Blue State Madness (Literally?)

[Adam's Apple]

Blue State Madness
By Richard Baehr, theamericanthinker.com
January 15th, 2005

Steve Sailer and others have developed lists of factors that appear to correlate fairly strongly with voting patterns in the most recent Presidential election and prior ones (white birth rates, among them). The February 2005 edition of Chicago Magazine (not yet online at www. chicagomagazine.com) offers a new insight.

The tens states (including the District of Columbia ) with the highest ratio of psychologists per 100,000 residents were, with the exception of Colorado, all blue states which supported John Kerry (D.C, Vermont, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Colorado, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, in rank order from one to ten). The ten states with the lowest ratio of psychologists per 100,000 residents, all were red states supporting Bush (Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Nevada, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky, Indiana). Louisiana with the lowest ratio is listed first.

Economists will tell you that the number of psychologists per 100,000 residents is related to the percentage of the population who make use of their services. Psychologists, after all, do not work for free. Are there a higher percentage of people with mental health problems in blue states than red states? The listed red states have much higher regular church attendance ratios, by and large, than the listed blue states. Could religious affiliation be a factor in preserving mental health? Will Michael Newdow sue me for suggesting this?

Undoubtedly, some sociologists would proffer that the level of psychologists per 100,000 in a state is really a factor of income, and the top ten states in this ranking tend to be higher per capital income states than the bottom ten. But the per capital incomes for the top ten states with high psychologists per 100,000 residents are on average perhaps 1.5 times the per capital incomes for the bottom ten, and the psychologists per 100,000 ratio is almost 4 times as high for the top ten states as compared to the bottom ten, even excluding D.C, which is in another orbit entirely with a ratio that is more than twice as high as that in any state. Something other than income differential is going on here.

The well publicized story of angry and unhappy Kerry supporters in Florida receiving treatment for the newly named “post-election distress syndrome” suggests that even in the red states, the patients who need mental health treatment may be disproportionately blue.

 

[Avatar4321]

Could religious affiliation be a factor in preserving mental health? Will Michael Newdow sue me for suggesting this?

Hehe. good post

 

[hylandrdet]

Blue State Madness
By Richard Baehr, theamericanthinker.com
January 15th, 2005

Steve Sailer and others have developed lists of factors that appear to correlate fairly strongly with voting patterns in the most recent Presidential election and prior ones (white birth rates, among them). The February 2005 edition of Chicago Magazine (not yet online at www. chicagomagazine.com) offers a new insight.

The tens states (including the District of Columbia ) with the highest ratio of psychologists per 100,000 residents were, with the exception of Colorado, all blue states which supported John Kerry (D.C, Vermont, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Colorado, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, in rank order from one to ten). The ten states with the lowest ratio of psychologists per 100,000 residents, all were red states supporting Bush (Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Nevada, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky, Indiana). Louisiana with the lowest ratio is listed first.

Economists will tell you that the number of psychologists per 100,000 residents is related to the percentage of the population who make use of their services. Psychologists, after all, do not work for free. Are there a higher percentage of people with mental health problems in blue states than red states? The listed red states have much higher regular church attendance ratios, by and large, than the listed blue states. Could religious affiliation be a factor in preserving mental health? Will Michael Newdow sue me for suggesting this?

Undoubtedly, some sociologists would proffer that the level of psychologists per 100,000 in a state is really a factor of income, and the top ten states in this ranking tend to be higher per capital income states than the bottom ten. But the per capital incomes for the top ten states with high psychologists per 100,000 residents are on average perhaps 1.5 times the per capital incomes for the bottom ten, and the psychologists per 100,000 ratio is almost 4 times as high for the top ten states as compared to the bottom ten, even excluding D.C, which is in another orbit entirely with a ratio that is more than twice as high as that in any state. Something other than income differential is going on here.

The well publicized story of angry and unhappy Kerry supporters in Florida receiving treatment for the newly named “post-election distress syndrome” suggests that even in the red states, the patients who need mental health treatment may be disproportionately blue.

I agree, the blue voters do need therapy; because this reelection made no sense; the red voters don't need therapy, because they're brainwashed; therapy won't help them.

 

[dilloduck]

I agree, the blue voters do need therapy; because this reelection made no sense; the red voters don't need therapy, because they're brainwashed; therapy won't help them.

oh i'll bite----how and by whom?

 

[theim]

oh i'll bite----how and by whom?

The CIA's prototype Republican-O-Matic brainwash ray of course. Those bastards, that must be it. I mean, how can anyone logically come to the conclusions that sky high taxes lead don't lead to wealth, that pulling out of Iraq won't lead to victory, having loads of important decisions made by unelected, unaccountable judges might be a bad thing, and that perhaps that accidental bump you got from the doctor hitting you too hard for your reflex test was not worth a $10,000,000 settlement without being hit by a CIA brainwash ray? I mean, jeez.

 

[dilloduck]

The CIA's prototype Republican-O-Matic brainwash ray of course. Those bastards, that must be it. I mean, how can anyone logically come to the conclusions that sky high taxes lead don't lead to wealth, that pulling out of Iraq won't lead to victory, having loads of important decisions made by unelected, unaccountable judges might be a bad thing, and that perhaps that accidental bump you got from the doctor hitting you too hard for your reflex test was not worth a $10,000,000 settlement without being hit by a CIA brainwash ray? I mean, jeez.

DAMN--so it's TRUE !! :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[MtnBiker]

Those tricky psychologists must be the only ones that have the know how to deflect that CIA brainwashing ray.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

hylanret---make sure you get fitted for your foil hat----with as many people in those blue states as there are, there may be a shortage, due to the fact these people have inflated egos, and it usually shows up as a large head size.

 

[MtnBiker]

 

[hylandrdet]

oh i'll bite----how and by whom?

OK, I'll bite too...

You're the president of the United States; you just saw two planes smash into two skyscrapers, killing four thousand people. You're given information that an islamic group in Afghanistan is responsible. There is evidence of Saudi, Syrian, and Iranian participation; meanwhile, there is no evidence of cooperation coming from Iraq, yet you're under political pressure to declare war on Iraq.

Talk to me as if you're the President of the United States; how and by whom, the rush to war came from? Second, what would you had done different?

 

[MtnBiker]

I think you (hylandrdet) should answer Dilloduck's question before he answers yours.

 

[Gem]

OK, I'll bite too...

You're the president of the United States; you just saw two planes smash into two skyscrapers, killing four thousand people. You're given information that an islamic group in Afghanistan is responsible. There is evidence of Saudi, Syrian, and Iranian participation; meanwhile, there is no evidence of cooperation coming from Iraq, yet you're under political pressure to declare war on Iraq.

Talk to me as if you're the President of the United States; how and by whom, the rush to war came from? Second, what would you had done different?

I'll take a stab at this one. [Clears throught and tries best George W. Bush impression]

We have just lived through the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history. Thousands of US citizens have died and its my fault, it was on my watch. How did this happen?

It happened because we were complacent, we let the 'bad guys' conspire and train all around us, sometimes in our own country. People are going to be scrambling to find out why we let this happen...but I'm more worried about not letting it happen again.

What do we know? We know that most of the people were Saudis...ok, thats bad. The US has a long time working relationship with Saudi Arabia, we've been working with them for years, and we've overlooked the fact that they've been playing both sides: catering to both the US and the Islamic Fundamentalists in their own country. We are fairly sure that the Saudis involved were the Fundamentalists...not working for the Saudi gov't...so we aren't going to invade our "allies," rather we will pull heavy pressure on them (perhaps threaten to stop giving them the military supplies we have been selling them) to crack down on terrorists in their own nation...that way, we don't have to get involved there.

Iran is a mess, and like North Korea, needs to be dealt with diplomatically if it will still work, I really don't want to have to go to war with either of them if diplomatic options still work...the UN is heavily involved in Iran and seem to be making some progress...I think we'll just keep working the diplomatic options and seeing if they bear fruit. Syria, I am told...can be dealt with later as well...

No, what I'm really concerned with is stopping the next attack. It isn't going to be another attack with planes, thank God...my advisors have said that is highly unlikely...the passengers in the plane would beat to death anyone who stood up on a plane and tried something within three seconds, hehe.

No, the Pentagon has told me that the next threat is going to be something biological or chemical someplace truly nasty...like a mall, or a school.

Where would a group of people with seemingly unlimited funds get biological or chemical weapons? Hmmm......

What about Iraq? Lets make a list of everything i know about Iraq:

- sandy
- very hot
- sounds like you're saying "A Rock"
- run by the guy who tried to kill Dad

- Great Britain, Germany, Russia, France, Australia, and the UN believe strongly that Saddam has WMD and is trying to aquire more and worse ones

- During the first Gulf War Dad received messages from surrounding nations saying that our troops would probably face chemical attack if we invaded

- During the first Gulf War we found lots and lots of Iraqi soldiers equipped with gas masks and other equipment for surviving attacks like that and also, we found that many of them were innoculated against the small pox virus. (Now, I know that we don't give that innoculation out anymore because we have stamped out small pox in the US...so maybe they all had the innoculation because Saddam knew that if he used small pox against our young men and women fighting, it would be a highly effective way to kill lots and lots of them...)

- Saddam killed over a million of his own people using WMD

- Saddam has harbored known terrorists, giving them jobs and homes in Baghdad. If he's willing to give them safe harbor, jobs, money, homes...is he willing to give them WMD?

- The cease-fire agreement we made with Iraq has been violated again and again and again...it makes us look weak and ineffectual among the Islamic Fundamentalist community...in fact, we know that Saddam (any many, many people in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east) considers himself the victor of the first Gulf War because he survived...which is all that is valued...if we kill him, or capture him he loses...but by leaving him in power Dad made it seem like we were afraid to go and get him...which gave him more power and influence. If we go in...we have to get him.

- We know that the UN isn't being helpful...particularly France, Germany, Russia, and China...but we ALSO know that France, Russia, and China were ALL probably selling Iraq illegal materials even though the UN forbids it...so of course they wouldn't want to let that be found out publically...we also know that Schroeder in Germany ran his election on a very firm "I won't take Germany to war again." platform...to take the nation to war would be devestating for his political aspirations...so we can probably count on little support from him...not to mention that Chirac has been threatening all of the EU nations, especially the small ones, claiming it will cut off trade with them if they support us....GOD, I hate that guy!!!

- The Brits claim he was trying to buy yellow cake (note: NOT A DESSERT!) to build nukes...

- My Dad, and even Clinton, had firm policies that Saddam needed to be removed because we was dangerous and evil.

- The people of Iraq are starving, sick, oppressed...

Ok, theres more, but my hand is tired...so here we go....

I'm the President of the United States of America after the worst terrorist attack in history...I know that there are many people from many different nations involved...but I know that we can deal with different nations differently...

What nation has a history of violence against us, would love to see us harmed, has dealt with terrorists in the past, isn't strong enough to attack us itself...but wouldn't be against selling its weapons to terrorists, has shown no hesitation towards using WMD against people, and looks like they have or are quite capable of making WMD now....

People are already asking why I didn't do more to stop 9-11....can I risk waiting on Iraq while we invade Afganistan looking for Osama? Saddam will more than likely know that we would be interested in dealing with him next, especially after 9-11 (and especially since we know that French UN Ambassadors have been calling Iraqi officials giving them updates on whats going on regarding our interest in Iraq)...what would Saddam do, knowing that we were coming for him??? Would he be MORE likely to sell WMD to terrorists BEFORE we invaded...in hopes of staving off the war with his country?

Can I risk NOT acting? What if Saddam sells small pox to a terrorist...what if they release it in the mall of America the day after Thanksgiving? Everyone in that mall born after the early 1970's would die and it would spread. It would be a disaster that would make 9-11 look like a good day.

I can't let that happen...I just can't. I have to go into Iraq, get rid of that madman...help those people stabalize the country so they are more interested in becoming a strong, healthy nation rather than interested in selling weapons to dangerous men...stop terrorists from getting their hands on WMD that could hurt Americans.

(Cough...back to Gem voice)

I think that all of these things and more went through Bush's head, Hylandrnet. There was no rush to war...there was only the actions of a country that felt Iraq was a threat and it couldnt wait.

What went wrong?

Intel was off...either Saddam didn't have WMD or we gave him too much time to move them to Syria...in which case they are still a threat, and that was a big mistake....however we had to make sure we dealt with all the proper channels at the UN (members of who were relaying all of that info back to Saddam), we needed to give the media ample time to get out...we needed to prepare for war...these things may have given Saddam time to move things around.

However, while believing faulty intel is a mistake, it is not a lie. the major nations of the world believed this intelligence...the argument was on how to deal with it.

Another mistake? We got to Baghdad too quickly, and didn't know what to do once we got there. We didn't plan on what to do when the military didn't stand there and fight...and we thought that letting them go was a good idea....it wasnt', it was one of the biggest blunders of this war.

But I'll tell ya something, Hylandrdet..go to your library or nearest Barnes and Noble...ask for books about "War Blunders." Because every nation ever at war has made them...no one can plan a war perfectly...mistakes are going to be made...it doesn't mean the war shouldn't have been fought.

Hmm...what other mistakes....continually negotiating with terrorists in street fighting situations rather than pulvarizing them...it made us look weak...allowing the UN to come in then run out and bad mouth us about it after they refused to follow security procedures (fool me once shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me). Allowing the media to get away with only displaying the negative of the war, not the postive...thats a big mistake...half the nation ignoring the fact that democrats and republicans BOTH voted for this war...not just one man...BIG MISTAKE.

I could go on...its a messy war. But I think I've answered your question...

 

[MtnBiker]

oh i'll bite----how and by whom?

Do you think he will answer with out replying with a question?

 

[hylandrdet]

I'll take a stab at this one. [Clears throught and tries best George W. Bush impression]

We have just lived through the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history. Thousands of US citizens have died and its my fault, it was on my watch. How did this happen?

It happened because we were complacent, we let the 'bad guys' conspire and train all around us, sometimes in our own country. People are going to be scrambling to find out why we let this happen...but I'm more worried about not letting it happen again.

What do we know? We know that most of the people were Saudis...ok, thats bad. The US has a long time working relationship with Saudi Arabia, we've been working with them for years, and we've overlooked the fact that they've been playing both sides: catering to both the US and the Islamic Fundamentalists in their own country. We are fairly sure that the Saudis involved were the Fundamentalists...not working for the Saudi gov't...so we aren't going to invade our "allies," rather we will pull heavy pressure on them (perhaps threaten to stop giving them the military supplies we have been selling them) to crack down on terrorists in their own nation...that way, we don't have to get involved there.

Iran is a mess, and like North Korea, needs to be dealt with diplomatically if it will still work, I really don't want to have to go to war with either of them if diplomatic options still work...the UN is heavily involved in Iran and seem to be making some progress...I think we'll just keep working the diplomatic options and seeing if they bear fruit. Syria, I am told...can be dealt with later as well...

No, what I'm really concerned with is stopping the next attack. It isn't going to be another attack with planes, thank God...my advisors have said that is highly unlikely...the passengers in the plane would beat to death anyone who stood up on a plane and tried something within three seconds, hehe.

No, the Pentagon has told me that the next threat is going to be something biological or chemical someplace truly nasty...like a mall, or a school.

Where would a group of people with seemingly unlimited funds get biological or chemical weapons? Hmmm......

What about Iraq? Lets make a list of everything i know about Iraq:

- sandy
- very hot
- sounds like you're saying "A Rock"
- run by the guy who tried to kill Dad

- Great Britain, Germany, Russia, France, Australia, and the UN believe strongly that Saddam has WMD and is trying to aquire more and worse ones

- During the first Gulf War Dad received messages from surrounding nations saying that our troops would probably face chemical attack if we invaded

- During the first Gulf War we found lots and lots of Iraqi soldiers equipped with gas masks and other equipment for surviving attacks like that and also, we found that many of them were innoculated against the small pox virus. (Now, I know that we don't give that innoculation out anymore because we have stamped out small pox in the US...so maybe they all had the innoculation because Saddam knew that if he used small pox against our young men and women fighting, it would be a highly effective way to kill lots and lots of them...)

- Saddam killed over a million of his own people using WMD

- Saddam has harbored known terrorists, giving them jobs and homes in Baghdad. If he's willing to give them safe harbor, jobs, money, homes...is he willing to give them WMD?

- The cease-fire agreement we made with Iraq has been violated again and again and again...it makes us look weak and ineffectual among the Islamic Fundamentalist community...in fact, we know that Saddam (any many, many people in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east) considers himself the victor of the first Gulf War because he survived...which is all that is valued...if we kill him, or capture him he loses...but by leaving him in power Dad made it seem like we were afraid to go and get him...which gave him more power and influence. If we go in...we have to get him.

- We know that the UN isn't being helpful...particularly France, Germany, Russia, and China...but we ALSO know that France, Russia, and China were ALL probably selling Iraq illegal materials even though the UN forbids it...so of course they wouldn't want to let that be found out publically...we also know that Schroeder in Germany ran his election on a very firm "I won't take Germany to war again." platform...to take the nation to war would be devestating for his political aspirations...so we can probably count on little support from him...not to mention that Chirac has been threatening all of the EU nations, especially the small ones, claiming it will cut off trade with them if they support us....GOD, I hate that guy!!!

- The Brits claim he was trying to buy yellow cake (note: NOT A DESSERT!) to build nukes...

- My Dad, and even Clinton, had firm policies that Saddam needed to be removed because we was dangerous and evil.

- The people of Iraq are starving, sick, oppressed...

Ok, theres more, but my hand is tired...so here we go....

I'm the President of the United States of America after the worst terrorist attack in history...I know that there are many people from many different nations involved...but I know that we can deal with different nations differently...

What nation has a history of violence against us, would love to see us harmed, has dealt with terrorists in the past, isn't strong enough to attack us itself...but wouldn't be against selling its weapons to terrorists, has shown no hesitation towards using WMD against people, and looks like they have or are quite capable of making WMD now....

People are already asking why I didn't do more to stop 9-11....can I risk waiting on Iraq while we invade Afganistan looking for Osama? Saddam will more than likely know that we would be interested in dealing with him next, especially after 9-11 (and especially since we know that French UN Ambassadors have been calling Iraqi officials giving them updates on whats going on regarding our interest in Iraq)...what would Saddam do, knowing that we were coming for him??? Would he be MORE likely to sell WMD to terrorists BEFORE we invaded...in hopes of staving off the war with his country?

Can I risk NOT acting? What if Saddam sells small pox to a terrorist...what if they release it in the mall of America the day after Thanksgiving? Everyone in that mall born after the early 1970's would die and it would spread. It would be a disaster that would make 9-11 look like a good day.

I can't let that happen...I just can't. I have to go into Iraq, get rid of that madman...help those people stabalize the country so they are more interested in becoming a strong, healthy nation rather than interested in selling weapons to dangerous men...stop terrorists from getting their hands on WMD that could hurt Americans.

(Cough...back to Gem voice)

I think that all of these things and more went through Bush's head, Hylandrnet. There was no rush to war...there was only the actions of a country that felt Iraq was a threat and it couldnt wait.

What went wrong?

Intel was off...either Saddam didn't have WMD or we gave him too much time to move them to Syria...in which case they are still a threat, and that was a big mistake....however we had to make sure we dealt with all the proper channels at the UN (members of who were relaying all of that info back to Saddam), we needed to give the media ample time to get out...we needed to prepare for war...these things may have given Saddam time to move things around.

However, while believing faulty intel is a mistake, it is not a lie. the major nations of the world believed this intelligence...the argument was on how to deal with it.

Another mistake? We got to Baghdad too quickly, and didn't know what to do once we got there. We didn't plan on what to do when the military didn't stand there and fight...and we thought that letting them go was a good idea....it wasnt', it was one of the biggest blunders of this war.

But I'll tell ya something, Hylandrdet..go to your library or nearest Barnes and Noble...ask for books about "War Blunders." Because every nation ever at war has made them...no one can plan a war perfectly...mistakes are going to be made...it doesn't mean the war shouldn't have been fought.

Hmm...what other mistakes....continually negotiating with terrorists in street fighting situations rather than pulvarizing them...it made us look weak...allowing the UN to come in then run out and bad mouth us about it after they refused to follow security procedures (fool me once shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me). Allowing the media to get away with only displaying the negative of the war, not the postive...thats a big mistake...half the nation ignoring the fact that democrats and republicans BOTH voted for this war...not just one man...BIG MISTAKE.

I could go on...its a messy war. But I think I've answered your question...

My stragedy would be from a more practical perspective.

The Iraqis and Afghans have one thing in common; they were both screwed by the US. We'd left the Afghans with nothing after we'd help them defeat the Soviets. The Iraqis were threatened when we gave the Iranians "Arms for hostages".

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in an attempt to come up with the money it will take to defend itself against Iran.

So what you're looking at is Reagan foreign policies coming back to haunt us.

As president, I would attack Afghanistan and would not concentrate on anything else but Afghanistan. My plan to attack Iraq would had been at this time next year; by then I would have enough support for an invasion, while at the same time, we would be done with Afghanistan.

George W. Bush, as stated by John Kerry, isn't wrong in his decision making process; he was wrong in the timing of his decisions.

As far as genocide, I'll allow you to name the numerous countries that we should invade over that issue. In laymans' terms, that's no longer a excuse that we, the american public, can swallow without choking.

 

[freeandfun1]

So, let me get this right....

We'd left the Afghans with nothing after we'd help them defeat the Soviets.

I thought guys like you think we are supposed to stay out of a country's internal affairs. Wasn't our helping them kick the Russians out enough?

-----

Oh, and this is my favorite....

The Iraqis were threatened when we gave the Iranians "Arms for hostages".

Wait a minute, I thought we were arming Saddam.... shit, which is it? Oh, I know, we armed them BOTH hoping they would kick the shit out of each other so WE wouldn't have to. Moreover, it would have worked if the Dems hadn't freaked out over arms for hostages.... Damn, you guys want it both ways.....

-----

This one makes NO fucking sense at all....

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in an attempt to come up with the money it will take to defend itself against Iran.

Saddam was sitting on the biggest oil reserves in the world (remember, that is why Bush invaded - for the oil) and yet Saddam didn't have enough to fight little ole Iran.... What you been smoke'n? You really are reach'n ain't ya bud?

------

So what you're looking at is Reagan foreign policies coming back to haunt us.

Are you saying that the appeasement policies of Clinton, Europe and the UN had nothing to do with anything???

------

Boy, I am glad you ain't president....

As president, I would attack Afghanistan and would not concentrate on anything else but Afghanistan. My plan to attack Iraq would had been at this time next year; by then I would have enough support for an invasion, while at the same time, we would be done with Afghanistan.

If you haven't noticed, we kicked the shit out of the Taliban and Afghanistan HAS held free elections..... DOH!

My plan to attack Iraq would had been at this time next year; by then I would have enough support for an invasion....

Why would you have more support then than now? The Euroweenies were never were going to support us. In addition, by now, Saddam would have many more WMD's.... DOH!

------

George W. Bush, as stated by John Kerry, isn't wrong in his decision making process; he was wrong in the timing of his decisions.

Wrong dumbshit. He clearly said, WRONG WAR, WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME. For your information, WRONG WAR means we never should have went. Not sure how you or anybody else can interpret it otherwise....

------

As far as genocide, I'll allow you to name the numerous countries that we should invade over that issue.

I will just ask you one, simple question.

Why Kosovo and not Rwanda? Where was your hero then? At least Bush is attempting to do something. He has freed Afghanistan and Iraq. That is quite a few more people than live in Kosovo.

In laymans' terms, that's no longer a excuse that we, the american public, can swallow without choking.

I have something you can choke on....

 

[Annie]

Free, that was fun to read.

 

[freeandfun1]

Free, that was fun to read.

Glad you enjoyed it! I hope it made more sense than his dribble....