~selections from my blog~
Sunday, November 10, 2002
Well, I want to thank
all the many people who have told me to "Love it or leave it" all
these years, starting back in the Vietnam era and continuing to the present
day. Back then they demanded to know "Why don't you go to Russia?"
and now they ask "Why don't you go to Iraq?" Of course, these
logic-challenged question-askers would actually themselves be happier in a
place like Iraq or the old Soviet Union, since they would not have to be
challenged in those countries with hearing dissenting views. But pointing
this out is not why I write.
I write because finally, the hidden-to-them logic of their question struck
me the other day: I will leave, but not to go to Russia or Iraq. And I won't
leave alone. How about I take New York, California and a few other states
with me? That's right, how about the Prime Blue States secede, and leave all
the Red Bushian wasteland expanses to their own devices!
Who needs them? Besides growing our food and providing some other natural
resources, what good are those places? Populated largely by morons who
continually vote to screw themselves, I don't want to be associated with
them any more.
They'll still sell our new country food and resources, because who else
could buy them? But the rest of us won't have to be stuck with their
fundamentalist-inspired, imbecilic social claptrap and their bellicose,
kill-them-all foreign policy that bloodies our name and besmirches our souls
more and more with each passing year.
The brains, money and creativity are in the Blue States. Argue with me on
that, if you dare.
So citing irreconcilable differences, a select group of us Prime Blue States
should amicably separate from the Dunderhead Nation and call ourselves, oh,
how about the United States of New America, or USNA?
I like to think outside the box. This may well be thinking outside the
entire paper mill. But the inexorable logic of the secession idea just
strikes me as so perfect.
A million questions naturally arise, the four main ones of which are:
--There are Constitutional means to add states to the union, so are there --
or could there be enacted -- Constitutional means for states to leave?
--Which states (or even counties within states?!) should be included in our
select departing group?
--What's the easiest and fairest way to allocate Federal government land,
property and debts between the two new political entities?
--What about population transfer issues prior to the secession date, since
no state is monolithic, and even hard-core Bushian states have some decent
people in them, and, God help us, even we Prime Blue States have some
Bushian Neanderthals who I'd love to see permanently cross over the border
into the Red Nation.
I guess I need to take out the law books, as well as analyze that 2000
election Blue-Red map while cross-referencing with state population and
economic data. (Anyone having any relevant legal cites or economic date
please send it!)
Even if there are no established procedures for secession, shouldn't the Red
States want us to leave and make it easy for us to do so? Listening to
Limbaugh, Hannity, Lott et al blast liberals, let alone anyone further left,
all day and night, 24/7, we would only be giving them what they really want,
But just imagine the wonderful feeling that you and I could have if the
likes of George Bush, Newt Gingrich, Anton Scalia and Trent Lott were in
another country that was now incredibly weak. We wouldn't have to give a
damn what they thought, or what the cretins who considered them their
leaders thought either.
It's just too sweet to imagine...
Sunday, November 17, 2002
Another thought about the
concept of the Blue and Red states forming
separate countries: The Bushian Red states can form a
fundamentalist Christian theocracy. Bill O'Reilly can be the morals czar and
make sure no Eminem or Ludacris besmirches that nation. John Ashcroft can
still be Attorney General, and outlaw breasts and dancing. And on the
economic front, wanting to avoid evil "big government," there will
of course be no minimum wage (let alone a living wage!) so all those
intelligent working class people who vote for Bush and his ilk can have
their dream come true and work for Third World wages.
Thursday, April 03, 2003
Someone wrote regarding my desire for the
best of the blue
states to be in a separate country from the cretin-filled red ones ,
that we blue states would have all the "poor" people. What
I've written before about the myth of the
heartland -- roughly speaking, the "red states," which voted for
George W. Bush in the 2000 election, as opposed to the "blue
states," which voted for Al Gore. The nation's interior is supposedly
a place of rugged individualists, unlike the spongers and whiners along
the coasts. In reality, of course, rural states are heavily subsidized by
urban states. New Jersey pays about $1.50 in federal taxes for every
dollar it gets in return; Montana receives about $1.75 in federal spending
for every dollar it pays in taxes. A
Red-Blue Terror Alert
So as Paul Krugman points out, we blue states subsidize
the red ones. And believe me, dollars are the least of it. Add culture,
brains and morality.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Bush States are the Moochers
Each year, the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit
research group, crunches numbers from the Census Bureau to produce an
intriguing figure: how much each state receives in federal spending for
every dollar it pays in federal taxes.
And it's typical Bushian flim-flam. Here's a
link to the full
report . My devoutly wished-for fantasy is to divide
up the red and blue states into separate nations .
...You might expect that in the 2000 presidential election, Republicans,
the party of low taxes and limited government, would have carried the
Giver states — while Democrats, the party of wild spending and wooly
bureaucracy, would have appealed to the Taker states. But it was the
reverse. George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was
the candidate of the Giver states.
...For President Bush, this invisible income redistribution system is a
boon. He can encourage his supporters to see themselves as Givers, yet
reward them with federal spending in excess of their contribution — and
send the bill to those who voted for his opponent. It's shrewd politics.
Friday, July 9, 2004
Look at the map below:
Wouldn't it be a great starting point to access how to
up the country into two separate nations? The thought of not being
joined together with the red states brings a smile to my face!
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Further on my pipedream wish to have the Red
and Blue states separate into two separate nations : I'd been
thinking it would be a mutual thing, but hey, isn't there some way a
majority of states can expel others from the union? (Probably not).
Also: when you look at an electoral map, it is so striking that the
Red states are nothing more than the old Confederacy. Would it have been
better in the long run if they had successfully seceded 140 years ago?
Slavery would have soon ended anyway, given that trend all over the world at
the time. And we today in the Blue states wouldn't be saddled with the
fundamentalist Red state imbeciles. Who wants to be yoked together with and
in order to accomplish anything decent have to convert, a bunch of people
with their collective head up their ass?
September 14, 2004
page summary of red state vs. blue state (or, as the summary
and the website
it's on call it, retro vs. metro state) stats. The website's home page
also has a good summary.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
These are my two favorite graphics I've found on the net about the