Ken said:
as california go's so does the nation??!! not anymore bush and arnold put a stop to that.
I love Sarah Palin. Really, I do. Granted it started as love in the ‘you are so bad for the GOP’ kind of way but has evolved into that plus the ‘car wreck on the side of the road that you don’t want to look at but can’t look away’ variety on the side. Now, to be honest, this opinion could very well bite me in the butt but it’s how I feel today.
Watching Governor Palin’s farewell address – how priceless was it that she warned of taking things from the government in the same speech she touted the energy rebate checks she sent out? – I could see why people like her so much. Actually, her appeal, however shallow, is understandable. I mean, if you say anything forcefully enough it just may sound convincing. And she struck all the right chords; the media is bad, the troops are good, Alaskans are tough, liberal Hollywood wants your guns. Maybe it’s because Al Franken was recently sworn in as a Senator but part of me half expected her to say something along the lines of “I am good enough, I am smart enough and, doggone it, PEOPLE LIKE ME!!!” She didn’t, of course, but then again that might have been because to do so would have been more ‘politics as usual.’
Even if you love Sarah Palin because you actually think she has a role to play on the national scene, you have to know she resigned for herself – not Alaska. Her legal bills, which she apparently cannot pawn off on a PAC, though I think she probably can, are already over $150,000. My money’s on her finding her home state to be too small for her ambition. She’s tasted the limelight and liked it. All the pundits say this is a risky plan – even Nick Pawlenty, who is considering a run, said he would not seek reelection but is staying put until then. A truism I have found working in politics is every politician or would-be-politician thinks they have the secret formula for winning an election. A few (Barak Obama’s plan, which looked a lot like Howard Dean’s ’50 state solution’, worked) are right, most are not. They think that if they do something totally radical, they will win. Most find there is a reason people follow a certain formula – it works. Rocket science this ain’t.
I cannot wait to see what she does next. Best reality TV ever.
Will California become the new Amsterdam?
With their economy in tatters and a huge budget shortfall that has caused them to pay bills with IOUs, California is considering legalizing pot in order to tax it. The state made marijuana legal for medical purposes in 1996 and polls show 56 percent of Californians support the idea. Some have estimated that doing this will bring the state $1.4 billion. Pot is a huge crop in the state. What I wonder is how this will affect the already big tourism industry there. Will people go to California to get high? Do people do that already?
Our reaction to pot is kind of interesting. It has been around for more than 10,000 years. Originally it was called ganja and used in Nepal and India. It arrived in the US in 1619 in Jamestown, Virginia. Hemp was seen as being such a valuable crop that the Virginian colony required its residents to grow hempseed. Farmers who refused could go to jail. According to the 1850 census, there were more than 8,000 hemp plantations (farms larger than 2,000 square feet) in the US at the time.
During the latter part of the 1800s pot was put in a number of medicinal products. It was sold at pharmacies, ironic given that a CA state legislator suggested it be sold at Walgreens. Its recreational use grew during the early part of the 20th century and probably flourished during Prohibition. The first law banning it was in 1906 when it was banned in Washington, DC. At the time states (not DC, which is not a state) had the option of regulating pot but it was believed that the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to ban drugs (including alcohol) nationally. That was the reason for the 18th amendment to the Constitution.
Several factors contributed to the illegalization of the substance: Racism played a big role. In the early 1900s the Mexican revolution caused a large influx of Mexicans into the US. To deal with this, many western states prohibited marijuana and used that as a pretense for deporting Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. States along the Eastern seaboard and in the north criminalized it because of anti-African-American feelings for most and the threat that heroin addiction would lead to pot use (reverse gateway drug theory right there). In 1937, after Prohibition had been repealed, the Marijuana Tax Act became law and pot was made illegal in the US.
Personally, I do not see its appeal but would not mind if it were legalized. Maybe we could tax it and put some of the money raised toward paying for drug treatment centers but that’s my inner bleeding heart liberal. In the Netherlands, where pot is illegal but permitted, the rationale for their policy seems to be that they allow some pot smoking and eating but crack down on harder drugs. Have you ever been to Amsterdam? If you were to believe the anti-pot propaganda (found in films like ‘Reefer Madness’) you might expect it to be full of completely insane people but it’s not.
It’s interesting to see that what happens when times get tough and as we all know, as goes California so goes the nation. Are the other 49 states going to follow along?
Priceless.
It's kind of strange to see the new 'Harry and Louise' ads that promote health care reform because they were part of the sttrategy to defeat it back in the early 1990s. I wish they felt the way they do now back then.
Seriously, go to ABC News and search for 'hidden dangers of do it yourself surgery' and you will find more than you want. I looked online and found this. Now, I cannot guarantee it is real but was from a site that claimed to see DIY Lasik kits. Yeah, I am going to get right on that.
If you think I was out of line for pointing out that residents of the Washington, DC have no representation in Congress and that goes against the idea of ‘no taxation without representation’ nothing I say will change your mind. It’s kind of ironic given the fact that I admitted that I have no real idea what the best remedy is, because I do not, but it seems wrong to me anyway.
People lived in the area that is now the District of Columbia before it became the ‘seat of government.’ Evidence suggests people have lived in the area now called Washington, DC for approximately 4000 years. Europeans explored the area as early as 1608 (Captain John Smith) and settled there in the late 1600s. The first areas to be settled were Anacostia, Georgetown, Capitol Hill and a little later Alexandria, Virginia.
After 1783, when the then-capital, in Philadelphia, was attacked, the decision was set aside a separate area to house the government. (See Federalist paper 43.) The US Constitution specifies that a ‘district’ be created for this purpose but does not indicate its location, that honor was given to George Washington. Virginia and Maryland ceded the land to the federal government that would be then called ‘Washington, DC.’ District residents initially had Congressional representation through either Maryland or Virginia but lost that with passage of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801. The same Act gave Congress control over Washington, Alexandria and Georgetown – three separate cities. Though residents of all three voiced objections, none of the proposals to give the land back to Virginia and Maryland had much support until the early 1830s when Alexandria’s economy suffered due to Congressional neglect. Alexandria was also had a thriving slave market and as discussion of ending slavery in Washington, DC progressed, the Virginia legislature started debating getting the land back – one of the reasons being that they would get two more pro-slavery delegates. In 1846 the area south of the Potomac River was ‘receded’ to Virginia and in 1850 the slave trade was banned in WDC. President Lincoln outlawed slavery in WDC eight months before signing the Emancipation Proclamation and in 1863 most of Virginia’s anti-slave counties seceded from Virginia and were admitted into the Union as West Virginia.
The second Organic Act of 1871 formally merged Georgetown and Washington into the ‘District of Columbia,’ which became the ‘seat of government.’ The president was given authority to select the mayor. The population, which had grown during the Civil War was approximately 134,000 people.
WDC’s population grew again around World War II when the size of the federal government was increased dramatically (great book on that is David Brinkley’s Washington Goes to War). The city reached its peak population in 1950 when it was over 800,000 people. Currently almost 600,000 people live there.
In terms of taxes…
Washington, DC pays the highest federal taxes per capita in the US. District citizens also pay local taxed which pay for 67 percent of their budget, they receive similar federal government funding for certain programs and a very small appropriations amount which accounts for less than .5 percent of the city’s budget. If anything Congress shows little or no loyalty to the city that houses it. Moreover, unlike other territories such as Guam and Puerto Rico, the fact that it has no representation in Congress AND pays federal taxes makes it unique. Polls show most Americans do not know DC residents lack Congressional representation and that when they find out they support changing this.
Washington, DC is a thriving city with a great cultural history. For the people who were raised here, there is a real sense of pride and cultural identity that is not connected to the federal government.
If you have not read about this incident, http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/02/fundraiser-crowd-not-known-rowdiness/, you should.
As we prepare to celebrate America’s Independence Day, it feels fitting to look at our nation’s capital.
‘No taxation without representation’ may have been the rallying cry of the American Revolution but more than 200 years later, Washington, DC’s residents pay federal taxes but have no voting members in Congress. To add insult to injury, Congress can take control of the city whenever it wants.
Article One of the US Constitution created the capital:
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html)
It is important to note that the nation’s capital is a ‘district’ not a state. This distinction is important because the founding fathers did not want to give any one state the preferential treatment it might receive if it were located in a state and because they wanted the federal government to have full control over its security. George Washington selected the location and picked the spot the closest to Mt. Vernon, his home. In 1790 the name was changed from ‘Territory of Columbia’ to ‘District of Columbia’ and named for Washington.
District residents were not permitted to vote in presidential elections (and could not until 1961, when the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution was ratified) but that doesn’t mean they liked it. Congress began meeting there in 1800 and local protests about the lack of representation followed. Congress retained full control of the city until 1973 when it passed the ‘District of Columbia Home Rule Act’ that created a city council and allowed the city to elect its mayor. That has not stopped Congress from taking over the city whenever it wants.
So what can be done? It’s a quandary for sure. Any change to the District’s status would have to be done via a Constitutional Amendment, and that seems unlikely. The proposals have included; giving the residential areas to Maryland or Virginia and leaving only the federal building as ‘DC;’ creating a Congressional District in Utah and one for DC; statehood (before you think it’s too small, it has more residents than at least one state); or making it a federal territory that would not require residents to pay federal taxes.
Personally, I am not sure what the correct or best answer is. I do know that while the people who wrote the Constitution did not want every point of view or opinion to be represented, they expected voters to be. Now, a lot has happened since we ratified the Constitution and created DC. Senators are elected directly. We have expanded dramatically (when Thomas Jefferson completed the Louisiana Purchase for $15 million, he didn’t think his decision was Constitutional), women can vote, slavery has been abolished and the largest federal government building (the Pentagon) is not in the capital city but across the river in Virginia.
I read a lot from people who feel disenfranchised because their Congressperson or Senators don’t vote the way they want them to and while I sympathize, they at least have three people in the legislative branch to whom they can complain.
