8 August 2003
The dreaded D word
Folks on the sodden Eastern Seaboard will scoff, but out here on the Really Dry Prairie, we've had only about thirteen inches of rain this year, 40 percent below average. Agriculture, of course, is suffering badly, and Governor Henry has asked USDA Secretary Ann Veneman to declare 62 of Oklahoma's 77 counties disaster areas.
Is it officially a drought? Depends on whom you ask. Lawns haven't turned toasty yet, and water rationing in the cities is still somewhere in the future, but cotton and peanuts, among the state's summer crops, are in notably bad shape, and ranchers are selling off cattle for lack of forage.
The full-service car wash a couple miles away has a sign up: MAKE IT RAIN. WASH YOUR CAR. If only it were that simple.
Posted at 11:23 AM to Weather or Not
sounds like socialism to me, I hope Bush whips out the ol' "dont be looking to daddy gubmint to help you out, we're too busy draining the treasury with corporate giveaways and unneccesary wars, good luck, and God Bless You and God Bless America!"
I've always wondered, and this is an honest question, what responsibility does the US federal government have to step in and rebuild destroyed houses from tornados or pay for crops that get damaged due to droughts?
I'm not a strict constitutionalist so I think that if we decide we want the government to do something for us collectively then we can ask it to perform that function. But that seems to be counter to the conventional wisdom of the so-called "red states" where the dominant ideology is that the less the government, the better.
I find this ironic because they are by far the primary recipients of government handouts by nature of being less populus and less able to attract private attention. The Farm subsidies and the Highway programs are lifelines for the midsection of the U.S. so it would follow that we here in the middle would be in favor of government redistribution of wealth since it favors us over larger more populated (and richer) areas. But the opposite seems to be the case, with large metropolitan areas being more sympathetic to collective government action where smaller more rural areas are against.
There are many factors involved but what is the overwhelming thought process that leads to this apparant contradiction?
It's called the federal income tax. D.C. is where the big money is.
When people talk about "getting money out of politics" as a reason for campaign finance reform, they're missing the point. The corrupting money in politics is that spent not on political campaigns, but by the federal government.
Bruce, your naivete in expecting everyone in the red states to be ideologically pure liber-cons, is charming. Tell me, do you believe everyone in the blue states is a to-the-death C*****nista?