Herb: What the hell is your point? Joshua states that 2/3 of the population lives along the coasts. He makes no reference to land mass or individual state populations. So MA is small and heavily populated. Well, California is huge and heavily populated. BFD. It’s moot to his point.
And I do have perspective. I would hate for every thing that governs my life in New Mexico (5th largest state in land mass, 37th in population) be determined by people in Massachusetts who, frankly, generally don’t have proper perspective on these things.
Joshua: Folks describing the “coasts” nearly always are describing the East and West coasts, with everything else referred to as flyover country. (In fact, Wikipedia notes that even the large city Chicago, in Illinois, with Lake Michigan coastline, is considered flyover country.) “Flyover country” is referenced in the blog post and is in your rebuttal. So I have to take you at your word that you are distinguishing the coasts from flyover country.
My summary honors that distinction. Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and, yes, Texas are typically included in that vernacular as flyover country. If your intent was otherwise, you stand nearly alone in that characterization. So sorry.
Regardless, yes Hawaii and Florida were included in the “coastal” states. Florida has Atlantic coastline and so fits the criterion. But Alaska doesn’t count as a coastal state in this sense because, frankly, except for some of the smallest, furthest, unpopulated Aleutian Islands, Alaska’s coastline includes the Bering Sea, the Gulf of Alaska, the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea. No Pacific Ocean coastline for the populated portions of Alaska. (Or are you concerned about the social ills of polar bears and seals?)
Regardless, I’ll give you all the Gulf Coast states except Texas (definitely a southwest state by all accounts) and the percentage of population on the east and west and Gulf coasts reaches 53% of the US total. Still barely over 1/2. Even with Texas it’s only 60%, but that’s getting enough to 2/3 make a point, but still, inclusion of Texas is arguable.
BTW: you throw out a number, with some attempt at showing knowledge and meant support a point of contention, saying that some percentage of something belongs in some category or another, that’s a statistic. (On the other hand, observing that libs always resort to insults when they can’t otherwise support a point is called “strong anecdotal evidence.”) You would have been on much stronger ground, and still have an interesting point to say half of the population is on the coasts. So, FWIW, your arguments to me and to Den Mother are very weak. Whether, you’re serious or not, whether we’re relaxed or not, when you throw out numbers in a forum you should be ready to have them questioned, if not necessarily ready to defend them. e.g., you must think exaggerating (2/3 vs 1/2) gives a stronger argument, but in fact, being wrong on a fact always weakens your argument.
