Calif Ornia.
Re: Calif Or
Simply saying that something will not happen does not mean that that thing will not happen. States have split several times before, under varying circumstances and for varying reasons. What persuades you that we will not see another State, California, split?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Calif Or
mostly because 51 doesn't make a good star pattern and adding more states at this point doesn't sit well with most.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Calif Or
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Calif Or
Every couple of years Long Island starts talking about splitting off of NY state and creating our own state. Problem comes when they start talking about what to do with all of NY city (Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Bronx and Manhattan). Everyone wants to keep Manhattan to themsleves. Hell, Manhattan should/could become a state unto itself. It would have more money and population than most states.
Re: Calif Or
Alla that and we still have territories like the Virgin Islands, et al.
No nobody wants another freakin' star.
No nobody wants another freakin' star.
Re: Calif Or
In 1861, 13 Southern states decided to try to separate from the Union....
It ended badly....
Thoughts along those lines, 150 years later, are (as I suggested) the stuff of cranks and bloviating buffoons...
There is as much chance of California being divided into two states in 2011 as there is of the Sea Of Tranquility being declared America's 51st state....
It ended badly....
Thoughts along those lines, 150 years later, are (as I suggested) the stuff of cranks and bloviating buffoons...
There is as much chance of California being divided into two states in 2011 as there is of the Sea Of Tranquility being declared America's 51st state....
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Calif Or
That footage was probably shot in California anyway Jim... 
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Calif Or
Well of course it was Sean......That footage was probably shot in California anyway Jim...
All part of the moon landing hoax....
Re: Calif Or
There's a substantial difference between a state separating itself from the nation and a state dividing itself in two while remaining a part of that nation. It's not as if there aren't successful precedents for the latter.
"It won't ever happen" is one thing, but what, in your eyes, makes it not just unlikely, but so undesirable?
"It won't ever happen" is one thing, but what, in your eyes, makes it not just unlikely, but so undesirable?
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Calif Or
Well, laying aside the fact that at the time of The Late Unpleasantness, the issue of "a state" having to remain "a state" under the Constitution was an unsettled one...(there is nothing in the Constitution that requires a state to remain a part of the Union)There's a substantial difference between a state separating itself from the nation and a state dividing itself in two while remaining a part of that nation
One must deal with reality....
The idea that the United States of America, should in this day and age, be broken up into tiny bits is...
Well, insane...
The state of California, with all it's fiscal problems, needs to focus on solving those problems, in a serious fashion, just as the country itself must do....
And not waste it's time with silly diversionary non-starters about dividing the state in two...
Re: Calif Or
There's nothing in the Constitution that requires a state to remain indivisible either. In fact, given that the Constitution provides a process through which it might happen, it was clearly contemplated that some states would decide to divide themselves (as eventually happened in several cases).Lord Jim wrote:Well, laying aside the fact that at the time of The Late Unpleasantness, the issue of "a state" having to remain "a state" under the Constitution was an unsettled one...(there is nothing in the Constitution that requires a state to remain a part of the Union)
If California were to divide in two, the resultant parts would still be more populous than most other states.The idea that the United States of America, should in this day and age, be broken up into tiny bits is...
Which does not answer my question - why would two Californias be so much worse than one?The state of California, with all it's fiscal problems, needs to focus on solving those problems, in a serious fashion, just as the country itself must do....
And not waste it's time with silly diversionary non-starters about dividing the state in two...
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Calif Or
Oh please...Which does not answer my question - why would two Californias be so much worse than one?
Don't throw me a rising fastball over the inside corner of the plate like that....
Because one California is bad enough?
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Calif Or
So you do not actually have an answer to the question. That is fine.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Calif Or
No, I do have an answer...
And my answer is that it is would be a ridiculous waste of the taxpayers money to spend time on such silliness when the state ought to be focused on closing a a 26 billion dollar budget gap.
And my answer is that it is would be a ridiculous waste of the taxpayers money to spend time on such silliness when the state ought to be focused on closing a a 26 billion dollar budget gap.
Re: Calif Or
It will not happen, because it has been proclaimed that it will not happen.
It is silliness, because it has been proclaimed that it is silliness.
In some alternative universe, such things pass for answers.
It is silliness, because it has been proclaimed that it is silliness.
In some alternative universe, such things pass for answers.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Calif Or
At this point, the discussion is theoretical because there is no realistic possibility of splitting California or any other state. That said, in theory*, what are the reasons for splitting California that do not exist with many other states?
At one point, the large and disparate geography was a reason. However, with today's communication and transportation, this is not a valid concern (and there are many other states of large size, that also have disparate geography).
Population size. This is a possibility, but then we are saying that any state that gets to a certain population can divide itself. The problem with this is that populations rise and fall. Texas to follow soon. New York (Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, etc.) could already have divided itself, and then whoops, it is not growing so much anymore so let's contract it back to one state. It is not inevitable that California's population will keep growing.
Diversity of interests. Many states have the same diversity of interests as California, principally, the rural/urban divide. The resource rich versus the urban producers/consumers. This really doesn't justify a split either.
So, really, the only reason to divide California is to allow its population to have more representation in the U.S. Senate and maybe more in the House. If the Riverside dude's plan were implemented, though, it would lead to two more R senators. If all you are worried about is purely a democratic concern, then this is fine. If the motive is to provide more D Senators because California as a whole is getting short-changed, note that the dividing line might as easily start at the south edge of LA and run up the coast range to The City and then out to the coast (looking like Chile) and the rest of the state would be more rural and much more conservative. Anyway, at its heart, the only argument for this is that large population states are not adequately represented in the Senate; California is not alone in this situation either. It is a fair question whether to modify the Constitution to address this, but this too is a non-starter at this point.
*Many ideas that eventually get implemented start out as theoretical discussions (e.g., gay marriage).
At one point, the large and disparate geography was a reason. However, with today's communication and transportation, this is not a valid concern (and there are many other states of large size, that also have disparate geography).
Population size. This is a possibility, but then we are saying that any state that gets to a certain population can divide itself. The problem with this is that populations rise and fall. Texas to follow soon. New York (Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, etc.) could already have divided itself, and then whoops, it is not growing so much anymore so let's contract it back to one state. It is not inevitable that California's population will keep growing.
Diversity of interests. Many states have the same diversity of interests as California, principally, the rural/urban divide. The resource rich versus the urban producers/consumers. This really doesn't justify a split either.
So, really, the only reason to divide California is to allow its population to have more representation in the U.S. Senate and maybe more in the House. If the Riverside dude's plan were implemented, though, it would lead to two more R senators. If all you are worried about is purely a democratic concern, then this is fine. If the motive is to provide more D Senators because California as a whole is getting short-changed, note that the dividing line might as easily start at the south edge of LA and run up the coast range to The City and then out to the coast (looking like Chile) and the rest of the state would be more rural and much more conservative. Anyway, at its heart, the only argument for this is that large population states are not adequately represented in the Senate; California is not alone in this situation either. It is a fair question whether to modify the Constitution to address this, but this too is a non-starter at this point.
*Many ideas that eventually get implemented start out as theoretical discussions (e.g., gay marriage).
Re: Calif Or
California is mammoth compared to any other State. If California were split so that its population were evenly divided, each half would still be the fourth-largest State in the country, just slightly less populous than Florida.
Take the difference between California and Texas, the next most populous State. If California were split so that its smaller part contained that population, that smaller part would still be the sixth-largest State in the country.
To catch up with California, Texas would have to add more people than the entire population of Ohio. I do not think that that will happen "soon." (On the other hand, splitting Texas might not be a bad idea either. I don't live there; it's not my problem.)
Sheer size is a fully sufficent reason to split California. This is a country of fifty States, but almost one of every eight Americans lives in California. That is an absurd state of affairs.
As I mentioned, the Riverside guy's proposal strikes me as very odd. (Although I know only eleven of the thirteen counties which he is proposing to break away.)
A coastal vs. inland split would be disastrous for the inland. Of the sixteen California counties with poverty rates of 18% or more, fourteen are inland counties. The only two coastal counties on that list are sparsely populated Del Norte and Humboldt in the northwestern corner of the State. In contrast, just the number of people living below the poverty line in Fresno County would make the 120th largest city in the US.
What reasons are there not to split California?
Take the difference between California and Texas, the next most populous State. If California were split so that its smaller part contained that population, that smaller part would still be the sixth-largest State in the country.
To catch up with California, Texas would have to add more people than the entire population of Ohio. I do not think that that will happen "soon." (On the other hand, splitting Texas might not be a bad idea either. I don't live there; it's not my problem.)
Sheer size is a fully sufficent reason to split California. This is a country of fifty States, but almost one of every eight Americans lives in California. That is an absurd state of affairs.
As I mentioned, the Riverside guy's proposal strikes me as very odd. (Although I know only eleven of the thirteen counties which he is proposing to break away.)
A coastal vs. inland split would be disastrous for the inland. Of the sixteen California counties with poverty rates of 18% or more, fourteen are inland counties. The only two coastal counties on that list are sparsely populated Del Norte and Humboldt in the northwestern corner of the State. In contrast, just the number of people living below the poverty line in Fresno County would make the 120th largest city in the US.
What reasons are there not to split California?
Last edited by Andrew D on Sun Jul 10, 2011 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Calif Or
Frankly, it makes more sense for California to secede from the union, but that's not going to happen either.
Re: Calif Or
How would California seceding from the union make more sense than splitting the state in two?loCAtek wrote:Frankly, it makes more sense for California to secede from the union, but that's not going to happen either.
Re: Calif Or
SourceAs it turns out, Cali is what we call a “donor state”: they contribute more to the federal government than they get back in services. Specifically, Washington, DC only returns $0.78 for every dollar that California pays in taxes.
No, that I'm seriously in support of this.