And if SB10, the food bill, goes through and is fully utilized to terrorize the American farmer you could be in jail for just letting your neighbor eat one of those steaks.
Please tell me I'm not the only one who got this? I'll let others address the Rio Grande region, but in SoCal, the problem is those "food deserts," specifically urban areas like East L.A. where there's a scarcity of big chain supermarkets, so people are dependent on small local markets that have limited or no fresh produce. Families tend to stock up on cheap, starchy staples instead, and most don't have anywhere to grow their own vegetables.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a prime case of looking at a map and interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean without any in depth analysis, a fallacy which any Geography professor would be quick to point out and instruct their students to avoid. Why are Texas and Georgia contributing more than they are taking in? Why are Mississippi and Alabama (and to an extent, Louisiana) taking in more than they are contributing? I daresay that population base plays a role in that -- notice how little California takes in compared to Texas. There's a reason why California gets so many Electoral Votes, and I submit that same reason plays a role here, and California's still fucked three ways till Sunday with its budget woes. You see a map and quickly see data that supports your argument that the South is a shit-hole, data that supports your political ideology. This fallacy undermines your credibility, especially when possible reasons have been offered up thread and dismissed out of hand without consideration. You claim that the South drains the country, yet New Mexico reigns as the worst offending state for money out-money in. What about the Dakotas and Montana? What's their story? They're not part of the South. What about Alaska and Hawai'i? What about the Virginias? Virginia proper is part of the south, sure, but what about its western counterpart? And for the other southern states, those that aren't in the Bottom Ten Contributors? Florida looks like it could break even and start contributing more... or it could slide further the other way. Do they have their act together or not? The other states, what makes them special? Blanketing them with 'They're part of the South!' doesn't fly here; Illinois is a big contributor, yet we know their politics are crooked. Again, what does population size play into this -- outside of Nevada and New Hampshire, the Big Contributors are either densely populated or have large overall populations. Also note the year the data on this map is from. Is it still relevant to this discussion or is it outdated? 2004 can be rightfully claimed to be a long time ago and we'd need data from last year to make a better interpretation of the data, while 2004 is useful if we have current data to track the trends. Maybe, unlikely, Mississippi, Alabama and Virginia have gotten their acts together in the last six years and began contributing? You claim to be right, your 'positions are also entirely factually based and correct,' Oerdin, but you failed to correctly interpret this map without a bias. You've undermined your own claim and destroyed your credibility. Awfully inconvenient for you that there's a trained geographer on this board, isn't it?
East L.A.? That's their choice. In the event they ever choose to live in the U.S., instead of Mexico Del Norte, they might see improvement. But right now, they're getting what they're earning.
I think that one is more due to the Native Americans being exposed to the fast food diet. I've heard that Native Americans have a higher percentage of diabetes per capita.
:santa_cheesy: Ummmm......it's not what you make, it's what you go out with. You need a higher income just to afford the rent in California. That's why my "barely above a HS diploma" ass only pays 900 a month for a brand new (in 2004) four bedroom house.
That works almost perfectly inverse. I mean it. Southerners are raging homos which is why they're always talking about gays and getting done in the ass. The rest of us don't care but you guys make it a bloody vocation.
That's actually bullshit. Washington and Alabama have approximately equal populations, and approximately equal land area (WA is slightly larger) yet Alabama gets twice the money back per dollar. As for the Midwestern states, they're shitholes too, but not to the same degree as the South. The Midwest is mostly unpopulated and their states are large, hence require a lot of funding for their roads, parks and so on. The Southern states are relatively densely populated and small, yet still get reams of federal welfare. Clearly population isn't the issue.
As I said, the Feds have my blessings to do something about that. In fact, I rather hope the new Congress will do something.
"Federal welfare" doesn't just mean the gubmint checks for the negroids, you fucking mongoloid. Have fun without those nice roads the rest of us have been sponsoring!
Ah, but you give the map some thought instead of making an all-out blanket interpretation. You've added another layer to the discussion, another wrinkle to the what the data might mean -- alluded by the fact that Alaska and Hawai'i are on the 'Top 10 Offenders' list. Maybe population isn't the only factor here; if it were, Wyoming, the least populated state, should be doing worse than it is by what the map says. Maybe Alaska and Hawai'i would be doing much better than they are if they were directly connected to the Lower 48 and not hampered by distance, an ocean and/or separated by a neighboring nation.
Wyoming doing so well despite its low population and large territory only furthers the point that the South is an irredeemable hellhole. If they can come so close to breaking even with federal funding, even with their vast handicaps, what does it say about the South if they fall so far short even of that frozen wasteland?
I doubt that garamet has ever hopped on her bicycle to travel the roughly 20 miles to East LA. She doesn't drive a car, or have a drivers license. So for her to post statements about what is available for people in East LA to shop at is ridiculous. The East LA area has an assortment of grocery stores for people who live in the area to shop at. Just like anyone else even in affluent areas, they can make the same choices anyone else does on whether to buy "healthy" food, or the less healthy foods. It should also be noted, that East LA borders other cities that offer wider ranges of shopping. Cities like Montebello which offer supermarkets like Vons, Ralphs, and Food4Less. They also have the warehouse stores like Costco. Of course there is also the fall back of Walmart.
Von's and Food4less are hardly good options. Being from Calexico, it's doubtful that you have any notion of what constitutes a quality grocery store. Ralph's is marginally better, but in poor areas it can get pretty ghetto, too. All three have a distinct lack of healthy and organic selections even in gentrified neighborhoods, but in impoverished parts of California they become utterly terrible. Again, being an overweight welfare case from Calexico we wouldn't expect you to understand any of this. You probably think cheeze whiz is a gourmet topping.
There is a reason for there being a lack of healthy and organic selections. First and foremost is the cost. People who live in East LA, are not going to be able to afford that type of food. So how exactly do you think a store owner would be able to do business there? As for your opinion the quality of either Ralphs or Food4Less, that is irrelevent. It does not change the simple fact that those grocery stores available to people who live in the East LA area. Kind of funny that you are stupid enough to think that I live in Calexico, Mexifornia. I have to actually question if you have ever been to either Calexico, or East LA. I know that Margaret hasn't. Given the simple fact that she doesn't drive. Not to mention the fact it would suicide for someone like her to ride around that are area on her bicycle.
PC does not live in Calexico. He has also apparently never traveled by any means other than his own personal automobile.
Desert...whattaya gonna do? Plenty of retirement communities, though. Another interesting map: Marriage and divorce rates by state.
You suggest that population might not be the reason behind this, which in turn leads to a potentially interesting dialogue on the other factors driving the data... then you turn around and embrace the population notion because it plays into your worldview. That doesn't exactly help support your position.
Two things I find intriguing: (1) What happens when you overlay any of the maps above with election maps between 1960-2004 and (2) The fact that despite the stereotypical characterization of New York and California as Sodom and Gomorrah respectively, neither state shows extremes on *any* of those maps While the reasons are myriad and complex, it's interesting that there's a lot more excess going on in God's Exurbia than among the Bicoastal Metropolises.
