States, Mythology, and Utility OR Up Yours Rhode Island

That title might invite undue misconstruction--obviously, the United States exists--but please ladies and gentlemen, be patient while I blog.
Now, a comment made in Constitutional Law class sparked this post; the commentator expressed dismay that some of the smaller states might have been duped into ratifying the Constitution with a promise of state sovereignty--sovereignty that has steeply declined.
Take Rhode Island, for example: Rhode Island gets two senators just like everyone else. Thanks to the 17th amendment, the only mechanism for representing the State's desires in the Federal Congress is now moot, and, given the explicit Constitutional structure and the case law precedent leading up to the Rehnquist Court, the Federal Government's power seems irreversibly bolstered at the expense of the States'. Additionally, these two senators are probably more interested in exercising their Federal powers than they are in representing, directly, the will of the State (not its people, but the State itself). So, Rhode Island now finds itself in a relative position of power that is well below its pre-ratification level.

It begs the question: Is this fair?

Well, I have an answer: WHO THE FUCK CARES?!
You ever been to Rhode Island?

Was the promise of State sovereignty a lie? Probably. What's wrong with mythology? Myths can be fantastic, and useful--even beyond neo-Marxist notions of repressive ideology. The Unites State of America exists because we believe it exists, because others recognize its existence.

It's an abstract object with tangible representatives that exists purely out of utility and contractual agreement. So is Rhode Island. And, when a myth or an abstract idea is no longer useful, we should feel comfortable discarding it.