In last week's issue, we published an article "Lessons from a logger" where a speaker at the recent Iowa Pork Congress was quoted as saying, "In many people's view, rural residents don't matter, because they are politically impotent. Also, when it comes to protecting our nation's environment, the rural population is disposable." It's not often you hear or read someone who will lay out a sociological attitude so plainly. If you live out here in Iowa's "hinterlands" you know the quote is true. It's the old argument that our rural lawmakers hear in that Iowa farm communities have no voting clout, because there aren't that many people out here. Therefore, the bulk of government tax money, urban lawmakers contend -- whether it be for rural roads, rural hospitals or rural development -- should go where most of the people are. Oh yeah? Although I can understand the viewpoint, it is not logical. For instance, I'm pretty certain city folks enjoy eating food. If they didn't have a plentiful amount available, I can imagine the chaos in their streets. We in the rural communities know where the food comes from. Iowa leads the nation in corn, soybeans, pork and egg production, to name a few -- and none of it is produced in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids or Iowa City. If urban lawmakers rig the road use tax formula, for example, to send more funds to maintain city streets, rural roads will suffer, the very roads necessary for getting food from the farms to stores in the city. Just how disposal do "they" think the rural population is? Want another example? Ask most any economist and they'll say that Iowa is in better shape financially because of agriculture, since the ag sector is in the best shape among all economic sectors. Rural communities are helping to keep Iowa afloat when non-agrarian states like New York and California are sucking financial wind. Still want to toss us out? Urban and government high-ho dads had best rethink their paradigms when it comes to dealing with farm folks. --kersh