Boycotts, Secession and American Culture

[MSNative]

I do not believe that anything at all holds together the United States, beyond a shared belief in the freedom of an individual to do whatsoever he considers his own right. Even this actual freedom often pales to only a perceived freedom, when some law or ordinance intervenes.

 

Setting aside the obvious and legitimate claims of AmerIndians (forgive me if I do not know what currently acceptable terminology to use) to North America, we are left with the fact that, by definition, "American" is a hodgepodge ethnicity derived from ever-increasingly-diverse membership. There can be no overarching "shared values" when a country's population includes multiple, often antagonistic, cultural backgrounds.

 

Ok, I've got three kiddos running around so my thinking cap is not on all that tightly now. Can you explain your thoughts further, please, cause I think you're on a similar line of reasoning that I ended up on? I get your first sentence. It seems to me that America was founded on people wanting freedom to do what they want, rugged individualism, etc.

 

However, it seems to me that that is not necessarily still true. Freedom to make your own choices and deal with the consequences is no longer acceptable to many in our society (pick a gov't handout depending on your political views - big business bailouts and favorable regulation, socialized healthcare or increased welfare, etc). We're demonizing certain groups of fellow Americans (lazy, corrupt gov't bureaucrats or executive fat cats, whichever group of -ists who don't agree with you, etc.) for making decisions we don't agree with.

 

Question about your second paragraph - so then why should we stay together as a country if we don't have shared values? (not snarky, really just a follow on question.) Put another way, why stay together in a boat when we as a population in general cannot decide which direction to head and each side views the other as an anchor holding them back? I know there is something - could be as simple and elegant as Rosie stated - because we're Americans - but is there more to it? Is that enough to keep us together as our population continues to grow apart? Can we strengthen whatever that glue/value/belief is?

 

I appreciate everyone's comments and am enjoying reading your thoughts.

[MyLittleWonders]

The whole idea of the powers that be that passed the original boycott(s) is to get business people and ordinary citizens to pressure their officials to revoke what was passed.

 

I firmly believe those powers that be should get a taste of what they want others to do. Personally, I'm not even all that in favor of AZ's law as I don't give a hoot about illegal aliens as long as they are not doing other criminal acts. And yes, either way, some "innocent" people get hurt, but since that's what certain higher ups wanted to happen, let them see it happen - in their OWN city or state. I feel REALLY strongly about that principle and will act on it.

 

Seeing the later story on the textbook issue CA is trying to create we plan to skip that state in its entirety when we travel. There are plenty of other places to go. We don't even need to stop there on a layover. Certain state officials there really seem to have their heads in the clouds.

I guess I still don't understand how two wrongs make any of it right. If one doesn't agree with boycotting AZ (or agree with states/cities declaring a boycott on AZ), then how is it right to boycott those cities/states for boycotting AZ? :confused:

I guess it's time for Cali to decide if they can put their money where their mouth is. :lol:

We don't have any money to put where our mouth is! :lol::lol::lol:

[Dandelion]

So I see now that AZ is potentially open to helping Los Angelas boycott them... way to go AZ! ;) I'm hoping they do it...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/19/arizona-official-threatens-cut-los-angeles-power-payback-boycott/

 

 

Good for AZ for standing up for themselves!! Since L.A.'s stated intent is to "sever the 'resources and ties' they share", this seems perfectly legitimate to me. I'm sensing some serious "D'oh!!" moments happening in L.A. right about now... :001_huh:

 

For the sake of the citizens of L.A., I hope the Mayor rethinks this whole boycott idea. Finding a new source for 25% of your city's electricity needs is no small feat, and (as is becoming increasingly obvious) no one is really being served by this boycott...

 

One thing that strikes me about this whole issue is that a large number of Hispanic Americans are being harmed by the AZ boycott. A big driver behind these boycotts is supposedly to stand in solidarity with the Hispanic American community (since Hispanic immigrants constitute the largest number of immigrants affected by the AZ law). However, 30%+ of the Arizona population is of Hispanic origin (and that doesn't even account for the undocumented Hispanic population). Boycotting the state of AZ is going to directly (and perhaps disproportionately) affect the Hispanic community there. With boycotts like this, a lot of service sector jobs are lost (hospitality jobs, tourism-related jobs, etc.). In AZ, many of these jobs appear to be staffed by Hispanic Americans (at least based on my observations - I used to travel to AZ on business every couple months). It would follow that a large number of Hispanic Americans may end up losing their jobs over the AZ boycott. So not only does the boycott not make a lot of sense, it will likely end up hurting the very population it is intended to help...

[coffeefreak]

We don't have any money to put where our mouth is! :lol::lol::lol:

 

:lol:

and

:scared:

 

You are one of the highest taxed states. That's just unreal to me. Although, I should talk. NM taxes are getting worse, and they're hurting the middle class. Every year, I receive money back from the Federal Government and I have to pay it ALL to the state. I don't know how NM knows, but every year they get my entire Federal refund. My mother once asked me how that could be, and I said, "It's simple, the Feds think we're poor and the state thinks we're rich.":confused1:

[Mrs Mungo]

I was telling someone the other day that I feel like I'm in the middle of the French Revolution, only the bourgeoisie are pissed and without much cause. It's like "I'm sick of my running water and efficiently run postal service! Hell no, we won't go!" Does that answer the question?

 

Sorry, I have visitors at the moment, no time for a full debate on the subject.

[Murphy101]

I think texting laws are stupid.

I think drunk driving laws are stupid too.

 

Why?

 

Because every state already have laws for this. It's calling reckless and or neglectful endangerment. That's why a cop can pull you over if you're driving the speed limit in terrible weather. That's why a cop can pull you over if your speed or steering seems erradic. And he can give you a ticket or even refuse to let you keep driving for it. It doesn't matter if it's because you were searching for a good cd to put into the radio, burnt your hand with hot coffee, talking on your cell or drunk.

 

And it can all make you legally at fault in court if it results in an accident.

 

Making another law specific to something is a waste of political time and tax payer money imnsho.

 

You cannot legislate common sense just the same as you can't outlaw dumb.

 

And no I never drink and drive or text while driving.

 

I wouldn't boycott a state over this particuliar dumb law.

 

As for a discussion about whether succession is constitutional or not...

 

A few states had it in their entry that they have the option to succeed. So I guess the real question is whether the Feds would honor that agreement or not. Personally the Feds track record points to a whooping highly unlikely IMO.

 

That aside, I would think that any state(s) ready and willing to succeed wouldn't give a flip about it being unconstitutional. At best, they might view it as upholding the constitution.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Martha
Dang that needs huge editing! No time to do it tho! Sorry!

[Mejane]

I think it's decidedly American to boycott a boycotter. Maybe that kind of thinking is the tie that binds us. ;)

[creekland]

I guess I still don't understand how two wrongs make any of it right. If one doesn't agree with boycotting AZ (or agree with states/cities declaring a boycott on AZ), then how is it right to boycott those cities/states for boycotting AZ? :confused:

 

 

I look at it as not supporting the first wrong. If we do nothing, and they still do their wrong, then they are more likely to succeed with it. I'm sure, if we decide to head to the Grand Canyon again (haven't been there since '04) that the people there will appreciate our tourism $$. If we decide to go to Hawaii again (haven't been there since '06) the people in Chicago's airport will appreciate our layover $$ as much as those in LA would have. If our day trips are to Baltimore instead of DC, people in Baltimore will be happy. We haven't decided our main trip yet (probably parts of Canada to be honest as we can't take a longer trip this year due to my oldest starting college), but I've got places crossed off my list. Decisions have consequences. That's life.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

If I choose to text while driving' date=' and I end up running into someone, then I am hit with the consequences. No law needed.[/color']

 

I could not possibly disagree with this more.

 

A person's 'right' to text while driving does not supersede my right for my loved ones as well as myself to have the safest driving conditions possible. Texting individuals are 23 times more likely to be involved in an accident than nontexting drivers. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10296992-94.html

 

Willfully driving and texting on the premise that the consequences are your own is both irresponsible and foolish. The consequences aren't only yours--you are knowingly taking the chance of maiming/killing or at the very least traumatizing the person you run into.

 

My guess (hope) is that this is a theoretical argument used to illustrate your point. But I think that this is a poor analogy for your point of personal accountability.

 

:iagree: If you use the same argument, then why not get rid of drunk driving laws:001_huh:? Of course, I disagree. I still believe in personal responsibility but there will always be irresponsible people IMHO and having a law allows them to be prosecuted and not just sued. If there was not a law then the "book" could not be thrown against them so to speak.

 

As far as seat belt laws, I am also in favor of these since we all end up paying when someone is thrown from a car IMHO either through increased premiums or through increased taxes. I realize that seat belts do not always work, but they do save many lives IMHO.

 

My 2 cents:)

Edited May 19, 2010 by priscilla

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I think texting laws are stupid.

I think drunk driving laws are stupid too.

 

Why?

 

Because every state already have laws for this. It's calling reckless and or neglectful endangerment. That's why a cop can pull you over if you're driving the speed limit in terrible weather. That's why a cop can pull you over if your speed or steering seems erradic. And he can give you a ticket or even refuse to let you keep driving for it. It doesn't matter if it's because you were searching for a good cd to put into the radio, burnt your hand with hot coffee, talking on your cell or drunk.

 

And it can all make you legally at fault in court if it results in an accident.

 

Making another law specific to something is a waste of political time and tax payer money imnsho.

 

You cannot legislate common sense just the same as you can't outlaw dumb.

 

And no I never drink and drive or text while driving.

 

 

 

Yes but it is easier to throw the book at someone when they are charged with multiple offenses from what I understand from a friend who is a honorable prosecutor. Sometimes it is difficult to prove one offense, but not another and I want prosecutors and police to have all of the "ammo" they need to throw the book at someone when it is justified. A blood alcohol level or texting records from the phone company are much more reliable as evidence than eye-witness accounts and therefore, I think sensible laws against drunk driving and texting should be on the books IMHO. After all, how expensive can it be to have them on the books as laws as a tool for law enforcement?

 

My 2 cents:)

[Murphy101]

Yes but it is easier to throw the book at someone when they are charged with multiple offenses from what I understand from a friend who is a honorable prosecutor.

 

Then change the law.

 

A blood alcohol level or texting records from the phone company are much more reliable as evidence than eye-witness accounts

 

They would still be able to get that. If you are charged with being reckless or neglectful, then they would gather evidence of doing that.:confused:

 

how expensive can it be to have them on the books as laws as a tool for law enforcement?

 

several hundred thousand actually. time to write it up, bicker over it, reword and bicker some more and so forth. then there's enforcing it. How the heck do you enforce that? Are they going to search phone records for eveyone whose eyes look downward? What if the records show they didn't but were actually just scratching their leg? Will the courts then pay for the defendents time spent clearing their name? Not likely. Hell no. Most likely the person will just pay the ticket anyways bc it's cheaper to pay it than tot deal with the hassle.

 

Why do you want to throw the book at them? Isn't it just as stupid to have a double quarter pounder burger in their face while driving? Or their dog in their lap? or to be searching for a music disc to insert? What about old people?

 

I don't have sympathy for drunk driving. But there's plenty of laws against public intoxication, lethal weapon use, impared driving and so forth.

 

I'm not really interested in throwing the book at anyone.

 

Just enforcing the reasonable laws.:)

[RoughCollie]

I think drunk driving laws are stupid too.

 

I think drunk driving laws, especially if they are enforced to the extent of the law, prevent a lot of people from driving drunk, simply because they do not want to pay the penalty.

[coffeefreak]

I think drunk driving laws, especially if they are enforced to the extent of the law, prevent a lot of people from driving drunk, simply because they do not want to pay the penalty.

 

Not in NM! We have people with interlocks on their cars and they STILL drive drunk. We have people working for the Government with over 13 DWI offenses, and they are still driving drunk and kill families. EVERY YEAR we have a MAJOR DWI crash on our highways/interstates that kills an innocent group. This year, a family lost both their teenage daughters, good students, good athletes, good kids, coming home from their basketball game, to a drunk driver. NM has been passing laws right and left and it doesn't seem to matter. Why? Because people refuse to self-govern! They don't care that the laws are there, they are going to do what they want!

 

We also have the laws against texting and talking on your cell phone. If you're on your phone, it's supposed to be a hands-free device. Driving home yesterday, I tried to count how many people were on their phones and I lost count! Especially after someone almost hit me because she was doing her makeup!!!!!! :glare:

 

You can enact all the laws you want, and it's not going to stop people from doing what they want. It didn't stop the Israelites in the desert, it didn't stop David from taking Bathsheba, it doesn't stop Americans. Does that mean I think we don't need laws, no! Do I think the people FORCE the legislature to make unnecessary laws, that common sense would tell you not to do, wasting taxpayer's dollars and causing the government to be bigger and more invasive, yes.

 

As for Succession, the Feds would never let it happen. Seriously, they need the money each state provides and the resources. We're too dependent on one another to let one go. And, a state would be foolish to want it. How would they provide Medicaid and Medicare, public education, maintain their roads, and run their government? Businesses would pull out, people would move, and the state would go broke. But, before all that, the Feds would send the military in and maintain order.

 

:D

Blessings!

Dorinda

[Murphy101]

same here.

 

people dumb enough, selfish enough, or addicted enough don't think or don't care about the consequences or think it won't happen to them.

 

if thinking about the consequences was enough to stop them, I'd think picturing the possiblity of dead bodies on the side of the road would be sufficent.

[creekland]

Laws will never stop everyone, but they definitely stop some. I can't count the number of times I've heard people say they're the designated driver because they can't afford to get caught driving drunk. I've also heard many talk about exactly how fast they can drive to avoid a speeding ticket (though that doesn't stop all speeders either).

 

People don't care as much about cell phones yet, but they will if significant numbers of people start paying for tickets.

 

Laws do stop some - perhaps many - and that's better than none.

 

No texting while driving SHOULD be the law. Innocent people are likely to get hurt or die. I could care less about seatbelt laws to a large extent. People tend to kill themselves or their friends/family if they opt to not use those, but not so much completely innocent people. That said, it was sad earlier this year when 4 teen girls cut school and got into an accident in TOWN that was easily survivable. The passenger in the front seat of the SUV died. The driver and two back seat passengers are still recovering and won't return to school till next year. The driver faces vehicular manslaughter charges. All could have been avoided if they'd been wearing seatbelts. I feel for the families involved, but at least it wasn't OTHER families involved due to an accident by the driver texting.

[RoughCollie]

Not in NM! We have people with interlocks on their cars and they STILL drive drunk. We have people working for the Government with over 13 DWI offenses, and they are still driving drunk and kill families.

Dorinda

 

I said "a lot of people", not *all drunks*. One purpose for criminal penalties is to deter people from preventing crimes. Obviously, some people are not deterred -- otherwise our prisons would be empty.

 

In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration attributes 44% of the decrease in alcohol-related fatal crashes to alcohol laws. In 1982, 35% of traffic fatalities involved alcohol, and by 2005, it had decreased to 20%. Interestingly, demographics contributed to 52% of the decrease: an aging population and "the increasing numbers and annual mileage of female drivers". http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810942.pdf (see page 40 of Statistical Analysis of Alcohol-Related Driving Trends, 1982-2005)

 

I also think the penalties for drunk driving ought to be rigidly enforced, and be stiffer in most, if not all, states. Incarcerated drunks cannot drive.

Edited May 21, 2010 by RoughCollie

[coffeefreak]

I also think the penalties for drunk driving ought to be rigidly enforced, and be stiffer in most, if not all, states. Incarcerated drunks cannot drive.

 

:iagree:

I think it should be automatic jail time. No fines, no interlock system, straight to jail!

 

But everyone who keeps arguing texting laws is missing the point of my op. It was that laws are only necessary because WE refuse to do the right thing, thereby FORCING the government to step in and create laws. We wouldn't need texting laws, if people would use a brain and not text. We didn't need texting laws 10 years ago because cell phones were not as prevalent. It's not a discussion on whether texting should be against the law, it's a discussion about Boycotting other states, whether a state can secede, and what is the glue that holds us together?

 

Feel free to correct me OP.:D

 

Blessings,

Dorinda

[MSNative]

But everyone who keeps arguing texting laws is missing the point of my op. It was that laws are only necessary because WE refuse to do the right thing, thereby FORCING the government to step in and create laws. We wouldn't need texting laws, if people would use a brain and not text. We didn't need texting laws 10 years ago because cell phones were not as prevalent. It's not a discussion on whether texting should be against the law, it's a discussion about Boycotting other states, whether a state can secede, and what is the glue that holds us together?

 

 

 

Interesting point. Let me see if I understand your point by putting it another way, have we abdicated our common sense and responsibilities to the government? Is it a chicken and egg argument - did we abdicate or did it usurp? I'd guess the answer is yes to both.

 

Again, I see this as a cultural shift and one of the many forces pulling this country in opposite directions. I have friends who are delighted to have gov't take care of everything is does and look to it to take on more. They view the goverment as a force of good and a referee in the game of life. I have other friends who would like to pull all authority from the federal gov't that is not clearly specified in the Constitution. They view government as a power grabbing tyrant.