A friend of mine sent in one of his usual letters to the editor. This one resonated with me to such an extreme I felt the need to re-paste it, here, right where it's needed most.

Editor,

With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the ongoing conflict between the Red state Republicans and the Blue state Democrats promises to heat up. We can expect to hear about family values as the Reds pander to their beloved constituents, the fundamentalist Christians. They will represent themselves as morally upstanding, patriotic, pro-life, anti-gay, God-ordained protectors of the family. They will caricature Blue northeastern and western coastal-state liberal Democrats as baby-killing pagans determined to corrupt and destroy family and nation.

But a closer look at the status of families in the Red states suggests that the Reds do not value families as credibly as their self-anointment would suggest.

Family stability is a blessing for individual and community alike but the divorce rate for all of the Red states is 31% greater than all the Blue states. The Barna Research Group found that Baptists and non-denominational Protestants per individual had the highest divorce rate for all religious affiliations at 29% and 34% respectively. Only 21% of self-professed atheists and agnostics reported having been divorced. The national average rate for all individuals they found was 24%. According to census figures, the lowest divorce rate by region in the United States is the very Blue New England states with liberal Massachusetts having the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

Along with a high divorce rate, violence also plagues the Red states. A woman in the Bible belt has a 34% greater chance of being killed by her domestic partner than in a Blue state. Meanwhile, godless New York City is one of the safest cities in the nation and Atlanta, Georgia third most dangerous.

The financial health of the family fares no better with household income for Red states being over $7,000 less than Blue states with the fundamentalist southern states occupying most of the bottom 10 places. Their collective average of $34,500 per household is nearly $10,000 below the national average. This region is stridently anti union except for Missouri that has a household income above the national average at $43,900.

In other matters of family values such as health one would expect Reds to excel at protecting life given their preoccupation with abortion and hysterical intervention into the Terry Schiavo affair. Not so. A child born in a Red state stands a 12% greater chance of dying in the first year of life and a whopping 20% greater chance in the Bible belt.

Health is no better for adults in the Red states with them leading significantly in obesity, smoking, heart disease and lung cancer. The rate of cardiac death in the Bible belt is double the Blue state rate.

Given these facts, there are good reasons why the Reds shill abortion and gay-marriage. It’s a red herring argument meant to obscure their dismal record of actually valuing families.

Harry


Maybe those on the moral mountain will find time to fully explain to the public some of their other deceptions and we can separate the propaganda from the facts. ...


Comments
on Jul 13, 2005
WTF, lol. So everyone in a red state votes Republican? Odd, I thought these were close races according to blue state folks. Pfft, go look at a map by color and tell me it is fair to compare red to blue based only on how the Presidental election went in 2004. You're comparing a million different factors beyond how they voted. Even then, states that voted red in the presidental election may have voted blue for the local leaders. You really think the last 4 or 8 years have created those statistics?

Here's an idea. You go to the most crime-ridden section of Atlanta, Georgia, and ask them how they voted, mkay? While you are there find out how many blame Republicans for the state of welfare serfdom that Democrats have kept them in for a half century.

I wonder what results you'd get if you looked at only the people who voted blue in those states? Did your friend bother to look at what percentage of people who voted Democrat in those states were apt to kill their wives? People that bothered to vote at all? Did he bother to see how all those spouse killers voted, given that 30-40+ percent of people voted BLUE in many states where Red won?

Perhaps you are assuming that Red states only have Republican wife killers?

Liberals export their idiotic, racist social programs federally and then blame the states for the mess it makes? I'm sorry is it a forgone conclusion that "Blue State" policies cure all the nation's ills? As idiotic as pinning the national parties with the ineptitude of state and local governments that may be totally Blue.

Don't fekkin try to compare elitist, high-income Blue states to states plagues by poverty, wherein Democrats have FAILED miserably to cure the problem for 50 years. Democrats forcibly ghetto-ize racial minorites at the Federal level as a slave voting class, and then you show up here and whine about the mess TEHY CAUSE in states that happened to vote Red by small margin in a Presidental election? Get a clue.
on Jul 13, 2005
Odd, I thought these were close races according to blue state folks. Pfft, go look at a map by color and tell me it is fair to compare red to blue based only on how the Presidental election went in 2004.

Yet ,still (to this day), reminded that Bush was given a 'mandate'. Since this is a democracy, I'm afraid the blame rests with the majority passing legislation since 1994 for the sad state of the U.S. . If you want to blame the dem's for mussing up the country the from the late 60's to the early 90's, fine. But the data mentioned in the letter is all post '94. Things are getting worse, not better.


While you are there find out how many blame Republicans for the state of welfare serfdom that Democrats have kept them in for a half century.

How about you? I'm sure you'd have much greater luck convincing people they'd much rather be on the streets without electricity or food then have the 'serfdom' option of welfare assistance.

In a related example, we Missourians elected a Republican Governor who pandered to so-called 'family values'; wearing his pro-lifeness and religious preference on his sleeve. One of his first priorities as governor was to request the Missouri legislature to cut Medicaid for over 100,000 low-income families, single mothers, and those with disabilities. This among many other restrictions and cuts was prepared by our now Republican legislative bitches and sent in a new budget proposal to Governor Blunt. He of course signed the bill. Now, if a single mother with three (3) children somehow manages to scrape together over three hundred a month, she instantly looses medicaid coverage. YOU SUPPORT TAKING AWAY THAT ASSISTANCE. THAT WELFARE 'SERFDOM'?

I met many people last year who were unable to leave their homes because of disabilities who were too poor to afford a television. Instead they listened to AM talk radio. Constant propaganda by conservative pundits convinced many of these people that 'liberals' were robbing them of their freedom to starve. It's a shame they get to the smarter, better off individuals but it's a travesty when these poor people are so easily manipulated.

I'm sorry is it a forgone conclusion that "Blue State" policies cure all the nation's ills?

For a really great example of a Blue State policy kicking butt, check out Howard Dean's Vermont. He helped develop a statewide healthcare program covering all in need while balancing the budget.

Don't fekkin try to compare elitist, high-income Blue states to states plagues by poverty

Hmm...Elitist, High Income, Blue...State. Versus, State plagued by poverty (Red State). Why not? 'Cause it's not fair? How about a northern blue versus a Southern red? We can look at the traditional voting records of those states locally...but I think you and I both know which party would favor in that comparison...

Sounds like you're a bit angry about being reminded of some of the facts Bakerstreet. Get your head out of the propaganda box.

1.)Things are not going well in Iraq
2.)Karl Rove is a fink parser of words
3.)You were mislead about Iraq
4.)Your civil liberties have been amended and power is consolidated above the state level
5.)Republican Red states are worse the wear then Democrat Blue States
6.)...and you can give a big fat hello to your new NATIONAL ID card for me next year. Let's hope it doesn't contain any GPS tracking or RFID chips like what they're considering in Britain. Funny how our government today wants to give us enough 'freedom' to starve, but not to move without their knowledge.

You keep getting lied to and you just keep eating it up, worse yet, you defend it. Must be an issue of pride.

Do Democrats have all the answers? NO. Do Democrats fuck up? OH YEAH.

...but I've got just one question for you,

WHO IS DOING THE MOST DAMAGE?
on Jul 14, 2005
"Hmm...Elitist, High Income, Blue...State. Versus, State plagued by poverty (Red State). Why not? 'Cause it's not fair? How about a northern blue versus a Southern red? We can look at the traditional voting records of those states locally...but I think you and I both know which party would favor in that comparison..."


There are northern blue and northern red, high income blue and high income red. You're trying your best to make this appear North/South, Rich/poor. IN reality it is the majority of US states vs an smaller MINORITY of US states, very geopolitically homogeneous.

If I tried to compare, say, the crime rate in a red state like, oh, ALASKA, to a blue state, like, oh, CALIFORNIA... well, I think you'd be the first to explain these differences to me, wouldn't you?

-Not everyone in a "Red state" votes red. Of those 30-49% who didn't vote Red, I think you'll find that there is a substantial amount of the ills you cite. Especially since Dems go to projects and crime-ridden areas and bus people to the polls...

I would venture to say that if you went to prisons and projects and crime-ridden areas, you probably wouldn't find too many Republicans. Dems make slaves of minorites, paying them a substinance wage in social welfare programs, keep them as a slave voting class, and then blame Republicans for it. Nothing new.

The letter above is blatently flawed. Statistically it doesn't prove a thing, given how a state voted in one or two presidential elections has, frankly, *dick* to do with how they are managed internally, and how they have been abused by Federal socialism.

I can't be angry about the "facts", because you haven't posted any. It's as statistically insipid as me trying to post the rate of murders in Alaska to the rate of murders in California and then saying that "Red" vs "Blue" is the difference.
on Jul 14, 2005

Meanwhile, godless New York City is one of the safest cities in the nation


In what fashion is NYC considered one of the safest cities?
on Jul 14, 2005
NY is a lot safer after a Republican cleaned it up.
on Jul 14, 2005
NY is a lot safer after a Republican cleaned it up.


I don't think it matters how deference is going to spin this. NYC is FAR from being a safe city!
on Jul 14, 2005
Regardless, Alaska is a red state and it is nothing compared to blue California in terms of crime. Such comparisons are meaningless. How people vote in a presidental election doesn't determine the way the states themselves are run, or how the Liberal policies that are exported to them effect their overall health.
on Jul 14, 2005
1.)Things are not going well in Iraq


Only if you listen to the MSM. If you look at the real facts, and just not what the biased media tells you. You would see great things happening in Iraq. Many people post good news, but it goes ignored by people like you.


2.)Karl Rove is a fink parser of words


The only thing Karl Rove is guilty of is being prosecuted by the press. He is not the target of the investigation, so try again.


3.)You were mislead about Iraq


Wrong. Myself and others have asked several times for people to prove this. Not one has been able to. DNC talking points do not count.


4.)Your civil liberties have been amended and power is consolidated above the state level


My "civil liberties" have no changed one bit. That is another piece of propaganda used by leftists.


5.)Republican Red states are worse the wear then Democrat Blue States


In what way?


6.)...and you can give a big fat hello to your new NATIONAL ID card for me next year. Let's hope it doesn't contain any GPS tracking or RFID chips like what they're considering in Britain. Funny how our government today wants to give us enough 'freedom' to starve, but not to move without their knowledge.


We are not getting a national ID card next year. Even if we do it's about as big of a non-story as Karl Rove. This is typical conspiracy theories that is designed to scare people.


...but I've got just one question for you,

WHO IS DOING THE MOST DAMAGE?


Islam is the main problem. Followed by democrats and liberals who appease them. Then the democrat agend which follows a socialist agenda very closely.
on Jul 14, 2005
LOL...now there's a good example of skewed statistics for you. Why would "blue" states have the lowest divorce rates? Ever consider the fact that it MIGHT be because a VERY high percentage of liberals choose not to MARRY in the first place?

At any rate, the numbers are highly suspect. Why is this? Well, simply because about 50-60% of marriages end in divorce, by the figures I have seen, and these numbers do not come CLOSE to that figure. Yes, it is true that the numbers are not substantially different between Christians and nonChristians, but still...if the numbers you've given don't match the statistics in the first place, well, the whole thesis is suspect.

Then, let's move on to the fact that "Republican" does not mean "Christian" any more than "Democrat" means NON-Christian. In this nation, more than 80% of the population considers itself to be "Christian"...in BOTH Red and blue states.

Your friend's letter was very well written rhetoric. But it was just that...rhetoric, and no substance. I won't use these facts to make a dig at the left, but I suppose the point COULD be made.
on Jul 14, 2005
I was ignoring the divorce thing because it is a strawman argument in the first place.

A) Christians like any other group think divorce is a problem, but it is allowed without a big scarlet letter in all the denominations mentioned.

I don't know how the statistics on it were gotten in the first place, since the courts don't poll every divorce as to their religious affiliations.

C)Every other porn star wears a cross around their neck, so just because someone calls themselves "religious" doesn't mean they are.

D) The polling group is a CHURCH based organization who did the study to prove that ministers needed to be "harder" about divorce.
on Jul 14, 2005
All good points, as well, baker...I just responded to what stuck out to me in the first place.
on Jul 14, 2005
NYC is most definitely a safe city (from crime). Not quite as good as it was under Giuliani, but that was the issue of the day that he had to address, and now that it's getting along, the issues Bloomberg needs to address are otherwise. I'm sure that in a few years, safety will deteriorate below a certain threshold where it becomes an issue again. There is not a street in Manhattan where I would feel unsafe walking, including Harlem. It might make me feel uncomfortable, or a little out of place, but never unsafe.

There was a time where most places were unsafe, and you couldn't go walking in Central Park after dark. Those were the times when hearing about a murder outside of a club or bar wouldn't cause one to bat an eye. Whereas now, since they are isolated incidents, it is rather shocking to hear that news.

Don't mean to hijack Deference, I just don't like NYC having a bad rap for its past situation.
on Jul 14, 2005

NYC is most definitely a safe city (from crime).



Want to try again? The "original assertion was that NYC was the "safest" city, which it very clearly is not.


CRIME New York, New York San Diego, California National Avg.
Violent Crime 1063.1 598.4 446.1