Think about the underlying subtext of each of Our status positions:
Statehood: Closer relationship to the U.S. of part of A.*
Commonwealth: Equal terms for both parties.
Independence: We stand on Our own two feet (so to speak).
[* Dispense with the crude idiocy of "Statehood will give Us dignity." Nobody can give you dignity: you either have it as an extension of self-esteem and self-respect or you don't. So shut up about "dignity" already. We can develop Our dignity even more; read below.]
Note that these three positions are all positive and if you look closely, you will come to the conclusion that all three can be achieved simultaneously.
I know many of My Brethren here simply cannot wrap their minds around the idea that the 3 "divisional stances" of Our petty politics can actually be merged into one giant forward step.
Here's how: We forget status "shadings" and We ask for concrete advances that benefit the U.S. of part and A. and Us.
Example: The Jones Act "requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed wholly by U.S. citizens." (Thankee, Wikipedia.) Puerto Rico is in a position to request an exemption to the Jones Act and take advantage of this exemption to receive foreign ships crossing the Panama Canal. That would provide the fledgling Port of the Americas in Ponce a huge advantage as the nearest "U.S." port to the Canal.
But We can't just go in and say "Let Me have an advantage" without dealing with the "What's in it for Me?" response of Congress. Here's an idea: We pledge to use the monies We generate from the exemption to target welfare reduction programs, thus reducing the Federal burden.
Another example: We ask for a lump-sum transfer of Federal funds equal to 85% of Our 3-year average in exchange for the authority to directly enter into commercial or industrial deals with European, Asian and Western Hemisphere nations friendly to the U.S. of part of A. They save 15% of their transfer payments, We get the capacity to expand Our trade and economy without having to wait for the (dis)approval of the State Department.
Oh, you see a flaw in these ideas? That they would put more money--thus more power--in the hands of Our elected leaders? That they'd carry a heavier burden to make something good happen?Well boo-freaking-hoo. Growing up is not easy. And it's way past We grew up already.
By taking into account what the U.S. would benefit from and tying it into what We would benefit from, We are seeking a closer relationship, more equal terms and truly start looking to stand on Our own. And because We request it, We'd have to act responsibly about it or lose the gains We've tried to make, which is called "being responsible." That means We--We, Brethren--would have to then elect leaders who would make these gains a positive process, instead of continuing to elect the insufferably greedy asses We currently coddle.
Am I saying that We need to make a fundamental change in the way We deal with politics, Our relationship with Uncle Sam and how We vote? Damn right I am. But it all boils down to changing Our attitude about the cynical manipulation of Our status by governmental thieves and political rapists and focusing on Our future sans status...to continue My analogy: We choose to focus on oxygen and not nitrogen.
And wrapping this up in Part IV, a plan for whacking the governmental thieves.
The Jenius Has Spoken.