Skip to main content

View Diary: A scary but enlighting map that gives me hope on second thoughts (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I didn't challenge the environmental footprint (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NotGeorgeWill

    statement but the following one.  I think that is pretty clear from what I wrote.

    •  Well, you went on and on about farms (0+ / 0-)

      I didn't say a single word about farms so I had no freakin' idea what you were talking about then.

      Because what I just re-posted was spot on consistent and corroborating of my initial post.

      •  Sorry the farm stuff confused you. It actually (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NotGeorgeWill

        referred to other posts in this thread from people who clearly have no experience with rural areas.  The part that was specifically responding to your statement was this and what followed it:

        Their lives aren't "built on deliberate or blissful ignorance of the realities of life."  SOME of them have their political views built on the far right media bubble but that is a far cry from what you are saying.

        •  Rural people, as a whole, do tend to be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows

          blissful unaware of the most important thing in their lives - namely that they are considerably more dependent on government than city dwellers.  Yet they maintain the myth of "rugged individualism" which - IMHO - is the main reason they vote GOP.

          •  I suspect the most important thing in . . . (0+ / 0-)

            life is probably family and friends.

            There are some services that cost more to build on a per person basis in rural areas -- e.g. energy generation, communication, perhaps even some transportation infrastructure, but the rugged individualism bit is not entirely a myth.  If some cataclysm hit, I have no doubt that many people with some experience living in more rural areas would be more self-sufficient than people who live in communities with a high degree of specialization.

            Also, the bit about "carbon foot prints" is absurd.  Obviously some people in rural areas might consume more energy per person, but much of this is in service of producing goods that are consumed in more densely populated areas.  The carbon foot print bit may take transportation into consideration, but it doesn't factor in all of the factors involved in the production of things like agricultural products.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site