Saturday, July 30, 2011

America Goes to Rehab

Amy Winehouse is dead and buried. Though I liked her singing, I honestly hadn't thought about her since a couple days after her death, until I saw one of those cut and paste Facebook status's decrying the degree of attention paid to her death versus the deaths of Marines in Aghanistan. If you're on FB, you know the drill. If it weren't Amy Winehouse it would  be Lindsay Lohan's legal troubles. I can't cut and paste and I've yet to see a canned status that made me want to learn.

I know their intentions are well meant. I'm just not sure what their intentions are.

Do they want the wars to end? Do they want celebrities to end? Do they want dead Marines to have celebrity status?

I don't know. These status updates seem to transcend party lines. I've gotten them from democrats and from some of the reichest republicans I know. Neither side are in favor of dead Marines and both seem to be not in favor of Lohan and Winehouse but, I suspect they are trying to say something else.

This is not  Sparta. We're not a Warrior Nation even though we do tend to fight a lot and have DOZENS of wars going on right now (according to the republicans...) Though we have men and women fighting and dying overseas,  these kids are not in the forefront of our collective 300+ million minds. Winehouse is no longer in the forefront of those millions of minds either. Damn, we are a fickle bunch! I bet that after the republicans collapse the economy, people won't care about that anymore either.

The thing is, whether it is war or celebrity, life goes on. We've always had both. People being aware of the death of Amy Winehouse does not trivialize the deaths of Marines in Afghanistan. Posting on Facebook about the unfairness of  it all does trivialize it.

Make this your status if you agree....

8 comments:

Maggie said...

Is that last line Facebook talk?

There is a place for everything. It really is rather sad, though, about all the Amys in the spotlight who fall apart before us and not a damn thing we can do about it.

I really don't know why we seem to care more about one drugged out singer over dead kids who thought they were invincible.

Maggie said...

Gosh darn it, I wrote a long comment that was pretty good, but wasn't signed in, so my comment went bye-bye.

Gist... I have no idea why we seem to care more about a drugged out singer over kids who think they are invincible.

Is that last line FB talk?

ex-ferrer said...

Yep, that's FB talk. Lots of well-meaning people do it but it also tends to be deflection from the right. Very disingenuous. Amy or Linsay aren't distracting people from the war who weren't already distracted anyway. It's like people who decry *big government* spending *their tax dollars* on "Brazilian Bat Studies" so they want to end programs that feed poor children.

Sue J said...

War does seem to be big business for America. When Dubbya declared war on Iraq I was amazed to learn that the US had been involved in 76 *interventions* around the world since the end of WW2. There's big money to be made in wars.
I remember waking up one morning to hear that the US had invaded pissy little Granada in the Caribbean. What had they done to deserve an invasion?? Oh yes, they thought they could run their own country and might be leaning towards communism.
I don't do FB.

Sue J said...

War does seem to be big business for America. When Dubbya declared war on Iraq I was amazed to learn that the US had been involved in 76 *interventions* around the world since the end of WW2. There's big money to be made in wars.
I remember waking up one morning to hear that the US had invaded pissy little Granada in the Caribbean. What had they done to deserve an invasion?? Oh yes, they thought they could run their own country and might be leaning towards communism.
I don't do FB.

ex-ferrer said...

Google Smedley Butler, Sue. A two-time Congressional Medal of Honor Marine hero, he knew he had been nothing much more than a *thug for Wall Street*. He was once asked to lead a coup of America to oust FDR from office.

Sue J said...

I did. Very interesting. I remember when the war on Iraq was being debated - before it started - one of the top guys from Vietnam (retired - I forget his name) was interviewed and he said it would never succeed. The Brits had tried it and the French, and they'd been nickled and dimed out of the place.
I still don't know why the US and OZ are in Afghanistan. I know they would like us to believe it's all about Al Qaida, but I'm almost sure they were in there before 9/11. I remember a discussion with my husband (around June 2001) about it and I remarked that there must be oil there. I'm sure if it was after 9/11 we would've connected the dots.

ex-ferrer said...

No oil, just poppies. In '02, Bin Laden and Al Qaida were there and it was the place for us to be after 9/11 but, not now. A young soldier said it best when he compared it to fighting in 'Bible times'. Iraq was a money-maker for Haliburton/KBR and others as there was much rebuilding to do. Nothing to be re-built in Afghanistan. We're fighting the same guys we backed against the Russians and learned NOTHING from their loss there or ours in VietNam. Past is prolouge.