The Many Faces Of California.

Posted on February 24, 2014 by RL CRABB

Middle California II388There’s a petition going around to split the state of California into six separate states. (Talk about Statesophrenia! We got multiple personalities up the ying yang!) Nevada County would be relegated to the new state of “North California”.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to The Many Faces Of California.

  1. George Boardman says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    This initiative is being bankrolled by a Silicon Valley vulture…I mean venture capitalist. That’s all you need to know.

    Reply
  2. Niel Locke says:
    February 24, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    I find Boardman’s comment ridiculous with all the elephants spouting their normal garbage. He must be an Elephant !

    Reply
  3. E. Christina Dabis-Appleby says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:08 pm

    I’m with the split the state folks. I had heard there would be three new states.

    Log Land, Fog Land, and Smog Land. I like the newest version, it puts “like minded /goaled” folks together. Should bring some peace.

    Reply
  4. Chris Peterson says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    There most definitely IS a middle California.Those are the folks who got screwed by Enron, were easily convinced by millionaire Darrel Issa that it was their sitting governor’s fault, and then elected Conan as their new leader.

    Coincidentally, that’s when I moved out of the state. (Lotta’ good that did. They then crowned George the Lesser as our nations presidential pontif when the ceremonial smoke was seen over the Supreme Court.

    Lincoln said you could fool some of the people some of the time, and in a country where such a small margin of citizens vote; that’ll do.

    Reply
  5. Ryan Mount says:
    February 25, 2014 at 4:34 am

    All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Left Californians Romans ever done for us?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

    Reply
    • stevefrisch says:
      February 25, 2014 at 4:50 am

      Ah, how true.

      Reply
      • Greg Goodknight says:
        February 25, 2014 at 4:00 pm

        Ah, how false. Name one of those issues that has shown improvement since, for example, the time of Governor Ronald Reagan (just to name someone I never supported for any office). Especially education, which has taken a real dive in the years since public employee unions became the 800 lb gorilla in Sacramento thanks to collective bargaining over wages, the Jerry Brown V1.0 reform that led to the one party state we have now.

        Water for drinking and flushing toilets is a current cause celebre, largely because that one party state has made it impossible to build a new dam while insuring the Delta smelt get enough water to thrive.

        Reply
        • stevefrisch says:
          February 25, 2014 at 7:18 pm

          I was chatting with Ryan. I avoid chatting with you. Sounds like a good rule of thumb for us don’t you think?

          Reply
        • Ryan Mount says:
          February 26, 2014 at 5:29 am

          I’m not sure dividing the State up in this Technorati Jihad is going to address or improve our current issues. My sense is it would have the effect of concentrating wealth and tax revenue into certain areas, and ostensibly bankrupting the new periphery States. In other words, it would probably make matters much worse.

          Reply
          • Michael Anderson says:
            February 26, 2014 at 7:09 am

            Agreed, Ryan. I like Cottrell’s idea of consolidating counties much better. More efficiency for the effort, and it’s something that is actually feasible.

  6. rlcrabb says:
    February 25, 2014 at 6:50 am

    We all know this initiative is dead in the water (if we had any water) but it does bring up the differences that divide this unwieldy state. Could lead to some interesting discussions.

    Reply
  7. george rebane says:
    February 25, 2014 at 8:42 am

    “First thing we’ll do is get rid of taxes and regulations.” Well, that view of ‘elephants’ from the Left and Middle will surely bring any hopeful or hoped for dialogue to a grinding halt.

    Reply
    • Chris Peterson says:
      February 25, 2014 at 9:18 am

      Everyone knows, (except elephant fans, obviously), that when they say, “First thing we’ll do is get rid of taxes and regulations,” they mean for those who pay for their reelection. (Read as: corporate interests.)

      The Dems want to regulate business. The GOP wants to regulate the people. I say, that’s all a charade. Just ask ANY of them how they spend 80% of their time, and where 85% of their reelection funds come from.

      It ain’t us.

      Reply
    • rlcrabb says:
      February 25, 2014 at 12:01 pm

      You must always take into consideration that I am exaggerating to make a point, George 😉

      Reply
      • Greg Goodknight says:
        February 25, 2014 at 5:14 pm

        Locke didn’t think it was an exaggeration. The left really does expect your toon matches reality. No one in the GOP is advocating no regulations or no taxes; I’ve not even met any loony extreme Libertarians who are advocating such anarchy, which is what extremist Libertarians tend towards.

        We really need to dam some rivers, not all.

        If we are going to build homes with lumber, we should manage to cut enough trees in state to have a lumber industry, just not more board-feet than can be expected to grow or tie lumber up in knots for trying to exist.

        The right wing thinks the Crabbman leans left partially because the leaning doesn’t appear to lead to the same exaggerations regarding their opposition… I even recall you getting on my case recently for remembering Mayor Senum’s glorified dog houses for the homeless as a half baked solution for their woes. Be as cutting for the left’s idiocies and the right will be more forgiving.

        Reply
        • rlcrabb says:
          February 25, 2014 at 8:02 pm

          If you cruise through my backlogs here, I think you’ll find plenty of exaggerations in the other direction. And as you know, I’d vote for my cat before I’d vote for anyone from the two parties.

          Reply
          • Greg Goodknight says:
            February 26, 2014 at 12:54 am

            Many, yes, but I truly can’t remember any that tar lefties the way a Limbaugh would and that’s what you’d have to have to be equal and opposite to this toon; you were channeling Rachel Maddow this time.

            In any case, as long as California’s electoral votes are slam dunks for Dems, there isn’t a chance in hell any split will happen.

    • Ryan Mount says:
      February 25, 2014 at 2:47 pm

      This is a horrible idea fraught will all kinds of ill unintended consequences.

      Welp, Silicon Valley State (boy, they’ll regret that name when the last of their jobs get outsourced) are gonna love their technocrat anarchism, but it’s gonna be hard to take a shower with no water from States 1, 2 and 4.

      Maybe they could be a shower app or a smoke alarm to alert them of body odor?

      Reply
      • Sharon McKibbin says:
        February 25, 2014 at 3:25 pm

        I suppose they figure they can afford to buy water, since they won’t be paying for the rest of the infrastructure of the otherwise low-income new mountain states. Unfortunately, those low-income mountain states won’t have any other way to raise the money they need for roads, schools, fire fighting, EMT, etc, much less the high-speed internet needed to provide jobs for those techies fortunate enough to live here. Oh, well, I suppose we could always deforest (again), or, oh wow! what about mining? 🙁

        Reply
        • Ryan Mount says:
          February 26, 2014 at 5:24 am

          Godzilla would be able to level San Francisco in a matter of minutes. And I’m not just talking about the Financial District, but the entire city limits. Frankly I would celebrate Cow Hollow’s destruction.

          Anyhow, it would be a 10 minute film.

          On a related note, I sincerely hope this version doesn’t suck.

          Reply
  9. Ben Emery says:
    February 26, 2014 at 6:44 am

    To add on Ryan’s early post,

    A Day in the Life of Joe Republican
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/DayInLifeOfJoeRepublican.html

    Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised…

    …Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

    Reply
    • rlcrabb says:
      February 26, 2014 at 9:27 am

      Joe gets up and fills his coffee pot with water that came from a dam that was built before it became politically incorrect. Then he takes his medication that was created by a big pharma company that invests millions to develop it. He is able to be mobile when he drives a car fueled by the evil oil companies that he is told to despise by the talking heads on TV. Throughout the day, Joe is willing to give up any freedom he might still possess to be secure in the loving arms of the state.
      It goes both ways…

      Reply
      • Ryan Mount says:
        February 26, 2014 at 9:48 am

        Ah yes, the loving and comforting arms of the State.

        Not even which agency to pick on here. There’s so many ripe targets. How about EDD? That’s a model of compassion and efficiency, ain’t it? The DMV has actually improved after a decade of criticism from me. (My bitching is solely responsible for the improvements there. You’re Welcome.)

        Certainly the extra California warnings (right next to the Federal Ones) at gas stations have helped me not inhale fumes despite my best efforts. Also the warnings on Potato Chip bags about cancer from heated oils have kept my children from devouring an entire bag in one sitting.

        Good Times. Noodle Salad.

        Reply
    • Greg Goodknight says:
      February 26, 2014 at 11:28 am

      If Joe is in ‘Frisco, the water is good and clean because of the rape of Hetch Hetchy, whose clean Sierra waters “the City” claimed for itself many moons ago.

      I remember during the Reagan presidency, and IIRC a Democratic convention and Sister Boom Boom looming in SF, Dem environmental activists were making some points against James Watt, one of the more ‘colorful’ cabinet members. Watt then proposed the Interior look into the restoration of Hetch Hetchy and bring it back to its old splendor, equal to Yosemite Valley. With that hypocrisy in full view, enviros found a different target for the convention.

      Should the O’Shaughnessy Dam be decommissioned? I think that decision is easily dismissed until the dam is no longer serviceable, but gracefully terminating SF’s water rights from Yosemite National Park is probably the next step.

      Reply
      • Ryan Mount says:
        February 27, 2014 at 8:37 am

        Heck, why not return the water to Owens Valley while we’re at it? (In my most humble opinion that’s where we should start since those poor folks got screwed big time.)

        Is that where we’re heading? Removing the dams and collecting rainwater off our roofs? (probably not a bad supplemental idea, at least). Dune-like body suits?

        Lots of questions, I know.

        Reply
        • rlcrabb says:
          February 27, 2014 at 8:54 am

          Off-river storage. Channel some of the run-off into canyon reservoirs. No obstruction for the fishys and minimal environmental impact. Could also generate hydro-power. When I proposed this to some engineering types they said it would be more expensive than just damming the river. Well, yeah, but it does satisfy both objectives, does it not?

          Reply
          • Ryan Mount says:
            February 27, 2014 at 9:00 am

            > does it not?

            Seems obvious to me.

            However, can I still wear a Dune Stillsuit?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillsuit#Stillsuit

          • Chris Peterson says:
            February 27, 2014 at 9:08 am

            Here in Oregon, they’ve begun systematically identifying and removing the first generation of smaller dams which serve no purpose other than the enrichment of individual companies. As larger, more efficient, and more practical dams were later built to sustain our need of power and water, these obsolete facilities have become environmental hazards on our landscape, many of them having been built to supply businesses and communities that no longer exist.

            Then again; if you want a glass of water up here, you just hold your glass out the window. Ironic, in that our wealth in water resources is exactly what keeps the multitudes from moving here.

          • rlcrabb says:
            February 27, 2014 at 10:52 am

            Ryan: Which ever way you get it, we’re going to end up drinking recycled piss.

          • Ben Emery says:
            February 27, 2014 at 7:43 pm

            Good idea Bob, there are many ways of storing water that don’t involve totally altering entire ecosystems. Much like mining, until long term affects are obvious nobody understood the negative aspects of damming up rivers. I don’t blame those who did in yesteryear but will blame those that want to repeat the mistakes because it makes financial sense despite it shooting us in the foot in a half dozen or more other ways.

    • Chris Peterson says:
      February 26, 2014 at 6:07 pm

      Of course, Joe, like the majority of his fellow citizens, doesn’t realize the cost to himself, in the form of hard money, for those “privileges.”

      The water for his coffee comes from a dam which was built with tax dollars, and only a small percentage of the dam are in the “water” business; others having been sold to power companies which reap huge rewards.

      And those pharmaceuticals he takes were, likewise, paid for in large part by taxpayers in the form of subsidies and tax breaks, not to mention the billions in government sponsored public and private research, only to have the new formula turned over to the multi-billion dollar profits of Meyers-Squib and the like. We pay more for medicine than the rest of the world for a reason, and it doesn’t even include what we already paid as taxpayers.

      And ALL this is made possible by YOUR representative, Dem or Pub, who needs their contributions to get reelected. Hard to complain about getting buggered when they’re screwing you from both directions; (don’t talk with your mouth full)

      Reply
      • Greg Goodknight says:
        February 27, 2014 at 8:04 am

        The ‘rest of the world’ gets a break on pharma partially as a carrot for other countries to NOT ignore US patent law, without which no company would develop a new drug and spend the millions and billion$ it takes to spend 10 years testing and getting FDA approval and then only have a few years to sell before the patents expire, which date to the development, not the beginning of the approval to sell.

        Public research universities have patent departments which sell university intellectual property to the highest bidder. Private universities do the same.

        UC document from 2011: “Total income from technology transfer (net of legal settlements) available for distributions to inventors and the University reached a record level of $164.6 million this year, an increase of $71.8 million over the previous year. This record total included $86.2 million derived from a prepayment of future royalty income for anti-cancer drugs from UC Berkeley.”

        BTW, the “$86.2 million derived from a prepayment of future royalty income for anti-cancer drugs from UC Berkeley” will eventually be paid by the people desperate to stay alive, and their insurers, not the shareholders of the big pharma that is spending billions to make billions. If they couldn’t make a buck on pharma, they’d invest their money elsewhere, and those investors include groups like CalSTRS and CalPERS, public employee pension funds. Not that they are any more deserving than my meager 401(k) accounts.

        Reply
        • Chris Peterson says:
          February 27, 2014 at 10:37 am

          Great research, Greg.

          So, in effect; we give millions to universities and private labs for research, and when they come up with something, they sell that research to the pharma co.’s, which enriches the university, private lab, and the pharma co., and the taxpayer then gets to stay alive by paying exorbitant prices for the formula they paid for in the first place, along with a subsidy to the pharma co. so they can protect their overseas sales?

          How could anyone possibly have a problem with that? I bet Jonas Salk was pissed when his vaccination for polio went public. Oh, wait… his famous quote was, “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

          What do you want to bet that the cure for cancer costs you your mortgage on your home, and not available, should you not own one?

          Reply
        • George Boardman says:
          February 27, 2014 at 1:32 pm

          Big pharma always cites the money it spends on r&d to justify the high prices it charges for drugs. They never mention they spend more on marketing than they spend on r&d.

          One of the major cholesterol drugs (I can’t remember which one) is manufactured in Ireland for export to the U.S. and Canada. Canadians pay a fraction of the price we pay for the same drug. Lucky us.

          Reply
          • Greg Goodknight says:
            February 28, 2014 at 10:45 am

            Canada has threatened to ignore US patents if the single payer Government is forced to pay full freight for drugs that Canadians, and their doctors, think appropriate. A version of blackmail. Big pharma is charging the most they think they can, which is what everyone does.

            Yes, big pharma spends huge sums marketing their new drugs that actually generate the profits. Generics, older drugs whose patents have expired, not so much. I remember picking up some bleeding edge cancer drugs that were, for a short time, keeping my first wife alive. Was a little torqued about a high $70 copay, but asked the pharm clerk how much it would cost without the gold plated insurance we had at the time… tap tap tap… $350. A vial. There were 10 vials in the box.

            Force big pharma to not charge so much and they will choose also to develop only the drugs with the widest need. Got an unpopular disease? Live with it, your drug possibilities didn’t make the cut when they decided to ration their R&D venture capital. Take two aspirin and don’t call them in the morning.

  10. Ben Emery says:
    February 26, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    touche Bob
    It still goes with your post. I would argue the dams are prior to development and that drinking water to huge populations wouldn’t be needed if the dams weren’t there to begin with. The Glen Canyon Dam/ Reservoir (GCDR) is a perfect example. The sign at the GCDR reads all the people the dam serves but if we look at the population levels to the surrounding area prior to GCDR the dam wasn’t needed. There a much better ways of developing and I think that is the reason for the anti dam crowd, which I consider myself one of, not political correctness.

    “Water, water, water….There is no shortage of water in the desert but exactly the right amount , a perfect ratio of water to rock, water to sand, insuring that wide free open, generous spacing among plants and animals, homes and towns and cities, which makes the arid West so different from any other part of the nation. There is no lack of water here unless you try to establish a city where no city should be.”
    – Edward Abbey

    Reply
  11. Terry Pittsford says:
    March 5, 2014 at 6:56 pm

    Hey Bob, isn’t the “Ying Yang” a river in China? If that’s so there LOTS of stuff up there!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *