Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Firefighters killed by the Blender The deaths of nine firefighters in Charleston, South Carolina -- the largest number of firefighters killed at once since Sept. 11, 2001 -- is a tragedy. I can only imagine what their loved ones are going through. I had an uncle (my father's brother) who was cut down at age 35 while he was working as a paramedic; he left behind a wife and three small children, whose lives his sudden, unexpected death altered forever. But I can't help but wonder whether the mindless hero worship that has become so pervasive in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, only contributes to more deaths of first responders (and to our troops in Iraq and elsewhere, of course), because hero worship doesn't allow any analysis or critical thought, but just demands blind allegiance; indeed, its main purpose seems to be to replace thought. And an unexpected tragedy, I suspect, leaves a vacuum in the mind, and hero worship, like religious dogma does, rushes in to fill the void. Let's face it: The nine firefighters in Charleston died while trying to put out a fire at a place called Sofa Super Store, which The Associated Press says is (well, was) "a huge showroom and warehouse on a commercial strip of car dealerships and body shops locals refer to as the 'Auto Mile.'" They didn't die saving people. They died trying to save some capitalist's capital. I'm not saying that these fallen firefighters didn't save lots of people during their too-short (the firefighters ranged in age from 27 to 56, according to the AP) careers. I'm guessing that they did. But this time, they died for a rich person's or persons' property. Not worth it, I'd say. Not even the Sofa Super Store. While many if not most Americans find the symbolism that immediately popped up in the wake of the firefighters' deaths to be comforting, I find it to be rather unsettling. There are these news photos, for instance, of a firefighter draping a U.S. flag over the Sofa Super Store's sign after the firefighters' deaths:   Associated Press photos I know this sounds mean, but I don't mean to be mean; I ask in sincerity: Why, exactly, did the firefighters drape a U.S. flag over the sign of the store? We all know what nation we live in, right? And the firefighters didn't die for their country. They died trying to save a rich person's or persons' property. Have the rich really convinced us commoners that their interests are really our interests to the point that firefighters would drape an American flag over a capitalist's business sign, as though the capitalist's business interest represented an American, a national, interest? (A: Yes.) True, according to the AP, the firefighters who fought the Sofa Super Store fire had been told that two store employees were inside of the building (only one was, and that person made it out alive, according to the AP, noting that it was unclear whether that person was helped out of the building by the firefighters or made it out by him- or herself). But still, let's fucking face it: a huge function of our firefighters and police officers and other first responders (as well as the members of our military, of course) is to protect (and, especially in the case of our military, to expand) the interests of the rich -- even if it means risking death or actually dying in the process. Maybe that's why we have to resort to such things as the flag and to God -- here is a photo of firefighters in group prayer today after their comrades fell: Associated Press photo -- when these working-class people die protecting the interests of the rich: because we need to tell ourselves that they died for something much more meaningful and important than some rich people's interests. I find the mindless melding of so many different things in the United States to be disturbing. In so many parts of the United States, especially in the red states, everything has been put into a blender: God, Jesus Christ, what passes itself off as Christianity, patriotism, nationalism, capitalism, militarism, (mostly) white male machoism (including the post-9/11 hero worship) and white male supremacy (which includes, of course, homophobia, misogyny and racism). All of these are considered to be one and the same, or at least all are tentacles of the same octopus (no, wait, we're talking about the United States, so let's make that a giant squid, right?). The Melting Pot? No, we're the Blender, where separate elements that should remain separate -- because if they don't, you have fascism -- are thoughtlessly pureed into a bland mass that is to be swallowed dutifully and without question. And there are millions and millions of swallowers in the United States of America. When we stop just swallowing it, I think, and when we start to think about what -- and who -- really are worth risking lives for, fewer of our heroes will die. For now, though, they get killed by the Blender. 10:32:42 PM    Comments []

Jacques M. Chenet/Corbis Billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (pictured today below) is poised to become the (apparently) saner Ross Perot (pictured in 1992 above) of the 2008 presidential election -- which, also like 1992, might feature Billary Clinton as the Democratic candidate. Associated Press Deja fucking vu all over again Deja fucking vu all over again So Election 2008 is shaping up to look a lot like Election 1992. I remember Election 1992 (yes, I'm old): The top three candidates for the White House were Repugnican King George Bush I, who was going for a second term, Democrat Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) and -- how could you forget? -- third-party candidate Ross Perot, an odd billionaire from Texas whose candidacy served mainly to siphon votes from King George Bush I and to put Billary Clinton into the White House. In Election 2008 there won't be another George Fucking Bush in the running, thank God, but Billary Clinton is in the running to be in the running again, and today billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he has left the Repugnican Party and become an independent. Pundits believe that Bloomberg's leaving the Repugnican Party sets the stage for him to run for the White House as an independent, with the ability to pump millions of his own dollars (his estimated worth is more than $5 billion) into his campaign. ("Bloomberg spent more than $155 million for his two mayoral campaigns, including $85 million when he won his second term in 2005," notes The Associated Press.) Many people don't recall, or never knew, that in 1992 Bill Clinton didn't win a majority, but won a plurality of only 43 percent of the popular vote, to King George Bush I's 37 percent. Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote, and my educated guess is that the majority of Perot voters who still would have voted for president had Perot not run would have voted for Bush, so that Perot really was the spoiler in 1992 that Ralph Nader never really was in 2000, although you never heard even the Repugnicans bitching and moaning about how Perot was the spoiler (perhaps because Perot was so popular that the Repugnicans didn't want to alienate Perot's supporters forever, as the idiot Democrats have done to many if not most members of the Green Party over their support of Nader in 2000). Perot's 1992 run for the White House was all about his ego, as Bloomberg's almost-certain run for the White House in 2008 will be. I guess that after they've crossed everything else off of their to-do and to-buy lists, the billionaires decide that what the hell, they'll slum it and run for president -- and they'll buy the White House, if they can swing it. The buzz right now is that in November 2008 Bloomberg might take or will take more votes away from presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Billary Clinton, than he will take from whomever the Repugnican candidate is. I totally fucking disagree. Bloomberg, I think, will have the same appeal to the mouth-breathing red-staters in 2008 that Ross Perot had in 1992: the red-staters, whose trailers could be swept away by a natural disaster at any time, love to think that they, too might be RICH! someday, just like Ross Perot and Michael Bloomberg and the Beverly Hillbillies. They seem to believe that somehow by voting for a billionaire, they will increase their own chances of becoming billionaires. They never will be, of course, but their ignorant optimism that they might strike it rich sure fuels lottery-ticket sales, and it will sink the Repugnicans in 2008 just like it did in 1992. The similarities between 1992 and 2008 aren't just in the candidates. The hot topics in 1992 were health-care reform, which Billary Clinton was pushing, and gays in the military somehow became an issue (I could research why that happened and even give you a link, but, truth be told, I don't really feel like it). Well, we never got that health-care reform, and the fags-in-the-foxholes debate was "resolved" with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy after Billary won the White House. Health-care reform has returned as a hot topic for 2008, although this time the banner (literally) is being carried by Michael Moore, one of the last real journalists in the United States, with his new documentary "Sicko," set to be released on June 29. And the abolition of the unconstitutional, un-American "don't ask, don't tell" policy is becoming an issue for 2008 (National Public Radio covered the topic today, and progressive documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald has chimed in on the topic, too). History repeats itself, they say, but 2008 is shaping up to be almost a carbon fucking copy of 1992. Jesus fuck. Can't we break out of this endless loop? Hopefully, at least we can remove Billary Clinton from the 2008 equation. I am hoping and praying that Billary's 2008 campaign goes the way that once-Democratic-front-runner Howard Dean's 2004 campaign did: that it implodes spectacularly. And I am still hoping that Al Gore jumps into the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination -- even though he, too, has a connection to 1992... 8:47:57 PM    Comments []