6/7 LA Times: http://tinyurl.com/hozap
Angelides the Nerd to face the Terminator Governator. From LA weekly:
Angelides will be playing for Best Supporting from the start, because
Arnold will always be bigger, tanner and shinier than his opponent.
So a guy like Angelides, whose limbs flail out at irregular angles
but whose ears look like satellite dishes receiving and transmitting
all forms of knowledge and expertise, is the best bet. Californians,
after all, just dated a jock, and you know how that turned out.
This time around, they.ll want to settle down with the valedictorian.
\_ Were there really as many anti-Angelides adverts as anti-Westly?
I don't watch TV but I do listen to Air America, and only
remember lots of anti-Angelides spots (I assume because Westly
was coming from behind).
\_ Fact: Westly started aggressive negative ads 3 whole
days before Angelides started fighting back, after they
promised each other to not do negative campaigns! Westly
threw the punch first when Angelides didn't expect it,
and still loss. What a loser.
\_ Yes Angelides #1. I want new creative taxes on everything! I want
to drive businesses out of California, too!
remember lots of anti-Angelides spots.
\_ You can't have service without paying tax, unless you
actually believe in Reaganomics.
\_ I want small, efficient government with a safety net without
paying welfare to people who can work, skyrocketing tuition,
rolling blackouts, and huge deficits. Davis and Ah-nold
didn't seem to help. Who can I vote for to get all that?
\_ Nobody. California is ungovernable. If you really want to
change things, get rid of the initiative system and all the
stupid set asides and budget constraints. Of couse, this
will never happen.
\_ I'm all for breaking CA into 3 states,
\_ I'm the opposite. I'd like to see it unite with
Baja California and form its own nation.
\_ I'm interested in this subject. But where do you draw the
lines? I guess the middle should be the bay area counties
incl. Santa Cruz, with Yolo, Sacramento, El Dorado
incl. Santa Cruz, with Yolo, Sacramento, Placer
bordering the north, and Merced, Madera, and Mono along
the south. This captures the direct relationships pretty
well, with the Sacramento corridor out to the Sierra tied
to the bay area and including Hetch Hetchy (and Yosemite).
What do you call the middle state? I can't see any
downside to this and we'd pick up 4 more senators.
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8188/ca3state0kk.jpg
Actually Placer probably belongs to the middle too. A
couple of these are debatable.
Actually this is better:
Or actually this is better:
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8968/ca3state20dx.jpg
\_ I think that cutting the state apart like this
would really hurt the far northern part. There's
no tax base there, except Sacramento.
\_ Well right now, the state pretty much ignores
the north. They have their own industries and don't
need a lot of social services because they don't
have big messed up cities. They'd be fine. Maybe
A bit of southern Oregon also belongs with them
but that would be even harder to do.
Sure you could keep them together, but I thought
they'd want to be separate. They have different
concerns than the bay area or LA. Maybe with
their own state they could develop better. It's
really beautiful country.
\_ Gross Regional Product:
SoCal: $710 billion
Bay Area: $410 billion (includes Napa/Stockton)
Rest: $180 billion (1/3 from Sacramento)
If you siphon off the Central Valley into
Central California then "Bay Area" increases
and "Rest" decreases.
\_ Sounds fine to me. That Northern CA would
still have a bigger economy than some other
states like Wyoming or the Dakotas. It will
be growing in the coming decades too.
\_ Wow, bigger than North Dakota. Sign me up!
I think it is in the interests of NoCal
to remain attached to the rest of CA.
For example, you can have UC Davis or
University of North Dakota as your state
university. Which would you choose?
\_ They could develop Chico and a couple
others. There's nothing stopping
you from going to another state uni.
All I know is, as long as those
northern counties are attached to
the rest, they are drowned out.
I think NoCal would be bigger than
a number of states. I guess at least
#35-40 in size maybe. Again, the
population isn't large so the needs
are less. Whether or not the north
benefits from leeching off the south
like that is true, that is not a
good reason to keep it that way.
Do you really think in those terms?
I think it would do better by looking
out for itself instead of being
drowned out. Anyway, at least SoCal
should be split off.
Ok then, maybe this should be done
since it already exists:
http://www.jeffersonstate.com
Then Northern Cal, and Southern Cal.
All I really want is SoCal separate.
\_ We don't really like you hippy
freaks either, but I don't see
any advantages gained by breaking
apart the State. There's a lot
of synergy between NoCal and SoCal.
\_ There's a lot of synergy between
lots of states. So what? Should
Wash and OR be combined?
Washington: 5.9M pop, $262B
Oregon: 3.4M, $145.35B
Washegon: 9.3M, $407B
Calif: 33.8M, $1.55 trillion
Why or why not?
Obvious advantages are better
Senate representation, and more
responsive state government.
No and So already have their own
utility companies.
\_ What do utilities have to
do with anything? San
Diego's is different from
LA's. OC's is different
from Pasadena's. As for
representation, why not
split CA into 50 states?
Imagine how many senators
we'd get then! There are
a lot of restrictions and
regulations on interstate
commerce. Things would
work okay as long as NoCal
and SoCal stayed in synch,
but what happens when they
start to heavily diverge?
For example, the NoCal
people repeal Prop 13 and
the SoCal people don't.
Does the population shift?
Such unforeseen changes can
have unintended consequences.
Why mess with a good thing?
\_ because it's not a good
thing?
\_ Sure it is! CA is the
best State in the USA!
\_ Local self-determination
is better for its own sake.
Plus the above post. If
they heavily diverge, then
it's good because they WANT
to diverge. It's called
democracy. And there are NOT
a lot of restrictions on
interstate commerce. Read
the Constitution.
\_ Why not have city-states
if you're into local
self-determination?
We can divide the nation
into 100 square mile
grids of self-determining
fiefdoms. As for
commerce, a big thing
I was thinking of is
farming. There are
restrictions because of
threat of transmission of
pests/disease. Also,
liquor is often
restricted. There are
other examples. |
http://csua.com/feed/