The South is Burning, Who Cares?

www.google.com...

Ohio discovers TN on fire by wondering why they smell hickory burning.

Smoke signals travel faster than word of mouth, obviously.

m.youtube.com...

"No Warning From The News"

a reply to: bknapple32

I flip on the TV at any time of the day or night and it is wall-to-wall panel coverage of Trump's tweets.

They may give the news token coverage, but the majority of their broadcast is mindless infotainment, and it is sucking the air out of everything else.

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

I've been hearing about this daily on both "left" and "right" wing radio, and seeing it daily on whatever news stations are on the TV at work.

a reply to: jimmyx

I always care when I hear about people suffering. It doesn't matter where it is.... It's humans suffering. I think it must be horrifying to be in those situations. I think you assume too much.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: LSU0408


These aren't 'bad people.' They're victims. Victims of the life they have been forced to live thanks to their 'overlords.' They have learned through experience not to consider others, not to expect success, and there is no profit in hard work. That makes them extremely dependant on those who control the social infrastructure, and therefore easy to control.

The people of rural Appalachia face many challenges and are struggling in many ways, but I would never describe them that way.

Oh...wait...You meant New Orleans refugees.

So it's no real surprise that disasters in highly dependent areas received massive MSM coverage, while disasters in independent areas receive minimal coverage.
TheRedneck

Tennessee ranks among the top 5 states in the union, virtually tied with Louisiana, for dependence of Federal Dollars and assistance?

wallethub.com...

Tennessee ranks 3rd in the country for dependence on Food Stamps...behind West Virginia and Lousianna..all separated by less than 2%.

www.cheatsheet.com...

The populations of rural Tennessee and Louisiana seem virtually economically identical in their "dependence" on government.

The average skin tone of those populations might be different though? Is that what you were getting at?

Im out in hickory nc near where the south mountain fire was. There was few days last week that had us worried. You could see smoke all the way to Charlotte and Winston Salem. Thank God for the down pour we had day before yesterday. My thoughts and prayers go out to those that went through that out in Gatlinburg.

a reply to: Indigo5

Poverty alone does not indicate a lack of independence. Nor can a state (any state) be taken as a homogeneous population statistic. Nashville will have a different demographic than Gatlinburg, as will Memphis, Chattanooga, and Knoxville.

The measure of independence is related to mentality, not income. Just because someone is eligible for food stamps, it does not follow that that someone is simply looking to sponge off the government. I know the general feeling around my area has changed over the last two decades from looking down on those receiving food stamps to just going along with the flow... "if the government wants to throw money at me, why not? They caused this mess to start with."

That's not dependence. Dependence is "I have to have help to buy food or I'll starve!"

I was on food stamps for the last several years. I spent them just as though I were spending cash, and when my income exceeded the limits I simply shrugged, used what I had saved up on the card, and then went to paying cash. I was not dependent; I simply used a resource available to me.

Some people, mainly in the cities, will spend every dime they receive as soon as they receive it and then scream bloody murder if the charity tap goes dry. That is dependency.

Threats to take away my food stamps would have been unwanted, but not the end of the world for me; I could always find other ways to eat. The latter group, however, is not capable of finding other ways to eat. Assistance and charity is all they know, and a threat to remove that charity is literally a life-and-death situation in their mind. That is the difference I was talking about, and I believe the whole point of collapsing the economy was to create more dependency by getting more independent people used to the idea of reliance on the Federal government. In some cases it probably worked, but in most... the government made the same error in comprehension of the issue that you just did. They equated receiving assistance with needing assistance.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

Poverty alone does not indicate a lack of independence. Nor can a state (any state) be taken as a homogeneous population statistic. Nashville will have a different demographic than Gatlinburg, as will Memphis, Chattanooga, and Knoxville.

The measure of independence is related to mentality, not income. Just because someone is eligible for food stamps, it does not follow that that someone is simply looking to sponge off the government. I know the general feeling around my area has changed over the last two decades from looking down on those receiving food stamps to just going along with the flow... "if the government wants to throw money at me, why not? They caused this mess to start with."

That's not dependence. Dependence is "I have to have help to buy food or I'll starve!"

I don't want to have this conversation with you Red..but kinda have to when you post stuff like the above...

Are you now modifying your definition of "dependence on gov" as Appalachians mooching off the food-stamp system when they don't need to, but (Presumably people of color) from New Orleans being in genuine need...and somehow assigning a virtue to the Appalachians ...cuz they are scamming government assistance they don't really need?


Help me see what you wrote some other way..

I was on food stamps for the last several years. I spent them just as though I were spending cash, and when my income exceeded the limits I simply shrugged, used what I had saved up on the card, and then went to paying cash. I was not dependent; I simply used a resource available to me.

OK

Some people, mainly in the cities, will spend every dime they receive as soon as they receive it and then scream bloody murder if the charity tap goes dry. That is dependency.

Those are the very people that food stamps were intended for.

Threats to take away my food stamps would have been unwanted, but not the end of the world for me; I could always find other ways to eat. The latter group, however, is not capable of finding other ways to eat. Assistance and charity is all they know, and a threat to remove that charity is literally a life-and-death situation in their mind.

I am going to have to ponder that a bit...My first thought is that you a painting a big brush across both Appalachia and more Urban recipients of public assistance...

But also understand Appalachia has a greater sense of extended family and community (albeit cloistered in reagrds to the rest of the country) than Urban areas where traditional community and extended family support networks are much less.

a reply to: Indigo5

Are you now modifying your definition of "dependence on gov" as Appalachians mooching off the food-stamp system when they don't need to, but (Presumably people of color) from New Orleans being in genuine need...and somehow assigning a virtue to the Appalachians ...cuz they are scamming government assistance they don't really need?

I'm clarifying my position, not modifying it, because you seem to have taken it differently than intended.

But before I try to clarify further, I need to point out that I have not made mention to anyone's skin color... that is you doing so. New Orleans is not 100% black, and rural is not 100% white. Both are mixed groups of people, and any reference to them based on assumptions of skin color is a racist statement. I have even included Chattanooga, Nashville, and Memphis as further examples of more dependent areas, and I assure you those are not race-specific areas. Please keep the racism to yourself.

Now, with that out of the way:

I have been describing a difference in attitude, not a difference in income. The two are not inextricably linked. It is true that some rural populations tend to have high levels of poverty as compared to suburban areas, but I would venture to say that even more extreme poverty exists in inner-city urban areas.

The difference is not just income, however... the difference is attitude and opportunity. Inner cities are well-documented to have higher incidences of gang-related criminal activity, less effective school systems, and extremely poor job markets. Gang-related activity shows a tendency toward crime, which by definition is the lack of observance of another's humanity or property. Less effective school systems are due in large part to a lack of discipline. Extremely poor job markets are a result of the inability to find honest workers, but also act as a feedback mechanism preventing people from having opportunity. In total, this is a self-feeding cycle of poverty. No hope for the future = no ambition for improvement = lack of improvement = crime and dependency to survive = less opportunity = no hope for the future.

Rural life does not work that way. There is little crime and a tightly-knit social network among neighbors. That provides hope, because people don't feel as alone, and hope generates self-improvement. In that environment, poverty becomes more a reason to become more self-sufficient than a reason to rely solely on the good will of those in power. However, when even self-sufficient people see food stamps given out to those who show no indication of ever helping themselves, those people tend to feel less inclined to turn them down themselves. After all, wasn't the food stamp program originally intended to help lift people OUT of poverty? That's exactly what they are trying to accomplish, as opposed to those who are totally dependent on food stamps and have no ambition to ever rise above them.

Those are the very people that food stamps were intended for.

See above.

If the food stamps are intended to maintain permanent assistance to people in perpetual poverty rather than assist people in conquering a financial difficulty, then we desperately need to rid ourselves of this poverty-inducing menace right now!

Any program that rewards people for being poor is an incentive to stay poor, and should be carefully regulated to make sure the incentive to remain poor does not outweigh the incentives to become successful. I want to see everyone be successful to the point of not needing assistance, not to see everyone getting assistance while not lifting a finger to do anything. The former is a benefit to people; the latter is a trap for them.

Traps are inhumane.

I am going to have to ponder that a bit...My first thought is that you a painting a big brush across both Appalachia and more Urban recipients of public assistance...

I am, admittedly. There are exceptions on both sides, probably more than a few.

But generally, the attitude difference I describe is sound. Urban = Dependent. Rural = Independent.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5


But generally, the attitude difference I describe is sound. Urban = Dependent. Rural = Independent.

TheRedneck

Still pondering....

This article by the Week might interest you..

THIS ISN'T THE Kentucky of Elmore Leonard's imagination, and there is nothing romantic about it. These are no fiercely independent remnants of the old America clinging to their homes and their traditional ways. This is the land of families of four clutching $40 worth of lotto scratchers and crushing the springs on their beaten-down Camry while getting dinner from a Phillips 66 station.


This is about "the draw."


"The draw," the monthly welfare checks that supplement dependents' earnings in the black-market Pepsi economy, is poison. It's a potent enough poison to catch the attention even of such people as those who write for The New York Times. Nicholas Kristof, visiting nearby Jackson, Ky., last year, was shocked by parents who were taking their children out of literacy classes because the possibility of improved academic performance would threaten $700-a-month Social Security disability benefits, which increasingly are paid out for nebulous afflictions such as loosely defined learning disorders. "This is painful for a liberal to admit," Kristof wrote, "but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America's safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency."

theweek.com...

a reply to: Indigo5

As I said, my point was generic. You can probably search and find several examples where it is less than accurate; I alluded to that already. But overall, based on my personal knowledge of the area I live in (not that far from Gatlinburg) and the surrounding areas, I stand by my generalization.

TheRedneck

ETA: I also pointed out that I believe the purpose of increasing poverty via the recent recessionary period and thereby increasing assistance, was to try and promote dependence over independence. It is no surprise that it has worked in some places. Humans are creatures of habit.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

As I said, my point was generic. You can probably search and find several examples where it is less than accurate; I alluded to that already. But overall, based on my personal knowledge of the area I live in (not that far from Gatlinburg) and the surrounding areas, I stand by my generalization.

TheRedneck

ETA: I also pointed out that I believe the purpose of increasing poverty via the recent recessionary period and thereby increasing assistance, was to try and promote dependence over independence. It is no surprise that it has worked in some places. Humans are creatures of habit.

And I get the conspiratorial nature of casting a government (Dem or GOP) that encourages dependence..

But honestly...History teaches a different lesson and teaches it sternly..Whenever income distribution reaches a tipping point where there is no longer a middle class, but only the elite and the peasants...without exception...the peasants eventually drag people from palaces and start beheading folks....Or shooting them in the head depending on time period.

Conversely when the "people's party" seizes power...it collapses under tyranny, corruption, communism..

No...our government is not working to impoverish it's people or make them dependent....I think that is a conspiracy theorey that doesn't survive even the most generous of scrutiny...Our leaders are not "evil"...and even if they were, the recipe your describe leads to revolution, not dependence.

Really is a bummer to see how little coverage things like this get. but if a bird poops on Trump Tower, they're going to show it. :


Edited b cause I don't think you can see fly poop. I meant bird... Lol

a reply to: Indigo5

True, that does seem to be a definition of conspiracy theorists, belief that the government is corrupt. And you are correct that history teaches that a lack of a middle class and upward mobility encourages... or over time, guarantees... revolt. You are also correct that, according to history, when the 'common man' runs the government, corruption runs rampant.

But consider this:

History can only teach through example. For history to teach us about revolts and corruption, there must by definition be examples of revolt and corruption. And there are, throughout recorded history. As a matter of fact, there are almost no examples of any government which did not experience corruption and revolt.

Why is that? Surely the leaders of pre-revolutionary France saw the lessons of history and could learn from them. Surely the Romans knew what had happened to empires before them. So why did the Roman Empire fall from within, and why did the French Revolution happen?

Because you missed the most important, most absolute lesson history has to give us:

People do not learn from history.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You made me chuckle and I needed it.

The most insightful lesson we learn from history is that people do not learn from history!

Alas...you might be right. I'll ponder that one as well.

A more accurate explanation might be not so much the inability to learn from history, but rather some odious characteristics of human nature that over ride our rational thinking...like unbound ambition, greed, hunger for power, and an inflated sense of self importance....we might know better, but just can't help ourselves in repeating history.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
The escape video

That's insane! I can't believe they waited until then to leave. Heat from those fires could have melted their tires or side of their truck. Or melt plastics housing electronics need to drive the ignition system.

Driving through 100 feet of fire is bad enough. They're lucky to be alive.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Justoneman

Something may be in the water there... oh yeah it is slightly radioactive water in the Tennessee river there. Down stream from Oak Ridge will do that for you.

Nah, I live downstream from Chattanooga. It's not the water.

It's something around that area, though. Chattanooga is definitely.... ummmm... shall we say "special"? I think there's a question about the use of turn signals on their drivers license tests, and the correct use is "they're for decoration."

It's a constant fight to keep whatever it is from crossing the state line...

TheRedneck

So far, the Nickajack dam is the stopping point for the elevated radioactivity in fish. You are safe is why my theory might still have a bit of life. But you aren't wrong about the strangeness of driving skills.

Plus where I live, it is the the Kentucky Lic. plates that you know are going to be mindlessly giving the rest of the drivers a hard time on the roadway.

ETA
Maybe it is that Bourbon in Ky affecting them, i could relate?

a reply to: [post=21601016]Indigo5



"And I get the conspiratorial nature of casting a government (Dem or GOP) that encourages dependence..

But honestly...History teaches a different lesson and teaches it sternly..Whenever income distribution reaches a tipping point where there is no longer a middle class, but only the elite and the peasants...without exception...the peasants eventually drag people from palaces and start beheading folks....Or shooting them in the head depending on time period.

Conversely when the "people's party" seizes power...it collapses under tyranny, corruption, communism..

No...our government is not working to impoverish it's people or make them dependent....I think that is a conspiracy theorey that doesn't survive even the most generous of scrutiny...Our leaders are not "evil"...and even if they were, the recipe your describe leads to revolution, not dependence."""
**************************************************************************************
Hey just curious. You have described both sides of the problem well as cummunism is a collapse and no middle class as a buffer for the extremes is a disaster, what is your plan?

I like the one where we create jobs, but logic says there are going to be limitations. We might like a Star Trek sort of deal where we just all get credits, no need for supporting it with gold, and them writing in a number fixes the poor's problem. Capitalism could still exist for those who think their imaginary number is too low or like to 'compete' like some us of naturally need to do.

a reply to: Justoneman

There are no easy answers to shrinking middle class. The most frightening article I have read on the worsening state of income distribution in the USA was an economics article that argued that the combination of the wealthy elites and the peasant class..with no middle class....is the historical normal and the middle class in the USA was just an after effect of WW2...and that the middle class has been shrinking ever since at an accelerating rate to return to the 2 class historical norm of peasants and the wealthy. I don't buy that..but I might be lying to myself. My answer to the immediate problem? Casinos make money off 2% of the money flow, they constantly run the odds so they earn 2 dollars of every 100 that flows through. Our tax system..through much lobbying and resultant loop holes is advantaging the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. Step one is straightening out the tax code ..otherwise drip drip toward the rich getting richer. I also think renogiating trade deals where American workers don't have to compete with virtual slaves in other countries...everyone ..including the rich..need a healthy middle class..or everyone loses eventually..they need a healthy middle class to buy stuff to keep the CEOs wealthy etc. We do need to change and we need to coddle the middle class the way our system coddles the rich.

Just ideas..it's a complex problem.

a reply to: jimmyx



You are absolutely correct!

How much attention do my fellow southeastern residents pay when you guys have a wildfires? You have them several times a year, the news gives you one or two stories, that's it.

My fellow southerners.. nobody is slighting you...geeze

I live in SC and I have been hearing about this repeatedly on my local news and on NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt. He has mentioned it several times in the last month and he even referenced the terrible air quality in the surrounding states.

It was definitely like "nuclear fall out" as one member pointed out. The air was thick and breathing labored, and Im in Columbia SC .