Somewhat overlooked in the sad tale of the dozen miners was the truly heroic - some would say saintly - character of their dying moments, as reflected in the notes they penned. Their thoughts were only to assuage the fears and pain of their families. The scene was redolent of Balaam's pronouncement: "May my spirit die the death of the righteous..." (Numbers 23:10)
Over at The American Spectator, I composed a brief paean to their lives and deaths.
Herewith the merest foretaste:
"Let not Ambition mock their useful toil,
Their homely joys, and destiny obscure;
Nor Grandeur hear with a disdainful smile
The short and simple annals of the poor."
This was a very solid group of men; we need to mourn them and learn to appreciate more those that remain. They work hard and are not wont to complain. Nor do they come home and spew a gospel of resentment. Instead, they live a friendly small-town existence with strong religious affiliation: no atheists in that foxhole. Look at the beautiful letters that they left their families when they sensed that death was near. No bitterness, no complaint, just love and reassurance to parents, spouses and children. What does it tell you about the character of a person when his primary concern in his dying moments is to mollify his loved ones with the image of him passing painlessly?
Rest in peace.
13 comments:
My grandfather and uncles all worked in the coal mines. Thank you for your beautiful tribute to these humble and hard working people.
Nice post, Jay. There was an interesting discussion of the subject over here http://yargb.blogspot.com/2006/01/character.html
Buzz, I had a bit of a similar thought. I think it's wrong to take incidents like these and immediately tie them to a political program when it is not known whether the causality is there.
I have a couple of simple questions.
When did it become the federal government's responsibility to protect every person from every danger?
Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say the the federal government will ensure that mines are safe, ensure the everyone's houses are rebuilt in case of disaster, ensure that no one needs to carry flood insurance, ensure that a city that is 12 feet below sea level will be safe when a Category 4 hurricane comes?
Maybe it is just me but I think that people don't take enough responsibility for themselves. Also, I think that there are certain responsibilites that happen to be state and local issues.
Silly me. I thought that we could all use the fresh air of a non-political subject.
I would like to thank JC for adding common sense to the discussion here.
Nidsu is right on target.
I could claim that the US Govt. is killing people by having a speed limit above 5mph ... but I won't. :)
In other words, if Gore or Kerry had been president the methane gas in the mine would not have exploded. Yeah, right.
...
I am not surprised that classless people have to spew their hate politics everywhere.
Buzz, you have got to knock this crap off. It's total BS, rude, stupid, and it's no way to be taken seriously by anyone. Look at JC's first comment for an excellent example of how to be taken seriously by your opposition.
Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say the the federal government will ensure that mines are safe, ensure the everyone's houses are rebuilt in case of disaster, ensure that no one needs to carry flood insurance, ensure that a city that is 12 feet below sea level will be safe when a Category 4 hurricane comes?
Nidsu, this is along the lines of the dumbest "Little Green Footballs" comments. The Constitution is not the end-all-be-all of the law. You remind me of when I was 11 and broke Chad Brown's glasses. I spent like an hour telling the teacher, "There's nothing in the Constitution that says I have to pay for those!" Are you 11? Because otherwise, you need a new line of reasoning. Because otherwise, your line of reasoning is, "Those miners worked for a corrupt, unsafe company, and they don't deserve any kind of protection because by damn it makes my genitals feel big to blame other people for their bosses' negligence."
Nidsu is right on target.
God, CLA, and you'd been doing so well lately.
Let me see ... YOU break someones glasses then wonder if YOU have to pay for them?
Quite a leap of logic in comparing that situation with the mine disaster, don't you think?
CLA, it was a comment on Nidsu's understanding of the Constitution and what it contains, not an allegory to the mining situation. Don't be deliberately drafty 'twixt the ears.
My point, and that of Nidsu I presume, is that of responsibility.
I don't believe s/he is absolving government (feds) but instead writing about his feelings regarding responsibility.
Thus, forgive me for misunderstanding your story about the glasses.
I hope you paid for 'em... :)
ps ... my apologies to the administrators for straying off coarse here.
Frankly, I fail to see where the argument of personal responsibility (or rather, the one you and Nidsu were trying to make) has any bearing. The mining company quite clearly eschewed any and all responsibility towards its workers. Without a government regulatory and oversight body, the only other recourse those miners would have would be to unionize (as in old-school union organizing) or to file a lawsuit. And if we had neither of those options any more (which seems to be something y'alls' party wants), what recourse at all would the miners have to correct the behavior of their employer? None. You're trying to refute Tlaloc by placing hte blame squarely on the miners.
The "Constitution" arguments that people like Nidsu use are blatantly juvenile - hence my anecdote. It's like saying "my employment contract doesn't say I can't hit you in the face, so I shouldn't face consequences if I do." It's just dumb.
But don't worry, because the Republicans will return a culture of personal responsibility and the mines will start being concerned for the safety of their employees.
Oh, wait...
Post a Comment