7 Responses to “Story Meeting Roundup: March 27, 2007”

1. howardpark Says:
   March 27th, 2007 at 6:39 pm

   I was sort of looking forward to the Mountaintop Removal show and I got to thinking…there are a whole slew of issues about which a particular state or region has a veto on national policy. Coal is one — he’s a national treasure but Sen. Byrd sort of has a veto on policies which might tax or change the paragdiem on coal. Another very different issue is analogous (boith four letter words that begin with c). policy on Cuba — it’s long been understood that we don’t have a Cuba policy, we have a Florida policy even though most of the rest of the country would like to change our failed Cuba policy. There are many, many issues like those two in Washington, DC…perhaps this could be the theme of a show sometime — when the national interest collides with a state or regional interest.

2. Nick Says:
   March 27th, 2007 at 8:03 pm

   howardpark wrote:
   “…perhaps this could be the theme of a show — when the national interest collides with a state or regional interest.”

   Agreed – and nicely analyzed.
   But the problem is systemic: a symptom of a government-as-constituted more than two centuries ago, when “The States” were genuinely states, and not merely partially-autonomous provinces of a larger, much more cohesive nation-state.

   Sanford Levinson writes about this at length in his Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It). Why this sort of innovative thinking can’t catch on is beyond me.

   Einstein reputedly said, “Problems cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them.”

   Why can’t we please begin to think for ourselves, instead of relying on the thinking of long dead men of the eighteenth century?
   Why can’t this be discussed in public? On public radio?
   On ROS???

3. Brian Dunbar Says:
   March 27th, 2007 at 9:31 pm

   after hearing Brian Dunbar’s blog comment that combat duty is a “libido killer” — responded, “You can always find time.”

   Please note that I’ve never been close to combat. I was quoting a friend’s daughter who has been.

   That sentence alone should give one pause – times they have changed.

   Why can’t we please begin to think for ourselves, instead of relying on the thinking of long dead men of the eighteenth century?
   Why can’t this be discussed in public? On public radio?
   On ROS???

   Sounds keen to me.

   Of course you don’t toss stuff aside that works without considering the long term consequences of your actions.

4. Nick Says:
   March 28th, 2007 at 1:22 am

   Brian, thank you, but: I guess my problem is this: “stuff…that works”.
   If the “stuff” you mean is “representative democracy”, well, then I don’t think it “works” — except for the country’s big monied interests. The very same interests whose effective editorial lock on the mass media keep innovative/dissenting voices like Sanford Levinson and Daniel Lazare out on the margins.
   I’m sick of it.

   Thank you though for applying a kind adjective like ‘keen’ to my persistently futile request for a ROS coversation on whether the 21st century USA has outgrown our eighteenth century Constitution. (Pssst! I think it has — like, maybe as far back as 1861, when a northern majority used force-of-arms to compel a rebellious southern minority to give up their immoral use of slaves. We haven’t had autonomous ‘states’ since 1865, have we? Then why keep this dysfunctional, no-longer-democratic, archaic, and consistently loggerheaded government? We should America have to settle for THIS???)

5. Brian Dunbar Says:
   March 30th, 2007 at 2:36 am

   Nick,

   I apologize for not replying sooner. Life happens sometimes.

   If the “stuff” you mean is “representative democracy”, well, then I don’t think it “works” — except for the country’s big monied interests. The very same interests whose effective editorial lock on the mass media keep innovative/dissenting voices like Sanford Levinson and Daniel Lazare out on the margins.

   By ‘stuff that works’ I mean the system of government that we’ve got generally works as set out in the charter

   We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

   They did write long wordy sentences in those days. Any good writing teacher would toss that out in a heartbeat.

   I do believe that in general it works as designed. America has problems but in general we have a great deal of prosperity and freedom. The system is flexible, allows change but not at too great a clip.

   That last bit is what I fear; not change, I know that is inevitable. More, it’s an important part of who we are and drives our growth.

   But what worries me is change for change sake without thinking through the consequences.

6. Nick Says:
   March 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pm

   Brian, I’ve posted a reply to you here: http://www.radioopensource.org/pitch-a-show-3107/#comment-48372

   Thanks for offering the soapbox!

7. Brian Dunbar Says:
   April 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pm

   Thanks for offering the soapbox!

   Exchange of ideas, if you’re not growing you’re dead, etc. It’s all good.

Write a Reply