Red States & Blue States 
Should Split Up

~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, wouldn't we?

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

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 ignorance!

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  

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

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.

...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 divide 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?
 

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Here's a great one 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 election:

Comments