State Of Jefferson: Who Joins?
The Times- Standard reports there's a guy in Humboldt spearheading the effort for us to get involved. I think the guy's out to lunch. I can understand why he might want to secede from California, but it's foolish to consider having the entire county join the movement. After all, we're part of the problem Siskiyou and the others want to get away from.
That aside, who decides who is allowed into a new state? There would have to be some qualifications, wouldn't there? Maybe they should have a statement of principles or objectives that a solid majority of those in the county in question agree to before being allowed to join? But who comes up with those principles or objectives?
Since Siskiyou County is where this all started, maybe they should come up with the criteria for joining and enforce it. Simply allowing a county to join because of geographical proximity- at least in Humboldt's case- might well result in the State of Jefferson being a carbon copy of what they're trying to get away from.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:05 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
I'm trying to understand how you come to believe that Humboldt County is an extension of San Francisco. I believe that is the whole point of the idea of succession from the state. We don't want the problems that they have. We don't want our counties to continue to be destroyed for large cities and government farms. Under California we are hurting, especially towns like Eureka, the police systems are a joke, the drug problems are overwhelming and yet we receive some of the lowest funds to fix these problems.
We have, and have had, an ever increasing number of people moving up here from the San Francisco Bay Area. They bring with them their politics and values. Thus, increasingly this isn't the live and let live place to be it was when I first moved up here.
But look no further than the last election up here for state assembly where Wes Chesbro was re- elected with more than 60% of the vote. Chesbro has played a fairly significant role in running California into the ground. He continues to vote against what people in Siskiyou and other State of Jefferson counties support.
So you're saying that SOJ should accept a county where over 60% of the voters vote against the wishes and interests of those in the SOJ? That makes no sense.
Shasta fits in with SOJ for sure. Maybe Trinity and even Del Norte counties. Not Humboldt. Maybe 40 years ago, but not anymore.
wait. Bay area culture = druggy culture?
This is a fascinating post Fred. Methinks your colors are showing. In the end, this is about segregating people in law based on ideology (principles or objectives). It's kinda scary and un-American if you think about it.
Ultimately this is why secessionist movements are doomed to failure. They rest on some foundation of US (not THEM). Which is outdated in this society where everyone can drive everywhere. Defining US and THEM gets tricky as you mention.
I'm not equating the Bay Area to a "druggie culture". I'm simply using that as an example in the matter of association. If you're not happy with your current environment, and move to get away from that environment, you don't ask those that made the original environment unpleasant to move with you.
And in my example, perhaps you haven't read past posts here about the druggie house just a few houses across the street that causes a few problems every now and again. They're no big deal to me. Just using that as an example.
Secessionist movements don't fail because of any us vs. them issue. They fail because they're not allowed to secede, for the most part- our own War of Secession, or Civil War, being an example.
Exactly. And I realize that was an association, just not one that puts the Bay Area culture (I am one of course) in the best light.
I am a huge fan of the history of the Civil War. It is so fascinating and epic and tragic. If conservatives fetishize the Founding Fathers, I think the Civil War and Lincoln are the foundations of modern American liberalism which in my view believes that the federal government can be empowered to act as the populace deems necessary though a democratic process.
I'm ambivalent on whether it was a good thing to not let the south secede. If it was a war against nations, and the South was allowed to secede and survive as a vassal state, I'd be happy. (The South did fight and the South did lose.) Eventually the North could have let the South regain independence as long as she declared not to allow slavery, indentured servitude, Jim Crow laws, etc.
For completely selfish reasons, I would greatly appreciate it if we didn't have the South. Have you noticed how red they are?
So theoretically, I'm not against secession. I do however think it is a reflection of a political mentality I reject. Our differences are superficial and manufactured. Once you are in your new states or countries, there eventually and inevitably will be new dividing lines. Maybe it will be morning people vs evening people. Who knows. Us humans always need an other to compare ourselves favorably to.
Our differences are superficial and manufactured.
I'll disagree. There are some very strong political differences between people. I've felt for some time violence is not only justified, but probably necessary in this state, to settle those differences. The problem being neither I, and apparently the vast majority of people, haven't the stomach to initiate violence towards that end.
When 50.5% of a group can force others to buy things- whether it be health insurance or garbage service- and think there isn't a problem with it, that's a serious difference of opinion. Never mind that same majority telling others they can't buy less expensive out of state eggs. We should be in a shooting war over such things.
Seems to me that is a good argument for like minded people to keep their government power as local and as limited as possible. Secession works toward that end.
Whether secession of some northern states from the rest of California is actually workable, is another subject entirely.
I think the first "qualification" for the State of Jefferson eligibility should be NO UNIVERSITY. That would keep the LIBTARDS at bay. Humboldt Co. used to be mostly loggers and fishermen. People that worked HARD for their dollars. Hard work is a thing of the past now. Look at the few remaining logging contractors. The boots on the ground are comprised of mostly immigrants. The dumbing down has succeeded.
There it is Fred. That is something which I knew is true, but can't be said out loud. Behind this right wing gun fetish and libertarianism is a dream of independence by violence. Good luck with that.
This is a Democractic Republic. It wasn't 50.5 % Have you seen the totals for the house? Here's a quote "49 percent-48.2 percent, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. Still, as the Post's Aaron Blake notes, the 233-195 seat majority the GOP will likely end up with represents the GOP's "second-biggest House majority in 60 years and their third-biggest since the Great Depression."
The Democrats had a popular majority, but ended up 38 seats down. Stop crying and threatening and get to work on changing minds with words. The problem is you can't because libertarian ideas are extremely problematic. That's why you can't convince more people. I'm sorry to be so frank Fred, but it's true. And once you mention violence, then you are on your own. I reject Muslim terrorism or violence and I reject calls for US American violence as well.
Also, let's say you are Joe or Mary Schmoe six pack living in anytown anywhere. Wouldn't you hope that the NSA IS keeping track of posts like that?
"I've felt for some time violence is not only justified, but probably necessary in this state, to settle those differences."
That is EXTREMELY dangerous Fred. Welcome to the 1st amendment, but I'm going to use my 1st Amendment privilege to tell you how wrong that is. I hope you didn't mean it.
I hope you didn't mean it.
Mean what? I wrote that violence is justified and probably necessary. I certainly meant that.
I also wrote that I don't have the stomach for it. Nor do those who supposedly own guns ..."as a last resort to defend against tyranny in government".
I meant that, too.
I think the first "qualification" for the State of Jefferson eligibility should be NO UNIVERSITY.
I see your point but don't think that would make much difference with Humboldt at this point.
Over 60% of Humboldt voters voted for Feinstein, Huffman and Chesbro last time around. Those three are among those that are working to bring us to a totalitarian state, thus you can assume many of those 60% also want a totalitarian state.
That 60%+ includes much more than just students. The problem goes beyond just one institution.
Lacking the stomach for something generally means lacking the courage or perhaps you meant you don't have the stomach to inflict harm on others to advance your political ideas. Well I guess I should be grateful for that, right?
Out of curiousity, when will the justifiable and probably necessary violence be an option. Are you just waiting for more like-minded souls?
What is so tyrannical about losing an election or 10? Why not figure out a way to win some elections so you don't feel so frustrated to feel that violence is "justifiable and probably necessary". As always I go back to my first lesson for 3rd partiers. Join one of the parties and change the system from within. If you started speaking with lefties instead of trying to form your own country by justifiable violence.... Wait. How is the violence justifiable. What has happened in your life where violence is justifiable and necessary. Is it the taxes that God forbid might be spent on someone else in our society, or is it the fact that we all must be responsible for the rising health care costs? What is it pray tell that justifies violence. And how many dead would be too many to justify the necessary violence or is there no cost too high for your twisted version of FREEDOM. Someone at Sohum called me angry. This thread does make me angry.
Also, anonymous at 10:46 nailed it. If you want to most accurately profile me politically, it would be a University or intellectual or elite or reason liberal/ progressive. I'm proud of it even though I know it's not the populist or popular thing to be. I'm proud to have reason and logic on my side. It's why I know reality DOES have a liberal bias. It's why people think of universities and journalists as liberal and military and talk radio as conservative.
Without HSU Humboldt would not be half as liberal as it is. For one the Democrats would be ruled by the Conservo-crats right now if it wasn't for 3rd District. (HSU's district)
It is beyond tragic that some of us feel so alienated that we think violence is necessary and justified and higher education is seen as a bad thing. And why? Seriously, why? Freedom? Liberty? Isn't higher education a part of Freedom? Freeing the mind to explore? Probably not. Those lib**** profs are all part of the tyrannical plot to subsume, whatever it is they subsume.
Are you just waiting for more like-minded souls?
I've already wrote that I don't have the guts for it.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue- B.Goldwater
Fred, at what point did the violence become justifiable and probably necessary? Is this only in California or nation wide? Texas? Wyoming? Is it the ACA? Social Security? Income taxes?
Like I think I've said. Until recently I only was interested in national programs. I don't think their lawyers allow them to say such things. This may be partially why I'm incredulous today.
Not sure. Doesn't matter since it's not going to happen. I've felt for many years there's no way to really reconcile political differences in this country short of violence. The differences are too great.
I recall back around '98. It was a couple years after I got my first computer. I'd felt way back then we'd gotten beyond the point were there could be any agreement in politics, with those wanting a totalitarian state making the consistent steady gains.
I had a number of issues to point to at the time, none of which I can recall now. I happened to stumble upon one of my first internet forums at the time. It was a site for gun enthusiasts and one discussion being held was on the right to own firearms.
Most were all agreeing that the 2nd amendment wasn't about hunting, it was about defending against tyranny in government. If that be the case, I had to ask why were they were just sitting there instead of fighting.
I ended up asking something along the line of, "Ok. You guys say you have guns to defend against tyranny, but at what point do you think it will be time to resort to arms?. I cited a few examples, finishing by writing, "I think we're at that point already, but I don't have the guts to get in a shooting war. Do any of you?".
The only response was from one of the more dominating commentators. He just wrote, "When the time comes, we'll be there".
Well, here we are 15 years later. The totalitarian state marches on, and those guys are nowhere to be seen. It obviously ain't gonna happen.
Post a Comment
<< Home