States Rights Resurgence

James81 · Mar 30, 2009

KCathy said:
This is what drives me crazy about current politics. We can't compromise on anything in the name of sanity because "if we allow that, it's a slippery slope to" name your doomsday scenario (with guns, for example, people are either shooting each other in the supermarket because they CAN have guns or have to surrender to China when they invade because nobody has guns in their homes to stop them). God forbid we should attempt to move toward the middle and make it so we can all live with, say, 80% of the solution upon which we've agreed.

When the Bush-Gore election debacle was going on, I didn't understand why, instead of everyone putting on their team jersey and railing against the other national team, we weren't all saddened and concerned that we were so sharply divided as a nation that the election was THAT close. I voted for McCain but was actually pleased that, if Obama had to win, at least a clear majority of us were agreeing about something for a change.

Let's see...how many cans of worms can I open in one reply?

I get what you are saying (and agree), but I forsee people coming out of the wordwork to point out that the popular vote in the last election was STILL close and showed great division among us as a nation.

dclary · Mar 30, 2009

Zoombie said:
I would love to see a system where the States were a better check against the Federal Government...but not so much that we trade 1 overbearing government with 50.

This was the original concept of "The Great Compromise" -- you had the House of Representatives, representing the people of America, the Senate, representing the States, and the Executive, representing the federal beauracracy, who could only do things at the behest (legislation) of the people and states. The Judicial existed to ensure that all sides played fairly, and to intercede when legal matters crossing state jurisdictions were broached.

We have moved so far away from our Constitution's fantastic concept as to make it unrecognizable, in that both the senate and house seem to exist solely to continue bloating the power of the federal government, and to hell with either the states or the people who live in them.

I would support revolution today. The america I live in today is not the america I remember. Nor is it the america I want to live in anymore.

Zoombie · Mar 30, 2009

The America of 'back then' also supported slavery, racism, sexism, and the slow genocide of the native American people.

I do love some parts of America today, just as I hate parts of America of yesteryear...

So...rather than going back, lets go forward. Let us create an America that keeps the values of today and combines them with the balance of the past.

Like...the Powerzoid from Power Rangers.

Except instead of fighting Rita Repulsa, we'll be fighting tyranny.

KCathy · Mar 30, 2009

Shh, Zoombie; the Greatest Generation doesn't want to remember sexism and racism when remembering how much better it was back when children respected their elders and everyone had a good work ethic.

Zoombie · Mar 30, 2009

Oh right, right, sorry.

<ahem>

What I meant to say was all the Founding Fathers fought crime, had super powers, and were absolutely perfect.

Oh and the Civil War was fought entirely for states rights and had no other reason. The black people didn't vote cause they didn't want too. The Native Americans left their lands voluntarily. What interment camps? There were no interment camps during WWII. I don't know what you're talking about...

Fullback · Mar 30, 2009

One danger in writing fiction is that some people carry some of their fantasies over into their view of the real world. They want history or reality to fit their fictional version of history or reality.

Zoombie · Mar 30, 2009

Um, people other than fiction writers do that all the time.

I'm looking at you, holocaust deniers.

WriteKnight · Mar 30, 2009

Well, Texas WAS an independent nation - fought a war of independence and everything. (Remember GOLIAD!!!! okay... that cottonwood place too...)

GeorgeK · Mar 30, 2009

Don said:
...Secession is actually the most American of actions. Lincoln's actions were contrary to the spirit of the country,...

That sounds like the sophists argument that in order to prove that you have free will one must oppose God...ok, you've proven you have free will, but now you are in Hell.

It is not unAmerican to support America. If you are free to support whomever, then America must be part of that subset that is whomever.

dclary · Mar 30, 2009

KCathy said:
Shh, Zoombie; the Greatest Generation doesn't want to remember sexism and racism when remembering how much better it was back when children respected their elders and everyone had a good work ethic.

Is it so wrong to want both? Respect, ethics, *and* equality?

KCathy · Mar 30, 2009

Is it so wrong to want both? Respect, ethics, *and* equality?

Absolutely not! I want 'em all. I just admit to a tendency to get childishly peeved when others rant about the defects of my generation in comparison with their own as though they were pure virtue and we are pure lazy selfishness. I think every generation has good and bad tendencies, just different ones, and that every generation thinks the ones that follow it fail to sufficiently respect their elders. In fact, I read The Keeper of the Bees, by Gene Stratton Porter, written in 1925, and thought it was pretty funny when one of the characters started complaining about how disrespectful young people were "these days," how indecent, etc.

robeiae · Mar 30, 2009

You want more State oversight/control of Fed power? Easy. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.

As to compromise, it's a fine thing when the issue is a quantifiable one: group A wants to increase spending on X by 20%, group B wants to increase spending on X by 10%. Sure, compromise.

But how about this: group A wants to make X against the law, group B thinks X is a fundamental right. Where do you "compromise"?

And of course, everyone knows the gambit of demanding waaaay more than you want, in the hopes of getting what you want. In the first example, perhaps group A will claim to want spending on X to be increased by 70%, in the hopes of getting the 20% they actually wanted all along.

As to the Constitution being a product of compromise...well, not really. The Ratification of it was attained through compromise, no doubt. But the actual document, in terms of structures and powers of the Fed? No. That's Madison.

Diana Hignutt · Mar 31, 2009

dclary said:
We have moved so far away from our Constitution's fantastic concept as to make it unrecognizable, in that both the senate and house seem to exist solely to continue bloating the power of the federal government, and to hell with either the states or the people who live in them.

I would support revolution today. The america I live in today is not the america I remember. Nor is it the america I want to live in anymore.

Then do something about it. I'm starting a new political party aimed at non-violent revolution--taking back our government from special interests and corporations. Sure, it's a long shot. But, at least I'm trying. There's always something that we can do. As writers we have the weapon of words. Use them to try and make things better.

GeorgeK · Mar 31, 2009

KCathy said:
characters started complaining about how disrespectful young people were "these days," how indecent, etc.

There are recurring themes of that in Homer's Iliad, so the concept as you said is certainly not new.

Williebee · Mar 31, 2009

Yeah, the arrogance of Texans (the whole "we are our own nation" crap) has always baffled me.

S'ok. Like Granddad used to say, "Son, never ask a man where he's from. If'n he's from Texas, he'll tell you. If'n he's not? No sense in embarrassing him."

"Remember Goliad" indeed, and San Jacinto!

ETA: Oh yeah, and Dealey Plaza.

Zoombie · Mar 31, 2009

Diana Hignutt said:
Then do something about it. I'm starting a new political party aimed at non-violent revolution--taking back our government from special interests and corporations. Sure, it's a long shot. But, at least I'm trying. There's always something that we can do. As writers we have the weapon of words. Use them to try and make things better.

Yes, yes, join!

I'm in it too!

Wait, shit, that just scared half the forum away...

KCathy · Mar 31, 2009

*Cathy runs screaming away from the thread*

Zoombie · Mar 31, 2009

Oh, I'm not THAT ugly!

Now, back on topic...

Rob, when a compromise is not obvious, you argue about it till you come up with something that works. It usually takes a while, and sometimes, you have to ignore the extremists who won't change. You just need to get the majority of people in your net and understand that you can't fix everything.

robeiae · Mar 31, 2009

Zoombie said:
Rob, when a compromise is not obvious, you argue about it till you come up with something that works. It usually takes a while, and sometimes, you have to ignore the extremists who won't change. You just need to get the majority of people in your net and understand that you can't fix everything.

For some things--things that are quantifiable--that can work in the moment. For other things, no.

"Compromise" is not a panacea for every issue that sparks disagreement. Sometimes, the problem is that one side is simply wrong, for whatever reason: ignorance, lack of education, what have you. In my mind, not everything is subject to compromise.

Zoombie · Mar 31, 2009

Ah, but Rob...when they're wrong due to ignorance and lack of education, a good debater can educate his opponent.

See, its not just that compromise is a panacea. Its the debate that is required for compromise.

And I already said its not going to fix EVERY issue. Just more of them than being set in stone and never changing your mind or listening to the opposition ever.

robeiae · Mar 31, 2009

Zoombie said:
Ah, but Rob...when they're wrong due to ignorance and lack of education, a good debater can educate his opponent.

See, its not just that compromise is a panacea. Its the debate that is required for compromise.

And I already said its not going to fix EVERY issue. Just more of them than being set in stone and never changing your mind or listening to the opposition ever.

Don't "ah" me. When you change your opponents' minds, it's no longer a compromise.

Zoombie · Mar 31, 2009

But if you change their mind due to a debate, and you can't have a compromise without debates, which might change their minds, but you would not have debated without trying to compromise, so they would not have changed their mind without compromise!

HA!

dclary · Mar 31, 2009

editor's note: That "ha!" was the sound of zoombie's one remaining brain cell imploding upon itself in a harry muddesque logic loop.

Zoombie · Mar 31, 2009

benbradley · Mar 31, 2009

What's the Godwin equivalent of a Star Trek reference?

States Rights Resurgence

Great Scott Member

Unabashed Mercenary

Dragon of the Multiverse

Writer when I grow up

Dragon of the Multiverse

Dragon of the Multiverse

Arranger Of Disorder

ever seeking

Unabashed Mercenary

Writer when I grow up

Touch and go

Very Tired

ever seeking

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Dragon of the Multiverse

Writer when I grow up

Dragon of the Multiverse

Touch and go

Dragon of the Multiverse

Touch and go

Dragon of the Multiverse

Unabashed Mercenary

Dragon of the Multiverse

It's a doggy dog world