Why Secede?

Why is Cumberland, Maryland resident Scott Strzelcyzk pushing to break the state in two (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/08/secessionist-movement-emerges-in-rural-maryland/)? The answer is: for the same reason the rural populations in other states, including California, have been longing to secede from the mother state. The key in this quest is the word “rural.”

Stereotypes aside, those living in rural America do tend more toward the conservative bent, while city dwellers are generally on the more liberal side. Yes, that is a generality, and no, not everyone fits that mold.

Referring to rural Americans, Obama told San Franciscans at a fundraiser that, “it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” He was preaching to the choir.

Those living in cities are a diverse lot, but their common denominator is that they all rely on the services provided by city government. Those in the rural areas are of necessity more independent, and they relish this independence.

Cities expand. As they expand, ever more rural land is lost as is the rural lifestyle and independence once enjoyed by those still living there. Unwanted city services and the accompanying taxes are foisted upon the once rural population. They must choose to comply with the urban lifestyle or move.

By definition, cities (including suburban areas) are more populous than rural areas. In our democratic form of government, there are no provisions for leveling the playing field. At the state level, rural residents must follow the dictates of those living in the cities. All too often, those living in the cities trounce the interests and desires of those in rural areas.

The obvious solution is to secede from the cities. Unfortunately, secession is only allowed with the consent of the majority in both areas -- fat chance. Then too, just where would the boundaries be? Rural areas surround most cities. In most states, it would be difficult at best to segregate the cities to form a cohesive separate state.

This is not a new conundrum. The country’s founding fathers grappled with this same problem at the national level. The original thirteen states were divided with sparse and dense populations as well as industrial and agrarian areas. It would be unfair for the more populated and richer industrial states to overwhelm the rural states in a presidential election. In fact, it was a potential deal breaker for acceptance of the Constitution. The solution was the Electoral College. Each state’s vote was weighted to give a level playing field.

While there is much discussion about eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote, this would make the less populous state completely irrelevant in a presidential election. Perhaps instead of eliminating the Electoral College, we might better apply this concept toward statewide elections too. By weighting city and rural votes, we would finally allow rural areas an equal say in governing the state. An alternative would be to give rural areas an equal representation in each statehouse.

Any way it is achieved, states are going to need to give rural areas a voice in the running of the government, or the call for secession will become increasingly louder until it becomes a rural v/s urban war.

Another Obama Stimulus Package?

Here’s a challenge for the logic of common sense: In addition to the unaccounted for sacks of money dropped off on Hamid Karzai’s desk each month, we are now going to pay the Russians a billion dollars to build Karzai a fleet of helicopters (see http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-accusations-dog-russian-081242871.html).

Despite defying all logic, according to an Associated Press report, “U.S. military officials insisted a top-secret Pentagon study proved the need to buy Russian helicopters for Afghanistan's security forces.”

Illogical? Yes. Truthful? No! Again, according to the AP, “the excerpts show the U.S. Army's workhorse Chinook, built by Boeing Co. in Pennsylvania, was the most cost-effective single platform type fleet for the Afghan Air Force over a 20-year period.”

Wow, is this part of Mr. Obama’s economic stimulus plan … for Russia? It’s not enough that many of the hi-tech components of our military’s weapons are manufactured off-shore – often by the Chinese – now we are going to pay the Russians a billion dollars to build helicopters so we can give them to the Afghan army.

Let’s put this in perspective people. Our own government is taking one-billion dollars out of your and my pay to give to a country that doesn’t like us much to provide jobs making a weapon system that we will give to another country that doesn’t like us so they can protect themselves from the Taliban that doesn’t like anyone.

Does anyone honestly believe that this makes sense? Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's No. 2 GOP leader doesn’t. He said DOD "repeatedly and disingenuously" used the 2010 study to justify the Russian helicopter as the superior choice for the Afghans.

Although this deal was set in motion in 2010, Congress only recently received a copy of the document.

Now get this, the Pentagon continues to insist that they have made the right decision in this acquisition! The rationalization used is "that the Mi-17 stands apart" when compared with other helicopters. If that’s true, then why aren’t our forces equipped with these great beasts?

The Pentagon denies it misled Congress. They insist the refurbished Chinook would cost about 40 percent more to buy and maintain than the Mi-17.

AP said, “Boeing executives informed congressional staff during a meeting held in late September that the cost of a refurbished CH-47D would be in the $12 million to $14 million range, according to a person knowledgeable about the discussion but not authorized to be identified as the source of the information.

That would make an overhauled Chinook $4 million to $6 million less than what the department is currently paying for Mi-17s, according to figures compiled by the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell, the Pentagon office that fills urgent requests for equipment from battlefield commanders.”

I smell a rat! In a country like Russia where corruption in business dealings is simply the cost of doing business, it should come as no surprise that this deal wreaks of misconduct. The amazing part is that our own Pentagon has guzzled the kool-aid and steadfastly insists this is a “good deal.”

Maybe they should try convincing the workers at Boeing of this “good deal.” And while they are at it, they might tell our troops why they think the Mi-17 is a better helicopter than the Chinooks we rely on. I’m afraid both cases would be a hard sell.

I guess this sort of dealings is why many think that military intelligence is an oxymoron.