Poor Mouth, the Neverending Story
Remember this “my empathy beat up your empathy” saga? Now the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has gotten into the act, with a fawning interview of the author of that bullshit, which as you all know I panned. You know, I really have to finish this book of mine. Then I think I’ll rest on my laurels and just type up a bunch of condescending shit about how surprised I am that the sight of looters, gang-bangers, and no-good worthless scum tearing up their own city in the midst of a natural disaster does not make those of us who have been through similar crises and who did not steal, attack, murder, or blame the president for not immediately airlifting them to the Honolulu Hilton, feel guilty for being self-sufficient and law-abiding. You know, so I can get interviews and publicity and stuff. Is that the way to do it? Money for nothing and your chicks (so to speak — the interviewer is a woman) for free.
Glenn Reynolds and others have pushed this John Scalzi fellow as some kind of great guy and wonderful writer. Well, I for one am tired of subsidizing the swelled heads of these self-proclaimed arbiters of our social consciences. He claims, I guess, to be some sort of libertarian — I don’t know what his politics are and I don’t care. Anyone who thinks that the reaction on the part of the American public to the collapse of civil order in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was “shock” that there were “poor people in the South” has a head full of progressive-liberal, white-middle-class-America-sux fecal matter. For Mr. Scalzi’s information, people weren’t “surprised” that people there didn’t have the means to escape, they were amazed that 1) so many of the people “abandoned” in the city were able-bodied men and women who should have been able to take care of themselves instead of acting like babies, 2) that so many of these “starving” people who were “justifiably stealing food” (and sneakers, and Heineken) were fat, and 3) that the local government didn’t use their own god-damn emergency plan, which resulted in (among other things) an Amtrak train that had been offered for free being sent away empty, and the rendering useless of a fleet of approximately 260 school buses which could have been used to remove the “poor” people from the city.
Scalzi is a liar, and what’s even worse, he is pushing socialist garbage about the so-called evils of wealth, while ignoring the fact that it was incompetence, corruption, and political game-playing that led to the problems in New Orleans. And he’s also stupid if he thinks that the hardworking rural poor in his Ohio town are the same sort of “poor” people as those living in urban areas, most of whom are on some sort of welfare, and most of whom seem to have the sort of entitlement mentality that is a direct result of the patronizing, coddling attitude that Scalzi displays in his post and in the interview. Yes, it is in most cases the fact that being “lazy and dumb” is what keeps them poor, not the fact that every single man and woman in America who actually works for a living isn’t also worrying themselves sick over the plight of the underclass. Useless, stupid lies like Scalzi is pushing will only keep these people down in their welfare pit, where they present the pathetic spectacle to the world of being grown adults with no more ability to take care of themselves than diapered infants.
(Via New World Man, who has written his own little parody post.)
Update: I keep forgetting to link to this rejoinder to the original Scalzi blather. Do read it.
Second update: I see Scalzi’s elves have come to visit. For now I’m letting their comments through, because after the day I’ve had I need some comedy. It’s a matter of laughing at, not laughing with, of course. Feel free to join in, regular readers!
September 25th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
“He claims, I guess, to be some sort of libertarian…”
He obviously has no awareness of the basic tenets of libertarianism, then.
September 25th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
I actually don’t know what his politics are, but people Glenn Reynolds praises tend to lean libertarian, though not always.
September 25th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
A good rejoinder post to that sanctimonious claptrap would be “Being responsible is…”
September 26th, 2005 at 11:50 am
I’ve read through his original post twice, both times with a sick feeling in my gut. I’ve been there. I’m not there now.
I get the vibe that a lot of people like that the poor are there to exploit . Scalzi himself has made a lot of traction on their backs–any writer knows that publicity is worth more than just about anything else. If he’s a professional writer he’s done very well for himself on this one post. Ironic, isn’t it?
September 26th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
Obviously a lot of people are loving this. Would it be mean of me to spoil the fun by pointing to this? Nah… doesn’t matter. They’ll just refuse to believe anything that isn’t fun.
September 27th, 2005 at 10:31 am
What’s the matter? Did the man hit a chord in you that oppened up your bitterness? I don’t think his article justifies lawlessness at all, only shows the despair of poverty as a reality. I’ll tell you seriously, he wasn’t looking for publicity on this one. I’ve read most of the responses and it brought out memories for so many people who have stepped past the poverty mentality to get a better life for themselves. Can’t say that for what you have posted.
September 27th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Yeah - you should check out his book - amazingly, there aren’t really any poor people there, and the elderly are transformed into youthful sexaholics. He has an amazing imagination.
September 27th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Several things.
1) As has just been pointed out, civil order did not break down to the extent that you imply.
2) It would have been entirely understandable had it done so. I wager to bet that you have never been in the same situation as most of those people, having all of your life’s work and accumulations literal washed away, friends and loved ones missing, forced for days to huddle with no privacy and little food or water with thousands of others in a similar position. That is a cocktail where the trappings of society are very easily washed away. You can assume you would act more civilized, but until you are in a similar position you have no right to assert that you would.
3) It does not matter how able bodied and fit you are as the greatest adversity is psychological rather than physical.
4) Just because a person is over-weight does not mean they don’t feel the pangs of hunger any less than a skinny person would. They may not “need” the food, but they certainly suffer without it. Try forgoing any food for 4 days and have fun experiencing what that feels like. It won’t kill you, as it wouldn’t kill the allegedly overweight individuals, but it certainly will be quite unpleasant.
5) you know, having read Scalzi’s writing I don’t think he is saying wealth is evil. He definetly talks like he sees nothing wrong with being reasonably well off now. His article seems to be targeted at giving people like you an impression of what poverty feels like, and he would know, as he did come from a very impovrished background (he is a recent transplant to rural Ohio, so that is not where the experience originates). Its simply meant to give some level of compassion to these poor people, rather than allowing people to feel justified in blaming them for staying and their subsequent behavior in the wake of adversity.
6) 260 buses and an amtrack train are not going to save that many people. New Orleans and the surrounding area contain a fairly sizable population. The local government could have made better use of their resources, but the only effective means of handling the problem would have involved the intervention of the federal government with their significantly greater resources. The fact that the federal government made no prior attempt suggests that either those in charge didn’t care, or were criminally idiotic concerning the danger.
September 27th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Firestormkids: I’m not bitter, I’m irritated. Why yes, I do believe he “hit a chord” in me, the same warning note that goes off anytime I encounter a bullshitter. Especially such a bad one. Being rather good at the art I consider myself qualified enough to criticise, and it’s only because this country is so well-populated by spoiled brats who are only too ready too feel sorry for themselves because they only grew up with one tv (boohoo) and maybe had to play with borrowed toys (sob sob) and — oh dear — might be one of the 99.999% of Americans who grew up in a family that wasn’t a perfect facsimile of Ward and June Cleaver’s (rending of garments, gnashing of teeth), or found out too late that no, in fact there isn’t a whole lot of money in slacking off, not going to school, sleeping around, taking drugs, or getting pregnant out of wedlock at the age of fifteen, are all too ready to suck up his moldy clichés as Revealed Truth because they’d rather play the victim than not get any attention at all.
And you go right ahead believing that he’s not out for publicity. Yeah, he lets newspapers interview him because he cares. Answered any Nigerian spam lately?
September 27th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
It is a really good book though, I highly recommend it. And as for his ‘lies’ - well, you just seem so determined to defend the President, that anything that could theoretically be taken as criticism must be attacked.
Unfortunately for my writing ability, I couldn’t say it better than Scalzi did:
“I find the line-for-line fiskings of “Being Poor” generally underwhelming, hers included, as they’re generally predicated on the idea that it’s always the poor person’s fault. There are certainly iterations in which it could be the poor person’s fault, but there are equally those where it isn’t. The default that it’s always the poor person to blame speaks more to the person doing the fisking than anything else.”
And on a final note, since you brought up NOLA, while it is obvious that the State and Local authorities were overwhelmed, the Federal response was abysmal, and most republicans can admit this. Even Bush admitted that FEMA let NOLA down.
September 27th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
Out for publicity? If a dozen newspapers liked what you wrote here, and asked to republish it, you would say ‘no?’
I mean, writers of blogs are certainly not publicity-shy, but I don’t think Scalzi started his blog five years ago to get some publicity earlier this month for, ‘Being Poor.’ You’d think he’d ask for money at the end of his grand five year plan.
It is interesting though, that apparantly your only exposure to people who are poor, are those who got that way from, “slacking off, not going to school, sleeping around, taking drugs, or getting pregnant out of wedlock at the age of fifteen.”
I’m really glad that I didn’t grow up in your neighborhood - sounds like a bunch of lowlifes. Instead, I grew up near Harlem, where the reasons for poverty were far more complex, and in many cases, involved situations outside of people’s control.
I noticed that you referred to yourself as the ‘Ruling Soviet’ here - does that mean that you advocate communism as a method of eradicating poverty?
September 27th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
Working on glass of win– I mean, joshbw’s long screed. Rejoinder forthcoming, unless I get bored.
September 27th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
I’m terribly sorry I upset you, my dear. I’ll be praying that you feel better soon.
September 27th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
You know, having read through the patronizing, smug, self-pitying dribblings of Unsub, Fire, and josh, all I feel is a haze of utter ennui. Is this the best you can do? Bored now.
September 27th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Joshbw, do you actually pay attention to the news? I have to wonder.
The only reason civil order didn’t break down further than it did in New Orleans is because there’s not much of it to start with. The looting and arson started before the levees were breached. These people weren’t despairing over the loss of their possessions nor suffering from days without sustenance - they were indulging themselves. And, even if they were in straits, what justification will you offer for those barbarians shooting at helicopters evacuating patients from area hospitals?
You disparage 260 buses and Amtrak trains (13,000+ capacity) without asking where the federal government was going to find more transportation. Do you seriously intend to claim that the federal government can magic up transportation? Stating that the federal government has “significantly greater resources” is a dishonest dodge - you ignore the fact that the federal government’s “significantly greater resources” are spread over a large area and take time to put in position. The buses were there and under the authority of the mayor of New Orleans; Amtrak offered the trains. That neither was made use of is in no way the fault of the federal government, but rather an indictment of the New Orleans mayor and the Lousiana governor.
You spend a good deal of verbiage attempting to justify the bad behaviour of people who indulge in savagery because people like you have provided excuses for them all their lives. You do them no favour and make yourself appear foolish and naive in the bargain.
September 28th, 2005 at 1:11 am
To everything that’s been said already, I simply have to add that to complain about the federal response, and yet fail to ever mention the word “corruption” with respect to the city and the state, is to demonstrate an abysmal level of ignornace, the only question being whether that ignorance is willful or otherwise. In the immortal words of Huey Long, “one day the people of Louisiana will get honest government…and they won’t like it.”
I’m a Tulane Law alum and I love New Orleans, but I’ll be the first to say there are things about the place not worth loving, to say the least.
September 28th, 2005 at 2:48 am
Here’s the thing that doesn’t ever seem to be answered. If American society (or American government or the Great Neo-Con Zionist Conspiracy, if you must), is truly so determined to drive down the poor brown people, how do we explain the relative success of so many legal immigrants?
They’re non-white (check), poor (check), don’t speak English (check) and somehow, they’re sending their kids (or Grandkids) to CalTech.
Could it be that no-one has told them, all their lives, that they can’t possibly succeed here?
A net-pal of mine recently wrote, on the same topic:
“A bucketful of crabs stands on the beach. One crab sees that the rim of the bucket is within reach and decides to go find the ocean. But when he tries to climb out, the other crabs reach up and pull him back down with them.
Except that the difference between crabs and humans is that if someone comes and dumps the bucket over, the crabs all run for the ocean. But far too often when the human bucket gets dumped over, most of us are too busy complaining that our nice cozy bucket is gone to even see that the ocean is there, let alone run for it.
I’m kind of stagger-walking uncertainly towards the ocean right now, myself. And it took far too long for me to realize what the sound of the waves meant. It hurts to think of all the people still in their buckets, unable to even imagine the beach.”
I’ll tell you the other “wealth” (and its above rubies) that many of the people who succeed: Committed and competent parents (note the “s”). But the poor that lack it don’t do so at the behest or desire of the conservatives…