Wednesday, March 21, 2007

One of These Things is Not Like the Other

Sometime last summer I packed my meager possessions and escaped Texas for Massachusetts. I have had some time to reflect on the differences between the two states. One would imagine, being the same nation and all, that there wouldn’t be such disparities. Yet, the attitudes in either are far removed. In the best spirit of compare and contrast (and, hey, we all know that I am nothing if not formulaic at this point), here are the salient issues between the states:

    Massachusetts: Has a quasi-functioning, though crumbling, public transportation system. Instead of increasing this service, especially investing in expanding the underdeveloped T lines, the corrupt MBTA decides to hire “customer service specialists” who can be polite about the lack of service.

    Texas: Imagines public transportation is a communist plot. Has announced that it will instead construct an 18-lane highway for Houston. Why be stuck in traffic in a meager 10 lane highway when you can be stuck in an 18-lane highway?


    Massachusetts: Has civil laws protecting gays and lesbians’ basic rights, including marriage.

    Texas: Has a governor who told gays and lesbians they should leave the state in the summer of 2005. The good people of Texas reelected him in 2006.


    Massachusetts: Has aggressive regulations about owning firearms.

    Texas: I think that I was the only one who wasn’t packing. I am still amazed I didn’t get blown away in my classroom.


    Massachusetts: Has a long name which is difficult to spell.

    Texas: Has a name so short that even I can spell it.


    Massachusetts: Has some of the highest income taxes in the nation. Most consider paying those taxes an obligation and duty of their citizenship.

    Texas: Likes to pretend that because it doesn't have an income tax they have accomplished something. In reality, they have regressive taxes on property and a crushing sales tax that unfairly burdens the poor.


    Massachusetts: Considered one of the most liberal states in the nation, if not the most liberal.

    Texas: Pitifully claims that Austin is “liberal” when, in reality, it is simply less conservative than the rest of that ultra-conservative sink hole.


    Texas: Has the very tasty Blue Bell ice cream.

    Massachusetts: Has the vastly superior J.P. Licks, Toscanini’s, and Herrell’s. To be honest, though, I would just stop eating ice cream if Texas was the only place in the world where it was produced.


    Massachusetts: Its capital, Boston, ranks as one of the most fit cities in the nation.

    Texas: Has three of the ten fattest cities in the nation: Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston (the fattest city in the nation).


    Massachusetts: Is poised to become the first state in the nation to offer universal health care.

    Texas: Has the highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation at a shocking 20.3 percent. Now, I am not keen on the idea of there being more Texans in the nation. I think Texas should institute universal birth control. Still, once the little Texan bastards have been born, one would think that the state would recognize the basic human right to health care. Instead, they feel that 1/5 of all the children in Texas are expendable.


    Texas: When I wear this t-shirt to the gym, it is construed as a radical statement in favor of equal rights.

    Massachusetts: When I wear this t-shirt to the gym, it is construed as a signal that I want to have anonymous sex in the sauna.


    Texas: Terms like “honey,” “dear,” or “sugar” give a false impression of friendliness that really cover a deeper layer of contempt.

    Massachusetts: Statements like “Get out of the road, shithead” are expressions of endearment.


    Massachusetts: Was the first state to have a public school system and to require compulsory education.

    Texas: Thinks education makes the majority population uppity.


    Massachusetts: The liberalism of the state often leaves many complacent or unaware of implicit racism that has real economic consequences for the state’s minority populations.

    Texas: Is fine with explicit racism. In fact, the entire state’s economy is based on it. I think they might also be making explicit racism the basis of their tourist campaign as well.


    Massachusetts: Is home to Harvard University, the oldest university in the nation.

    Texas: In fits of delusion, refers to its universities as the “Harvard on the Brazos” or “Harvard on Lake Travis.” Most likely these delusions results from all the drugs one needs to take while living in Texas.


    Massachusetts: Won the Civil War.

    Texas: Lost the Civil War.


    Massachusetts: When GayProf is in residence, he is often looking for new cultural and/or intellectual events to attend.

    Texas: When GayProf is in residence, he is often looking for a window to toss himself out of.


    Massachusetts: Harvard University and the University of Massachusetts have shockingly ignored the changing demographics of the nation. Neither has yet to hire a historian who studies Latinos in the nation.

    Texas: Is a non-white majority state, yet its flagship universities don't even come close to the state's demographics. The student body at both institutions are shockingly between 85 and 90 percent white.


    Massachusetts: Has a noble motto: “By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.”

    Texas: Has a smug motto: “Don’t Mess with Texas.”


    Massachusetts: Does not accept the death penalty as an ethical punishment for crime.

    Texas: Considers execution by electric chair an appropriate pyrotechnic display for the Fourth of July.


    Massachusetts: During the nineteenth century, Massachusetts witnessed the shocking popularity of black-face minstrelsy among the working class.

    Texas: In the twenty-first century, Texan university students produce black-face minstrelsy that they post on YouTube.


    Massachusetts: Irish-Americans have an astounding amount of political control.

    Texas: Still doesn't think that the Irish are legitimate U.S. Citizens. Yeah, for Texas, it's 1855 all the time.


    Massachusetts: Brought into the U.S. during the revolution and gained the nickname “The Cradle of Liberty.”

    Texas: Brought into the U.S. by greedy Euro Americans who had illegally immigrated into Mexico. Earned them the nickname “diablo Texans” by Mexicans.


    Massachusetts: Has the JFK presidential library. He had a remarkable reputation for being eloquent and smart.

    Texas: Has Bush, Senior’s Presidential Library. He has a remarkable reputation for siring losers. Texas will also soon have Bush, Jr’s library. One can only imagine that it will have walls that bleed spontaneously and wailing ghosts who haunt it for all eternity.


    Massachusetts: Abolished slavery in 1780.

    Texas: Whites illegally immigrated into Mexico and instituted slavery despite being explicitly forbidden by the Mexican federal government.


    Massachusetts: The general population is thankful that they don’t live in Texas.

    Texas: The general population is thankful that they don’t live in Massachusetts.


Anonymous said...


For in it the righteousness of
God is revealed from faith to
faith; as it is written, "The just
shall live by faith." For the wrath
of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who
suppress the truth in unright -
eousness, because what may
be known of God is manifest
in them, for God has shown
it to them.

For since the creation of the
world His invisible attributes
are clearly seen, being under -
stood by the things that are
made, even His eternal power
and Godhead, so that they are
without excuse, because,
although they knew God,
they did not glorify Him as
God, nor were thankful,
but became futile in their
thoughts, and their foolish
hearts were darkened.

Professing to be wise,
they became fools,
and changed the glory
of the incorruptible
God into an image made
like corruptible man -
and birds and four -
footed animals and
creeping things.

Therefore God
also gave them up
to uncleanness, in
the lusts of their
hearts, to dishonor
their bodies among
themselves, who
exchanged the truth
of God for the lie,
and worshiped and
served the creature
rather than the Creator,
who is blessed forever.

For this reason God
gave them up to vile
passions. For even
their women exchanged
the natural use for what
is against nature. Likewise
also the men, leaving the
natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust for one
another, men with men
committing what is shameful,
and receiving in themselves
the penalty of their error which
was due. And even as they
did not like to retain God in
their knowledge, God gave
them over to a debased mind,
to do those things which are
not fitting; being filled with all
unrighteousness, sexual immorality,
wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness; full of envy,
murder, strife, deceit,
evil-mindedness; they are
whisperers, backbiters,
haters of God, violent,
proud, boasters, inventors
of evil things, disobedient
to parents, undiscerning,
untrustworthy, unloving,
unforgiving, unmerciful;
who, knowing the righteous
judgment of God, that those
who practice such things
are deserving of death,
not only do the same
but also approve of
those who practice them.

We know these laws are
good when they are used
as God intended.

But they were not made
for people who do what
is right. They are for people
who are disobedient and
rebellious, who are ungodly
and sinful, who consider
nothing sacred and defile
what is holy, who murder
their father or mother or
other people.

These laws are for people
who are sexually immoral,
for homosexuals and slave
traders, for liars and oath
breakers, and for those who
do anything else that contradicts
the right teaching


For the wages of sin is death,
but the gift of God is eternal
life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


The United States government
has just released a nation-wide
survey on Americans' private
sexual habits. The NEW YORK
TIMES describes it as disclosing
"surprising numbers for same-sex

Surprising is the right word, but not
in the way I suspect the NEW YORK
TIMES means.

The study was done by the National
Center for Health Statistics, part of
the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Among other statistics,
the study indicates that only about
4 percent of men and women consider
themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.

Indeed, among men ages 18 to 44,
90 percent call themselves heterosexual,
2 percent homosexual, 2 percent bisexual,
and 4 percent something else. Among
women, 86 percent are attracted only
to men, and 10 percent "mostly" to males.

In both cases it is a long way from the 10
percent that the homosexual lobby has
advanced for years. We are told that
homosexual behavior is simply a choice
and that we're bigoted if we do not
believe it to be the norm. But any time
you look at statistics and find less than
10 percent engaging in a particular
activity, it is contrary to the norm.
The norm is what the 90 percent does.

There are profound social consequences
here. If sexual orientation is a choice,
then we're free to choose. But this study
implies that we're wired a certain
way, for heterosexual relationships.

As philosopher J. Budziszewski says,
there are some things we "can't not

One of those things is that we're
biologically made a certain way:
males one way and females another.
That's the way the world works,
and it's the only natural way to
conceive children.

And when you go against the way
the world is made, you're going
against the grain of the universe.
And no amount of propaganda
or clever marketing, which is
what it is, can change the
unalterable facts of the natural
moral order.

It's time we recognize that and
stop being bullied by special interests.

But whether we should have spent
the money this way or not, we do
now have the report. It does show
us something that needs to be
understood in American life.
It has a profound impact on the
political and cultural debates of
our day in ways that I'm sure does
indeed surprise the staff of the

GayProf said...

Crazy: Your pseudonym is astoundingly accurate.

vuboq said...

Gayprof, did you read that entire comment? I stopped after the first paragraph. Too wordy. Let me know if I missed anything ...

Having been to both Texas and Massachusetts, I can say that I'm very happy in Maryland ;-)

The big question though is, what state is GayProf's next state of residence?

Dorian said...

Oh good, you've been getting trolls today too. I was afraid it was just me.

As to the topic at hand: I'm starting to think of California as a strange combination of Texas and Massachusets. And not in any kind of good way. I think the newest sign was our governor apologising to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

Arthur Schenck said...

One of the things I have the most trouble getting across to people in New Zealand is that the US states are very different from one another. Your post is a good demonstration of those differences, even if some of them are (might be?) tongue-in-cheek.

Oh, and if you click on the word "said" by the crazy guy's name it collapses the comment. Would that it was so easy with people...

Anonymous said...

vuboq: Canadians are hoping GayProf's next residence is Canada...

Roger Owen Green said...

Oh, you get all the fun people.

jeremy said...

So I wanted to see what Mr. Crazy above was all about, and it totally cracks me up that his profile picture was lifted from here.
Anyway, you post reminded me of how much I'm going to abhor my 8 days with the 'rents in May. Wish I was headed back to Boston (or anywhere but TX) instead.

Anonymous said...

I was going to comment on this, but I have a rule that I will never comment unless my comment can be the longest comment on the page.

Clearly, that will not happen.

So now not only will I not ever got to Texas (not that I was planning to), I will not comment on this post.

TED said...

Two thoughts:

I always say that no one who likes living in Texas ever wants to live anywhere else, and no one who likes living anywhere else ever wants to live in Texas. In this way, Texas is exactly like France.

I started salivating the moment I read "Toscanini's." I was a student at MIT when the original (if there's more than one now) Toscanini's opened, and it changed our lives. We no longer had to hike all the way to Back Bay or Harvard Square to get good ice cream. Mmmmmm.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Jen.

MichaelRbn said...

Hey, doesn't Texas also have the LBJ Library?

pacalaga said...

Sheesh, even GOD doesn't use that much Bold print. (Well, he didn't used to - I haven't gotten an email from him lately.)
If GayProf moves to Canada, I'm going too.

Doug said...

Vancouver is nice. I visited last spring and though it was cold, it wasn't bone-chilling. I hear it's gorgeous during summer.

And I hope the ghosts in dubya's library will be wailing, not whaling. I don't think there are any whales in Texas, even if Houston is the fattest city in the country.

Kate said...

Um, crazy professor is crazy.

I'm glad you brought up the implicit racism issue for MA. I love my state, but I think we're a too smug about how wonderfully liberal we are. Racism is a major problem.

Anonymous said...

Is it just a myth, or is it true that Texas slaveholders kept the news of emancipation from their slaves resulting in the creation of the Juneteenth celebration?

Anonymous said...

i feel i must always defend texas (it is my home state - and i'm pretty fucking awesome, so i guess the place has something going for it). i chuckled though. funny observations.

what's the phrase? "american by birth, texan by the grace of goddess"

something like that.

GayProf said...

V.U.B.O.Q. I stopped reading somewhere in the middle. I think what he is trying to say is that he wants some hot man-on-man action.

As for my plans and location for next year: patience, my pretty. All will be revealed/decided soon.

Dorian: States like California and Michigan are the ones that worry me the most, actually. They have a left majority, but it is fragmented and often ineffectual. They are also the states where activism can make tangible differences.

Arthur: Not only is it hard to convince people from outside the U.S. that regional differences are important, they also imagine TexAss to be the universal for the U.S. **Shudder**

Jen and Cooper: GayProf would be delighted to move to fair-minded Canada -- where he could rule with an iron-fist.

ROG: The struggle continues...

Jeremy: Well, when you are back in TexAss you can always see the ... um ... well, there is the ... uh. Look, just drink a lot, okay?

Dr.Sparky: You are wise to avoid the dreaded Lone Star State.

Neighbors: Yeah, Texas is just like France: Except for the wine, culture, people, history, sense of social responsibility, health care...

MichaelBrn: Indeed, the LBJ library is in Texas. Let's be honest, though, that is really a mixed bag. Even with the progressive social policies, it's hard to not allow VietNam to cloud everything else.

Pacalaga: I hear God is more into txt msg's today.

Doug: D'oh. I'll fix that.

Kate: Yes, the racism in MA is astounding. It is interesting to me that some of the most liberal places (like MA or even Canada) have the most trouble thinking about how race is still a salient issue.

Brian: It is more or less true. Union Troops were slow to assert their authority over Texas. As a result, news of emancipation did not become widespread in the state until almost two years after its announcement.

Sammuel: I appreciate that not everything in TexAss is horrible. Also, when the state produces the rare Liberal, they are some the hardest, toughest liberals ever seen in the nation.

In New Mexico, we modified a famous statement from Porfirio Díaz. "Poor New Mexico, so far from God, so close to Texas."

Laura Elizabeth said...

Who the f*ck is J. Budziszewski?

The best thing about Texas is it makes Connecticut look good.

Anonymous said...

I can personally vouch for the accuracy of every Massachusetts claim GP has made. You really picked up on all of that pretty quick.

I'll just assume the Texas statements are true until proved otherwise.

(BTW, somebody (same guy?) has posted the same biblical cut and paste and false claims elsewhere. Got a lot of time on his hands I figure.)

Elizabeth McClung said...

I see one of your fans of texas was first to comment - okay - Very humorous but have to say that anyone who approached me saying, "I seek peace through a sword but..." Well, that's all I'd hear because those kind of statements are up there with "I love you, now come closer to my ball-peen hammer!" - Also like your capture of Bostonian road banter - have to say, ala Texas - 18 lanes! There is a point where it isn't bigger and better, it is "eff you greenhouse effect!" - my god!

Seeker Onos said...

This Crazy Professor (hereinafter referred to as CP) is quite an article.

CP is preaching the truth - God's word - but the "shotgun approach" seems to be less effective to the LGBT crowd.

A shorter message that points out the commonality of our sin, and the way to salvation thru Christ, as well as opening up a dialogue before randomly parsing thru LGBT blogs and posting whole Bible passages might be a tad less cause for offense one's intended audience.

Seeker Onos said...

As an aside:

"Massachusetts: Won the Civil War.

Texas: Lost the Civil War."

Actually, I was always under the impression that the 'Confederate States of America' lost the Civil War, and that it had more to do with the CSA's lack of an advanced industrial base as opposed to being entirely the fault of some wily cattlemen in Texas.

Can't say much for Mass. - other than that Gen. Sherman was a real hoot, as he burned and pillaged his way down through the Southland.

And this one:

"Texas: Brought into the U.S. by greedy Euro Americans who had illegally immigrated into Mexico. Earned them the nickname “diablo Texans” by Mexicans."

Surprisingly, I won't argue with this. Euro-Americans (primarily farmers of Germanic and Celtic descent) did in fact, settle into the first Mexican Republic, and effectively "conquered it by immigration".

However, since the government of Mexico ceded that territory along with what was to become eventually NM, AZ, NV, CA and parts of CO and UT by treaty, those territories no longer belong to Mexico.

The MEChistas' desires to bring that region back under Mexican control (or at least, as a separate sovereign Aztlan nation) are about as legal as that of the Texan colonists from the 1820s-30s.

I'd say that two wrongs hardly make things right.... but who knows, if things go the way they seem to be going with MEChistas gaining a supermajority population, then a referendum could be floated for the eventual secession of states comprising the nascent "Aztlan" nation.

I'm not sure though, that the USA would let CA go w/o a fight though... 10th largest economy inthe world and all that, y'know.

tornwordo said...

Lol, comment much crazy? (just a little hint, brevity is a virtue)

So are you going to have to go back to Texas? Gosh I hope not.

tomvancouver said...

Massachusetts sounds very Canadian, though I think we are a more tolerant on racial studies, but then again Latin studies are fairly rare, but that is changing due to the influx of many Latin immigrants ( many Cuban ). It's the state I'd choose to live in if I were American, so why don't you move there, even though it might be financially tough for a bit, I'm sure eventually they'll be looking for profs who teach Latin studies. Texas scares the shit out of me, from what I've read.

r said...

Seeker said, "CP is preaching the truth - God's word - but the "shotgun approach" seems to be less effective to the LGBT crowd."

I'd change that to "less effective to the thinking, intelligent crowd."

(And how are you sure it's God's word when it was written by men?)

Sorry Gayprof... didn't mean to go off topic. You've got a bunch of stalkers at this point.

My family's from Mass, never been to Texas... but, that part about it having some of the fattest cities? I like that. I could go and be considered svelte.

Just a thought.

Seeker Onos said...

Seeker said, "CP is preaching the truth - God's word - but the "shotgun approach" seems to be less effective to the LGBT crowd."

I'd change that to "less effective to the thinking, intelligent crowd."

(And how are you sure it's God's word when it was written by men?)


My apologies. I only meant to say that such a direct manner of preaching as CP's is probably best for open-air preachers, or revival preachers, etc.

The Law (as CP quoted at length above) is to point out our sin; the Gospel shows us salvation through Christ which redeems us from the Law, and every lawless deed we have done.

As for "thinking, intelligent people", I am reticent to use those terms to refer to humans, as we have a terribly long history of being stupid, proud and basically wretched sinners, especially in the light of God's perfect Law.

That aside, having been firmly in the LGBT camp myself, I know that the message of condemnation is not received well - although it is important to point out that we all deserve eternal death, judgment and hell for being sinners, regardless of the particular nature of the sins.

As for who wrote the Word of God... well, God could have had birds or fishes write it if He so desired. But He chose men who were moved by His Holy Spirit.

Which is probably a good thing: something written by a fish might be rather difficult to read. :P

As for my assurance that His word is true, it began for me at Romans 10:17 "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".

It really is that simple, if we choose to believe God.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Ugh - it's a sin to comment on comments especially when they are off-topic and based on a crazy person's post, but here I go.

Rebekah and Seeker, you can't prove that the Bible is God's inspired word, that's just a matter of faith. Quoting a Bible verse doesn't prove it ("the Bible is true because it says it is" is VERY bad logic) but having it written by men does not disprove it. Again, it's a matter of faith.

Seeker, although from the Christian perspective, yes we are all imperfect creatures - "sinners" - you seem to suggest that being gay is a sin. The Bible is nowhere near as clear on the issue as literalist would have us believe and quite probably says nothing at all on the subject of homosexuality as we understand it today.

Yes, a literalist reading of most translated texts will lead to that interpretation, but literalist readings of the Bible produces some HUGE problems. And, really, most evangelicals don't truly practice a literalist interpretation of the Bible even though they claim to do so.

GayProf -sorry for going off-topic - I will agree from the brief amount of times I have been in Texas, Texas is pretty damn crazy.

Anonymous said...

Texas: Terms like “honey,” “dear,” or “sugar” give a false impression of friendliness that really cover a deeper layer of contempt.

It's not the same thing that you're talking about, but...

I was actually having a talk with a friend of mine about something like this the other day. He was literally shocked at how friendly and chatty I was with someone that I had ranted about to him a week ago.

When he suggested that I actually talk openly to this person about the "problems" he was causing for me, my instinctive thought was, "Well, that would be rude!" I stand by my position, but rest assured I don't use terms like that.

FIT GRAD said...

NV to CT (w/ptown trips) and back to NV again...I feel your pain

Mike said...

I miss living in the Bay State sometimes. I miss the colors of fall, the ocean nearby, the beauty of Boston's brick neighborhoods, the woods, the mountains and lakes of New Hampshire, delicious fish and chips, dinner at noon and supper at 6. Rock music on the radio, and the grim outlook on life.

Seeker Onos said...

Michael: Is your email addy at still something that you read/reply to?

If so, I'd love to chat you up on the thoughts you've posted here.

I figured that would be a bit more welcome than my hijacking the thread more than I have done already.

* steps carefully away from the God topic *

As for the (perceived) faux-friendliness thing of the Deep South, I think that has its parallel in Japan where there is a great deal of socially-forced politeness.

I've heard my wife and her close friends cut some poor unsuspecting third person down behind their back in Japanese, while under other circumstances, all parties concerned would be perfectly polite to each other -- to a fault.

In the Japanese case, I think this "forced politeness" comes from the much higher population density (ease of coflict resolution would be much more necessary in Japan, as opposed to the relative isolation we Americans can enjoy) as well as a general social and/or class heirarchy that tends to be much more rigourously enforced.

Japanese are notoriously status-conscious: this dates from the Meiji period and before (pre 1868) were such politeness was often dictated at the point of a sharp katana (sword).

As for the South, I cannot really put a finger on their version of the forced politeness, tinged with a wee bit of the vinegar under the "sugar". Perhaps it derives also from a sort of a class structure, but I've not many complaints at all about Southern Hospitality.

Here in NYC, people have no issue with speaking their mind, not really worrying a piece about a person's status or the like.

Charles Céleste Hutchins said...

Faux friendliness linked to faux concern about salvation? "We are all sinners who deserve death and torment and nightly spankings (with that new black paddle with the metal spikes and rhinestones . . . ahem), just that some of us deserve eternal torment more than others. God loves you so much (but me more) and I just wanted to share that with you."

Bruce said...

My blog has sometimes received comments similar to those left on your by people like the crazy professor. I have thought of deleting them, in order to save my readers from what I judged as a meaningless distraction. But, like you, I let them stand. I wonder if that is the right decision...

BTW: I was conceived in Texas; my father, a New Yorker, was stationed in Texas during WW II; my mother, also from the East Coast, traveled to NY to give birth to me, since she couldn't live with the thought of having a child born in Texas.

Anonymous said...

Next time Crazy prof writes, I'd check out the originality factor. Turns out he's plagiarized most of this stuff.

Artistic Soul said...

Good list! Love the T-shirt. :)

Anonymous said...

Just returned from TX, where the House has just passed a bill instituting a presumption in favor of accepting self-defense when shooting someone believed to be "threatening." Yeah.

That shirt looks like it goes on a hot body...

ryan said...

You're such a smug piece of shit.

Did it ever occur to you that your attitudes are just the kind of thing that keep our country so divided and make people in Texas hate people who live in Massachuesetts? It's not because you're "liberal" (okay, Mitt Romney), it's because you're all ASSHOLES! I've posted with all of these same comments before, on a similar post by you, so it's clear to me now that your pathological hatred of Texas obviously stems from some deep insecurity within yourself.

Signed, a bleeding-heart liberal gay man who lives in Texas and loves it.

GayProf said...

Fire: Thanks for commenting. Clearly you love Texas -- Fair enough, in my book. Different people in Texas have different experiences and priorities. I am glad that you find it fulfilling.

I would point out, though, that Texans often refuse to hear criticisms about the state. The lack of health insurance for children, the extreme racism, the institutional homophobia (from the governor's office down), and unwavering desire to defend the indefensible simply because it was Texas made it an unpleasant place for me to live.

Not everything in this post celebrated Massachusetts, either. I have nothing vested in Massachusetts and I won't be living here next year.

Finally, hating Texas is part of this blog's schtick. Hating Texas is not the same as hating you. I certainly didn't intend it to be personal.

If, however, you previously found this blog unpleasant, why keep reading? Relax and enjoy your life more. It's too short to waste on reading blogs that you don't like. And it's really, really, really too short to get that emotionally worked up about it.

ryan said...

Well, after reading this post, I have decided to stop reading it (except to come back and see if you've responded to my comment yet...which, yes, I know is hypocritical) because while I think you're often funny and have intelligent things to say, I've grown weary of your relentless negativity. Basically, I was giving you a second chance.

And to address your points: I don't deny what's wrong with Texas. In many ways, I feel that Texas is worthy of being bombed to smithereens and then let the left-over zombie hordes eat what's left of the survivors. But I also think (like every other state in the whole goddamn country) that there are also great and wonderful people and things here, just as I'm sure Massachussetts is full of plenty of crap if you care to look under the utopian liberal surface for it.

I guess my main point I wanted to make is that by running away from the things you hate (like Texas) and then deeming them unworthy of any kind of platitudes or respect, you're just contributing to the problem. By turning your back and pretending that Texas is "over there," and that the things that happen here don't affect you is woefully naive. Instead of condescending and acting so superior, why don't you be really brave and move back to Texas and then fight to make it the kind of place you'd actually care to live. If it concerns you that much (as it obviously does), then why don't you try to do something about it, as almost every single person I know who lives in Texas does. We're all activists here, and why? Because we have to be. Because we don't ignore the problems of Texas and we don't just live in our little Austin liberal bubble (and yes, Austin is a very liberal city; if you don't believe it, look at Travis County's voting record) and pretend like the rest of the state doesn't exist.

It's just like when I was a vegetarian. My whole family thought I was a total weirdo (and it actually made my mother angry), and they couldn't even conceive of why I would want to be such a thing. So then I cooked my whole family a series of delicious, flavorful, hearty, healthy, and satisfying vegetarian meals to prove them wrong, instead of just writing them off as inbred, stupid, unenlightened yokels. And you know what? They totally changed their minds, and developed a whole new understanding and respect of vegetarianism.

I would suggest to you, Mr. GayProf, that you step out of your little academic bubble in which you've clearly been ensconsed for way too long, and go live in reality, among real people, in the real, non-academic world, and truly try to understand them. Your knee-jerk, elitist liberalism is just as dangerous, short-sighted, hateful, ignorant, and worthless as all the knee-jerk conservatism you rail against. You bring nothing to the table. And I think it's sad, because you seem like you would have a lot to offer if you'd just get over yourself.

That's all.

GayProf said...

Fire: It's a shame you didn't start with your second comment rather than the first which called me "shithead" (BTW, accusing me of being smug is a lot like accusing Dolly Parton of being blond -- That's hardly news).

You are right -- I am totally abandoning the fight in Texas. I accept that as a fair criticism and the idea has crossed my mind. I also regret very much that I will leave behind my students who (except in Freshmen-level classes) were often trying to change the status quo in the state.

In the end, however, I just can't take the level of hostility and harassment that I encountered in Texas (and that was within the academic bubble that you seem to imagine to be my total life zone). I felt the situation got much worse in the four years that I lived there, not better.

To be honest, I really don't think Texas will change until the rest of the nation changes. I therefore see no value in being a long-suffering martyr to Texas. The 2005 and 2006 elections suggested how entrenched the right is in that state. For me, there are other places in the country where the political situation is in much more flux between the left and the right.

Sorry to lose you as a reader. I wish you well and hope that you are ultimately right about Texas.

Anonymous said...

I shouldn't say anything, but what the hell?

Fire, you really do have a bit of a projection problem, don't you?

Red Seven said...

HILARIOUS. Just sayin'.

Qiaves said...

It's nice to know what places I should avoid if I should ever plan to visit America.

I think I'll stick with Denmark for now. ^_^