How often when you are reading a news story do you find yourself saying, "so what that really means happened is...." Maybe it comes from a lot of research and being overly aware that most of what we are told is far too little too late. The media is more concerned with sensationalism or making things look a certain way. There are alliances, and partialities, there are leaks that aren't leaks, etc and so forth. There are scarey, scarey things that are never reported- and not so scarey things that are fluffed up. Very much the fourth branch of the government and often seems to be just as corrupt and scarily silly as the other three can be.
By scarily silly I mean just that, literally scarily silly. You know how the politicians do silly things that make most of wonder how do we get real people in office? The media is just like that in my view. I just am not quite certain why it's this way. I understand how the political system got this way, there was no other eventual result when you think about it. The French and their revolutions sort of make since to me, how else do you keep this from happening except by chucking everyone out and revamping the whole system every so often? (Not that I really think the French bloody revolutions are a great idea, I like people alive thank you very much.)
The US has not done that... well ever, not since we became the USA anyways. We tried once... but it was so wrapped in crud... Yes I'm talking about the Civil War. I do agree with the idea of State's Rights. Rather strongly. The Civil War sorta screwed that issue over (maybe for good) by beginning with slavery (which I obviously think should have been abolished long before). State's Rights is the idea that people should be governed by... well, themselves.. maybe not literally themselves, but by the local state, not the federal government. Sorta what the USA was founded on, right? I mean... United STATES of America? Why even have States in there under our current government? We aren't really united, we're more tangled together and unable to untangle it all. The federal government was never meant to have power over the local governments this way. It was mostly meant to step in (briefly and then withdraw) if things couldn't figured out and to deal with foreign affairs.
Are there pros and cons to this compared to the current way of things? Of course. Big pro- if you really hated the laws in your area... well you could always move to a state that you agreed with. Would this have caused various issues of it's own? Certainly. Border issues of one sort or another mostly I would assume. Personally I far prefer that government concept to the current one. I can't help but think that without so much power being associated with the senate, house and presidency (which our forefather's never intended) that we would have a chance at getting people in that would actually do real work, not just seem to be screwing things around while they vote up their own paychecks.
So yes, perhaps my view of the whole situation is pretty cynical- but I think it's pretty darn realistic at the same time -.-
*It's ok if you don't agree with me. Not everyone will. Just please remember this is a family friendly blog when responding ;-)