November 17th, 2004


Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal

I wanted to repost this article written by Mike Thompson, the former chairman of the Florida Conservative Union. I'll highlight any bits that I find especially interesting, maybe, but here it is.

Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal
It's Time to Reconfigure the United States

by Mike Thompson
Posted Nov 3, 2004

[From the author: This is an essay I've been working on for the past several weeks, updated moments ago with what appears to be Bush's final number of victory states (31) once the nonsense of provisional votes in Ohio is overcome.

As an admitted "modest proposal" (a la Swift's satiric story of the same name), it is nevertheless serious in pointing out the cancer that continues to threaten our body politic.]

Branded unconstitutional by President Abraham Lincoln, the South's secession from the American Union ultimately sparked "The Civil War" (a name that was rejected by Southerners, who correctly called it "The War Between the States," for the South never sought to 1] seize the central government or 2] rule the other side, two requisites for a civil war).

No state may leave the Union without the other states' approval, according to Lincoln's doctrine--an assertion that ignores the Declaration of Independence, which was the vital basis for all 13 American colonies' unilateral secession from the British Union eight decades earlier. Lincoln's grotesque legal argument also disregards a state's inherent right of secession which many scholars believe is found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Meantime, America has become just as divided as it was a century and a half ago, when it writhed in Brother-vs.-Brother War. Instead of wedge issues like slavery, federal subsidies for regional business, and high tariffs, society today is sundered by profound, insoluble Culture War conflicts (such as abortion and gay marriage), and debate about our role abroad (shall we remain the world's leader, or become an unprincipled chump for the cabal of globalist sybarites who play endless word-games inside the United Nations and European Union sanctuaries?).
Read more...Collapse )
The demographics revealed by the two most recent presidential elections are radically different and have resulted in "Two Americas" (but not the simplistic "Two Americas" [one rich, one poor] envisioned by Kerry'sMarxist-tongued running mate, John Edwards):

* BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir."

* GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers.

[My note: y'know, the latter description sounds a lot more appealing to me in the important ways: ethnically diverse, multi-religious, more sexually liberated, very artsy and Babelesque. Hmmm. Terrible, that whole being "open minded" thing. Interesting how there are no middle class neighborhoods in "GORE/KERRY USA" - apparently the author has never heard of NJ, for instance, which is one solid mass of middle class neighborhoods, broken up only by highways and malls.]

Bush USA also is far safer, its murder rate being about 16% of the homicidal binge that plagues Gore/Kerry USA--2.1 per 100,000 residents, compared with 13.2 per 100,000 (from a study by Professor Joseph Olson, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota).

[Another note from me: actually, that Professor never did that study, denies it, and when the numbers were run, it turns out that they're a lot more sane looking: Gore: 6.5 vs. Bush: 4.1. Yep, there's a higher murder rate in "blue" (often urban) areas, but the difference is actually fairly minimal. See the Snopes article for a full explanation: ]
Read more...Collapse )

Read it in its original format here:

All I can say to that is: A-fucking-men. Please, kick us out, I beg you, and do it quickly. Bush's mandate really demands no less - and it'll save us the trouble of seceeding. :P


In regards to Mike Thompson's recent article here:

I won't give any real feedback on what I think of Mr. Thompson's attitudes, but some of his facts are incorrect.

See this article:

...which is linked to from the Professor's own page here:

I realize the article is not entirely serious, but you should at least make an effort to be somewhat accurate and follow basic journalistic practices (like spending 30 seconds fact-checking). That's true even of editorial content like that article and publications such as Human Events.

Nicholas Tang

(I'll let you know if they send me a response.)

A note on voting recounts and fraud investigations...

I know all of my Republican friends (and some Democratic ones, to be fair) have been talking about how recounts and fraud investigations and all of that are wastes of time and money and are just the last, futile flailings of a bunch of sore losers. And, in some cases, that's true.

But what's also true is that every American citizen with the right to vote deserves to have that vote counted, and even if it doesn't overturn the Presidential election results, it's already resulted in some potential shifts in other, smaller posts - local and state-level elected officials. Hell, last I heard Washington State still hadn't settled the matter of who their new Governor is - and it's down to 19 votes (or was this morning). Many local elections come down to similarly small numbers, and to say a few hundred votes here and there are expendable is immoral and un-American, frankly. Everyone's vote is supposed to count, remember?

So support the investigations of voter fraud, and support the efforts for recounts, don't mock them. Our Democracy depends on it. (Sadly, the defenders of the Democratic party can't be bothered to actually live up to their promises of making sure every vote counts - it's the Green and Libertarian Parties that've been leading the effort. That's so sad, but says good things about them, anyways.)

Republicans: What's a little indictment between friends?

Republican members of the House voted today to change party rules to allow Tom DeLay to get indicted on corruption charges and still remain as majority leader.

Yes... you read that right... they decided to allow him (or any other future leader) to retain their post even if indicted for criminal corruption. Of course, at some point (say, when jail time was imposed) he'd probably have to step down, since it's awfully hard to rule with an iron fist from within prison walls (hard, but not impossible) and I doubt if they'd want to go through that trouble.

Sigh. It's amazing, every time you think the party has sunk as low as it can go, they find a way to get even lower. This is the party of moral values?

Update: Great quote:
"And I think, frankly, we should adopt the rule the Democrats have prospectively, which I think is a sound rule that once indicted you step down." - Newt Gingrich, 7/26/93

Found here:
  • Current Music: Miranda Sex Garden - Sunshine

Interesting divorce/voting statistics

I think everyone is agreed that higher divorce rates are probably a bad thing, and not in tune with the whole concept of marriage being sacred and whatnot... right? That whole moral values thing seems to be a big deal to most conservatives, right? So it stands to reason that since they care about it so much more, that they'd take it much more seriously, right? And it also stands to reason that since gay marriage is supposed to ruin the sacrament of marriage that there'd be more divorce in pro-gay-marriage states, right?

Well, I compiled a little data that I found interesting. I took each state, took its number of divorces (Jan-May 2004, the latest data available), and took its population (as of July 1, 2003, the latest data available), and divided the divorces in Q1 2004 by the population and multiplied it by 4 to get a general annual divorce rate. (Of course that's not incredibly accurate, but I'm tired and it's really hard to find exactly matching data for populations and divorces and so on.) I then compared it to the % of the votes for Bush in that state.

I discovered something interesting. Here are the top and bottom states, in terms of divorce rates.

Highest divorce rates:
State% voting for BushWinner% divorce% marriagesdiv/mar
New Mexico50%Bush0.85%0.91%0.94

Lowest divorce rates:
State% voting for BushWinner% divorce% marriagesdiv/mar

Well, golly. That's weird.

Bush votes: CNN (
Population: (
Divorce Rate: NCHS - part of the CDC (

Update: I put in two new figures into the tables - marriages divided by population, and divorces divided by marriages.

Some interesting trends, based on this new info: the ratio of divorces to marriages is about the same across red and blue states, it looks like (at least judging by the top and bottom ones). There are a few that are markedly different, but overall they seem to hover around a 55% rate (55% as many divorces as marriages). However, the marriage rate is considerably different in the blue states - it's much lower. The divorce rate is correspondingly lower by the same ratio. What does this imply? I'm not sure. Maybe it just implies that people take marriage more seriously in the blue states - fewer marriages, and correspondingly fewer divorces. It could also be argued that blue staters tend to be in more non-married relationships - we date longer before getting married. (Again, whether that means we're godless whores or just that we think marriage is too important to be rushed into is open for interpretation.)