Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Feminist Indulgence

I'm feeling a little spunky, so I'm gonna share a comment I made over at CIP's a little while ago. The liberal boys were arguing that States should be allowed to secede from the United States. Apparently, some people in Vermont are wanting to secede. You might like to read all of the other comments to get the context.

You people didn't read the Constitution did you? Bad boys, not doing your homework!

It's rather ironic that I, as a "pure-bred" American Southerner, am the one who's defending the strength of the Union. But actually, my roots are split, technically. But of course, there are parts of the Constitution that are intended to deal with the States' Rights and the Federal Rights so that there shouldn't be a need or desire for a state to secede. But if you'd done your homework you'd have learned that already. :-)

And no, it's not correct to think of the States as "little countries." This is a common error in perception, but the correct view is a much more *liberal* approach to things. Irony, again. ;-)

How is it liberal, you ask because you're too narrow-minded to be able to know without help and/or didn't do your homework. Well, the Union of the States was agreed upon for many reasons. One was strength in numbers. Another was that the States had economies that depended upon each other and they wanted to "keep it simple" instead of having the complications of "international" relations. And yet another (and this is the "liberal" part) was because it was philosophically (and morally) correct to gather resources and have easy exchanges among the States so that the less prosperous States could benefit from some of the wealthier States.

"United we stand, divided we fall." Wow, didn't that Unionist propaganda sink in deep into those roots?

And call me dumb or stupid or a purple fairy, I don't care because I know that I'm correct. And the only reason you call me stupid is because you're too intimidated to admit that I make you uncomfortable because I can rattle your foundation. :-) I can emasculate you and that's pretty scary isn't it?

So how's that for a feminist indulgence? How you liking feminism now? ;-) (Hey! More irony!)

19 comments:

Bee said...

true, the largest strength of the US is the union. Look at Europe - for most cases the 'union' hasn't really been established. the euro has been a huge step forwards, but in other areas (social/health insurance/infrastructure/education etc) there are still large gaps between the countries (not to mention the language problem that the US doesn't have). This might be an advantage for some countries on the short run (this is obviously why some are opposed to these aspects of the union) but on the long run a better balance would only strengthen Europe. Or, a better example that dates in the past instead in the future: Germany was originally a collection of several smaller states that bonded together (and are still present today as provinces). Together they were able to be far more successful then they were on their own, sharing resources, people and making trade/moving/politics over larger distances easier and more efficient.

However, if one of the states is to jump off I'd guess the first would be California. And they would do very well for themselves. Bush should think about this...

Interesting post, B.

Analyzer said...

If by "allowed to secede," you mean that the remaining states should not oppose their departure, then you are mistaken (or lying). No one was arguing that at all. Of course, you conveniently post your own tirade here without our comments, which would easily demonstrate your wrongness.

Rae Ann said...

Hi Bee! Thanks! Sorry for this long delay. It's been an usually busy week with my dad's surgery and so on. I guess California would like to think that it's independent enough to be its own nation, but it looks to me like they've pretty much let Mexico take them over. ;-)

A-, changcho and Arun were implying that they think a State should be able to secede (unopposed) if it wants. If you didn't get that from their comments then you weren't paying attention or they expressed themselves poorly. Besides, this is *my* blog where I can post whatever the hell I want. :-)

But right now I'm going to take my dad to celebrate his 70th birthday so I don't have time to argue.

Analyzer said...

A-, changcho and Arun were implying that they think a State should be able to secede (unopposed) if it wants.

Nope, we weren't. Rae Ann hasn't quoted where we did because she can't.

Yay for lying!

Rae Ann said...

I'm only leaving your last comment intact to show everyone just exactly how incredibly stupid you are.

Changcho: "However, independently of that, if a state wants to secede/divorce, then I think they have (or they should have) that right."

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/emeasure/2464881033126453933/#201847

He also said basically the same thing in an earlier comment on the thread. It was my error to include Arun in that, but he's just annoying because he never says anything constructive anyway and seems connected at the ass with anyone who disagrees with me.

Now, who's the liar? You are! And if you continue to be a hateful imbecile here I'll delete your garbage. Thank you.

Rae Ann said...

And my apologies to changcho for any insult he might have felt directed at him. At least he has always been a gentleman, even when he disagrees with me.

Analyzer said...

I'll admit that I missed this comment by changcho, but that's still only one of the three people you originally listed. I could believe that you erroneously included Arun, but you erroneously included both Arun and me, so I am sticking with my liar hypothesis, unless you're willing to admit to a gross error.

Rae Ann said...

Nope, I'm not going to admit any gross error. You can call me a liar if it makes you feel better, but you are the one who is always attacking me and that makes you an asshole who deserves some rebuke. If you were originally agreeing with me then why couldn't you have just say it instead of turning it into some kind of aggression?

Analyzer said...

1. You make a claim about three people.

2. The claim turns out to be true for only one of those people.

3. You deny having lied or made an error.

I suppose I should stop being surprise when you do things like that.

I don't agree with changcho at all, but I wasn't agreeing with you, either. Your original claim was that the people of Vermont can't just proclaim themselves their own nation. My response was that they could, as long as they subsequently defeated the United States in the ensuing war, in a circumstance that would be exactly analogous to the "secession" of the United States from England.

Do you not agree?

Rae Ann said...

As I recall you said that my saying the people of Vermont would have to "find their own territory" was "dumb." When I said that they would have to go find themselve their own new territory I *meant* (implied) that they would *never* succeed at "winning" their State away from the United States.

This is like two equations that arrive at the same answer, but one (mine) is shorter. What I was saying was that for the people of Vermont to ever have any non-zero chance of forming their own nation they would have to move because they'd never win a war against the US.

You didn't understand that my original comment was saying the ultimate outcome of any attempt for Vermont to secede would be a failure.

Yes, your analogy is correct about the war. But that does not make my original statement false or invalid or dumb. It was just an extension or conclusion of that line of thought.

Analyzer said...

It appears that we agree.

I said, obviously facetiously, "I guess we should give the thirteen colonies back to England, then. I mean, we stole them" followed by "Vermont can secede all it likes, as long as it thinks it can win the ensuing war against the United States." This is exactly the same argument that I just made here, with which you agreed.

Your response was "don't be stupid."

Rae Ann said...

I said "don't be stupid" because you said that my comment was dumb, which it wasn't- you just misunderstood it and therefore attacked it. It wasn't obviously facetious to me. Maybe you can add a winky face or something to make your jokes more obvious. Thanks.

What decade were you born in anyway?

Analyzer said...

Now you're lying. You said "don't be stupid" before I said your comment was dumb. Check it for yourself.

I misunderstood your point because it was so poorly expressed.

Rae Ann said...

Oh, good grief! Give it a rest! We had a misunderstanding, so let it go, okay? Next time if you don't understand maybe you can ask about it instead of being an asshole, and I'll try not to assume that you are being an asshole even though that is a natural conclusion from my previous experience with you. Fair enough?

Analyzer said...

I didn't ask you to clarify because your original point seemed perfectly clear; it was just dumb. Later on, you "explained" that you meant something completely different. I wasn't confused; I was misled.

You can't ask an asshole not to be an asshole. To quote the great poet-philosopher Popeye, "I am what I am."

Rae Ann said...

Well, this is getting redundant. I don't ever try to deceive anyone. If you don't understand it's not my fault.

Analyzer said...

You're right. It's absolutely unthinkable that you were in any way unclear, confused, or incorrect. It's always the other person's fault.

Rae Ann said...

Thank you. Finally you understand! :-)

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

In one of the great Saturday Night Live monologs, your State's most distingusihed citizen did a great riff on his term as President, regretting the loss of California, but insisting that we had excellent relations with Presidente Schwarzenegger of Mexifornia.