Posted on 02/09/2003 6:37:47 AM PST by Valin
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:38:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Nearly every day I cross the border from one America to the other, from what commentators with maps began describing after the 2000 election as Red America to Blue America.
Blue America voted mostly for Al Gore and hugs the heavily populated coasts. Its parts are connected by a thin archipelago that includes the central cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Red America is the vast sea that covers everything else, from the Sierras to the prairies to the Appalachian Mountains. This is George Bush country, and includes nearly all of the nation's booming suburbs and sparse rural areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Red America: Living for God, fighting against evil.
All of whom think--and vote--exactly alike, probably even more so than in the family-friendly areas.
Looks like the "Purple" has a decidedly blue hue to it.
I had similar sentiments. The article wasn't bad until the last part - the purple part.
Right now it looks like Minnesota Republicans have managed to win over formerly non-Republican voters, and they will be able to put some of their programs into effect. Fine, that's the way the system works. As the two parties grapple with each other to win elections they will have to make concessions to other types of voters and craft new arguments and policies. That is also the way the system works.
The early 20th century party alignment was largely regional and ethnic. Under FDR economics and income levels became more important without losing the ethnic and regional flavor. In the 1970s and 1980s, Republicans reached out to Catholics and Southerners and evangelicals. By the 1990s Democrats countered by adding White suburban "soccer moms" and affluent secularists to their base of non-whites, organized labor and public sector workers. The division between the parties came to look more cultural or sexual or religious than economic. The question now is who can break away by motivating and picking up a pocket of voters that has been indifferent or opposed up until now.
On transit: new answers will be developed as they suit people's real needs and desires, not because of some abstract idea about "diversity in transportation." It's a matter of coming up with practical, economical ideas that have a constituency outside small, ideologically motivated groups. Gas prices also matter.
On hats: it sounds like Berg has never been in a diner or fast food place. Surely, if he went to an inner city McDonald's he'd see customers in hats eating their burgers. And if he went to a better restaurant in the country, diners would probably take their hats and coats off to eat. The "new journalist's" tactic of including supposedly telling, "status details" in their work only allows fools to reveal themselves.
denial
anger
bargaining <-- Author is here
depression
acceptance
The difference is obvious. Kohls sees people as people, part of his community. This fellow sees them as scenery.
This is a telling response and as I see it part of the problem.
First of all, what is the problem with allowing citizens to carry concealed loaded guns? There should be more emphasis on what it means to be a citizen, and the rights and privileges (and responsibilities) associated with that. Not permitting citizens to carry concealed means that they are not trusted!
On the other hand, what the heck is wrong with light-rail transit for densely populated areas? You think maybe the interstate system which carries the goods via semi-trucks and is a fundamental component of our economy was paid for out of local taxes? WRONG! Federal tax dollars paid for it. The fundamental infrastructure of our country - interstates, railroads, and airlines - are all funded heavily by federal tax dollars. When you get in your pickup and drive to Wal-mart, you are driving on roads supported by federal dollars. In densely populated areas it makes no sense for everyone to drive. There are cities (like Chicago) where the CTA and Metra carry a million people every day, and that means they aren't on the roads. So what the heck is wrong with compromises?
Personally, I'd like to see us all saying "I'll give you some of what you want (carry concealed) in exchange for some of what you want (divert some federal dollars from rural interstates to city light rail systems.)
Which is more constructive than having people screaming "Bushie's a warmongering monkey" at people shouting back "Hitlery Clintonista is the anti-Christ!"
Frankly, the right to carry has already been settled by the second amendment. Still, some of the statists would rather disarm - its easier to move a crowd of unarmed, defenseless sheep than an angry mob of disgruntled - and armed - subjects who are intent on not being pushed around.
On the other hand, what the heck is wrong with light-rail transit for densely populated areas? You think maybe the interstate system which carries the goods via semi-trucks and is a fundamental component of our economy was paid for out of local taxes? WRONG! Federal tax dollars paid for it. The fundamental infrastructure of our country - interstates, railroads, and airlines - are all funded heavily by federal tax dollars. When you get in your pickup and drive to Wal-mart, you are driving on roads supported by federal dollars. In densely populated areas it makes no sense for everyone to drive. There are cities (like Chicago) where the CTA and Metra carry a million people every day, and that means they aren't on the roads. So what the heck is wrong with compromises?
Nothing is wrong with light rail in populated areas as long as the rest of us don't have to pay for it. The interstate highway system benefits all who travel as well as all who buy products. It also serves the purpose of allowing fast movement of military if necessary (and that was part of the system's intent). It has a national benefit and thus is paid for mostly on the federal level. Local light rail, on the other hand, benefits only the few that live in the area it exists and will actually ride it.
Personally, I'd like to see us all saying "I'll give you some of what you want (carry concealed) in exchange for some of what you want (divert some federal dollars from rural interstates to city light rail systems.)
Although give-and-take is part of politics, constitutionally protected rights should not be traded for someone's tax dollars, particularly when that someone will not likely enjoy the benefits of the bureaucracy that is created.
Which is more constructive than having people screaming "Bushie's a warmongering monkey" at people shouting back "Hitlery Clintonista is the anti-Christ!"
Well, the former is a lie and the latter is true! What can I say? :^)
The right to bear arms does not equal the right to carry concealed arms. Nor do I think that in colonial days that was ever the custom. Rifles and muskets were carried openly. Pistols were generally large and unwieldy and were usually either military weapons used by cavalrymen or officers (emblems of authority) or were used for dueling. Dueling pistols were transported in nice little cases, other pistols were carried in big holsters, often on horses, or inserted into a sash.
Thus the 2nd amendment, while clearly granting us the right to bear arms, does not clearly give us the right to carry concealed arms. Which was the point - I was not addressing the 2nd amendment since like you I don't see any compromise with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.