Californica's topics - tribe.net

California Split article from the NY Times

Alexander — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:25:03 GMT

From the New York Times:

February 10, 2007

California Split By GAR ALPEROVITZ

SOMETHING interesting is happening in California. Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger seems to have grasped the essential truth that no
nation — not even the United States — can be managed successfully from
the center once it reaches a certain scale. Moreover, the bold
proposals that Mr. Schwarzenegger is now making for everything from
universal health care to global warming point to the kind of
decentralization of power which, once started, could easily shake up
America's fundamental political structure.

Governor Schwarzenegger is quite clear that California is not simply
another state. "We are the modern equivalent of the ancient
city-states of Athens and Sparta," he recently declared. "We have the
economic strength, we have the population and the technological force
of a nation-state." In his inaugural address, Mr. Schwarzenegger
proclaimed, "We are a good and global commonwealth."

Political rhetoric? Maybe. But California's governor has also put his
finger on a little discussed flaw in America's constitutional formula.
The United States is almost certainly too big to be a meaningful
democracy. What does "participatory democracy" mean in a continent?
Sooner or later, a profound, probably regional, decentralization of
the federal system may be all but inevitable.

A recent study by the economists Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Enrico
Spolaore of Tufts demonstrates that the bigger the nation, the harder
it becomes for the government to meet the needs of its dispersed
population. Regions that don't feel well served by the government's
distribution of goods and services then have an incentive to take
independent action, the economists note.

Scale also determines who has privileged access to the country's news
media and who can shape its political discourse. In very large
nations, television and other forms of political communication are
extremely costly. President Bush alone spent $345 million in his 2004
election campaign. This gives added leverage to elites, who have
better corporate connections and greater resources than non-elites.
The priorities of those elites often differ from state and regional
priorities.

James Madison, the architect of the United States Constitution,
understood these problems all too well. Madison is usually viewed as
favoring constructing the nation on a large scale. What he urged, in
fact, was that a nation of reasonable size had advantages over a very
small one. But writing to Jefferson at a time when the population of
the United States was a mere four million, Madison expressed concern
that if the nation grew too big, elites at the center would divide and
conquer a widely dispersed population, producing "tyranny."

Few Americans realize just how huge this nation is. Germany could fit
within the borders of Montana. France is smaller than Texas. Leaving
aside three nations with large, unpopulated land masses (Russia,
Canada and Australia), the United States is geographically larger than
all the other advanced industrial countries taken together.
Critically, the American population, now roughly 300 million, is
projected to reach more than 400 million by the middle of this
century. A high Census Bureau estimate suggests it could reach 1.2
billion by 2100.

If the scale of a country renders it unmanageable, there are two
possible responses. One is a breakup of the nation; the other is a
radical decentralization of power. More than half of the world's 200
nations formed as breakaways after 1946. These days, many nations —
including Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Italy and Spain,
just to name a few — are devolving power to regions in various ways.

Decades before President Bush decided to teach Iraq a lesson, George
F. Kennan worried that what he called our "monster country" would,
through the "hubris of inordinate size," inevitably become a menace,
intervening all too often in other nations' affairs: "There is a real
question as to whether `bigness' in a body politic is not an evil in
itself, quite aside from the policies pursued in its name."

Kennan proposed that devolution, "while retaining certain of the
rudiments of a federal government," might yield a "dozen constituent
republics, absorbing not only the powers of the existing states but a
considerable part of those of the present federal establishment."

Regional devolution would most likely be initiated by a very large
state with a distinct sense of itself and aspirations greater than
Washington can handle. The obvious candidate is California, a state
that has the eighth-largest economy in the world.

If such a state decided to get serious about determining its own fate,
other states would have little choice but to act, too. One response
might be for an area like New England, which already has many regional
interstate arrangements, to follow California's initiative — as it
already has on some environmental measures. And if one or two large
regions began to take action, other state groupings in the Northwest,
Southwest and elsewhere would be likely to follow.

A new wave of regional devolution could also build on the more than
200 compacts that now allow groups of states to cooperate on
environmental, economic, transportation and other problems. Most
likely, regional empowerment would be popular: when the Appalachian
Regional Commission was established in 1965, senators from across the
country rushed to demand commissions to help the economies and
constituencies of their regions, too.

Governor Schwarzenegger may not have thought through the implications
of continuing to assert forcefully his "nation-state" ambitions. But
he appears to have an expansive sense of the possibilities: this is
the governor, after all, who brought Prime Minister Tony Blair of
Britain to the Port of Long Beach last year to sign an accord between
California and Britain on global warming. And he may be closer to the
mark than he knows with his dream that "California, the nation-state,
the harmonious state, the prosperous state, the cutting-edge state,
becomes a model, not just for the 21st-century American society, but
for the larger world."

Gar Alperovitz, a professor of political economy at the University of
Maryland, College Park, is the author of "America Beyond Capitalism."

If they can talk about this nationally could it be the start of
something important?

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10710FB355B0C738DDDAB0894DF404482

posted in Californica - 0 replies

British Columbia to be annexed to Californica

BenHaus — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:30:17 GMT

We need some sophistication from our friends in British Columbia in Californica.... perhaps we can make a trade with Canada and give them Alaska... theyre just a bunch of ign'ant snow dwellers anyways : X

posted in Californica - 2 replies

Underpants Gnomes

IndigoMoonstar — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:27:39 GMT

I would like to present the Underpants Gnomes theory of Political Evolution as presented in Southpark Episode 2-17, and as it applies to California's Political Economy.

STEP 1: STEAL UNDERPANTS
Break away from the Union

STEP 2: ???
Grow Lots of Pot

STEP 3: PROFIT!
Speaks for Itself

These are the details missing from the original episode, which creators Tray Stone and Matt Parker did not wish to reveal for fear of government reprisal. Reprise This, SUCKERS!!!

posted in Californica - 0 replies

why weed in california is enough reason for succsesion

cyan — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 02:29:44 GMT

1. The group has a common character and a common culture.... can I say hippie
2. ...people growing up among members of the group will acquire the group culture, will be marked by its character... ever meet a girl named rain?
3. Membership of the group is, in part, a matter of mutual recognition..... it might just be the smell but take me about 20 seconds to pick up a fellow free spirit
4. ...groups membership of which is one of the primary clues for people generally in interpreting the conduct of others... what is that other person standing in the showdows in the middle of a frezing night doing smoking somthing outside ? oh, same as me. -
5. Membership is a matter of belonging, not of achievement.... this one is just too obvious, if there is one group not marked by achievment it would be the potheads.
6. The groups concerned are not small face-to-face groups, members of which are generally known to all other members. They are anonymous groups where where mutual recognition is secured by the possession of general characteristics.... "stash" nag chanka - dredlocks - the list can go on
Avishai Margalit and Joseph Raz (1990) National self-determination. Journal of Philosophy LXXXVII, 9, 439-46, p.443-447.

Not only does the smoking culture in california make up a unconected deversifeid group. It is a group that is suffering some of the worst oppresion the right wing government can deal out. Along with unconstatuinal drug screening to provent employment, they are locked up for non violnet crimes. Crimes that they defy on basic principles of moraltiy. Some feel that they have to hide and fear jail, theft of thier personal property, and all from our federal govenrment. Who fails to respect the wishes of what should be a self governing state. The people have spoken the government has not listend.

The industrail hemp prospects could reshape our economy help mantain our farms and the medical posibilities could complety restructure our health care.

posted in Californica - 0 replies

Yeah!!

maybe_maybenot — Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:20:45 GMT

Matt I am so happy that you started a tribe. I am sorry that I haven't gotten back to you yet about everything. Did I tell you, my assignment came back with an A (thank you Matt!) Will write you more soon. Cheers, squid

posted in Californica - 0 replies

It has been long enough!!!

cyan — Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:45:24 GMT

We have let the rest of the country bring us down for far to long. We have to take actaion and form out own coutry suited to our ideas and needs. Not catering to the whims of leaders who not only fail to represent us. But spend our money in ways we find disgusting. i.e Bush. -- As Bush builds a muti billion dollar carrier named after his family and an ocupational force to force his views and whims on the rest of the planet. There is no country or force that could stand in his way. But we could undermine him power by devidding the country. Or at least enact radical change with the threat.

We are all sitting back as we lose the rights our forfathers established and so many died to protect. All because we are happy enough. Nothing directly hurts us. But that will change and by then it will be to late.

posted in Californica - 0 replies