Avenger wrote:
> "Hyerdahl3"  wrote in message

> > But they aren't, Mark.  The blue states tend to have greater
populations
> than
> > the red states.   And, women there can certainly afford to have
career and
> a
> > child or two.  What they can't afford is a sexist man who won't do
his
> share of
> > the unpaid work.-
>
>  it's not work if it's something you would ordinarily do to maintain
your
> body or environment, like cleaning the house or eating.

For single mothers who don't have a "sexist man" to contend with,
they get to do these "unpaid" jobs while either losing income
they could be earning at work or during time they could be
relaxing.

"Sexist" men MORE THAN "pay" for such women through their income.
Parg's argument that women should be paid to clean their own
home and look after their own kids falls under "the world
owing us a living."

I remember during the late 80's when a welfare mother profiled
in the Boston Globe whose extended family collected more than
a million dollars a year total due to the number of children
and grandchildren on the system defended herself by saying
"We do a lot of work for the taxpayers."

Bill Clinton sold out this demographic to stay in office.
Some hard leftists have never forgiven him.

> Blue and red is a joke. Even in the most liberal area there is a
substantial
> conservative element and vice vera.

What matters is how the marginal population is fluxuating and
the type of new voters being created.

In the northeast which is generally "dark" blue, it's generally
referred
to as "the rust belt."  The populations are aging and even shrinking
in many cases as the youngsters move to more dynamic and warmer
climates in the southeast.  Where I grew up in Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania,
a loyal FDR democrat coal mining town, it's now empty.  Nearly all
of the businesses downtown are closed and shutdown.  As young
professionals
and families move to red states, such as Texas, they are newcomers
who must learn to fit in.  They have to accept a minority status at
first and that's quite an uphill climb.

The left is running a series of ads "metro vs retro" portraying
"red" states as hillbilly trailer park residents compared to
enlightened "blue" state residents who all live next to chinese
take out and drive electric cars.

The reality is that "blue" zones, even in red states, tend to be
urban areas that are "office space" or gang-territories.
Most of the business is government related so it's a form
of "white collar" welfare.  Rather than drive electric cars,
most lefties have SUV's and secretly thank GW's emphasis on
cheap oil so they can get away from their meal ticket and
back home to their nice boring suburbia home ASAP.

Suburbia isn't totally boring by any means.  In recent years,
a number of "big box" stores have sprung up such as Costco,
Bestbuy, Home Depot, etc.  Many suburbanites are even beginning
to enjoy the cultural offerings offered in the cities as
storeowners and restauranteers close up shop in gangland and
open up in Reston or Orange County.

An ugly little secret (ok, big secret) is that many major
publishing houses and financial firms are closing up in NYC
and their $1000 per square foot rents and opening up in
NJ across the river or even in Orlando.  Rents are cheap,
internet access is just as good, and the winters are much
more tolerable.

In other words, even if the blue states do gain voters they
usually are not pulling in more financial resources to make
them power players in congressional politics.  California
told electrical power companies for years that if they didn't
want to do business, they could leave.  This worked until
the lights went out.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/4/05 2:21:38 PM ---