Always Hurt the Ones They Love II


The map at the top shows the U.S. counties that voted for Bush in 2004. The one at the bottom shows the counties most adversely impacted by Bush's policies, in this case the cost of gasoline. There's not an uniform correlation, but the patterns are staggering.

The parallels are much closer here. When you compare this map to the one above, you generally find that the more religious the county, the higher the percentage of income spent on gasoline. The Bible Belt is both the stronghold of the Republican Party and the region most adversely impacted by their policies.

It's amazing, really.

8 comments:

  1. It looks like the belt is getting a whipping.

    It is sad that the same techniques that have been used for hundreds of years to subjugate the masses continue to work to this day.

    Were is a quantum leap when you need one?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe we need to create one.

    I'll bet you good money that every single one of those counties paying 10% or more of their incomes on gasoline votes for McCain.

    Not that it matters one way or the other, of course. I feel genuinely sorry for whoever has to sit in the monkey seat for the next 4 years.

    ReplyDelete
  3. They don't love them though; most times I think that it's a Bohemian Liberal way of just shafting the religious right by posing as if they give a flying f-k about them, then laughing about it for years later when they vote them in.

    It's not that I disagree in terms of Ways To Stick It To The Man, it's just nowhere near the way I'd handle the situation*. It needs handled honestly, you don't go around playing to their stupidity.
    Specially when you don't have the balls to stand up to the warmachine once you get into power.
    Although I suppose that is what they've been doing to the military all these past few years too.


    *by 'the situation' I'm refering to the problem where there is a conflict between living naturally and being comforatbly well off with much-required** technology. It's a sham that there ever ought to be a lack of pollution-free hi-techness, a sham that to have gadgets means living in a concreted-over urban hell with roads everywhere.
    The Man is either trying to control you and take your freedom away - forcing you to slave away with no 'mod cons', or it is forcing you to live in artificial environments paying rent for conapts that have shitpipes running up and down them and under the roads.

    A quantum leap would be for the real world to just suddenly take over, where you live in amoungst nature with as much space as you want, but you also have access to a proper developed form of technology, say the likes that means you can travel around the world with ease, pollutionless, and very quickly.

    **it's either gadgets and robots, or natural superpowers. If you cannot be how you are meant to be, then technology will develop to compensate for the artificial crippling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh hey I completely forgot about this: one of Them, an English one, that I used to know many years ago (and has been relegated to being astrally bombed since) mentioned one of his many messed-up beliefs about this kind of thing here: it would seem that those in power that you mean there, see themselves as being like Kali or Shiva, in the sense that their followers (especially any that are good and decent towards them) deserve to be mistreated precisely because they look upon them favourably or support them in some way.

    I did try to explain to the idiot that the people he is talking about don't see it that way at all, and they just aren't evil enough to think that anyone would be so corrupt that they would harm their own supporters. I gave him the example that if someone I was friendly with even thought for a second that they could take advantage of that, that it is ok to punish someone for being a good person like they're allowed to secretly train you not to trust anyone; I'd not hesitate to worse than kill them.

    While I'm sure there are plenty of masochistic cult members out there, it does not pay to make the assumption that you can get away with taking advantage of any level of support recieved. Especially when you're that stupid that you haven't properly actually-in-reality checked with said support to ensure they agree with your views on how you can treat them.

    The likes of your Shivas and Kalis and so forth are very much openly honest as to what their followers should expect; they don't need to hide it or lie about it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Though your argument about the sado-masochist GOP voters is very true, the third map doesn't follow.

    Look at the relative paleness of S.C. and georgia (bigtime red states) and paleness of Florida, Virginia, and N.C. (red-leaning stares)

    Then look at Minnesota, a liberal state, and Wisconsin, left-leaning and arguably the birthplace of the U.S. progressive movement. They're looking pretty religious to me...

    ReplyDelete
  6. The patterns are not exact- and forget there are many denominations that aren't rightist bootlickers. And even liberal states have large rural areas that are very conservative. These maps are all deceptive in a way because these counties are not even remotely uniform in population. Dark red North Dakota is practically empty. In ten years most of the prairie states will be emptied out and be the province of agribusiness and resurgent Indian tribes. If energy costs don't stabilize the South and Southwest are going to empty as well. You can't stomach 120F summers without AC.

    I'll make it easy- Rural=Religious=Republican.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Rural = Religious = Republican"

    That's a massive oversimplification -- and your data is mostly supportive of the old "lies, damned lies, statistics" train of thought. Many of us who are pretty much fundamentalist (regardless of where we live) are almost completely apolitical. None of us trusted Bush from the get-go, or got sucked into his carnival spiel. But we don't have much use for the other side, either.

    Frankly, we don't really think there's much of a difference -- if any -- between the "two major American political parties".

    ReplyDelete
  8. I applaud you, Janet. However, most of the polling data shows you to be in a very distinct minority.

    Hopefully, not for long...

    ReplyDelete