Comments on: Split up Afghanistan, Iraq, and California?

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:29:11 +0000

Where do you suppose these new states receive their water? Water has always been at the heart of the North-South, Rural-Urban divide. By the time the water projects of California are rendered obsolete technology should be sufficient enough to render the distance between cities and regions negligible.

By: Business

Business — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:37:44 +0000

Business Check

By: Poster Art

Poster Art — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:35:40 +0000

Poster Art

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:08:29 +0000

Four-way – log, fog, smog, as suggested by Phil Baker, but then a vertical split running down the Sierra crest from the log/fog boundary then south from Walker Pass to the point where the Colorado enters the Gulf of California. Relatively unpopulated, but with substantial water resources (LA Aqueduct and Colorado River rights), and vastly different concerns than the other three substates.

By: Doug L.

Doug L. — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:46:19 +0000

My favorite line for a California split was suggested on rec.backcountry by Eugene Miya. It is this: Alta California is everything OVER 8000 feet above sea level, and Baja is the rest. Contiguous? Ha. Fractal, almost.

By: Tumbleweed

Tumbleweed — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 05:40:48 +0000

Oh, c’mon, if you’re gonna dream, dream big – abolish the states! Clearly, all of the talk here demonstrates that the concept of a state is obsolete, at least the way they are currently mapped out. Urban vs Rural distinctions make infinitely more sense than states. What’s the real difference between Nebraska and Kansas? Absolutely none. And the previous poster who mentioned there’s no rule states have to be contiguous is correct – check out Michigan sometime. Merging Texas and Oklahoma would make a lot of sense, same with Arizona and New Mexico. North & South Carolina > Carolina. Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana. Illinois & Indiana. All sorts of possibilities of merging existing states, in addition to splitting some up. Or split states up differently – instead of Washington & Oregon as currently, split them vertically along the mountains – that makes a LOT more sense. And extend the coastal portion down to San Francisco – that’s an area that has a lot in common!

By: Ole Eichhorn

Ole Eichhorn — Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:58:42 +0000

Despite all the possible benefits of splitting up California, it will not happen; first, there is water (North has, South needs), and second, there is business tax revenue (South has, North needs). It is what it is, we have to muddle along…

Ole

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:26:30 +0000

Its all a moot point…Calif is gonna fall into the sea soon, right? Come on, Hollywoods gotta be good for something!

By: Phil Baker

Phil Baker — Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:26:37 +0000

I think splitting in three makes good sense. The nothern most portion from Sonoma county north, the middle portion which includes Marin, SF and points south thru Monterey, and a southern part that extends to the Mexican border. Even have the names for them: Log, Fog, and Smog.

By: Mike Walsh

Mike Walsh — Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:22:08 +0000

I think a theme is emerging. Urban vs. non-urban.