Correction
In my post, It’s May – What better time to start thinking about potential Trump Veeps, I had some fun with the Dakotas.
In a section of the post about South Dakota governor and admitted dog killer, Kristi Noem, I wrote:
“Kristi Noem, the farm girl, former beauty queen and presumptive idiot, is also governor of South Dakota – or is it North Dakota. Wait, which Dakota is the setting for “Fargo?” Wait, why are there two Dakotas? And why are there two Virginias? Or two Carolinas? Just so there’ll be more GOP senators? If there’s a better reason for District of Columbia’s statehood (or Puerto Rico’s for that matter) please let me know via a comment to this post an email to me directly (tedblock@around-the-block.com)”
The story went on to mention the governor of North Dakota, Doug Burgham:
“…Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota is mentioned several times. Really? Really! I guess if we have to have two Dakotas, we have to have two Dakota entries. But, North Dakota? Burgum doesn’t even have “Fargo” to hang his hat on.”
I was wrong. It is Fargo, North Dakota. Why was I wrong? While I said I looked it up, I didn’t. I just assumed. Why? Because I had so much material on Noem and virtually none of Burgham, Fargo’s geographical placement worked better in South Dakota.
How did I learn of my error? One of my readers, and most valued commentators, wrote back:
“When I lived in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Fargo was just a hop, skip and a jump across the North Dakota border? Has it Moved? Or did I misread your geographical meaning?”
No, dear reader. You did not misread the geographical meaning. It simply seemed funnier in South Dakota.
Of course my error does have some value: it amplifies my geographical, but perhaps more important, electoral/democratic question – “Why are there two Dakotas?” The Dakotas (North Dakota, population, 779,094/South Dakota, population, 858,469) have three Electoral College votes and two United States senators each. Washington DC, with a population of 672,738 has no senators nor any Electoral College votes. Just doesn’t seem right!
In any event, sorry for the error.
Around the Block 
No problem,Ted. I just didn’t want your readers thinking you knew less about the geography of your own nation than a Canadian knows. (Reversing an old joke there: We used to laugh about Americans knowing less about Canadian geography than Canadians knew about American geography. Too many American tourists from down south came up to Canada wanting yo see us living in igloos — houses made of ice — and were disappointed when they found we lived in houses just like them. While it was a joke to us, it was not a joke to those tourists. They were truly disappointed!)
All that aside, your question is a good one I have wondered about myself at times.The name Dakota comes from the name of one of the First Nations (I refuse to use the colonial term of American ….., Indians come from India and nowhere eise!) that lived on the land before the Europeans arrived. The thing is, in that area, there were the Dakotas, the Lakotas, the Nakodas, and probably some other nations with totally different names for themselves — so why just commemorate one nation when so many other names were available? Were they not worthy?
Okay, I’ll ease up on that. That’s all a part of history now. But I agree, couldn’ the Dwkotas and Carolinas and the Virginias come together, or otherwise use different names if they didn’t want to be associated with each other?
And your question about Senatorial politics is right on! When was that make-up of the Senate designed? When there were only 13 colonies? That would have made sense then, but to me it makes no sense now. A senator in New York, for example, has to represent millions of people, while a senator in some other places represents only a few hundred thousand or so. That makes some individual people much more powerful than sone other individuals. And in a bipartisan nation that makes one persons vote much more powerful than another person’s vote. I thought the whole idea behind America was equality? This does not seem equal to me! Control the small states, and you can control the vast majority of the population of the nation! Isn’t that creating a new class if rulers?
I guess I just do not understand what it means to be equal…
LikeLike
Not only do I not have a problem, I was happy you cleared things up. I probably picked South Dakota without thinking because much of the movie Fargo was filmed in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area and MSP is about the same attitude as mid-SD. So, I leaped before I looked.
More importantly, your comments about senatorial politics (and the “undemocratic Electoral College) is an issue that even bedevils Americans. At least some Americans, the some that can actually think.
What was the rationale? To even the playing field for the smaller states, with the idea that House representation, based on population, would counter balance the big state Senate advantage. But, I guess the Founding Fathers didn’t have the foresight to see gerrymandering and the evils of unencumbered money influencing politics which have made the House a non-functioning travesty.
And despite emails from Dems like Hillary Clinton asking me to support a change in the Electoral College system (BTW, the emails generally ask for more than “change”) there doesn’t appear to be any workable fix. Some ideas require a Constitutional amendment which is not going to happen. Others, including my choice, proportional allocation of electors based on the popular vote, is basically a non-starter. Why would a deep blue state like California want to give up any of their electors or a deep red one like Texas do the same with theirs? I fear they’ll be talking about this long after I’m too senile to opine. Unless, of course, Trump wins in November and we enter the next period of American history, Autocracy, with Russian-style elections. Like in 2028 when, defying the 22nd Amendment (and everything else in the Constitution) Trump runs again and gets 97.6% of the votes!
Wait, this was supposed to be a reply to your comment, not a post. Guess I just can’t help myself. LOL!
Please keep up the comments. They’re great and, based on today, help to keep me honest.
LikeLike
I think we have a lot of similarities Ted. It isn’t that we love to hear ourselves talk, but we think in ways that keep giving us more to say. STOP. Before I keep on going…
LikeLike
HaHaHa. One day we’ll meet. And talk, and talk and….
LikeLike