Jump to content

A New State Called South California?


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Members

According to the article posted below, there is a serious political movement to form a new state called "South California":

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/12/politician-campaigns-to-make-south-california-into-our-51st-state/?hpt=hp_t2

Due to the fustercluck that the state of California has become in recent decades--as well as the vastly different interests/cultures between the Northern and Southern parts of the state--perhaps it does make some sense to split the state in two. Unfortunately, the particular proposal being brought forward is not a serious attempt to solve the problem, but rather a political stunt: that's because this new state of South California would exclude heavily Democratic Los Angeles, thereby creating a state that would instead be a Republican stronghold.

It is beyond sad how the state of California--which was once the place were people aspired to move to--has become such a national joke. (The state's problems are deeper than merely blaming Arnold Schwarzenegger, its heavily Democratic state legislature, or even the illegal immigrants.) Unfortunately, I really don't know what can solve the state's problems, but perhaps dividing the state in two (only, of course, with Los Angeles being a part of South California) could be a potential solution. In hindsight, it really does seem that the 1992 Los Angeles riots were when everything in California began to unravel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

California is still, with all of it's problems one of the biggest economies in the world. We're going to be just fine. And yeah, if we ever turn Red, I'm OUT. But this has nothing to do with real politics. This is people with ridiculous ideas who would rather talk about [!@#$%^&*] that will never happen, then SOLVE the real problems plaguing the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I apologize if I am putting words in your mouth (as I honestly don't know if you are of the following mindset), but liberal Democratic politics is not what made California's economy and image so great to being with. In fact, during the golden years of the states history--from 1945 to circa 1990--California was a very middle-of-the-road state politically. The reason why California has become so Democratic over the last twenty years is due to the huge influx of poor hispanic immigrants combined with the flight of many white, middle-class people to the much more afforable Southwestern states such as Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada.

I'm not naive enough to believe that complete Republican party control would solve the state's problems. Instead, what California may need to do is start again embracing moderate politics. (The fact that the moderate Schwarzenegger was such a failure had far less to do with his political philosophy than the fact that he was an empty suit who had zero qualifications for the job.)

If one needs further evidence as to the fact that California's glory days are long gone, consider this: After the 2010 Census, CA gained zero House seats, which marked the first time ever in state history that this failed to happen. (In fact, CA almost lost a House seat.) After the 2000 Census, California gained just one additional House seat. By contrast, the state gained a whopping seven additional House seats after the 1990 Census.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

^Yeah, and the Republican's aren't going to save it. They're not God. Despite their politicians acting like it. It's crap like this that makes me sorry I spent the last 10 years of my life studying this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree with this, and I am sorry if I did not make that clear earlier. (I believe that the only possible solution involves moderates in both parties working together, which sadly will never happen).

This really isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, but rather due to the fact California was just a victim of such huge and unsustainble population growth; sooner or later, having too high a population was going to lead to all sorts of problems. The same problems that are plauging CA are cropping up in Florida to a less dramatic extent. And, since the current population grwoth rate in Texas in dangerously high, I fully expect that state (along with Florida) to one day be as messed up as CA currently is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation.
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
    • Good morning, boys!  I figured that it was time that our Gio was introduced into the hotness thread

      Please register in order to view this content

      @ranger1rg I even included a close up of his face for ya!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy