Was reading this article on Salon and couldn't help but laugh at this girl's ignorance and thought I'd share it with those of you who don't feel like watching a long ass ad or subscribing to Salon.com.

Rush Limbaugh's tortured logic

Rush accused me and other Harvard students of hating America because we put on a play about Abu Ghraib. Not only did he reveal his profound moral ignorance, he lost a man who used to be his biggest fan -- my dad.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Valarie Kaur

May 28, 2005 | When I was 12 years old, I was Rush Limbaugh's biggest fan. Every day, my father and I listened to him for hours. "Mega-dittos" -- Limbaugh's catchphrase -- was part of my childhood vocabulary, and Limbaugh was the hero who fought for my father's values. Until recently, my dad was still an avid listener.

In mid-May, I played an Iraqi prisoner in the opening night of the play "Abu Ghraib," an original student production at Harvard University, where I am a master's candidate in ethics. My father called to wish me luck. Imagine his disappointment when I told him what Limbaugh had said about me in his radio program that day:

"Here you have these dunces ... at Harvard now doing a playing on the travesties of Abu Ghraib, and you know this is going to get back to the people in Baghdad, the insurgents and this sort of thing. It's just typical. These people hate the country, folks. I'm telling you: There's an anti-American bias in the American left."

My dad, who has voted Republican all his life, was shocked. "But this is beyond partisan politics!" he said. "Has he seen the play?"

No, and Limbaugh still has not seen the show. Neither, for that matter, have the dozens of others who have sent those of us involved in the play hate mail. Nor has Bill O'Reilly, who lambasted the play on his television program -- for both its subject matter and because the university did not permit his film crew to tape the show. He attacked the play as "creepy" and called us stupid, anti-American college kids who have something to hide. He conveniently failed to mention that we couldn't allow an outside organization to tape the show because of standard university policy. O'Reilly has used this supposed injustice against him to focus media attention on him and his false claims and away from the real injustices presented in the play.

So they have all missed the point: The play is an attempt to humanize every prisoner and soldier at Abu Ghraib, and to speak to the tragedy that occurred there. It is in no way about anti-Americanism or Republicans vs. Democrats. It's about a problem that concerns all of us. The play's director and producer turned down an invitation to appear on O'Reilly's show for just that reason -- this is not a partisan issue.

"Abu Ghraib," written and directed by Harvard sophomore Currun Singh and performed by 15 students, opened to four sold-out audiences on May 12. The 90-minute play examines prisoner abuse through testimony, drama, modern dance and film. The stories it tells are factual accounts -- of a soldier whose friends were killed in war, of an insurgent filled with hatred for Americans, of the sergeant who turned in the incriminating photographs from Abu Ghraib.

My character is based on a real Iraqi prisoner, Huda Alazawi, arrested by American soldiers in December 2003 after she inquired after her missing brother. They detained her at Abu Ghraib overnight, and in the morning they threw his dead body at her feet.

In the play, Alazawi finds in herself a rage that reveals her own capacity to torture others, in the same way her abusers directed their rage at her. I am not an actor, and I do not claim to have any privileged understanding of what Alazawi went through. But like many of us, I felt distress after an encounter with cruelty, and the experience inspired me to take part in the Harvard show.

At the Republican National Convention last fall, I was part of a crowd arrested by New York Police Department officers without warning. When the plastic handcuffs sliced deep into my wrists, I asked a lieutenant to loosen them. He looked straight into my eyes, grabbed my wrists and hands, and twisted them hard. I fell into sobs as he walked away. Through 16 hours of detention, the police berated us, whistled circus tunes at us, and denied us legal counsel. Several months later, my charge of disorderly conduct was dismissed.

What happened to Alazawi and what happened to me are profoundly different. But some crucial elements, in the broadest terms, are the same: the uniformed man, the woman in handcuffs, and the body that is violated. Both prisoner and officer are human beings placed in tragic circumstances, often outside their control; they're caught in a cycle of violence and hatred that must stop.

If I care about our soldiers, what they are called to do, and the pressures that are breaking them -- if I recognize the injustice that has taken place and call it for what it is -- does that really mean I "hate the country"? If news about this play gets "back to the people in Baghdad," will it cause more violence? Or will our recognition of American wrongdoing suggest the possibility of reconciliation?

On the other hand, Limbaugh has called the torture at Abu Ghraib no different from what happens at a college initiation. He has compared it to a Britney Spears concert. And he has defended it by saying that the soldiers involved needed emotional release.

If he stepped off his conservative platform for a moment, perhaps Limbaugh would see that Americans cannot simply shrug off Abu Ghraib. And to respond to the tragedy, we must first recognize the stories of the victims and perpetrators, some of which are told in the play. We must accept that state-sponsored abuse can happen to anyone, anywhere, not just to prisoners in Iraq.

My father has stopped trusting Limbaugh because he knows his daughter does not hate America. But I don't want to give up on Rush. The cast of "Abu Ghraib" is happy to extend an invitation to him and Bill O'Reilly to a special performance. Come see our play. There is too much at stake to ignore its message.
------------------------------------------------------------------

"But I don't want to give up on Rush." Then, my dear, you're a fucking idiot. You got a taste of the shit he does EVERY FUCKING DAY but because he did it to you it's a fucking shocking event as if he's never done it before! Newsflash deary, Rush has been a liar since before you were born. Tell me something Valarie, you're in Harvard, now usually you have to be pretty smart or at the least do really well in school to get in, so why the fuck does a Harvard student believe anything that comes out of that fat doped up pig's mouth? I applaud your martyrdom of protesting at the RNC last year but you're still a fucking moron. "I've been wrongly accused of anti-Americanism by Rush Limbaugh, woe is me!" Join the fucking club, you get a secret liberal decoder ring when you do so you can read the rest of our anti-American pamphlets.

I meant to update this yesterday with something I've been working on for the past couple of days but lost track of time. So I'm posting this early in the morning.

The Giver and Taker States

Like I said a couple of days ago, I've been cruising around the perspectives.com forums reading and responding to stuff which interests me. I've also mentioned ForKnight before, a woman who claims to be old as dirt, and her recent attempts to disprove my "giver/taker states" arguments with numbers which actually prove my argument for me. However, upon looking at the numbers she provided from the Census Bureau's website I noticed some problems with the argument which she obviously doesn't know about. For starters, look at this:



This is the map which certain liberal blogs and sites have been touting as the "Giver/Taker states" map. In actuality, it's not. If you actually look at it, you might remember seeing it on TV or a number of news websites, it's a projected Electoral Win map for the 2004 election. Now let me say that this bothers me. The main reason being that the left has no need to outright lie and when we do lie we only give the right ammo to fire back at us with. They don't need help in killing our arguments before they even begin. The conservative media is already mistakenly believed as being "The Liberal Media." The second reason it bothers me is it subjects many liberals to being debunked based on incorrect data and puts them at risk of being labeled as liars and eating up propaganda. With that said, here's the actual "Giver/Taker States" map.



Pretty different ain't it? I broke down the ten year average for the years of 1994-2003 for all 50 states based on federal spending received per dollar of tax paid. The reason for that is some states were takers in 2003 but givers in 2002 so it wouldn't be accurate to base it on the previous year for the argument. 2004's info, by the way, is not available yet. Now here's the election results of 2004:



As you can see, six (6) red states are giver states, three of them only slightly. That still means that thirteen out of nineteen giver states are blue states. Now here are the numbers:

Average Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Tax Paid on States for the Years of 1994-2003 (1 is greatest)
1. New Mexico 1.90
2. Mississippi 1.66
2. North Dakota 1.66
3. West Virginia 1.65
4. Montana 1.56
5. Alaska 1.48
6. Alabama 1.45
7. Virginia 1.44
8. Hawaii 1.43
9. South Dakota 1.40
10. Oklahoma 1.38
11. Louisiana 1.37
12. Arkansas 1.35
12. Kentucky 1.35
13. Maine 1.31
14. Missouri 1.29
15. Maryland 1.28
16. South Carolina 1.26
17. Idaho 1.21
18. Tennessee 1.16
19. Arizona 1.14
20. Iowa 1.12
21. Rhode Island 1.11
22. Kansas 1.08
22. Nebraska 1.08
23. Utah 1.07
24. Pennsylvania 1.06
24. Vermont 1.06
24. Wyoming 1.06
25. Florida 1.05
26. North Carolina 1.02
27. Ohio 0.99
28. Georgia 0.98
29. Oregon 0.97
30. Texas 0.94
31. Indiana 0.93
32. Washington 0.92
33. Colorado 0.89
34. California 0.87
35. Massachusetts 0.86
36. Delaware 0.85
36. New York 0.85
36. Wisconsin 0.85
37. Michigan 0.84
38. Minnesota 0.79
39. Illinois 0.77
40. Nevada 0.74
41. New Hampshire 0.72
42. Connecticut 0.67
42. New Jersey 0.67

Adjusted Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes

Over Time by State

Fiscal Years 1994-2003

State
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

Alabama
$1.34
$1.31
$1.33
$1.37
$1.39
$1.42
$1.50
$1.54
$1.61
$1.69

Alaska
1.30
1.21
1.27
1.34
1.36
1.48
1.58
1.58
1.82
1.89

Arizona
1.11
1.13
1.11
1.08
1.10
1.16
1.18
1.14
1.20
1.23

Arkansas
1.24
1.22
1.24
1.30
1.31
1.33
1.39
1.46
1.53
1.47

California
0.98
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.90
0.87
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.78

Colorado
1.00
0.95
0.96
0.91
0.91
0.88
0.84
0.82
0.79
0.80

Connecticut
0.67
0.68
0.69
0.67
0.70
0.69
0.66
0.67
0.64
0.65

Delaware
0.79
0.84
0.85
0.84
0.85
0.90
0.88
0.85
0.84
0.82

Florida
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.07
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.04
0.99
1.00

Georgia
0.99
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.99
1.02
1.01
0.95

Hawaii
1.29
1.26
1.37
1.40
1.47
1.47
1.45
1.48
1.51
1.58

Idaho
1.12
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.22
1.20
1.22
1.27
1.34
1.32

Illinois
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.77
0.78
0.79
0.81
0.80
0.77
0.73

Indiana
0.82
0.84
0.89
0.92
0.93
0.95
0.99
1.01
0.99
0.96

Iowa
1.10
1.06
1.08
1.06
1.12
1.17
1.11
1.21
1.22
1.06

Kansas
1.07
1.05
1.03
1.02
1.07
1.11
1.07
1.16
1.14
1.13

Kentucky
1.20
1.28
1.28
1.33
1.36
1.32
1.38
1.38
1.45
1.52

Louisiana
1.35
1.35
1.28
1.31
1.27
1.37
1.41
1.42
1.44
1.47

Maine
1.35
1.31
1.32
1.33
1.34
1.31
1.27
1.24
1.31
1.36

Maryland
1.27
1.27
1.25
1.24
1.30
1.28
1.27
1.24
1.31
1.34

Massachusetts
0.97
0.92
0.91
0.90
0.88
0.87
0.80
0.80
0.79
0.78

Michigan
0.79
0.77
0.78
0.82
0.83
0.85
0.88
0.91
0.89
0.86

Minnesota
0.79
0.78
0.76
0.80
0.81
0.83
0.84
0.81
0.76
0.70

Mississippi
1.61
1.54
1.61
1.56
1.53
1.60
1.72
1.81
1.84
1.83

Missouri
1.34
1.29
1.40
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.26
1.29
1.32
1.31

Montana
1.43
1.46
1.48
1.54
1.55
1.71
1.56
1.62
1.63
1.60

Nebraska
1.06
1.01
1.00
1.02
1.05
1.08
1.14
1.19
1.19
1.06

Nevada
0.71
0.73
0.78
0.73
0.75
0.75
0.77
0.76
0.73
0.70

New Hampshire
0.73
0.75
0.76
0.74
0.76
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.68
0.64

New Jersey
0.69
0.68
0.69
0.71
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.66
0.62
0.57

New Mexico
1.88
1.86
1.85
1.84
1.85
1.88
2.08
1.93
1.89
1.99

New York
0.85
0.87
0.86
0.87
0.87
0.86
0.87
0.81
0.80
0.80

North Carolina
0.93
0.95
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.02
1.08
1.07
1.07
1.09

North Dakota
1.54
1.47
1.37
1.59
1.52
1.64
1.79
1.92
2.03
1.75

Ohio
0.94
0.96
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.99
1.04
1.03
1.02
1.02

Oklahoma
1.28
1.29
1.32
1.33
1.36
1.40
1.44
1.43
1.47
1.48

Oregon
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.94
0.97
0.98
0.98
1.01
1.00
1.00

Pennsylvania
1.01
1.05
1.04
1.05
1.05
1.06
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08

Rhode Island
1.11
1.15
1.13
1.12
1.11
1.12
1.15
1.07
1.06
1.06

South Carolina
1.23
1.20
1.21
1.21
1.22
1.24
1.28
1.32
1.32
1.36

South Dakota
1.31
1.30
1.28
1.34
1.33
1.43
1.43
1.52
1.58
1.49

Tennessee
1.08
1.07
1.08
1.12
1.15
1.14
1.20
1.23
1.24
1.29

Texas
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.94
0.92
0.94
0.94
0.92
0.92
0.98

Utah
1.06
1.08
0.99
1.01
1.03
1.05
1.06
1.14
1.14
1.19

Vermont
0.95
1.03
1.04
1.01
1.03
1.07
1.09
1.11
1.11
1.14

Virginia
1.40
1.51
1.42
1.44
1.42
1.37
1.38
1.46
1.47
1.58

Washington
0.94
0.98
0.96
0.95
0.91
0.85
0.86
0.91
0.91
0.90

West Virginia
1.49
1.59
1.56
1.58
1.63
1.65
1.69
1.71
1.74
1.82

Wisconsin
0.82
0.80
0.81
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.91
0.90
0.87
0.84

Wyoming
1.03
1.08
1.03
1.03
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.10
1.04
1.13

I provide these numbers for anyone who wishes to double check my math and my findings. The page with these numbers can be found at: www.taxfoundation.org

Now what to do with this information? Well let me tell you what I could do with them. The reason ForKnight so graciously posted these numbers which proved my point for me was because she originally posted Alaska's Local/State tax burden which she says is the lowest in the nation. Frankly I don't care if she's correct or not, know why? Because if they've got the lowest Local/State tax burden that explains why they're the fifth largest consumer of Federal spending. This also means that people in places like Connecticut and New Jersey are paying for those Alaskans who enjoy all of that federal spending. Now for a party which bitches and moans about people on welfare recieving a free hand out, they certainly don't mind being recipients of free hand outs which are worth MILLIONS. Want to see how much Alaska got from 2000 to 2003 in federal spending total? This is where you nod your head vigorously and I say "Here it is!"

Year
Total Dollars ($millions)
Dollars Per Capita

Federal Taxes Paid to Washington, D.C.
State Rank (1 is highest)
Federal Spending Received
State Rank (1 is highest)

Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax Paid
State Rank (1 is highest)

2000
$4,264
$6,715

$6,801
18
$10,712
1

$1.58
5

So in 2000 Alaska got almost $4 BILLION in federal spending.
-------------------------------------

2001
$4,341
$6,838

$6,875
16
$10,831
1

$1.58
6

Almost $4 BILLION here too!
--------------------------------------

2002
$4,057
$7,375

$6,346
17
$11,537
1

$1.82
4

WOAH! Now we're OVER $5 BILLION!
--------------------------------------

2003
$3,885
$7,326

$6,004
17
$11,323
1

$1.89
2

They're STILL over $5 BILLION!
----------------------------------------

That's alot of fucking money. In four years Alaska has wracked up $18 BILLION worth of debt which it can't pay for. I wonder how many kids in places like California and New York could use that $18 BILLION for their schools. $18 BILLION sure would pay for alot of school books and give teachers a decent salary. So the next time I hear some dick from say Iowa, talk about how they have such decent schools, my response will be simple, "THAT'S BECAUSE CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK ARE PAYING FOR THEM, DICK!" I'll get the other state numbers together in a day or so. All this math has made me tired. :D Oh and to those Leftists who want to say it's more like Rural Vs City, I agree, it is Rural Vs City, but blue cities in red states still aren't able to pay for their own state. Also keep in mind this is not an attack on you, it's an attack on any right wing fuck who lives in a red state talking about all of the nice things they have, like decent roads, highways, schools, etc which are paid for with blue state money.

A side note to right wing red staters, you are NOT rich! Nor are you wealthy! You are federal spending vampires living off of the tit of fiscally responsible and prosperous BLUE states! You can cut your taxes when you start paying for YOURSELVES!

I didn't update this for the past two days because I went sailing on Sunday and played poker on Monday and didn't get back until around dinner time. I also spent most of the time responding to some posts on a forum I found called www.perspectives.com. Apparently they're running an online version of the Senate and presidency to go through the motions and get more people interested in politics. Sadly as I've been reading and responding to threads, I find that the "heavy weights" there are a bit paranoid and not all that informative of politics. They're pretty much your typical Americans with an average understanding of politics, the economy, and history. In other words, the type of people they're seeking to educate, ironic as that is. One woman even proved one of my points for me and actually thought she was disproving me, all the while saying I need to go back to school. Sorry hon, I learned how to read statistics in 6th grade, obviously, you didn't.

A pain in the ass about this whole thing though is that my uncle, known as Conceptual Guerilla in the online world of politics who wrote the "Defeat the Right in Three Minutes" essay, joined to be part of their senate as well. The paranoid conservative "President" yanked his name from the game because he believes we're trying to pull "The oldest trick in the book." To which my response was "To do what exactly?" The reason he pulled CG off? Because we share IPs, apparently they think so highly of their senate that a n00b would WANT to cheat and register twice to have more "power" in their senate. It never crosses their mind that, hey, just maybe these two guys live in the same house! Despite pointing this out and providing a number of different ways to prove it I'm still out to pull the oldest trick in the book to gain more power in their forum senate. See, this is why the country is fucked up, conservatives are way too damn paranoid and illogical to be trusted with any amount of power.