Other than suggesting a trade for Alberta (mostly in jest, mind you), I've been largely ignoring the whole "red state" / "blue state" silliness.

First, I object to the colorings. If you read the international press, you'll note that they terms "red" and "blue" often have to be explained: Internationally, red is the color of socialism, "reds" are leftists, and the red/blue colorings are the opposite.

How on earth did that happen?

Hint: The colors were assigned by journalists. Yes, the same journalists who call die-hard socialists in Russia "conservatives". My guess is that they didn't like the association of socialism with the Democratic party and decided to stick the Republicans with the color red.

You wouldn't want people getting the weird idea the Democratic Party supported, you know, socialism.

But apparently, some on the left have been taking the whole "secession" thing seriously. I find this extremely revealing (not to mention amusing) for a number of reasons...

First, we're looking a debate where one group of people feels a certain set of actions are "rights", and their opponents feel these actions are immoral. Their reaction is to succeed from the union.

Hmmm.... when did that ever happen in history?

How odd that they should ape the behavior of the Confederacy. The parallel gets even more weirder when you consider that three huge sticking points for them are the "right" to treat a class of people, who their opponents consider to be fully human, as less-than-human (abortion), and the "right" to treat people different on the basis of their skin color or ethnicity, and the "right" to exploit individuals who have no legal standing for the alleged general betterment of the rest of society.

The second hilarious aspect of this argument is the complaint that the "blue states" are subsidizing others who disagree with them. This is hilarious because it reveals Democrat's committment to a large, centralized welfare state is utter hypocrisy. How dearly they wanted to give out rich people's cash to the poor unwashed masses. But when they discovered those proletariats overwhelmingly supported -- BUSH!!! (quel horreur!) -- the immediately want to turn off the spigot.

What does this tell us?

It tells us the left wasn't truly concerned about giving rich people's money to the poor. That they were really -- can you imagine it -- simply buying votes with other's people's money, and only interested in that proposition as long as it might put Democrats in power.

Love and concern for the poor? Hah! Only as quid pro quo. We pay you off, you put us in power, capiche?

Of course, we knew about this blatant hypocrisy already. It was brought to our attention when Democrats first started complaining Bush was spending too much and Democrats suddenly became born-again (and oh-so-temporary) fiscal conservatives.

Again, it shows they have no true, enduring interest in either position.

The third hilarious thing this demonstrates is Democratic intolerance. They wouldn't want to share a country with people who disagreed with them! No, the rest of up have grumbled for years about the "New York" and "Hollywood" elites, but it has always been they who have publicly threatened to leave.

Yeah, you love your country soooo much that you'll abandon it the moment you don't get your way.

I'm not saying there's never a time to flee. There is. But you should have something more than a disagreement over social policy to point to. Show me the piles of bodies, or the political or religious prisioners and I'll be impressed.

Lacking that, you're just exposing the fact you never have loved your fellow countrymen. You've only loved your little coterie, and wished all those stupid "flyover" states that consumed your products, songs and movies would just shut up and do what you told them to, and stop protesting when you trashed them and called them "stupid" in front of foreign audiences.

Sorry, I'm getting intemperate in my mid-30s.

Fourth, this exposes the myth liberals are the party of the "little people" -- you say your blue state is paying more than the red states? How is that possible? Oh, yeah, because you're richer than all those conservatives.

Nice try.

Fifth and last, I strongly suspect even the core argument is yet another deception: The argument is made that those wonderful "blue states" are subsidising all of us "red states". The proof is supposedly that those states pay in more of the Federal tax dollar.

But, unless you're an intellectually brain-dead member of the media, that's not "proof" of any such thing.

You and I go to a buffet. It costs $15. But there's a $5 surcharge for people who weigh over 250 pounds. And you do. And I don't. We pay separately.

We eat. You eat twice what I do. As we're leaving, you demand I thank you. "For what?" I enquire. "I subsidized your meal!" you claim.

Utter and total malarky. To the contrary, I subsized your meal. The fact that you paid slightly more doesn't make up for the fact that you ate twice as much as I did.

So we can't find out who's subsidizing whom until we figure out both the inputs and outputs.

I don't have the exhausive run-down, but let's look a bit, shall we? Ever been to New York state or Illinois? Ever notice how much higher taxes are in these states? Cross from Missouri to Illinois, or just visit upstate New York and you'll discover these rural areas are drowning in taxes -- the "red" areas of these states are subsidizing the "blue" areas (the cities), which are massive sinkholes.

Taking another tact: Who do you think benefits the most from a huge, bloated bureacracy? Defense contractors? Government bureaucrats? Union leaders? Lobbyists? Where are these groups all primarily located? Oh, that's right, blue states.

Now look at education: A student in NYC costs about $10,000 per pupil to educate. In Washington DC, $13,000. These students have the highest cost -- and lowest benefit -- of any students in the country. And where do you think illegal immigrants -- who cost more than they pay in -- are primarily located? Which states are benefitting most from their below-minimum-wage labor?

And we think this isn't happening at the expense of pupils in Kansas?

Want to guess whether there are more welfare recipients in red states or blue states?

Want to guess where most government contracts are awarded?

Want to guess which states suck up the most federal highway and transportation dollars?

And where do you think the National Endowment for the Arts gives most of its money? To artists in New York and California, or to all those starving artists in Cleveland and Omaha?

In fact, I can't think of anything except perhaps the Department of Agriculture which might favor the red-states. So, as best as I can see, the case is far from proven that the "blue" states subsidize the "red" ones. If the relationship of Chicago to Illinios or NYC to New York state is any example, the money probably flows the other way around.

One argument, based in five major defects. Not much of a case for succession, but it does expose a lot about the minds behind such. Intolerant, ungenerous, uncommitted, and logically challenged.

Not bad for one small argument.