These two links tell you a little about the difference between urban California and rural California.
First:
Donald Trump told an audience in Vermont on Jan. 7 that anyone
without a gun in a gun-free zone was nothing but “bait” for “sickos.”
Trump
won’t have to worry about students or their teachers being "bait" in
more than three dozen school districts in America. Guns are not only
allowed in class in those school systems -- Trump should be happy to see
teachers are being encouraged to come to school with a pistol in their
pockets.
These teachers are ready to take down the sickos.
Anderson
Union High School District officials in California understand the
intent of Senate Bill 707 that Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed into law in
December. It is intended to keep concealed weapons out of high school
and college campuses.
However, by ignoring the intent, and
following the letter of the law, these teachers are not only being
allowed to carry guns in their classrooms, they are also being
encouraged to pack heat...
Students in Anderson Union High School District in California are not
only OK with their teachers carrying guns to class, they told KRCR-TV
they felt safer knowing the adults were armed.
Anderson Police
Chief Mike Johnson doesn’t get a vote on the school board, so he didn’t
share in the decision to arm teachers. But he thinks it is a good idea.
Second:
In Siskiyou County,
Calif., the tax base is so small and land area so vast the county’s
44,000 residents have to rely on themselves in an emergency. The county
can only afford a slim law-enforcement presence, so if there’s a problem
the response time may be "basically never," explains Mark Baird, a
rancher and retired deputy sheriff who met with me in a Sacramento
coffee shop last Wednesday.
Yet, he pointed out, Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) just announced his support for more expansive gun-control measures.
That disconnect between rural residents, who rely on their guns for
self protection, and the more urban-oriented priorities at the Capitol,
is an example of why he drove to the Capitol this week.
Baird is a leader of the ongoing effort to carve out rural northern
California counties (and in past proposals, some southern Oregon
counties, also) into the 51st state of Jefferson.
The idea got a burst of attention in 2014 when Silicon Valley
entrepreneur Tim Draper tried (and failed) to place on the ballot a
measure that would break California into six states, one of which would
have been called Jefferson.
But while the attention faded away, the Jefferson movement—the
continuation of an effort that got its start in the World War II era—has
plugged along. Baird was here to present "declarations" from 15 of California’s 58 counties calling for withdrawal from California. The group held a rally on the west steps of the Capitol...
At the Capitol rally, attended by several hundred people, I saw this
sign: "Rural areas need proper representation." As one speaker noted,
"This is not secession." He then invoked the Federalist papers No. 51,
an essay about the proper way to construct a legislature. Baird points
to a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case
that forced legislatures to base representation solely on population
(rather than having Senate seats divvied up by county). In fact, their
next step is a federal lawsuit based on these representation issues.
Those counties that would be part of the new state tend to have some of the lowest populations in California.
Colusa has around 21,000 people. Sierra has 3,000 and Trinity has
nearly 14,000 people. Those are rounding errors in most Southern
California cities. Obviously, it’s hard to get much attention to their
concerns in a Legislature dominated by representatives from counties
with millions of people.
These representation concerns seem authentic. I was driving through
Yuba County over the weekend and heard radio ads promoting Jefferson.
I’ve seen the Double-X flag (standing for residents having been
double-crossed by politicians in Sacramento and Salem) flying all across
the north state.
Are you surprised to learn that Anderson is in the would-be state of Jefferson?
5 comments:
We certainly do feel ignored up here. We have a third of the land and 2% of the population. People here feel that nobody remembers that anything north of Sac exists, except for the part where they want all our water.
I'm a supporter of Jefferson.
I lived most of my life in Jefferson (both Oregon and California parts). The people in these regions are not served well by their respective state governments, especially since their values are easily railroaded by the big city majority. Most of the Western states have this problem: what Portland urbanites want, all the rest of Oregon gets. What San Francisco and LA want, the people in Yreka get. (Of course, this will mean that the people in Ashland, Oregon are going to squeal loudly about it from their artsy, liberal enclave, but that's representative democracy for you--vote at the ballot box or vote with your feet.)
This is a national issue. We have far left Chicago that runs the state of Illinois to the detriment of farmers downstate. We have western states that have less population and have to abide by the election results produced when nobody even bothers to visit the state in their zeal to get to California or New York.
Nobody's in a hurry to get to California, at least in a national race. It's so reliably liberal, why spend any money here? The lib is going to win, no matter what.
Post a Comment