Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GenExpwy]

Minor thing that bothers me:

...Furthermore, the states of Texas and California are the first and second largest states in the continental United States in terms of land area,...

Alaska is not contiguous with the “lower 48” , but it is on the North American continent.

[Scott5114]

Of course, much like Oklahoma, if you're anything other than a straight white male Christian that likes bad weather...

Maybe in the more rural areas of Texas. Where I'm living in North Texas (Richardson/Plano), I'm was surprised at how much more multicultural the area is...

Unfortunately, the government of Texas does not govern solely the rural areas. The state government is consistently neck deep in culture-wars issues that unfortunately have extremely nasty effects on its non-majority constituents and little tangible benefit for its majority constituents. A die-hard Texan may argue the merits of these policies up and down until they are red in the face (and I don't care to litigate them here), but the plain fact is that if someone has a child who identifies as transgender, Texas would be a thoroughly unacceptable place to live, because they are at risk of the state government intervening in nearly any attempt at quality-of-life improvements for that child. And just about every other non-majority group can find some Texas policy or another that, intentionally or not, similarly curtails their freedom. This fact cannot be mitigated by any number of fancy restaurants, welcoming neighbors, or cheap housing.

As for "bad weather", that is a subjective term. Having lived in upstate New York and dealing with the blizzards and the lake-effect snow, Texas is better. In comparison to Sacramento, it's slightly worse with the humidity, thunderstorms, and large-sized hail, not to mention the occasional tornado. As a result, the homeowner policies in Texas have a deductible based upon the percentage of the home value rather than a fixed amount, and the real estate listings show when the roof was last replaced. When it comes to the average number of tornadoes for calendar year 2017-2021 and normalized by calculating it over 10k square miles, Mississippi (21.571), Louisiana (17.261), Alabama (15.369), Georgia (11.879), and Illinois (11.404) are the top five states. Kansas (7.797) and Oklahoma (7.426) are #18 and #20 respectively, while Texas (4.857) is #29. Even Florida (7.815) is #17 and slightly higher than Kansas, and we have a hurricane Ian hitting that state at the moment. But, for where I'm living here in Texas, I make sure that I have a S.A.M.E. Weather Radio, have a tornado kit, and pay attention whenever thunderstorms are in the forecast, plus I garage my vehicle.

I have grown up with more or less the same weather, and take all of the same precautions you do. I function just fine in this environment and do not unduly fear the risk of tornadoes. Nevertheless, I think we can agree that a climate that features occasional winter lows of 0°, regular summer highs above 100°, annual storms capable of wiping a town off the map, and wildly diverging rainfall totals from year to year will not be everyone's cup of tea. Furthermore, southern and eastern Texas has the threat of hurricanes that Kansas and Oklahoma do not share. Flooding is such a regular occurrence in Houston that the freeway system is engineered to serve as an emergency storm drain supplement, but even that is not enough to prevent flooding of private property in really bad storms.

[hbelkins]

I'd rather live in Tornado Alley than Hurricane Alley.

The odds of an individual storm hitting you in the midwest are a lot higher than the odds of a hurricane hitting you in Florida or the Gulf Coast or southeastern Atlantic Coast.

Tornadoes have small footprints; hurricanes are huge.

[formulanone]

Alaska is not contiguous with the “lower 48” , but it is on the North American continent.

Not to snipe at you, but the term Lower 48 bugs me because the 50th state is even lower than the other 49. Shouldn't it be "Lower 49" if you're form Alaska?

[interstatefan990]

Alaska is not contiguous with the “lower 48” , but it is on the North American continent.

Fun fact: Hawaii is politically part of North America, but geographically not part of any continent.

[GaryV]

A minor song that ends with a Piccadilly Third. (But I guess that's not minor anymore.)

[kphoger]

Of course, much like Oklahoma, if you're anything other than a straight white male Christian that likes bad weather, living in Texas has major downsides that can't be compensated for, no matter how nice the financial incentives are.

If someone gave me land in Texas for free, my first inclination would be to sell it as fast as possible, not go live on it.

Considering that 40% of Texans are Hispanic/Latino, your label of "white" may be misleading your audience.

[thspfc]

Of course, much like Oklahoma, if you're anything other than a straight white male Christian that likes bad weather, living in Texas has major downsides that can't be compensated for, no matter how nice the financial incentives are.

If someone gave me land in Texas for free, my first inclination would be to sell it as fast as possible, not go live on it.

Is that why Texas is one of the 5 fastest growing states?

Considering that 40% of Texans are Hispanic/Latino, your label of "white" may be misleading your audience.

Stop! You’re hurting his narrative!

[kphoger]

Is that why Texas is one of the 5 fastest growing states?

Naw, he's just saying that all those people shouldn't want to move there.  You know, because its laws may negatively affect people other than themselves.  While also admitting defeat, by vehemently insisting on not ever becoming a voting member of the state's population.

[jakeroot]

I'd rather live in Tornado Alley than Hurricane Alley.

I feel like I hear about tornadoes more than I hear about hurricanes.

[Scott5114]

Of course, much like Oklahoma, if you're anything other than a straight white male Christian that likes bad weather, living in Texas has major downsides that can't be compensated for, no matter how nice the financial incentives are.

If someone gave me land in Texas for free, my first inclination would be to sell it as fast as possible, not go live on it.

Considering that 40% of Texans are Hispanic/Latino, your label of "white" may be misleading your audience.

I mean, it's not like Texas is well-known for fair and equitable treatment of its Hispanic/Latino populace. There is a pretty obvious through-line from the Porvenir massacre of 1918 to the modern practice of busing and flying Hispanic/Latino migrants to other states.

Is that why Texas is one of the 5 fastest growing states?

Naw, he's just saying that all those people shouldn't want to move there.  You know, because its laws may negatively affect people other than themselves.  While also admitting defeat, by vehemently insisting on not ever becoming a voting member of the state's population.

Sorry for not wanting to risk going to jail in Texas for a minuscule chance at getting to change the government of a state I don't care for already, I guess.

[skluth]

I'd rather live in Tornado Alley than Hurricane Alley.

I feel like I hear about tornadoes more than I hear about hurricanes.

Well there are more tornados than hurricanes. But a major factor in my retiring in California vs the Southeast was hurricanes. I experienced Isabel when I lived in Tidewater. My neighborhood had no electricity for a week afterwards and I lived less than two miles from downtown. Tornadoes may destroy individual homes and neighborhoods but usually there's only a narrow (compared to a hurricane) swath of destruction and lost power which rarely lasts more than a day or two if it's lost at all. Even a tornado outbreak won't leave 90% of a state without electricity (which happened to Virginia after Isabel).

The lack of warning is a problem with tornados but warning systems have gotten better. The ample warning system for hurricanes means only the poor and stupid won't leave. At least the poor have an excuse for not evacuating.

In any case, I never want to experience another hurricane or its aftermath. I realize that means living in earthquake territory (I'm only a few miles from the San Andreas), but a major one only hits every few decades and I don't mind the smaller ones.

[JoePCool14]

I'd rather live in Tornado Alley than Hurricane Alley.

I feel like I hear about tornadoes more than I hear about hurricanes.

Well there are more tornados than hurricanes. But a major factor in my retiring in California vs the Southeast was hurricanes. I experienced Isabel when I lived in Tidewater. My neighborhood had no electricity for a week afterwards and I lived less than two miles from downtown. Tornadoes may destroy individual homes and neighborhoods but usually there's only a narrow (compared to a hurricane) swath of destruction and lost power which rarely lasts more than a day or two if it's lost at all. Even a tornado outbreak won't leave 90% of a state without electricity (which happened to Virginia after Isabel).

The lack of warning is a problem with tornados but warning systems have gotten better. The ample warning system for hurricanes means only the poor and stupid won't leave. At least the poor have an excuse for not evacuating.

In any case, I never want to experience another hurricane or its aftermath. I realize that means living in earthquake territory (I'm only a few miles from the San Andreas), but a major one only hits every few decades and I don't mind the smaller ones.

Come up to where we live. No risk of hurricanes, almost zero risk of tornadoes, almost zero risk of earthquakes, little risk of catastrophic flooding, little risk of catastrophic thunderstorms or hail. The only thing we might get is a blizzard or some extreme cold which aren't that bad.

[kphoger]

Come up to where we live. No risk of hurricanes, almost zero risk of tornadoes, almost zero risk of earthquakes, little risk of catastrophic flooding, little risk of catastrophic thunderstorms or hail. The only thing we might get is a blizzard or some extreme cold which aren't that bad.

That's weird for me to read, considering I've been through multiple tornado warnings while in the Chicago area–both as a tourist and as a resident.

For what it's worth, there is usually a tornado once every couple of years in the Chicago area.
https://www.weather.gov/media/lot/severe/chitorlist.pdf

[skluth]

I'd rather live in Tornado Alley than Hurricane Alley.

I feel like I hear about tornadoes more than I hear about hurricanes.

Well there are more tornados than hurricanes. But a major factor in my retiring in California vs the Southeast was hurricanes. I experienced Isabel when I lived in Tidewater. My neighborhood had no electricity for a week afterwards and I lived less than two miles from downtown. Tornadoes may destroy individual homes and neighborhoods but usually there's only a narrow (compared to a hurricane) swath of destruction and lost power which rarely lasts more than a day or two if it's lost at all. Even a tornado outbreak won't leave 90% of a state without electricity (which happened to Virginia after Isabel).

The lack of warning is a problem with tornados but warning systems have gotten better. The ample warning system for hurricanes means only the poor and stupid won't leave. At least the poor have an excuse for not evacuating.

In any case, I never want to experience another hurricane or its aftermath. I realize that means living in earthquake territory (I'm only a few miles from the San Andreas), but a major one only hits every few decades and I don't mind the smaller ones.

Come up to where we live. No risk of hurricanes, almost zero risk of tornadoes, almost zero risk of earthquakes, little risk of catastrophic flooding, little risk of catastrophic thunderstorms or hail. The only thing we might get is a blizzard or some extreme cold which aren't that bad.

No thanks. I grew up in Green Bay. I've experienced enough snow and extreme cold. The only thing I like about snow is that it looks pretty.

[webny99]

I'd rather live in Tornado Alley than Hurricane Alley.

I feel like I hear about tornadoes more than I hear about hurricanes.

Of course tornadoes are more common than hurricanes, but tornadoes affect a much smaller area, and the risk is almost entirely wind damage, while water damage is a huge factor with hurricanes.

And, importantly, there can be tornadoes associated with hurricanes too, as was the case in Florida over the past few days.

[thspfc]

To (hopefully) end the tornado vs. hurricane debate: all hurricanes produce tornadoes. Why don’t a lot of people know that? Because the damage those tornadoes cause is so minuscule compared to the damage the associated hurricane causes.

[thspfc]

Come up to where we live. No risk of hurricanes, almost zero risk of tornadoes, almost zero risk of earthquakes, little risk of catastrophic flooding, little risk of catastrophic thunderstorms or hail. The only thing we might get is a blizzard or some extreme cold which aren't that bad.

That's weird for me to read, considering I've been through multiple tornado warnings while in the Chicago area–both as a tourist and as a resident.

For what it's worth, there is usually a tornado once every couple of years in the Chicago area.
https://www.weather.gov/media/lot/severe/chitorlist.pdf

Even in Chicagoland, the chances that your life specifically will be affected by a tornado (beyond short-term things like your flight getting cancelled) are extremely slim.

[J N Winkler]

I think that TxDOT is more aggressive in addressing traffic issues compared with CalTrans, especially with money diverted to fund the high-speed choo-choo boondoggle.

Give TxDOT time.  Decades ago, Caltrans was very aggressive at building too.  What is happening now with the NHHIP (albeit in Houston) may be a sign of things to come in the future.

High-speed rail has already been studied in the Texas Triangle (DFW-San Antonio-Houston) and the concept has never been fully abandoned, so "choo choo" may be on its way too.

[zachary_amaryllis]

With that in mind, it is my expectation that people in normal everyday life will keep their pants on.  If my pants were to fall down to my knees as I was heading into my boss's office at work, then that would be embarrassing for both of us.  If you come over to my house for dinner, then I expect you to keep your pants from falling off.  Knowing what brand and style of underwear you have isn't a big deal in the locker room, but it's not something people should find out while waiting for their order at Burger King.

And, when someone lets their pants sag to the point that it's obviously noticeable, then it basically looks like they're halfway to ending up undressed–and that they don't really care–and, moreover, that they actually want that.  It looks like, any second now, they might end up "letting it all hang out", and that they're fine with that, to the point that they didn't even bother to put on a belt.

Not sure if everyone is aware of the original genesis of sagging is/was, but it basically stems from guys in prison not being allowed to have belts and so their pants would always fall down a bit. So when it became mainstream, it was during the rise of the gangsta rap era where showing (at the time) your boxer band made you look tougher as if you had been in prison. As with most things with urban culture during that age, it crossed over to the suburbs due to kids wanting to emulate the rappers and also with things like the Mark Walhberg Calvin Klein ads.

did 15 years here in colorado, we had belts up until they switched to stretchy-waist pants. I could not get rid of the belt fast enough.

[kphoger]

Of course, much like Oklahoma, if you're anything other than a straight white male Christian that likes bad weather, living in Texas has major downsides that can't be compensated for, no matter how nice the financial incentives are.

If someone gave me land in Texas for free, my first inclination would be to sell it as fast as possible, not go live on it.

Considering that 40% of Texans are Hispanic/Latino, your label of "white" may be misleading your audience.

I mean, it's not like Texas is well-known for fair and equitable treatment of its Hispanic/Latino populace. There is a pretty obvious through-line from the Porvenir massacre of 1918 to the modern practice of busing and flying Hispanic/Latino migrants to other states.

I personally think it's tragic and offensive that migrants are being used in what appears to be political stunts by top-level public servants.

But.

One-third of all Texas residents is either an immigrant or the child of an immigrant, due to Texas' long history of immigration.  The state is routinely one of the top few in the nation when it comes to immigration;  pre-COVID, in fact, Texas had more net international migrants per capita than California.  Whenever I'm in Texas, my general impression is that immigration is an accepted and completely normal part of life there.  With that in mind, though, it's also the case that one-third of all immigrants in Texas are undocumented (a.k.a. illegal aliens).  It's pretty easy for me to understand, then, how Texas would be frustrated with federal immigration policies that seem to disproportionately affect that state–especially when it comes to unauthorized foreigners being 'released' into the state–even if the effects of that have been exaggerated and politicized.

I do find it ironic that such busing is described in left-wing media as wreaking havoc on the northern and eastern cities to which the migrants are being bused.  For some reason, that shouldn't be those states' problem, but it should be Texas' problem.  WTF?  If Texas doesn't want the influx, then we're supposed to believe it's because of racism and xenophobia;  but, if New York or DC doesn't want them either, then we're supposed to be sympathetic.  Well, I guess, maybe Texas should have thought of that before they went and put their border next to Mexico...

But, anyway, that's all tangential to race.  Are white Venezuelans and Mexicans being given preferential treatment over black Haitians and indigenous Guatemalans?  Or do you just think of everyone from south of the border as "not white"?

All right, enough about race and immigration.

You also claim that not being a Christian has "major downsides" in Texas.  Would you please go into more detail about that?  I'm scratching my head, trying to figure out what disadvantages non-Christians in Texas might have–you know, in a state where a full one-fourth of adults 'seldom' or 'never' attend any religious services, Christian or otherwise.

[1]

I do find it ironic that such busing is described in left-wing media as wreaking havoc on the northern and eastern cities to which the migrants are being bused.  For some reason, that shouldn't be those states' problem, but it should be Texas' problem.  WTF?  If Texas doesn't want the influx, then we're supposed to believe it's because of racism and xenophobia;  but, if New York or DC doesn't want them either, then we're supposed to be sympathetic.  Well, I guess, maybe Texas should have thought of that before they went and put their border next to Mexico...

I don't think New York and DC are having problems with the people themselves (rather than the actions). You were probably looking at the media talking about Martha's Vineyard, a rich community that's not set up to handle 50 people that couldn't afford to live there. They were moved to the mainland, where they were accepted.

[kphoger]

I don't think New York and DC are having problems with the people themselves (rather than the actions). You were probably looking at the media talking about Martha's Vineyard, a rich community that's not set up to handle 50 people that couldn't afford to live there. They were moved to the mainland, where they were accepted.

No, I'm talking about media that lament how those locations often cannot adequately accommodate the migrants, that they sometimes end up in homeless shelters, etc, etc, etc.  As if that should for some reason only be Texas' problem.

[thspfc]

I don't think New York and DC are having problems with the people themselves (rather than the actions). You were probably looking at the media talking about Martha's Vineyard, a rich community that's not set up to handle 50 people that couldn't afford to live there. They were moved to the mainland, where they were accepted.

No, I'm talking about media that lament how those locations often cannot adequately accommodate the migrants, that they sometimes end up in homeless shelters, etc, etc, etc.  As if that should for some reason only be Texas' problem.

Texas is red and those other places are blue. End of story.

[webny99]

I think that TxDOT is more aggressive in addressing traffic issues compared with CalTrans, especially with money diverted to fund the high-speed choo-choo boondoggle.

Give TxDOT time.  Decades ago, Caltrans was very aggressive at building too.  What is happening now with the NHHIP (albeit in Houston) may be a sign of things to come in the future.

High-speed rail has already been studied in the Texas Triangle (DFW-San Antonio-Houston) and the concept has never been fully abandoned, so "choo choo" may be on its way too.

The more I think about it, the more I agree that Texas is probably going to end up going the same way as California, just delayed by 40-50 years. It just makes too much sense when you look at the influx of population and fast growth of the major population centers.