George W. Bush, the security threat to America and the states that support him

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I thought this was interesting and forgive me if this has been touched on before:

If you look at Slate's Election Scorecard Map, you will notice that among the states where Kerry has a solid lead:

California
Illinois
Washington DC
Maryland
Massachusetts
New York

I found it very telling that these states/district are also recent (ie, GWB's term) terrorist targets or probably highly likely to be targeted if another terrorist group attacks an American city, and even yet, are least persuaded by Bush's commitment to protect the American people from terrorism.

gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 18 October 2004 15:56 (fifteen years ago) link

with the exception of DC, these are the parts of the country that contribute the most revenue to the federal government with the worst return (on everything, not just Homeland Security spending).

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:03 (fifteen years ago) link

I would agree entirely but then there's those pesky Texas and Florida states.

gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:14 (fifteen years ago) link

actually they're exceptions, true, but not as big as ones as New Hampshire and Nevada, which is weird.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/taxingspendingupdate.html

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:17 (fifteen years ago) link

with the exception of DC

Excuse me?

I mean technically I guess a lot of us get our taxes back in the form of a steady paycheck, but that's basically where it ends as far as I can tell. The Josh and I were discussing a week or so back that DC should just do a citywide sit-in and not show up to work for a few days until we get voting congressional representation and something besides an annual pittance to support the city's own infrastructure. If they name the baseball team the Washington Senators I'm going to be pitching a fucking fit, BTW.

TOMBOT, Monday, 18 October 2004 16:18 (fifteen years ago) link

ahem:

Though not comparable as a state, the District of Columbia is by far the biggest beneficiary of federal spending, receiving $6.17 for every federal tax dollar—more than nine times the national average.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:20 (fifteen years ago) link

Can we just secede as the United Cities of America?

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:21 (fifteen years ago) link

Though not comparable as a state, the District of Columbia is by far the biggest beneficiary of federal spending, receiving $6.17 for every federal tax dollar—more than nine times the national average.

That number is probably correct, but most of that has got to be the federal government spending on itself. The DC local government has been complaining for years that the federal payments it gets are not enough to 1) offset revenue lost from to property that it can't tax or 2) supply expected services. Members of Congress may bitch about DC's third-world amenities, but it never occurs to them that they play a role in keeping the local government so enfeebled.

j.lu (j.lu), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:32 (fifteen years ago) link

Spencer, did you read David Owen's 'Green Manhattan' in the last New Yorker?

Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:37 (fifteen years ago) link

well yeah, you're right j.lu.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:38 (fifteen years ago) link

A lot of other cities are Democratic, but they are in Republican states. I guess it depends on the urban / rural / suburban balance in that particular state.

k3rry (dymaxia), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:41 (fifteen years ago) link

Are there any big cities that aren't democratic?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:42 (fifteen years ago) link

Houston.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:42 (fifteen years ago) link

('cities' meaning more than sprawl-conglomerations)

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:42 (fifteen years ago) link

Probably Dallas, too. Maybe Phoenix, maybe Atlanta.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:43 (fifteen years ago) link

'cities' meaning more than sprawl-conglomerations

hahaha, unlike New York, Chicago or Los Angeles? Please.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:43 (fifteen years ago) link

Denver is republican. is San Diego democratic?

It's too sprawly to be a city but Orange County has the highest concentration of republican voters in California.

gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:44 (fifteen years ago) link

Are there any big cities that aren't democratic?

Richmond, Virginia. And probably the capitals of many other red states.

j.lu (j.lu), Monday, 18 October 2004 16:44 (fifteen years ago) link

hahaha, unlike New York, Chicago or Los Angeles? Please.

Please, yourself.

Probably Dallas, too. Maybe Phoenix, maybe Atlanta.

Denver is republican. is San Diego democratic?

Richmond, Virginia. And probably the capitals of many other red states.

In 2000, Gore beat or destroyed (2-1 or more) Bush in Richmond County, VA, Denver County, CO and Clayton, DeKalb County, and Fulton Counties, GA.

San Diego, Dallas and Houston appear to be different stories, though Clinton came within a point and a half of Dole in Dallas and San Diego Counties in 96 when Perot pushed the GOP vote down to the mid-40s, and he won San Diego in 92 when all three counties went heavily for Perot.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 17:11 (fifteen years ago) link

how are New York, Chicago and Los Angeles not sprawl-conglomerations? Why the need to dismiss that so easily, and to make some claim that SD, Dallas and Houston are all that different?

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 17:17 (fifteen years ago) link

or put another way, how did New York evolve from a small Dutch village on the southern tip of an island into what it is today? Was any sprawl or conglomeration involved? Perhaps?

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 17:18 (fifteen years ago) link

Comparing NYC to L.A. in terms of sprawl is a bit odd.

Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 18 October 2004 17:23 (fifteen years ago) link

not if you include suburbs of NYC, which spread through NJ, NY and CT.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 17:27 (fifteen years ago) link

how are New York, Chicago and Los Angeles not sprawl-conglomerations? Why the need to dismiss that so easily, and to make some claim that SD, Dallas and Houston are all that different?

I don't know Chicago or San Diego very well, or Dallas at all, but my impression is that the first category of cities have a density, cores and transportation patterns that requires citizens to confront diversity in ways that the second category does not. While density alone might not tell the story (Dallas more urban than Trenton?), the figures show that NY metro is twice as dense as Dallas or Houston, LA nearly 3 times, San Diego closer to Texas than NY, and Chicago halfway between. Reduce things down to NYC or Manhattan and the effect is magnified.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 17:36 (fifteen years ago) link

Expcept the population density of Manhattan is unmatched anywhere in L.A. county.

Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 18 October 2004 17:36 (fifteen years ago) link

xpost, obv.

Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 18 October 2004 17:37 (fifteen years ago) link

or anywhere in Cook County, I'd guess too, but NYC != solely Manhattan.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 17:41 (fifteen years ago) link

Read the 10/18 issue of the New Yorker with the article I mentioned above.

Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 18 October 2004 17:43 (fifteen years ago) link

I did! Again, NYC != solely Manhattan.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 17:44 (fifteen years ago) link

or put another way, how did New York evolve from a small Dutch village on the southern tip of an island into what it is today? Was any sprawl or conglomeration involved? Perhaps?

The grid (the original document) and the annexation of the boroughs helped make it distinctive and to some are the opposite of 'sprawl'.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:03 (fifteen years ago) link

people living in states where Kerry has a solid lead should organize themselves to pay a visit to people living in swing states, just to tell em they love em, on their dime if they can help it. A similar strategy apparently worked in Canada.

Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:29 (fifteen years ago) link

There are a lot of strategies like that in place already, with groups like ACT and DFA. I was up in Wisconsin this weekend with a large group of Chicagoans.

k3rry (dymaxia), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:33 (fifteen years ago) link

It's hard work to try to love them as best as we can.

x-post.

Nemo (JND), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:33 (fifteen years ago) link

That density chart runs contrary to gabbneb's argument because it is measuring megapoli* and not "cities".

*by definition = a sprawl/conglomeration. It would be much more interesting if it measured straight density according to city limits, not by arbitrary boundaries.

gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:36 (fifteen years ago) link

"metropolitan area" /= "sprawl," necessarily

and city limits are arbitrary boundaries

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:37 (fifteen years ago) link

It's hard work to try to love them as best as we can.

Are you talking http://fthevote.com/? I can see why that might be exhausting.
;^}

j.lu (j.lu), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:39 (fifteen years ago) link

Haha. I was actually referencing Bush's claim in the first debate that "it's hard work to love [the war widow he mentioned earlier] as best as I can." But maybe he was talking about fthevote, too?

Nemo (JND), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:44 (fifteen years ago) link

haha, the first google result for megapoli:

Megapoli:
Megapoli are huge sprawling conglomerations of housing, commercial interests and sundry support and entertainment facilities.

I think that geography/topography are the primary challenges to sprawl (cf, hong kong, macau, singapore). you may consider them arbitrary, but at the very least city limits at least provide a consistent measure of fixed population growth. you can not say the same for megapoli.

gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:46 (fifteen years ago) link

Here's city population - New York is almost twice as dense as Chicago, Chicago is almost twice as dense as LA, LA is more than twice as dense as San Diego, and San Diego is denser than Houston or Dallas.

Cities in the NY/Chicago density class - SF, Philly, DC, Balto, Miami, Cleveland, Seattle, Oakland, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Rochester, and many of the cities in these cities' metro areas

Cities in the Texas density class - Phoenix, Denver, Atlanta, Kansas City, New Orleans, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Vegas, Nashville, Memphis, Albuquerque, OKC, Richmond, Tulsa, Omaha, Wichita, Tampa, Birmingham, Baton Rouge, etc.

There seems to be a clear political difference here.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:55 (fifteen years ago) link

I am bemused at gabbneb's implication that annexation is somehow different from conglomeration.

conglomerate

intransitive senses : to gather into a mass or coherent whole
transitive senses : ACCUMULATE

annex

1 : to attach as a quality, consequence, or condition
2 archaic : to join together materially : UNITE
3 : to add to something earlier, larger, or more important
4 : to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state
5 : to obtain or take for oneself

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:56 (fifteen years ago) link

annexation in the sense I used it refers to a legal process, conglomeration in the sense I used it does not

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 18:59 (fifteen years ago) link

so "Republican" cities are lawless?

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 19:04 (fifteen years ago) link

it's also interesting to look on that list at cities in which the density is between that of San Diego and twice its number - 3200-6400. Take the top 100 by population - if you remove the large number of California cities, you're left with Columbus, Portland, Omaha, St. Louis, St. Paul, Cincinnati, Toledo, Louisville, St. Pete, Norfolk, Akron, Madison, Grand Rapids, Richmond, Tacoma. 13 of the 15 are located in arguable swing states, and 4 of 15 are in the biggest swing state of them all.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 19:08 (fifteen years ago) link

Gabbneb, i don't think you're reading the Population Density correctly.

New York is almost twice as dense as Chicago

New York is almost 5X as dense as Chicago!

gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 18 October 2004 19:09 (fifteen years ago) link

Nevermind, I am looking at something else.

gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 18 October 2004 19:12 (fifteen years ago) link

if you take cities with population over 100,000, by the same rules, 28 of 35 in this density range are in swing states, with a large number in Michigan

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 19:13 (fifteen years ago) link

Gabbneb, you are clearly having a whale of a time watching the little numbers dance. Keep it up!

suzy (suzy), Monday, 18 October 2004 19:19 (fifteen years ago) link

if you go down to 50K, it's 72 of 112, or 2/3 are in 13 (and mostly in 10) swing states

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 19:23 (fifteen years ago) link

oh, and hstencil is right - Phoenix is Republican

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 18 October 2004 19:31 (fifteen years ago) link

I demand a graph of some kind. A pie chart if possible.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Monday, 18 October 2004 19:32 (fifteen years ago) link

I'm sure this has been linked already, but this site is a very good way to waste time on electoral number crunching.

Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 20:35 (fifteen years ago) link

Like the Front National doing so well in Alsace where they have the lowest immigrant per capita level in almost all of France.

Not even Germans (says he who dated a German from Alsace!)??

gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 20:38 (fifteen years ago) link

WTF do blue/red states have to do with not trusting the government?

n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 20:39 (fifteen years ago) link

a lot of voters in these areas that aren't "targets" (meaning targets for the kind of terrorism we're all talking about in this election) talk very strongly of a feeling of insecurity and fear

the argument i'm advancing here is that what people talk about, and how they do it or not do it, is not reflective of how they feel, comparatively. is Bush more religious than Kerry because he talks about it more?

well regardless I think gabbneb is full of shit. All over this thread.

I'd like to know why.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 20:44 (fifteen years ago) link

Dave B., I sadly go there every morning.

regarding American Jewry:

http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0309/11/a09-268491.htm

or better, http://www.uja.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=60346, or

http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/PressReleases.asp?did=602 (only synagogues)

Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 20:46 (fifteen years ago) link

Not even Germans (says he who dated a German from Alsace!)??

A. Yes, not even Germans; and

B. Germans are Europeans, 'White', and from a country with a very Christian background and as such, would not likely be considered as immigrés like Maghrebins or Sub-Sahrans would.

Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 20:49 (fifteen years ago) link

The site Dave B links shows Kerry with a lead in Florida... that's news to me.

xpost: Oh, I thought immigrant = foreign national. Lo siento muchisimo.

gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 20:50 (fifteen years ago) link

Estimated Jewish population, and percentage, by State

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 20:54 (fifteen years ago) link

It's interesting to note that the South does have a bigger Jewish population than the Midwest.

Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 20:56 (fifteen years ago) link

Por nada Don Gygax,

But Alsace has a lower absolute immigrant population (in the real sense of foreign nationals) than many, many other parts of France.

Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 20:59 (fifteen years ago) link

if you follow the UJA link, you'll see that the South has a bigger population than the Midwest, 3-2

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 21:00 (fifteen years ago) link

Ahem. *Wrinkles brow* Isn't that what I said?

Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 21:06 (fifteen years ago) link

The south is skewed by Florida, the 3rd highest Jewish populated state.

gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 21:10 (fifteen years ago) link

you're saying that a greater percentage of Jews live in "the South" than in "the Midwest." I'm saying a greater percentage of the general population lives in "the South" than in "the Midwest." Your point is somewhat well-taken in that the South-Midwest disparity is slightly greater among Jews than among the general population, but this reflects only that "the South" includes Florida.

(xpost)

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 21:10 (fifteen years ago) link

I thought you might mean that gabbneb.

Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 21:11 (fifteen years ago) link

People in big cities = not giving a shit.

So the choice to accept greater risk along with the reward of not uprooting your life to live outside a big city = not giving a shit?

If you're a commercial air traveler do you not give a shit?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 21:17 (fifteen years ago) link

um gabbneb the modern milita movement tends to be rooted in michigan which we better hope is still a blue state. other than that feel free to stereotype away, with little to back it cept some odd notion of what the flyover states are like. nabisco's got your back.

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 00:59 (fifteen years ago) link

in the UP, which is significantly more red state than Detroit or Ann Arbor. and in Idaho

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 01:03 (fifteen years ago) link

and kaczynski was from chicago and taught at berkely, both bastions of 'red statism'

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 01:04 (fifteen years ago) link

... before he retreated to a hut in the woods where he wasn't heard from again (other than via terrorism and letters) for years

Am I stereotyping 'flyover states' by pointing to their consistent votes for the party that purports to favor limited government in the face of a party that purportedly would balloon it?

Do I have to be stereotyping the South somehow when I know that 1/3 of American Jews live in the NY metro area (also home to more Jews than the three largest cities in Israel combined)? Given that statistic, is there any way that a single small city could compare?

But if I need to refer to evidence, fine - this link suggests that there are at least about 120 Jews in Dothan, population more than 57,000. That's two-tenths of a percent. Now, let's look at New York. The Jewish population of the city is about 970,000, which is about 12%, or 60 times the per capita population of Dothan. The Manhattan population is about 245,000, which is about 16%, or 80 times the per capita population of Dothan.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 01:05 (fifteen years ago) link

and I'm not sure what Ted Kaczynski has to do with limited government or the militia movement.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 01:06 (fifteen years ago) link

your sociology's as facile as david brooks or momus and rooted in the same gleeful ignorance and backhanded snobbery.

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 01:16 (fifteen years ago) link

care to explain?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 01:20 (fifteen years ago) link

your sociology's as facile as david brooks or momus and rooted in the same gleeful ignorance and backhanded snobbery.

Without judging the content of this I must say it's a delicious bit of visciousness. Equating Brooks and Momus is particularly awesome and referring to ignorance as gleeful, like a conspicuously cheery volunteer for a suicide mission is grebt.

Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 01:25 (fifteen years ago) link

gleeful ignorance

i hope i'm clear that i'm here to have a better understanding of things and would like to be corrected if the understanding I lay out is wrong. but insults and dismissals are not corrections.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 01:33 (fifteen years ago) link

Yeah, care to explain? David Brooks or Momus - let the party begin. Momus, I don't know you, but please explain your fealty for or against whatever David Brooks would say.

aimurchie, Wednesday, 20 October 2004 01:34 (fifteen years ago) link

women be shopping version 10359.2


also the notion that any of these states - California
Illinois
Washington DC
Maryland
Massachusetts
New York
- being kerry states is based on their failure to be persuaded of "Bush's commitment to protect the American people from terrorism" is absurd; these are bedrock democratic states ("blue states": brooks, < insert whatever halfbaked "clever" halfborrowed term here > : momus). also: if maryland's in here, where's virginia? and atlanta's got more mention al qaeda traffic than boston by a mile so where's a georgia? (also the notion of atlanta being a republican city will be laughable to anyone remotely familiar with it)(a group which doesn't include to be sure brooks, momus, or, apparently, proudly, gabbneb). more to the point: where's nevada? las vegas has received more repeated mentions/threats than any american city besides nyc, dc, and maybe san fran and bush barely won it in 2000 so if gabbneb's theory hold ANY weight and likelihood of being the target of an al qaeda attack (as opposed to terrorist attack)(cuz historically, outside of al qaeda attacks, red states have stood a far greater likelihood of suffering a terrorist attack than blue states) shouldn't kerry have a solid lead in nevada? his theory might - might - rank as a halfway worth thinking about if he didn't use states that would be solidly in kerry's column regardless of terrorism or bush's ability or perceived ability to defend against it. a rightwing spin on it would be that states that are more likely to be attacked would be more likely to fear and hence flee terrorism's challenge and therefore would obviously support kerry, the candidate of surrender. a rightwinger could even bring red staters disproportionately comprising the military into it by saying that red staters, not debilitated by fear of attack, are afforded the turpitude to stand up to terrorists and risk their lives (unneccesarily - since they have no reason to fear losing their own lives in a terrorist attack)(i can't spell unneccessarily) and therefore would obviously support bush, the candidate who wants to fight terrorists. for the cherry on the sundae this rightwing columnist could even top it off by stating that red staters, since their the ones who fight in wars, would naturally support the candidate who supports the troops and obviously that's not going to be the guy who was going to vote for the $87 billion before he voted against, etc. etc, insert anecdote about a diner in oklahoma in here somewhere. all of these arguments are bullshit.

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:21 (fifteen years ago) link

aimurchie momus doesn't know who david brooks is

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:22 (fifteen years ago) link

seriously this is the same sort of 'arrive at conclusion first and then cherrypick data to back up conclusion' logic that bushco used with iraq.

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:30 (fifteen years ago) link

also the notion of atlanta being a republican city will be laughable to anyone remotely familiar with it)(a group which doesn't include to be sure brooks, momus, or, apparently, proudly, gabbneb

please read my comments on this thread more carefully Blount - I said the exact opposite

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:35 (fifteen years ago) link

and if you've read my ILX posts generally, surely it's clear that i would like to be as familiar as possible with every corner of the country?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:36 (fifteen years ago) link

actually i remembered momus' term - "nipple states". haw. haw.

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:39 (fifteen years ago) link

if you want your suspicions confirmed, my familiarity with Atlanta goes no further than A Man in Full and Outkast, as far as I can remember

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:41 (fifteen years ago) link

ack - a man in full! my grandma hated that book!

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:43 (fifteen years ago) link

what you need to know about atlanta: parties don't stop til eight in the morning

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:47 (fifteen years ago) link

if maryland's in here, where's virginia? where's nevada? las vegas has received more repeated mentions/threats than any american city besides nyc, dc, and maybe san fran

LA and Miami more than San Fran, I thought. Vegas, Arlington and Alexandria did go for Gore in 2000, though I dunno why we're using pre-9/11 votes to measure concern about terrorism.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:57 (fifteen years ago) link

women be shopping version 10359.2

The fact that i read the entire thing and thought about it means I get to talk about Momus.

aimurchie, Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:58 (fifteen years ago) link

what you need to know about atlanta: parties don't stop til eight in the morning

That's what i need to know about Chicago, too! I mean, where the fuck are *those* parties? Maps would be appreciated.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:58 (fifteen years ago) link

in that one link of estimated Jewish population by state that gabbneb provided, there are 300 more Jewish people (estimated, of course) in Maine than in Alabama. Is Maine that much more hospitable to Jews? I dunno, but I had a really fun time at a bar mitzvah in Bangor four years ago.

Also, a point that I didn't get to make earlier (I had some errands to run): Timothy McVeigh was a Gulf War I vet.

Also, another point: the most significant acts of domestic terrorism I can think of other than Oklahoma City: D.C. Sniper and anthrax attacks. Both of which took place in urban and suburban settings. I guess you could throw in the Ohio sniper too, but then we'd have to really talk about suburban and rural areas and not just pay some sort of Brooksian lip-service to them.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:25 (fifteen years ago) link

i'd be interested in seeing which terrorist organization has killed the most americans - al qaeda or the kkk.

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:31 (fifteen years ago) link

Is Maine that much more hospitable to Jews?

For one thing, I imagine that there are a lot more New Yorkers in Maine (where many in the Boston-to-DC-metroplex retire or reside for part of the year) than there are in Alabama. places where Jews are found in fewer numbers aren't necessarily inhospitable to them, of course (and i wasn't saying any such thing, if that wasn't clear). but minority status and the desire for/requirement of a community for religious observance are going to discourage Jews from moving to places where there aren't many Jews.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:43 (fifteen years ago) link

OR THE ANTI ABORTION SNIPERS.

aimurchie, Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:44 (fifteen years ago) link

a sniper somewhere is a threat to anyone everywhere.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:50 (fifteen years ago) link

gabbneb you're getting perilously close to "Hymietown" territory.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:50 (fifteen years ago) link

what are you talking about?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:55 (fifteen years ago) link

you're getting perilously close to "Hymietown" territory

Is that a place now? What rights do they give its citizens? I may want to move there.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 04:06 (fifteen years ago) link

BTW, Jon, that was unnecessary, and fuck you. Unless there's some reason for you to especially hate this thread, there's no goddamn reason for that.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 04:07 (fifteen years ago) link

listen to yourselves

sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 04:10 (fifteen years ago) link

Can I just interject here -- in sort of an "I'm not gabbneb" maneuver -- that all I was really talking about, above, was the particular rhetoric of party support when it comes to this issue? Which is to say, the level of how vocal people in various places are about the issue, and how they appear to voice and argue from those concerns? We seem to have spiraled off into some point-scoring netherworld wherein hstencil, for instance (sorry stencil, just an example) has gone from saying "but the last attack was in OKCity" to "actually homegrown terrorists hit big cities too." Personally I'm aware of both of those things, and I'm also aware of the Michigan Militia, because I used to have to load huge slabs of beef onto the back of their camo trucks when I worked at a northern-Michigan (ring finger, second knuckle) grocery store. I remain interested in why people in non-"target" areas seem sometimes to be stronger in voicing their fears of attack than people in "target" areas, and while I'm sure the psychology discussed above plays into it, and while I'm sure on some level it's just a line that often derives from having a prexisting support for and belief in the administration, it still strikes me as somewhat fascinating. Anyway.

nabiscothingy, Friday, 22 October 2004 01:52 (fourteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.