I could see Trump issuing meaningless EOs or Truth Socials re-naming a perceived outlier liberal jurisdiction like San Francisco, and almost all of MAGA would cheer it on and even some swing-voters would shrug it off as "just Trump being Trump". But even then, the political establishments of most states and cities would still view it as an ominous encroachment.
Renaming a city is another thing that unquestionably can’t be done by presidential executive order.
I wouldn't think so, no. But my layman's guess would be could probably type out a Truth Social announcing he's gonna issue an EO changing the name of a perceived anti-MAGA municipality to "Trump City", and the post in and of itself wouldn't be enough to put him on the wrong side of the law.
But that would be an exception to my general observation. Main point, it's a pretty limited range of options Trump would have if he wanted to start renaming jurisdictions wholly within the USA itself and not piss off large swathes of potential supporters.
File this under the "O Brother" category: Last week, the United Nations General Assembly voted 164 to 1 to redraw the map of Africa to show its actual size in relation to the rest of the world. Guess who voted against it.
For the geographically challenged amongst us (me for example) is the African continent significantly larger that it is usually depicted?
I do know that Aotearoa/New Zealand is often left off world maps altogether, which could be useful if anyone declared war on us.
You can't preserve both shape and area when copying a globe onto a flat map. So all maps are compromises.
The Mercator projection, which was historically the most common preserves shape in so far as that's possible. At any given point on the map locally distances north-south approximately represent the same distance as east-west. (Technically what it preserves is bearing: an angle of 45 degrees up from the right always points north-east.) Unfortunately in order to do that the Mercator projection has to expand distances as it gets to the poles: Greenland, Canada, and Alaska all look much bigger relative to countries on the Equator than they actually are.
There are various map projections that try to preserve area. Unfortunately that means they either have to stretch countries on the Equator north-south or squash the globe near the poles or both. The Peters projection, which usually came with text making a great fuss about how it was much fairer to the developing world than Mercator, did both, having no north-south distortion at the latitudes of southern Europe and the northern US.
Basically you decide which aspect of the world you want to preserve on your map and which compromises you're willing to make and go with it.
Fans of the West Wing may remember an episode where the White House staff met with a group "Geographers for World Equality" (or something similar) who wanted to introduce a fairer map (the Peters projection I think) and it freaked them out.
That's the only episode of the West Wing I've ever watched, and it was extremely snooty about fair trade and fair trade protestors. That it dismisses fair trade as a rich white people issue while asserting that the Peters projection is objectively more accurate than the Mercator projection about sums up the Peters projection for me.
Now, people are worried New Mexico may get a new name by fiat.
That’s something that unquestionably can’t be done by executive order. Not that technicalities like that seem to bother Trump.
Btw, I was confused upthread when I said Carney said he was renaming Lake Michigan “Lake Wisconsin.” It was Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers who wrote that “executive order” on a napkin.
Now, people are worried New Mexico may get a new name by fiat.
That’s something that unquestionably can’t be done by executive order. Not that technicalities like that seem to bother Trump.
Btw, I was confused upthread when I said Carney said he was renaming Lake Michigan “Lake Wisconsin.” It was Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers who wrote that “executive order” on a napkin.
He was not supposed to be able to rename Lake Ontario either due to a treaty George Washington signed with the local tribes up there, yet here we are.
That's the only episode of the West Wing I've ever watched, and it was extremely snooty about fair trade and fair trade protestors. That it dismisses fair trade as a rich white people issue while asserting that the Peters projection is objectively more accurate than the Mercator projection about sums up the Peters projection for me.
It was slightly more sophisticated in its take on the WTO protests than you give it credit for, and while the sentiments you note were put in the mouth of Toby Ziegler he was also robustly challenged and gave a very clear indication later in the episode that he agreed with the substance of the protestors' critique and had he not been working for the government would have been protesting himself.
I thought the best bit of the Cartographers for Social Equality scenes was when they suggested inverting north and south on the world map.
And that’s the problem. At best a map is information. Much of the time it’s no more than data, but to make decisions requires knowledge and wisdom, and intelligence is needed to gain those. Don’t underestimate maps, they are the best tools we have, but don’t let them make decisions.
Basically you decide which aspect of the world you want to preserve on your map and which compromises you're willing to make and go with it.
Or look at a globe?
The trouble with globes is that they take up more space than flat projections, and you can only look at one face at once.
I didn’t say looking a globe was perfect. It’s a way to see part of the world, say Africa, in a way that preserves shape and area, the challenge under discussion. Maps and globes both involve trade-offs.
Now, people are worried New Mexico may get a new name by fiat.
That’s something that unquestionably can’t be done by executive order. Not that technicalities like that seem to bother Trump.
Btw, I was confused upthread when I said Carney said he was renaming Lake Michigan “Lake Wisconsin.” It was Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers who wrote that “executive order” on a napkin.
He was not supposed to be able to rename Lake Ontario either due to a treaty George Washington signed with the local tribes up there, yet here we are.
I think you may be overstating the impact of that treaty on this issue. As I understand it, the 1794 Canandaigua Treaty didn’t actually establish or agree to the name “Lake Ontario.” Rather, it simply refers to “Lake Ontario” in the context of borders. The argument there is more the name was good enough for George Washington so it should be good enough, period.
But even so, you have to admit that one thing we can’t pin on Trump is being the first president to ignore or break treaties with Native American nations. Not that that makes it right.
It needs to be noted, too, that all Trump’s executive order does is require the federal government and its agencies to call Lake Ontario Lake America. New York State can (and will) continue to call it Lake Ontario. If Trump were to issue an EO renaming New Mexico, the government of New Mexico could and almost certainly would ignore it. (And challenge the action in court.)
A state’s name is established by the constitution of that state, and it can only be changed in the manner provided for amendment to the state constitution. It has, so far as I know, only happened once in US history. That was in 2020, when Rhode Island voters changed the legal name of the state from the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations to simply the State of Rhode Island.
I could see Trump issuing meaningless EOs or Truth Socials re-naming a perceived outlier liberal jurisdiction like San Francisco, and almost all of MAGA would cheer it on and even some swing-voters would shrug it off as "just Trump being Trump". But even then, the political establishments of most states and cities would still view it as an ominous encroachment.
Renaming a city is another thing that unquestionably can’t be done by presidential executive order.
If he does re-name (say) San Francisco by Executive Order perhaps the next president will do the same for (say) Mar-a-Lago. Any suggestions?
I could see Trump issuing meaningless EOs or Truth Socials re-naming a perceived outlier liberal jurisdiction like San Francisco, and almost all of MAGA would cheer it on and even some swing-voters would shrug it off as "just Trump being Trump". But even then, the political establishments of most states and cities would still view it as an ominous encroachment.
Renaming a city is another thing that unquestionably can’t be done by presidential executive order.
If he does re-name (say) San Francisco by Executive Order perhaps the next president will do the same for (say) Mar-a-Lago. Any suggestions?
Trump was riffing on an internet hoax claiming the name had been changed. As the hoax itself was likely riffing on "Lake America", this raises the issue as to how useful it really is to give attention to some of his provocations in the first place.
That said, encouraging Trump to do this type of thing might be productive, if it alienates voters in New Mexico and any other states he pisses off.
And "New America" highlights just how incoherent Trump's trolling can be. New Mexico can't be a new America; it's already in America.
I'd suggest "New Texas" as a better taunt, since NM is separate from Texas, and a lotta Texas Republicans would probably appreciate the fantasy land-grab.
I could see Trump issuing meaningless EOs or Truth Socials re-naming a perceived outlier liberal jurisdiction like San Francisco, and almost all of MAGA would cheer it on and even some swing-voters would shrug it off as "just Trump being Trump". But even then, the political establishments of most states and cities would still view it as an ominous encroachment.
Renaming a city is another thing that unquestionably can’t be done by presidential executive order.
If he does re-name (say) San Francisco by Executive Order perhaps the next president will do the same for (say) Mar-a-Lago. Any suggestions?
El Dorado.
Either the mythical land of gold, with heavy emphasis on mythical to the point of never existed - like every single "deal" he ever made, or everything he's done for the benefit of the people of America.
Or, the short lived soap ... may his time in office be as short, and as quickly forgotten.
@Gramps49, please reread what I said. I said Trump doesn’t have the authority to rename a US state. I didn’t say that automatically means he might not try. I even said “Not that technicalities like that seem to bother Trump.” We’ve seen him do any number of things the courts have struck down as beyond his authority.
I’m doubtful Trump would try to rename New Mexico, but if he did try to, and when New Mexico challenged it in court, I’m confident New Mexico would win, even with the current SCOTUS.
Also, I don’t see anywhere in that story that says the governor is “concerned” that Trump might actually rename New Mexico. I do see where the governor “slammed” the idea, basically said “no way” and criticized Trump for focusing on this kind of thing instead of the economy.
Trump was riffing on an internet hoax claiming the name had been changed. As the hoax itself was likely riffing on "Lake America", this raises the issue as to how useful it really is to give attention to some of his provocations in the first place.
This is Trump doing what Trump does—dangling crazy shiny things to shift people’s attention and outrage away from things like economy, the war in Iran and, oh yeah, Epstein. The Governor of New Mexico recognized that and shifted attention back to the economy,
I’m doubtful Trump would try to rename New Mexico, but if he did try to, and when New Mexico challenged it in court, I’m confident New Mexico would win, even with the current SCOTUS.
This is more cocktail-napkin than anything else, but I wonder what would happen if a hypothetical ultra-MAGA court gave Trump the right to re-name states. I'm guessing it would come pretty close to a constitutional crisis, because while it would have a mostly non-material impact, it would also signal to the states that DC is now grabbing ahold of local power with no discernible pattern or purpose(*).
(*) As opposed to, say, Reconstruction, where at least everyone could make roughly accurate predictions about how the respective players were going to behave.
I note that State names are part of their constitutions. When Rhode Island changed its name it required a state constitutional amendment. For instance New Mexico has in its constitution "The name of this state is New Mexico, and its boundaries are as follows:..."
The US Constitution explicitly forbids changing an existing state's boundaries without the consent of the state: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress". Name changing might be possible by federal law (I think most senators and representatives would be concerned about the precedent so would oppose and it would be challenged in court) though not executive orders (definitely challenged in court). However he is probably trying to distract attention from more serious matters (economy, war, etc)
I originally assumed that Trump's main intended victim of "New America" was the collective pride of New Mexicans(whom his truth-social post denounced for alleged voter-fraud), but I suppose it could also have been targetting Mexicans.
Though I wouldn't neccessarily expect Trump to get even that right. Does anyone happen to know if Mexicans generally have any strong sentiment one way or another about the formal name of the The Land Of Enchantment?
Well the Mexicans probably remember losing a huge chunk of territory. There are still arguments over the Mexican land grants; Mexicans living in the new US territories could choose to remain, keep their land, and become US citizens (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo). Often times the land grants were not respected. Also I hadn't fully realized that marital community property (that most property acquired after marriage belongs to both people in the marriage) which exists in most of the southwestern states is a carryover from Mexican and Spanish law. New Mexicans certainly recall that the first European settlers (as opposed to explorers) arrived in 1598 (before any successful English colonization in the original 13 states though not before Spanish Saint Augustine, Florida, in 1565) and that several still existing pueblos predate that (e.g., Acoma Pueblo). 47.7% of the population is Hispanic or Latino (with a sizable number descended from those in New Mexico before it was acquired by the US) and around 10% are Native American.
Well the Mexicans probably remember losing a huge chunk of territory. There are still arguments over the Mexican land grants; Mexicans living in the new US territories could choose to remain, keep their land, and become US citizens (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo). Often times the land grants were not respected. Also I hadn't fully realized that marital community property (that most property acquired after marriage belongs to both people in the marriage) which exists in most of the southwestern states is a carryover from Mexican and Spanish law. New Mexicans certainly recall that the first European settlers (as opposed to explorers) arrived in 1598 (before any successful English colonization in the original 13 states though not before Spanish Saint Augustine, Florida, in 1565) and that several still existing pueblos predate that (e.g., Acoma Pueblo). 47.7% of the population is Hispanic or Latino (with a sizable number descended from those in New Mexico before it was acquired by the US) and around 10% are Native American.
All true, I'm sure. But how would that translate into general Mexican sentiment about the name "New Mexico?" Would they resent that land taken from Mexico has "Mexico" in the name?
I’m doubtful Trump would try to rename New Mexico, but if he did try to, and when New Mexico challenged it in court, I’m confident New Mexico would win, even with the current SCOTUS.
This is more cocktail-napkin than anything else, but I wonder what would happen if a hypothetical ultra-MAGA court gave Trump the right to re-name states. I'm guessing it would come pretty close to a constitutional crisis, because while it would have a mostly non-material impact, it would also signal to the states that DC is now grabbing ahold of local power with no discernible pattern or purpose(*).
I’d say it more than comes close to constitutional crisis, as it violates federalism and the sovereignty of the people of a state to govern themselves in matters left to the states to handle.
As I noted above, and as @Net Spinster has reiterated, states’ names are established or adopted by states’ constitutions—either explicitly (“The name of this state is New Mexico”) or implicitly (“We, the people of the State of North Carolina”; “ There shall be a seal of the State, which . . . shall be called ‘The Great Seal of the State of North Carolina’”). They can only be changed in the manner prescribed for amending a state’s constitution.
Well the Mexicans probably remember losing a huge chunk of territory. There are still arguments over the Mexican land grants; Mexicans living in the new US territories could choose to remain, keep their land, and become US citizens (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo). Often times the land grants were not respected. Also I hadn't fully realized that marital community property (that most property acquired after marriage belongs to both people in the marriage) which exists in most of the southwestern states is a carryover from Mexican and Spanish law. New Mexicans certainly recall that the first European settlers (as opposed to explorers) arrived in 1598 (before any successful English colonization in the original 13 states though not before Spanish Saint Augustine, Florida, in 1565) and that several still existing pueblos predate that (e.g., Acoma Pueblo). 47.7% of the population is Hispanic or Latino (with a sizable number descended from those in New Mexico before it was acquired by the US) and around 10% are Native American.
All true, I'm sure. But how would that translate into general Mexican sentiment about the name "New Mexico?" Would they resent that land taken from Mexico has "Mexico" in the name?
Well, it was the Spanish who gave it the name in the 1500s.
This is Trump doing what Trump does—dangling crazy shiny things to shift people’s attention and outrage away from things like economy, the war in Iran and, oh yeah, Epstein.
Not to mention exacerbating a humanitarian crisis in Cuba.
For the geographically challenged amongst us (me for example) is the African continent significantly larger that it is usually depicted?
The "standard" projection most often seen on eg. Google Maps is the Mercator projection. Basically, the issue is that the Earth is (almost) a sphere, and paper and screens are flat, so you have to make some choices to project a curved surface on to a flat one.
The Mercator projection maps the Earth's surface on to a cylinder oriented on the north-south axis. This is useful for navigation (rhumb lines on a Mercator map appear straight, north is always up, local shapes and angles are preserved), but sacrifices area: things close to the equator (where the cylinder is close to the sphere) appear about the correct size, but things closer to the poles appear larger than they are.)
Mercator is also mathematically convenient for infinite pan / zoom as desired for online maps.
Very few proper printed atlases of the last century used the Mercator projection, because the misleading area scaling isn't helpful. There are a lot of different map projections that are used by various groups for various purposes, and they all pick slightly different compromises.
The best map, of course, is a globe, which gets everything correct, but that's inconvenient for a book.
Presumably there is still some distortion because globes are perfectly round and the earth isn’t - it’s an oblate spheroid.
I doubt very much that manufactured globes are perfectly round, and I suspect the tolerances to which they are manufactured exceed the percentage variation in the Earth's diameter.
Presumably there is still some distortion because globes are perfectly round and the earth isn’t - it’s an oblate spheroid.
I doubt very much that manufactured globes are perfectly round, and I suspect the tolerances to which they are manufactured exceed the percentage variation in the Earth's diameter.
The average billiard ball is a I understand a less perfect sphere than the earth
Presumably there is still some distortion because globes are perfectly round and the earth isn’t - it’s an oblate spheroid.
I doubt very much that manufactured globes are perfectly round, and I suspect the tolerances to which they are manufactured exceed the percentage variation in the Earth's diameter.
The average billiard ball is a I understand a less perfect sphere than the earth
I'd heard that with regard to smoothness, certainly, it's probably true of variation in diameter too.
Presumably there is still some distortion because globes are perfectly round and the earth isn’t - it’s an oblate spheroid.
I doubt very much that manufactured globes are perfectly round, and I suspect the tolerances to which they are manufactured exceed the percentage variation in the Earth's diameter.
The difference between the polar and equatorial radius of the Earth is about 13 miles. A typical desktop globe is about a foot in diameter, so that works out to be about a millimeter difference in polar vs equatorial diameter.
That's smaller than a typical manufacturing tolerance for something like that.
Billiard balls are interesting. Scale that 13 mile difference in radius to match a standard 2 1/4 inch billiard ball, and you get a difference in radius of 3.7 mils. That's within the tolerance for a standard billiard ball (just), although good quality billiard balls are better than that by a factor of 2 or 3.
For added fun, Earth tides exist. Not only does the tidal effect of the moon cause the planet's waters to slosh around, but the "solid" Earth itself deforms slightly as it rotates because of the tidal drag of the moon.
Comments
I wouldn't think so, no. But my layman's guess would be could probably type out a Truth Social announcing he's gonna issue an EO changing the name of a perceived anti-MAGA municipality to "Trump City", and the post in and of itself wouldn't be enough to put him on the wrong side of the law.
But that would be an exception to my general observation. Main point, it's a pretty limited range of options Trump would have if he wanted to start renaming jurisdictions wholly within the USA itself and not piss off large swathes of potential supporters.
For the geographically challenged amongst us (me for example) is the African continent significantly larger that it is usually depicted?
I do know that Aotearoa/New Zealand is often left off world maps altogether, which could be useful if anyone declared war on us.
The Mercator projection, which was historically the most common preserves shape in so far as that's possible. At any given point on the map locally distances north-south approximately represent the same distance as east-west. (Technically what it preserves is bearing: an angle of 45 degrees up from the right always points north-east.) Unfortunately in order to do that the Mercator projection has to expand distances as it gets to the poles: Greenland, Canada, and Alaska all look much bigger relative to countries on the Equator than they actually are.
There are various map projections that try to preserve area. Unfortunately that means they either have to stretch countries on the Equator north-south or squash the globe near the poles or both. The Peters projection, which usually came with text making a great fuss about how it was much fairer to the developing world than Mercator, did both, having no north-south distortion at the latitudes of southern Europe and the northern US.
Basically you decide which aspect of the world you want to preserve on your map and which compromises you're willing to make and go with it.
He was not supposed to be able to rename Lake Ontario either due to a treaty George Washington signed with the local tribes up there, yet here we are.
It was slightly more sophisticated in its take on the WTO protests than you give it credit for, and while the sentiments you note were put in the mouth of Toby Ziegler he was also robustly challenged and gave a very clear indication later in the episode that he agreed with the substance of the protestors' critique and had he not been working for the government would have been protesting himself.
I thought the best bit of the Cartographers for Social Equality scenes was when they suggested inverting north and south on the world map.
I think you may be overstating the impact of that treaty on this issue. As I understand it, the 1794 Canandaigua Treaty didn’t actually establish or agree to the name “Lake Ontario.” Rather, it simply refers to “Lake Ontario” in the context of borders. The argument there is more the name was good enough for George Washington so it should be good enough, period.
But even so, you have to admit that one thing we can’t pin on Trump is being the first president to ignore or break treaties with Native American nations. Not that that makes it right.
It needs to be noted, too, that all Trump’s executive order does is require the federal government and its agencies to call Lake Ontario Lake America. New York State can (and will) continue to call it Lake Ontario. If Trump were to issue an EO renaming New Mexico, the government of New Mexico could and almost certainly would ignore it. (And challenge the action in court.)
A state’s name is established by the constitution of that state, and it can only be changed in the manner provided for amendment to the state constitution. It has, so far as I know, only happened once in US history. That was in 2020, when Rhode Island voters changed the legal name of the state from the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations to simply the State of Rhode Island.
So two globes side-by-side will give you almost the whole planet.
If he does re-name (say) San Francisco by Executive Order perhaps the next president will do the same for (say) Mar-a-Lago. Any suggestions?
Trump was riffing on an internet hoax claiming the name had been changed. As the hoax itself was likely riffing on "Lake America", this raises the issue as to how useful it really is to give attention to some of his provocations in the first place.
That said, encouraging Trump to do this type of thing might be productive, if it alienates voters in New Mexico and any other states he pisses off.
I'd suggest "New Texas" as a better taunt, since NM is separate from Texas, and a lotta Texas Republicans would probably appreciate the fantasy land-grab.
Either the mythical land of gold, with heavy emphasis on mythical to the point of never existed - like every single "deal" he ever made, or everything he's done for the benefit of the people of America.
Or, the short lived soap ... may his time in office be as short, and as quickly forgotten.
I’m doubtful Trump would try to rename New Mexico, but if he did try to, and when New Mexico challenged it in court, I’m confident New Mexico would win, even with the current SCOTUS.
Also, I don’t see anywhere in that story that says the governor is “concerned” that Trump might actually rename New Mexico. I do see where the governor “slammed” the idea, basically said “no way” and criticized Trump for focusing on this kind of thing instead of the economy.
This is Trump doing what Trump does—dangling crazy shiny things to shift people’s attention and outrage away from things like economy, the war in Iran and, oh yeah, Epstein. The Governor of New Mexico recognized that and shifted attention back to the economy,
This is more cocktail-napkin than anything else, but I wonder what would happen if a hypothetical ultra-MAGA court gave Trump the right to re-name states. I'm guessing it would come pretty close to a constitutional crisis, because while it would have a mostly non-material impact, it would also signal to the states that DC is now grabbing ahold of local power with no discernible pattern or purpose(*).
(*) As opposed to, say, Reconstruction, where at least everyone could make roughly accurate predictions about how the respective players were going to behave.
The US Constitution explicitly forbids changing an existing state's boundaries without the consent of the state: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress". Name changing might be possible by federal law (I think most senators and representatives would be concerned about the precedent so would oppose and it would be challenged in court) though not executive orders (definitely challenged in court). However he is probably trying to distract attention from more serious matters (economy, war, etc)
Though I wouldn't neccessarily expect Trump to get even that right. Does anyone happen to know if Mexicans generally have any strong sentiment one way or another about the formal name of the The Land Of Enchantment?
All true, I'm sure. But how would that translate into general Mexican sentiment about the name "New Mexico?" Would they resent that land taken from Mexico has "Mexico" in the name?
As I noted above, and as @Net Spinster has reiterated, states’ names are established or adopted by states’ constitutions—either explicitly (“The name of this state is New Mexico”) or implicitly (“We, the people of the State of North Carolina”; “ There shall be a seal of the State, which . . . shall be called ‘The Great Seal of the State of North Carolina’”). They can only be changed in the manner prescribed for amending a state’s constitution.
What do you mean by "the birthplace"?
The "standard" projection most often seen on eg. Google Maps is the Mercator projection. Basically, the issue is that the Earth is (almost) a sphere, and paper and screens are flat, so you have to make some choices to project a curved surface on to a flat one.
The Mercator projection maps the Earth's surface on to a cylinder oriented on the north-south axis. This is useful for navigation (rhumb lines on a Mercator map appear straight, north is always up, local shapes and angles are preserved), but sacrifices area: things close to the equator (where the cylinder is close to the sphere) appear about the correct size, but things closer to the poles appear larger than they are.)
Mercator is also mathematically convenient for infinite pan / zoom as desired for online maps.
Very few proper printed atlases of the last century used the Mercator projection, because the misleading area scaling isn't helpful. There are a lot of different map projections that are used by various groups for various purposes, and they all pick slightly different compromises.
The best map, of course, is a globe, which gets everything correct, but that's inconvenient for a book.
He was born in New York. Isn’t that derivative name a problem?
BTW, Boris Johnson was also in New York. No coincidence.
I doubt very much that manufactured globes are perfectly round, and I suspect the tolerances to which they are manufactured exceed the percentage variation in the Earth's diameter.
The average billiard ball is a I understand a less perfect sphere than the earth
I'd heard that with regard to smoothness, certainly, it's probably true of variation in diameter too.
Thanks. You wrote "the birthplace", so I wasn't sure if you meant his or someone else's.
The difference between the polar and equatorial radius of the Earth is about 13 miles. A typical desktop globe is about a foot in diameter, so that works out to be about a millimeter difference in polar vs equatorial diameter.
That's smaller than a typical manufacturing tolerance for something like that.
Billiard balls are interesting. Scale that 13 mile difference in radius to match a standard 2 1/4 inch billiard ball, and you get a difference in radius of 3.7 mils. That's within the tolerance for a standard billiard ball (just), although good quality billiard balls are better than that by a factor of 2 or 3.
For added fun, Earth tides exist. Not only does the tidal effect of the moon cause the planet's waters to slosh around, but the "solid" Earth itself deforms slightly as it rotates because of the tidal drag of the moon.