Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

deleted

[funplanet]

old news.....been around for a long time

[Gopher]

Maybe. Now that I look at the text closely, it's clear that it probably came out just after the 2004 elections. First I've seen it, though.

Obviously still being circulated in the U.S. because it remains timely and relevant.

[Ya-ta Boy]

What about those of us in a Purple State (we voted for Gore in '00 and Bush in '04)?

We are at or near the top in production of corn, soybeans, POP CORN, cattle, pigs and obese women. We're also always near the top in public education. Can we just be independent? The only other solution would be partition from NW to SE, with 3 red states to the south and west and 3 blue states on the north and east. I prefer independence.

PS: I suspect a lot of folks would object to the proposed name. Geographically, Nuevo Pakistan might be more appropriate.

[sportsguy35]

saaaaad, are the blue states upset they don't have control of the country??? How could we trust them to pick our president, one of theirs picked Arnold to run their state.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[sportsguy35]

I couldn't be more proud we elected two Bush's. I'll give you Ventura, that was rediculous. Given Texas' size and location, they are going to have hard time running posting high in education rankings. At my school alone there were 10 classes soley for teaching kids that didn't speak English. When these kids have to take tests in English, of course their scores aren't going to be as high as the other kids. People can't dawg the "no child left behind" act yet because it hasn't had time to prove itself.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[sportsguy35]

yes, and how high are those states on the education "ranking"

[Pyongshin Sangja]

Sad. Maybe you guys will get the Queen back on your money and everything will be allright.

[bucheon bum]

[Derrek]

Gee... in the other elections in the 1990s, the dems were red and the republicans blue.

I think it has to do with who is in the prez office and who is the challenger, as to what they color them.

[joe_doufu]

I've read it before. My first thought is that New Orleans or Miami would become the next Switzerland, as anyone with money in the "Nueva California" would want to get it out of the country before their Politburo voted to "nationalize" the banks. The Southeast Coast would be the new site of most multinational firms' North American headquarters and we'd see a lot of economic revitalization in some cities that are actually pleasant to live in (unlike the dreary New Yorks, Philadelphias, and Chicagos of the new DPRNC). English would finally acquire a second-person plural pronoun as "y'all" gained international legitimacy.

There'd be less red tape on the "red state" economy so Texas or Arizona would build a bunch of nuclear power plants lickety-split and make so much money selling power at obscene rates to the Nueva Californians that they could power the red states almost for nothing.

I'd expect that within five years, Californians would suffer a massively deadly famine. (Once the Californian dollar drops below the value of the peso, 99% of its agricultural workers would go back home to Mexico.) Mexico would re-annex California out of humanitarian necessity. I would expect that northern Maine, all of New Hampshire, and Quebec would secede to form a libertarian wonderland.

[Derrek]

Taken from here:

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/3474.html



Why Republicans Are the Red States and Democrats the Blue


Tom Zeller, in the NYT (Feb. 8, 2004):

[I]t is testament to the visual onslaught of the 2000 election - those endlessly repeated images of the electoral United States - that the Red State/Blue State dichotomy has become entrenched in the political lexicon.

"The red states have turned redder," the Bush campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, said recently, "while the blue states have turned purple."

To many, this palette represents an ignorant (or perhaps intentional) reversal of international tradition, which often associates red with left-leaning parties and blue with the right. "It's weird, is all," wrote a blogger at dailykos.com, a political Web journal. "I'd like some accountability if people are going to start messing with cultural symbolism willy-nilly."

Mark Monmonier, a professor of geography at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and an expert in the use of maps as analytical and persuasive tools, found himself automatically reversing the current color code. "I remember talking in a class about the red states and blue states," he said, "and a student actually corrected me."

Online political discussion groups buzz with conspiracy theories about the maps, suggesting that Republican states were made red because that color typically represents the enemy on military combat maps, or because red has more negative psychological baggage (fiery, dangerous) than friendly, pacific blue.

Others have thought it simply a naïve attempt to avoid trafficking in stereotypes (Democrats are Reds, or socialists). Professor Monmonier suggested - jokingly - that the red-left, blue-right association more rightly follows the conventional ordering of visible light (red, yellow, green, blue, and so forth).

But in the United States, at least, the color coding has rarely been static.

An early marriage of red and blue with the two major parties is noted in the Texas State Historical Association's Handbook of Texas History Online, which describes a color-coding system developed in the 1870's to help illiterate and Spanish-speaking voters navigate English-language ballots in South Texas. Local Democratic leaders called their party the Blues; Republicans chose to be the Reds.

By late in the next century, however, few were guided by that historical tidbit - or any other convention.

"It's beginning to look like a suburban swimming pool," the television anchor David Brinkley noted on election night 1980, as hundreds of Republican-blue light bulbs illuminated NBC's studio map, signaling a landslide victory for Ronald Regan over the Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter. Other staffers, Time magazine wrote, called it "Lake Reagan."

Mr. Carter's bulbs were red.

Five years later, in her book "My Story," Geraldine A. Ferraro recalled watching her 1984 vice presidential bid founder on the television screen. Mr. Reagan's victory this time around was rendered in both flavors. "One network map of the United States was entirely blue for the Republicans," she wrote. "On another network, the color motif was a blanket of red."

By the 1990's, the color scheme was becoming a bit more formalized - at least on network and cable television. But other news outlets continued to vary.

Time magazine had favored Democratic red and Republican white in the 1976 election between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, then reversed those colors for Reagan and Carter in 1980. By 1988, the magazine was using Republican blue and Democratic red, and it stayed with that motif even through the 2000 election, which has colorized the nation's political language in precisely the opposite way.

[joe_doufu]