Daily Archives: April 16, 2009

More images of what we’re dealing with

The Huffington Post features a post titled “10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs.” The sign photographed above, in Madison, Wis., is No. 1, in my book, and proves the point that I made in a recent post, as does this sign, from Tampa, Fla., which is a close runner-up:

That’s a sinister-eyed Barack Obama, who was elected by 53 percent of the voters in November, portrayed slitting the throat of Uncle Sam. Nice!

It’s universally acknowledged that kids are too young to understand and be involved in sex; aren’t they too young for politics, too? From Orlando, Fla.:

More child exploitation in Florida, this time in Tallahassee:

This unfortunate image from Fresno, Calif., mixes exploitation of our youth with racism for a double whammy:

The white guy in the background sure seems happy that a young black man has renounced his own race, doesn’t he?

 I’m not sure if this sign, from Chicago, is more offensive or if it’s more stupid:

Ditto:

Hey, I love a good Hitler comparison as much as does the next political extremist, but what, exactly, has B. Hussein Obama done that warrants a comparison of him to Adolf Hitler?

George W. Bush at least was responsible for the wholly unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people before he was compared to Hitler, if memory serves…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Let’s let the parasitic red states go

Repugnican Texas Gov. Rick Perry is coming as close to threatening to secede from the Union that he can without actually using the “s” word.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Those red states that want to secede — let’s blue-staters let them.

The red states are nothing but a drag on the blue states anyway. Not only do the red states cause us blue-staters international embarrassment, but they’re a huge drain on us financially as well.

For all of the red staters’ bitching and moaning about having to pay taxes and how horrible welfare is, most of the solidly red states* receive more from the federal government than they contribute to the federal government.

For fiscal year 2005, the latest year for which I was able to find figures, for every $1 that Repugnican Gov. Haley Barbour’s state of Mississippi gave the federal government, it received $2.02 from the federal government in return. A 202 percent return ain’t bad! Repugnican Gov. Sarah Palin-Quayle’s Alaska? $1.84 — you betcha! Repugnican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s Louisiana? $1.78. Yet all three of these Repugnican governors have balked at accepting even more money for their states from the federal government — not because their states hate to receive federal money, obviously, but apparently because it’s Democratic President Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president, who is offering it.  

The list goes on: In 2005 West Virginia got back $1.76 for every $1 that it contributed. North Dakota: $1.68. Alabama: $1.66. South Dakota: $1.53. Kentucky and Virginia: $1.51. Montana: $1.47. Arkansas: $1.41. Oklahoma: $1.36. South Carolina (whose Repugnican governor also has balked at accepting even more federal money for his state): $1.35. Missouri: $1.32. Tennessee: $1.27. Idaho: $1.21. Repugnican presidential wannabe John McCainosaurus’ Arizona: $1.19. Kansas: $1.12. Wyoming: $1.11. Nebraska: $1.10. Utah: $1.07. Georgia: $1.01.

All of those states went to George W. Bush in 2004 and to McCainosaurus in 2008, with the exception of Virginia, which in 2008 went to Obama, so I guess it’s purplish.

So that’s 21 states that went to Bush in 2004 and to McCain in 2008 that in 2005 received more than $1 from the fed for every $1 that they contributed to the fed.

Only a handful of solidly blue states in 2005 received more than $1 from the fed for every $1 that they contributed: Hawaii ($1.44); Maine ($1.41); Maryland ($1.30); Vermont ($1.08); and Pennsylvania ($1.07).

The purple state of New Mexico (it went to Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008), for whatever reason or reasons, got the most bang for its buck from the fed in 2005: $2.03 in return for every $1 that it contributed. Other purple states that got back more than $1 in 2005 are Virginia, as I mentioned already; Iowa (Bush 2004, Obama 2008; $1.10); North Carolina (Bush 2004, Obama 2008; $1.08); and Indiana and Ohio (both Bush 2004, Obama 2008; and both $1.05).

The list of states that in 2005 got back less than $1 from the fed for every $1 contributed to the fed — the states that are supporting the rest of the nation — is overwhelmingly blue.

New Jerseyans get screwed, blued and tattooed the worst, with a return of only 61 cents on every $1. Next up is the purple state of Nevada (Bush 2004, Obama 2008), with only 65 cents. Then follow the solidly blue states of Connecticut (69 cents), New Hampshire (71 cents), Minnesota (72 cents), Illinois (75 cents), Delaware (77 cents), and population powerhouses California and New York (78 cents and 79 cents, respectively).

Purple Colorado (Bush 2004, Obama 2008) got only 81 cents for every $1. True-blue Massachusetts got 82 cents; Wisconsin, 86 cents; Washington state, 88 cents; Michigan, 92 cents; and Oregon, 93 cents.

The only state that went to Bush in 2004 and to McCain in 2008 that in 2005 received less than $1 from the feds for each $1 that it gave the feds was Texas, with a return of 94 cents on the dollar.

Purple state Florida (Bush 2004**, Obama 2008) in 2005 got 97 cents back for every $1.

Only the blue state of Rhode Island broke perfectly even, with $1 received for every $1 contributed.

Looking at the 2005 figures for all 50 states, which are in a table below, it’s pretty clear which states need the other states the most.

Again, of the solidly red states, Texas did the best in 2005, and it gave up only six cents of every dollar that it gave to the federal government, contrasted to blue states like California and New York, which gave up 22 cents and 21 cents, respectively.

If the red states want to secede and make Texas their fucking capital, as Texas’ governor seems to be offering, that’s fucking great by me.

Once the red states — which are fucking parasites on the blue states yet have the fucking gall to complain that they pay too much in taxes — have seceded from the union, then I, as a Californian, will actually start to see significantly more for my federal tax dollar than I do now.

Please, Texas, go — and take the rest of the red states with you. We blue-staters will miss you about as much as a dog would miss its ticks, fleas and worms. 

 

State FY 2005 Federal Spending per $1 of Federal Taxes Rank
New Mexico $2.03 1
Mississippi $2.02 2
Alaska $1.84 3
Louisiana $1.78 4
West Virginia $1.76 5
North Dakota $1.68 6
Alabama $1.66 7
South Dakota $1.53 8
Kentucky $1.51 9
Virginia $1.51 10
Montana $1.47 11
Hawaii $1.44 12
Maine $1.41 13
Arkansas $1.41 14
Oklahoma $1.36 15
South Carolina $1.35 16
Missouri $1.32 17
Maryland $1.30 18
Tennessee $1.27 19
Idaho $1.21 20
Arizona $1.19 21
Kansas $1.12 22
Wyoming $1.11 23
Iowa $1.10 24
Nebraska $1.10 25
Vermont $1.08 26
North Carolina $1.08 27
Pennsylvania $1.07 28
Utah $1.07 29
Indiana $1.05 30
Ohio $1.05 31
Georgia $1.01 32
Rhode Island $1.00 33
Florida $0.97 34
Texas $0.94 35
Oregon $0.93 36
Michigan $0.92 37
Washington $0.88 38
Wisconsin $0.86 39
Massachusetts $0.82 40
Colorado $0.81 41
New York $0.79 42
California $0.78 43
Delaware $0.77 44
Illinois $0.75 45
Minnesota $0.72 46
New Hampshire $0.71 47
Connecticut $0.69 48
Nevada $0.65 49
New Jersey $0.61 50
     
Source: Tax Foundation, Census Bureau

 

*I define a “solidly red state” as a state that went to George W. Bush in 2004 and to John McCainosaurus in 2008 and a “solidly blue state” as a state that went to John Kerry in 2004 and to Barack Obama in 2008.

**Well, Al Gore actually won Florida in 2004, but the “official” results are that Bush won Florida in 2004. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Paterson: Gay rights are civil rights

New York Gov. David Paterson, center, is joined by New York ...

Associated Press photo

New York Gov. David Paterson, with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at his right and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn at his left, announces during a news conference today his desire that New York join other states that have adopted legalized same-sex marriage. Paterson invoked historical black civil rights leaders Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe in his argument that same-sex marriage rights are civil rights. 

I’m used to some if not most prominent leaders of the black community, such as Jesse Jackson, vehemently denying that gay (and other non-heterosexual) rights are civil rights. They don’t want to share the victim-of-oppression pie with anyone else, very apparently.

An oft-used “argument” of theirs is that while blacks cannot conceal their race, and thus cannot protect themselves from racism, sexual orientation often if not usually can be concealed. I disagree; off the top of my head, I would estimate that at least half of non-heterosexuals are identifiable as such, and my counter-argument, of course, would be that no one should have to conceal his or her lack of heterosexuality.

And if we non-heterosexuals and blacks really want to have a fucking misery contest, I could point out that while non-heterosexuals very often are rejected by their own family members for being non-heterosexual, blacks aren’t rejected by their own black family members for being black.

One leader of the black community, who had gained national attention in 2004 after she lambasted president wannabe John Kerry for having stated his wish to be the “second” “‘black’ president” (after Bill Clinton), in a letter to me about solidarity among traditionally oppressed minority groups actually referred to homosexuality as possibly being “a birth defect.”

So it refreshing to have seen this news item today from The Associated Press:

[New York] Gov. David Paterson introduced a bill [today] to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, comparing the effort to the fight for the abolition of slavery.

Paterson … is making a political gamble that he can ride the momentum of other states that have recently allowed the practice, and it’s unclear how the legislation will play in New York.

The proposal is the same bill the Democratic-controlled state Assembly passed in 2007 before it died in the Senate, where the Republican majority kept it from going to a vote. Democrats now control the Senate, but opponents are vowing to make sure this one fails, as well.

Gay marriage is a crucial issue of equal rights in America that cannot be ignored, Paterson said. He was joined Mayor Michael Bloomberg, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and other elected officials, as well as gay rights advocates and his wife, Michelle.

“For too long, gay and lesbian New Yorkers — we have pretended they have the same rights as their neighbors and friends. That is not the case. All have been the victims of what is a legal system that has systematically discriminated against them.”

Paterson, who is black, framed the issue in sweeping terms, invoking Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe and drawing a parallel between the fight to eliminate slavery in the 1800s to the current effort to allow gay marriage.

“Rights should not be stifled by fear,” Paterson said. “What we should understand is that silence should not be a response to injustice. And that if we take not action, we will surely lose.”

Gay and lesbian couples are denied as many as 1,324 civil protections — such as health care and pension rights — because they cannot marry, Paterson said.

Quinn, who is openly lesbian, dared anyone to “tell me I deserve less” than the right to marry her partner.

“Look me in the eye and tell me that Kim and I aren’t a family, that we don’t struggle every day, that we don’t pay taxes, that we don’t work every day in this city. No one can look me or her in the eye and tell us that, because it is not true.”

At the same time Paterson was announcing his proposal, Sen. Ruben Diaz of the Bronx, also a Democrat but an opponent of same-sex marriage, met with religious leaders to discuss how to block the bill.

Diaz, an evangelical pastor, said his meeting in the Bronx was to inform Hispanics, Catholics, evangelicals and others opposed to same-sex marriage of their options to prevent the bill’s passage.

Diaz said it was disrespectful of Paterson to introduce the legislation in the same week that Catholics celebrated the installation of New York City Archbishop Timothy Dolan.

[Memo to Diaz: we are not a theocracy, you motherfucking pope-ass-licking buttmunch. I am happy that no governor bows before the pope or some archbishop. That’s the way that our democracy, with its separation of church and state, is supposed to work, you pandering fucktard.]

… Paterson noted he was introducing the [same-sex marriage] proposal with “the winds at our back,” referring to the recent approval of same-sex marriage in Iowa and Vermont.

New York Democrats gained a 32-30 majority in November’s elections. Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who did not attend [today’s] announcement, supports the measure but has said he doesn’t believe there are enough votes to pass it.

A Quinnipiac University poll this month showed that 41 percent of New York voters backed legalized same-sex marriage; that 33 percent favored civil unions; and that 19 percent wanted no legal recognition for such couples…

“Blacks don’t have my back,” I have declared before.

Well, at least one prominent black leader has my back, apparently, and I hope that more black leaders follow Paterson’s example.

We’re all in the struggle against the stupid (presumedly “Christian,” presumedly heterosexual) white man — and the stupid-white-male power structure that even some women, some non-whites and even some non-heterosexuals prop up — together.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized