Not many people know the following bit of obscure American historical trivia, but, as it was recently brought back to my attention and I love nothing more than sharing interesting tidbits which delight and instruct, I lay it out for you below.
Before the profusion of railroad lines capable of transporting one from basically any major origin on one side of the country to any major destination on the other, regardless of the latitude of either, plans were made for two chief lines, or, if you like, one line with a major point of divergence, though they would still be two logical lines. Both would start in the highly populated northeast, travelling southwest for a spell until hitting roughly the middle of the country, there heading west in a more-or-less straight line. Then, one of the lines would turn to the northwest, ending in Washington state, and the other southwest, ending in Arizona. It was decided that construction on the lines (post-bifurcation) would proceed serially, with the latter being constructed first. However, as is well known, the process of undertaking such a vast construction project, in an era of rampant corruption (which is as much as to say, in an era), was more involved than anyone anticipated during the planning phase. As a result, after construction of the first branch was completed, all parties agreed that they wouldn't bother with the construction of the second, and those lines that did eventually service those areas were added piecemeal by individual operators.
And that's why we never got a ciscontinental railroad.
You had me at "railroad lines". (Seriously.) Does it get better? Is that possible? I will find out.
Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | March 06, 2006 at 03:32 PM
I don't get it.
Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | March 06, 2006 at 03:49 PM
Geometric isomerism.
Trans!
Cis!
Posted by: ben wolfson | March 06, 2006 at 06:36 PM
Now you have to make up a similar story for "cissexual". OR I WILL DESTROY YOU.
Posted by: rone | March 06, 2006 at 11:59 PM
We got so many railroad lines we finally couldn't figure out what to do with them. So we tore up a bunch of them.
Posted by: eb | March 07, 2006 at 12:05 AM
See, I don't think it makes any sense to talk about cissexuality. "Cis" is just being on the same side, so maybe "cissexual" would mean "same sex as me"? But "transsexual" isn't an adjective meaning "opposite sex from me". In the absence of a clear geometrical analogy, the only thing for "cissexual" to mean, as a noun, is something like "still the same sex".
So I'm afraid it's destruction at your hands for me, rone.
Posted by: ben wolfson | March 07, 2006 at 12:14 AM
I was told a more compact version of this joke in college -- the chem major in question drew an airplane with both wings on the same side of the plane, and the letters "CWA" on the tail. "What does it stand for?" "Cis World Airlines?"
Posted by: LizardBreath | March 07, 2006 at 09:59 AM
Convergent evolution in action.
Posted by: ben wolfson | March 07, 2006 at 10:04 AM
Curses. Hold still while i go get my Destruct-o-Ray, will you?
Posted by: rone | March 07, 2006 at 09:48 PM
"Cis Sexual" is an old Lou Reed song.
Posted by: slolernr | March 08, 2006 at 06:04 AM
Wouldn't a cissexual be someone who had an operation to convert their genitalia into the same kind of genitalia, but different?
Posted by: Matt Weiner | March 08, 2006 at 08:53 AM
I told you Amtrak was a waste of taxpayer money.
Posted by: froz gobo | March 11, 2006 at 10:54 AM