in Sacramento (inland shithole!) and loved it. BUT THAT'S JUST BECAUSE I'M NOT RICH, SMART, BEAUTIFUL, OR FAMOUS ENOUGH TO LIVE NEAR THE COAST.
Better watch out. Megan will hurt you.
I know about Jefferson, geez. It's a dumb name, Virginia should be called Jefferson.
As any Californian will tell you, Sacramento belongs to "inland shithole"/"the slums".
112: Yeah, plus gay marriage in two, maybe three (?) more states, I'm guessing.
I like how the rest of the country is mad jealous of our ponies.
I know about Jefferson, geez. It's a dumb name, Virginia should be called Jefferson.
As any Californian will tell you, Sacramento belongs to "inland shithole"/"the slums".
What's the justification for turning one blue state into two blue states and two red states, anyway?
I just read the Maryland Charter. Spike is right: Delaware should be ours. (It's the last section, where it says that any court interpreting any word clause or sentence should give the most favorable meaning possible for Maryland.)
I know about Jefferson, geez. It's a dumb name, Virginia should be called Jefferson.
It's a dumb idea, too! Think of the synergy.
You people need to watch out: wild ponies kick and bite.
I thought the proposed California/Oregon/Washington utopia was supposed to be called "Concordia" or "Cascadia" or "Candelabra" or something.
As any Californian will tell you, Sacramento belongs to "inland shithole"/"the slums".
I'm a Californian and I wouldn't tell you that.
It's called Jefferson!
Southern Cascadia, thankyouverymuch.
Shouldn't be, if California and Congress both agree to it.
True, that minor hurdle being cleared, it's an option.
115: megan will get the irony, believe me.
125: unusually open-minded Bay Area person!
I personally like Sacramento. Well, the midtown part, the suburbs are no good.
122: Wooohooo! Validation.
I believe the "don't fence off the pony" rule is also written into the Maryland charter.
Hey, Canada had it's parliament burned down!
Compared to that, this is nothin'!
or "Candelabra"
Menorah, the new homeland.
123: Bite and kick, ari, bite and kick.
Then east of Concascordelia, the desert where Napoleon Dynamite and Drew Bledsoe came from can be turned back into unorganized territory, or perhaps a disputed zone.
121: Cool. The map Nid helpfully linked to in 86 makes it clear to everyone that it's ridiculous anyway.
Also, the ponies on those islands off the shore are marvelous. ari knows the code: wild ponies kick and bite.
131: Dude, it's not nice to make fun of my dyslexia.
Oh, crap! Bite and kick? Doesn't have the same rhythm.
The California division question does interest me: obviously there are significant cultural differences across (or up and down) the state, and it's really freakin' huge, such that I suppose its citizens could declare that they really need more than two senators. Certainly if the entirety of New England were to become one state and be reduced to two senators, there'd be an uproar.
These things have been discussed before, of course, but it still makes me smile.
I would like to visit Craters of the Moon National Park.
135: Wow! What a great place! Makes the algific talus slopes look like a pile of crap, I'll tell you that.
National Monument. But yes, so would I. There are similar lava fields in eastern OR, very desolate and peaceful, and hard on one's shoes.
Algific. A word created in Iowa, by Iowans, for the benefit of Iowans and their very special snails.
I would also like to visit any Area called the Driftless Area, tbh.
135 looks rad. I was also psyched to go here, but now I'm full of confusion and anticipation.
Algific makes me think of fanfic about famous algaes finally fucking each other.
146, here's what you're looking for.
Lava flows are pretty interesting features on satellite pictures. Valley of Fires, one of my favorites, in New Mexico (that's not a lake, it's a lava flow), in part because it is just north of Alamogordo if you follow it of the map to the southwest it ends right at the White Sands test areas.
Virginia wears Washington DC like a tiny fucking hat.
I totally want to visit those lava flows now. Fuck you, Stormcrow, dictating my future travel plans to me.
I totally want to visit those lava flows now. Fuck Thank you, Stormcrow, dictating for suggesting my future travel plans to me.
Christ on a cross, man. Are you even house-trained?
Burn and rob! Burn and rob!
Who wants to shit on the floor?!?!
FUCK!
151: Maybe—maybe&mdash apo lets you shit in his kitchen sink once a week. Tops. And that's a long drive.
I'd drive to the moon to shit in the sink.
That'd be nuts, too, with the gravity?
151: So you finally found some ether?
The National Anthem is awesome. Why would anyone want to replace it anyway?
69, 81: The National Anthem is awesome. Why would anyone want to replace it anyway?
The US national anthem is crap. Not quite as crap as the British one [which is a horrible dirge] but the US one is absurd.
Sooner or later, everyone realises that the answer to the first verse of "Jerusalem" is "No" and the answer to the second verse is "Fetch them yourself".
But the US one is particularly strange because it boils down to "Remember the most humiliating moment in our entire military history? Yeah, I know, but didn't it look awesome!"
My favourite stanza of the British national anthem:
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.
re: 158
Yes, the Billy Connolly response to:
Rebellious Scots to crush
Is, "oh aye, you bloody think so?" ...
159. To be fair, that stanza has been officially replaced with the following piece of New Age warm fuzzy:
Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world over
They discontinued the home internationals due to the Scots pwning London, iirc.
Of course the modern day Tartan Army would probably leave London a nicer, more civilized place ... 20,000 guys called Findlay, equipped with stout walking shoes and a hip-flask of single malt.
Pointing out that the '45 wasn't really Scotland v. England - by the time of Culloden, the Jacobites were only being held together by large amounts of money, arms and troops provided by THE FRENCH, and were being led by Charles Stuart, described by Billy Connolly as "a wee effeminate Italian dwarf on a Shetland pony".
(Though that does undermine George MacDonald Fraser's remark about Cumberland "learning the vital lesson that if you can stop Scotland scoring in the first ten minutes you stand an excellent chance, because they tend to lose interest".)
Of course the modern day Tartan Army would probably leave London a nicer, more civilized place
Spoken like a man who's never seen Inverness on a Saturday night...
re: 164
I was thinking more that the current Tartan Army always seems like a bunch of chaps heavily invested in the 'nicest fans in europe' tag.
I'd lay Saturday night in Falkirk against Inverness, any day.
[I say this having never actually been to Inverness of course ...]
re: 164
Yeah, there's also a lot to be said for the quasi-revisionist p.o.v. that losing the '45 was just about the best possible thing that could have happened for Scotland.
Spoken like a man who's never seen Inverness on a Saturday night...
Does Cali run a rough firm then? I must admit the last time I encountered a large number of Scottish (Rangers) fans away (Lisbon, last April - I just happened to be there), they seemed quite harmless. Paralytic, of course, to the great amusement of the Portuguese, but perfectly friendly.
I'd lay Saturday night in Falkirk against Inverness, any day.
I say this because friends who had grown up in both hard parts of Edinburgh and hard parts of Glasgow were fucking terrified by Falkirk.
just about the best possible thing
Unless you happened to live near Culloden, I suppose.
re: 169
In what sense?
Iirc it's basically a swamp.
The roads into the town from the east were scattered with the bodies of men, women and children cut down at random by his advancing dragoons, while on the battlefield, parties of infantry, encouraged by their officers, covered themselves in blood as they ranged the ground stabbing or hacking to death any enemy wounded who caught their attention.http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/bloody/culloden/bloody3.htm#Bloody%20Aftermath
re: 171
Well, yes. If we are talking immediate aftermath the bloodshed went a lot further than just the environs of Culloden.
The town I'm from was a site of a major battle during the war.
Nevertheless, a generation later I'd guess it was better to a small client state of England with limited political rights than a small client state of France with none. After all, the joke about England being a country on an island ruled by Scotsmen goes back a long way.
(Although if Scotland had been a client of France, the counterfactual after 1789 might be interesting.)
re: 173.1
Yeah, I think that's the quasi-revisionist claim. The so-called Scottish Enlightenment was already well on its way by '45, though, so who knows exactly what would have happened either way.
Ken Macleod have a review of some book a while back that argued strongly that the substance of the post '45 union with England was definitely a good thing for Scotland.
173.2 -- It's a road you can't even start down, because you have to first recast the Seven Years War, and then the American Revolution (if one would have come about -- although there would have been something in New England at least against a Stuart revival).
I'd lay Saturday night in Falkirk against Inverness, any day.
Oh, definitely. Falkirk's the kind of place that refugees leave to seek a better life in Monrovia.
I think the counterfactual starts after '45 with a massive exodus of Presbyterian anti-Jacobites from Scotland to England and the colonies. With much of the urban population gone, Scotland becomes even more agricultural, and the Clearances continue, until the Highlands are a system of large sheep farms owned by French nobles and Frenchified lairds.
1789, and the revolution's ideals spread to the landless Scots... until the English, even more terrified of a revolutionary state across the border than they were of revolutionary France across the Channel, invade. And there's a three-cornered war between the English, the French government and the revolting crofters. (Like Haiti.)
175. True. If Scotland had mobilised on behalf of France in the Seven Years War, you guys would have been pretty much on your own.
sadly, 156 is correct. The US national anthem is hard to sing and easy to turn into a screechy ordeal. National anthems should be singable while plastered and remain recognizable. Ours sadly fails on this count. I suggest we replace it with "America Fuck Yeah!"
Trivia. The Dutch national anthem pledges allegiance to the King of Spain, but the Spanish does not, as it has no words; The Danish features a verse about beating the shit out of the Swedes, whereas the Icelandic seems resigned to national extinction.
On the whole, I don't think the Anglosphere does better or worse than anybody else.
Tibet's national anthem used to be "God Save The King" because the bandmaster of the only ceremonial band in Tibet had been to India and heard it played a lot there, and assumed it was a generic State Occasions Tune that everybody used. Someone tipped them off at some point, and they switched to two minutes of reverent silence followed by a slight bow.
Europeans need to become aware of "Maryland, My Maryland". Sung to the tune of "O Christmas Tree", the best part of the final stanza is that Maryland was not actually on the Southern side in the Civil War.
and they switched to two minutes of reverent silence followed by a slight bow.
A precedent that should be widely followed.
Sung to the tune of "O Christmas Tree" The Red Flag, the best part of the final stanza is that Maryland was not actually on the Southern side in the Civil War.
That's weird about the last stanza though. Were they once threatened by Newfoundlanders or something?
I'm alarmed by the phrase "Christ on a cross" (used by Stanley in 150). A cross? How many times was Christ crucified? Was he a serial crucifist? A crucifist recidivist?
A moving version of perhaps my favorite national anthem , sung in one of my favorite settings (sports!).
182: I think what's going on is that while Maryland was on the Northern side in the Civil War, many Marylanders, including the poet, disagreed with that decision.
185: in fact the whole poem/song was an attempt to persuade Marylanders to join the South. Lincoln is the despot. And the "patriotic gore" that flecked the streets of Baltimore was from riots that ensued when Federal troops marched through the city in 1861.
185: When the song was written, Maryland hadn't actually picked a side yet. The song was propaganda to get Maryland to pick the South.
And a related note on the original topic, the 1846 return to Virginia of its part of the original 10 mile by 10 mile square (now part of Alexandria and all of Arlington) had its roots in the slavery question. There was a growing movement to abolish slavery in DC (which happened in 1850) and the south of the Potomac side wanted no part of that.
188: 187 owned by 186
That's OK, yours contained less information was more succinct.
And thanks for sticking up for me against that beastly Beefo Meaty upthread. His brutality has caused me to compensate by being a totally unfunny dick in the Mineshaft thread.
She breathes! She burns! She'll come! She'll come!
The Maryland song is very odd.
"Better the fire upon thee roll,
Better the shot, the blade, the bowl,"
The bowl?? Not an obvious symbol of warfare...
"She breathes! She burns! She'll come! She'll come!"
Hott.
I've probably noted before that the fellow who wrote The Eyes of Texas married a cousin of mine.
I think on flintlock rifles, you call the thing you pour powder into so it can be sparked the "bowl". Or maybe I'm thinking of "pan", maybe both are acceptable.
The US national anthem is crap
Neighbor, please. Marvin Gaye begs to differ.
Oh, you mean the guy who wrote new words to I've Been Working On The Railroad? Does he know how much he amuses me?
184: Don't encourage the Canadians, PGD.
you call the thing you pour powder into so it can be sparked the "bowl".
You've got your drugs all mixed up.
Sorry, "pour" should be "pack".
194: only ever heard it called the pan, as in "flash in the pan" but I'm willing to believe that - maybe it's a transatlantic difference like faucet/tap.
This bowl thing is bugging me. There aren't many references online to "powder bowl" or the "bowl" of a rifle or musket. Maybe it was more common back then, but almost all sources seem to use "pan" exclusively.
Were "ball" and "bowl" sort of synonymous at that time? Maybe it means cannonballs or this sort of thing.
203: not as far as I know, though it's a good guess; "ball" and "bowl" don't even come from the same root. I suspect that it may just be a case of being stuck for another rhyme for "roll" and "toll". In which case Maryland is lucky that he didn't think of "troll".
I first learned about the story of "Maryland, My Maryland" from Sarah Vowell's Assassination Vacation. I really would like to know the circumstances of its adoption as the official song in 1939. One semi-disturbing bit of trivia is that there is an elementary school in Clinton MD named for its author, James Randall Ryder. Coincidentally (or not), Clinton is where John Wilkes Booth fled to Suratt's Tavern and got aid after ridding the world of the "despot".
182: Sung to the tune of "O Christmas Tree" The Red Flag
Actually, "Lauriger Horatius". Interesting twist on the tune for "The Red Flag".
The song is most frequently sung to the tune of the German carol "O Tannenbaum," but Connell intended "The Red Flag" be sung to a more obscure old Scots Jacobite tune, "The White Cockade."[-4-] "Tannenbaum" angered Connell both for its religious association, and because it served as the melody of the reactionary pro-Confederate song "Maryland, My Maryland."[-5-]
Connell blamed Adolphe Smith Headingley for inducing people to sing "The Red Flag" to the tune of "Maryland." Connell wrote, "Every time the song is sung to 'Maryland' the words are murdered. . . . robbed of their proper emphasis and true value and meaning. . . . Headingley might as well have set the song to 'The Dead March in Saul.'"[-6-] The "Maryland" or "Tannenbaum" version can sound a bit like a dirge, while "The White Cockade" version sounds more like a lively reel.
Gaa, I'm glad I came to this thread late when some of the stupider points had been rebutted and everyone had moved on to anthems and ponies.
The problem that needs solving is not, "what should the borders of D.C. be?", it's "why the fuck do half a million U.S. residents have neither voting representation in Congress nor self-rule?" It's not an abstract issue. As Tom alludes to in 62, the very Congress in which Eleanor Holmes Norton cannot vote controls D.C.'s budget, can -- and does -- overturn D.C.'s laws and referenda, and limits D.C.'s revenue by prohibiting a commuter tax on the Marylanders and Virginians who cross the border every day.
As for Yglesias' post itself,
Many DC license plates are emblazoned with the slogan "taxation without representation" and it seems the DC Council wants president Obama to put those plates on his car.,
Clinton had those plates put onto the presidential limo when they were first issued and W had them taken off about 5 minutes after his inauguration.
re: 195
Dude, one brilliant singer does not a good song make.
ZombiePaulRobeson, no doubt, would make God Save the Queen sounds awesome, but it remains a dirge.
I just looked at the map. Yg would leave the Supreme Court out of the federal district. And the federal courthouse.
Crappy artist, or just another Beltway pundit all caught up in the notion that only two of the three branches really count?
