It's not. Look at the bottom line. Look at the longest tenured/most powerful people in Congress. Then look at how much money their home states get. Did the lightbulb come on yet? West Virginia gets so much Federal money because their legislative teams bring home the pork. If Californians don't think they're getting enough, they need to hire new legislators.
To the entire 120+ post discussion? It's not. To the second point in Post #116, it is, if you're perceptive enough.
compare the high-D band through the south on the interactive map with the population shown here: Spoilered for size:
Then this is the part where, instead of going for the cheap laugh, you clarify what you meant. Because obviously it's impossible that you might have misinterpreted what I posted.
Nor did I say you were. Now, would you like to clarify your post, or shall we keep this going indefinitely?
Seems pretty clear to me. Concession or acceptance to your point, but a reminder (and agreement to your 'reasons are myriad complex' clause) that there's more at play than just what you're indicating. I certainly can't say to know what those extra factors are, but we don't have a complete picture yet, though maybe we're closer.
Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. I'm thinking homogeneity is a factor. Large metropolitan areas tend to sport a wide spectrum of ethnicities and cultures, which results in a multiplicity of food choices (in reference to the diabetes and "food desert" maps), for example. Divorce and suicide rates in the middle of the country, maybe we can attribute some of that to homogeneity (read "boredom") as well. Then there's education, or lack of same. Would value your opinion.
Without finding a map or using one of the maps in this thread to support what I'm saying (I actually don't care for choropleth maps, because while they are very interesting and informative, as I've noted earlier, they can be so easily misinterpreted to mean what you want them to... and maps lie), what you say here does hold a lot of merit. I will point out an unusual partial aversion: The Portland Metropolitan Region, Vancouver inclusive, and not in terms of education, but in terms of ethnic diversity. Portland is the whitest major metropolitan region in the country, more so than smaller areas (noting that Portland is roughly, what, 33 in terms of population size -- correct me if I'm wrong on that number). As such, Portland does have its own Food Deserts, where the most convenient affordable grocery store is an hour away by bus (there was an article specifically addressing this in the Oregonian a couple years ago), even though there are a good handful of Fred Meyers and Safeways in the area, with a smattering of Whole Foods, New Seasons, Food 4 Less and Alberstons thrown in. We do have a large Asian grocery store in the area, but it's almost in the suburbs on the west end of Portland; it's not in the core area of the city (which is essentially downtown and the Inner Eastside). If Latinos are the driving force behind closing Food Deserts in an affordable manner, there is a paradox at play, considering the controversy behind immigration: Latinos, as mentioned upthread, are far more likely to shop for better foods than other ethnicities, yet they can't afford to live in the gentrified neighborhoods where the 'Organic' shops will be -- but this is conjecture, after all. I have no solid data outside of my own limited observation, conducted with no scientific accuracy in mind. Portland is also an odd animal when it comes to social norms, but that's another discussion altogether, and I'm not prepared to make any commentary about that at the moment.
