Detroit: Population 5,000,000...it is possible

I just heard the news that at the annual Mackinac conference, local officials are actually considering this. This is something I have always thought was a spectacular idea. If you've been keeping up with my postings about the city, this is the radical proposal I was referring to. And it is radical. You better sit down for this.


Ready?

Are you sure?

It's this simple. Dissolve all of the city and township charters in Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties, including the City of Detroit, and then REINCORPORATE ALL THREE COUNTIES INTO ONE GRAND OLD CITY OF DETROIT. It would be the best thing to happen to this area since Henry Ford's first factory.

In essence, Detroit would be like New York City, a large sprawling city encompassing three counties (which could act as borroughs, like New York). An added bonus? Detroit's population would soar to near 5,000,000. It would be the second largest city in the United States. Just think of the noteriety that would bring. We would all be living in the second largest city in the country. It would be very diverse. White, Black, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Asian...we would all call Detroit home.

Think about all the money it would save everyone. EVERYONE!! No longer would suburbs have to fight the city...and each other, for better water rates. No longer would cities the size of small neighborhoods (like the five Grosse Pointes) need to keep their own city services like police, fire, etc. No longer would a city of 50,000 like St. Clair Shores need 3 school districts. No longer would there need to be so many bloated, overpaid city government officials. There would be no need. There would only be ONE city government.

Suburbanites, before you turn this off, if you haven't already, think about it. Don't like Kwame Kilpatrick? Think you or someone you know could do a better job running things? Now you have a voice.

My idea was that there would be one large city government. One mayor would preside over a multi-member council. The council would be set up in representitive districts, much like congressional districts. We could no longer chide Detroiters for electing a corrupt government. Because we all would have a say.

Think about it this way, the city no longer has the same power it used to. There is a lot of money in Oakland County, and there are a lot of big companies that do not call Detroit home. Detroit needs its suburbs as much, if not more, than the suburbs needs their city. But on the other hand, nobody is going to invest in Troy as a name, or Southfield, or Sterling Heights. Detroit is a name known around the world, and with this move, it would be powerful once again.

Squabbling and the utter unwillingness to cooperate has been this area's biggest downfall over the last forty years. If joined together, we would be forced to cooperate. We would have to talk. We would have to cross 8 Mile. We would be more willing to help out our neighborhoods, our parks, everything. It would be so much better for everybody.

Now, it won't take away all of our problems. The rampant crime still will exist. The massive segregated areas won't change overnight. Unemployment won't suddenly disappear. But 5,000,000 people working together would be a lot better for those 5,000,000 people than 800,000 fighting 4,000,000 who are too busy fighting amongst the other 4,000,000 accept when they join together to pick on the 800,000.

This is a fantastic idea. Where do I sign up?

A minute about the past

So I was reading the free press weblog at work today (I'm way too non-productive). And something caught my eye. The topic of history came up, and one of the frequent posters made some sort of comment of denouncing "Liberal Revisionist History." Rightfully so, I got angry, and very much wanted to post a very angry rebuttle. But knowing that my work IP address would show up just in case those pesky IT guys start investigating my usage, I reconsidered. Now I have the chance.

For those of you who don't know me, and for those of you who do, you should know one thing. I am not a Democrat. I actually have positions on things (ha ha ha...I kid). I'm not a Republican either. I actually have a conciensce (somebody stop me). I like to think of myself as a radical centrist. I am fiscally conservative, favor a small government, but on the other hand, I am very socially liberal. I guess that would technically make me a Libertarian, but since the Libertarian Party is pretty much completely evil (Pat Buchanon what!), I attend no Political Party.

So that's where I stand on the spectrum.

I was a history major. I took many history courses, particularly American History. While I'm absolutely certain there are those that took the same courses I did would disagree, none of my professors had a hidden agenda. Okay, maybe the overweight middle-aged lesbian did, but it wasn't an overt agenda. Most history professors are liberal, most will not hide it, nor do they need to. But just because a Liberal teaches something, it doesn't make it a "Liberal Spin." I got news for you: slavery happened. So did the genocide of American Indians. So did generations of mistreatment of anyone that was not English/French/German. American History isn't completely rosey.

There are those of you who would label me an "America-hating Communist" for what I just said, but I'm sorry, it is the truth. George Washington never cut down a cherry tree. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves for political reasons, not moral ones. The Spanish didn't sink the Maine. Teddy Roosevelt was the most liberal Republican President since Lincoln. Woodrow Wilson's 14 Point plan did work...it just took another 30 years and 50 million lives. The Holocasut HAPPENED. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated. John Kerry actually did legitimately earn his medals. It was, in fact, Jimmy Carter's negotiations that freed the hostages. Communism would have died whether or not Reagan was in office. And so on...

I don't understand why those people who may not like the fact that people speak about the ills of this country try to villify historians. A legitimate Historian does not care what letter was next to your name. A legitimate historian does not go into a project trying to prove preconcieved notions. I learned a lot about the world, but more importantly myself in my years of schooling. Not everything is black and white. In fact, it is mostly gray.

Lynn Cheney, wife of our honorable Vice President, recently said that our public school curriculum needs to change, that they taught (and I'm paraphrasing, because I don't have the actual source) "too much George Washington Carver, and not enough George Washington," and that "we should teach more American Ideals and Themes than actual history." Really, Lynn? Why would we hide from the truth? Why would we try to ignore slavery, genocide, discrimation, illegal/improper wars? In fact, we teach history because:

We cannot understand where we are or where we are going until we understand from where we have come. If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past we are doomed to repeat them.

That includes teaching both sides of the equation, not just the one that fits your narrow view of the world.

I love talking about history. If you ever want to have an argument...er discussion, I'm always game.