Wednesday, February 23, 2005


I'm amused by the fact that Washington State GOPers want to split the state in two, but I'm curious about this assertion:

"I believe from my heart, mind and soul that Eastern Washington could survive beautifully without Western Washington," he said. "And I hope Western Washington feels just as I do, that we'd love to be on our own."

One Democrat from Western Washington does, and he's the lone member of his party listed as a sponsor on the measure.

Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, said he believes Western Washington would benefit from a split in the state.

"I feel east and west have common cause here," he said.

While recognizing the political divide that angers the east side, Kline said financially, Western Washington would be better off without them because he said that side of the state gets more than its share of tax revenue.

"I would like as much as possible for revenue generated in Western Washington to stay in Western Washington," he said.

Is this true? Suburban and rural counties are always claiming that the cities are sucking them dry, but those claims generally aren't actually true. I know nothing about Washington, so I can't judge, but it's an assertion the reporter should've checked and put a number on.

Never mind. Suffering from coastal inversion syndrome. WEST is the decadent coastal enclaves. EAST is the rural inlands...

but, discuss the joys of splitting Washington nonetheless. East Washington and West Washington don't really sound right, and I assume neither would willingly give up the name. Maybe they can compromise on "Washington" for the coastal bit and "Eymania" for the rest.