|
|
The increasingly inaccurately-named blog of journalist and futurist Chris Taylor. Either the most sporadically brilliant amateur blog, the most brilliantly amateur sporadic blog, or the most amateur sporadic brilliance on the Web since 2001.
Oh My God, the RSS Feed Actually Works!
Daily Blah FAQ
Who are you?
I'm the newly-appointed Future editor at Business 2.0 and the former San Francisco correspondent for Time Magazine.
Wow, so does this mean everything you write reflects Time Inc's opinion? Or do you perhaps have some sort of standard disclaimer to the effect that it doesn't?
Naturally, the opinions contained in this blog are not those of my employers. In fact, some opinions may be the polar opposite of my employers. Some may be the same, for all I know. Hey, it's not like I ask my employers their opinions about everything in the news, okay? Let's just say that if this were a Venn diagram with one circle marked "my opinions" and the other one marked "my employers' opinions", there would doubtless be some overlap. But neither I nor my employers are able to pinpoint exactly where that overlap is.
What is this Daily Blah thing?
An experiment for a column I wrote about blogging back in December 2001. All these years later, I haven't been able to kick the habit.
Do you write any other blogs, by chance? Could that have something to do with the fact that Daily Blah isn't always Daily?
Yes -- the Future Boy blog for Business 2.0. And yes. If you want true, editorially-mandated daily coverage from me, that's probably the best place to look.
Mister, you talk funny. Are you one of them furrners?
Why yes I am, as it happens. I was born, raised and educated in Great Britain. I've been living in the U.S. since 1996 and identify as British.
I say, old chap, you forgot the "u" in "colour."
No I didn't. I may identify as British, but I am also an American journalist writing for an American audience about mostly American issues. These two different sides of me are a constant source of tension. Nevertheless, Daily Blah will adhere to American English grammar and spelling.
Praise for Daily Blah:
"It is fun to watch the author's navel-gazing joy." - Sunday Times (UK)
"It's really funny and informative." - Dave Eggers, author
"The Blah is becoming a daily destination for me." - Richard Marsh, Playwright
"I like it, and I don't." - Fiona Hogg, Teacher
"Better than Xanax." - Lessley Andersen, journalist
"Dude, lay off the crack pipe." - Souris Hong-Porretta, gamesmith
Friends, Bloggers, Countrymen ... lend your ears to these people. I come not to bury them, but praise them.
Arik
Bill
Dan
Cole
Emily B
Emily G
Helena
Jee
Jewelz
Kaila
Kathryn
Mac
Robin
Slim
Souris
Mr. West
My TIME articles
All magazine articles (subscription required for older stories)
Online column index
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Blah for... Monday, March 09, 2009
I'm in a 51st State of Mind
With tongues in cheeks, the Independent revives that old British canard about the benefits of becoming the 51st State of the USA.
Whenever this subject has come up in the past, I've argued that given the size of its population -- 60 million to California's 30 million -- my homeland deserves to be at least five states (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Northern England, Southern England). But one of the comments on this article makes an excellent point: keep us together as a single state, and we'll be worth about 100 electoral college votes (actually, 114, if you simply double California's total).
Instantly, the Great State of Britain would become the richest prize in U.S. politics. Forget New York, California and Texas. American presidential candidates would spend most of their campaigns pressing the flesh in London, Glasgow and Cardiff. Because the motherland would likely lean towards the Democrats, the GOP would never again be able to win the Presidency with a coalition of Southern and Midwestern states. It would likely collapse altogether, or be taken over by the Conservatives. Which is no bad thing: Better Cameron than Palin any day.
Moreover, the Presidency itself would be certain to fall into British hands. Consider how many presidents have succeeded to the office after governing or representing one of the larger states such as California (which gave us Nixon and Reagan), Texas (both Bushes) and Illinois (Obama and Lincoln). In the primaries, a British candidate would have an enormous head start in electoral votes, not to mention fundraising (the UK economy is about twice the size of California's).
Then there's the charm offensive. The Yanks just love our cute accents, in case you haven't noticed. They also invest us with the appearance of confidence and competence, two qualities the U.S. economy is crying out for. Tony Blair would have won the 2000 and 2004 elections in a walk, and that's without British electoral votes. Brown as Treasury secretary would have been a damn sight more effective than Paulson and Geithner. It's not inconceivable that the White House would remain in British hands for decades at a time.
So tell me again: why is it merely tongue-in-cheek satire to consider leaving a chaotic union (which hates us) for the Union that stands astride the world (and loves us)?
|
|
|
|
