Thursday, November 11, 2004

Red state, blue state, me state, you state

Since there is obviously a great amount of pain and suffering over the whole redstate-bluestate thing (or, more exactly, redcounty-bluecounty), and since the Blues are grumbling about packing their bags and leaving, or staying where they are and seceding (with bright political lights like Geraldine Ferraro reminding them that they have all the talent and creativity in their blue boundaries), I think they really ought to consider making us sign a contract so there won't be any more misunderstanding about what's expected of everyone. Consider this modest example:

We, the bold, free-spirited peoples of the Diverse Lands of Blue America, hereby contract with you, the safe, ordinary drabs of the Nearly-contiguous Lands of Red America to exist peaceably and amicably in the manner to which we've become accustomed.

We will continue to exist in heavily-impacted urban centers in areas where our explosive growth and profligate lifestyle are completely unsustainable -- deserts, swamps, mountains, frozen wastelands, coasts and islands -- and so we will be needing to pull heavily from your water and other natural resources. We will need you to have power plants, waste recycling plants and refineries in your areas, since we can't stand to look at the ugly things.

We will need to convert some of the more inhabitable areas you have into parks and bedroom communities for us, since our cities are too disgusting for any of us to consider living in them. We will come out in droves, build densely and go elsewhere to work. We won't care about these communities or put any work into their governance. You are welcome to stay if you'd like -- and if you can afford the housing costs once we're there -- but please don't alter the opinion landscape that we'd like to exist in. In other words, please either be like us or aspire to be like us ... or shut up.

We need a tremendous amount of ever-changing, ever-improving goods and services. We will need you to provide manpower for industries and meet these needs. As such, we will need you to raise respectful, honest, hard-working children. We don't care how you do it, but please don't tell us how. If it has anything to do the preservation of the "traditional family unit" or instilling "moral values" we really, REALLY don't want to know.

We will raise our children to be untethered, free spirits with no boundaries like ourselves. In other words, spoiled, bored, self-centered, angry, dispirited, whiny and uncontrollable thugs, sociopaths and cowards. We will want to shape their beautiful little minds into carbon copies of our own, in order to ensure future creativity (and socio-political continuity), but you can help us raise them if you want, as long as you don't impose any limitations on them. Heck, you can even have them in daycare and private schools. Goodness knows we can't stand the little monsters. Ha ha. We're kidding. Okay, we're not.

We love our pets. We own our children (and invoke their name to our own political ends). Don't ask why.

Because of our precious children, and because it is unconscionable to us to ever frown upon any activity of our populace -- criminal or otherwise -- we will need you to have prisons and drug rehab centers to house our miscreants. Also, it pleases us to maintain a constant supply of non-incentivizing social programs, so remember to pay your taxes promptly and vote in every new bond.

Though we hold the brave and unique opinion that wars are a bad idea, we will occasionally sanction aggressive action. We will need you and your children to defend us, since we're not very good at the whole macho thing. Be assured that we support the troops, though we're not really sure what that means. We think that it means that we will denigrate their efforts constantly by putting on chic protest events with cutting jibes and clever costumery and a LOT of drugs and alcohol. If so, we support the troops. If it has anything to do with not encouraging the enemy with treasonous talk and the leaking of sensitive information, we don't support the troops. (Sorry. That would just be asking too much.)

We must be clear: you are racist, sexist, xenophobic and narrow-minded. We know there have been attempts on your side to dialogue about our stereotypes of you that haven't changed since the 50's, but remember -- we are the definers; you are the defined. We will let you know if things ever change, but there are some sizable voting blocs at risk here, so don't hold your breath.

On the subject of homosexuality, we must be very firm: you absolutely must not maintain the standards of behavior which your religion dictates and which have been the norm throughout human history. We believe that sexuality is a complex and complicated aspect to our humanity, and so we know that we're right and you're wrong. Anybody ought to be able to do anything to anybody else as much and as often as they please. (Also, there is the question of another voting bloc here, and so we will be referring to anything less than total approval as ignorant homophobia. Don't sweat it.)

Since we are too intelligent and enlightened to tolerate mere Christianity or any other traditional religion, we will offer instead our own religious beliefs, which are that good and evil are almost interchangeable, stuff is good and basically there isn't anything to believe in. And you can believe us on this. In fact, we insist that you do. Your religion leads to peace of mind, human dignity and theosis; ours promotes spiritual decay. You see the problem.

We are your story-tellers, and we will present constant meretricious offerings concerning nihilism, the insanity of living and the horror of dying. And just to let you know that we're in touch with your boring little lives, we will occasionally tell you your own story through movies about people that can't wait to leave their backwater towns and girls that have babies in Wal-Mart. Please attend these movies in herds so we can turn around and do ones about the salvific qualities of lawlessness, sexual promiscuity and abortion.

Speaking of Wal-mart -- STOP GOING THERE. We are really, really serious. We would never set foot there ourselves, but it bugs the crap out of us that they exist, seeing as how they run out of business your quaint little shops that we also were never going to.

And STOP driving SUV's. We hate those things too. Don't you realize that your conspicuous consumption will overshadow ours if you drive those boats? Plus, they're big, which just means we have to find something even bigger to drive.

We don't have to be the only ones with strong emotions. We encourage you to despise rich people, who are greedy and mean. But please target rich businesspeople only -- not celebrities or moguls or rock stars or sports figures or recording executives, or anyone who might vote Democrat. They're not despicable -- they're your paisanos, man.

Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.

You won the last presidential election by a large margin. That means we're going to have to ask you to unconditionally surrender. Put down the mandate and back away slowly and no one will get hurt. You really blew it, but we've got more "education" for you on the way -- Michael Moore has kindly agreed to do another Fahrenheit movie. Viewing is NOT optional.

If you don't vote for a Democrat in 2008, we will break your stubby, coal-blackened little fingers. Ha ha. Kidding again. Well, sort of.

Sign here. Or, if you went to public school, make an 'X'.


That's the basic idea. The language probably needs some cleaning up, but I'm thinking they won't have too much difficulty finding a lawyer.


Blogger Cervus said...

You know, snarky commentary like this doesn't help.

November 13, 2004 at 12:19 PM  
Blogger ed said...


You know I brought up the subject of blue state secession with some friends of mine in the South. The general response, after the laughter stopped, was an eagerness to refight "The War of Northern Aggression" with the boot firmly on the other foot. So to speak.

Having them sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic made it even more amusing.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,
He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword
His truth is marching on.

November 13, 2004 at 12:25 PM  
Blogger ct said...

Another thing: if red types can't change a tire in red America they can't do it in their own blue America either.

Ever see a blue state type freaking out because they are being forced to put chains on their tires? And they're like muslims, you pull them out of their own dung and they spit at you.

I was saying on another blog (Matt Welch): blue state types can't even produce inspired novels or great art or even passably entertaining shallow movies anymore. They really are comically vain nitwits.

November 13, 2004 at 12:25 PM  
Blogger wondrin said...

It helps me.

November 13, 2004 at 12:28 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Snarky commentary DOES help. It is reality with a sense of humor as opposed to, say, the offerings over at Kos or Democratic Underground. Which are disconnected from reality but with a lovely hint of bile.

Now THAT'S facism for ya.

November 13, 2004 at 12:31 PM  
Blogger dan said...

Um, does this apply to red county people in blue states too?

November 13, 2004 at 12:33 PM  
Blogger Cervus said...


That is a good point. Sarcasm rather than bile?

Thing is, there are a lot of cities and urban areas that went Republican, even here in California. San Diego, San Luis Obisbo, and Orange County are examples.

November 13, 2004 at 12:37 PM  
Blogger Eileen said...

This is so funny! And so true! Of course, the people it's intended to enlighten will not be impressed and will totally miss the point. Too bad.


November 13, 2004 at 12:44 PM  
Blogger ct said...

Yeah, until blue areas start voting 90+ percent blue then alot of this blue/red makes us all (those of us who find the whole thing suspect in various ways to begin with) want to cast it aside. Yet, there still remains the reality that Lewis Lapham, for instance, a fabulously archetypical example of a 'blue', is a real type and a real, astonishingly serious nitwit. And he is rather representative of his fellow blues, at least in the media.

Anyway, I just had a liberal tell me that the people cutting off heads in those videos were Jews (Mossad). There is a level of unreal idiocy in the blue states that will keep this blue/red color code alive for awhile...

November 13, 2004 at 12:49 PM  
Blogger Joe said...

I suppose, if you're nursing a serious superiority complex, the best thing to do is to pick a group which you're currently dominating and peg *them* as the ones with the superiority complex.

Projection is fun!

Since the election, 95% of the vain, sanctimonious pretensions have been on the part of "Red-staters", if such a generalized term even means anything.

It seems increasingly true that Kerry supporters were the ones serious about leading a nation in the right direction, and Bush supporters see politics as Red Sox vs Yankees.

November 13, 2004 at 12:53 PM  
Blogger ct said...

Joe... Wow. You really follow all this, don't you?

Isn't our guy the mentally disabled chimp? And we the people the left here and abroad can't believe could be 'this dumb'?

Anyway, if we're playing your game, then the red staters are exposing themselves, with their projecting, as being superiour; and the blue staters are exposing themselves, with their projecting, as being hardened morons...

Did you follow that? Of course not. Because you're a freaking hardened moron.

(ps- 'Hardened': Biblical term. Typical of red-staters to use such a term and confuse the hell out of the blue types...)

November 13, 2004 at 1:03 PM  
Blogger Mark G said...

My first visit. Exciting Blog! But have we met? I was an EOCer in the 80s and live in the Midwest (Indianapolis).

November 13, 2004 at 1:11 PM  
Blogger The Parson said...

This is the funniest damn thing I've read in a long time! (Bartender, a pint for Grace, thank you.)

November 13, 2004 at 1:17 PM  
Blogger TWM said...

This was an absolutely marvelous post . . . I wish I could put my thoughts down like this . . . sigh.

November 13, 2004 at 1:18 PM  
Blogger Gerard said...

So brilliant I have to wear shades. Blogged and linked forever!

I am in awe.

To quote Pope, "What oft was thought but never so well expressed."

November 13, 2004 at 1:29 PM  
Blogger The Parson said...

I read this to my wife out loud. It's even better in the round! I also linked to it:

Beyond brilliant.

November 13, 2004 at 1:30 PM  
Blogger Peakah said...

Well done! It's nice to be able to deflate the left's superiority complex with an election win such as this one provided of course Bush will channel Reagan's spirit of optimism and progress in this second term. If he does what he did in his first term and continue to capitulate to the left he will be an utter failure.

November 13, 2004 at 1:46 PM  
Blogger Boethius said...

Excellent! But you missed one important item:

"And we'll of course need you to provide us with a constant supply of food."

November 13, 2004 at 2:04 PM  
Blogger Boethius said...

Excellent! But you missed one important item:

"And we'll of course need you to provide us with a constant supply of food."

November 13, 2004 at 2:04 PM  
Blogger kathianne said...

Followed an Instapundit link, great post! You hit that target, I'm beginning to think they are incapable of analysis.

November 13, 2004 at 2:13 PM  
Blogger bkw said...

San Diego, San Luis Obisbo, and Orange County Unfortunately, none of those counties you cited are really "urban". LA county is urban. San Francisco county is urban. OC, SD and SLO ... maybe not so much.


November 13, 2004 at 2:17 PM  
Blogger TWM said...

Oh yes, I linked it over to as well . ..

November 13, 2004 at 2:24 PM  
Blogger Bryan said...

This grand essay belongs on some kind of hand-made parchment, written with a quill in fluid script where the esses look like effs, preserved under glass and bathed in UV-free light. You've pretty much said all that there is to say.

November 13, 2004 at 2:30 PM  
Blogger Bryan said...

...And as I read other articles here, I just want to know why no one told me about your excellent blog. I think a bookmark is in order.

November 13, 2004 at 2:35 PM  
Blogger Roland Patrick said...

Actually, they are serious about this:

November 13, 2004 at 3:00 PM  
Blogger Gene said...

Though I certainly agree with 90% of this post and in this election was a red dot in a blue state I do find one item ironic.

This post is as guilty of wanting to impose its world view vis-a-vis homosexuality as blue staters hatred of in this post Wal Mart.

Your moral imposition on the other is somehow better than theirs? I'm not talking moral equivalence here - god knows there is such a thing as right or wrong when it comes to allowing people to have liberty, but liberty means putting up with those things you may not like but don't hurt you.

November 13, 2004 at 3:03 PM  
Blogger Peg C. said...

Thanks to Glenn I found this blog! Wonderful piece. I myself am in a Red State of mind living painfully in a deep blue state.

The thing about the lefties (and I was one) is that they think SO simplistically, in ridiculously small-minded, black and white, intolerant and bigoted terms. I think they invented projection: every single thing they accuse of us being, they in fact are.

November 13, 2004 at 3:08 PM  
Blogger TWM said...


Are we not in the best position to say what "hurts" us?

November 13, 2004 at 3:20 PM  
Blogger Aaron said...

Being a liberal myself, I'll argue that some of the points you make are quite sensible - if you think that the reason we're upset about the Republicans winning has anything to do with the smaller amount of our population who claim to think every red person is a hut-dwelling Mississippian.

If you want to know what a liberal stands for, it's the rights of government to govern and requires them to give back to the people, rather than leaving this to the church.

The converse is to leave it to generous monarchs, which could be the credo of the Republican Party.

Liberals are not all G-dless. For example, I'm Jewish. Anyone who uses G-d as a crutch to avoid the world is G-dless.

It's hard to argue, for example, that NOT teaching evolution in a public school system is right because it might expose the students to other ideas of creation. You don't see that in blue states. That's kind of like not teaching English to a farmer's son because a farmer doesn't really need to write to plant corn.

As far as supporting the troops, would you have them use 20/20s and wear their own clothes?

Oh. And I like Wal-Mart. :)

November 13, 2004 at 3:45 PM  
Blogger SurfWired said...

San Diego, the seventh largest city in the US, is "not urban?" Been here lately?

Perhaps someone would care to define "urban?"

The demographics of San Diego and Orange County look a lot like those of a wealthier East Coast "blue county," except that San Diego and Orange Counties have a LOT more "people of color" in them...

November 13, 2004 at 4:11 PM  
Blogger SurfWired said...

For those who wish to see what "not urban" looks like these days, here's a link to some pictures of the San Diego skyline.

November 13, 2004 at 4:14 PM  
Blogger SurfWired said...

Please pardon the third post, but I wanted to add that the vote in the city of San Diego matched that of the county, despite its significant university-town population. Note that this demographic caused islands of blue to appear in the mostly red Ohio, e.g. in Athens County.

November 13, 2004 at 4:18 PM  
Blogger Bruce Hayden said...

To Aaron,

Maybe this is one of the big divides between right and left. I find it the height of hypocracy for multimillionaires, like Kerry, Kennedy, Rockefeller, et al. to spend my money, and not their own, saving the world. In particular, note that a large number, probably a majority, of the Democrats in the Senate are very, very, rich, richer than the Republicans (last tally, more millionaires, and much more money). And most of the money was inherited (or, in Kerry's case, inherited, then married), and not earned.

So, please, give away your own money first. Spend it on your pet causes saving the world. Instead, you have the Kerrys' paying less than 12% in taxes on an income of over $4 million a year, and a fortune estimated at $1 billion or so. All unearned, and all hoarded. When he talked about taxing the rich, anyone with any brains knew that what he was really talking about was increasing taxation on those with high incomes, not those who, like his wife and many of his fellow Democratic Senators, were far, far, wealthier than those being targeted for tax increases.

I find nothing noble about spending someone else's money making people feel good about their unearned wealth doing whatever good they think they are doing by spending such. If you think that it is such a good thing to spend money on, then spend yours first, before coming to me at the point of a gun to take my money for your causes.

BTW, ever wonder why Red Staters are significantly more charitable than Blue Staters?

Another related problem I have with liberals is that what is important is feeling good about doing something for someone, and not whether they have, indeed, done good. Thus, we flushed a trillion dollars down the drain teaching single women to have kids out of wedlock so society could support them, and their descendants.

Much better to do as the neoconservatives propose - figure out what works and then implement such, instead of just throwing money at things. (Best definition I have heard of them is that they are progressives (many Jewish) mugged by reality).

Next, on to religion. I think that many on the left misunderstand the religion of many on the right, and in particular, that of the President. What is interesting is that his professed faith is very mainstream Protestant, and, probably not that different from that of many Jews. I was struck when reading "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People" (written by a Rabbi) how similar our views are as to prayer. What Mr. Bush professes to pray for are strength and wisdom, and for our troops in harms' way.

What is important here, is that he does not profess to having visions or the like. He does not pray for OBL or al Zarqowi (sorry about the spelling) to fall over dead. He doesn't even go as far as Patton did during the Battle of the Bulge, ordering a prayer for clear weather so we could smite our enemies.

As for Ceationism v. Darwinism, most Americans, including most on the Right, accept the later. I, for one, would pull my daughter out of any school that tried to teach the former, even as a alternative to the later.

But then again, my daughter is in a very good private academy - one of the best in Colorado. Most are not as fortunate as I in being able to afford such. So, they are faced with the liberal brainwashing found in many, if not most, of the public schools. Last week, here in Colorado, the Boulder schools appeared to sanction, if not promote, civil disobedience protesting the recent reelection of the President, as well, as possibly death threats to him.

November 13, 2004 at 5:21 PM  
Blogger Grace said...

Crap crap crap!!

Spent one day away from the computer and it turned out I won the flippin' Academy Award. AAAAAGH!! (<-- but in a good way.)

Of course I'm too incredibly late to respond properly, but here's my sum-up:

* Pat, the Parson, Gerard, David, Peakah, kathianne, Bryan and any others that were unbelievably complimentary: BLUSH. Major, MAJOR blush. The kind that glows in the dark. (Kinda cool effect, really.)

* Jon: "You know, snarky commentary like this doesn't help." -- Believe it or not, I agree. I had this in draft form for a day or so, and really thought about just skipping it. The problem is that I wasn't hearing anyone say it, and I *was* hearing and reading commentary like the "Magnanimous Defeat" entry on, which really tries to come up with some detente, but *still* has that whiff of noblesse oblige that has been coloring the rhetoric, and only seeing one side of the equation. I'm aware that I'm making an overblown case here, but I didn't think a polite and sensible one would be a suitable answer. The point really *isn't* to escalate everything into a stupid shoving contest -- I actually think though that the um, Blue folks haven't really walked a mile in our shoes.

* dan and bkw and others who pointed out the inexactitude of the red and blue -- yep. At the beginning I mentioned red and blue *counties* rather than states, but y'know "state" is just a better word. Short, concise, gives us all time to get our Christmas shopping done. It has seemed to me that the discussion could really be called city vs. non-city, but post-election it'll probably always fly colors from now on.

* Gene -- "moral imposition" -- What's the imposition? Saying that Christians disapprove of homosexuality for religious reasons? Not exactly an imposition there, just a historic fact. Being historic doesn't make it right, but it would be inaccurate to deny it. I'm referring to the imposition I feel from liberals that I *must* get on the cultural bandwagon and to pettiness of shutting down any attempt to present the Christian position as homophobia.

* Aaron -- "Liberal are not all G-dless." -- As you and I would both agree, no one is. The left has gone progressively more secular, and some seem truly uncomfortable whenever the subject comes up, as if they suddenly found themselves at an Amway convention. I hope that one of the good things to come out of this last election is that the left can start to re-discover its heart. Without a religious foundation, IMHO, all the really good things that liberals want to accomplish won't happen.

As for why Democrats lost, don't worry that I'm presuming too much. I don't think it's really all that big a deal. (1) Kerry wasn't really a very strong candidate, though he ran a strong campaign (2) The Democrats didn't run any real ideas. I think that those running the show thought that voting *against* Bush would carry the day. It didn't turn out that way, but obviously in 2008 it won't even be a possibility.

November 13, 2004 at 5:30 PM  
Blogger Ernest said...


"As far as supporting the troops, would you have them use 20/20s and wear their own clothes?"

No, but Senator Kerry's military voting record would have them do so. He only voted for the 87 billion dollar appropriations bill the first time because it had a rider in it that repealed Bush's tax cuts. When that was defeated and the straight bill came up for a vote, Kerry once again stuck a knife in the back of our troops.

Same as it ever was...


November 13, 2004 at 5:56 PM  
Blogger Grace said...


Yeah! What you said.

It occurred to me that if rich Democrats *really* wanted to impress me, they would pay their taxes without any loopholes or special provisions at all. Heck, that would be logically consistent, right? Those taxes are going to feed hungry children and educate the poor -- why would a tender-hearted and well-heeled person not want to pay every dime? If Kerry owes 30%, he should pay 30%. I'm not just trying to be snarky again. I'm serious. That would signify that they are really ready to put their money (their own and not someone else's) where their mouth is.

November 13, 2004 at 6:05 PM  
Blogger Pat said...

Aaron wrote: "If you want to know what a liberal stands for, it's the rights of government to govern and requires them to give back to the people, rather than leaving this to the church."

The rights of government? Governments have no rights at all. Individual people have rights. We create governments to guard and preserve those rights, and any government that fails to do so can and should be dissolved.

"The converse is to leave it to generous monarchs, which could be the credo of the Republican Party."

Since you offer no evidence whatsoever to support this ludicrous claim, I see no reason to take it seriously.

November 13, 2004 at 6:12 PM  
Blogger newman said...

Aaron wrote about "not teaching evolution in a public school system". Talk about a straw man! I've never met anyone who opposed teaching evolution in the public schools. I've met a few people who wanted to include the alternate idea that the world was created, and didn't just "happen" by accident.

By the way, I have read that the teacher from the famous Scopes trial was teaching from a textbook that "proved" via the theory of evolution that the Caucasian race was superior. No one ever mentions that he was also teaching racist ideas - just that it was about evolution versus creation.

November 13, 2004 at 7:33 PM  
Blogger Grace said...

Well said. Those "straw man" arguments seem like a particular favorite of the Screechy Left. Not all left, just the screechy part. I gather that it's because they're emotionally-charged people on the whole, and that doesn't permit them to engage in fair and reasonable dialogue. It isn't a good impulse though. Straw man arguments, like scare tactics and the other kinds of visceral polemics the screechers engage in, might scare a person into silence for a while, but -- as we saw on Nov. 2 -- it doesn't convince people.

November 13, 2004 at 8:00 PM  
Blogger Scott said...

The great irony of this post is that Grace has her views and wants to convince people that she is right, which is exactly what she is trying to rail against the so called "blue staters" for. She is as sanctimonious as she claims the left to be.

Get Your Blog Up

November 13, 2004 at 11:47 PM  
Blogger Aaron said...

Newman, Grace: There's a reason I chose that particular example. If you don't know ANYONE who thinks evolution should be taken out of schools, you obviously don't talk to any number of people in Georgia. By the way, Newman, that's very interesting about Scopes.

No evolution theory in US kids' science curriculum

ATLANTA, JANUARY 30: A new science curriculum proposed for high school teachers in Georgia was edited to avoid any mention of the word "evolution," which state school superintendent Kathy Cox described on Thursday as "a buzzword that causes a lot negative reactions."

The plan also omitted topics such as Charles Darwin's life, fossil evidence and the emergence of single-celled microorganisms, which means Georgia teachers would no longer be required to devote time and effort to teaching evolution. If the curriculum is adopted, most teachers will skim over the subject, which remains unwelcome in many parts of the state.

Cox said the curriculum changes were aimed to take pressure off teachers "on the front lines" in Georgia classrooms. The state's curriculum specialist, Stephen Pruitt, said the word "evolution" would not be banned in the classroom. "I believe we are dissecting the Theory of Evolution to look at its pieces," Pruitt said.

On Thursday, 1,000 people had signed an online petition demanding the restoration of the omitted sections. A handful of states avoid using the word "evolution" in teaching plans, replacing it with euphemisms like "biological adaptation" or "change over time."

Georgia, however, would be the first state to remove the word "evolution" from teaching plans after including it for years. The revised curriculum was a major initiative for Cox, a Republican who was elected to the school post in 2002. For six months, panels of educators met to fine-tune the new curriculum. But the final version eliminated large swaths of information about the origin of life, including Gregor Mendel's identification of genes, the appearance of primitive life forms four billion years ago, and the long-term dynamics of evolution.


First, Georgia's education chief tried to take the word "evolution" out of the state's science curriculum. Now a suburban Atlanta county is in federal court over textbook stickers that call evolution "a theory, not a fact."

We've had lawsuits for decades and decades coming from the South about evolution. Straw man my ass.

Ernest: Kerry wasn't the best candidate for America. I supported him thoroughly and worked for his campaign because I'm a liberal, and I make no apologies for my own beliefs, but I wasn't convinced he'd win.

Pat: Perhaps you should study John Locke's social contract, which was the basis of our government. Besides, suggesting the government has no rights is the same as suggesting the majority has no legitimate ruling power and gets into libertarian arguments, and I don't think we're about to go there. :)

As for my comment about leaving government to generous monarchs, don't get me wrong - some people think a generous leviathan is the best form of government. That's Hobbes (who preceded Locke and has not been fully discredited).

According to Republicans, Americans are supposed to provide for themselves. They gain rights through tax relief and not through social programs, which requires them to have jobs to survive. The government makes decisions and Americans are not to question the government, who defends their rights as Americans but doesn't provide help from the federal level. Oh yes, and there's a prudentially applied combination of church and state where the ruling body is the vanguard of the religious.

Outside of judicial review and occasional breaks from party politics, that's a monarchy. Besides, Pat, while I'm teaching history, I suppose I should mention that we wouldn't have a nation if we had a benevolent monarch in 1763, because the colonies would have only been too glad to pitch in more tax dollars to pay for the Seven Years War.

Bruce: That's one of the most honest arguments I've heard in some time, and has some excellent points.

I'll argue that the wealthy Democrats should not have to give up substantial amounts of their fortunes any faster than wealthy Republicans do, but SHOULD. Regardless, I believe such plans SHOULD be financed by the wealthy and not the middle class, preferably willingly. Of course, so did Kerry.

Your (and Grace's) argument on governmental patience is an outstanding one, however, and it's one I can embrace entirely. I'm particularly opposed to pork barrel politics. Clinton signed the welfare reform bill too, though, ya know. Right and wrong is not confined to neoconservatives or anyone else.

(I've also met Harold Kushner, who's a wonderful man. And you can't misspell Al Zarkowi (or whatever) 'cause it's transliterated from Arabic. :))

Grace: Your willingness to call me a part of the "Screechy Left" aside (and I hope I've dispelled the screechy part :)), there's no reason that Democrats should have any different application of the tax laws than anyone else. That's not the American way, nor is it the Republican way.

Finally, bkw: You're completely whacked if you think San Diego's not urban. -Aaron

November 14, 2004 at 12:31 AM  
Blogger Das said...

Roland Patrick,

The Stranger (a Seattle info weekly) is over the top; it's all about them you see, the liberal gay progressive left; Bush's real offense was to name Islamic terror as the enemy of civilization. This undermines the nihilistic left obsession with fundamentalist Christians; you can page through a whole issue of the weekly and not find a word about the Islamic murderers who want to crumble our world.

Anyway O and H, great outline of talking points. Should go out as a PR bulletin, to help the Blue staters organize their thoughts (they're not doing too well, now, as you've noticed).

November 14, 2004 at 12:39 AM  
Blogger johnh said...

Excellent work Grace. This is the sort of writing I aspire to.

I guess that's why you here and I'm there. ;-)

To Bruce Hayden, who called Blue country on hypocrisy: you're wasting your time calling them on contradictions (e.g., Democrat attacks that the Republicans are “the party of the rich” and nominating two very rich men to be prez and vp).

Nobody—including country—genuinely cares about that. It’s nothing more than a handy club to beat the Republicans with.

The same goes for the accusations that “the war on terror is a disaster”, or something like that. True, this war hasn’t been defect free but for the most part it has been a great success. On the other hand, if your intent is to deliberately lose this war then electing a man who always sided with our country’s wartime enemies to be our wartime president is the right way to go about doing it.

Again, the fact that Bush’s prosecution of this war wasn’t zero defects isn’t really the issue nor did Kerry obvious unsuitability to be a wartime president a factor.

Regardless of their rhetoric, Blue country just doesn’t care.

I recommend that everybody just stop wasting their time calling Blue country on their inconsistencies. That’s beside the point.

The left’s primary rhetorical technique is framing indictments.

It doesn’t matter to Blue country that either John Kerry or John Edwards were both much richer than Bush and Cheney put together; just call the Republican Party the party of the rich. Who’s going to call you on it? The MSM?  Yeah, right.

It doesn’t matter to Blue country that John Kerry met with North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris during the Vietnam war.

It doesn’t matter to Blue country that John Kerry opposed Reagan’s supporting of the Freedom fighters in Nicaragua during the 1980s.

It doesn’t matter to Blue country that John Kerry adopted the Soviet’s position—a nuclear freeze that would lock-in Soviet superiority over NATO—and opposed Reagan’s efforts to balance Soviet SS20s deployed to the Warsaw pact countries by deploying cruise missiles to NATO countries.

It doesn’t matter to Blue country that John Kerry sided with Saddam during the Persian Gulf War by voting against the resolution to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

It doesn’t matter to Blue country that the Persian Gulf War, which that John Kerry voted against, passed every aspect of Kerry’s “global test”.

OK, I’ve beaten this into the ground already. My point is that it is a mistake to assume that Blue country rhetoric is sincere; it’s not. To address your argument against Blue country’s rhetoric is similar to a bull charging a cape; a waste of energy.

Put another way, I’m convinced that Blue County already knows that their arguments are a ruse.

Blue country just wanted to bug out of the war; they don’t care about it Gallup’s polls showed:

[begin quoted text fragement]Gallup pollsters asked, "Thinking ahead to the elections for president in 2004, if you had to choose, which of the following issues will be more important to your vote?" Gallup gave voters just two choices: economic conditions or terrorism.

… According to a breakdown provided by Gallup, 76 percent of Democrats answered the economy. Just 10 percent of Democrats said terrorism would be more important to their vote, and 13 percent said both equally.
[end quoted text fragement]Blue country has never accepted that we’re in a war with terrorists. John Kerry was just a reliable way to bug out.

November 14, 2004 at 4:41 AM  
Blogger Raoul Ortega said...

You left out the part about city people taking over the most scenic parts of the rest of the country for their vacation homes, driving up prices so that the people who provide the labor intensive services they've come to expect can't even afford to live in those towns any more.

Or the blue city practice of importing brown people from down south to do their scut work for them, then paying them a pittance (while avoiding any taxes) while forcing "minimum wage laws" on the rest of the country.

November 14, 2004 at 9:44 AM  
Blogger alias420 said...

"Be assured that we support the troops, though we're not really sure what that means"

Of course, at the RNC there were plenty of red-state morons wearing purple-heart band-aids. That's the way to show support - trivalize an award given to military personnel wounded in combat.

November 14, 2004 at 7:32 PM  
Blogger J. said...

Speaking as a Massachusetts liberal who proudly grew up in Newt Gingrich's former district in Georgia and attained all of his higher education in the great Tar Heel State, I say both to you and to Fuck the South:

Neither of you know me, though you seem to think you do. My fundamentalist Baptist parents are the best any child could have asked for. They voted for Bush, and they're not former extras from Deliverence.

I attend a Unitarian Universalist church where raising responsible, unselfish, service-oriented children is the No. 1 goal. I love my daughter and worked hard to find a job where I work from 4am to 1pm so that I can spend my afternoons raising her.

Both sites can perform anatomically impossible sexual favors upon themselves as far as I'm concerned. The Blue State / Red State bigots on both sides can go to Hell.

November 15, 2004 at 4:06 AM  
Blogger Mastiff said...


"According to Republicans, Americans are supposed to provide for themselves. They gain rights through tax relief and not through social programs, which requires them to have jobs to survive. The government makes decisions and Americans are not to question the government, who defends their rights as Americans but doesn't provide help from the federal level. Oh yes, and there's a prudentially applied combination of church and state where the ruling body is the vanguard of the religious. Outside of judicial review and occasional breaks from party politics, that's a monarchy."

I do not think that word means what you think it means...

You somehow confuse the absolute Divinely-graced hereditary rule of a single man with the ideas of Federalism. Would you call the Constitution a document advocating monarchy?

And your emphasis is on "tax relief," assuming that the state of nature is for people to pay taxes. I believe that the state of nature is for people not to pay taxes, and that we choose to do so because the government provides services that we need and want. If the government wastes our money, then we have every right to be upset.

"Americans are not to question the government"? You are confusing the natural inclination of a wartime majority party with some hardwired ideology on the part of the Republican party. One could easily have made the same argument for FDR's administration, where people were actually arrested for treason for speaking against the war effort, something Bush has not done.

And in the Jewish tradition, we are required to give 10% of our net to charity; but we may dispose of that charity any way we wish. To confuse this idea with an obligation to support Gender Studies departments, modern art, and studies on why jokes are funny, simply because the government decides that it is a good idea, is a distortion.

November 15, 2004 at 9:32 AM  
Blogger Karridine said...

Your snarkiness just cannot mask the underlying weakness that you do NOT understand the true value in having Kerry as President!

You are incapable of dealing with a self-confessed war criminal in the White House, lying and appeasing the terrorists and apologizing to Americans for ever greater attacks and killings of Americans on American soil...

JFKerry would have brought a new sense, a piquant 'je ne sais quoi' to the American people. The support (or at least quiet submission) to someone obviously superior to most Americans would have brought a general sense of fairness, equality, and uniformity to America, instead of this trumped-up 'self-reliance' so many of you insist on declaring!

To have a bald-faced, gutless prevaricator as President would have shown Kerry as able to enlist the support -or at least the cessation of active obstruction- of Jacques Chi-

What? the rant is not for Blue Staters?...

Disregard the above.
De Nile is a ribbah in A. Gypped

November 15, 2004 at 10:05 PM  
Blogger Aaron said...


By all means, read some of the arguments made at the Constitution, or just recall your high school American History classes where they talked about the "necessary and proper" clause. There were dangers at the beginning of our nation that if the powers of the President were increased too greatly, we would be faced with a monarchy and not a democracy. Many Federalists, specifically, were guilty of wanting too much power for the President.

With any number of situations having occurred, including, but not limited to: The PATRIOT Act, the war on Iraq, the Republican Congress and other scenarios, we have achieved a leader who has worked against an extraordinary amount of the nation's desires more or less without impunity.

Monarchies, by the way, were not always decided by heredity. Many were decided by decapitation. :)

You make an excellent point with FDR. Yet there have been many apologies made for the conduct of the government at that time.

As far as the whole tax thing goes, that's one of the fundamental reasons why I'm not a Republican. It's one of the major ideological schisms.

November 16, 2004 at 12:22 AM  
Blogger hittman4JC said...

I want to put forth something I have discussed for years, but have failed to see discussed in the media or the blogosphere. That something is "The Definition of Religion". It lies at the heart of the "Separation of Church & State" doctrine. So many arguments & lawsuits have taken place pitting the propriety of predominantly 2 theories (evolution vs. creation) for explaining the origin of our world, universe, & human race, etc.

I will not attempt to put the issue to rest nor state my personal position. I will make a case that both qualify as "religion". Webster's 4th definition of religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor (aka: zeal) & faith (aka: firm belief in something for which there is no definitive proof). So many things fall into this "space". Christianity, Judaism, Evolution, Big Bang Theory, Islam, Hinduism, Agnosticism, Atheism, etc.

Therefore, if any case is decided or mandate made based upon the Separation of Church & State doctrine (e.g., teaching of evolution vs. creation in public schools), justice, fairness, &/or any other moral standard by which any of us guide ourselves would dictate that all be included or all be excluded.

In summary, the point I hope to make is that nobody can have a belief, conviction, faith, etc. in any of the things not definitively proven to be true in this world & call someone else's differing view a "religion" while claiming their view is not.

November 17, 2004 at 10:54 AM  
Blogger Canadian Conservative (we exist!) said...

Bugmenotblogger said:

"Of course, at the RNC there were plenty of red-state morons wearing purple-heart band-aids."

Actually, that was only one (may two), and the RNC organizers immediately put a stop to it. "Plenty" indeed. Would you want people to hold all left-of-center folk responsible for every lefty nut-case?

November 17, 2004 at 7:19 PM  
Blogger Grace said...

Excellent point! I continue to hold the belief that the real focus of the cultural war is over religion. The secular left have zealously maintained religious beliefs that they don't happen to define as such. Those beliefs are in direct opposition with the tenets of most major religions. "Now we are met on a great battelfield of that war ..." as Lincoln said.

November 21, 2004 at 4:08 PM  
Blogger jean said...


Wow. I have read and reread Blue State, Red State. It's so good. Wish I had written it! But how will you ever follow it up?!

November 23, 2004 at 4:46 PM  
Blogger jon said...

biology book high school are so expensive. I agree, We have been looking for biology book high school all night for a new biology book high school class but havent been able to track down used biology book high school that I can afford. Anyway, I enjoyed looking at you biology book high school blog...


October 1, 2005 at 10:39 PM  
Blogger tom naka said...

I have a new orleans restaurant site. It pretty much covers new orleans restaurant related stuff. Check it out if you get time :-)

October 11, 2005 at 2:24 AM  
Blogger blog and ping said...

I like your site. Come visit my site at Drug Rehab Newsand leave some info or articles about drug in nj rehab

October 21, 2005 at 5:57 PM  
Blogger wpb-5A422F said...

Great blog you have! I really enjoyed it. I heard of a great site that is giving away a free set of Nike Golf Clubs. I think your readers will enjoy it. Just click the link below and enter your Zip Code to see if you qualify!
Free Nike Golf Clubs!

October 23, 2005 at 10:52 PM  
Blogger TheDevilIsInTheDetails said...

Another abortion fact Resource... . A discussion forum for all that deals with such hot-button issues as abortion fact .

November 7, 2005 at 4:16 PM  
Blogger All about Golf said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a arizona golf site/blog. It pretty much covers arizona golf related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

February 10, 2006 at 12:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home