This map was posted on Facebook yesterday, and it’s been the subject of much discussion, in part because in part because — to my knowledge — it hasn’t been updated since 11/16.
As Leftover so eloquently (I’m not being snide here) pointed out in the comments, Montana, for one, is mislabeled. The governor has said he has no intentions of closing the borders, but that is not reflected in the graphic.
My home state of Missouri is probably accurately represented, because while Gov. Jay Nixon says he won’t seek to block Syrian refugees (and how would one do that, anyway), one Missouri legislator (Mike Moon) is calling for a special session (and he has support in this) and he’s swearing to block the “Islamization” of the Show Me States. The cretins. (Hey, dip shit: Is your theology so embattled? Get a grip. Oh, and read a book.)
Gov. Rick Scott, of Florida, is predictably ignorant on this subject, so that state is accurately portrayed. I posted this map after vetting a few of the states, but not — to my disgrace — all of them. Not everything you see on the Interwebs is Grade A Accurate, and I try to vet what I post but this time, I should have been more clear that 1) this map is not being updated and 2) I do not know the source. But as Sharon said on Facebook, I am the proud resident of a proud and loud green state. And, as I said in the original post: I’m told a few of the non-green states have crossed over to green, but I’m not sure which ones.
Up yours, ISIS.
Dating Jesus 
I’m sorry…but that unattributed graphic is a slander on my home that I will not let pass.
Whoever says Montana “doesn’t know how to help refugees” is a liar. Ask the hundreds of Hmong refugees who were resettled in my hometown in the 70s and 80s after one of our secret wars failed and Laos fell to the communists. Those families have become an important part of our community. My doctor is the son of Hmong refugees. Refugees from Tibet have also resettled here. And in the 50s, Montana housed Cuban child refugees.
And right now, people in my community…a couple of them people i grew up with…are planning a program aimed to bring ten Syrian families here. It’s not going to be easy, given the current political climate surrounding the issue. We’re a red state. However, while our governor, a Democrat, has voiced concern on safety issues, (he’s a politician! Surprise!), he has stated that Montana will not close its borders to Syrian refugees.
I know Montana is not as perfect as Connecticut, but I’m proud of my home…our history…and the bulk of my friends and neighbors in general.
And I do not think that pride is in any way misplaced.
So…you know…Up Yours!
You’re right. The map is wrong: http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2015/11/16/montana-bullock-syria-refugees/75888284/ Before posting, I vetted a few states,but not all of them, and that’s on me. I knew when I posted this there was a possibility — a pretty big one — that it would be inaccurate around the edges, at the very least, but I posted it, anyway, because I like the sentiment. I have since your comment gone in there and tried to be as accurate as possible. My apologies for offending your pride in your state, which has done a lot for refugees. I don’t blame you for being proud. I’m proud of CT for the same reason, though still pissed that we couldn’t find a place for all those Central American kids. Our reaction now, I believe — and the reaction of Montana — is the right and righteous way.
Oh, and this: Up yours, too.
I don’t regard any of the characterizations on that graphic as accurate. Not one. It’s a cheap and offensive exploitation of a crisis, not at all dissimilar from reactionary conservative exploitation of same, that is, at best, only tangentially connected to the latest attacks in Paris.
It’s designed to denigrate…not inform. And while I disagree with much of the rhetoric attempting to connect Syrian refugees to terrorism perpetrated by what appears to be French and Belgian nationals, I think it is reasonable and responsible to, at least, try to understand, on an intelligent level, the fear and loathing that produces such rhetoric.
Imitating that kind of rhetoric doesn’t make anyone any more righteous. And it certainly doesn’t convince anyone not in complete compliance with what you consider a righteous agenda to take seriously what you have to say.
Noted. And thank you. I post graphics here a lot. I do try to vet them, and yes, there is often a snarky approach that could be considered less than serious.
Derision has its place, I suppose.
I’d be lying if I pretended I haven’t indulged in it before.
Me, too. It’s a question of style.
…which neither of us have. So that’s good.
On the other hand, doesn’t their irrational fear need to be pointed out as irrational? There’s this to say to these red state governors: “The problem with running around like your pants are on fire and shouting into every microphone you can find is that you might suddenly realize your pants aren’t actually on fire and everyone wishes you would shut up.” (see whole article link below) Their pants are NOT on fire. These governors are committing limbic-system-terrorism (ok I made that term up). The fight or flight response can be activated well before logical thinking. If they keep people panicked by responding in a panicked way, they can convince some people they have the answers in protecting them. We need to disrupt the pattern of fear in order to get at least some people to stop and think. For some reason, the people in the US (politicians as leaders in this) fall victim to this easily. Meanwhile….France reminds the world their commitment to taking in 30,000 refugees remains. They know very well people who have been attacked by terrorists need protection and support. The reaction by these red state governors across the states is despicable. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-france-refugees-huppke-20151118-story.html
Everything you say is correct. The Trib article counters the emotional response with by informing and pointing out the obvious…common sense.
My point is…that graphic?…doesn’t do that. More slander and lies are not reasonable and responsible reactions to slander and lies. It doesn’t build credibility. It just encourages more irrational responses.
Perhaps it doesn’t. How do you propose we accomplish this with these people locked into fear and irrational response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x-fkSYDtUY
Well…slapping them isn’t going to help. The approach taken by The Trib is a good start. (I got slapped like that once. The results were not what the slapper expected.)
But to change the way politicians do business in America? You have to change the system. Nobody in America seems ready to do that yet. But heaping more slander and lies upon slander and lies just doesn’t make any sense if defeating irrational fear is the actual goal.
To change irrational thinking created by the opportunistic actor, an alternate narrative must be offered to the listener that respects the emotions causing knee jerk reactions, while creating a different path for those emotions to be expressed in a more rational way. The only way to conquer fear of the unknown is by knowing…the truth. That brings us back to politicians who…especially in America…are not in the truth business. Or the understanding business. Politicians are in the fear business. When we all get tired of living like that, we’ll change the system. Until then, the best we can do is just try and not make things worse.
Aaaand, the House voted in favor of additional screening, requiring confirmation that each individual poses no threat by nearly everyone important sans Jesus! They can’t pass universal background checks for gun possession, yet they do this. Craziness!
This should be no surprise. A power play by the new Speaker after Obama refused to make nice with Congressional Democrats facing pressure from home. Forty-seven House Democrats joined the Republicans after “fierce” lobbying by the White House. Pelosi made the emotional “American Values™” appeal to no avail. (She did, however, bring up the fact House members still refuse to do anything to keep potential terrorists here from legally obtaining firearms and explosives.) It’s unclear in what I’ve read if anybody bothered to mention the fact that what the Republicans want is probably unconstitutional as well as logistically impossible. The hope is that Democrats in the Senate can stall the measure there because a veto override…looking at the current numbers…is a distinct possibility. The Obama White House better move toward a compromise…and quickly. His credibility on threat assessment has taken a major hit. If he refuses to recognize that, and act accordingly, his Party will suffer the consequences next year. And all the good intentions here at home will amount to nothing.
And from the Alternate Narrative Dept.: Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Flake (R-AZ) have introduced legislation that deals with actual potential threats to national security due to actual existing problems with our visa waiver program.
It’s all very frustrating.
Welcome to America!