Seattle Columnist Makes the Case For Texas Secession, Should Probably Just Stick to Nirvana

Remember a few months ago when we all had a good laugh because a bunch of folks thought it might be a good idea to let this state of ours break off into the Gulf of Mexico, left to rely solely on gumption, oil reserves, and barbecue? It was fun, we had to call our out-of-state friends and say “No, you won’t need a passport any time soon,” and it allowed me to write a bunch of blog posts. Well, it seems one man isn’t letting the idea go. Meet Joel Connelly, a 35-year employee of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and, judging by his Google Image library, the all-time champion of any Wilford Brimley look-alike contest.

Connelly:

What would the rest of America gain — and lose — were the Texas Nationalist Movement to achieve its goal of secession?

He then begins his list: fewer awful presidents; greater respect for the law; fewer awful members of Congress; less climate idiocy.

If Texas were to secede, in sum, the rest of the United States would have fewer wars, enjoy a higher proportion of smart politicians in Washington, D.C.,  and be better able to tackle issues ranging from climate change to gun violence.

None of this, mind you, seems to be tongue-in-cheek. He seems to be forgetting that the rest of the country has produced plenty of terrible presidents, and that, if Texas was to secede, I’m sure a state like Florida or Louisiana or maybe even Maine would happily grab the “craziest state” trophy and begin churning out Louis Gohmerts like they’re Nikes.

His list of things America would lose? Austin, essentially. That’s it:

America would lose on the technology front, the literary front, the culinary front and the music front were Austin, Texas, to be taken from it.  Texas would depart just as changing demographics — the rising Hispanic population, emigration from the north — promise to loosen the good-old-boy grip.

Now I almost want to secede, just to prove Connelly wrong.