Oh, boo hoo.
The Times today has an article on the “tyranny” of the second home which is really a hoot for a lower class slob to read, let me tell you. Pop on over, read it, and tell me if you are as amused as I am.
It’s doubling entertaining since one of the other leading articles is about the abundance of easy credit in the United States and how large numbers of Americans are eating it in a major way.
Sometimes, the Times feels like it is caught in an identity crisis. On the one hand, we have a strong, balanced article talking about predatory lending and profiling ordinary people who are struggling with their debt. On the other we have…a complete whiny upper class fluff piece, bemoaning how “difficult” it is to have a second home. So, the people who read and empathize with the first article will likely just be infuriated by the other, and the people who get the second article will deride the first. Why don’t you just go buy yourself some more money?
The article about second homes bothered me on a number of levels. Perhaps it’s because I’m from an area rife with second homes. (And I’ve been longing to try and spearhead a minimum occupancy movement, because a lot of those homes are occupied for only a few weekends a year.) I don’t get the second home thing. I would be stoked to own one house. I don’t really see how it enhances your social status to consume constantly. Let alone whine about your consumption. If you don’t want a second home, than don’t own one. But for Pete’s sake, don’t whine to the newspaper of record about it so that they can write an insipid, embarrassing, idiotic article on it. Tracia Rozhon really ought to be ashamed of having her name on this completely useless article.
People who own second homes in areas they are not familiar with constantly whine about everything in the area. It’s like they want the place to never advance, for the locals to disappear, for everything unsightly to be swept away. Well, I hate to inform people of this…but other people live there. Other people need electricity, or a source of income, or places to live, and not everyone can afford to built mansions with 33 foot ceilings and marble floors. Indeed, the presence of large numbers of second homes is actually incredibly harmful for the local population, which is something that I didn’t see discussed at all in the article. It’s all about how hard life is for the interlopers, not for the struggles that the local population endures.
Oh, the woes of the upper classes. Why would the Times think that this article has any interest to anyone? I am so very much not interested in hearing about how hard life is when you have too much money. This country has a skyrocketing debt rate, ever higher numbers of lower classes, a disappearing middle class, insane foreign policy, and no sense of perspective. Why not do an article about people who squat vacation houses, or how much vacation homes hurt the local population?
I don’t have a problem with people with money, per say. I just don’t want to hear about it, because I have my own problems to deal with. Somehow, I doubt that anyone else would find my problems very interesting, which is why you won’t be reading a feature article about them in the Times. Somehow, though, I suspect that more of the American population, including the readers of the Times, could find something in common with my own woes.
Sometimes, the disconnect in American society really does floor me.