Posted on 11/23/2001 5:25:09 AM PST by LarryLied
Despite the "friendly" Sunbelt's purported ease and opportunity, the "unfriendly" North continues by far to have the best quality of life.The United Way now reports that Minnesota (of which I am genetically half a native, which may undermine the good data here) is the best state, in economic well-being, education, health, civic engagement, safety and the environment. Having visited this Midwest Finland, I am not surprised. And I find New Hampshire's Number 2 rating apt, too, having inhabited that rocky realm of rectitude, responsibility and (usually) reasonableness for four years.
Ditto the others in the top 10: Connecticut (even with Hartford!); Massachusetts; Vermont; Maine; Wisconsin; Iowa; New Jersey, and, yes, even Rhode Island, hardly a state at all!
Meanwhile, the bottom 10 are all in the Sunbelt, the worst New Mexico, and then Louisiana.
Maybe it's mostly the weather. The North's bracing and wildly variable climate energizes people and encourages planning and careful citizenship. And it's probably better for you, because cold is bad for bugs. Even the post-war wave of air-conditioning hasn't let previously soporific Southern schools, offices and factories overcome the North's paradoxical climatic advantage.
And Northerners tend to be less mobile, and so less likely to slide into that appalling anomie in which the American Dream is pursued by folks wandering the roads in search of pots of gold that turn out to be tin, and leaving no forwarding address. But then, it is easier to wander about where the weather is warm. Thus the pervasive trailer parks in the Sunbelt, and enough social problems to make you ask if the Sunbelt's growing national power is a good thing. (Don't show this to my Tennessee relatives.)
I love California.
But I really hate that CONTROL and the oppressive, closed-minded attitude in the Liberal enclaves--such as Marin. The endless regulations and governmental fine-tuning are worthy of the Taliban. The worst thing is that most of the people don't see it, and it becomes even more oppressive.
California's charms are magnificent.
However they weren't sufficient to keep me there.
I returned to the South--where the charms are about as magnificent and there is a more lessaiz faire and liberal (in the sense of free or freedom-loving) and less oppressive atmosphere.
I absolutely love California and the South. But for me--the South is preferable. I can see how someone else--how I--could decide differently. It's a close call.
Come to think of it...
When I think about Big Sur, Mount Shasta, the Sierras, the redwood forests, the wine country, the Santa Cruz Mountains...
I used to drive across the Golden Gate Bridge every morning. I would open the windows and let the cold fog blow though the car...
Playing around the pool at Pebble Beach...
Esalen. The Post Ranch Inn. That Trattoria in Mill Valley. Skiing at Lake Tahoe. The nude beaches. The Oakville Grocery Store. Fresh morelles. Chanterelles. Eating the fresh grapes as I drink the wine from which they were made.
I'm getting homesick.
Maybe my decision was hastey.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here? I would give more credence to contemporaneous accounts than to yours; you obviously were not there.
In fact, I've seen many contemporaneous accounts that show the Reconstruction government was at least in part made up of recently freed slaves, who had no education & were not able to run the government - leading to incredibly high taxes, waste, fraud, and records which were poorly kept, if kept at all.
This is not a condemnation of the freed slaves as evil, just as not educated for the task at hand.
This was done because blacks in the south were legally forbidden education just as women in Afghanistan under the Talaban were.
I believe you are speaking of slaves being forbidden education in some areas. And just like in Afghanistan, some were taught anyway.
Before long in the south, it became evident that the majority of whites were illiterate,
Source? According to census records, this is not true. In fact, if it was true, why is there such a plethora of written records from the South before, during, and after the Civil War? I personally have copies of letters written by my ancestors in the South (who were by no means the "aristocratic elite") during that period, and they are better written both in grammar & spelling than you'd find from most high school graduates (and some on this forum) today.
and in fact, the Bureau spent more money on the education of whites than on blacks.
Source?
Even the KKK acknowledged it was really rather dumb to drive them out.
Source?
Llan-Ddeusant, it's obvious that you have an agenda, what I'd like to know is whether or not you have the facts to back it up?
Really? And you couldn't even post ONE LINK to back up your assertions?
I could, but the "rule" here is, YOU throw out the disputed fact, YOU provide the proof. If you fail to do so, you lose.
And some Yankees are just gratuiously rude....just because it's their nature..and they count on genteel Southerners not to call them on it...:)
No problem...if you look through L-D's posts, there is usually a gratuious slam on Southerners. He can't help it.
Southerners are so damned lazy.
There's another rule in internet debate...he who first resorts to personal insults also loses.
You're down by 2, Llan. What's the matter, don't know how to post a link?
Obviously, you are new here. There is a tradition on FR - if your facts are challenged, YOU provide the proof. If you cannot or do not, you are presumed to be lying.
And quite frankly, YOU do not know if I was "too damn lazy" or not - if you'll notice, L-D "assigned" reading Congressional Records covering about 50 years to "prove" his point. Not exactly a 15 minute task, know what I mean?
Since you guys are so fond of ALWAYS blaming "yankees" for everytime some socialist DemocRAT gets elected where you live, explain this:
1) Why the south voted LOCK DEMOCRAT from 1876-early 1960s, when it was almost ENTIRELY native born residents.
2) Why the extremely rural states of Mississippi (almost 90% NATIVE BORN) and West Virgina (OVER 90% native born) elect MORE Democrats than the rest of the south.
3) Why the most well-known southern conservatives (Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Sue Myrand, etc.) are "yankee transplants", while the worst liberals (John Edwards, Max Cleland, James Carville, etc.) are native born
4) Why the southern states with the LEAST amount of elected Democrats officials are popular summer homes for "yankees" (Florida, North Carolina, Virgina...)
5) Why the period that conservatives Republicans began to win in the south (60s to early 70s) conicided with a marked increase in northerners moving south.
6) Why the most LIBERAL congressman from up north are SOUTHERN transplants (here in Illinois, we have Jesse Jackson from S.C., Bobby Rush from Georgia, Danny Davis from Arkansas...)
7) Why you continue to use your fellow Americans ("yankees") as a punching bag after the world trade center attacks, Ronald Reagan's presidency, and the Johnson-Carter-Clinton era.
8) Why you do not consider yourself an American (ALL American are "yankees", what do you think the british called the founding fathers from VIRGINA?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.