Monday, November 13, 2006

Charlie Rangel got it right

Mississippi state flag
The recent hub-bub concerning the off-hand comments of U.S. Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) concerning the state of Mississippi, reiterates a point which many of my loyal readers will recognize as one of Beamis's favorite themes. You guessed it: The utterly imperative necessity of nationwide secession!

Congressman Rangel raised the ire of not a few Mississippi residents, including Rep. Charles Pickering (R-Miss.), for telling the N.Y. Times on Nov. 8, “Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?” Indeed, and this coming from a man who represents the garden like environs of Harlem.

I expect that this type of sentiment is a lot more typical than our federal overseers would like to admit. Truthfully, why should someone who inhabits the lofty cliffs and wild craggy heights along upper Manhattan's western shoreline of the Hudson River give a rat's behind about the folks who inhabit a swampy feverish nowhere, to their existence, over a thousand miles away? I often find myself asking the same questions about other parts of this far flung union of disparate states.

For instance why should I care if a bridge to nowhere gets built in Alaska or for that matter why should Alaskans be forced to pay out some of their hard earned shekels to help Florida re-build after a hurricane? The United States was never meant to be a forced mutual aid society, but instead a loosely confederated voluntary association, with strictly limited and enumerated powers delegated to federal authority. This meager set of federal duties is laid out very specifically in the now largely ignored document known as the U.S. Constitution.

I don't blame Charles Rangel one bit for his sentiments any more than I do the proud Mississippians who are outraged at his frank and truthful comments. The answer for them both is a sensible and amicable separation along the lines of what occurred in the former Soviet Union nearly two decades ago and what the South attempted to accomplish 145 years ago along the murky waters of Charleston Harbor. Until then we should all stop whining and get used to the child-like state of bondage our federal masters wish to keep us forever chained in.

The beauty that is Harlem.


Devastatin' Dave said...

Yeah, odd that Rangel wants to hold up present day Harlem as some guiding light of high society and culture.

Try this little experiment. The next time someone bashes the South, Southerners and/or Southern culture, take the dialogue in this direction...

You: So, this area of the US is pretty backwards. Are you ready to let them go?

Other person: Huh? What do you mean?

You: Well, they obviously offend you and you think of them as uncivilized, so why do you associate with them? You should either kick them out of the Union or let them secede.

Other person: No, we can't do that.

You: Why not? They are obviously unworthy of you.

Other person: But, but, but.

Basically, DC needs grist for the mill. We are that grist.

Audie said...

Yeah, I was reading some post-election news story, and it said that, according to exit polls, 35% of Southern voters identified themselves as *evangelical Christians*. And I thought, Holy Jebus! 35%!

Like you say, they need to go have their own little holy land, and the West-Coast heathens need to have their own, and let them stop botherin' each other and pretending like this little "relationship" is ever going to go smoothly -- trying to make laws (re: gay marriage, abortion, end-of-life dignity, evolution/creationism/prayer in school, etc.) that will appease both is a sure-fire recipe for constant strife.

Of course, no doubt the citizens of EvangelicalXianland would still occasionally send handsome young missionaries and clinic bombers across the border (even as they secretly use the services of the latter when it's expedient).

Would we get along any better as neighbors than we do as fellow citizens? I wonder....

beamis said...

Let's give it a try!

Devastatin' Dave said...


I'm not sure it's so much a matter of worrying about getting along as it is about people having their tax money being used for things they find offensive, which is inevitable with the current tax and redistribution system. It pits group against group when you become dependent on the trough. It manufactures artificial conflict where there normally may not be any. I think eliminating the artificial conflicts would be a good start.

Basically, most people don't bother me if they mind their own business.

For example, I'm sure there is a lot about Islam that I disagree with, but here in Barcelona, the Arab stores are open on Sundays, holidays, during siesta and late at night. I can't say the same for the Spaniards/Catholics. Me and the Muslims get along fine.

Devastatin' Dave said...

The other problem is that a lot of people can't seperate politics from normal, civilized life. The other day, I was on a bulletin board that was debating different secession movements throughout the US. This is a paraphrase of one comment which I think highligts the inability to seperate the two.

You idiots, if California secedes, we'd lose 20% of our economy

You wouldn't lose anything. California wouldn't cease to exist. Just because someone cuts political ties doesn't mean the world stops. I am positive that if California seceded they would still trade with the remaining 49 states. What this guys is really complaining about is DC's 20% reduction in those it could pilfer from.

beamis said...

It is also another reason why immigration laws are so totally irrelevant. You can't legislate private transactions between freely consenting parties voluntarily offering services in exchange for agreed upon compensation. The government will never be able to overide this plain economic fact.

Just because the U.S. Army conquered the northern third of Mexico in an unjust war of aggression doesn't change the actual geography that comprises a given continent. Los Angeles started life as a Hispanic city, and will continue to be one, up until such time as it becomes an Asian dominated city, and onward and upward until it is eventually an Iranian city full of Shiite rug merchants lining the length and breadth of Wilshire Blvd.

Regardless of any wall the paranoid poobahs in DC decide to construct, economic laws will continue to predominate always.

If these crooks are going to build their so called security wall to keep the Mexicans out, who in God's name will do the actual construction work? Americans? Now that's a fantasy that could have only sprung from the muddled minds of official DC.

Devastatin' Dave said...


Here's a timely article concerning the border fence...