Back in item 58, Michael Delizia opined thusly:
... in two generations, tops, the US would be overrun by
trailer trash. I personally think that would be a good thing...
I'm skeptical of this, but I'm curious and I would like Michael
to expand on this comment before going further. Specifically,
I would like him to say why he thinks it would be a good thing,
and for whom. In other words, cui bono?
72 responses total.
??
Poor md.
I, too, would be curious to read an elaboration on that remark, and I was so immediately upon reading it in the original item.
I suspect what md suggests is that the repeal of RVW would result in a slew of PWT births and assumes that the states wouldn't pass enabling legislation which RVW subverted in the first place. I assume md is making the point that the vast majority of the consumers of the "family planning" are PWT. Md should have also predicted a huge increase in the crime rate which is another consequence that RVW produced the opposite of but nobody wants to talk about.
Or he was being sarcastic.
But Russ never said what he's skeptical of: 1. that the US will be overrun by trailer trash if Roe v. Wade is reversed, or 2. that I think that would be a good thing. Or both. Let's examine them both: 1. If it's left up to the states, I am guessing that abortion will remain legal in the more cosmopolitan liberal states and become illegal elsewhere. Elsewhere is where "those people" tend to live. 2. Fresh in my memory when I wrote that I thought it would be a good thing was a conversation on the ride home from a graduation party over the weekend. There had been a contingent of a dozen or so of "those people" there, with their mullets and tattoos and quirky facial hair and cigarettes and beer. You understand that they are quite rare in West Bloomfield. One woman had had an American flag bandana on her head and a huge Satan tattoo across her back. Her husband was trying to cut down on his car repair hobby because it was consuming too much of his time. We had all stopped smoking several years ago, and we compared notes about that. He hadn't tried chewing tobacco yet, as I had. They described an acquaintance who carries a plastic cup around the house to spit into. One day his wife accidentally bumped his arm and the contents of this mini-spittoon flew all over the kitchen wall, where it remains to this day, brown and dry and hardened, because they blame each other for it and refuse to clean it off. I told them I had to give up all tobacco because nicotine affected a neurovascular problem I developed in my arm after a seemingly minor fracture. We all compared broken bone histories. And so on and on. Anyway, it was remarked on the ride home, somewhat humorously, that I seem to get along with those people. When asked why this should be so, I answered, quite truthfully, that I get along with everybody. But, but, those people?, persisted my interlocutor. I could have answered that "those people" were the host's relatives, and so deserved my respect and attention. But the truth was, I *liked* them. What's not to like? This isn't a Whitmanesque "Not till the sun excludes you do I exclude you" sort of thing. (Picture of old Walt straining to be somehow sunlike.) I just liked them. So now the question is, what put Russ in such a bad mood. Something I said, obviously, but what?
It does intellectuals good to stop thinking now and then.
This response has been erased.
I think he's just extrapolating from the fact that the Bible Belt states tend to be the poorest states in the country.
This response has been erased.
Good point. The subject of abortion never came up, either. I still think my generalization is a valid one, but I wouldn't swear to it. I think I figured out why Russ is in such a bad mood. Bdh gave him a snappy comeback in some item, and I laughed at it, so to speak.
To pass the time on my morning commute, I'm listening to Pat Conroy's _The Lords of Discipline_ on tape. Near the beginning, a minor character whose name I can't remember, a stupidly rich, weaned-on-a-silver-spoon southern aristocrat type, says to the narrator something along the lines of: "I read that of all the popular sports, bowlers tend to have the lowest IQs. I went out the next day and joined a bowling league, and met some of the most fun people I've ever met." (awful paraphrasing mine)
This response has been erased.
I think the people who support abortion are Godless, and those that are against it are God Fearing.
(psst, this is the wrong item for stupid abortion flamewar posts. We already have two of those.)
That is actually untrue, in several senses. First, I don't know anyone that *supports* abortion. Everyone I know would be glad if abortions were unnecessary, but they aren't. What is supported is the choice of abortion. Second, from my observtions the vast majority of persons supporting choice happen also to be religious, and hence hardly "godless". I am not even sure that a majority of atheists support choice - they may have other than religious objections. Thirdly, "Godless" and "God Fearing" are terms that religious people use to demean or applaud people not like themselves or like themselves. "Godless" is used as an insult and the godfull tend to despise the "godless", though perhaps not admitting to that. Of course, it literally just means persons that are free of gods, which are lots of very civilized and intelligent people. There is no objective reason for the term to be used against anyone.
(flem slipped in with #15: quite right - I just respond semi-automatically to blatant and false propaganda.)
I understand why people would choose to adopt a religion, to whatever
degree they choose to believe, but it's truly frightening that there are those
who try to impose theirs on others in the form of law, or by restricting what
children can be taught.
This response has been erased.
It sure worked for his own daughter, too!
This response has been erased.
There are some extremely religious people who are pro-choice.
This response has been erased.
For example.
I find it most amusing that md not only didn't answer the question (why it would be a good thing, since he does profess to get along with everybody and he didn't say why a nation of "trailer trash" would please him more than some alternative), but he tried to shut me down by ascribing the question to a bad mood. He did that while knowing that the same question occured to at least one other person, too... hmmm, cheap rhetorical trick *and* begging the question, not like him at all. (Must've caught him in a bad mood. ;-) If you must know, Michael, the question was prompted by a desire to know if I'd somehow missed a virtue of "trailer trash" culture that is good or even necessary for the nation, and the potential for discussion of that versus the negatives. (The un-stated question is why you describe them as "trailer trash" when you talk about them like they're the salt of the earth.) I phrased the question as I did because I didn't want to prejudice your response and take away any enlightenment value by forcing you to think about defending your thesis a priori. When you're actually willing to state what you meant, I'll continue. Re #14: Bruce, I specifically eliminated any reference to abortion from the text of this item. Can't you take a hint?
Be honest, Russ. a) You don't find any of this amusing in the least. We can practically see your hands shaking. b) Not only am I willing to state what I meant, I did state what I meant. Speaking of honesty, in answer to your "unstated question": "trailer trash" is what everybody calls them, including them. If the phrase is a provocative one, it is so in relation to the prejudices of the listener. You know where I stand. Now we know where you stand. Why do you have to ask whether they have any virtues that you "somehow missed"? What examination of the virtues of trailer trash have you ever done that entitles you to say something like that?
[Russ is in a worse mood than I thought. Maybe it was all that talk recently about rats and mythago.]
This response has been erased.
Mmm, there's a threesome to give you nightmares. :)
<has nightmares>
I am not sure whom I would feel most sorry for in that situation. Bligh or Stewart?
Honestly, Michael, honesty is what I'm best at. You're doing mighty well at evasions, since you're still evading the question presented in #0: why the nation being overrun with "trailer trash" would be a good thing, and for whom? Cui bono? Your personal preference would justify hanging out in different circles, but little else; you have to have some other reason. I had something in mind about the trailer-owning, land-renting set having no ownership of anything permanent and thus having almost as little stake in society as the denizens of the urban jungles, and just about as much reason to either opt out or tear everything down for the hell of it - not at all like the nation of yeoman farmers envisioned by the authors of a certain document 227 years ago this month. But if you prefer to argue about trivia and play personality games, I suppose I can't force you to consider the big picture.
This response has been erased.
re#28: Would I do something like that?
What makes you guys think that having the nation overrun with "trailer park trash" is such a bad thing? Is being born poor a crime? You're talking to some of that trash right here. Not every one was born with a silver spoon in their mouths.
Thank you, novomit. Russ isn't going to believe you any more than he believes me, but who cares? Why do I have to have "some other reason" than that I like them, Russ? Because you want me to, so you can keep on repeating that I haven't explained? Your nightmarish fantasy about trailer trash "tearing everything down for the hell of it" is fascinating in what it tells us about you, but it has nothing at all to do with me.
I think Russ is just scared they may have a better soup recipe.
As I am sure Russ knows, the term "trailer trash" is a derogatory term for white folks in low socio-economic classes. They dont necessarily live in trailers. I am not totally sure what md meant when he said that it wouldnt be such a bad thing to have the nation overrun with trailer trash. But maybe he just meant that it would be nice not to be surrounded by snobby people for a change. I didnt think he meant that we hopes everyone tears down their houses and moves into trailers.
I suspect md would come to miss erudite discussions of Mahler symphonies if he hung around with his "trailer trash" friends incessently.
Well no shit. That's why we have lots of different friends, to round out everything that we like.
I've always seen "trailer trash" (a.k.a., "white trash" as a state of social behavior, such as what Russ described. While this is usually associated with low economic standing. It isn't exclusive, of course but very common.
Sure, social class is a state of social behavior. Guess what? There are educated rednecks with a lot of money. I am a bit of a snob about social class sometimes although I try not to be. Russ seems to think that being a snob is a virtue.
I used to work with an extremely wealthy group of people who were somewhat snobs - my only thought was, "Money has made you right miserable to be around." (Not all of them, but one for sure.)
Good point, slynne, most of them don't literally live in trailers. I assumed everyone understood that, but in the rarified atmosphere of Grex maybe it does need to be spelled out. I bet most of us have "trailer trash" in our backgrounds if you go back far enough. Some of my ancestors came to America from a rural region in Italy called Abruzzo. It's true they were bilingual, and the food they prepared now sells for $100 per entree in fancy New York restaurants (who knew?), but apart from that they were indistinguishable from what we would call trailer trash. (I tell my kids they're descended from "Italian hillbillies," actually.) Devoid of pretensions, not a college degree among them, good decent people and the occasional black sheep.
My parents both had college degrees. But none of their parents or ancestors to the nth degree did. My wife's family is similar. So what? I think this sort of history is extremely typical. Only a tiny percentage of people in my grandparents' generation (people born say around 1890-1900) had any higher education. As recently as 1700, probably 99% of the world's population were (at most) peasants. We are all descended from the salt of the earth.
This response has been erased.
Re #33: You're assuming that those in the trailers have the money to get their message out to each other, and the focus to keep at the goal of getting the land despite years of determined opposition (and purchased pols and judges) by the neo-landed aristocracy. Does the current state of affairs give you any cause to believe this? Re #35: My father was born in exactly that situation, too. His father assumed his son would be a manual laborer just as he was (my paternal grandfather was an ironworker and built many bridges across the Ohio and Pennsylvania turnpikes). Instead, my father enlisted in the Navy, got on the G.I. bill, and became a dentist. I think it matters that we don't become a nation of static social classes. Do you intend to stay where you are? If not, you've made my point. Re #36: Some people are already living the nightmare. Watts and Detroit, 1960's; Los Angeles, 1995; Benton Harbor, 2003. People who see nothing to lose (right or wrong) can make life pretty hellish, and the one unifying characteristic those places have is that they're overrun with poor folks who appeared to see no future and had lots of resentment. Re #44: So tell us what lessons these folks could teach those of us who happen to have started a bit higher and perhaps had opportunities to expand that they haven't. Aside from fixing their own cars (a great way to keep money in the family), I don't see what's so great. What are their other virtues? (So far they sound like Bill Rugg without the maliciousness.)
Personal loyalty to each other, extended "families" groups of non-bio related. Common sense for one thing. Usually a wider range of living skills, its not just cars. I think common sense is probably the most important and underated. Its kinda a hardskrabble practicality -what works works without worrying about why or how. Now that I think about it probably common sense is pretty much evenly distributed regardless of class its just that you expect rich people to be smart or intelligent people to be rich.
Re #42: > Guess what? There are educated rednecks with a lot of money. In fact, we elected one of them President! ;> Re #48: To see the "personal loyalty" and "common sense" of trailer trash, turn on any episode of COPS.
That's disgraceful. You can't be serious.
I agree with md. I know a lot of blue-collar people - heck, my family is fairly blue-collar. It's my cousin's generation that is primarily white-collar. Sometimes, education and sitting at a desk all day doesn't mean you're all that. Heck, it rarely does.
My girlfriend's parents live in a trailer park about half of the year. They're retired, have a decent income and a nice house. They just like it there. It's possible that their preferred trailer parks are atypical, but it sounds like they aren't that bad. For instance, most people there seem to have internet access, at least by proxy (borrowing someone's laptop). Oh, and as for the ability of people in trailer parks to "get the word out", I'm pretty sure my gf's parents know just about everything about everyone remotely related to anyone who has ever set foot in one of their trailer parks. I know that this probably isn't the kind of "trailer trash" that we're talking about in this item, but I just wanted to point out some stereotype-busters.
This response has been erased.
I think we can draw a reasonable distinction between people who live in trailers because they like it, and those who have no alternative. Generally, people have no alternative because they lack the education and/or skills to get the money for something better. A nation "overrun" by such would be seriously short of of people in skilled positions. Consider the lack of nurses. We already have a serious shortage; md's "trailer trash" paradise would be far worse off in that respect, and probably couldn't offer the wages to attract the immigrants we get now. That's just one example; for a real nightmare think about the impact on Social Security, which pays higher proportional benefits to people at lower income levels. Again, Michael, try to answer the question: Good for whom? Cui bono? I'm not saying that we shouldn't all get down to earth now and then (perhaps more often rather than less), but the conclusion doesn't follow.
The lack of nurses is probably due to the low pay that nurses get when compared to the wages of other people with similar education. It isnt due to some kind of cultural phenomenon caused by "trailer trash"
Actually, I know a few nurses who md would probably call "trailer trash." Doctors I'm not so sure about. Maybe someone who knows a thing or two about economics would like to comment on the effect of a rising tide of trailer trash on med school tuition rates. I suspect that tuition would drop if there were fewer people who were able to pay it, but I'm no expert.
Ten years ago the nurse we knew about was making $50,000/year with lots of benefits and vacation time and a fixed daytime schedule. I doubt most people with a four-year education make that much. Nursing is hard work, and probably rather gruesome at times - that is my guess at why people don't all flock to it.
This response has been erased.
We need the trailer trash to pay for all your social security checks. You lame fuckers sure aren't going to have anything else to live on when you retire
And you? Surely you aren't going to accept Social Security checks from the *government*!
Re #56: Given that doctors tend to do med school completely on loans, I
doubt it.
Re #59: Wrong.
#56: Way back in the mists of time, very few people could afford higher education. As a consequence, very few people actually received higher education, and it was something reserved for the elite. Mostly, anyway. It was a simpler, perhaps even a happier time for many (that would make an interesting debate), but it sure did have a lower life expectancy. No reason to think it would change. Tuition might decrease, but not proportionate to the median income plunge, and fewer people would attend college.
(It's very amusing to read items like this with a twit filter activated.)
It could be argued that the sort of taste that might cause people to live in trailer parks by choice, when combined with more money, causes people to live in places like West Bloomfield. Both tend to be sprawling, architecturally uninteresting, and a long way from anywhere else the residents might want to go. West Bloomfield, and places like it, are trailer parks on a much grander scale. <scg ducks>
Strangely enough, that fits "to the T" some people that I know.
Well, somebody has to be buying those Hummers.
One reason trailer parks exist is zoning laws that won't let people build small houses on small lots. In Ann Arbor you can't put a house on less than 5000 square feet and we were told 900 square feet minimum floor space.
How old is that rule? My house is 900 sq. ft., but it's the biggest one on the block, and I'm pretty sure none of the lots up here are 5K sq. ft. On the other hand, our best guess for the age of the neighborhood is 1950s or thereabouts.
There are also substantial property tax benefits to putting up a trailer park instead of a bunch of small houses.
There is a house on my street about 600 square feet. The rule must be recent, or maybe nonexistent. When we submitted plans they told us 900 square feet and now everyone denies it. We had to build 2 stories to get it big enough.
This response has been erased.
re#71: I thought it was the places where the big bad wolf threatened to huff and puff.
You have several choices: