Yeah, I posed that question. Is a white biological woman superior to a non-white male? Of course if she's a straight conservative or christian she's right down there with a white c&c male. Hmm...would a LBGT white or non-white, male or female, conservative and/or christian, be even lower than a white straight male? Do they rank as the absolute worst for breaking narrative? For being "traitors"?
Am I reading between the lines right and that article is attempting to suggest that "if you vote blue your state will be richer, and maybe you will be too!"? Is that the promise the dems are always pushing on the poor?
Well right, but what I took from the article wasn't that the dem politicians are loaded, but that when they run things, the states are more successful. In that regard, the message could be spun exactly as they have always spun it. "The states they run are poor because they are lining their own pockets".
It needs to be extrapolated further. Are the businesses/CEOs/shareholders more successful, or the populace? Do they go hand in hand?
Well it fundamentally comes down to the chicken or egg scenario. Poor states may be more inclined to think that the tax & spend big-gubment Dems would make them poorer. Voting Rep seems like a way to keep the wolves at bay.
Or maybe the "rich" states are... artificially rich b/c they have high taxes, high cost of living, and thus wages have to be higher to match. But are they really "richer"? Sure, buying a car is a smaller chunk of their annual income, but in the grand scheme of things, I question if their overall "richness" isn't just an inflated construct.
I'd much rather make a modest living in a poor state than try to claw through the big government red tape of the high-tax rich states.
Yeah, without going into the hows and whys further, the article paints it pretty black and white. The common non-thinking reader is going to see a surface message that they might think would be beneficial to them. And who knows, it might just be. But like you, I'd prefer my "poor" freedom to the supposedly more wealthy life with a monkey on my back.
I think different lifestyles fit different people. The coasts and cities have a very fast, expensive, techie popular culture. Not so in pretty much any rural place. Is that an inherent thing in cities? Or did it just become a thing and then people who crave that flock there when given a chance. In the US, everyone is pretty much free to move wherever whenever. Some people get stuck due to finances or obligations or whatever.. but the vast majority can leave PoDunk Ohio for the Big City when they turn 18.
If the more 'simple life' people don't go to the city, and are content to make a living wage, live a simple happy life, and enjoy the 'small things' in life.. they will 'achieve' less in life and make a lot less money than the aspiring fashion designer who left for NYC the day after graduation.. but will they be less happy in life? That is impossible to measure. Wealth helps, sure, but there are tons of rich or semi-rich miserable people.
We really have different classes of people and different cultures all trying to coexist.. sometimes in the same town, but usually divided between cities and rural. There is no easy or right way to get them to mix. If we really believe in freedom, we should let people decide themselves how they want to govern and be governed. If the cities want high taxes and expensive lifestyles.. let them. The problem is how we have it setup, where we force a one-size-fits-all on everyone, regardless of what they believe. This started with towns and cities.. but now we're at the point where there are whole states that are devoted to one way of thinking or another. As more and more people flock to cities/states where they feel they belong, this divide will only get bigger and bigger.
Yeah it'll be interesting to see if the fire was caused by the landing, or if it was already gonna happen either way. He did a good job with a controlled forced landing. Closed the damn freeway for HOOOUURRRSSS though.