Letter: Why is ‘rural’ backwards?
Recently, Hizzoner, Ex-Mayor of New York, Bloomberg said that the recalled senators in Colorado were in a place that probably had no roads and were as rural as you could get.
Of course, everyone focused on the fatuous claim that we had no roads. I’m sure he could get his constituents in cosmopolitan New York to believe that, but that’s not what I would like to ask.
Why is rural considered backwards by some politicians? Mayor Bloomberg and his “no roads,” President Obama and his “cling to their Bibles and guns?”
What is it about rural that is so off-putting to the “sophisticated” politician?
At the dawn of the 20th century, 53 percent of the country was self employed. Most of those were family subsistence farmers.
Today one farmer can farm 10 or 15 times as many acres as a farmer in 1910, and can get a yield from that same acre that is as much as ten times what the 1910 farmer could get.
Our feeding systems have enabled us to bring meat to market faster, and healthier than ever before in greater quantities. Where 50 percent of the population was feeding the other half of the nation in 1910, two percent of our population provides the world with food.
I read somewhere that a farmer from ancient Egypt and George Washington could discuss farming and be familiar with what the other was talking about.
Both of them would be totally bewildered by the scientific farming that goes on today.
This is backward?
Rural America is probably more inclined to go to church than the big city dweller that is so much more sophisticated. So what? That’s backward? Or maybe wiser?
As for “clinging to our guns,” Southern Colorado, or at least Senate District 3 and two others answered that. We don’t think it’s so smart to diminish the honest person’s right to own guns or magazines with silly regulations that don’t save one life.
It sure wasn’t smart of the democrat politicians (not one Republican voted for those laws) to create laws that drove as many as 8,000 jobs from the state.