Poppycock
This map is nothing new, in fact it's over 30 years old, but I saw it for the first time today via a link from South Dakota Magazine. I'll admit to having had fun discussions about dividing up America up into two countries, one Democrat and one Republican (my plan didn't follow strict Blue State/Red State guidelines -- Democrats just got to keep all the fun places), but this map, developed by C. Etzel Pearcy, a geography professor at California State University, Los Angeles is just hilarious.
The most amusing thing about it is that C. Etzel opted to rename the states. According to his plan, my driver's license would say "Dakota," I'd be going to school in "Hudson" and spending the upcoming summer in "El Dorado." Even Hawaii, which would be the only state to retain its current boundaries, would have to switch to "Kilauea." Fun stuff.
| Permalink | E-mail this post 
I just don't know that I'm willing to turn over the Piney Woods to Bayou. As Davy Crockett so elloquently put it, "You can all go to hell; I'm going to Texas."
Posted by
hils |
5:54 PM
Interesting. I think this still makes a lot of sense, dividing people up according to interest instead of geographically. In almost every state I've lived in (with the exception of Rhode Island), there are significant conflicts between different areas and their interests -- the New York metro area and upstate, for instance. Boston and western Massachusetts. Northern, central, and southern California. The more rural areas complain that the city folks are hogging the resources and contaminating their areas. The urban areas complain that the resources they generate are going disproportionately to the rural areas.
Posted by
CM |
11:18 AM