That would effectively end the usefulness of representative government. If you let people split away any time they lose the vote, eventually you’re going to have thousands of microcountries where before there had been the US.
You can’t make the argument that you weren’t fairly represented, so there’s really no argument to leave.
Huh?
“Oh, hey, if you’re not happy with the way things are run, you totally have a right to give up all say in our government, but we still get to tell you what to do.”
I don’t get why only the southern states get the hypothetical right to become a territory. Why not Montana and Oregon too?
I don’t see why not. It’s not like people won’t figure out other ways to burn things without flamethrowers.
Some people interpret statistics of blacks doing poorly on standardize tests as evidence that blacks have inferior intelligence. Those people are either racist or stupid. I don’t think we should stop collecting racial data just because a bunch of rednecks get the wrong idea.
What the data actually shows is that the government or society is not treating it’s citizens equally. That’s why it’s important to keep taking those statistics.
Do you have any proof that college degrees make better police officers?
The problem is that the world community wants Israel to do things beyond its power. They want Israel to grant Palestinians full liberty and to stop terrorist attacks at the same time. That is impossible for Israel to do on its own and not one country bitching about Israel’s tactics wants to help them get rid of the terrorists in their territories. Things would go a lot smoother and less Palestinians would die if the world joined in the fight against Hamas and Hezbollah.
Why would they want to become a territory of the US. What is the benefit of going from statehood to territory?
That would probably be unconstitutional. Though I agree that they should get a vote in Congress.
Easier said than done. Where would you put the money so that the Government can get better?
Why not just drive or take a bus?
No opinion. I hate economics.
Who is shocked by this? Is there anyone who doesn’t want this?
What gets me in trouble my belief that we should get rid of the sex offender registry and that animals should have more rights than they do now.
I’m also an atheist who supports legalizing prostitution, weed, and gay marriage. That raises eyebrows in some circles.
People here in the Bible Belt think a lot of my views are blasphemous, but there’s only one that gets me the “you’re shitting me” look from most people:
I think the government should give away heroin, free of charge, to any adult who wants it. It should come with a clean needle and a safe, private place to shoot it up (it can’t be used off the premesis). They should even give people rides there and back.
The only catch is that you would have to register as a heroin user. You wouldn’t be allowed to drive or do dangerous work. You couldn’t take care of kids by yourself, and if there are kids in your home at all you’d have regular social worker visits.
Of course, each heroin station would have literature available about rehab, and the staff would be trained to answer questions and make it happen if the customer wanted it. But they wouldn’t push it.
I disagree. Collecting data by race is important in order to quantitatively keep track of racial progress in the United States. I can see why you might have a different perspective, if you live in Detroit (which has a really fucked up racial situation), but it’s really important to be able to see all of this information. I’m a public policy student and I see papers with this kind of data all of the time and it’s often really valuable. For instance, I recently read a paper that showed that children of all racial backgrounds in the US aspire to go to college at very similar numbers. And yet, whites and Asian-Americans actually achieve that at much higher rates than blacks and Hispanics. Why? What is happening that would prevent kids from attaining their goals, and why is that along racial lines? Without collecting data by race, people would probably know that black and Hispanic kids don’t go to college in representative numbers, by basic observation, but it wouldn’t be quantifiable and it would be difficult to enact programs to counteract this effect, and impossible to measure their success rate.
You seem to be saying that revealing this data gives ammunition to the racists who would use it to prove that blacks and Hispanics are intellectually inferior, which might be a side-effect, but IMHO, pretending that the racial gap doesn’t exist because you wish it didn’t is counterproductive. How can we work on fixing a problem if we ignore it?
Legalization is one thing, but why should the government subsidize heroin (or alcohol, or cigarettes, or any other recreational drug) for public consumption?
Well, presumably that’s to justify the heroin-register. If you give people a choice between register as a heroin-user and buy it illegally, you won’t get as many people volunteering as if you give them a choice between registering or buying illegally and paying for it.
In the early 1900’s, W.E.B Dubois wrote of the inadequacy of black schools in both the Souls of Black Folks and later, more indepth, in Black Reconstruction in America. James Baldwin joined the chorus with The Fire Next Time. There have been numerous contemporary movies that have explored the plight of black schools; even our own President has talked about the black, South Carolina girl whose school is delapidated and shakes violently when the train passes. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford turned down the portion of the stimulus funds that would have been used to repair that school. No one gives a shit but the beat goes on, right?
The realization that blacks receive inferior education did not coalesce from thin air; it has been repeated throughout the the 20th century and still remains a problem. I am not naive to think it remains a problem because it hasn’t been “solved” yet, it remains a problem because whites in this country don’t give a shit. Never have and probably won’t ever will (at least in my lifetime). I think its much easier for whites to parry the guilt by using * The Bell Curve * and shield the shame by holding the gold-gilt effigy of Linda Gottfredson in benediction.
Because I don’t think there is a rationale for collecting data on race, I consistently mark “white” or “other” when asked to provide my ethnicity. I always hear that we shouldn’t have programs that help minorities get into colleges and schools because we’re “all equal”; well, if we’re all equal, lets stop parsing ourselves into racial categories and be done with it. My hunch is that the reluctance on moving America forward to being color-blind hinged on the fact that most whites use the Census data to further distance themselves from minority communities.
As I read this, I understand how bad all of the above sounds, but you know, its how I feel. 
Huh? Are you saying it’s supposed to be like a government-sponsored rehab program except the rehab part is optional and there are other strings attached? Like “We know you have a heroin problem. We’ll feed your addiction for free if you promise not to drive or play with kids.”?
Please explain why such a program would be better for society than simply throwing the users in jail/rehabbing them/executing them. The only thing I can think of is that subsidized heroin would be cheaper than proper subsidized healthcare, and that way at least the roads and kids will be a little safer – am I reading you right?
Getting rid of racial statistics won’t make racists think everybody is equal. I don’t you are going to see people think “well I thought I hated black people, but since I don’t have any data to back up that theory, I guess black people are ok.”
In exchange for whatever minor upside you might imagine, the downside is that we won’t know about racial discrimination when it happens. That is not a trade off I think anyone should be making.
C’mon, isn’t a flamethrower the very definition of a firearm?
I dunno, I was just guessing about the free heroin. You’d have to ask DoctorJ why he thought it’d be a good idea.
The one that gets people gaping at me is my belief that the government should decriminalize all drugs. All of them. Treat them just like any other drug, have classifications of prescription/recreational, and tax the bejeezus out of the recreational ones.
They’d still be cheaper than street stuff, the gangs and cartels would have to find a new way of making money, and the users wouldn’t end up clogging our jails. The government would save tons of money by stopping the drug war, and would make more in tax revenue.
Portugalhas already done it and the world didn’t end.
I agree with your view of the Second Amendment, but even I foresee problems, pro-gun though I am. For all practical purposes the question turns on the possession of explosives, since virtually all modern heavy military ordinance either uses explosive warheads or charges of propellent large enough to be explosive devices in their own right. Do you have licensing similiar to what’s necessary for civilian demolition experts? And the one thing that makes me back off from a totally libertarian interpretation of the 2nd is the idea of corporations being able to hire and arm private armies with weapons such as heavy artillery, tanks and attack aircraft that individuals could never afford.
Are you talking about the West Bank/Gaza? Technically the Palestinians aren’t Israeli citizens at all, they’re a subject people living under indefinite foreign occupation. Or were you referring to the Arab minority in Israel proper?
Uh… they didn’t want to revert to US territories, they wanted to be sovereign and independent. In the purest libertarian sense the South had a right to secede, but it would have been suicide for the Union to acquiese to it.
It should be part of Maryland or Virginia, with a limited area encompassing the White House, Capitol and Supreme Court remaining federal territory.
I thought that was pretty much what we were doing.
I wrote an extensive reply. Then I struggled valiantly with the code to try to show the difference between my replies and Honesty’s proposals.
I give up. I’m not willing to redo it three times. :smack:
I think we have to ourselves “How long have we known about the problem?” In 1936, Lloyd Gains had a bachelor’s degree and applied to law school in Missouri. He was rejected due to his race, but the school offered to pay him to attend a law school which he turned down. He took them to court in which the Chief Justice writes “. . . the fact remains that instruction in law for negroes is not now afforded by the State, either at Lincoln University or elsewhere within the State, and that the State excludes negroes from the advantages of the law school it has established at the University of Missouri.”
And since that opinion there still exist inequality despite the tracking and data collection. Do we track for 50 years more? 100? 200? When the U.S government commits to something, it is done. When I get a stimulus check, it is because the federal government enacted a law to do it. When the government wanted to go the friggin’ moon, the Eisenhower passed a law so detailed and focused on that goal. And guess what? We went to the moon. It seems absurd to me that after seventy years since Gains was rejected, the problem remains so absurdly that the government doesn’t adjust its approach when these statistics come out year after year.
If the government was serious, they’d something like this: Temporarily seize failing school districts from States. Whatever they were doing wasn’t working anyway. Fund these schools directly through the Department of Education without displacing teachers (yet) and paying them the same or better rate as their Board of Education. Directly finance and oversee improvement (e.g. books, extracurricular activities, facilities) and have representatives that monitor school conditions and review teachers for performance.
For those who’d wag their finger and say that the government can’t do anything right take a look at West Point or Uniformed Services and tell me its a mirage.
Where does this weird idea that DC doesn’t have any representation in Congress come from? Montana has two senators and a single representative, but DC has 100 senators and 435 representatives. Sure, each of those senators has a greater vested interest in es home state than in es new workplace, but fifty times greater? I find that hard to believe. This is precisely why the Constitution says that DC shouldn’t be a state, because even without the standard forms of recognition that states get, it’s already got more power than any state does.
Federal Reserve System.
I think people find your views incomprehensible because they come from a position of ignorance.
Yes! Why are you ignoring the tremendous amount of progress we have made since 1936 when blacks weren’t accepted to law schools? Have you noticed the current US President? That was all made possible because of the racial data collection.
I don’t know why you went off on this tangent. This has nothing to do with collecting racial data. All I’m going to say about this is that fixing our education system is not as easy as you think. Your not the first to suggest that teachers need federal oversight.
Despite the fact that they have 435 people making laws for them, they do not have any influence over the lawmakers. They can’t vote out any of them. And we all know how much politicians care about people who don’t vote.
It’s not good enough just to have the representative live in your state. You have to be able to hold him accountable.