Althouse: If the U.S. ever breaks up...

January 2, 2009

If the U.S. ever breaks up...

... do you think it will break up this way?

62 comments:

Ron said...: 'under Canadian influence'? Seems to me, the bugs have to watch out for the windshields, not the other way around!

Ivan's been hittin' the vodka again...; 1/2/09, 10:46 PM
KLDAVIS said...: Can you imagine the mockery that would be foisted on someone doing a similar dissection of Russia? Oh, wait...didn't they do that?

Would the EU embrace their new Kentucky brethren? Would the entire economy of the state of West Virginia be dedicated to purchasing the mandatory carbon offsets to cover the coal mining industry.; 1/2/09, 10:46 PM
Ron said...: Will Instapundit be content being an EU bureaucrat?; 1/2/09, 10:50 PM
DaLawGiver said...: The Texas Republic will become part of Mexico? In 2007 Texas alone had a gsp comparable to Mexico's gnp. Add Florida and the rest of the South and we might just annex Mexico.; 1/2/09, 10:54 PM
Wince said...: I'm sure it'll be Yoko's fault.; 1/2/09, 10:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Tennessee and Kentucky in the EU? Working with the French on some directive?

This I gotta see.; 1/2/09, 10:58 PM
Dave in Tucson said...: So, not only is the US going to break up, it's going to be precisely along state lines? Not hardly.

Particularly in the West, access to water is a huge issue. Any break-up scenario that doesn't leave the Colorado river under a single jurisdiction seems to be pretty naive.

D∈T; 1/2/09, 11:04 PM
Rohan said...: I could see the States breaking up like that, if the States ever broke up.

What I don't see is the whole "under the influence" of part. People vastly underestimate the size and power of the individual states. Each of those new countries would be a power to be reckoned with.; 1/2/09, 11:06 PM
Palladian said...: This is stupid. First it was Kathy Griffin then the silly bunt blabbering about the "scientific explanation" of the Virgin Birth, now it's some old vodka-drunk ex-Commie with less knowledge of the US than Miss South Carolina Teen USA 2007 wetting his burlap slacks about the BREAKUP of the USA. What is it, publicity whore day on Althouse?; 1/2/09, 11:18 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Wishful thinking writ large.

Eeeeeeh, what an ul-ta-rah maroon.; 1/2/09, 11:51 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Don't take your love away from me
Don't you leave my heart in misery
If you go then I'll be blue
'Cause breaking up is hard to do

Remember when you held me tight
And you kissed me all through the night
Think of all that we've been through
Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

They say that breaking up is hard to do
Now I know, I know that it's true
Don't say that this is the end
Instead of breaking up I wish that we were making up again

I beg of you, don't say goodbye
Can't we give our love another try
Come on baby, let's start a new
'Cause breaking up is hard to do; 1/2/09, 11:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Well first, I can't see Texas going with anybody but Texas. I can see a split Califoria with the top half going with Oregon/Washington. Southern Calif., New Mexico, Arizona, bringing the Baja with them. Snowbird/Cowboy states banded together. The "Old" South minus Kentucky (it goes with Ohio, Illinois, etc.) The East Coast...

But in reality, if it did happen you'd probably see 5 separates - a East Coast, West Coast, Middle and South, Texas, and Alaska. Kind of a Red State/Blue State thing.

Never gonna happen.; 1/2/09, 11:58 PM
Jake said...: This is a much more logical and thoughtful North America breakup map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America; 1/2/09, 11:59 PM
LonewackoDotCom said...: His lack of knowledge of non-state-boundary regions tends to undercut his ideas. For instance, most of NoCal, OR, and WA would be a common division, perhaps extending further inland. However, SoCal/AZ/NV/southern UT/NM/western TX are an entirely different region. Except in the fact that one is a good state and the other isn't, there's no reason to separate AZ and NM as he does.

As for Mexican influence, see my summary. I've got five hundred posts - yes, 500 - about that government in one way or another. They already have a great deal of influence inside the U.S., even if most people are unaware of it.

Note that several non-profits have direct or indirect links to that government; in fact, the ACLU is directly collaborating with them. There are several CA politicians who frequently act more like agents of that government than U.S. reps.

And, persons linked to that government helped organize major marches in 2006, including one that BHO spoke at.

And, under Bush, various initiatives were launched giving benefits to their citizens inside the U.S.

And, their consuls frequently lobby city councils to change laws that enable them to make money.

And, one of their former cabinet-level officials was doing outreach to U.S. voters on McCain's behalf.

And, on and on. And, all of it something that Althouse is completely oblivious to.

(P.S. Expect useful idiots/enablers of illegal activity to present a strawman counter-argument to the above.); 1/3/09, 12:08 AM
reader_iam said...: ... do you think it will break up this way?

No.; 1/3/09, 12:10 AM
rcocean said...: I'd actually pay "Old England" to take back "New England". Imagine no more Barney Frank or Kennedys. And Sully could be a Tory & have gay sex in P-Town.; 1/3/09, 12:12 AM
Synova said...: now it's some old vodka-drunk ex-Commie with less knowledge of the US than Miss South Carolina Teen USA 2007...

LOL, oh Palladian, that is harsh. Poor girl.

But true, so very true.

It's fun to play make believe about a break up of the US, some alternate future. Like others said... the "under the influence" thing is a riot. Texas with Texas. South California controlling the Colorado river watershed. Appalachia telling the blue coasters to stuff it. The greater Dakota Territory (Dakotas, Wyoming, and East Montana) becomes the worlds largest nuclear power...

Say, don't they still have nukes in Alaska, too? And oil. And an Air Guard used to blowing kisses at Russians, radar early detection line, an Army Guard with current experience and training, an excessively well armed population, and Sarah Freaking Palin as governor?

When it all breaks down... that woman may rule the world.; 1/3/09, 12:19 AM
JohnAnnArbor said...: We bought Alaska. The National Archives has the receipt somewhere. We should send the professor a copy.

Since Russians are trained to hate America by their state-owned media, they should love this guy over there.; 1/3/09, 12:20 AM
Synova said...: Lonewacko... you've a point, but I'd make the counter observance that the chances of Hispanics in the US accepting rule from Mexico is not large.

Like other immigrants most of them self-selected.

The culture here in New Mexico is heavily influenced by Hispanic culture and History (including original land grants from Spain and cities older than the United States of America and who actually sent "foreign aid" to the revolutionaries in New England.) And it will remain a largely Hispanic culture. But "New Mexican" isn't "Mexican" and the History is different, culture is different and the food is different in ways that the locals find significant even if it all looks the same to someone driving through.; 1/3/09, 12:28 AM
LonewackoDotCom said...: Bonus:

Here's Althouse's 2008 pick issuing reconquista-style comments, and here's her (presumed) 2004 pick doing the same.

On the wider issue of influence but not from me, see this and this.; 1/3/09, 12:35 AM
LonewackoDotCom said...: While it's true that one can't drive through NM fast enough, there are other options than "Hispanics in the US accepting rule from Mexico", such as this.; 1/3/09, 12:37 AM
Kev said...: Well first, I can't see Texas going with anybody but Texas.

Very true; we've been our own country in the past, after all, and there's still quite a bit of that "rugged frontier individualism" going around here. (And I can't imagine uniting with one of our neighbors--with the possible exception of Louisiana, because of the tourism and the amazing food.); 1/3/09, 1:07 AM
Shawn Levasseur said...: Looks like a rejected plan for the breakup of AT&T in the 80's; 1/3/09, 1:31 AM
Host with the Most said...: palladian said:

This is stupid. First it was Kathy Griffin then the silly bunt blabbering about the "scientific explanation" of the Virgin Birth, now it's some old vodka-drunk ex-Commie with less knowledge of the US than Miss South Carolina Teen USA 2007 wetting his burlap slacks about the BREAKUP of the USA. What is it, publicity whore day on Althouse?

Palladian, you nailed it again!

Ann found them in a file titled:

For Those Needing To Get A Life; 1/3/09, 1:32 AM
amba said...: No, much likelier to divide this way.; 1/3/09, 1:49 AM
John Stodder said...: I was watching a Rick Steves tour of Vienna this evening and concluded the best place to live is in the capital or commercial center of a former empire.

So Russia, China, Mexico and Canada, bring it on! You guys run the world for awhile. I'm going out for a cappuccino.; 1/3/09, 2:13 AM
lowercase said...: You can't break up the four corners states, that's just silly. Kentucky and Tennessee would either go midwest or South, but not East. Idaho would go with Montana and Wyoming. Nevada would be divided up the middle vertical unless the 4 corners went with the West. Wishful thinking on the part of the Russians about Alaska though it would sober people up about the true value of ANWAR. Texas would become its own country once again, or be reabsorbed back into Mexico.; 1/3/09, 2:50 AM
Cedarford said...: Given demography, the breakup of the USA would be limited to the Southwest. And Open Borders advocate Bush II, would well deserve having his Presidential Library located south of the Border and Crawford renamed Cuidad del Crawfordia and he and his vapid wife made to talk Spanish in their retirement for any transaction..

But as for Russia, someone should tell the Russkie academic that demography trends to having half the Russian landmass be gifted to Asians as inheritors. Mainly the Chinese and Khazaks.; 1/3/09, 3:22 AM
blake said...: There are few things as amusing as the thoughts of foreigners on one's own culture, eh?

An essay I read in college--by a Canadian, no less, who might've driven down to investigate on his own--posited that Southern California's freeways ("strips", he called them) had replaced more traditional social meeting grounds, such as churches, malls, etc.

(Honking horns and flipping the bird are a form of socializing, I suppose, yet they hardly seem sufficient.); 1/3/09, 3:48 AM
Anonymous said...: What country in its right mind would want Illinois? Canada?

How'd they like the sound of this: Premier Daley?; 1/3/09, 5:34 AM
JohnAnnArbor said...: There are few things as amusing as the thoughts of foreigners on one's own culture, eh?

Something to remember when contemplating other cultures, I suppose.; 1/3/09, 6:00 AM
The Drill SGT said...: PJ said...Texas would become its own country once again, or be reabsorbed back into Mexico.

Let's assume for the sake of this BS argument that like the break-up of the USSR, each state or region keeps the military forces based there upon breakup.

Given that Texas would end up with a GNP greater than Mexico, and the best trained and second largest largest military in the world (after China), I don't think some Loser from Mexico City is going to be calling the shots in San Antonio. Not if the Daughters of the Republic of Texas (the real power) have anything to say about it.

1st Cav Div
1st Arm Div
4th Mech Div
36th Inf Div
3rd ACR
III Corps

The Texicans did well at the Alamo with 182 men, give them 700 Abrams and they'd be in Mexico City by morning. After all lots of them speak the lingo and it's got better roads than Iraq. :); 1/3/09, 6:14 AM
Linda Fox said...: How ridiculous!

The Carolinas have nothing in common with the Northeast culturally. It is likelier that, IF such a split-up occurred, some states would divide, rather than separate as a unit.

However, that scenario is VERY unlikely. Americans have too many ties with other parts of the US to even consider it. We take for granted our ability to seamlessly travel throughout the country without visas or passports.

This idea comes from someone who has NO idea of how America works. He is a rookie on Americans.; 1/3/09, 6:54 AM
Mitch said...: SC in union with the God-less heathens in Europe? Never!; 1/3/09, 7:20 AM
George M. Spencer said...: This Russkie is ripping off a polisci book written in the late 1960s or early 1970s which was excerpted at great length in Esquire. Its author imagined similar divisions.

Re: the South, you'd want to create a land-locked Appalachia running diagonally from western PA into northern Alabama, as well as a Deep South separate from the eastern seaboard South. Florida is its own thing.

I always liked Ted Turner's (?) idea of a depopulated Dakota region inhabited entirely by buffalo.; 1/3/09, 7:55 AM
George M. Spencer said...: Vide Jake's broken link above....Joel Garreau's book "The Nine Nations of North America"; 1/3/09, 7:59 AM
joewxman said...: a large number of northeasterners have invaded north and south carolina looking for cheaper places to live. But anything with ny nj or mass in it will guarantee to bankrupt everyone else.

As for the west. Put Utah and Idaho in the california zone? Will all those Mormans be welcomed by the San Francisco "tolerance" crowd? Doubtful.; 1/3/09, 8:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Most Ohioans would rather give Cleveland away than to secede with them to something else.

So, yeah, as others have pointed out, the whole existing-state-boundaries thing is pretty silly.

I read a fun little book recently about how the states got their present borders, and a lot of them were the results of petty disputes, imposed compromises, and drunken surveyors. Good stuff. Hard to see how some of those decisions would hold up under dissembling circumstances.; 1/3/09, 8:07 AM
knox said...: Tennessee in the European Union... now that's sitcom material. Beverly Hillbillies redux.; 1/3/09, 8:29 AM
KCFleming said...: Marxists made similar claims during the last Depression, and these more recent claims, intially ridiculed, got a recent boost from our serious economic troubles.

It could happen. Not likely, but possible. According to the scenario, we fall into civil war later this year.

The only people with legal guns in most of the big cities are gang members and thieves, cops and the National Guard.

Civil war seems unlikely.
Secession is possible, but not on these proposed lines, and not soon.

Like in the 1930s, it all depends on the way we are led thru this depression. Compared to then, however, we are a generation of pussies, so who knows?; 1/3/09, 8:42 AM
bearbee said...: Which are those wealthier states he mentions?

A few years ago a Canadian speculated to me about US and Canada becoming one. I imagine he has since reconsidered his theory.

The financial strength and diversity of either Mexico and Russia isn't particularly compelling. Russia economy is primarily reliant on its natural resources and Mexico its exports to the US, oil production which is in decline and tourism.

For the last 2 years or so I've been hearing about a possible North American (US-Canada-Mexico) currency called the Amiro to replace the US dollar, peso and Canadian dollar.

I'm curious on the process the professor foresees this breakup will follow.

Igor on his theory.; 1/3/09, 8:59 AM
TMink said...: Linda wrote: "This idea comes from someone who has NO idea of how America works. He is a rookie on Americans."

We agree. This is written by someone from the culture of the pervasive state, so he completely overvalues political divisions and undervalues cultural ones.

In my state, Memphis has more in common with Mississippi than Nashville, and East Tennessee is culturally mountain land. You would think, with his more recent and geographically evidence of empire failure he would have paid more attention to cultural allegiences.

Trey; 1/3/09, 9:14 AM
JennyP said...: Reminds me of something I once read that a European said about the USA: That it was united by the dollar, McDonalds, and watching Jay Leno. That was our answer to all those Euro ethno-religious and linguistic bonds. And that elasticity of culture's likely to end up holding us together longer too.; 1/3/09, 9:28 AM
J.R. said...: This map makes little sense culturally. It seems the Russian who drew it has a poor understanding of American culture.

If the U.S. broke up the resulting regions would not have such clean lines. We would have the South, the Southwest, the Pacific coast, the West, the mid-West, the Ohio Valley and New England/the Northeast.; 1/3/09, 10:03 AM
Titushadaneggsandwich said...: Believe me southern states the east coast doesn't want you a part of their "territory" much much more than you would be in our territory.

The thought of no more fat southern cunts coming to town for Sex and The City bus tours is only something that we can pray for-an don't pray.

Also, the thought of Patrick Mchenry and minny Strom Thurmonds and Jesse Helms makes our skin crawl.

No, really, we despise the southern redneck ten times more than you despise the eastern elite.

And if you want to stop traveling to our fabulous cities to see garbage Broadway plays that would be greatly appreciated as well.

Haven't you seen how we depict you in movies-it is pure unadulerated hate...and completely and totally deliberate.

Now go fuck your cousins in the trailer park next door and give us some of those intellectuals that your part of the country is so famous for.

Or if they are intellectuals they tend to run right up north=why is that?; 1/3/09, 10:17 AM
Titushadaneggsandwich said...: I did hear Jackson, Montgomery, Colombia, Knoxville are creative hubs though.

They were great in inventing life saving cancer drugs, computers, the internet...oh wait those things happened in disgusting blue states, never mind.; 1/3/09, 10:20 AM
Chris said...: This breakup map and the the subsequent "Under the influence of" predictions are pretty ridiculous. If America falls apart, so do China, Canada, Europe and Mexico, all of whose economies are entirely dependent upon a robust American/global economy.

But that's the dream for so many people isn't it? The US falling on its ass, without having any impact on the rest of the world. China steps in to seamlessly assume the role of global superpower and we all get to laugh as America gets its comeuppance. Does this "professor" have the slightest clue about the interconnectedness of economic destinies in the modern world?; 1/3/09, 10:24 AM
Big Mike said...: Northern Virginia would break away from the rest of the state (or vice versa) and go with the Carolinas and Tennessee to the old Confederacy. Texas would bring Arizona and New Mexico into the Old Confederacy. West Virginia would go with Pennsylvania and Ohio and most of the rest of the Rust Belt.

New York probably would go with New England, but Vermont has been longing to join Canada for years and ought to be allowed to go. Pennsylvania has more in common with Ohio and the rest of the Rust Belt than with New England.

Why would Montana, Idaho, and the Dakotas want to associate themselves with Wisconsin and Michigan? Those two would be stuck with Illinois and Iowa.

Alaskan would not go back to Russia. The kind of people who would elect a Sarah Palin would be uncomfortable with the latte drinkers of Washington and Oregon, but probably eastern Oregon and eastern Washington would break away from the coast and link up with Idaho, Colorado, Montana, Minnesota, and Dakotas, and a group like that would gladly welcome Alaska and its oil revenues, while Alaskans would feel comfortable with people who go snowmobiling in the winter.

Nobody would want California, New Jersey or Michigan.; 1/3/09, 10:27 AM
Big Mike said...: Sorry. It's southern Virginia that would join the Carolinas and the Old Confederacy.

Northern Virginia is largely populated with refugees from New York and Maryland and so a breakaway Northern Virginia would go with those two states.

I apologize for my error in editing.; 1/3/09, 10:29 AM
Tibore said...: This is a ludicrous idea all around. A Russian academic viewing the US through the distorted lens of the Soviet Union breakup is going to enter this with tainted preconceptions. To start with, US citizens haven't been statist enough to lend credence to the "breakup" scenario since the Civil War, and even then there was some ambivilence at the idea. But we're supposed to accept that nowadays, the sensibilities are so state- and region-centered that American's would willingly let the US disintegrate? Forgive the argument from incredulity, but I'm simply overwhelmed with incredulity at the notion.

Furthermore, regardless of the hyperventilations of university academics invested in race studies, the US is not so ethnically stratified that regions feel an allegiance to local groups that's above and beyond their sense that they're Americans in the end. Most people see American citizenship as something to be tacked on the end of the hyphen designating their primary allegiance - Afro-American, Asian-American, Latino-American - which is far from being something that obscures or obliterates such identity. Contrast that with the feelings of various ethnic groups in the old Soviet Union, who felt exceptional assimilation pressures from Moscow. Americanism is not something that replaces the core of one's identity; it's simply something that underlines it.

That attitude alone argues against any notion of sucession from the US.

The funny thing about the US is not that the federal government, large as it is, is considered overbearing, but rather, it's considered something "over there", that passes broad laws on topics not fully or only superficially touching every day life. So the resentment towards the federal government manifests itself in things such as objections to specific laws and policies, not overall anger at the central government's existence to begin with. The sorts of dissatisfactions that Americans experience lead to a whole host of reactions - such as supporting alternate political candidates, activism, or on the other end of the spectrum, withdrawl from public participation - but none of those include secession or the desire for autonomy from the federal government.

Furthermore, once the details become obvious, how many states outside of California would be willing to survive on their economies alone? As a practical economic matter, you'd see tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of businesses, corporations, manufacturers, etc. small and large and everything in between heartily and heavily protest the notion of breaking up into different countries. So much commerce nowadays depends on free and easy flow between states that I can't see any sane business owner seeing this as a net positive. Just order stuff online to personally gain experience with the transparency of state boundaries nowadays. There's nothing about a breakup that would ease such transactions already considered commonplace, and there's nothing about such a scenario that would be attractive to business owners or anyone involved in commerce, save for the few "buy local" type activists.

It's just so utterly preposterous, so utterly outlandish to think that the US would be susceptible to breakup that it's almost silly to even consider the ways that such a breakup would occur. It's a completely risable proposition. I think I need to read the details of Professor Panarin's thesis, because for all the absurdity his idea embodies, you have to admit that he's not actually stating his hypothesis with glee. Recall that he actually thinks this would be a bad idea for even Russia itself, due to the economic impact if nothing else. So I think he believes he's actually sounding a warning, not that he's bragging on his nation via denigrating the US. Regardless, I think I need to read the details of his idea. I strongly feel that he's projecting European concepts and history onto America's future, and I think he's really missing many boats in doing so.; 1/3/09, 10:46 AM
SteveR said...: NM with Georgia, not with AZ or Colorado? Ignorant.; 1/3/09, 12:13 PM
Synova said...: Believe me southern states the east coast doesn't want you a part of their "territory" much much more than you would be in our territory.

I think that's more or less what everyone has been saying.

This reminded me of the "what happens when the red states flood from the catastrophic rise of oceans due to global warming" scenarios, where some blue state academic was warning that laws needed to be put into place to keep refugees from participating in the politics of the East Coast when they arrived there.

My reaction to *that* was that most of the low-land red state sorts would far rather take up boat building and fishing as the waters rose than migrate to Eastern cities.; 1/3/09, 12:50 PM
Anonymous said...: "Under Canadian influence..." Hardly. In fact, as a Canadian I have to say that a breakup of the United States would likely trigger a dissolution of the Canadian federation. The ties have already been loosening over time, as our provinces (i.e. states) have evolved to wield considerable power, particularly due to their ownership and jurisdiction over natural resources. The western provinces are increasingly irritated at contributing large amounts of cash to fund rent-seeking provinces out east, whose economies are suffering from poor policy choices and failure to reform their economies. Problem is that the eastern provinces are more populous, such that they comprise the majority of seats in our federal House of Commons (i.e. our Congress).

Moreover, east-west trade flows within Canada are negligible, compared to the volume and value of north-south trade flows between the individual Canadian provinces and the United States.

If the U.S. ever breaks up (unlikely), look for north-south realignment. Particularly this:
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/cascadia.html

A break up of the U.S.; 1/3/09, 12:54 PM
Weather Girl said...: Different perspective - let's just make the EU a satellite of Tennessee. Pat Summitt could run their fancy little pants off!; 1/3/09, 1:16 PM
somefeller said...: Boy, this is a dumb map. And add my voice to those that say if Texas were to be a separate republic, it wouldn't take the rest of the Deep South with it. If anything, Texas could have New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma join its new nation comfortably, but that's about it, and I'm being generous to Oklahoma. (Just kidding, Okies, Oklahoma is a fine place, and Norman is a lovely Midwestern college town.)

It might be good to have Louisiana also as an eastern buffer zone, but that place looks too difficult to govern and it's unlikely they'd be able to organize themselves to form a potent external threat. Good food and music, though.; 1/3/09, 2:17 PM
somefeller said...: Or if they are intellectuals they tend to run right up north=why is that?

Titus, you wouldn't know an intellectual if one bit you in the ass, though you'd enjoy that I'm sure.; 1/3/09, 2:19 PM
Stacy McMahon said...: For one thing, it's pretty wild to suggest that the US would break up and Canada stay together. One of those countries has a current and politically viable secessionist movement. It isn't the US.

Second, the only worthwhile cultural divide in the US is between the leftwing center cities and center-right suburban and rural areas i.e. not along any state lines. For example, the area of New England that would consider joining the EU covers approximately Manhattan, with a Danzig-like outpost in Boston.; 1/3/09, 7:26 PM
Jon said...: This particular map is dumb, but I think it's at least 50/50 that someday this Russian will be right: The USA will break up, because of immigration. But it won't be the Hispanics breaking off to form Aztlan. It will be the culturally conservative heartland red states leaving the Union, because with nonwhites voting as a bloc for the Dems, it will have become demographically impossible for conservatives to win the presidency anymore.

Democracy only lasts as long as both sides feel they have a fair chance to win, and immigration is giving the blue states an advantage that eventually will become insurmountable. If the envisioned "permanent democratic majority" ever comes to pass, don't be surprised if a good chunk of America decides they don't want to live under the rule of such a majority.; 1/4/09, 8:36 AM
Synova said...: Democracy only lasts as long as both sides feel they have a fair chance to win,

I disagree. Strongly.

Democracy works when both sides (or all sides) know that losing doesn't matter... much.

Democracy works only when there is a iron-clad check on the tyranny of the majority.

And this is why attempts to weaken the Constitution are so dangerous.; 1/4/09, 1:25 PM
Joe said...: The author doesn't understand western culture. Assuming you go for massive breakup, rather than just slitting the US in two, in the west you'd have the strip of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Idaho and Montana (and Alaska). All of Washington except Seattle would go with this group as would most of Oregon and California north of LA County except the Bay Area. It's entirely possible San Diego would prefer this group as well. Canada would then fracture with Alberta, British Columbia except Vancouver (which would join Seattle and the Bay Area as "the United Liberal Morons") and Yukon also joining with Northwest Territories possible.; 1/4/09, 2:01 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: California and Utah sure have a lot in common....I'm sure they'd be happy to join up if the Union dissolved.

I guess the Russians are still mad about losing their empire.

This reminds me of the old Amerika miniseries from the 80s, where the Russians invaded and divided the country into four parts. I wonder if that's where the Russian Prof got the idea.; 1/4/09, 5:43 PM
holdfast said...: Joe - Hell, even Vancouver could split- sure you have the lefty dippers in the middle, but do you think the hard working folks of the North Shore, Richmond and Surrey want that? Most of the Vancouver 'burbs are filled with hard-working 2nd and 3rd gen immigrants, and just elected Conservative MPs.; 1/5/09, 1:48 PM