«
»

A bigger flag, please

Well said.

I propose that we start out by splitting Texas into five parts, California into two, and then subtly hint to Quebec that * we * wouldn’t mind if they left Canada…as long as they don’t mind that we pick up the Red Provinces afterwards.

Then we can let Australia and New Zealand know that the party is in full swing.

Certain cities in India, and northern Mexico would be welcome if they met certain crime, GDP, and English language targets…

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 20th, 2007 at 7:58 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

14 Responses to “A bigger flag, please”

  1. Jered Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 8:04 am

    The problem there is that Quebec is the whiny trust-fund child that will never really leave, just threaten to do so. They get a sweet deal where the federal government pours huge amounts of money into their economy, they whine some more and threaten to leave, and then get more money.

    Really, the Federal government is just being an enabler. They should see a therapist.

  2. Andrew T Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 10:40 am

    Don’t forget that in Canada, the political parties identify with different colours than the States… red is for the center-left, and blue is for the center-right.

  3. tjic Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 11:33 am

    [quote comment="83879"]Don’t forget that in Canada, the political parties identify with different colours than the States… red is for the center-left, and blue is for the center-right.[/quote]

    That’s how it was here, too, up until 8 or 12 years ago. At some point, the Democrats, who well earn their symbolic red (it goes so well with the hammer-and-sickle!) decided to foist it on the rightists instead.

    I hate that.

  4. ngvrnd Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    That’s how it was here, too, up until 8 or 12 years ago.

    You’re high on needle drugs again, aren’t you?

  5. tjic Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    [quote comment="83890"]

    That’s how it was here, too, up until 8 or 12 years ago.

    You’re high on needle drugs again, aren’t you?[/quote]

    Reference:

    Wikipedia

    Early on, the most common—though again, not universal—color scheme was to use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. This was the color scheme employed by NBC—David Brinkley famously referred to the 1984 map showing Reagan’s 49-state landslide as a “sea of blue”, but this color scheme was also employed by most newsmagazines.

    and, supporting my point:

    The choice of colors in this divide is counter-intuitive to many international observers, as throughout the world, red is commonly the designated color for parties representing labor, socialist, and/or liberal interests [5] [6], which in the United States would be more closely correlated with the Democratic Party. Similarly, blue is used in these countries to depict conservative parties which in the case of the United States would be a color more suitable for the Republicans. For example, in Canada party colors are deeply ingrained and historic and have been unchanged during the Twentieth Century. The Liberal Party of Canada has long used red and the Conservative Party of Canada has long used blue,

  6. dff Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    I think the needle drug remark was probably directed at your 8-12 year estimate, not the color flip-flop itself?

  7. ngvrnd Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    I wish it were so. I was talking about the color flip.

    Wow, that totally surprised me! I honestly thought the colors had always been thus. But apparently I was wRong. Did pretty poorly on the citizenship test too. :-(

    And, I was well aware of the association of red w/communism, but I thought the provincial association of red and blue with the flag colors trumped any foreign semantic entanglements.

  8. ngvrnd Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    Wait a minute: How about this part you didn’t quote, you ….:

    CBS during this same period, however, used the opposite scheme—blue for Democrats, red for Republicans. ABC was less consistent than its elder network brothers; in at least two presidential elections during this time before the emergence of cable news outlets, ABC used yellow for one major party and blue for the other.

    I’m pretty sure we were a CBS household back when I was growing up, so maybe that accounts for my confusion. In any case, the situation is hardly as clearcut as you paint it.

  9. Joshua W. Burton Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    There was a negotiated agreement among the networks, roughly 20 years ago, to standardize on a deliberately obscure color scheme which was intended to randomize the party associations: blue for the incumbent party in years divisible by 8, red for incumbents in 8k + 4. This made the Dems red in 1992 and 1996, and blue in 2000 and 2004; in 2008 they will be red again.

    The association of Rep/Dem with Tory/Labour, or even with economic right/left in the broad sense,is a dead letter, and has been so for decades. Think “blue” for aborted fetuses, “red” for bludgeoned or crucified gays, if the modern habit requires a mnemonic before it passes. (If it outlasts the next election, it will be because of an interesting optical illusion, where people who stare at an election-night map for 36 days see a lasting afterimage. Not everyone is susceptible, but the effect is very strong for some.)

  10. Joseph Hertzlinger Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    The next few states should be Israel, Taiwan, and the Moon.

  11. brian Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 5:06 pm

    The next few states should be Israel, Taiwan, and the Moon

    The whole thing? Nearly as much land area as Texans think they have, barren as West Texas …. are you sure you want to bite off that much?

    Or give it a half-century. Refugee Texans in Luna City will be happy to hear a petition from the United States for annexation by the Lunar Republic.

  12. HTRN Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

    There is actually a Canadian organization who’s only goal is to integrate Canada(Well, Alberta at least) into US statehood.

    Cuba is another good prospect, although the Article has vastly wrong – Raul is an even more radical hardliner than his brother(admittedly, Fidel has softened somewhat in recent years), and can be best thought of as Cuba’s answer to Stalin. If he takes over, and starts upsetting the applecart, one of two things may happen – either a coup, with an inevitable US involvement for “stabilization” or he’ll go nuts, start midnight disappearances, and go back to actually threatening the US, or (god help them) actually attacking either Gitmo or the Keys.

    Taiwan will never, ever, EVER become a US state. The Chinese would start a global war over it, as they Chicoms see Taiwan as a province in rebellion. Israel will remain an independent nation, with close ties to the US.

    Now, Northern Mexico.. Hmm, how about the Baja Pennisula? Lightly populated, would actually wind up chopping the border down by a bit(50 mile border between Baja and Sonora, vs. 100 miles between California and Mexico)

  13. Harrkev Says:
    September 21st, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Break up California into two parts???

    Do you really want California to get two more senate votes? The thought is scary.

    Texas might make up for it, though.

  14. Noah D Says:
    September 21st, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    I remember reading somewhere about a T-shirt with a US flag on it – and in the blue field instead of 50 stars, was an image of the galaxy.

    Think big, people!