VOTE: Shrub in 04

"jjp" wrote in message
om...

Then Texas must not "suck" that much, considering it's the second most
populous state after CA, and has three of the country's top ten
largest cities...


Yeah yeah. If I had my druthers, Texas would be given back to mexico.

(and it's anectode, not ANTIdote)

"jjp" wrote in message
om...
(me) wrote in message
. com...
[snip]
Texas had a bad
rep long before the shrub

Mostly because of people's ignorance -- not because of the truth.

And as a personal antidote of my own -- for each of them, I know
probably 3-5 others who would disagree.

That's only about 1/3 of the states, which would imply the other 2/3
"suck" to most people.

Then Texas must not "suck" that much, considering it's the second most
populous state after CA, and has three of the country's top ten
largest cities...

Actually I know half a dozen or more people who for various reasons moved
from California to Texas and one from Germany to Texas - so it can't be all
bad. I've visited a couple of them in the Austin area and enjoyed it very
much. And there are other areas of Texas I like such as Galveston and
Beaumont. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

jjp wrote:
(me) wrote:
And in the context of this discussion, That's only about 1/3 of the
states, which would imply the other 2/3 "suck" to most people.

Then Texas must not "suck" that much, considering it's the second most
populous state after CA

I think you need to look at population density rather than population to
make a conclusion like that. Texas is a very large place.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

jjp wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
That's sounding a little paranoid. What we mainly hear about Houston is
nothing at all.

That's part of the point -- in general, the only times Houston is ever
brought up by the media is if it's something negative.

But that's just the media. Same thing's happened with everywhere in the USA
I've lived except New York, Ann Arbor, and San Francisco. Definitely the
case here in DC. Unless the place is so superlatively excellent that it's
just generally accepted as a wonderful place, the only things that make news
are those confirming whatever negative stereotype the city has.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

jjp wrote:

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message
.. .
jjp wrote:
No -- but even though many districts are doing the same thing, the
Houston example was what was brought up -- because of Paige, and
because it's in Houston (so it fit right in with the current political
and media Houston-bashing trend).

That's sounding a little paranoid. What we mainly hear about Houston is
nothing at all.

miguel

That's part of the point -- in general, the only times Houston is ever
brought up by the media is if it's something negative.


That's because Sheryl Mexic lives there :-)

--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:

jjp wrote:


(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message

.. .

jjp wrote:

No -- but even though many districts are doing the same thing, the
Houston example was what was brought up -- because of Paige, and
because it's in Houston (so it fit right in with the current political
and media Houston-bashing trend).

That's sounding a little paranoid. What we mainly hear about Houston is
nothing at all.

I personally like it that way. They're projecting an increase of 2 million
in the next 10 or 20 years, I forget which, and some of us think we have
enough Yankees already. Let 'em come and visit the Super Bowl, All-Star
games, Masters Cup and TPC tourneys, museum and theater districts, shop in
the Galleria, and leave their money here - pays for all the new stadiums -
but then go on home. Our semi-tropical perfect climate for 9 months of the
year we can enjoy without any more crowds.

MTV


miguel

That's part of the point -- in general, the only times Houston is ever
brought up by the media is if it's something negative.



That's because Sheryl Mexic lives there :-)

"MTV" wrote in message
...

I personally like it that way. They're projecting an increase of 2 million
in the next 10 or 20 years, I forget which, and some of us think we have
enough Yankees already. Let 'em come and visit the Super Bowl, All-Star
games, Masters Cup and TPC tourneys, museum and theater districts, shop in
the Galleria, and leave their money here - pays for all the new stadiums -
but then go on home. Our semi-tropical perfect climate for 9 months of the
year we can enjoy without any more crowds.

That's what we say in South Florida too. Thanks for stopping by, we
appreciate the $$$ . . . now GO HOME!

(jjp) wrote in message . com...
(me) wrote in message . com...
[snip]
If one wants to talk about "most" it is sorta illustrative to
realize that something like 25% of the population lives in two
relatively narrow strips in this country. One strip runs roughly
between Boston and DC including virtually of all New Jersey plus
Baltimore and Philly. Then the other strip is between San Diego and
the Larger LA area. I saw some statistic once that some incredible
percentage of the population lived between the Applalations and the
eastern seaboard, or between some California Mountian range and
the Pacific. (These were rough lines which extended the full
height of the country north and south, virtually all of Florida
was included). The discussion was related to the electoral college
and popular elections, but it struck me how much of the population
for one reason or another chooses to live in some of the
highest population regions. And in the context of this discussion,
That's only about 1/3 of the states, which would imply the other 2/3
"suck" to most people.

Then Texas must not "suck" that much, considering it's the second most
populous state after CA, and has three of the country's top ten
largest cities...


Now, look beyond governmental borders and just view the geographic
regions in which people choose to live. Pick regions with the
same surface area as Texas and see where it ranks. As I suggested,
if you look at a region of land between DC and Boston you'll blow
Texas away in terms of population.

"me" wrote in message
om...

Now, look beyond governmental borders and just view the geographic
regions in which people choose to live. Pick regions with the
same surface area as Texas and see where it ranks. As I suggested,
if you look at a region of land between DC and Boston you'll blow
Texas away in terms of population.

Not to mention brain cells!

(me) wrote in message . com...
(jjp) wrote in message . com...
(me) wrote in message . com...
[snip]
If one wants to talk about "most" it is sorta illustrative to
realize that something like 25% of the population lives in two
relatively narrow strips in this country. One strip runs roughly
between Boston and DC including virtually of all New Jersey plus
Baltimore and Philly. Then the other strip is between San Diego and
the Larger LA area. I saw some statistic once that some incredible
percentage of the population lived between the Applalations and the
eastern seaboard, or between some California Mountian range and
the Pacific. (These were rough lines which extended the full
height of the country north and south, virtually all of Florida
was included). The discussion was related to the electoral college
and popular elections, but it struck me how much of the population
for one reason or another chooses to live in some of the
highest population regions. And in the context of this discussion,
That's only about 1/3 of the states, which would imply the other 2/3
"suck" to most people.

Then Texas must not "suck" that much, considering it's the second most
populous state after CA, and has three of the country's top ten
largest cities...


Now, look beyond governmental borders and just view the geographic
regions in which people choose to live. Pick regions with the
same surface area as Texas and see where it ranks. As I suggested,
if you look at a region of land between DC and Boston you'll blow
Texas away in terms of population.

Which still doesn't mean that those areas in Texas aren't highly populated...