Wednesday, April 15, 2009

General Sherman, we may need you again....

Governor Rick Perry of Texas, who the late Molly Ivins used to hasten to point out, has better hair than your governor, is apparently suggesting that poor Texas is so overwhelmingly oppressed by the Federal government ( that they would be better off seceding from the Union.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas, who apparently has no problem talking out of both sides of his mouth, eagerly accepted federal aid last week to help Texans who have been the victim of wildfires. (

Look, everyone could probably come up with ten, or twenty, or one hundred Federal programs they would trim or eliminate. Wasting, or outright stealing, taxpayer money should be a crime.

But secession? Really, Governor Perry? 600,000 Americans, including several of my relatives, died the last time we tried that idea. Put away the dangerous, treasonous rhetoric, and let's work together to get out of this mess, OK?


  1. I used to read Ivins, and I remember her obsession with hair insults. It is one of the things that made her a "Limbaugh of the Left", at least in print.

  2. Well, I thought long and hard about a comment, finally typed it, hit publish, but then I think the Internet ate it and now I'm out of time to recreate it.

  3. Someone on another blog claimed that it is legal for states to secede. I asked him to cite for me the specific law or part of the Constitution. Still silence.

  4. I guess if you look at the Constitution as an agreement to maintain a Union, theoretically, any state can withdraw from the agreement, I suppose.

    Practically, of course-it's lunacy.

    I liked Ivins' writing-I don't think she ever got mean, really. She poked fun, but I never found her cruel or unfair.

  5. I agree. Succession doesn't seem all that practical. While I'm all for getting angry, anything involving civil war should be off the table.

    Still, you got to love that some governors didn't take ALL the federal stimulus money, to their political peril. Democracy (and federalism) in action, baby.

  6. Yes, you have to love governors who think it is leadership to let babies go hungry so they can score political points.

  7. If the federal government has a plan for how to fund state-run programs IN THE LONG TERM, Governors should accept the money. However, the federal government should not be shoving temporary money to states to expand programs, which puts the states in a hideous position in the future when the federal money dries up but the programs exist and have to be paid for.

    By the way, when did it become the government's role to feed babies? I thought parents were responsible for that. While I understand poverty is a huge problem, we need a better long term solution than feeding poor babies, which solves an immediate problem but does not address the larger, systematic problem.


I apologize for making you sign in, but I'm trying to cut down on spam.