Regional Subtleties
 

I've traveled enough of the US to notice "the little things" that change as you move from one region to another. This became more apparent when I was in Boston last weekend.

In Massachusetts, you might do your grocery shopping at Shaw's or Super Stop and Shop. You can find Red Fusion in a 2 liter bottle, and you can actually redeem your plastic soda bottles for cash. You can order a lobster omelette a restaurant named Bickford's. You'll pay about $1.60 a gallon for gas, and bowling alleys have both standard lanes and lanes for candle pin bowling.

In Philadelphia, I do my grocery shopping at Acme or Super Fresh. I can only find Red Fusion in cans and 20 ounce bottles, but I can buy a Dr. Pepper at McDonald's...and we have several sodas made by Canada Dry. Ginger ale seems incredibly popular in the northeast, while it's not as prevalent back in St. Louis. I can order a pork roll omelette at IHOP, and I pay about $1.40 a gallon for gas.

In Southern Illinois, you can still buy the "new" Coke (or Coke II, as it is now known). You can also buy sodas named Double Cola and Ski. There are several fast food chains in St. Louis that we don't have in Philadelphia, like Jack in the Box, Sonic, Long John Silvers, and Fazoli's.

What have you seen in your travels?

I've noticed that in other cities they often have the same commercials as in my city, only the guy from Arkansas is chopped out, and there's like this other guy on there, talking about how he's locally owned and operated, or whatever.

I dunno where they get off stealing our commercials, but the least they could do is not chop out our local celebrities!

That got me thinking about May Department Stores commercials, and how they're all the same...all they do is change the name of the store depending on the area.

Syc, have you heard the commercials for the Shane Company jewelers in St. Louis? You know, with the incredibly dry and monotonous Tom Shane being your Friend In The Diamond Business?

I thought there was only one of those stores, in Louisville (where I live) until I went to school in Missouri. Then I heard the exact same commercial as they have here, except instead of ending with "on the corner of Hurstborne Lane and Taylorsville Road", it ended with whatever their location is there.

It was kinda surreal because I had one of those moments kinda like where you think you see someone you know, except then you realize oops, no, I know that person from a city 400 miles from here.

Tob, really? *looks at their website* I always thought they were just another St. Louis jewelry store. Interesting...they have 22 stores. Their St. Louis store is at the Promenade in Brentwood.

Where did you go to school at in St. Louis?

I used to see commercials for this place called the Jewelry Factory in Bethesda, MD...it talked about what they did, showed their location, and their staff outside the store waving. I thought this was merely a local DC joint, until I saw commercials here in Philadelphia for The Jewelry Factory in Norristown, PA (set up in the same way as the one in MD). Last weekend, I saw a commercial in the Boston area for the same place (though it had a slightly different name).

In other interesting differences:

--I've never seen scrapple or pork roll in St. Louis, though many of you that have never been to St. Louis or Chicago may be baffled by the "pork steak."

--Until I went to Chicago (and we have it in Philadelphia too), I never knew that Diet Rite came in 900 flavors other than Cola.

--In St. Louis, there is a local soda company called Vess, that makes about 8000 different flavors of soda, including knockoffs like Dr. Schnee (their version of Dr. Pepper), and more unusual soda flavors, like peach.

--In DC, Dr. Pepper products are distributed by Pepsi. Here in Philadelphia, they are distributed by Coke. In St. Louis, they are distributed directly by Dr. Pepper-Seven Up.

--In the midwest (particularly places like Indiana and Ohio, IIRC), there is a popular red creme soda called Big Red. I haven't seen a red creme soda here in Philadelphia yet (though we have white creme soda, like Barq's).

--When I lived in St. Louis, the only times I ever saw Fanta sodas were generally in a Coke soda fountain. When I started traveling outside St. Louis, I saw several flavors in cans (and they make like 8000 varieties too). Now, I'm seeing it in places here in Philadelphia in 20 oz. bottles.

theres more than one? those fuckers!

~james

Exactly! They insiduously try to give you the impression that they're this little family-owned shop in Your Hometown that has been quietly importing their wares directly from Antwerp for generations, to give you the best deals in town.

...well, I guess it worked, because my wife and I got her engagement ring and both our wedding sets there!

I went to Southeast Missouri State in Cape Girardeau.. I had friends who lived in St. Louis that I'd go visit every now and then.
Yeah, that stuff's like crack for people who like it. They serve it at all the White Castles around here. I'm not that big a fan of it, but one of my coworkers from our Chicago office brings back cases of the stuff whenever he's in town.

My bad on the St. Louis thing...I must have mixed up the commercial with the school comment.

Holy shit! I went to SEMO for 3 semesters (1994-95)...was an RA (or as they call it now--Community Advisor) in Myers Hall for a semester.

Cape was an interesting place, but boring as could be. Then I discovered that the school sucked for my major and high-tailed it back to St. Louis for the rest of my collegiate studies.

I miss Big Red. They used to sell it (and Big Peach) in one liter bottles at QuikTrip. I used to drink that (and Dr. Pepper) like water.

Unfortunately, my mom couldn't bring any thing like Big Red, or Schlafly Oatmeal Stout, or Jack in the Box tacos out here 2 weeks ago. Damnit! Now I have to wait until I go back to St. Louis, which at this point should be around the 12th of Never. :)

One of my friends love this drink called Hawaiian Treat,(I think that's what it's called if I'm wrong sorry). You can't buy it in North Dakota but when some other friends went home to Minneapolis they brought back a bunch for him. I had never heard of it before I came to school.

hawaiian punch maybe?

~james

I've never heard of that, but I've heard of Tahitian Treat (made by Canada Dry) and Hawaiian Punch.

Whoa, that is pretty freaky! I went there from 93 until 97. I lived on floor 2 of Towers South all four years though.

Cape pretty much sucked all possible ass, as far as a college town went. We're talking the big shiny buckle itself of the Bible Belt here, folks. There wasn't a bar within miles of the campus. "Interesting" I guess is a good adjective for it, but not in a good way!

Aw shit...we're going to have to start swapping Cape stories now. :)

I'm sorry you had to live in South for 4 years. ;) After Dearmont closed, that officially became the worst on campus...well, except for maybe the old football dorm on Greek Row. I lived in West my first year on campus (right after the remodel), then got the CA gig in Myers my last semester.

Now you know there were several bars along Broadway, right by Houck Field. I'm not saying that you necessarily wanted to go to them, but they were there.

And I'm sure you spent a few nights over at the Purple Crackle. :)

Several of my mom's friends went there after high school, and at the time (mid-70s), SEMO was the party school. Then, the school cracked down in the mid-80s, and all the party folk took their act to SMSU in Springfield. By the time I got there, it was fucking lame-o. It was starting to get a little better when I left at the end of '95...but apparently not by much.

And it's a great school if you're majoring in nursing, education, or historical preservation. The business program is getting better too. Part of the reason I originally went to SEMO was to get away from St. Louis...and the small town gig was alright...for a while. And if people like that sorta thing, it's cool...just not for me.

I had some great times down there though, most of them involving alcohol. :)

Ahh that's it. Thanks sycamore

I wanted to live in the armpit of campus because I was a Governor's Scholar, and I was trying to shake the associated nerdy stigma by living in the hell-hole. That, and private rooms were cheap there, and having my own room was what I really wanted.

Plus, being on the ground floor (due to the slope of the hill in back), it was very easy to smuggle in alcohol through someone's window. We were like a well-trained Indy pit crew. I was the only one who was 21, so I'd go buy for everyone, pull up to a window (the screen was taken out earlier), they'd jump out, pop the trunk, whisk it inside, and I'd be off in about 10.2 seconds. :)

True, I almost forgot about those.

Ahhh yes.. picked up some mighty-fine women there. Actually, I much preferred the "White House".. were you there before they got busted?

Yeah, I'd heard the rumors about making Playboy's top-ten party college list, but I never believed them!

True dat. I'm a firm believer that life is what you make of it. A lotta people were miserable there. A lotta people hated living in South. A lotta people bitched about there never being anything to do... yeah, I like to rip on Cape, but it wasn't intolerable.

But those were some great years, 'cuz I wanted 'em to be. I met a ton of great people that I still keep in touch with, I dated a ton of girls, I drank a lot and tried some pretty cool drugs. And I didn't pay a penny doing so (made money, in fact). Yeah, life was good. :)

Regional Subtleties in Criminal Law
 

I don't think the Constitutional distribution of powers between the Congress and the State Legislatures with regard to criminal law is appropriate for the USA in the 21st century.

All Americans should be subject to the same criminal laws and punishments, whatever state they live in and regardless of the State in which any crime is committed.

That's the way it is in Canadian federalism. Whatever made sense in 1787, the equitable application of criminal law across the entire United State of America is long overdue.

There should be no regional subtleties in Criminal Law.

The contrarian viewpoint: all power should be as local as possible, because:

- it permits a wider array of personal preferences in both the law and law enforcement;

- it means that mistakes in the law, and thus damage done by it, are localized and thus smaller;

- it permits localities to be breeding grounds for policies to see how they work;

- it runs against the USian personality, in which there is a deeply independent streak and which is not so government-oriented as most of the nations of the world;

- although my state rep [was] an S.O.B., at least he's local enough that I can figure that out. For higher offices the pols are less visible and less accessible.

Re: Regional Subtleties in Criminal Law
 

Yeah, we should try to be more like Canada. Um, OK...

That McDonald's approach to law would never be accepted in the U.S., and it would be utterly unwieldy and ridiculous. Laws in one area simply don't make sense in another.

California would surely secede if such a system were inacted. They already think they're their own country.

In Beverly Hills, shoplifting is a felony, because everything is overpriced. Ryder has two strikes ... so, in a state that bases it's Criminal Law on the rules of baseball ... one more dress out the door without paying and she's doing life for shoplifting.

Meanwhile, across the country ... neighboring states are forum shopping the accused snipers because the criminal laws vary drastically within the same trade area of the Home Depot in Falls Church.

Yeah, that's a rational criminal law system you've got in the United States.

Nice try, but it doesn't work like that.

First of all, it is not a <b>rule</b> that, upon the third felony conviction, a convict go to jail for life. It is an <b>option</b> that the prosecution can push for. They do not have to, and they most likely would not, since she has no violent felony convictions (rape, murder, aggravated assault, burglary, etc).

Secondly, even if she <b>did</b>, a judge could very easily reduce the sentence to something more appropriate.

Third, it is very rare that a person is sent up on the "three strikes" law on shit like shoplifting. When it <b>does</b> happen, it is <b>ALWAYS</b> because they have been convicted of violent felonies in the past.

Personally, I am against the three strikes law because I find it to be grossly flawed. But let's not make it out to be something it's not.

Re: Re: Regional Subtleties in Criminal Law
 

Shouldn't justice be universal? Could you expand on this?


Well, it still <i>could</i> happen. I for one don't feel comfortable relying on the mercy of the prosecuting attorneys. Saying they're unlikely to push for it doesn't make me feel safe at all. What if they DO decide to push for it?

Perhaps he did mischaracterize the law a bit, but I don't think that necessarily discredits his entire argument.

Also, i've just woken up from a very deep sleep. So I can only pray I didn't just say something that'll make me look incredibly stupid. :)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in527248.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...imep.court.tm/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1105/p01s02-usju.html

http://www.amend3strikes.org

Hey, I have that 60 minutes II episode sitting on my hard drive right now. I have't even watched it yet! Actually, I didn't even know I had it.

Man, this tv card is cool.

Hey, jackass, look up the fucking law. Tell me if it applies to Winona Rider. Thanks.

Also, Andrade's prior convictions also include BURGLARY (on a NUMBER of separate occasions, by the way), which is considered to be a violent crime.

In short, eat my ass.

Hmm.. I can't help but notice that those links say "mandatory minimum sentencing". Dave, man, I trusted you.

So just because you read it on the internet, it must be true.

I'm sure no reporter has ever fucked up some facts in his story either.

Everyone jokes about people getting their "facts" from CNN, but when it fits your side of the argument, it's A-OK.

In other words, eat my ass.

Dave, I love how pissed off you get when you're wrong.

Who's Winona Rider? :rolleyes:

Oh, so <i>now</i> you're getting your "facts" from court documents. HA! What a joke.

We're discussing the law, not the facts. Try to keep up.

Wha.. ?

No one's pissed off. We just have someone who makes no secret that he has very little use for you.

Dave, I'm not here to be of use to you, fank you.

Cool...an intellectual battle in the Manifestos. I'm gonna kick back with some Krispy Kremes and some coffee and watch it play out. :)

get some of those custard filled chocolate long johns. those are the shit.

~james

That's especially convenient, since I neither thought nor indicated that you were.

Ya know, I'm just not a fan of those. When it comes to Krispy Kremes, I pretty much stick with the standard glazed. Man...those are incredible...*drools*

yeah, my wife digs those. you owe it to yourself to at least try the raspberry filled glazed ones tho.

~james

What's the protocol? Do you go to Krispy Kreme to pick up the best doughnuts first and then to Dunkin' Donuts for the best coffee? Or vice versa?

I've never had Krispy Kreme coffee before, surprisingly...I'll try it over the weekend though. Now as far as the best coffee...I prefer Starbucks the most. I have some in the fridge as a matter of fact. :)

Right now, until the 24th, you get a free donut with the purchase of a large coffee at Dunkin Donuts...good stuff.

Tim Hortons is the Canadian legend, although sometimes his donuts taste like hockey pucks. ;)

*segues back to regional subtleties*

I always wondered what Tim Hortons was...now I know. :)

Look for Tim Hortons on every corner near you, now that it's owned by Wendy's.

Just finished watching that 60 minutes II episode. It's pretty good. If anyone's interested, and has broadband, I might just be able to arrange something.

I wonder if we'll be seeing Jag at Starbucks, for medicinal purposes only.

Re: Re: Re: Regional Subtleties in Criminal Law
 

Philosophy has nothing to do with it. We have this Constitution that clearly gives favor to states' autonomy over federal law whenever possible and/or convenient. In a country this large, with so many local differences from one area to the next, uniform application and enforcement of laws would be ineffective and unworkable.

When I went to D.C. to visit my future wife, she stopped me from crossing a clear street against the Don't Walk signal, because there was a cop nearby. Apparently you can get a ticket there for jaywalking (I don't know if they impound your shoes as well.) Something like that wouldn't make sense here in Louisville.

Traffic violations are not criminal law and are best handled locally.

Having a common criminal law in a nation is not ineffective and unworkable. It is, in fact, effective and workable in almost every nation in the world.

State by state jurisdiction over criminal law in America is an aberation resulting from the political power of the original states of the union when agreeing among themselves on a Constitution that made sense politically in 1787.

What is a crime and how it is punishable should not vary from Maryland to Virgina to Texas to California, in my opinion. That will probably never change, as it is enshrined in the Constitution, but I don't think it is a well designed balance of power for a federal government in the modern world.

I wouldn't go as far as juju and ask whether criminal law (justice) should be universal if, by that, he means worldwide. Nations have a right to self determination and different cultures are entitled to have different codes of conduct. Cities and city-states or provinces or states should not set standards for a society that aspires to have a national character.

Obviously, there are many Americans who put their personal "nationalistic" feelings and loyalties first to their State and then to their Country in the USA, and this just an example that some regional disparities are not so subtle.

The only point I'm making is that criminal law ought not to be a matter of regional approach within a nation and is a weakness in the American system of government in my opinion.

Tob, Mrs. Tob must be incredibly cautious. The only police that might give her a hard time about that sort of thing in DC are the U.S. Capitol police (who patrol areas around the Capitol). Better to be safe than sorry though. :)

Nic, I understand what you are saying. On the surface, I agree with your opinion.

I may sound biased in saying this, but from what I've seen, the United States is truly an anomaly. We don't have that sense of collectivism that many countries seem to share. While we do have bits and pieces of a collective society, Americans are incredibly individualistic as a whole. UT and Tob did great jobs IMO of breaking it down earlier, but as I see it, the name of our country says it all: We are united states. Each colony was originally formed for one reason or another (be it religious freedom, agricultural purposes, whatever), and 226 years ago, those colonies found it in their best interest to form a union. And today, while there are some general issues that we share as a nation (e.g. security), each of the 50 states has different needs and desires. What's important to Rhode Island may not be the same as what is important to North Dakota. And in the end, I think this leads to different viewpoints, which leads to different decisions on what is okay and not okay in a state.

When it comes to something like the death penalty, the Commonwealth of Virginia has decided that it is okay to execute 17 year olds. The residents of Virginia have not had a major uproar over it from what I've seen, so the majority apparently thinks it is okay. If residents against this were that appalled, they may try to find others who share their interests, join together, try to push their agenda to the legislature, and maybe even force a public referendum on it.

The only real problem that I think exists in having laws that vary from state to state is on the individual level. I've lived in 5 different states in the last 5 years, and trying to figure out what's legal in Maryland and what's not in Pennsylvania can be a bit confusing. However, as a whole, laws are generally the same from state to state, so people don't have to sweat too terribly.

So friends, make sure you send a change of address card in whenever you move. You get a nifty new residents packet that explains some things, and gives you resources for any further questions. :)

Cam, I just saw a bottle of Tahitian Treat at Wawa (a convenience store chain in these parts), and I immediately thought of you. :)

Canada Dry makes a variety of sodas that I've only seen since moving to Philadelphia. (Previous to moving here, Tahitian Treat had been the only one I've seen, other than their ginger ale varieties.) I particularly like their Vanilla Creme, but they also make Black Cherry, Lime, and Pineapple.

Well, we like it this way. It's especially good that when one state does something stupid, they don't all have to.

For instance, the only place you can buy hard liquor in PA is a State Store, so-named because it is in fact owned and run by the state...well, the Commonwealth, actually. It's a fairly stupid idea, and it's predicated on the notion that having the state control liqour will somehow reduce drunkenness and alcoholism. It's a difficult institution to dislodge, because it tends to be staffed by beneficiaries of polirical patronage and civil service/union drones. And the monopoly tends to keep prices artificially high. (If we'd managed to elect Fisher we might have been able to get rid of it, but too many people went for Slick Eddie's siren song last Tuesday.)

If I found this sufficiently annoying, I could move to a neighboring state. But I don't, and what keeps me from doing so is 1) I don't drink enough booze for it to matter that much to me and 2) most of the neighboring states (MD, NJ, NY) have dirt-stupid gun laws...and that *does* matter to me. (There is some hope for MD, they've got a new govenor too. :-) )

So everybody gets to decide which mix of laws suits them best and we've got at least 52 flavors to choose from. It's very much like watertight compartmentization, the impact of bad decisions is limited, and good decisions can propigate from one state to another only if the local residents agree that what they did in Georgia is a good idea for North Dakota, ferinstance.

In a federal criminal law system one state doesn't have the authority to do something stupid that all the other states have to follow. That's actually the point, I guess. States shouldn't be enacting criminal laws.

It's great for you that you and those you're representing as "we" like it this way.

In a federal criminal law system there is still state controlled traffic rules and liquor sales regulation and property laws and education laws and municipal law. In all of that there is ample opportunity for regional disparity and local governance.

The only point I was making was with respect to criminal law. Criminal law is arguably better if it is applicable to all the people of a nation. It is a union under a common set of values and laws determining what is criminal behavior.

Federalism allows for a reasonable distribution of powers. The division of constitutional powers to enact criminal laws is debatable, and not everyone will agree on that, but it is not an argument against a national criminal code that some folks like their booze in grocery stores and others don't.

Even gun registration could be a state issue as a property law, although that would not be my recommendation. What happens when someone does something criminal with a gun should be the same regardless of the state in which the crime occurs.

Tob, something tells me that I either know you or know of you (more likely). :)

I don't blame you. I had 2 roommates during my first year at the newly-remodeled West. We had to throw one out b/c he wouldn't do anything about his horrible body odor. My other roommate was alright, but he was a bit strange...maybe more than a bit. Last I heard before I left, he had become a CA at North. *shakes his head*

Did living at South ever get to you at all? Especially when most upperclassmen move off campus or to Myers after the first 2 years.

I was on 7 in west, so it was a bit more tricky...especially since the CA lived on my floor. We would take the elevator up to 8 (No CA there) and slip down one of the stairwells to alcoholic freedom. :)

Never went there, but heard of it plenty. Refresh my memory...was that the old TKE house on N. Sprigg towards Broadway?

There was also "the corner" (the house on the SW corner of Sprigg and Normal)...lots of crazy shit there. And the old Phi Sig house. And the Pike House. And then there was that joint over in Illinois, near the Crackle, that kept getting busted by the police.

I don't know about any top-ten lists, but that place was party central apparently. It was like Carbondale is now (or at least how I remember Carbondale in the mid-90s).

All in all, my time in Cape wasn't too bad, particularly my last semester there. There are times when I wish I would have stayed there for the full 4 years, but I'm not one for regrets. UMSL had a much better psychology program, and I think going back to St. Louis set me up for my adventures out here. It's all good. :)

The problem with instating uniformity in criminal law, is there is usually a trickle down effect. Once the Federal government got a taste of that power, it wouldn't be much longer before they were controlling the state traffic laws, and everything else. This is not a good things, as each state is different geographically and socially we need our differences.

That's a specious argument.

I'm just making a point as to why it will never happen. I can't come up with any good examples of laws that could back up not having it happen. But I think criminal law is so similiar in all the states that it really doesn't matter. Even though I do see your point Nic.

And I see your point ... that it will never happen. ;)

This discussion is relevant to "regional subtleties" though.

It's worth noting that even children in other countries must find it incomprehensible that there can be a death penalty for murder in one state and not in the next. That one state executes minors for capital crimes and another doesn't. This is supposed to be the most advanced society in the world. I think not.

Nic, how do those Quebecois enjoy your federalism?

I guess they did manage to trick the people of the far northwest into having "TIRER" signs on all their post office doors.

Look, if enough of "us" didn't like it, "we" could change it. "We" being the people who live here.

(As opposed to "you*, who don't. Perhaps you should start out by fixing your own government. If you don't think it needs fixing, you're invited to stay there. :-) )

Seriously, it's our governement. It works pretty damn well, for whatever flaws it may have. We've been known to change our constitution when the situation warrants.

You sneer at our constitution for being 200 years old, but it *works*, and has survived some incredible challenges over that time. I think having some diversity in our legal system has had important positive survival value for us. We have found that we need some freedom in our freedom.

We even fought a incredibly bloody civil war over the division of power between the states and the Feds...which the Feds *won*...yet still left the amount and kinds of power at the state level that you see today.

We've got ten times your population in approximately the same land area, and (despite what it may look like from watching our movies and TV programming, most of which we should apologize for) our culture is consequently more diverse.

Your own shiny new constitution is so wonderful that there's still serious secessionist sentiment among about 40% of Quebecois, who still have their own courts and legal system, if my information is current. Even getting an authoritative version of the 1982 constitution in French was a big complicated deal.

But I'm *not* criticising your government. You folks should work out your own issues in your own way. See, that's the beauty of having borders and regionalization. And that's the philosophy behind the US Federal Constitution.

Look at it this way: How confortable would you be if the US and Canada were magically united under a strong federal governent? Would you accept willingly whatever centralized federal legal system "we" all wanted...knowing that anglophone ex-Canadians would represent less than 5% of the electorate of the new country?

Give me a fuckin' break ... I'm not sneering at the Constitution at all, let alone for being 200 years old ...

I see that there is a Citizenship requirement to debate the American Constitution in the Cellar.

Well, excuuuuuuuse me. I didn't know.

Once again, patriotism rears its ugly, irrational head.