A petition to split California up into three separate states has qualified for the ballot out here, which means next election we get a chance to vote to Balkanize the Golden State.
Looking at the proposed map, I see that I would live in the same state as Disneyland but I’d have to cross state lines to get to Universal Studios. Who needs that?
And the proposed names are stunningly unoriginal. “North California,” “South California,” and simply “California,” are way too mundane and confusing. We are not the Carolinas, or the Dakotas, and we don’t want to be. I propose “Redwood,” “Deadwood,” and “Hollywood.”
Of course, nobody takes my political suggestions seriously, so we’re probably stuck with the other nomenclature.
The plan is being pushed by some Silicon Valley billionaire, who is tired of living in the same state as Harvey Weinstein. Also, he thinks that having smaller states would make politicians cheaper to buy. Sure, pal, but now there’s three times as many of them. Does that sound more economical to you? Also, under his plan, South California would begin in Fresno. Nothing begins in Fresno.
The whole scheme is a full employment plan for politicians. Not that we don’t need one. Once you get a nice political job in Cali, you hang onto it. Our governor is nearly eighty and one of our Senators is running for re-election at the age of eighty-five. Our state is full of younger pols chomping at the bit to get into the primo jobs. Two more states mean we’d have two more Governors and four more Senators. But is that good? Because when we look at the way the government works today, do we immediately think “Hey, we need more of those guys!”
The higher education system would be utterly balled up. UCLA would be okay, and San Diego State fine, because UCLA would still be in California and San Diego State could belong to any state, but what about the University of Southern California? Are they going to have to move it to Riverside?
And who’s to say we want to live in smaller states? We San Diegans love living in a state with giant sequoias and majestic waterfalls, even though they are about eight hours away in traffic. We enjoy the thought of crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, even though the best way for us to do that is to fly into San Francisco and rent a car.
About the only way state breakup would benefit me personally is that maybe my mother, who lives in Pennsylvania, wouldn’t call me in a panic when gigantic wildfires start up five hundred miles north of here. If I lived in a different state, she might not feel the need to beg me to get ready to evacuate.
But that’s about it. The most telling point, to me, is that if I wanted to live in a less significant state, there’s already 49 others I could move to.
So, to borrow a phrase from the once and future drug wars, just say no. Leave California alone. Brittany, too.
Looking at the proposed map, I see that I would live in the same state as Disneyland but I’d have to cross state lines to get to Universal Studios. Who needs that?
And the proposed names are stunningly unoriginal. “North California,” “South California,” and simply “California,” are way too mundane and confusing. We are not the Carolinas, or the Dakotas, and we don’t want to be. I propose “Redwood,” “Deadwood,” and “Hollywood.”
Of course, nobody takes my political suggestions seriously, so we’re probably stuck with the other nomenclature.
The plan is being pushed by some Silicon Valley billionaire, who is tired of living in the same state as Harvey Weinstein. Also, he thinks that having smaller states would make politicians cheaper to buy. Sure, pal, but now there’s three times as many of them. Does that sound more economical to you? Also, under his plan, South California would begin in Fresno. Nothing begins in Fresno.
The whole scheme is a full employment plan for politicians. Not that we don’t need one. Once you get a nice political job in Cali, you hang onto it. Our governor is nearly eighty and one of our Senators is running for re-election at the age of eighty-five. Our state is full of younger pols chomping at the bit to get into the primo jobs. Two more states mean we’d have two more Governors and four more Senators. But is that good? Because when we look at the way the government works today, do we immediately think “Hey, we need more of those guys!”
The higher education system would be utterly balled up. UCLA would be okay, and San Diego State fine, because UCLA would still be in California and San Diego State could belong to any state, but what about the University of Southern California? Are they going to have to move it to Riverside?
And who’s to say we want to live in smaller states? We San Diegans love living in a state with giant sequoias and majestic waterfalls, even though they are about eight hours away in traffic. We enjoy the thought of crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, even though the best way for us to do that is to fly into San Francisco and rent a car.
About the only way state breakup would benefit me personally is that maybe my mother, who lives in Pennsylvania, wouldn’t call me in a panic when gigantic wildfires start up five hundred miles north of here. If I lived in a different state, she might not feel the need to beg me to get ready to evacuate.
But that’s about it. The most telling point, to me, is that if I wanted to live in a less significant state, there’s already 49 others I could move to.
So, to borrow a phrase from the once and future drug wars, just say no. Leave California alone. Brittany, too.
RSS Feed
