Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a piece that ran today in the DC City Paper on topic.
Opens with a graph about how Mighty "Moscow" Mitch is campaigning*in Kentucky against DC Statehood, in an attempt to hold on to his seat (which he probably will).
Follows on with other R opponents.
You know, in his Essay "A Modest Proposal" Dean Johnathon Swift had a better solution. He suggested that the rich should eat the children of the poor.
I'm afraid I'm not bright enough to catch on to this, whatever is meant.
Since DC is the seat of the Federal government, a government established and approved by the States, it then follows that the seat of the government of the 50 States should never be run by it's own "government" or have representation in Congress because it would then have authority over the government of the United States by city ordinance or State law. And how can a State be the seat of government of the other 50? That would just make the 50 glorified counties and the State of Washington DC master over them all.
DC wasn't meant to be represented. And since there are those who now demand DC state-hood or melding into another state, the easiest and most sure solution is to have no possibility of permanent residency in DC. Voila! No constituents, no extra-legal government.
I'm afraid I'm not bright enough to catch on to this, whatever is meant.
Since DC is the seat of the Federal government, a government established and approved by the States, it then follows that the seat of the government of the 50 States should never be run by it's own "government" or have representation in Congress because it would then have authority over the government of the United States by city ordinance or State law. And how can a State be the seat of government of the other 50? That would just make the 50 glorified counties and the State of Washington DC master over them all.
DC wasn't meant to be represented. And since there are those who now demand DC state-hood or melding into another state, the easiest and most sure solution is to have no possibility of permanent residency in DC. Voila! No constituents, no extra-legal government.
I think he was making a reference to your comment about the poor people of DC and how you would "pack 'em up and move 'em out."
Jonathan Swift was an Irish writer who lived during a time when the British upper classes were accustomed to treating the poor (especially the Irish poor) as an inconvenience to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. People had already gotten used to the idea of "packing 'em up and moving 'em out" -- with very little concern as to where the poor might be moved or the effect this might have on families.
So Swift chose to shock people with his "modest proposal" of making use of the children of the poor as livestock to be butchered for the dinner tables of the upper classes. He went on in his essay to "rationally" describe all the benefits to society that this would bring. Swift's essay was completely over the top, of course, but it shone a light on the comfortable classes of society whose attitudes toward the poor weren't really that far removed from viewing them as animals that could be put to better use, which was what Swift was satirizing in his essay.
Swift's essay is a worthwhile read (with the exception of one distasteful crack he makes about the Jews).
I now return you to the business of sorting out Washington, D.C.
I think he was making a reference to your comment about the poor people of DC and how you would "pack 'em up and move 'em out."
Jonathan Swift was an Irish writer who lived during a time when the British upper classes were accustomed to treating the poor (especially the Irish poor) as an inconvenience to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. People had already gotten used to the idea of "packing 'em up and moving 'em out" -- with very little concern as to where the poor might be moved or the effect this might have on families.
So Swift chose to shock people with his "modest proposal" of making use of the children of the poor as livestock to be butchered for the dinner tables of the upper classes. He went on in his essay to "rationally" describe all the benefits to society that this would bring. Swift's essay was completely over the top, of course, but it shone a light on the comfortable classes of society whose attitudes toward the poor weren't really that far removed from viewing them as animals that could be put to better use, which was what Swift was satirizing in his essay.
Swift's essay is a worthwhile read (with the exception of one distasteful crack he makes about the Jews).
I now return you to the business of sorting out Washington, D.C.
You are correct, and thank you for the good summary. It's so long since I read it, I don't remember the Jewish bit.
I'm afraid I'm not bright enough to catch on to this, whatever is meant.
Since DC is the seat of the Federal government, a government established and approved by the States, it then follows that the seat of the government of the 50 States should never be run by it's own "government" or have representation in Congress because it would then have authority over the government of the United States by city ordinance or State law. And how can a State be the seat of government of the other 50? That would just make the 50 glorified counties and the State of Washington DC master over them all.
DC wasn't meant to be represented. And since there are those who now demand DC state-hood or melding into another state, the easiest and most sure solution is to have no possibility of permanent residency in DC. Voila! No constituents, no extra-legal government.
The DC Statehood proposal would retain a Federal District called DC, same as now, but much smaller in size than the current DC, and the remainder of what used to be*DC, would be converted into a new state with a new name.*
A Federal DC would continue to "Master" over the other states, and the people of what is currently DC would live in another state not named DC, which is what the situation would be if it retroceded into Md, which neither the people of DC or Md want.
Okay, Thanks Guys:
My proposal was to remove ALL permanent residents of D.C. with the financial aid to those who need it but you are right to only help the poor would be unjust. Simply require residents to provide moving receipts in order to reimburse them.
The Federal Government, being created for, and with the approval of the States can't be the "Master". This would mean a State relinquishing it's sovereignty and again, becoming little more than a county.
Thanks for the explanation about statehood or "melding". I will say I believe both remedies are bad ideas. I've shared my thoughts on the first remedy but to me, the second, in still leaving a District would mean in another few years the same debate would arise.
Really, I think the people who thought out the idea of a District made a big mistake in allowing permanent residency but that ship has long sailed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
