because i can't stop reading about the election (jeezus, it's like a moth to a flame): from boing boing, first we have a map of the slave states and the free states before the civil war. picture the green states as blue and the tan "open to slavery" states red, and contemplate the similarity to maps today of states carried by bush or kerry.

second, realize that part of the perceived polarization of the country is due to the red and blue state maps like this one (note: map of the 2000 election). if the counties, rather than states, are colored red and blue depending on who they voted for, then it appears we live in a much more politically integrated country. finally, and most interestingly, check out this map of proportional shading. each county is shaded proportionally in red (republican, of course), blue (democrat, of course), and green (other). and strikingly, most of the country is purple. granted, the northeast and west coast are more blue-purple and middle america is more red-purple, but still. there are some democrats in texas! hell, there are even some democrats in utah. there are some things on this map that i find particularly interesting:

1. that swatch going up from west texas through eastern colorado, kansas, nebraska, wyoming, and montana is awfully red. memo to myself: don't move there, ever.
2. what's up with that one county in utah that went for "other"? buncha nader supporters in western utah? really?
3. how about that one county in south dakota that is Very Blue? who are those people? it's the sw corner of the state, so who is that? the black hills? is there a native american reservation there that votes uniformly democratic?
4. bummer about new england being all black. i would've liked to have seen how blue-y those areas turned out.

third, not from boing boing, here are some maps of the 2000 election, skewed for electoral votes, population, and population density. finally, maps where there's not huge tracts of red!

and last, the very real damage done by the bush administration. if only things had been different in 2000...

"will the queers please move to the back of the bus"

04 November 2004 - 2:52 pm

a day after kerry conceded, and the media is starting to gel. it seems to me, having read and heard a lot in the last 24 hours, that the one thing that pushed bush over the line into winning territory, the nader of 2004, were the referenda to ban gay marriage.

and this makes me so sad that i literally tear up every time i think about it. all those people in those 11 states (arkansas, georgia, kentucky, mississippi, michigan, ohio, north dakota, montana, oregon, oklahoma and utah) came out in droves to vote for discrimination. to vote to make ABSOLUTELY SURE that some of their fellow americans wouldn't have the same rights that they do. is this feeling of dispair in my heart what the abolitionists felt in the 1840s and 50s?

i simply don't understand. (a) what exactly is the problem with gay people getting married? the claim i hear is that gay marriage "threatens" straight marriage, or the institution of marriage. but i don't understand how or why. allowing two men or two women to marry each other does nothing to affect the rights of one man and one woman who want to marry each other. surely the 50% divorce rate in this country does more to harm the "sanctity" of marriage than a few queers getting it on with rings on their fingers. and (b) what the hell do they care anyway? what right do they have to be all up in other people's business? these same people who are all "it's our god-given right to legally own a gun, even if their legality puts the whole population at risk" are suddenly all concerned with the larger social concerns and the good of the people when the issue is who's fucking whom.

maybe they're all just mad that they're not having as good a time in bed.

the other thing that gets under my skin about bush voters choosing him because they feel that his is the more "moral" candidate is the implication that those of us who do not share bush's political and social views are somehow *less* moral, that we aren't as good as those who go to church every week. it was my understanding that christian beliefs included tolerance for those different from you (like gays) and helping those less fortunate than yourself (by, for example, funding programs to feed/clothe/house/medicate the poor) in addition to respecting life (which, i would argue, is not inconsistant with believing in a woman's right to choose). i believe that liberals are just as "moral" as conservatives, and resent the republican electorate telling me otherwise.

all i can hope is that martin luther king was right when he said "Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." even though it appears right now that we are moving backwards, i have to believe that it is Right that gay couples should have the same rights as hetero couples, and that it is inevitable that the rest of the nation will one day accept that as easily as we all accept today that black people should have the same rights as white people.

devastation

03 November 2004 - 3:03 pm

i'm just devastated.

after hating bush's style of government (secrecy, lies, and a lack of anything that could pass as contemplation) and his policies (pre-emptive war, discriminatory and backward-looking social agenda, totally fucking insane tax-cut and spend fiscal policy) for four years, i was so geared up for a kerry victory, for taking back our country, for bringing sanity back to the white house, for repairing relations with our allies.

but no. and the kicker is that it wasn't even that close. i'm in mourning. i'm so disappointed. and not so much in the bush administration at the moment, but at the american people for electing him.

i'm disappointed in people who refuse to look past the propaganda, who refuse to inform themselves about the real issues behind the soundbites. i shudder to think what is going to happen to the supreme court.

here's a pretty image of the most recent lunar eclipse to cheer us all up.