response 31 of 59:

Dec 18 09:12 UTC 2000

  I'm sure Larry's aware of the approximate populations of Wyoming, etc..
  That doesn't mean that he can't argue against giving D.C. representation
  equivalent to an entire new state just because he's not also arguing 
  for the abolishment of Wyoming, the annexation of Vermont by New Hampshire,
  or the re-unification of the Dakotas..

response 33 of 59:

Dec 18 13:21 UTC 2000

Re 31.  Garrison Keillor said that "Now that East and West Germany have
finally been reunited, isn't it time for North and South Dakota to begin
talks?"

response 35 of 59:

Dec 18 15:58 UTC 2000

re resp:15 back there:  
> So you're saying you think there's no ethical reason to ban murder, or at
> least that murder isn't banned due to ethical concerns?

No and yes, respectively.  Obviously, murder is usually considered 
unethical, but (IMO, at least) that's not why it's illegal.  It's illegal
because, when people set about building a society for themselves
to live in, they usually don't want people killing each other.  
It tends to have a destructive influence on society, and all that. 
  Now, you could argue that, say, pornography has a destructive
influence on society, but it's not completely clear.  While many,
probably even a majority, would agree that porn does in fact have
a destructive influence, it's hard to be sure.  Besides, it turns 
out that the oppressiveness of most of the laws written against porn 
puts us in a much worse position than just leaving it legal.  Plus, 
there's a vocal minority that claim porn is actually a good thing, and ...

  At any rate, my point is that laws can be morally useful and 
socially useful, and the two are often related, but that laws that
are only, or mostly, morally useful tend to be bad laws.  

response 37 of 59:

Dec 18 20:03 UTC 2000

So, basically, Republicans would vigorously oppose any plan that fully
enfranchised DCers?

response 39 of 59:

Dec 19 01:18 UTC 2000

flem, in a nutshell yes...it has nothing to do with thembeing "dc'ers"
and everything to do with the fact the district votes 80% democratic
in every election.  Which shouldnt surprise, since the district's
leading employer is the federal government, and if you work for the
federal government you arent going to vote for the party who always 
wants to shrink it.

response 41 of 59:

Dec 19 03:26 UTC 2000

(yes, the Republicans want to shrink government.  yes, the federal
government is the leading employer in D.C. [which doesn't translate
to "most of the people who live in DC work for the federal government,"
but you knew that, right, Marcus?]  even the people who live in D.C.
but don't work for the government more likely than not depend on the
government for their livelihood, whether it's needing politicians to woo
to your special interest or needing them to buy the hamburgers you flip.
as much as the GOP maybe *should* be in favor of turning D.C. into a state
[which I disagree with], they pribly *wouldn't* support such a plan
because of the area's strong Democratic leanings and the generally
partisan attitudes of the Republicans who would have a say in the matter.)

(perhaps if D.C. wants to become a state, they should learn to vote
Republican.)  ;)

response 43 of 59:

Dec 19 04:05 UTC 2000

  re #41:  Nobody's denying that Republican politicians *SAY* they
  want to shrink government.  It's just that many of us are skeptical
  and unconvinced that what they actually want to do is what they say
  they want to do.  Politicians from both major parties have acquired
  the habit of speaking in code-words that are attractive to their base
  but not, shall we say, strictly accurate.  When Democrats claim they
  want to eliminate racial bias, you'd be right to ask whether or not
  they're really talking about affirmative action or similar programs.
  Likewise when Republicans talk about reducing the size of government,
  some people read that as "eliminate social and environmental programs
  and replace them with defense spending"

  I guess the proof's in the pudding, though.  Now that George W. Bush
  is (finally) officially president-elect of the U.S. and Republicans
  control the legislature and have a unified voting block representing
  a major plurality of the Supreme Court, how much do you expect the
  government to shrink?

response 45 of 59:

Dec 19 05:03 UTC 2000

(hmm.  would it make a difference if I claimed the Republicans are more
likely to reduce the amount of government actually located in Washington?
really, how much would military spending contribute to the D.C. economy?)

resp:44  (I'll bite.  where do you think the burger flippers live?)

response 47 of 59:

Dec 19 05:41 UTC 2000

(so the burger flippers, instead of flipping burgers closer to their
community, are hoping on mass transit at $2+ a pop to be a big-city
burger flipper?  that makes me wonder what people in the Washington
Highlands neighborhood are doing for a living, if anything.  it's
a good thing this whole burger flipping thing is a distracting
side issue, eh?)

(you're also making the mistake of tying increased military spending
to increased wages/employment within the military.  most of the 
military spending I'm familiar with benefits McDonnell Douglas and
Boeing.  I'll go out on a limb and say most of their workers don't
live anywhere near D.C.)

response 49 of 59:

Dec 19 06:26 UTC 2000

(yep, and I think that was an aside itself.  I would just think that
the poorer [i.e., minimum wage] workers would be the ones from the
poorer neighborhoods in D.C., and that their income, directly or
indirectly, depends on the government and its workers.)

response 51 of 59:

Dec 19 16:22 UTC 2000

mdw, Ive lived in DC, and I know for a fact that there is a large 
population there, and the largest employer is the federal government.
DC isnt like other major cities, there arent big factories or
corporations based there.  the largest employers is the federal
government, and by extension the DC local government, which is a local
and state government combined and which is in effect its own
part of the federal government.   Granted many who work in DC for
the federal government also live in virginia and maryland, but a large
number of them do live in DC.  As permanent residents.  Most of the people
I knew in DC were civil servants of one form or another, or worked in
lobbying groups or other agencies related to the government.  

And regardless of their actions, the republican party campaigns 
every election cycle on a promise to reduce the size of the federal
government because its part of the cutting taxes mantra.  And if you cut
taxes, reduce the size of the the government bureacracy, you eliminate
jobs.  Lots of jobs.  

response 53 of 59:

Dec 19 18:15 UTC 2000

Given how prevalent poverty is in the District, it's hard to believe that
the majority have government jobs.

Re richard: Why should the Virginia Republicans care?