Saturday, November 06, 2004

Red & Blue World

Cartographer's delight! Map Day is now Map Weekend!

Click for larger graphic
Usvworldthumb


via Bruce Stokes / Washington Note

Posted at 05:45 AM in Humor, Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d83421de1253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Red & Blue World:

» Red & Blue World from BOPnews
Cartographer's delight! Map Day is now Map Weekend! Click for larger graphic via Bruce Stokes / Washington Note... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 6, 2004 5:51:50 AM

» Map-Mania from Wendy's Blog: Legal Tags
It's time to trade our national obsession with electoral-vote.com for a new craze -- maps visualizing where the votes really came from. The Big Picture has assembled a collection of maps with population, geography, and a bit of political black humor. T... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 6, 2004 11:20:22 AM

» Map-Mania from Wendy's Blog: Legal Tags
It's time to trade our national obsession with electoral-vote.com for a new craze -- maps visualizing where the votes really came from. The Big Picture has assembled a collection of maps with population, geography, and a bit of political black humor. T... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 6, 2004 11:40:49 AM

Comments

Actually Australia would probably have voted for the monkey - they just voted for the arselicker who is proud to be the monkey's deputy dawg.

Posted by: Moz | Nov 6, 2004 6:09:52 PM

There's a campaign slogan for you:

"John Kerry - the Chinese Communists LOVE This Guy!"

Posted by: The Zero Boss | Nov 7, 2004 2:01:40 AM

I think Zero Boss stayed up too late.

Posted by: Jimbo | Nov 7, 2004 10:49:21 AM

Whoops! Looks like someone screwed up and forgot that Putin of Russia had backed Bush before the election and made comments about how positive it was that he was re-elected.

But I suppose painting Russia red wouldn't make that map nearly as funny...or accurate.

Posted by: Huey | Nov 7, 2004 12:48:49 PM

Gee, I didn't know that our elections were open to the world. Wonder which pollster took this count. lolololol

Posted by: Harve the six foot rabbit | Nov 7, 2004 10:22:20 PM

Harve,our elections are not open to the world, as you observered. They're actually not what you might call open at all, especially to particular groups of citizens.

Posted by: annie | Nov 8, 2004 9:57:39 PM

Huey, I wasn't aware that Putin all by himself represented Russia as an entirety and that the actually Russians themselves have no importance in their own opinion of our election.

Posted by: Mylea | Nov 9, 2004 2:38:48 AM

Are you suggesting that our elections are not open to every citizen. Now we don't like folks voting that have been dead for several years, or if you would like to vote several times, or if you are NOT a US citizen. We would prefer breathing USA citizens to vote in our elections. If you are not one of those we would prefer you to keep your opinions to yourself.

Posted by: Harvey the six foot rabbit | Nov 9, 2004 9:21:02 PM

If you are a US citizen and breathing we are glad you voted.

Posted by: Harvey the six foot rabbit | Nov 9, 2004 9:32:57 PM

Most breathing citizens anyhow. If you happen to be an ex-felon, in most states it doesn't matter whether or not you pay taxes and are breathing. You still don't get to vote. And of course there are plenty of people put on the felon registry list who truly never were felons, but that doesn't seem to bother some.

Posted by: nm420 | Nov 10, 2004 11:02:56 AM

Interesting map. Of course, we really should give credence to the opinions of people in countries that have allowed the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We really should be more in line with the people that support the UN, the organization which was so effective during the Rwandan genocide--and which has been a model of integrity during its administration of the Iraq Oil for Food Program. Yup...interesting map.

Posted by: LP | Nov 10, 2004 2:30:51 PM

LP, the only reason that the Iraq Oil for Food Program even ran in the first place is that Halliburton, under Cheney, illegally supplied Saddam with $30M in oil refinery equipment during the 90s. Gotta love Cheney's flip-flopping on the sanctions - he helped create the sanctions as a member of Bush the Elder's (and amazingly, Wiser) administration, spoke out against them as a private citizen when it was to his personal benefit, then embraced them once again in the regime of Bush the Lesser. And he lied about it during the 2000 campaign, too, but the so-called "liberal media" let him off without a whimper.
Following your logic, and considering that the U.S. is the largest exporter and supporter of world-wide terrorism, maybe we shouldn't be allowed to vote in our own elections...

Posted by: skee | Nov 10, 2004 5:20:21 PM

skee, please expand upon your thesis that Halliburton is responsible for the alleged bribery and scandal surrounding the Iraq Oil for Food Program--is it such a powerful company that it forced UN administrators to either divert funds meant for long-suffering Iraqis or turn a blind eye when Saddam didn't spend the money the way it was intended?

Please expand upon "considering the U.S. is the largest exporter and supporter of world-wide terrorism"

Posted by: LP | Nov 10, 2004 9:27:12 PM

LP, there wouldn't have been much of an oil program in Iraq without the Halliburton equipment. Cheney helped enable the process, ignoring the sanctions that he helped put in place.

It's a fact that the U.S. government has installed and/or supported many of the most brutal dictators in recent history, trained their military in torture and terrorism, and consistently uses terrorism to effect U.S. policy abroad. "Terrorism" is defined (by the U.S. military, paraphrasing) as the use of force against civilians in order to push a political goal. From supporting death squads in Central America, to napalming Vietnam, to using cluster bombs and DU ammo in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, to targeting media offices in Iraq, and even using "terror alerts" in the U.S. prior to the election (that have now mysteriously been down-graded) - all of these are terrorist in nature. Terrorism is often the last resort for hopeless people, but state-sponsored terrorism is a way of life with some in our government.

Posted by: skee | Nov 11, 2004 11:13:36 AM

LP: Interesting you accuse other countries of supporting evil leaders but conveniently omit that our good old South supported Jefferson Davis (slavery), George Wallace (segregation), Andrew Jackson (genocide) - all under the banner of racial superiority. You need to be a bit more intellectually honest.

Posted by: Ryno | Nov 11, 2004 12:55:08 PM

Ryno...good points except I said allowed, not support...one could argue that Jefferson Davis--never the President of the US--was taken down by the US when the South lost the Civil War. George Wallace never made it to the White House, having won only 46(yes, that's 46 too many I whole heartedly agree) when he ran as an independent in 1968. I'll cede Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears to you even though it happened long before anyone living now would have been able to do anything about. Thankfully he only served two terms.

Posted by: LP | Nov 11, 2004 1:47:23 PM

Taiwan should be red. There's a saying among the Chinese community that if you are from Taiwan, vote Republican/Bush; if you are from China, vote Democrat/Kerry. Bush is seen as someone who is more willing to stand up to tyrants and bullies, while Kerry will likely compromise to gain politically. If a war breaks out over the Taiwan Strait, Bush is more likely to honor the Taiwan Relations Act to help defend it.

Posted by: George | Nov 13, 2004 12:10:37 PM

Much credit for the Bush election is being paid to morality. To use morality and the Bush Adm. in the same sentence is self-cancelling. As to the second reason given, his leadership on terrorism and in Iraq, the former has increased exponentially with his Iraq folly and his only strategy there is "staying the course" which is no strategy at all but simply admitting the US can't win nor retreat without serious damage to the Oval Office. For every Iraqi killed regardless of age, sex, politics or religion, 50 new anti-Americans are created. Multiply that times the estimated 100,000 casualties and you have a good portion of the entire population affected.

Posted by: James Barfield | Nov 14, 2004 3:20:41 PM

Ryno and Skee both make excellent points regarding the hypocrisy of U.S. foriegn policy and so-called "war on terrorism". As people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have often pointed out, by its own definition the United States government is the biggest sponsor, directly and indirectly, of terrorism in the world. This has been the case certainly since the end of WW2, with numerous other examples occuring before then (various Indian wars, the Mexican war, the Phillipene war). I never cease to be amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent people who have no knowledge of the atrocities for which our government is responsible. And once confronted with these facts they are so quick to either rationalze them in terms of protecting our "national interests" or pass them off as "liberal conspiracy theories". The fact is, most people have a hard time dealing with the truth about our nation's past(and by extension our current reality). They want to belive what they've been told in social studies class since the 1st grade; that America is the good guy, America represents freedom and equality for its own citizens, that America wants everyone else in the world to have freedom and democracy. While I belive that deep down this is probably true of most American CITIZENS, I know that with a few notable exceptions, this not true of the American GOVERNMENT. The inability to seperate those two things, along with a healthy dose of social programming by the conventional national history, is the primary reason that so many Americans don't seem to "get it" when progressive-minded people try to them the explain the logical and moral hypocrisy in fighting a "war on terrorism". It's why they can't seem to see the United States the same way that people in other countries see us.
As for the comment about not being able to change past events, that's not the point of discussing them. We will never be able to make meaningful, positive change in this country until we are willing to take an honest look at the mistakes we have made and learn from them. To continue to bury our collective heads in the sand of ignorance and denial only insures that we will repeat hose same mistakes.
- Mike Lorenz

Posted by: Mike | Nov 15, 2004 5:09:46 PM

Ryno and Skee both make excellent points regarding the hypocrisy of U.S. foriegn policy and so-called "war on terrorism". As people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have often pointed out, by its own definition the United States government is the biggest sponsor, directly and indirectly, of terrorism in the world. This has been the case certainly since the end of WW2, with numerous other examples occuring before then (various Indian wars, the Mexican war, the Phillipene war). I never cease to be amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent people who have no knowledge of the atrocities for which our government is responsible. And once confronted with these facts they are so quick to either rationalze them in terms of protecting our "national interests" or pass them off as "liberal conspiracy theories". The fact is, most people have a hard time dealing with the truth about our nation's past(and by extension our current reality). They want to belive what they've been told in social studies class since the 1st grade; that America is the good guy, America represents freedom and equality for its own citizens, that America wants everyone else in the world to have freedom and democracy. While I belive that deep down this is probably true of most American CITIZENS, I know that with a few notable exceptions, this not true of the American GOVERNMENT. The inability to seperate those two things, along with a healthy dose of social programming by the conventional national history, is the primary reason that so many Americans don't seem to "get it" when progressive-minded people try to them the explain the logical and moral hypocrisy in fighting a "war on terrorism". It's why they can't seem to see the United States the same way that people in other countries see us.
As for the comment about not being able to change past events, that's not the point of discussing them. We will never be able to make meaningful, positive change in this country until we are willing to take an honest look at the mistakes we have made and learn from them. To continue to bury our collective heads in the sand of ignorance and denial only insures that we will repeat hose same mistakes.
- Mike Lorenz

Posted by: Mike | Nov 15, 2004 5:12:45 PM

Sorry about the double post.
- Mike Lorenz

Posted by: Mike | Nov 15, 2004 5:50:45 PM

Mike, one thing you and many anti-Americans forget is that it's CITIZENS that become POLITICIANS. Think about it logically now. Do you really believe that once you become a politician you instantly become corrupt and forget all about your family and friends that have to live with the "devious" choices you plan to make for the rest of the country? I'm not saying that corruption doesn't exist... just no more than is inherent in human behavior. Whether it's in school administrations, small businesses, Girl Scout fundraisers, or your local neighborhood association.

You remind me of the people that used to say that doctors, or the government, or whatever, are hiding the cure for cancer. As if they would let their family and friends die of the disease for the sake of some vast conspiracy that they've been secretly brainwashed into joining.

Look around you, those American citizens that you so rightly characterize as wanting freedom for all ARE your government.

Anyway, it's just disgusting how anyone can consider America as the world's largest sponsor of terrorism. What lunatics can come up with such trash. That's why no one takes people like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn seriously, and why if the Democratic party aligns themselves with such people, they'll never get back into the White House.

I don't see people lining up to get OUT of America. They want IN. I'll believe that we're not the good guy when we see the immigration rate start to reverse. It's like it's the new "chic" to call America the "bad guy". What short memories they all have. It's not some cliche that we're the greates country in the world. We had to do something to get that way. And we didn't do it by murdering people in droves and exporting terrorism.

Everyone else wants to move here... enough said.

Posted by: Owsley | Nov 16, 2004 12:17:19 AM

Owsley:

Seven words into your diatribe and you engage in ad hominem attacks. Classic! I think it is anti-American to mislabel those people anti-American who want to learn from our muddled past. It is precisely your mentality that justified the internment of Americans (who happened to be Japanese) during WWII. It's not enough to say - "Wow! Look at us! Everyone wants to move here so that must mean we are good afterall." No one is claiming that the U.S. is the worst nation on earth - we're merely trying to point out that there is still a lot of room for improvement. We're also trying to show that painting the U.S. as good and the rest of the world as bad has no basis in reality ... we really need to start letting go of our deeply embedded hagiographies, but Mrs. Cheney and her ilk are fighting us every step of the way.

Posted by: Ryno | Nov 16, 2004 3:04:28 AM

owsley, you are quite clearly the product of a massive state sponsered amerikkkan brainwashing program.... go to any country in the world and hang out with ordinary folks.. most of us truly hate your government, your idiotic superiority complex and the arrogance of a huge amount of your population.
i think a whole lot more people than you think take zinn et al seriously, namely those who are on the recieving end of this terrorism.
face yourself dude, your country is shit. sad but true.

Posted by: melistus | Nov 16, 2004 10:34:31 AM

Owsley,

"Do you really believe that once you become a politician you instantly become corrupt and forget all about your family and friends that have to live with the "devious" choices you plan to make for the rest of the country?"

No, I don't think it's some magical, instantaneous transformation; and I don't think that most politicians are corrupt in the same way that you might consider a mafia don corrupt. They're not evil people (Cheney and Tom DeLay aside), they just know where their bread is buttered. In our current system, the process one must go through to work his or her way up the political ladder, especially on a national level, requires that person to either: A. Be a multi-millionaire (thus making them completely out of touch with the day-to-day lives of the vast majority of Americans); or B. Grovel for campaign contributions from any number of corporate and special interest gruops - liberal and conservative. In plainer terms, these contributions are legalized bribery. It is naive to think that the groups giving this money expect nothing in return, and any successful politician understands this. The debacle surrounding the Bush energy plan is a classic example of this. I don't think any citizen who gets into politics at a local level does so with the intent of becoming a corporate whore. It's simply a product of our current, broken system. The only way we can ever begin to restore integrity and true accountability to our public offices is to get rid of the corrupting influence of corporate and private campaign contributions.

"Anyway, it's just disgusting how anyone can consider America as the world's largest sponsor of terrorism. What lunatics can come up with such trash."

One definition of hypocrisy is to hold others to a standard that you yourself are not willing to meet. Like I said, I was merely holding our country to its own definition of the word. A 1984 Army Ranger handbook defined terrorism as the use or threat of violence against civilians for political or ideological purposes. When we drop bombs on Iraq (or Afghanistan or Kosovo, or Vietnam, etc, etc), we know there will be civilian casualties; the military calls it "collateral damage". We know we're going to kill civilians, there's no way around it. The military calculates "acceptable levels of colateral damage" when deciding where to drop bombs. The fact that we are even willing to consider an acceptable level puts us on the same page as the so-called terrorists. I say this not to excuse the terrible acts of groups like al-Queda, but rather to condemn our country's own actions as no better. By our own definition we are sponsoring terrorism. That, or we are complete hypocrits. The aforementioned Mr.Chomsky explains this idea much more eloquently than I on a DVD titled "Distorted Morality". Anyone interested can usually find it on ebay.

"It's not some cliche that we're the greates country in the world. We had to do something to get that way. And we didn't do it by murdering people in droves and exporting terrorism."

Tell that to the Native Americans.

The really sad part of all this is that I think our country could be so much more than we are right now. Our system of government, for all its flaws, has the potential to truely represents the thoughts and ideas of regular Americans. Our nation has the potential to be a force for positive change in the world, both at home and abroad. I find that incredibly encouraging. I look forward to a time when we will be able to cast off old ways of thinking, honestly see people in other countries as equals, and embrace our true national potential.

Posted by: Mike | Nov 16, 2004 4:03:20 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.