No, it's not San Jose, but over the hills into the central valley (Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin counties). The only Bay Area county included on their "map" was Contra Costa county (which is a bit ridiculous).
And since it's all fantasy, they really should have drawn that map Tolkien style.
Of course it's a bad idea. And these guys have been trying this for decades now. Nobody listens to them, except that somehow social media got a hold of this and ran like it was actually a real thing.
The interstate commerce clause of the constitution will not allow this. Also these two morons trying to split the state will almost with a certainty will not have that kind of authoritarian power to dictate the prices that farmers can sell their goods for, and the independent minded family farmers would ignore any attempt to tell them where they can and cannot sell their goods and for what prices.
Texas split from Mexico then joined the union, mostly because Mexico was pissed at them for keeping slaves. Then it split again from the union to join the confederates, again because of slavery. We really do need to keep a close eye on Texas, it has a tendency to split and run.
Two new senators. That's why people want to split states. The senate is an outdated idea I think, Montana gets 2 senators but only 1 member of the house. But it still has the advantage that a senator represents an entire state and not some gerrymandered district with safe elections. Splitting a state up on political lines is essentially gerrymandering with senators.
Or, the food will just cross the border anyway. The state cannot stop interstate commerce. It's not like this mythical new state was going to be a separate country altogether. There's going to be a market to buy and sell food and no amount of haranguing from a few political extremists is going to make this market voluntarily dry up. After all, California already happily sells food to all the states in the union, red or blue.
They won't be able to control the food supply. This would be interstate commerce, the feds would get involved very quickly if the new state decided to go all authoritarian and refuse cross border trade.
Better idea: Split the US in two countries. The Red States and the Blue States. And build a wall between the two.
It's more like Blue Cities and Red Rural. Almost all rural areas vote Republican and all urban areas vote Democratic. It's hard to find states which are entirely red or blue. It would be pretty difficult to wall off all the major cities from their surroundings.
Rural areas and urban areas are still relatively purple. In California the counties lean slightly one way or the other, except for a few outliers. Because they only lean slightly in one direction, they can easily change, and they have changed over time.
Also note that in rural counties in California that we have tons of hispanic voters (remember this was a part of Mexico). Because of the heavy anti immigrant and anti hispanic stances that prominent California Republicans have expressed in the past, they're going to find if very difficult to sway those voters to their side.
Look at other counties chosen to be a part of this new state (not that the counties were asked their opinion of course). San Diego county is Republican mostly because of the pro-military views, but otherwise the country is very moderate and could swing easily. Orange county could easily be swayed. Fresno county, it has quite a few Democratic politicians in office. Contra Costa is already pretty liberal, it can swing easily.
No, these are not fundamentally different and irreconcilable ways of seeing the world. The country has gotten along together much better than it does today, so there's no reason to assume that today's politics is going to become permanent.
The political problem is that splitting adds two extra senators. That's the only major political change; the house of representatives (the more reactionary body) will stay the same. Getting a new republican state won't change the house one bit. But it will affect the senate. The snag is that California can't decide to split on its own, the rest of the country won't allow it. And that new Republican state may not state Republican for very long, California is very much a purple state.
Brown is basically a moderate. Schwarzenegger was moderate too. Both got elected even though they were far from their party's ideal choice. That's a good thing, and it would be nice if the parties wised up and realized that going moderate will get them far bigger wins than by pandering to the extreme wings.
Also, if the state gets split up, the desired effect will still not happen. These people probably naively assume that they will be the ones in charge and will be able to pass all sorts of reforms exactly how they want. In reality they'll just find out that they created smaller versions of the same problem. In ten or twenty years, they'll be bitching that San Diego and Fresno have all the power and are steering the entire state.
Besides, it can't happen. The rest of the country is not going to be happy with two 2 California senators turning into 4, 6, or more senators. California can't split unilaterally. Never mind that it's only a very tiny fraction of the population that would support this, they would never even get a referendum passed.
Every 5 to 10 years this happens. You get three people together who feel the same way and suddenly they think they can make this pipe dream work. This idea never seems to be held by people with moderate political views, it's always the extremists or those with a grudge to settle with the state or county.
Well, there have been people wanting to split Fresno county into the valley half versus the mountain half for as long as I can remember. There's no way to split up the state and have it go well. Any split leads to more splits, or leads to bad blood, or leads to violence, etc. People need to learn from history.
We have enough people living in a bubble on social media, we don't need to reinforce the bubble by drawing borders to remove people you disagree with.
Naw. First, not many people support this. There's always some sort of fringe movement trying to split California, this is just one of a long line. There is no popular support behind it though.
Second, the rural counties are not necessary hardcore right wing. Sure, it elects hard core republicans, but that's because the primary system discourages moderates, even if the general election is 55%/45%. Even in a rural county, most of the votes are in the cities. Notice that they left San Diego and Orange counties in the new state; those are very likely to go more liberal in the future, it's what happens with urban areas. The only thing keeping San Diego leaning right is all the military contracts.
It's naive to think one can craft a better state by getting rid of people one disagrees with. It's never worked historically, and it's really only ever been accomplished with violence and authoritarian governments.
It has traditionally be a very poor area close to downtown for well, nearly forever. It used to be considered an unsafe neighborhood. But because it wasn't expensive, and was walking distance to downtown and BART stations, it's where a lot of newcomers have shown up to gentrify the place in the last couple of decades. It's still not the safest place to find yourself at night though.
Don't forget, SF has a terrible economy, no one can afford to live there now but the wealthy or those already grandfathered in to rent control. It is a nearly a bedroom community now. I seriously expect that within the decade that more workers will leave San Francisco every morning that those that arrive.
The first rule of living in San Francisco is that you refute the existence that people may live somewhere else or not understand where Polk and Fulton is.
(they learned this from the first rule of Manhattan, after which they prompty disavowed the existence of Manhattan)
Disprovability is sort of a newish idea. Falsifiability was a concept that gained ground only in the 20th centure. But we still had science before the 20th century!
Falsifiability is also often misunderstood. We have great swaths of science that depend upon one theory more closely matching the evidence than another theory. Quite a lot of science depends upon averages. What we see after having thousands of measurements. No single experiment with a different outcome will disprove the average. Thus it relies upon the preponderance of evidence. The Michelson-Morley experiment, for example, meant nothing without the great number of experiments that came after, most of them with much greater accuracy and rigor. However the experiment was a big leap in that it caused the initial doubt that encouraged more experimentation, and kicked off a new style of scientific inquiry that lead towards Popper's ideas of falsifiability.
Changing by 20C from winter to summer is one thing, but changing the year round average by 20C is a completely different thing. Sure, it wouldn't kill everyone, but it would kill most people in the world, in every country. The equator would be unlivable. Coastal cities would be gone. Agriculture would be completely disrupted, the formerly productive areas would be like deserts, and the newly opened land would have terrible fertility, an the loss of population and production would eliminate fertilizer production. The weather would be completely disrupted, probably causing large Sahara like regions in some places, or massive flooding in others.
I had to train my mom not to do this. She lost her Firefox profile e and could not remember any of her passwords, and important the profile from an old computer wasn't working. She wrote them down in a file but in a really jumbled up manner that I couldn't make sense of. I eventually figured out how to decode the profile that had the passwords. But until then we had no access to the ISP and I was ready to go and beg with them over the phone or in person to reset the password.
If my bank asked me to use two factor authentication, I would consider it, as my bank account needs to be secure. But for google, why? It's fluff, I could lose the account tomorrow and not much would happen. I don't have it linked to any credit card numbers, identification numbers, etc.
So why are fluffy social media sites and games encouraging this, but important stuff that need security is not?
Anyway, two factor means I have to have my phone all the time, and if I lose or sell it I am going to have a major hassle trying to get back into my account. I don't want Google of all people to have this information sort of information.
What it is is sort of sleight of hand. You tell employees that it's $2500 and they're happy, but in practice they don't get to see the money for some time, or may not see it all if they get laid off or change jobs. In reality it's more like a $50 per month salary increase. Sure, it is indeed a something for nothing, be glad you got it. But it's not the only company to work for; the compeitor may give more somethings for nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not San Jose, but over the hills into the central valley (Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin counties). The only Bay Area county included on their "map" was Contra Costa county (which is a bit ridiculous).
And since it's all fantasy, they really should have drawn that map Tolkien style.
Of course it's a bad idea. And these guys have been trying this for decades now. Nobody listens to them, except that somehow social media got a hold of this and ran like it was actually a real thing.
The interstate commerce clause of the constitution will not allow this. Also these two morons trying to split the state will almost with a certainty will not have that kind of authoritarian power to dictate the prices that farmers can sell their goods for, and the independent minded family farmers would ignore any attempt to tell them where they can and cannot sell their goods and for what prices.
Texas split from Mexico then joined the union, mostly because Mexico was pissed at them for keeping slaves. Then it split again from the union to join the confederates, again because of slavery. We really do need to keep a close eye on Texas, it has a tendency to split and run.
Two new senators. That's why people want to split states. The senate is an outdated idea I think, Montana gets 2 senators but only 1 member of the house. But it still has the advantage that a senator represents an entire state and not some gerrymandered district with safe elections. Splitting a state up on political lines is essentially gerrymandering with senators.
Or, the food will just cross the border anyway. The state cannot stop interstate commerce. It's not like this mythical new state was going to be a separate country altogether. There's going to be a market to buy and sell food and no amount of haranguing from a few political extremists is going to make this market voluntarily dry up. After all, California already happily sells food to all the states in the union, red or blue.
They won't be able to control the food supply. This would be interstate commerce, the feds would get involved very quickly if the new state decided to go all authoritarian and refuse cross border trade.
Better idea: Split the US in two countries. The Red States and the Blue States. And build a wall between the two.
It's more like Blue Cities and Red Rural. Almost all rural areas vote Republican and all urban areas vote Democratic. It's hard to find states which are entirely red or blue. It would be pretty difficult to wall off all the major cities from their surroundings.
Rural areas and urban areas are still relatively purple. In California the counties lean slightly one way or the other, except for a few outliers. Because they only lean slightly in one direction, they can easily change, and they have changed over time.
Also note that in rural counties in California that we have tons of hispanic voters (remember this was a part of Mexico). Because of the heavy anti immigrant and anti hispanic stances that prominent California Republicans have expressed in the past, they're going to find if very difficult to sway those voters to their side.
Look at other counties chosen to be a part of this new state (not that the counties were asked their opinion of course). San Diego county is Republican mostly because of the pro-military views, but otherwise the country is very moderate and could swing easily. Orange county could easily be swayed. Fresno county, it has quite a few Democratic politicians in office. Contra Costa is already pretty liberal, it can swing easily.
No, these are not fundamentally different and irreconcilable ways of seeing the world. The country has gotten along together much better than it does today, so there's no reason to assume that today's politics is going to become permanent.
The political problem is that splitting adds two extra senators. That's the only major political change; the house of representatives (the more reactionary body) will stay the same. Getting a new republican state won't change the house one bit. But it will affect the senate. The snag is that California can't decide to split on its own, the rest of the country won't allow it. And that new Republican state may not state Republican for very long, California is very much a purple state.
Brown is basically a moderate. Schwarzenegger was moderate too. Both got elected even though they were far from their party's ideal choice. That's a good thing, and it would be nice if the parties wised up and realized that going moderate will get them far bigger wins than by pandering to the extreme wings.
Also, if the state gets split up, the desired effect will still not happen. These people probably naively assume that they will be the ones in charge and will be able to pass all sorts of reforms exactly how they want. In reality they'll just find out that they created smaller versions of the same problem. In ten or twenty years, they'll be bitching that San Diego and Fresno have all the power and are steering the entire state.
Besides, it can't happen. The rest of the country is not going to be happy with two 2 California senators turning into 4, 6, or more senators. California can't split unilaterally. Never mind that it's only a very tiny fraction of the population that would support this, they would never even get a referendum passed.
Every 5 to 10 years this happens. You get three people together who feel the same way and suddenly they think they can make this pipe dream work. This idea never seems to be held by people with moderate political views, it's always the extremists or those with a grudge to settle with the state or county.
Well, there have been people wanting to split Fresno county into the valley half versus the mountain half for as long as I can remember. There's no way to split up the state and have it go well. Any split leads to more splits, or leads to bad blood, or leads to violence, etc. People need to learn from history.
We have enough people living in a bubble on social media, we don't need to reinforce the bubble by drawing borders to remove people you disagree with.
Naw. First, not many people support this. There's always some sort of fringe movement trying to split California, this is just one of a long line. There is no popular support behind it though.
Second, the rural counties are not necessary hardcore right wing. Sure, it elects hard core republicans, but that's because the primary system discourages moderates, even if the general election is 55%/45%. Even in a rural county, most of the votes are in the cities. Notice that they left San Diego and Orange counties in the new state; those are very likely to go more liberal in the future, it's what happens with urban areas. The only thing keeping San Diego leaning right is all the military contracts.
It's naive to think one can craft a better state by getting rid of people one disagrees with. It's never worked historically, and it's really only ever been accomplished with violence and authoritarian governments.
Oh, so it's like Elvis.
It has traditionally be a very poor area close to downtown for well, nearly forever. It used to be considered an unsafe neighborhood. But because it wasn't expensive, and was walking distance to downtown and BART stations, it's where a lot of newcomers have shown up to gentrify the place in the last couple of decades. It's still not the safest place to find yourself at night though.
In San Francisco, "the Tenderloin" also means meat.
Don't forget, SF has a terrible economy, no one can afford to live there now but the wealthy or those already grandfathered in to rent control. It is a nearly a bedroom community now. I seriously expect that within the decade that more workers will leave San Francisco every morning that those that arrive.
The first rule of living in San Francisco is that you refute the existence that people may live somewhere else or not understand where Polk and Fulton is.
(they learned this from the first rule of Manhattan, after which they prompty disavowed the existence of Manhattan)
Disprovability is sort of a newish idea. Falsifiability was a concept that gained ground only in the 20th centure. But we still had science before the 20th century!
Falsifiability is also often misunderstood. We have great swaths of science that depend upon one theory more closely matching the evidence than another theory. Quite a lot of science depends upon averages. What we see after having thousands of measurements. No single experiment with a different outcome will disprove the average. Thus it relies upon the preponderance of evidence. The Michelson-Morley experiment, for example, meant nothing without the great number of experiments that came after, most of them with much greater accuracy and rigor. However the experiment was a big leap in that it caused the initial doubt that encouraged more experimentation, and kicked off a new style of scientific inquiry that lead towards Popper's ideas of falsifiability.
Changing by 20C from winter to summer is one thing, but changing the year round average by 20C is a completely different thing. Sure, it wouldn't kill everyone, but it would kill most people in the world, in every country. The equator would be unlivable. Coastal cities would be gone. Agriculture would be completely disrupted, the formerly productive areas would be like deserts, and the newly opened land would have terrible fertility, an the loss of population and production would eliminate fertilizer production. The weather would be completely disrupted, probably causing large Sahara like regions in some places, or massive flooding in others.
I had to train my mom not to do this. She lost her Firefox profile e and could not remember any of her passwords, and important the profile from an old computer wasn't working. She wrote them down in a file but in a really jumbled up manner that I couldn't make sense of. I eventually figured out how to decode the profile that had the passwords. But until then we had no access to the ISP and I was ready to go and beg with them over the phone or in person to reset the password.
If my bank asked me to use two factor authentication, I would consider it, as my bank account needs to be secure. But for google, why? It's fluff, I could lose the account tomorrow and not much would happen. I don't have it linked to any credit card numbers, identification numbers, etc.
So why are fluffy social media sites and games encouraging this, but important stuff that need security is not?
Anyway, two factor means I have to have my phone all the time, and if I lose or sell it I am going to have a major hassle trying to get back into my account. I don't want Google of all people to have this information sort of information.
What it is is sort of sleight of hand. You tell employees that it's $2500 and they're happy, but in practice they don't get to see the money for some time, or may not see it all if they get laid off or change jobs. In reality it's more like a $50 per month salary increase. Sure, it is indeed a something for nothing, be glad you got it. But it's not the only company to work for; the compeitor may give more somethings for nothing.