SOTU

[rubato]

The HC bill is flawed but a federal version of "Romneycare" is a great deal better than nothing. The record in Mass. has been consistently good. Getting it passed is a huge accomplishment. Universal participation is an essential step.

You can say that the 3/5ths compromise was abandoning principles or you can say it was the only path to a union which has led the advancement of personal freedom and autonomy for 200 years. As terrible as it was to compromise with the evil of slavery it in the end served the greater good. I think it is only truly an abandonment of principles if there existed a choice which had a better outcome. If not, then their principles were intact they simply understood that there was a difference between what was desireable and what was possible.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

The HC bill is flawed but a federal version of "Romneycare" is a great deal better than nothing. The record in Mass. has been consistently good. Getting it passed is a huge accomplishment. Universal participation is an essential step.

Well rubato, reasonable minds may differ, but public buy-in is as important as the other points. When currently-insured people eventually see that they'll be paying more for what they perceive as less (and that time will come), it could set universal healthcare back decades. IMHO a bad bill is not always better than none.

As far as the 3/5 compromise goes, I'm not sure what principles were abandoned; many of the same persons tossed the condemnation of slavery out of the declaration of independence--and endorsed (or at least tolerated it) since then. The 3/5 compromise was just a good way settle a population dispute between different factions of the emerging nation.

Certainly politics does force people to accept less than the entire loaf at times, but there are times when nothing is better than what we end up with.

sue and andrew--Interesting points; I tend to agree.

[Sue U]

Well, we have a variety of alternative models of democratic governments around the world. What elements would you pick? Personally, I'm not sure we need to retain a bicameral legislature, and I'm not sure I'd retain the presidential executive; I tend to be inclined toward a multi-party parliamentary system with a proportional representation scheme. I do favor a strong and independent judiciary branch as a check on legislative power.

[Big RR]

Agree on the executive and judiciary; and while a multi-party parliamentary system has its attractions, I'm not certain I'd give up a bicameral legislature that easily. I do like the idea of the senate as being a bit of a brake on the passions of the house, although maybe a very large house would be brake on itself.

[Mr. Duality]

Wonder where the money would come from for high speed rail & so on.

The first time Obama used the word "contentious" Boehner either stifled a belch or threw up in his mouth a little.

[rubato]

"...

It may be that the extremists love America as much as I and most of us do. But if so, they love an America very different from the America to which my devotion attaches. And I see no way of reconciling their conception of America with mine.

Perhaps it is time -- perhaps it is long past time -- for the US to divide itself into several separate nations. In my opinion, that result is coming sooner or later, and I would far rather see it brought about by civilized discussion, negotiation, and compromise than by another bloody civil war.

The percentage of abortion extremists has not changed significantly in 35 years. Other than that most of it is just heated rhetoric; arguments over dogma.

Looking at the practical reasons for division there are less than there were 40 years ago (women's rights, other minority rights) or 60 years ago (civil rights for blacks).

The only effects of division wold be to allow the conservative southern states to regress on providing all of the rights of citizenship to women, blacks, ethnic minorities and gays.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Is there not a case for abandoning the President and federal government to just a ceremonial role, and have your states as independent "countries"?


Your system seems almost self defeating at present.

[BoSoxGal]

I can't say I agree with any notions concerning dividing the Union or reducing the federal government's influence.

The federal government protects those of us who live in less progressive places from the ignorance of the majority.

Thank heavens!

[Gob]

But surely dividing into states would mean that bright, intelligent, creative, patriotic, kind and considerate, and hard working people would move to certain states, and republicans would move to the others?

[BoSoxGal]

I don't want to live in NYC, Boston, DC, LA, SF, etc. I like rural living. I just don't want to be ruled by ultra-conservatives.

[Mr. Duality]

Is there not a case for abandoning the President and federal government to just a ceremonial role, and have your states as independent "countries"?


Your system seems almost self defeating at present.

Get a bunch of arrows. Pick up one arrow. Take it in both hands and break it over your knee. Easy, eh? Now take a dozen arrows in both hands and try to break them. You may damage your knee instead. Now, have you learned anything?

[rubato]

But surely dividing into states would mean that bright, intelligent, creative, patriotic, kind and considerate, and hard working people would move to certain states, and republicans would move to the others?

There are Republicans who are: "bright, intelligent, creative, patriotic, kind and considerate, and hard working people". They may not be visible in the international press because they are called "RINOs" and driven from public life so quickly by the ignorantia who took over the party as a result of the 'southern strategy'.


yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Is there not a case for abandoning the President and federal government to just a ceremonial role, and have your states as independent "countries"?


Your system seems almost self defeating at present.

Get a bunch of arrows. Pick up one arrow. Take it in both hands and break it over your knee. Easy, eh? Now take a dozen arrows in both hands and try to break them. You may damage your knee instead. Now, have you learned anything?

[Sue U]

Looking at the practical reasons for division there are less than there were 40 years ago (women's rights, other minority rights) or 60 years ago (civil rights for blacks).

The only effects of division wold be to allow the conservative southern states to regress on providing all of the rights of citizenship to women, blacks, ethnic minorities and gays.

That is simply not true. Apart from civil rights, there are numerous bread-and-butter issues for which different regions have different priorities. For example, very few here in the Northeast care much about farm subsidies and agricultural mangement issues; very few outside of the Northeast (except in some urbanized pockets) care much about mass transit infrastructure. If it were up to the Northeast, we would have a single-payer national health system, a higher minimum wage and more protective environmental regulation. If we were a separate nation, our Northeast Republican Party would be lead by the likes of Christie Whitman, Mike Castle, William Weld, Dick Thornburgh, etc. -- you know, reasonable people -- rather than being the captive of far-right whackos.

[rubato]

Looking at the practical reasons for division there are less than there were 40 years ago (women's rights, other minority rights) or 60 years ago (civil rights for blacks).

The only effects of division wold be to allow the conservative southern states to regress on providing all of the rights of citizenship to women, blacks, ethnic minorities and gays.

That is simply not true. Apart from civil rights, there are numerous bread-and-butter issues for which different regions have different priorities. For example, very few here in the Northeast care much about farm subsidies and agricultural mangement issues; very few outside of the Northeast (except in some urbanized pockets) care much about mass transit infrastructure. If it were up to the Northeast, we would have a single-payer national health system, a higher minimum wage and more protective environmental regulation. If we were a separate nation, our Northeast Republican Party would be lead by the likes of Christie Whitman, Mike Castle, William Weld, Dick Thornburgh, etc. -- you know, reasonable people -- rather than being the captive of far-right whackos.

There are differences of priorities, certainly. But I don't think that they are of the same order as denying basic human rights. I don't think most of those differences would be sufficient to divide a Union which has survived slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, and two world wars, the second across two oceans.


And if we take you usage of "northeast" to mean for the most part "blue states". Then it would include Oregon, most of California, and several other areas as well who all care about environmental regulation (California leads the world in reducing emissions stds for cars), the minimum wage &c. And the wholly stupid 55mph speed limit was driven by your tiny little NE states with tiny little distances between things.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Get a bunch of arrows. Pick up one arrow. Take it in both hands and break it over your knee. Easy, eh? Now take a dozen arrows in both hands and try to break them. You may damage your knee instead. Now, have you learned anything?

Yep. If you want to bust a bunch of arrows, buy an axe!

[Andrew D]

The federal government protects those of us who live in less progressive places from the ignorance of the majority.

Thank heavens!

At the moment, thanks to the ascendancy of the progressives, yes. But how long do you think that will last under the ascendancy of the conservatives?

[Econoline]

bsg makes a good point: even in the least "progressive" (for want of a better word) states, there exists a sizable minority of progressives, doing their best to change things--and occasionally succeeding. (Look at the 2008 election results in states like Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and New Mexico.) We can't just give up on those places...and, more importantly, we can't just tell the minority of sensible folks who live there that they should give up and move away, just because they're outnumbered 60% to 40%.

[Mr. Duality]

Get a bunch of arrows. Pick up one arrow. Take it in both hands and break it over your knee. Easy, eh? Now take a dozen arrows in both hands and try to break them. You may damage your knee instead. Now, have you learned anything?

Yep. If you want to bust a bunch of arrows, buy an axe!

You are missing the point.

[Mr. Duality]

I imagine that if you hit a bunch of arrows with an axe you would get arrow tips flying randomly. I neglected to mention earlier these arrows have poisoned tips. Yikes!