MUscoop Is A Microcosm Of The Country

[mu_hilltopper]

Constitution, Schmonstitution.  This is 2017!

[Pakuni]

There is no secession process in the United States.  I already commented on secession in NM thread (Civil War tangent).  I posted:

Another argument against secession centers on the language of Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….” To proponents of this position, Article I, Section 10 unequivocally shows that the states which formed the Confederate States of America were in clear violation of the Constitution, thus invalidating their government and the individual acts of secession which led to it. Abraham Lincoln indirectly defended this position by declaring the seceding states were in “rebellion” and therefore still members of the Union. The Constitution, then, was still legally enforceable in those states, including Article I, Section 10.

So until a Constitutional Amendment modifies Article I, Section 10, states have no legal grounds to secede.

As for the great dystopian novel/movie idea, would you prefer the Hilltoppers refer to the people of the blue country or the red?

It would require a Constitutional amendment, hence my stating that it would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures.

[Tugg Speedman]

It would require a Constitutional amendment, hence my stating that it would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Did any of the states that left before 1860 get constitutional approval?

[Babybluejeans]

I think what makes the divisiveness harder to get past in post-modern American than in previous eras, like the 60's or back in the days of Benji Franklin, is the way that information is disseminated. The bubbles, so to speak. People can exist in an echo chamber now that only reinforces their beliefs, regardless of the issue, in a way we've never seen before.

Take civil rights movement, by contrast. That movement really gathered steam in the 60's after folks saw broadcasts (from the national networks, which were the only TV outlets that existed) of Jim Crow-style law enforcement spraying water hoses and sicking dogs on peaceful protesters. The nation all saw the same thing, and many were rightly horrified.

It wouldn't happen that way now. Conservative outlets would show an outlier protester hurling a bottle and then lots of people would dismiss the whole movement out of pocket, while liberal outlets would play what really happened. The nation would be divided on the merits of the movement rather than unified by the same horrific images. Of course, I'm using an example of a "liberal" cause that unified liberals and plenty of conservatives back then, but it definitely goes the other way too now, where some credible conservative causes that might have otherwise created unity are given less credibility in liberal circles because of the state of our fractured media.

I'm not sure how the fractured state of the Internet/media can ever create unity again because we rarely, if ever, all see the same objective images (without talking heads and scroll bars and all that stuff immediately popping in to guide peoples' opinions).

[warriorchick]

I agree it won't happen, but I don't know that Cali would lose money from the feds. They would no longer have to pay a Federal income tax and they might come out ahead if that federal tax money was paid to California instead of the Feds. They get less that $1.00 in return for each dollar they pay in Federal tax.

Most red states however would get killed by seceding. S Carolina gets back almost $8.00 for each dollar it pays in Fed tax. Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, W Virginia, etc. all get back more than double what they pay in. They would have to raise their state taxes by multiples in order to survive.

You are assuming that the spending would stay exactly the same same, but it would just be paid by a different government.

For example, think of all the military installations that are in California. That money and those jobs are gone. And do you think a government run by liberals  are going do the equivalent amount of military spending? Doubtful.

[warriorchick]

I think what makes the divisiveness harder to get past in post-modern American than in previous eras, like the 60's or back in the days of Benji Franklin, is the way that information is disseminated. The bubbles, so to speak. People can exist in an echo chamber now that only reinforces their beliefs, regardless of the issue, in a way we've never seen before.

Take civil rights movement, by contrast. That movement really gathered steam in the 60's after folks saw broadcasts (from the national networks, which were the only TV outlets that existed) of Jim Crow-style law enforcement spraying water hoses and sicking dogs on peaceful protesters. The nation all saw the same thing, and many were rightly horrified.

It wouldn't happen that way now. Conservative outlets would show an outlier protester hurling a bottle and then lots of people would dismiss the whole movement out of pocket, while liberal outlets would play what really happened. The nation would be divided on the merits of the movement rather than unified by the same horrific images. Of course, I'm using an example of a "liberal" cause that unified liberals and plenty of conservatives back then, but it definitely goes the other way too now, where some credible conservative causes that might have otherwise created unity are given less credibility in liberal circles because of the state of our fractured media.

I'm not sure how the fractured state of the Internet/media can ever create unity again because we rarely, if ever, all see the same objective images (without talking heads and scroll bars and all that stuff immediately popping in to guide peoples' opinions).

Do you honestly think that people historically  had "objective images" until very  recently? Except for the past 100 years or so, the only source of news the overwhelming majority of Americans had was one local newspaper. You don't think those editors picked  and chose what they reported? At least now, people have many, many news sources so they can discern for themselves.

[Pakuni]

Did any of the states that left before 1860 get constitutional approval?

No. They got decimated by the Union forces.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Do you honestly think that people historically  had "objective images" until very  recently? Except for the past 100 years or so, the only source of news the overwhelming majority of Americans had was one local newspaper. You don't think those editors picked  and chose what they reported? At least now, people have many, many news sources so they can discern for themselves.

That's one way of looking at it I guess. Except how many people "discern" for themselves instead of just using the source(s) that reinforce their own POV? 

The larger issue is that these dueling sources have created two realities. There is no common truth that everybody aligns to because these sources are all peddling their version of the truth.

[mu03eng]

Do you honestly think that people historically  had "objective images" until very  recently? Except for the past 100 years or so, the only source of news the overwhelming majority of Americans had was one local newspaper. You don't think those editors picked  and chose what they reported? At least now, people have many, many news sources so they can discern for themselves.

There is a reason there is a thing called yellow journalism

[Tugg Speedman]

I think what makes the divisiveness harder to get past in post-modern American than in previous eras, like the 60's or back in the days of Benji Franklin, is the way that information is disseminated. The bubbles, so to speak. People can exist in an echo chamber now that only reinforces their beliefs, regardless of the issue, in a way we've never seen before.

Take civil rights movement, by contrast. That movement really gathered steam in the 60's after folks saw broadcasts (from the national networks, which were the only TV outlets that existed) of Jim Crow-style law enforcement spraying water hoses and sicking dogs on peaceful protesters. The nation all saw the same thing, and many were rightly horrified.

It wouldn't happen that way now. Conservative outlets would show an outlier protester hurling a bottle and then lots of people would dismiss the whole movement out of pocket, while liberal outlets would play what really happened. The nation would be divided on the merits of the movement rather than unified by the same horrific images. Of course, I'm using an example of a "liberal" cause that unified liberals and plenty of conservatives back then, but it definitely goes the other way too now, where some credible conservative causes that might have otherwise created unity are given less credibility in liberal circles because of the state of our fractured media.

I'm not sure how the fractured state of the Internet/media can ever create unity again because we rarely, if ever, all see the same objective images (without talking heads and scroll bars and all that stuff immediately popping in to guide peoples' opinions).

The idea of media echo chambers has merit.  Then the example is liberal outlets would play what really happened and Conservative outlets would show an outlier protester hurling a bottle so "my side is right and the other side distorts what happened and is wrong."

This is a good example of the problem.

(The reality is both sides show outliers and argue the other side totally wrong, morally bankrupt and must not be reasoned with but bludgeoned into submission.)

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The idea of media echo chambers has merit.  Then the example is liberal outlets would play what really happened and Conservative outlets would show an outlier protester hurling a bottle so "my side is right and the other side distorts what happened and is wrong."

I think he was specifically talking about the civil rights movement in the 1960s, on that particular issue the liberals were on the right side of history. Later in his example he talks about both sides of the fractured media.

[Jockey]

You are assuming that the spending would stay exactly the same same, but it would just be paid by a different government.

For example, think of all the military installations that are in California. That money and those jobs are gone. And do you think a government run by liberals  are going do the equivalent amount of military spending? Doubtful.

Maybe, but not necessarily. If Cali didn't want to go full in militarily, something would be worked out. The US would not risk a hostile power taking over a a state/country on its border. And by just applying what were previously Fed taxes to its own taxes, Cali would come out far ahead.

There is also the issue of goods coming into the country. Would Cali charge a tariff to the US to run goods from the Far East across the state? Trade with Mexico would also be huge in California's favor. We could go on and on about what would benefit them and what would hurt them and its kinda fun to do.......

but it ain't ever happenin'.

[Tugg Speedman]

Secession isn't happening here.  It isn't happening in Spain either.

Below is from earlier today ...

Catalan referendum: Region's independence 'in matter of days'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41493014
Catalonia will declare independence from Spain in a matter of days, the leader of the autonomous region has told the BBC. In his first interview since Sunday's referendum, Carles Puigdemont said his government would "act at the end of this week or the beginning of next".

LIVE: Thousands take to streets in MASS uprising to bring Spain to its knees
CATALONIA is at a standstill after thousands of protesters took to the streets during a mass strike to protest the Spanish government's violent crackdown on voters during the independence referendum.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/861742/Catalonia-spain-referendum-strike-independence-barcelona-catalunya-violence-video

[Babybluejeans]

I think he was specifically talking about the civil rights movement in the 1960s, on that particular issue the liberals were on the right side of history. Later in his example he talks about both sides of the fractured media.

Exactly, thanks. I don't think he read the whole post.

[Tugg Speedman]

Exactly, thanks. I don't think he read the whole post.

sorry I misread it.

[brewcity77]

Do you honestly think that people historically  had "objective images" until very  recently? Except for the past 100 years or so, the only source of news the overwhelming majority of Americans had was one local newspaper. You don't think those editors picked  and chose what they reported? At least now, people have many, many news sources so they can discern for themselves.

Many, many news sources? Not really. Six companies control 90% of the media in this country. GE, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, CBS, and Time Warner. Those are also multinational companies that control media in numerous countries.

[Tugg Speedman]

Many, many news sources? Not really. Six companies control 90% of the media in this country. GE, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, CBS, and Time Warner. Those are also multinational companies that control media in numerous countries.

You’re out of date ... the dominant media companies are Google (which owns the largest broadcast network in the world, YouTube), Facebook (which also owns instagram), Microsoft, Yahoo and Baidu (China).

85% of all new advertising dollars is spent on digital and Google (and YouTube), and Facebook (and Instagram) get half that.  Google generates more advertising revenue  than Disney.

https://www.ft.com/content/6c6b74a4-3920-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7

http://www.adweek.com/digital/google-now-controls-12-percent-all-global-media-spend-171701/

Alphabet controls 12 percent of all global media spend, which primarily comes from Google and YouTube's ad sales. The company collects $60 billion in U.S. ad spend—a figure 166 percent larger than No. 2 ranking The Walt Disney Company. To compare, Google's ad revenue was 136 percent larger than Walt Disney last year. Alphabet's overall ad revenue is up 17 percent year-over-year.

Comcast, Twentieth Century Fox and Facebook round out the top five media owners in Zenith's "Top Thirty Global Media Owners" report.

Five digital players—Google, Facebook, Baidu, Yahoo and Microsoft—collectively generated 19 percent of all global ad budgets. And when looking specifically at digital money, the companies make up 65 percent of Internet revenue globally, with $88 billion in ad sales in the U.S. alone. According to Zenith, digital ad spend has grown 18 percent every year for the past five years while spend across all other types of media has grown .6 percent.


So powerful is google that they are going to end the 30 second commercial on YouTube and YouTube is so critical to all 30 second commercial campaigns that the entire format of a 30 second commercial might be in its final years.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/17/14649018/youtube-ending-unskippable-30-second-ads-2018

——-

The companies mentioned above USED TO matter, now they don’t.

[GGGG]

Below is from earlier today ...

Catalan referendum: Region's independence 'in matter of days'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41493014
Catalonia will declare independence from Spain in a matter of days, the leader of the autonomous region has told the BBC. In his first interview since Sunday's referendum, Carles Puigdemont said his government would "act at the end of this week or the beginning of next".

LIVE: Thousands take to streets in MASS uprising to bring Spain to its knees
CATALONIA is at a standstill after thousands of protesters took to the streets during a mass strike to protest the Spanish government's violent crackdown on voters during the independence referendum.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/861742/Catalonia-spain-referendum-strike-independence-barcelona-catalunya-violence-video

They will end up with more autonomy.  Not independence.

[B. McBannerson]

——-

The companies mentioned above USED TO matter, now they don’t.

You have a habit of burying living things well before their time.  I saw a cab yesterday in New York, in fact 100's of them but you told me that industry died.  You said not long ago that electric cars will dominate in 5 years, which everyone here knows is wrong.  In this instance you mixing delivery vs actual media creation. 

Google does not own the largest broadcast network, they don't own the internet.  YouTube sits on the internet, it is a destination.  Yes, they drive massive volume, but that is not where people are obtaining their news in masses, and certainly not at the age groups that matter at this point.

You are correct on the ad budget spend, but one should also look at the conversions of those spends which is highly enlightening. 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

For example, think of all the military installations that are in California. That money and those jobs are gone. And do you think a government run by liberals  are going do the equivalent amount of military spending? Doubtful.

Another misconception.  Defense budgets never change regardless of the party in charge.

[warriorchick]

Another misconception.  Defense budgets never change regardless of the party in charge.

Let me clarify.  The money and the jobs are gone  from California.

Do you honestly think that an independent California is going to allocate $50 billion of their budget to the military?

http://www.ncsl.org/research/military-and-veterans-affairs/military-s-impact-on-state-economies.aspx

[Jockey]

Do you honestly think that people historically  had "objective images" until very  recently? Except for the past 100 years or so, the only source of news the overwhelming majority of Americans had was one local newspaper. You don't think those editors picked  and chose what they reported? At least now, people have many, many news sources so they can discern for themselves.

Away from the bigger cities, that was true. Big cities often had ten or more newspapers each trying to out-sensationalize each other.

Much more of America lived outside of cities, however, and newspapers in these areas tended to toe the gov't line. Their "reporting was mostly local.

[rocky_warrior]

Let me clarify.  The money and the jobs are gone  from California.

Do you honestly think that an independent California is going to allocate $50 billion of their budget to the military?

http://www.ncsl.org/research/military-and-veterans-affairs/military-s-impact-on-state-economies.aspx

First, I strongly disagree with letting this thread go.  But I'll leave 'topper with that headache

Second, just as the US keeps military bases going around the globe, they would strike a deal with California to keep bases there.  The jobs would not be gone, and military personnel would still spend money in CA. Too dangerous for the US to abandon that stretch of coast.

[Herman Cain]

I still think MU Has to raise its admissions standards if it wants to compete academically. If the University were to move in the direction I am advocating it would be top 50 in no time.   

[cheebs09]

I still think MU Has to raise its admissions standards if it wants to compete academically. If the University were to move in the direction I am advocating it would be top 50 in no time.

If we take out the California schools, I'm sure we would jump up the rankings. If Lovell isn't pushing for California secession, he should be out.