adrift in the red sea

OK, OK, I’ll write something about the election. I was just giving it a chance to… cool off or something.

The bad news: four more years of Bush. No link for that, because everyone knows it already. The good news: four more years of “Fafblog”:, and that almost makes it worthwhile. OK, it doesn’t, but we can still laugh. Her. her. heh.

Oh, and in case you suddenly feel surrounded by hordes of brain-eating Jesus-talkin’ red-state zombies, please review the “map that puts the election results in perspective”: Scroll down to that last map and behold our “shredded country”:, at the very least. It doesn’t change the basic fact that 51% of voters actually seemed to vote for Bush, but it tones down that feeling of “religious uprising” that we keep hearing about.

4 thoughts on “adrift in the red sea

  1. I’m sorry, did I say “seemed to vote for”? I meant, “definitely did vote for, as far as our touch screens and ballot counting machines indicate without any verifiable paper trail.”

  2. Not to sound defensive, but I also think that it would be more fair to change the colors, too. Red is a color that seems to our eyes more “active” or vibrate-y, whereas blue is calmer and cooler. So by doing all those central states in WHAAH WHAAH red and the others in oooooo ooooo blue it makes it feel, sense-wise, that there are more Red Bushites that there really are. So what if we used, say, blue and beige? I think it would make a difference, I do.

    If we’re going to portray the information graphically, let’s not forget the power of graphic style and its ability to go straight to the “heart” without checking in with our analytical centers.

    Just a friendly public service announcement. :)

  3. Hey, that’s a good point. You wouldn’t even have to get rid of the red-blue distinction, either, just tone down the saturation a bit. Burgundy and slate blue? Fire brick and Dodger blue?

    Of course, Green is already taken…

Comments are closed.