Caring For Our Heroes

by Dick Mac

Now that America's right-wing and their pals in Congress have finished their jack-off session about 9/11 and the amazing Americans who did so much to restore our country's hope in the aftermath of that attack on our sovereignty, now that the sperm has been wiped up off the floor of the Senate bathroom, and the pornographic pictures of President Bush and Mayor Giuliani humping Ground Zero have been folded up and filed away, and now that right-wing extremists have finished using 9/11 as a scare tactic to privatize more of our government security services, it's time to pay-off the poor suckers who did the dirty work: the first-responders who cared.

"They are heroes," declared every right-winger from the girl at the coffee shop, to the tea-party retiree, to the military hawk who never served a moment in the armed services, to the born-again Christian in Iowa who was so deeply hurt by the attack on the World Trade Center, to the Fox News talking heads, to the elected officials from Alaska and Nevada and Arizona who wouldn't know Greenwich Street from from Vesey Street from Liberty Street, and sadly to some actual New Yorkers who fly a flag of liberty for themselves as long as they don't have to pay any taxes. Yes, these brave first responders were the real Americans on September 12, 2001, and we are going to take care of them.

In 2006, New York City police officer James Zadroga died of respiratory illness that was attributed to his participation in rescue operations in the rubble of the World Trade Center. Less than five years after the WTC clean-up began, it became clear to non-conservative Americans that the people at and near that site who breathed-in the dust from the rubble were exposed to toxins that would likely compromise their health. Forever. On the other hand, "conservatives" aren't so convinced that first-responders are suffering long-term health problems as a result of their volunteerism.

"We must do something for them!" The same people who declared they were heroes shouted!

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced bills in their respective halls of Congress. It eventually passed the House in September 2010. In a Senate vote held in December, 2010, a Republican filibuster against the bill was eventually stopped but failed to get the sixty votes needed for the bill to proceed to an up-or-down vote. You see, the patriotic Republicans who'd won election after election on the back of 9/11 said that they would block any medical relief bill for 9/11 first responders unless tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 were ensured.

Now, that's patriotism! That's showing love and concern for the first-responders: they can get health care as long as the top 5% of the population can have a tax cut. Maybe. Give us the tax-cuts and then we'll see.

Eventually, Congress managed to pass the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

It doesn't cover cancer treatment.

You see, there is no proof that first-responders are liable to get cancer, so we better not cover cancer because we might help a first-responder who got cancer from bad diet, or from smoking, or from something other than the silica, talc, cellulose, calcium phosphate, and methacrylate plastic, etc., he breathed at Ground Zero, trying to save the lives of those who perished.

Nice job, Congress!

We seem to have protected those tax cuts for the top 5% of American citizens, but we can't figure out how to pay the medical bills for first-responders who get cancer.

You see, this is America: the only people who deserve health care are those who can afford it; and just because you risked your life digging holes trying to find cops and firefighters and fellow citizens buried in rubble on the days following a gruesome crime committed against our nation, that doesn't mean you deserve anything.

You're a fucking hero, now shut the fuck up, get back to work and vote "conservative" (they'll protect you from the fags, niggers and abortionists - the real problems in your life). And, sadly, many first-responders will vote "conservative."

Cowards

by Dick Mac

A gang of motorcyclists rode into New York City yesterday morning. They'd travelled three days to participate in a protest against a mosque being built in Lower Manhattan. They joined about 500 suburbanites and a smattering of New York City residents in the protest.

When a black union worker, whose position on the mosque was unknown to all, was spotted in the crowd, he was assaulted.

A person caught the incident on camera:



This picture shows a man in a green shirt and a blue hard hart in the lower-lefthand corner. He is the most vociferous of those around and when you watch the video at about :40, you see that he goes out of his way to get to the guy who is walking away.

This man in the green shirt and blue hard hat is a coward. He screams while in a crowd of like-minded people at an American citizen who may actually agree with him. Why is he yelling? The man has brown skin and a hat the guy thinks makes him a Muslim.

The man is not a Muslim, and the crowd has no idea if the man agrees with them or not. He has brown skin, and this crowd wants a lynching, even if only verbal.

These people are cowards. They would gut the Constitution and abridge the rights of fellow-Americans because of fake issues raised by the likes of non-New Yorkers like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin.

These people, and all people who oppose the mosque are cowards.

Hallowed Ground Zero

by Dick Mac

I have never quite understood the notion that the site of the former World Trade Center is special in a religious way. I share the collective outrage and believe the people who died at Ground Zero will be memorialized spiritually and architecturally.

What appears to be a very nice memorial park has been designed in the redevelopment of the site, and I often consider sponsoring a cobblestone for the project.

Some people take the notion a little too far however, and attach religious sentiment to the crime scene. I think it's inappropriate to attach religious significance to the site, because literally every religion was represented by those who died. Sadly, those controlling the redevelopment, and the hysterical Republicans surrounding them, see the religious aspect as specifically Judeo-Christian, ignoring the many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., as well as the atheists and agnostic, who perished at the site.

I am OK with there being religious events and religious sentiment attached to memories; but I fear religiosity as a basis for making decisions about commerce and development.

The right-wing (more and more accurately described as the anti-American wrong-wing) has raised a fuss that a Muslim community center, including a mosque, completely unrelated to Ground Zero development is being developed four blocks away from the site.

The alleged holiness of the Ground Zero site is already deeply compromised by the inclusion of a shopping mall and an office building thereon. In my book, you do not build a shopping mall at a holy site. The shopping mall, however, is a huge piece of the planning and development. So, those who are trying to demonstrate that this is sacred land need to explain to me why it's OK to put a shopping mall there. They can't, of course, because they conveniently ignore the offensiveness of free-marketeering in a holy place (something Jesus specifically spoke against). In America, to be a conservative now means that you spout religiosity when it conveniently condemns those you dislike, and you ignore the same teachings when it means there is a buck to be made or another political point to be won.

The former World Trade Center that was opened in the mid-1960s was a monument to American capitalism (which is why it was twice selected as the target for jihadist crimes), and it's connection to any religion is a tenuous connection, at best.

I know that the holiness is not related to the buildings, but to the Innocent (and guilty) who perished on September 11, 2001. Still, the construction of buildings after-the-fact represents how we feel about it today, and represents the religious and non-religious in many ways.

We have chosen a memorial park, a shopping mall, a transit hub, and an over-sized office building. Two of these structures are specifically unholy, especially in the context of declaring this hallowed ground. I hear nothing from the hysterical right-wing about this conflict between their religiosity and their politics.

It is OK with right-wingers to build a shopping mall on hallowed ground. However, when American taxpaying citizens want to erect a house of worship four blocks away, the bigoted right-wing turns on its hysteria machine and condemns a Muslim community center and mosque (a holy place of prayer) four blocks away.

The hypocrisy is chilling and laughable at the same time.

Blogger Daryl Lang has exposed the foolishness of the opposition to the community center at his "History Eraser Button" blog. His entry of August 16, 2010, is a collection of photos of other establishments within a four-block area of the very holy site, the Hallowed Ground of Ground Zero. There are a strip club, a betting parlour, McDonalds, Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, street vendors, and a pub. Now, if this area surrounding such hallowed ground cannot include a house of worship, how can it include a strip club and Dunkin Donuts?

It's time for the hysterical right-wing, their leadership in the Democratic and Republican parties, and their mouthpiece at News Corporation to drop it. You are barking up a tree that ignores you.

See Lang's photos here: Hallowed Ground

Now That's Patriotism!

Since September 11, 2001, American citizens have been bludgeoned with demands to be Patriotic.

The crimes at the World Trade Canter and The Pentagon were called attacks on our freedom.

Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan was turned into a shrine to patriotism.

We were told to stand behind our President and do the patriotic thing: shop.

If we disagreed with anything, our patriotism was questioned.

The architectural plans for Ground Zero became a battleground to determine whose freedom was bigger than somebody else's freedom.

The buildings planned to replace the World Trade Center will surround a single building dubbed "Freedom Tower."

Billions of tax dollars are promised to private corporations who will restore our global power and might by erecting the structure.

Freedom Tower is a terrible plan, companies stopped moving to high floors of buildings in the early 1990s to save costs. Clients aren't interested in paying multi-million dollar rents for their lawyers, accountants, bankers and consultants. There is no demand in New York City for a hundred story building.

Of course, this huge useless building is supposed to represent our "freedom" and the taxpayers are expected to foot the bill, and some landlord will make the profits.

Still, if we are to be patriotic, then we must support this ridiculously wasteful building. To oppose the plans for Ground Zero would be unpatriotic. There is money to be made there, and a patriot exploits his freedom for profit!

So . . . we bumble along with a slimy landlord and a couple of quasi-governmental agencies all vying to be the ones to make the decision, get the glory, and snatch the money for themselves. They negotiate leases with huge corporations they would like to have as tenants.

These corporations are big patriots, of course! They support the president and they "support the troops" and they think the government should stay out of the way of patriots who are trying to earn a buck, and they think social welfare programs are unpatriotic, and they believe that a patriot would privatize his government, and they think government subsidies should be provided only to them.

So, most big corporations support the idea of the stupid "Freedom Tower" and watch as government funds are funnelled to private companies. They look on with approval because they know that they will get a slice of the pie, too. Eventually.

In order for our freedom to succeed and our patriotism to shine in Lower Manhattan, there will have to be tenants in the Freedom Tower. It's not very impressive if our "freedom" is represented by a big empty building. That might imply that all this freedom talk is hollow, like an empty building.

The World Trade Centers that stood at Ground Zero were filled with less-than-luxurious tenants. Most of the floors were rented, at amazingly low rents, for back-office operations. There just isn't demand for luxury offices at high prices, fifty stories in the air. People don't want to ride two or three elevators up to work or to see their attorney, and as I mentioned before, clients aren't interested in hiring a professional services company that wastes its money on rent for such ridiculous offices.

It's sad, but, there really isn't anyone interested in renting space in a huge tower in Lower Manhattan.

But, this is the Freedom Tower! Companies, like working-class stiffs who shopped to support the war, should put their bottom-line aside and be patriotic and support he Freedom Tower! Right?

Wrong!

Merrill Lynch has withdrawn from negotiations to relocate to the Freedom Tower.

After bargaining for months over tens of millions of dollars in concessions and tax breaks for a 71-story tower, Merrill said that it and its negotiation partners were "too far apart to continue the process," according to the Times.

Merrill Lynch ends World Trade Center talks-report

So, it's patriotic to support the stupid Freedom Tower only if you get tens of millions of dollars in concessions and tax breaks! But, if it's going to be good for American AND cost money, then Merrill Lynch can't be bothered!

Now that's patriotic!

In the end, perhaps Merrill's pull-out will be a wake-up call. The World Trade Centers that were taken down in the crimes of September 11, 2001, were albatrosses. They were relics of a past age when energy was cheap, and time and money were more plentiful.

Nobody in America is building like this anymore because there is no demand and it is grossly wasteful.

Perhaps we could go back to the drawing-board and design some buildings based on need and economy and environment and cost; buildings that are needed and can be afforded.

Don't hold your breath!

What? Aren't you a patriot?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Ground Zero?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, asked the United States Secret Service to arrange a visit to Ground Zero and lay a wreath while he is in New York City to address the United Nations.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said a visit to ground zero "is a matter for the city of New York, but it seems more than odd that the president of a country that is a state sponsor of terror would visit ground zero."

Yet, we let allow the current president of the United States visit Ground Zero and he has turned this country into a state sponsor of terror. Why the double standard?

And so what if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would use it for his own political ends. Rudy Giuliani does it all the time and he has no more right to exploit Ground Zero than anyone. Exploitation of the crimes committed on September 11, 2001, is vulgar. What more could we expect from George Bush, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Rudy Giuliani?

I don't want Ahmadinejad at Ground Zero, but not because of some bogus reason like 'state-sponsored terrorism' (as if there is another kind), or political opportunism. I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be prevented from laying a wreath at Ground Zero because I am convinced he would then say that the wreath is a memorial to the hijackers, not the victims of their crimes. And that would be the most vulgar exploitation of Ground Zero.



Dick Mac Recommends:

America Alone
Stefan Halper, Jonathan Clarke