From: ronaldd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (ronald.h.davis)
Subject: Re: D.C. Statehood
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:25:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.061551.1678@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>In <1992Nov19.210300.25889@cbnewse.cb.att.com> ronaldd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (ronald.h.davis) writes:
>
>[There are many good reasons to make D.C. a state, but Ronald Davis
>fails to mention any of them in his barrage of mis-statements.]
>
of course, interestingly enough you chose to skirt around my comments on
why d.c. should be granted statehood instead electing to focus on arguments
revolving around the semantic meaning of "ownership" vs. "sovereignty".
but then if this is what constitutes the "barrage of mis-statements" that
you refer to then i'll assume you have nothing to say about the meat of
my arguements as detailed in other posts in this thread.

>furthermore, the non-federal section of washington d.c. [which
>proponents want to turn into a state] exists as a political entity.
>your suggestion would tear apart the political structure under which
>d.c. residents live with no regard to their wishes [since i doubt many
>d.c. residents would favor your suggestion]
>
>"You can't always get what you want" - Mick Jagger.
>
"yeah, but i sure don't want to get *less* than they person next to
me." - ronald davis.

>Just because D.C. residents don't want to return to Maryland is not an
>argument against it.  Just as the argument that NYC residents want
>their own Senator is not *per se* a reason for granting them one.
>
>
>>the fact that congress
>>has the right to rule washington d.c. without regard to the wishes of
>>the voters [and without providing them voting representation in that
>>body] is why there is a move to d.c. statehood in the first place.
>>why should the u.s., the so-called "leader of the democratic world",
>>be the only nation in the world where residents in the national
>>capital have no representation in the national government.
>
>You're right.  But in most nations, the Capital is just another city,
>with the same representation as any other city.  Is that what you
>want?  I beleive that D.C. has a population of about .5 million.  If
>so, it would get its own Representative.  Giving it two Senators when
>the 7 million people in NYC have none needs a stronger argument than
>"we want it that way."
>
however, unlike nyc, d.c. is *not* part of a state [neither residential
or federal areas].  if it were i'd agree with you to the extent that it
should not be made into one just for the purpose of increasing the
chances for af-am representation in congress.  but [and i've said this
in another post; a point which you have *not* commented on; so i will be
brief] if you want to play the proportional population game, there are a
few states that are due to lose their state sovereignty and be merged
with more populous neighbors.  is that what *you* want?  even if it is;
do you really think that people in those states are going to sit by and
let that happen???

-- 
  __  ______  __  / __/ |       at&t bell laboratories, naperville il, usa
_/ (_(_) / (_(_/_/_(_/  .       ronald@iexist.att.com / att!iexist!ronald
"if you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes" -- edmund wilson