http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/17/new-california-movement-seeks-to-divide-golden-state-in-half.html
This time the boundary is proposed east to west instead of north and south. As stated in the FOX interview, California is too liberal, giving too much power to the west coast liberal elite. An East California/West California divide solves the problem by creating two states, one Republican and one Democrat which would be fairer, I guess.
They'd get another senator or two in the Monkey House, I mean Senate.
If people open up ... where the boundaries are, and what is the basis for State or national constitutions, they are opening a can of worms. My problem with the South prior to 1861 is twofold ... lack of charity to anyone other than the White upper class, and overweening ambition. I suspect that becoming President of a new country, was the only way someone like Jefferson Davis could have become chief executive.
Four way split in California ... N California doesn't like S California either. The coast between LA and San Fran is a playground of the rich.
All those American flags would be obsolete, we'd have to put on another star. Seems an awful lot of work just to make some conservatives happy.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 17, 2018, 02:13:17 PM
All those American flags would be obsolete, we'd have to put on another star. Seems an awful lot of work just to make some conservatives happy.
Leftists are congenitally unhappy people. So I just ignore them. Sad.
I was in grade school when they added the last two stars. They asked the public for suggestions, one of the few times the government actually took public input for much of anything. It was a big deal in our art class to design a flag, and it presented difficult problem. How do you create a 6 X 8 field that has a identical regularity of repetitive lines out of 50? The answer of course, is that you can't. But we were determined tykes. 5 X 10 was entirely the wrong shape, and with limited knowledge of long division, we couldn't think of any other arrangement of 5 X 10 that would produce the same effect. Personally, I would have told Alaska and Hawaii to go take a hike and leave our flag alone.
The eventual solution, adopted by the big people, was to stagger the lines and hide the irregularity in the non-pattern. I personally didn't like it. It looked messy. One suggestion that was among the finalists was to assemble the fifty 5 pointed stars into one big star, again a very foxy way of hiding an irregularity (if there even was one) in one of the arms of the big star, but congress didn't like it, even though I thought it was the best one. Maybe it reminded the senators of the "United States of Texas." So we ended up with a messy flag.
This was the biggest problem, the US has ever solved and such a head ache for everyone that it was decided Puerto Rico would never become a state until we had enough total stars to fill out the blue field the way it was before.
Instead of dividing California in two, I think it would be better to merge California with Wyoming and Kansas so we could just get rid of two worthless red states. We would also have 48 states again and get the real flag back.
Quote from: SGOS on January 17, 2018, 11:30:50 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/17/new-california-movement-seeks-to-divide-golden-state-in-half.html
This time the boundary is proposed east to west instead of north and south. As stated in the FOX interview, California is too liberal, giving too much power to the west coast liberal elite. An East California/West California divide solves the problem by creating two states, one Republican and one Democrat which would be fairer, I guess.
Bleeding Kansas part deux?
Something tells me this isn't a good idea. I've heard of the cost and headaches associated with changing road signs from imperial to metric, I can't imagine what sawing a state in half would be like.
But I would love to run the experiment and watch the results of two communities enacting polar opposite policies and see which one does better in the long term. My bet is that the Republican utopia wouldn't fare so well.
Quote from: SGOS on January 17, 2018, 02:53:02 PM
Instead of dividing California in two, I think it would be better to merge California with Wyoming and Kansas so we could just get rid of two worthless red states. We would also have 48 states again and get the real flag back.
Nah, merge the Dakotas, and then Nebraska and Kansas. Call 'em respectively Dakota and Nebraskansas.
Curiously, for the one year that the 49 star flag was official, they didn't go with the "obvious" 7x7 grid, but with a 7x7 offset pattern:
(http://www.usflag.org/historical/49star.gif)
That is some next-level gerrymandering.
People were worried about some kind of optical illusion with the straight 7x7. That's the sum of what I remember about it. Well, that and a stuffed moose.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 17, 2018, 04:01:57 PM
That is some next-level gerrymandering.
Yeah, it's taking gerrymandering to new heights, but they don't call it that for obvious reasons.
Quote from: SGOS on January 17, 2018, 06:13:47 PM
Yeah, it's taking gerrymandering to new heights, but they don't call it that for obvious reasons.
Governor Gerry has dibs on the original term. In honor of the current Moonbeam of California, call it Browniemandering.
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2018, 06:23:54 PM
Governor Gerry has dibs on the original term. In honor of the current Moonbeam of California, call it Browniemandering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
Below is at least one explanation of the word origin.
QuoteThe word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744â€"1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a mythological salamander.[4]
The original gerrymander, and original 1812 gerrymander cartoon, depict the Essex South state senatorial district for the legislature of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[5]
Gerrymander is a portmanteau of the governor's last name and the word salamander. The redistricting was a notable success. Although in the 1812 election both the Massachusetts House and governorship were won by Federalists by a comfortable margin and cost Gerry his job, the redistricted state senate remained firmly in Democratic-Republican hands.[4][clarification needed]
The author of the term gerrymander may never be definitively established. Historians widely believe that the Federalist newspaper editors Nathan Hale, and Benjamin and John Russell coined the term, but the historical record does not have definitive evidence as to who created or uttered the word for the first time.[5]
Appearing with the term, and helping spread and sustain its popularity, was a political cartoon depicting a strange animal with claws, wings and a dragon-like head satirizing the map of the oddly shaped district. This cartoon was most likely drawn by Elkanah Tisdale, an early 19th-century painter, designer, and engraver who was living in Boston at the time.[6] Tisdale had the engraving skills to cut the woodblocks to print the original cartoon.[7] These woodblocks survive and are preserved in the Library of Congress.[8]
The word gerrymander was reprinted numerous times in Federalist newspapers in Massachusetts, New England, and nationwide during the remainder of 1812.[9] This suggests some organized activity of the Federalists to disparage Governor Gerry in particular, and the growing Democratic-Republican party in general. Gerrymandering soon began to be used to describe not only the original Massachusetts example, but also other cases of district shape manipulation for partisan gain in other states. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word's acceptance was marked by its publication in a dictionary (1848) and in an encyclopedia (1868).[10] Since the letter g of the eponymous Gerry is pronounced with a hard g /É¡/ as in get, the word gerrymander was originally pronounced /ˈɡɛrimændÉ™r/. However, pronunciation as /ˈdÊ'É›rimændÉ™r/, with a soft g /dÊ'/ as in gentle, has become the accepted pronunciation.
From time to time, other names are given the "-mander" suffix to tie a particular effort to a particular politician or group. These include the 1852 "Henry-mandering", "Jerrymander" (referring to California Governor Jerry Brown),[11] "Perrymander" (a reference to Texas Governor Rick Perry),[12][13] and "Tullymander" (after the Irish politician James Tully).[14]
Also of interest are some of the strategies involved
Quote"Cracking" involves spreading voters of a particular type among many districts in order to deny them a sufficiently large voting bloc in any particular district.[16] An example would be to split the voters in an urban area among several districts wherein the majority of voters are suburban, on the presumption that the two groups would vote differently, and the suburban voters would be far more likely to get their way in the elections.
"Packing" is to concentrate as many voters of one type into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts.[16] In some cases, this may be done to obtain representation for a community of common interest (such as to create a majority-minority district), rather than to dilute that interest over several districts to a point of ineffectiveness (and, when minority groups are involved, to avoid likely lawsuits charging racial discrimination). When the party controlling the districting process has a statewide majority, packing is usually not necessary to attain partisan advantage; the minority party can generally be "cracked" everywhere. Packing is therefore more likely to be used for partisan advantage when the party controlling the districting process has a statewide minority, because by forfeiting a few districts packed with the opposition, cracking can be used in forming the remaining districts.
"Hijacking" redraws two districts in such a way as to force two incumbents to run against each other in one district, ensuring that one of them will be eliminated.[16]
"Kidnapping" moves an incumbent's home address into another district.[16] Reelection can become more difficult when the incumbent no longer resides in the district, or possibly faces reelection from a new district with a new voter base. This is often employed against politicians who represent multiple urban areas, in which larger cities will be removed from the district in order to make the district more rural.
Quote from: SGOS on January 17, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
Below is at least one explanation of the word origin.
Also of interest are some of the strategies involved
I know all about Gerrymandering. But you explained it well!
I would like to solve it with an inked grid on a stste map. SLAM!
Well, it would probably be better than what exists...
But I have a suggestion. Print out a State map with red dots representing 10,000 or 50,000 citizens, whatever works. Give the map to a 12 year old and tell that one to "make the smallest equal groups" whatever number of electoral votes for that state.
Viola.
I much preferred the Six Californias solution.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on January 19, 2018, 12:46:14 AM
I much preferred the Six Californias solution.
Every county is its own city-state, must speak Greek, be democratic (for adult males only) ... because we are not Sparta. And gayness is encouraged, since it helps with artistic creativity. Just ask Leonardo and Michelangelo.
Is "Californication" taken yet? That would be an awesome name for the Liberal half.
Quote from: Baruch on January 19, 2018, 07:38:45 AM
Every county is its own city-state, must speak Greek, be democratic (for adult males only) ... because we are not Sparta. And gayness is encouraged, since it helps with artistic creativity. Just ask Leonardo and Michelangelo.
The Bible condemned homosexuality, but the Greeks and Romans didn't seem to make a big deal about it. Homophobia seems to be a product of more modern culture. This is just a perception. I don't really know how all the ancients felt about it, but I don't recall reading that older societies called for the deaths of gays. I suppose some did but why does homophobia seem to be so important later on? I refuse to accept that this was some kind of progressive advancement. Homophobia probably always existed to some extent, but it seems like it's promoted mostly by religion, something that I would consider an artifact left over from medieval times. Religion does seem to be losing it's power to promote it. The churches are not helping much, but many of the parishioners seem to be disregarding it, and some churches are following the trend. We are still emerging from the dark ages, but some are being dragged out of it kicking and screaming.
Pagan ancients didn't even talk about lesbianism ... procreation for male heirs was the point, and no such thing from lesbianism. Sex between men was talked about. Sex between consenting adults was OK, but gauche ... like we consider cougars and dirty old men to be gauche. That is part of what got Socrates in trouble. I think he was in fact, a dirty old man. Otherwise bisexual.
It was Semites in particular, who being desert people, are intuitively puritanical. There is no way to get a bath, in a hot desert ... similarly post-sex cleanup.
Yeah, lesbianism is very inconsequential medically and morally speaking. Male homosexuality spreads all kinds of disease, and if men are expected to be a bulwark against chaos, then it can also be considered inexcusably effeminate.
Quote from: orcus on January 19, 2018, 12:51:12 PM
Yeah, lesbianism is very inconsequential medically and morally speaking. Male homosexuality spreads all kinds of disease, and if men are expected to be a bulwark against chaos, then it can also be considered inexcusably effeminate.
In traditional society, the problem isn't being effeminate, but failing to be masculine. Patriarchy is what it is. Being non-masculine (as a male) in a patriarchy means you are a Fifth Column against that society. The primary shame in a male-male relationship, was being the bottom. Being the top was still considered masculine, because it denoted "power".
Sex doesn't necessarily spread disease, it matters how you do it. Even between two men. Ordinary hetero-sex ... if promiscuous ... is a very bad idea. Promiscuity is the primary public health threat. Otherwise the problem is confined to two monogamous partners. This was a slave problem in ancient society, because masters and mistresses had casual sex with their slaves of either sex all the time.
As a modern person, I don't devalue women as such, so "effeminacy" isn't a bad word, any more than being "dike" would be against a woman.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 19, 2018, 07:54:18 AM
Is "Californication" taken yet? That would be an awesome name for the Liberal half.
Yeah, I heard that decades ago. But independent discovery is legit too.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 19, 2018, 07:54:18 AM
Is "Californication" taken yet? That would be an awesome name for the Liberal half.
I like Supercalifornialisticexpialidocious - it has a nice ring to it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 24, 2018, 01:38:01 PM
I like Supercalifornialisticexpialidocious - it has a nice ring to it.
My Mom once said that backwards to some yelly screaming 6 year old in a grocery store (who was repeatedly doing it forward). It shut him down cold! Never underestimate a Mom!
Well, I remember in the song it was said backwards, so it's not that hard - if you can remember the song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRFHXMQP-QU
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 24, 2018, 02:07:57 PM
Well, I remember in the song it was said backwards, so it's not that hard - if you can remember the song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRFHXMQP-QU
I never tried.
They are going about this all wrong.
Rather than split up the state, why not split up the parties?
Political officials could then be elected on issues, rather than on where they sit on the political spectrum.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 26, 2018, 03:39:05 AM
They are going about this all wrong.
Rather than split up the state, why not split up the parties?
Political officials could then be elected on issues, rather than on where they sit on the political spectrum.
That would be the end of the GOP.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 26, 2018, 03:39:05 AM
They are going about this all wrong.
Rather than split up the state, why not split up the parties?
Political officials could then be elected on issues, rather than on where they sit on the political spectrum.
Allegedly that is what the open primary top two was supposed to do. Instead it cemented the parties in place.
What they need to do is split the existing parties, and randomly assign people from the existing parties into sub parties. The Democrats can be split into the Democrats and Remocrats, while the Republicans can be split into the Depublicans and the Republicans. Don't allow any elected officials to change their party affiliation for a period of not less than ten years in an effort to cement in the new parties.
OR everybody could just act like adults.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 26, 2018, 12:29:12 PM
OR everybody could just act like adults.
I find no evidence for "adults". Older children perhaps. Maybe we should only poll people over 100 years old. In the Bible you haven't reached wisdom until you have reached 110.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 26, 2018, 12:29:12 PM
OR everybody could just act like adults.
That's all they'd be doing though - just acting. But even that would be better than what they're doing now.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 26, 2018, 02:01:29 PM
That's all they'd be doing though - just acting. But even that would be better than what they're doing now.
And doctors are only practicing ;-)
With both Reagan and Trump, we have gotten people acting as President, because they were actors to begin with. Different generation, one was movies, the other was reality TV.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 26, 2018, 03:39:05 AM
They are going about this all wrong.
Rather than split up the state, why not split up the parties?
Political officials could then be elected on issues, rather than on where they sit on the political spectrum.
Don't I wish! I want rational government of the city manager style, and balanced electoral districts that are as competitive as possible.
Interestingly, many judges are moving toward demanding that state districts be rationaly arranged and logically compact. My own state (MD) has a hideous district (3rd, I think). That it benefits the Democrats I usually vote for does not make me like it.
I had a thought last night of taking a map of MD and putting red dots on it for every 10,000 voters. Then giving the map to high school students and saying "divide these dots equally". I bet they could make fairer districts!
You aren't wealthy enough. If you were wealthy enough, you would have a superiority complex, to cover your fear of The People. In that case you wouldn't want anything to be fair ... because it isn't in your narrow interest. Planation owners they say, never had a good sleep ... because of fear that they would wake up dead in the morning. This is the problem with the corruption of this world, great power, great money, great fame ... or great beauty. It is fleeting, and those who have it, don't want to see it go. The Buddha had an answer for that, but the unenlightened won't listen or see (see Bible also).
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 09:11:44 AM
You aren't wealthy enough. If you were wealthy enough, you would have a superiority complex, to cover your fear of The People. In that case you wouldn't want anything to be fair ... because it isn't in your narrow interest. Planation owners they say, never had a good sleep ... because of fear that they would wake up dead in the morning. This is the problem with the corruption of this world, great power, great money, great fame ... or great beauty. It is fleeting, and those who have it, don't want to see it go. The Buddha had an answer for that, but the unenlightened won't listen or see (see Bible also).
No, actually, I'm not sure what to do with my money. I don't want to just give it away, it was hard to earn. But there it is every time I look it up. I don't think of it as something I exactly "earned".
Well, some of it came from wages I invested, and I did earn THAT! But the jump from $200K to $1M doesn't feel right. *I* didn't do anything to make that happen.
A question to everyone here... What would you do with $1M. And "Give it to me" isn't the right answer. I'm curious.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 09:20:35 AM
No, actually, I'm not sure what to do with my money. I don't want to just give it away, it was hard to earn. But there it is every time I look it up. I don't think of it as something I exactly "earned".
Well, some of it came from wages I invested, and I did earn THAT! But the jump from $200K to $1M doesn't feel right. *I* didn't do anything to make that happen.
A question to everyone here... What would you do with $1M. And "Give it to me" isn't the right answer. I'm curious.
Well I am not so sure it is good to give it to relatives or friends. You would corrupt them. There are good charities ... Mayo Clinic for example. Or you could endow a university chair in BS (uh, I meant PhD) ;-) Take that back, I wouldn't give any university a dime.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 09:32:02 AM
Well I am not so sure it is good to give it to relatives or friends. You would corrupt them. There are good charities ... Mayo Clinic for example. Or you could endow a university chair in BS (uh, I meant PhD) ;-) Take that back, I wouldn't give any university a dime.
My siblings would kill me! Oh wait, I'd be dead... Hmmm
Maybe I could send microbes to Mars and get us start there...
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 11:27:53 AM
My siblings would kill me! Oh wait, I'd be dead... Hmmm
Maybe I could send microbes to Mars and get us start there...
Sourdough bread on Mars? Originally, Mars was a god who made war on vermin in the field, that destroyed crops. That and other Italians who raided your farm.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:24:31 PM
Sourdough bread on Mars? Originally, Mars was a god who made war on vermin in the field, that destroyed crops. That and other Italians who raided your farm.
More disproof of ancient gods. They killed the cats who killed the vermin, so how smart could they be?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 03:26:47 PM
More disproof of ancient gods. They killed the cats who killed the vermin, so how smart could they be?
Cats weren't domesticated in Europe, until after Cleopatra visited Rome? But yes, ignorance was a bad deal, anytime before universal literacy.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 09:20:35 AM
No, actually, I'm not sure what to do with my money. I don't want to just give it away, it was hard to earn. But there it is every time I look it up. I don't think of it as something I exactly "earned".
Well, some of it came from wages I invested, and I did earn THAT! But the jump from $200K to $1M doesn't feel right. *I* didn't do anything to make that happen.
A question to everyone here... What would you do with $1M. And "Give it to me" isn't the right answer. I'm curious.
I'd consider giving it to those who are working to get clean water and solar power to the developing world.
Like maybe these folks:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/28/16690042/zero-mass-solar-panel-harvesting-clean-drinking-water-next-level
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 27, 2018, 03:38:32 PM
I'd consider giving it to those who are working to get clean water and solar power to the developing world.
Doing that, but maybe could do more. Looking into health issues too. Thanks for taking my question seriously.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 03:41:23 PM
Doing that, but maybe could do more. Looking into health issues too. Thanks for taking my question seriously.
One can donate water filters so people can get drinking water from the usual sources. I think ... $150 each.
Also there is one, where farm animals are donated to Third World people who live outside the cities.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:43:17 PM
One can donate water filters so people can get drinking water from the usual sources. I think ... $150 each.
I like desalination solar panels too but want to see that they work. Desks for students is good too.