5 ms·

As a 4th generation native, I've been hearing ideas such as these since I was a kid. I can't tell you how many times the idea of how easy it would be to secede

As a 4th generation native, I've been hearing ideas such as these since I was a kid. I can't tell you how many times the idea of how easy it would be to secede from the rest of the US was brought up, but this new one seems to take the crazy a little more public. I'm a bit confused as to why in 30 years, anyone from "Silicon Valley" would give a damn about what those people from "West California" thought or why the Senators from West California would vote to get a new bridge in Silicon Valley for instance. This wouldn't create six Californias, it would dilute the power of California by breaking it up. Nor do I understand why the Federal government would allow such an obvious ploy to increase Senate representation. I'm actually kind of surprised, given the almost Texas-level pride (minus the Texas-sized ego) Californians can have for our state that Draper would propose such a thing.

thrownaway2424 13y ago
Yes, these ideas are evergreen in California. The "Jefferson" one in particular comes up constantly. There's only a tiny problem: all of "Jefferson" would contain a tiny (fewer than a million) population, would have essentially no economy other than timber and tourism, and currently runs an ENORMOUS budget deficit when considered by itself because the negligible economic activity produced by the timber industry wouldn't even pay for filling the potholes in the 1000s of miles of highways in the region, much less for fixing the bridges and staffing the rural fire departments and whatnot. Of course the idea can't die because 1) rural poor people are particularly susceptible to "stabbed in the back" propaganda about how liberals are robbing them blind, and 2) incumbent timber owners are all too happy to peddle such propaganda because all they want is to clearcut the remainder of California's forests without interference from pesky laws.

thrownaway2424 13y ago

Yes, these ideas are evergreen in California. The "Jefferson" one in particular comes up constantly. There's only a tiny problem: all of "Jefferson" would contain a tiny (fewer than a million) population, would have essentially no economy other than timber and tourism, and currently runs an ENORMOUS budget deficit when considered by itself because the negligible economic activity produced by the timber industry wouldn't even pay for filling the potholes in the 1000s of miles of highways in the region, much less for fixing the bridges and staffing the rural fire departments and whatnot. Of course the idea can't die because 1) rural poor people are particularly susceptible to "stabbed in the back" propaganda about how liberals are robbing them blind, and 2) incumbent timber owners are all too happy to peddle such propaganda because all they want is to clearcut the remainder of California's forests without interference from pesky laws.