Red states preach family values, but blue states are better at putting that into practice.

Courtesy of the New York Times: 

According to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey of 32 states, those with the highest percentage of high school students who say they have had sex are Mississippi, Delaware, West Virginia, Alabama and Arkansas. All but Delaware voted Republican in the last presidential election. 

Meanwhile, the five states with the lowest proportion of high school students who have had sex were New York, California, Maryland, Nebraska and Connecticut. All but Nebraska voted Democratic. 

When evangelical kids have sex, they’re less likely to use birth control — and that may be a reason (along with lower abortion rates) that red states have high teen birthrates.

Nine of the 10 states with the highest teen birthrates voted Republican in 2016. And nine of the 10 states with the lowest teen birthrates voted Democratic. 

“Red regions of the country have higher teen pregnancy rates, more shotgun marriages and lower average ages at marriage and first birth,” Naomi Cahn and June Carbone wrote in their important 2010 book, “Red Families v. Blue Families.” 

The liberal impulse may be to gloat: Those conservatives thunder about “family values” but don’t practice them. But there’s also perhaps a measure of hypocrisy in the blue states. As Cahn and Carbone put it: “Blue family values bristle at restrictions on sexuality, insistence on marriage or the stigmatization of single parents. Their secret, however, is that they encourage their children to simultaneously combine public tolerance with private discipline, and their children then overwhelmingly choose to raise their own children within two-parent families.

”Liberals, in other words, may be wary of strict moral codes, but they want to make damn sure that their own kids don’t have babies while in high school. It helps that they believe in comprehensive sex education and reliable birth control.

If this surprises anybody then you simply have not been paying attention. 

These same conclusions have been reached by a variety of studies over the years.

Preaching at kids that sex is wrong and that they should never partake of the forbidden fruit, did not work in the Garden of Eden and it does not work in modern times.

And demonstrating the family values of love, respect for others, and personal responsibility, is far more effective than calling somebody a sinner for engaging in normal human interactions.

Progressive states are just better, that is why I am working to turn mine into one.

There are now 19 states where white Christians are no longer the majority.

Courtesy of Think Progress:

A new study reports that white Christians, long understood to be the primary shapers of American politics and culture, are rapidly losing their majority status across the country — even in traditionally conservative states. 

Earlier this week, Jonathan Merritt of the Religion News Service dug into data from the American Values Atlas, a website unveiled late last year by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) that aggregates polling information on the political opinions, values, and religious affiliations of Americans. The wealth of data is a lot to sift through, but Merritt pointed to a striking revelation: white Christians, once the majority in virtually every major population area in America, are now a minority in 19 states. 

 ..... 

Taken together, the PRRI data and Merritt’s analysis highlight several areas where white Christians are now the minority. Some states on this new list are fairly predictable, such as Hawaii, the only majority-minority state in America, and California, home to two of the top five most-diverse counties in the nation. 

“Hawaii and California have the smallest white Christian populations of any state—20 percent and 25 percent, respectively,” Joanna Piacenza, an editor and communications associate at PRRI, noted in a blog post. 

But the list of states also revealed some surprises, and included several conservative, historically-white, church-going “red states” such as Texas, Georgia, and Louisiana.

Well you know this news is going to freakout the Fox News watchers and racists in the country. (Assuming of course those are two different categories.) 

Personally I am really thrilled to see Alaska listed among the states where the white Christian demographic is in the minority.

However I know full well that the money and the power remains in the hands of the white Christians. But perhaps those days will someday come to an end as well.

The idea that red state tax dollars pay for blue state social programs, is in no way supported by the actual data.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

One of the most hilarious talking points coming from far-right Republicans and the Tea Party is that when “red states” like Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are asked to bail out California or Massachusetts, that’s when they will finally become “fed up with socialism” and secede from the Union once and for all. 

The problem with that meme is that it has no basis in reality: the more prosperous and Democrat-leaning areas of the United States are likely to be subsidizing dysfunctional “red states,” many of which are suffering from insufficient tax revenue and an abundance of low-wage workers who don’t have much to tax. Tea Party Republicans like to point out that poor cities like Detroit, Baltimore and Camden, New Jersey are run by Democrats, but they neglect to mention that some of the most affluent parts of the United States—from Manhattan to the Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area to Cambridge, MA to Seattle to Chicago’s North Shore suburbs—are dominated by the Democratic Party. People in those heavily Democratic areas pay a lot of federal income taxes, and quite often, their tax dollars go to red states.

Raw Story then lists the ten worst offenders, including Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Indiana, Montana, South Carolina, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and of course Alaska.

Concerning Alaska they have this to say:  

Alaska didn’t become part of the U.S. until 1959, and since then, it has gone Republican in every presidential race except 1964 (when Alaska favored Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater). A bastion of hard-right politics, Alaska is the state where Sarah Palin was elected governor in 2006. But when it comes to “small government,” Alaska Republicans don’t practice what they preach: according to WalletHub, Alaska receives $1.42 from the federal government for every dollar it contributes. Tax Foundation’s research showed Alaska receiving $1.93 from Uncle Sam for every dollar paid in. Alaska Republicans love to rail against the federal government, but the reality is that Alaska needs federal tax revenue badly in order to function. 

Alaska is infamous for its harsh winters, which put considerable wear and tear on the state’s infrastructure—and the money for that much upkeep and maintenance has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is Boston, Santa Monica, Brooklyn, Seattle and all the other places that are full of upscale Democrats Palin considers “un-American.”

Still burns my ass that my state is now synonymous with Sarah Palin, and Tea Party politics.  However they are not wrong that we are indeed parasites feeding off the largess of America's tax payers.

And in years past we were well aware of that fact, and grateful for the support.

Ted Stevens did not typically rail against big government, but instead made sure that when money was doled out that Alaska was at the top of the list. In fact for a time he was the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and made sure that Alaska got more than its fair share of federal moneys.

He was famous for working the system, not working against it. And in those days Senator Frank Murkowski, and Rep. Don Young were working right along with him toward that same goal.

However it must be remembered that this state is only one year older than I am. So it is, by comparison, only in its infancy. (Much like I am.) Hopefully when we reach our teen years we will become more capable, and finally get off our lethargic asses and start contributing a our fair share to this country.

However until then, much like Tennessee, Mississippi, and Montana we need to shut the fuck up about reducing the size of government and start demonstrating more respect for our federal sugar daddies.

For over a decade women have been dying of domestic abuse at the rate of one every twelve days. The war on women is real.

Courtesy of The Post and Courier:  

More than 300 women were shot, stabbed, strangled, beaten, bludgeoned or burned to death over the past decade by men in South Carolina, dying at a rate of one every 12 days while the state does little to stem the carnage from domestic abuse. 

More than three times as many women have died here at the hands of current or former lovers than the number of Palmetto State soldiers killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. 

It’s a staggering toll that for more than 15 years has placed South Carolina among the top 10 states nationally in the rate of women killed by men. The state topped the list on three occasions, including this past year, when it posted a murder rate for women that was more than double the national rate. 

Awash in guns, saddled with ineffective laws and lacking enough shelters for the battered, South Carolina is a state where the deck is stacked against women trapped in the cycle of abuse, a Post and Courier investigation has found. 

Couple this with deep-rooted beliefs about the sanctity of marriage and the place of women in the home, and the vows “till death do us part” take on a sinister tone.

The article goes on to point out that while the rate of domestic violence has tumbled 64% nationwide, that there is little change in South Carolina.

But why?  

Interviews with more than 100 victims, counselors, police, prosecutors and judges reveal an ingrained, multi-generational problem in South Carolina, where abusive behavior is passed down from parents to their children. Yet the problem essentially remains a silent epidemic, a private matter that is seldom discussed outside the home until someone is seriously hurt. 

“We have the notion that what goes on between a couple is just between the couple and is none of our business,” said 9th Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, chief prosecutor for Charleston and Berkeley counties. “Where that analysis goes wrong is we have to remember that couple is training their little boy that this is how he treats women and training their little girl that this is what she should expect from her man. The cycle is just perpetual.”

It should also not be terribly surprising that the top ten states where a woman is most likely to be murdered by her significant other are almost exclusively red states. (With the exception of Vermont. What the hell Vermont?)

Personally I would place a lot of blame on fundamentalist religious reliefs that equate women with property, and insist that the man is the head of the household and must be deferred to in all cases.

That kind of thinking simply opens up a Pandora's box of possible abuse scenarios.

I also could not help but to be reminded of a post I did last year, which indicated that one in every two women living in the Mat-Su Valley (Yes that is where Wasilla is located), have been the victim of domestic violence.

Yes there is a war on women, and it is being fought in Washington DC, the boardrooms, and in living rooms all over America. And sadly, for right now,  the women appear to be on the losing end.

And that my friends is something that needs to change, and it needs to change now.

Anti-Obamacare ads may have helped to increase enrollment in blue states. Oops!

Courtesy of the Indy Channel:  

Congressional candidates opposed to the Affordable Care Act have spent $450 million on commercials attacking the controversial health care plan, but the effort seems to be backfiring in blue states. 

Anti-Obamacare advertisements in some liberally inclined states are actually helping health care exchange enrollments, according to a new Brookings Institution analysis. 

The study, done by Brookings fellow Niam Yaraghi, compared ACA enrollment data released by the Department of Health and Human Services in May to a map by Kantar Media CMAG that tracks anti-Obamacare ads across the United States. 

Yaraghi calculated a ratio based on the number of Obamacare enrollees divided by the number of people who potentially could have enrolled, and concluded that negative ads kept a lid on enrollment in red states and had the opposite effect in blue states.

The study  goes on to suggest that the ads led to increased awareness about the existence of a governmentally subsidized service and its benefits for the uninsured.

Or to summarize:

In other words, the commercials effectively acted as a PSA for the ACA.

Not only that but for those conservative Republicans who DID sign up for the program, despite advertisements warning them not to, the vast majority of them are quite happy they did: 

The survey, from the Commonwealth Fund, a research group, a research group, came to similar conclusions as other surveys about the expansion of health insurance. It found that about 15 percent of adults younger than 65 now lack health insurance, down from 20 percent before the Affordable Care Act rolled out in January. 

What was more surprising is that people who got the new coverage were generally happy with the product. Overall, 73 percent of people who bought health plans and 87 percent of those who signed up for Medicaid said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their new health insurance. Seventy-four percent of newly insured Republicans liked their plans. Even 77 percent of people who had insurance before – including members of the much-publicized group whose plans got canceled last year – were happy with their new coverage.

Overall I would say that the Republicans got their asses handed to them.

And not only that, but I would think that they lost a whole lot of potential voters who do not appreciate the fact that they were lied to about Obamacare, or have Republican governors who have not expanded Medicaid in their state, leaving them disillusioned with their party and with few options to receive the kind of coverage that they see other people enjoying in states with more reasonable administrations.

Some Republican states take measures to block Medicaid expansion even if Democratic governor elected.

Courtesy of TPM:

 Republicans are taking no chances when it comes to Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. They're closing every possible door. Under bills passed in Georgia and Kansas recently, even if a Democratic candidate were to pull off an upset and take the governor's seat, they would not be able to expand the program without the consent of the state legislature -- which will almost certainly remain Republican. 

In other words, GOP lawmakers have taken steps to guarantee that many of their poorest residents will remain uninsured under the health care reform law, no matter what happens in the gubernatorial election. 

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) and Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) both oppose Medicaid expansion. They both look likely -- if not quite certain -- to win re-election in November. That should make the bills passed by their respective state lawmakers unnecessary, but they seem intent on guarding against even the remote possibility of a Democratic governor. 

An explanation offered by a GOP lawmaker in Kansas, where the bill was signed into law by Brownback last week, points to the motive. 

“Governor Brownback’s not always going to be the governor. It’s my fervent hope he’s going to be the governor for four more years after this one, but he may or may not be,” Rep. John Rubin (R) told the Wichita Eagle.

Remember the Medicaid expansion for the first three years will cost these states nothing, and after that no more than 10% of the costs.

This is what the CBO had to say about its overall impact on the states that embrace the expansion:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Medicaid expansion will add very little to what states would have spent on Medicaid without health reform, while providing health coverage to 17 million more low-income adults and children. In addition, the Medicaid expansion will reduce state and local government costs for uncompensated care and other services they provide to the uninsured, which will offset at least some — and in a number of states, possibly all or more than all — of the modest increase in state Medicaid costs. Expanding Medicaid is thus a very favorable financial deal for states.

However not allowing the Medicaid expansion could unnecessarily cost the lives of thousands, and eventually millions who could be covered if these assholes were not so petty and vindictive.

There is literally no hope for the poor in these deeply red states unless they were to rally together and drive the Republican party out with torches and pitchforks. 

You know that conservative talking point which says that the majority of Americans are against Obamacare? Yeah, not so much.

Courtesy of TPM:  

A substantial majority of Americans believe Obamacare should remain law, either exactly as it is or with small changes, according to a new poll. 

Bloomberg News found that a combined 64 percent of Americans said they support keeping the law in place. That includes 51 percent who said it should be kept but may need some small changes and 13 percent who said it should be left alone. Only 34 percent said it should be repealed.

That flies directly in the face of every talking point spewed by the conservative mouthpieces, from Rush Limbaugh, to Ted Cruz, to Sarah Palin, who has made repealing the law the central criteria for her recent political endorsements.

The problem for the Republicans is that as 2014 marches forward the numbers who have signed up for the Affordable Care Act are only going to grow, and positive stories about how it is actually affecting the lives of Americans (Many of which can be found here.) are going to continue to pile up.

It will be interesting to see if running against Obamacare still benefits candidates in red states, and then what happens to that rhetoric once they are elected and find themselves marginalized by the more rational Republicans who are currently working to improve the law rather than repeal it.

We are not the only ones who think that Texas is ready to go blue. So does former Texan Rand Paul.

Currently the Senator from Kentucky, but still so Texan he wears roadkill on his head.

Courtesy of Politico:  

Sen. Rand Paul on Saturday predicted that Texas would turn blue within a decade if the Republican Party doesn’t become more inclusive. 

“What I do believe is Texas is going to be a Democrat state within 10 years if we don’t change,” Paul (R-Ky.), who grew up in Texas, said at a dinner held by the Harris County GOP. “That means we evolve, it doesn’t mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a welcoming party.” 

Paul, who is heavily weighing a presidential bid, noted that his assessment was shared by the chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. The Lone Star state, currently the largest Republican bastion in the country, is nearly 40 percent Hispanic — a demographic that has overwhelmingly supported Democrats in recent elections. 

I rarely listen to anything Rand Paul says because you know he's crazy, but this time I think he is speaking the truth for a change.

There is a lot of Democratic energy in Texas to take back their state, and electing Wendy Davis as Governor could just be the tip of the iceberg. 

However I disagree with Paul over one thing.

There is NO way the GOP is going to get their act together fast enough to attract the Hispanic vote or more female support anytime soon.

Not when the majority of their policies seem to focus on stripping women of their reproductive rights, militarizing the border with Mexico, and pushing a religious doctrine into our public schools.

Republicans repay their constituents for electing them by trying to starve them to death.

Courtesy of The Root:

The Republican Party is engaged in class warfare against poor and middle-class white Americans. It is a little-discussed fact but an ironic one worth noting, since those are the very same people who elect them. 

This week, House Republicans passed a nutrition bill that eliminates $39 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously known as food stamps. Nearly 47 million Americans currently rely on SNAP -- roughly 15 percent of the population -- and 17.6 million U.S. households are considered food insecure, which means they aren't sure where their next meal will come from. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (pdf), nearly 17 million of these people are children, 5 million are seniors and 300,000 are elderly veterans. 

And despite prevailing racial stereotypes, which first became mainstream during President Ronald Reagan's tenure and his propagation of the myth of a "welfare queen" from the South Side of Chicago, the overwhelming majority of food stamp recipients are white. And curiously, many of them are Republicans. USDA data show that in 2011, 37 percent of food stamp users (pdf) were from white, non-Hispanic households. 

And of the 254 counties where the number of food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican candidate Mitt Romney won 213 in last year's presidential election. Bloomberg's John McCormick and Greg Giroux compiled research revealing that Kentucky's Owsley County -- which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote -- had the largest proportion of food stamp recipients of all the communities where Romney won. 

What is most curious is that this isn't surprising. The poorest states in the union tend to be the most reliably red, with Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas among the top 10.

You know I have heard about cognitive dissonance before, but THIS takes the cake.

The GOP has NEVER been about supporting its constituents, and ALWAYS been about pleasing their biggest political donors, who are certainly NOT the people that will be affected by this bill.

If these same red states reelect their Representatives after this then they are simply to ignorant to survive anyhow.

I guess Darwin was right.

Obstructionist Republican lawmakers would rather see the people suffer or die unnecessarily rather than implement the Affordable Care Act in their state.

Courtesy of Alternet:  

The latest sign of the Republican Party’s increasingly secessionist tendencies comes as Obamacare passed a major milestone in California, which late last week announced lower-than-expected healthcare premiums for its 5.3 million uninsured, less than many small businesses now pay in group plans. 

“Covered California’s Silver Plan… offers premiums that can be 29 percent lower than comparable plans provided on today’s small group market,” the state’s new insurance exchange announced Thursday, referring to the least-expensive option of four state-administered plans and posting this price comparison chart. 

In contrast, the refusal by red-state America to create these health exchanges, which would be more local control—a supposed Republican value—and to accept federal funds to expand state-run Medicaid programs for the poor, means that about half the states are turning their backs on their residents, especially millions of the poorest people. 

The federal government plans to step in later this summer and offer uninsured people in recalcitrant red states the option of buying plans via federally run heath care exchanges. But the poorest people can’t afford that, meaning the refusal to expand Medicaid programs will leave them in the cold. They will see ads selling new federal healthcare options that will be unaffordable for them. 

The New York Times reports that local healthcare advocates in red states are predicting a backlash once Obamacare is rolled out and the poor realize that they cannot take advantage of it because Republicans are blocking it. However, that does not change the bottom line in state-run Medicaid programs: the GOP is again penalizing the poor.

To me this smacks of desperation on the part of the Republicans.

They are desperately trying to keep the benefits of Obamacare from reaching their constituents because they well know that once the people of their state start to understand how the program will dramatically affect their access to healthcare, that ANY Democrat challenger would only have to point that out in a campaign, and that the Republican tried to deny that access. in order to defeat them in an election.

Ultimately to me it seems that they are playing a game that they cannot help but lose ultimately, which perhaps helps to explain why the Republicans hate President Obama so very, very much.

Mississippi may soon be able to imprison women for stillbirths and miscarriages. Yeah, you heard that right.

Courtesy of Mother Jones:  

On March 14, 2009, 31 weeks into her pregnancy, Nina Buckhalter gave birth to a stillborn baby girl. She named the child Hayley Jade. Two months later, a grand jury in Lamar County, Mississippi, indicted Buckhalter for manslaughter, claiming that the then-29-year-old woman "did willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, kill Hayley Jade Buckhalter, a human being, by culpable negligence." 

The district attorney argued that methamphetamine detected in Buckhalter's system caused Hayley Jade's death. The state Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the case on April 2, is expected to rule soon on whether the prosecution can move forward. If prosecutors prevail in this case, the state would be setting a "dangerous precedent" that "unintentional pregnancy loss can be treated as a form of homicide," says Farah Diaz-Tello, a staff attorney with National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a nonprofit legal organization that has joined with Robert McDuff, a Mississippi civil rights lawyer, to defend Buckhalter. If Buckhalter's case goes forward, NAPW fears it could spur a wave of similar prosecutions in Mississippi and other states. 

Mississippi's manslaughter laws were not intended to apply in cases of stillbirths and miscarriages. Four times between 1998 through 2002, Mississippi lawmakers rejected proposals that would have set specific penalties for damaging a fetus by using illegal drugs during pregnancy. But Mississippi prosecutors say that two other state laws allow them to charge Buckhalter. One defines of manslaughter as the "killing of a human being, by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another"; another includes "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception until live birth" in the state's definition of human beings. 

The cause of any given miscarriage or stillbirth is difficult to determine, and many experts believe there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to drugs in utero can cause a miscarriage or stillbirth. Because of this, prosecuting Buckhalter opens the door to investigating and prosecuting women for any number of other potential causes of a miscarriage or stillbirth, her lawyers argued in a filing to the state Supreme Court—"smoking, drinking alcohol, using drugs, exercising against doctor's orders, or failing to follow advice regarding conditions such as obesity or hypertension." Supreme Court Justice Leslie D. King also raised this question in the oral arguments last month: "Doctors say women should avoid herbal tea, things like unpasteurized cheese, lunch meats. Exactly what are the boundaries?"

In these mostly red states all over the country lawmakers have been passing law after law to slowly create an environment where women are once again reduced to nothing more than breeding stock. Late term abortion restrictions, personhood amendments, vaginal probes, enforced waiting periods, defunding Planned Parenthood, all done to take back control of women's bodies.

After all in many of these places it is understood that those bodies do not belong to the women who operate them, they belong to God. And only He can determine what a woman can, and cannot do with it. And, of course, his will is determined by his representative on earth, the man.

So little by little, restriction by restriction, legislation by legislation, and now conviction by conviction, women are being reduced to property. Property of God, property of the state, or property of their men, no matter how you see it, you cannot help but see freedoms being stripped away from the woman.

And all of this has been happening in 2013, right before our eyes. But member, there is NO war on women.

Somebody might want to show this to Alaska Senator, and political coward, Mark Begich.

"I have made a very bad mistake."

Courtesy of Talking Point Memo: 

By supporting a measure that would have expanded background checks on gun buyers, Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Kay Hagan (D-NC) appear to have found a way to please both fellow Democrats and their red state constituents. 

The latest survey released Thursday by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling showed that Landrieu and Hagan actually bolstered their re-election prospects by supporting the background checks legislation. Facing potentially difficult races next year in a pair of states that were carried by Mitt Romney in 2012, Landrieu and Hagan were two of the final Democrats to ultimately pledge support for the measure, which ultimate failed in the Senate last month. Four other red state Democrats joined most Republicans to vote against the legislation. 

But PPP’s findings, the latest in the firm’s ongoing effort to gauge reaction to the gun bill, suggested that the votes will be more of an advantage than a disadvantage for Landrieu and Hagan. 

In Louisiana, the poll found that 71 percent of voters support “requiring background checks for all gun sales, including gun shows and the Internet.” Forty-four percent of voters there said they are more likely to back Landrieu in 2014 as a result of her vote. Meanwhile, just a little more than a quarter said they are less likely to support her. Another 29 percent said her vote will make no difference on whether they support Landrieu for re-election. 

Conversely, Landrieu’s Republican colleague from Louisiana, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), earned low marks for his opposition to the background checks measure. The poll showed that 40 percent of voters are less likely to support Vitter, who will be up for re-election in 2016. 

An overwhelming majority of Hagan’s constituents in North Carolina — 73 percent — are also in favor of expanding background checks. Fifty-two percent of Tar Heel State voters said they are now more likely to vote for Hagan in 2014 because she supported the bipartisan Senate bill. And much like in Louisiana, Hagan’s Republican counterpart may have committed a political pratfall by opposing the bill. Half of North Carolina voters said they are now less likely to support Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) as a result of his “no” on the background checks legislation. Burr will be up for re-election in 2016.

So by recognizing the mood of the country, and ignoring NRA backed calls to bully them into submission, these two brave women managed to earn the respect of their constituents and help their reelection chances in the process.

Gee it must be nice to have Senators with integrity.

Can somebody please tell me what that's like?

Study finds that states that vote conservative and have a higher ratio of gun ownership also tend to have more suicides. Filed under "Things that make perfect sense."

Courtesy of Science Daily:  

With few exceptions, states with the highest rates of gun ownership -- for example, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama, and West Virginia -- also tended to have the highest suicide rates. These states were also carried overwhelmingly by George Bush in the 2000 presidential election.

Leaving aside the idea of voting for George Bush and the desire to commit suicide aside for right now, I think the study certainly makes sense in that people who have more access to guns usually choose THAT as their method for ending it all.

And as the study also points out; "Many studies show that of all suicide methods, firearms have the highest case fatality, implying that an individual who selects this technique has a very low chance of survival."

I can say one thing for sure, I live in Alaska, and we have tons of conservatives. as well as easy access to guns. and our suicide rate is the highest in the nation.

The study goes on to say; "Even modest efforts to reform gun laws are typically met with vehement opposition. There are also millions of Americans who continue to believe that keeping a gun at home protects them against intruders, even though research shows that when a gun is used in the home, it is often against household members in the commission of homicides or suicides,"

Yeah I am guessing this study is not going to be embraced by the Right Wing anytime soon. Still it DOES provide a little more ammunition, if you will pardon the pun, for those looking to restrict access to guns in this country.

H/T to Mediaite.

Okay does anybody else find this pattern rather enlightening?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

(Source.)

Yep, I voted! Did you?

Just thought I would take a moment to brag that I exercised my constitutionally protected right to cast my true blue vote for Obama into the inky red depths of my Republican run state, which will of course be swallowed up completely by the overwhelming number of Republicans before we cast our piddly three electoral votes for Romney.

It's really the moral victory that counts. Right?

I also brought with me a newly minted first time voter who, based on his enthusiasm for the President, most likely also voted for Obama.

Aha Republicans, that's two for Obama! Surely that will be what turns the tide in my frost covered state and finally hands it to the man that will move our country forward,  President Barack Hussein Obama.

(Oh well, a guy can dream can't he?)

If you haven't voted yet, and early voting has started in your area, then why the hell are you still on your computer? Let's go, let's go, let's go!

We have a country to rescue, there's simply NO time for dilly dallying.

And remember, the only wasted vote is the one that is never cast.