Quote of the day
Mike:
Bitch, grab a shovel!
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 6th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Mike has never buried a body. You must get a body down about 3 feet at a minimum to keep animals from digging it back up. There is a reason 6 feet is the standard. A hole 2.5 feet wide by 5 feet long and 4 feet deep requires the moving of 50 cubic feet of material. Assuming a conservative 15 pounds per cubic foot on average that means 750 lbs of dirt. Dig a grave for a person sometime. It is back breaking work. I wouldn’t wish the job on anyone especially anyone who hasn’t eaten, hasn’t slept and is scared shitless.
In addition New Orleans, the water table is above ground in many places so you have to put something heavy on top of the body to keep it from popping out of the ground.
Conservative realism isn’t all that realistic.
September 6th, 2005 at 11:15 pm
“Conservative realism isn’t all that realistic.”
Of course, “They” would know that.
You know, the “They” that are supposed to take care of us.
It’s so much more noble to wait for “They” than to make an attempt, however flawed, ourselves.
September 7th, 2005 at 11:31 am
More to the point, and along the lines of what Metulj was saying, just exactly how much diggable ground do you suppose is around the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center? Unless you’re ready to break a bunch of concrete, you’re not burying shit.
In any case, I thought “blame the victims” was a liberal thing. Guess not.
September 7th, 2005 at 11:46 am
No one blamed the victims. Someone did criticize their reaction to being victimized.
September 7th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
I saw a photo of this poor dead woman in her wheelchair; she was parked on the grass outside the dome. There was no need for a deep, permanent burial either; just something to offer a little dignity. Just a few inches and a blanket is enough. Even a blanket alone would have been more than any of those people there saw fit to do for her.
‘Blame the victim’ my ass.
September 8th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Uncle:
Really? On what planet? How many times have we heard people second-guessing the decision not to evacuate (never mind whether or not they actually could evacuate…)
September 8th, 2005 at 11:53 am
In this thread and the one I linked, none.
September 8th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Oh really? What’s this then:
September 8th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Sorry, stupid blockquote mistake again.
September 8th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
That’s not blaming the victim. That’s pointing out her inability/unwillingness to help herself.
September 8th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
tgirsch,
This is Mike, from FecesFlingingMonkey. You’ve made a good point, one that is worth discussing.
The first time I heard the phrase ‘blame the victim’ is was used in the context of sexual assault – used to (rightly) condemn anyone who blamed a rape victim for provoking an attack. I agree that anyone who blames all those people for not leaving NOLA is making a similarly heartless mistake. Many simply could not leave. I understand that, and I agree.
However, being a victim, and being a legitimate target of blame are not exclusive categories. If you got caught in a storm that you could not escape, you are a victim. If you fail to help yourself to the extent you can, you are to blame for some of what follows. Both of these things can be true.
You seem to be suggesting that, once granted victim status, these people could do no wrong. No matter what the extent of their negligence, poor judgment, laziness, or ineptitude, they are entitled to a sweeping exemption. Perhaps I am mischaractering your position, but it seems to me that you would tolerate no criticism of these folks whatsoever, no matter how much they have failed to help themselves.
This is a perfectly legitimate point, but a point with which I disagree. I think people ought to be held accountable to how they care for themselves and their families, and I think there is a huge difference between being unable to help yourself, and being unwilling to help yourself.
September 9th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Uncle:
The implication there is that the self-starters got the hell out of dodge, meaning that (many if not all) the people left behind are too lazy or too stupid (or both) to have left.
Mike:
I don’t intentionally suggest that victims must be blameless. In fact, for those who are reportedly shooting at rescue vehicles, there’s absolutely blame to go around. My point wasn’t that these people are wholly blameless, but that you (and to a much greater extent, the guy you linked) seemed to be doing two things: faulting the entire group for the action (or inaction) of a few; and acting as though the types of actions you were saying they “should” be doing are a helluva lot easier than they actually are, given the circumstances. Burials are a perfect example, even though I recognize you were using this more proverbially than literally; burials are challenging even in the best of circumstances. Even throwing blankets over the dead is easier said than done when you’re dealing with 90-degree heat and not too many people are likely to have blankets laying around. And even if they did, they’d probably have better uses for them than that (as in a triage setting, the needs of those still alive must trump the needs/dignity of the dead).
So no, it’s not that I won’t tolerate any criticism of those people; it’s that I won’t tolerate criticisms that seem to be vastly divorced from the reality of the situation they’re living in. Your off-the-top-of-your-head suggestions for things they might do go directly to that point, because the reality is that most of them are impractical. The possibility that there’s very little that they can do doesn’t seem to occur to you.
Are some of the people doing contemptible things? Absolutely. Does that give us the right to revile and criticize them as a group? Absolutely not. Could some of the people there have been doing a bit more to help themselves? I suppose so. Is that anywhere even close to the top of the list of what’s wrong there? Not even remotely.
And if my comments make it seem as if I will tolerate no criticism of the refugees, your post makes it seem as though the refugees have no legitimate cause to complain.
September 9th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
Obviously, we disagree, but we were closer than we were.
You seem surprised that I don’t agree that there is so little that they can do for themselves. That’s basically the crux of our disagreement. Personally, I find it astonishing that you find my suggestions for improving their own situation impractical.
We do agree that it is unfair to paint the whole group with this brush; as said as much myself, and if I did not emphasis it as I should, I will do so now. Surely some of these people are genuinely helpless through no fault of their own, and surely there were others others did do as much as we could reasonably expect.
However, I cannot for the life of me understand how so many hundreds of people could be sitting around for days and not find the collective strength to even cover a rotting body. This is not a difficult task.