Bluemerica... not the best of ideas

My cousin likes to send me stuff. She has an e-mail list, and sends along things to her friends and family. Most of them are political in nature, and liberal in leaning. Almost all of the time, I read what she sent me, smile or chuckle or become slightly more embittered, and move on. Recently, however, she sent me something that caught my attention. It's an open letter from an unknown Democrat in California (read as a hippy) to the "Red States", declaring that the Blue States are seceding from the Nation to form a happy utopia of "Bluemerica", where everything will be soy lattes and puppy dogs. Here's the text of the e-mail. It's really pretty entertaining.

We're ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of Blumerica.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Blumerica will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties. By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely,
Author Unknown in California.

See? It's a cute idea, nothing more. However, I've heard several people throw the word "secession" about, trying to scare the "Red States" by threatening to take away all "the good stuff", if you will. Here's the rub: Bluemerica would be a horrid disaster. We would have to import almost all of our grains, meat, cotton, etc, and while we would be exporting fairly demand-ridden products, our closest option for importing the goods we used to enjoy would be that war-mongering country we just seceded from. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. I talked about this with an associate of mine from Harvard, who believed we could be "mighty damn self-sufficient" in Bluemerica. Well, here's how the numbers break down:

2005 Averages from the USDA

Corn Acreage:
b: 26,310,000
r: 53,348,000

Soy Acreage:
b: 21,910,000
r: 51,000,000

Cotton Acerage:
b: 480,000
r: 13,120,000

Wheat Acreage:
b: 7,958,000
r: 50,634,000

Rice Acreage:
b: 560,000
r: 2,798,000

Sorghum Acreage:
b: 169,000
r: 7,231,000

Turkey (per bird (2003 avgs)):
b: 83,749,000
r: 179,251,000

Chickens(per bird (2003 avgs)):
b: 755,000,000
r: 7,794,000,000

Now, according to the US Census Bureau, the population (assuming no "mass exodus" to either side) of Bluemerica would be around 148 million people (148,243,824), whereas the population of "Hicksville" would be around 145 million (145,411,580). Advantage? South, clearly. More ag-land, more grazing land for cattle, a huge food surplus, and a bunch of vindictive bastards who can breed some of the most ignorant poeple I've ever met... just what I want directly to my south. However, all this is moot, because the biggest reason this wouldn't fly hasn't been addressed yet, which is this: I'm not so pissed about the election that I'm going to willingly put myself on the barrel-end of this administrations "foriegn policy." (If you ain't vapid, you's against us!) No way in hell. Next thing you know, we'll be accused of being a tyrannical dictatorship that mistreats it's people by offering them healthcare, and the shit'll start. No thank you. So, while Bluemerica may be a wonderful thought, it's a terrible idea. Plus, I like the way this guy says it better. More cursing.

Stats from:
The USDA
US Census Bureau