A couple of articles you may want to check out from Stratfor -- this one on the destabilizing effects on various regimes within the Middle East; and this one focusing on Jordan. Will the invasion cause the downfall of those governments who support the US intervention?
| War | Jordan | Middle East |
I've been looking high and low for great art in my adopted city, Washington, DC. Notwithstanding the Smithsonian's fabulous collections I have seen little in Washington's galleries and theaters that is new, exciting, or provocative. New York has a monopoly on all that. But there is art here. Indeed, there is art so great that it reveals the high art of the New York scene for what it really is: narcissistic and irrelevant child's play for the decadent and self-absorbed. The art that goes on in Washington, DC, the art that this city produces countless times every single day, is an art of power. More specifically, it is a representation and affirmation of American hegemony. In function it is akin to monumental government architecture everywhere, or to David's tableaux of the Revolution and Napoléon, or, better still, the court ritual of Louis XIV. Yet in form it is distinctly modern and eminently American. It is the government press conference.
Read more at Zeek.
| Art |
Matt F-B suggested I check out his friend Judith's blog, calamondin. I do, too.
|
I have a pic up at The Mirror Project.
| Photography |
So I've posted a number of readings and essays about Iraq -- both pro- and anti-invasion -- but have not as of yet written anything myself. So here goes:
* It's illogical to assume that invasion and appeasement are the only options.
For 50 years, we've permitted the continued existence of various despots and dictators. We've permitted other countries to possess nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. We've been able to do this because of our military superiority, and our nuclear arsenal. Generally put, most nations would not think of attacking us (or our formal allies) for fear that we would lay waste to their country. To do so would be suicide for a non-nuclear state, and mutually assured destruction for a nuclear state.
This is why, although North Korea is also part of the "Axis of Evil" club, we're not going to be invading them any time soon: they've got the bomb. See this article in Stratfor: Rumsfeld Indicates Nuclear Status Key to Pre-Emption Policy.
Rather than decry any non-invasion option as "appeasement", we should take a hard look at our policy of containment and deterrence. Why, in the case of Iraq, won't it work? And, if we want to force Iraq to disarm, is invasion the only option?
* "But the September 11th attacks change everything."
Well, no they don't. In the case of an attack by a foreign state, the response is quite simple: we go to war. We attack their military, bomb their capitol, etc. A terrorist attack is different because there's no target for us to hit. After 9/11, attacking the Taliban, as the sponsor of bin Laden, was our best military option. (That's leaving aside intelligence/police options and diplomatic options.) But we were not attacked by Iraq. Nor is there any evidence that they were behind the September 11th attacks. (Other than a hatred of the United States, bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have very different goals. I'm sure bin Laden (if he's still alive, that is) would like very much to see Hussein overthrown and a fundamentalist regime put in his place.)
* A war on Iraq is not a war against terrorism.
Let me be clear: Iraq has supported terrorists -- SH gives money to the families of Palestinian terrorists after they've murdered Israeli civilians. But attacking Iraq won't help us in our fight against Al Qaeda. If we were really going to fight a war on terrorism with conventional warfare, we would invade that fundamentalist, despotic regime that we actually know supported Al Qaeda. No, I don't mean Iran, I'm talking about our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
Again and again, the Bush Administration has tried to link Iraq to 9/11. Take what Dick Cheney said on "Meet the Press":
You know, this will take some time, but it's important for us, as I mentioned earlier, to remember that the world has changed. . . . What we found on September 11 is that the danger now is an attack that's launched from within the United States itself, not from some foreign territory, as happened with respect to the hijackers on 9/11. Also that, in this particular case, it was backed up by a cell, terrorist cell, operating in Hamburg, Germany. You have to completely recalibrate your thinking in terms of how you deal with that. Now, if you start with that as background, then you deal with Saddam Hussein and his 11 years, now, since 1991, since the end of the war, his refusal to comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions. If you look at the extent to which he has aggressively sought to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, over the years, the fact that he has previously used them-he used chemical weapons both against the Kurds and against the Iranians during the 1980s-the fact that he has twice invaded his neighbors. He's launched ballistic missiles against four of his neighbors over the years. There's a pattern and a track record there that one has to be concerned about.If you read the whole of it, you'll see that Cheney juxtaposes "9/11", "WMD," and "Iraq", without saying there's a causal link. It plays on our fears pretty effectively. "We're at risk of terrorist attack -- a chemical / biological attack would be awful -- Iraq has chemical weapons -- therefore Iraq will launch a terrorist attack against us using WMD." It's that last step that doesn't make sense. Because SH knows that if he attacks us, we'll level Bagdahd. Thos. Friedman recently argued in the Times that Hussein is deterrable because he loves life more than he hates us, but that Friedman really fears those who hate us more than they love life. A fanatic is undeterrable.
* "But Saddam is a despot and a menace to his own people."
Forgive me if I sound like an isolationist. I'm not a Kurd, or a Kuwaiti, or an Iraqi. Saddam Hussein doesn't make me lose sleep at night. Terrorists do. Perhaps it's different for those of us who lived through the attacks, who live with the very real possibility that it could happen, here, again. Frankly, if war on Iraq somehow keeps us from catching these guys -- because we're focused on toppling Hussein instead of uncovering the terrorist threat -- or worse, if an invasion encourages more fanatics to attack us, then I'm dead set against it.
Quite simply, I believe that Bush's people have planned to hit Iraq from the day he took office. Here's an article from CBS News:
[On 9/11/01], with the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." - meaning Saddam Hussein - "at same time. Not only UBL" - the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.Now we are faced with a war we don't know how to fight, the war against terrorism. How much easier it is for W and Co. to focus on a good old-fashioned war.Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
* Why it's stupid to announce "regime change" as your policy.
We may seriously wish for Saddam to go away. We may want a moderate goverment, or one we control, in place. But to announce "regime change" as our policy is strategically dumb. Why? Because it means that Saddam has nothing to lose. If he believes that we're going after him personally, then why the hell not attack us, or Israel or Turkey or any of our allies? Even if we take him down, well, he was going down anyway.
(I think we made the same mistake with Arafat, as ruthless and untrustworthy as he is, but that's another topic.)
That's why a UN resolution makes sense. In effect, we are saying, "Do X, Y, and Z, or you're going into the dustbin of history." A policy of regime change says, "We don't care what you do; we're going to kill you no matter what." Under sufficent threat, Saddam will toe the line. Which would we rather have: a cowed dictator who disarms under the threat of our military, or a dictator who thinks he's got nothing to lose and wants to be seen as a hero to the Arab world? The only way "regime change" makes sense as an announced policy is if we use it as a signal to anti-Hussein factions within Iraq. This is wishful thinking. (Read the following piece from Stratfor: Iraqi Overthrow of Hussein Attractive for U.S., but Unrealistic.)
So do we really want a disarmed Iraq? Then I repeat what Prof. Watkins wrote:
Why doesn't it make sense to run with Iraq's capitulation to unconditional inspections and put them to the test? Precisely why is it necessary to get a new resolution? If the inspectors go in and are blocked in any way, what more justification for international action could possibly be required?
I'm half-hoping that Bush & Co. are engaging in some clever gunboat diplomacy; that the buildup of armies, the war rhetoric and saber rattling, are really there to convince Saddam that we mean business, this time. For this to work, though, we'd need the UN to play "good cop" to our "bad cop". ("You really don't want to mess with my buddy George over there -- he's had it in for you ever since your fight with his pappy. Why not co-operate with me and make it easy on yourself?") I'm not sure if this will come to pass. The question is, are we boxed into a corner where the only option is to invade? And is Iraq boxed into a corner where their only option is to attack?
I suggest you read this post over at William Burton's blog, which is far more thought out than mine (found on Objectionable Content; see also Jim's response there). Also of note, this piece over at the Libertarian Samizdata, which doesn't really bolster my position, but which sums up the strategic conundrum rather nicely:
"Wait and the threat will grow; strike and the threat may be used."
| War | Terrorism | WMD | Saddam Hussein | Donald Rumsfeld |
|
Park Slope, Brooklyn. Taken with pencam.
| Graffiti | New York City |
He's The Homeless Guy, and he's got a blog.
|
I'm a good New York Jew... I know from gefilte fish, bar mitzvahs, and getting good grades. But not a whole Gehenna of a lot about Christian fundamentalism. So I was a bit surprised when I did a little Google search on "No Child Left Behind," our esteemed President's education initiative. Seems the term "Left Behind" refers to "those poor souls who don't go to Heaven when Jesus returns."
Can Bush really guarantee that teaching kids to read will save their souls? If so, maybe he has a Jewish mother after all.
| Education | Religion |
Some time ago, I raised the possibility of importing my Netflix queue directly to my blog. Trip, my amigo, webmaster, and code mentor, went and wrote the script to do it. So now, if you're so inclined, you can see the latest 10 movies in our queue. If you're really interested, the next 100 are over in the new movie section of the site, which also features archived posts and film-related links. (Link suggestions welcome). The script is in beta release, but if you're interested in using this on your own blog, get in touch with Trip and I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige.
Rec'd this from my negotiations prof. at Harvard, Mike Watkins. Worth reprinting in full. Updated 10/8/02:
Is the Bush Administration sensibly committed to reining in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or is it over-committed to the destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime regardless of the cost? As machinations continue at the UN and preparations for a Is the Bush administration willing to take "yes" for an answer on inspections? Or is this all window dressing on the rocky road to regime change?
| Iraq | WMD | War | Wadministration | George W. Bush |
Well, no, not really. But almost. "FX announced yesterday it has bought a TV series in which it gets to select a candidate for the 2004 presidential election." Yup. Reality TV, meet Presidential Politics.
I'm speechless.
Thanks to Ennis for the story.
| 2004 Election |
Check out this cool article by Sarah, chronicling our recent canoe trip and the glories of New Hampshire's waterways. And don't miss the photo of the handsome devil in the PFD.
BY JOHN MOE
- - - -
How Are We Going to Get These Dogs Back In?
Bust an Additional Move
Seriously, Eileen, Come On
(Won't You Give Me A Ride Home From) Funkytown?
Remember When You Lit up My Life? That Was Great
I Will Now Pass the Dutchie Back to You and Thank You for Passing It to Me Originally Because I Really Enjoyed the Dutchie
The Morning That the Lights Came Back on in Georgia
Everybody Was Kung Fu Making Up
Achier Breakier Heart
Whoomp! There It Continues to Be
867-5309 extension 2
We Never Took It and Persist in Our Refusal to Take It
From McSweeney's, found on Two Blocks From The River.
Who says you can’t get free music any more? Ladytron, a throwback to (or ripoff of, if you prefer) the good old days of analog synthesizers has put out their new album and their label is letting the whole thing stream to you, the listener. Of course, it’s in MP4, so you have to have Apple’s QuickTime 6 to listen. And I am quite sure there's some way to download it or to rip it as you listen. (big ups to the fabulous K10K)
|
Arrrr!
(Yo ho ho and some pieces of eight to Liz for telling me.)
|
I just made my first Ish post via my Palm, thanks to the excellent AvantBlog. All you need is AvantGo. Cool!
| PDAs |
Hurrying through the subway at rush hour is hard enough without having to dodge the religious types. At Times Square, on my way to the shuttle, a man looked at me and asked, "Excuse me, do you speak English?" It's a classic con tactic: appear to be asking for help, and someone might stop. I'd fallen for the same line right outside my house, so I knew this guy was a Hare Krishna. His hair was a dead giveaway. Soon he'd be asking me if I'd ever met a monk before, pressing some texts into my hands, and then asking for a substantial donation for same. No thanks, bub. I sidestepped him, only to walk through an argument about God. I couldn't tell which was the commuter and which was the proselytizer, but I was glad I was neither.
Grand Central was no more secular. The tunnel from the shuttle was filled with born-agains. There seems to be more of these eager young Christians, handing out cookies and ads for their C-rock concerts, since 9/11. There were several huddled in an intense-looking prayer circle. They had babies with them, crawling around on blankets. They unsuccessfully tried to give me a leaflet.
At the end of running that gauntlet were three folks dressed in white, handing out pamphlets. Clearly I was not the first commuter to lump them in with the religious marketeers. With a weary voice, one of them announced: "U.S. Open schedules. That's all it is, just U.S. Open schedules..."
| Tennis | Sports | Subway | New York City |
How very odd. If you'll excuse me, I'll abuse my posting priveleges to engage in some traditional blogging. Apparently, monday night somebody left me a voicemail message. A very strange and wonderful voicemail message. It's a woman, singing the Nat King Cole song that goes "L is for the way you look at me, O is for ... "; (the song proceeds to spell out "LOVE"). It's really a wonderful movie moment, much better than the one of John Cusak playing Lloyd Dobbler holding up the boombox playing "In your eyes" in Say Anything EXCEPT ....
I'm really quite sure that this was a wrong number. She didn't leave a callback number, or a name. I don't recognize the voice, and there's nobody who I'm involved with right now. If I have a secret admirer, she's very very secret. It's very strange - to have what would be for me a perfect romantic moment, but it's entirely misplaced. It's like the fortune cookie I received the other day, which said "Your lover will never leave you" (insert joke about amputation here). Why can't I get such fortunes when I'm not SINGLE ! As for the mysterious message, now that BreakupGirl has retired, I don't know who to call. Maybe that psychic from Crossing Over ? Or the Jamaican woman who used to do the psychic ads, but who has mysteriously vanished.
Any ideas ? This is almost a sub-plot from Sex in the City (When Charlotte, feeling very very alone receives a romantic gesture from a mysterious stranger only to find out it wasn't intended for her) or a plot device for a horrible 80s movie (in which I think I figure out who it is, and fall in love with that person only to find out that she didn't send it in the first place, but that doesn't matter any more).
[Lyrics follow -- she sang the entire song. I'm tempted to take out an ad on the back of the Voice or the Boston Pheonix just b/c it fits perfectly. Imagine somebody belting this out in classic musical theater, brassy, Ethel Merman style:]
[L] is for the way you look at me
[O] is for the only one I see
[V] is very, very extraordinary
[E] is even more than anyone that you adore
Love is all
That I can give to you
Love is more
Than just a game for two
Two in love can make it
Take my heart
And please don't break it
Love was made
For me and you
|
First, let's dispense with calling it anything but a war. For people who are planning to kill thousands, to have (possibly) thousands of our soldiers, sailors, pilots, and Marines killed, regime change
Two quick items, one funny, the other much less so.
| Iraq |
Clint wrote the following and asked me to post it:
Saddam's history of aggression and mass murder indicate that he WILL repeat himself if given the opportunity to arm himself with CBR weapons and if the world community, especially the US, permits his doing so by inaction and bleatings of appeasement. Eliminating him will demonstrate to the rest of the Middle East that there are limits to our tolerance for credible threat, and can only lead to long range stability in the whole region.
I wonder how many realize that regime change has been OFFICIAL US POLICY since 1998 when the Congress (Senate unanimously) voted for the Iraq Liberation Act. The idea was to do it through exiles, not US military, but they acknowledged the severe threat and the need to get rid of Saddam.
So, 4 years later, that method has failed (partly because of infiltration and assassinations by Saddam's people) and Saddam has continued to build his weapons of mass destruction including progress toward nuclear weapons. The UN has regularly passed resolutions declaring Iraq to be a growing threat, but has failed to enforce those resolutions.
Appeasement and other "intellectual" rationalizations to avoid reality exist among some. What will overcome, in fact IS overcoming, the quite natural desire to settle all things without violence, is leadership by the President. He, too, would like to have Iraq disarm peacefully and prove it has done so -- Bush has said that. A history of Iraq's violations of 16 mandatory Security Council Resolutions does lead realistic people to be ready to take military action, even while giving Saddam yet another chance to disarm.
This is not "warmongering" or "beating the war drums." It is the totally realistic conclusion that SOMETHING has to be done with this outlaw nation and that what's already been attempted is a colossal failure.
The whining, sniveling critics are pulling out all stops, even as their numbers dwindle in the face of the facts. First, they said that Bush (who had not said he would take unilateral action) had to go to the UN and to Congress. Bush happily agreed to do so.
Now, the dems are whining about a vote before the elections and saying Bush is playing politics. THEY asked for the great debate and demanded Bush go to Congress. They underestimated Bush and now they grumble, mutter and whine.
"Intellectuals" on the left are floating the objection that Iran is more dangerous and we are after the wrong target in Iraq. Does anyone believe that these same people would support Bush if he decided to go after Iran instead??? Then we hear the really stupid argument that it's OK for Iraq to have nukes because other countries have nukes (sorta like saying in the 30s that it was OK for Hitler to rebuild an army because other countries have armies).
One of the latest inanities is "Why now?" The answer lies in an estimate of how far along Saddam is in his weapons programs and the military necessity of fighting a war (if we must) during the Nov-Feb time period. If we won't act now, it'll be at least another year. Another part of the answer to that question is "Why not now?" Saddam has had all these years and all these UN resolutions wherein he agreed to disarm -- and he's done everything he can to INCREASE his mass destruction capability. Too much time has been wasted already.
Then, we have the same old screeches about casualties that we heard before the Gulf War and before Afghanistan and even before Serbia/Kosovo. Yes, there will be casualties, but there will be greater ones if someone doesn't stop Saddam. We, compared to 1991, are much stronger and Iraq is much weaker. For example, then we were only able to use smart bombs in about 8% (or less) of our attacks. Today, we've upped that 9 or 10 fold. We've had all these years to target Iraq and many flying hours above Iraq. In fact, much of Iraq is not under Saddam's control.
The arguments against forcing Iraq to disarm -- which requires the meaningful threat of military action -- are typically fatuous and emanate from the politically motivated, the true (always) anti-war people, the faint hearted, the anti-Americans and the treasonous.
| Iraq | War | WMD | Saddam Hussein |
At the risk of turning some sacred cows into prime rib, what are the chances that this year on the day before Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, that Ariel Sharon turned to Arafat and said “You know, we’re both really being assholes about this whole thing. Let’s be men of courage, men of real principle, men whom History will be proud to show the Future, and say, ‘These are my people.’ ” ?
I’d say just about nil, but maybe next year I will be proven wrong.
| Arafat | Sharon |
An Ishbadiddler (ok, it’s me) is one of the Honourable Mentions in ConsolationChamps’ CSS haiku contest!
According to this news article, the three medical students in Florida who were the focus of the recent terrorism scare, have just been turned away from the hospital they were going to. The head of the hospital said that he'd find somewhere else for them to train. He also talks about the 200+ threatening emails, but said that's not a factor in his decision, rather that undue media attention would make it hard for his hospital to function. Meanwhile, the major muslim civil-liberties group is threatening to sue if this isn't settled easily.
Now I have no idea what was said amongst themselves on the drive down, and what was (mis) heard, but I really worry for myself. I'm not sure whether to cop an attitude and demand respect when I go outside of the safe zone, or whether I should adopt a stepin' fetchin demeanor. I do a bit of both - I smile broadly, and make sure people hear my accent, and act very very friendly. I'm thinking of adopting a white buddy to travel with when I get out and about, somebody to vouch for me. Or perhaps travelling with a placard around my neck as a bit of political theater. I'm really not sure any more. I just don't think this makes us any safer -- the bad guys are multi-racial, and concentrating on brown people will bring up more false positives than true ones, so is this really a good use of our resources or are we merely trying to make people feel better while avoiding real substantive changes in how we do things ?
| Profiling | War on Terror | Civil Liberties | Race & Ethnicity |
It's funny - I've never had any fear of flying. Being in the air doesn't feel unstable to me. Nor am I afraid of accidents; I feel far more unsafe on the road than I do in a plane. 9/11 did little to change this. I think I was actually on one of the planes the night before -- I flew into Boston From SF on American Airlines the night before and arrived in Boston at 1 AM on the morning of the 11th.
No - what I'm afraid of is my fellow passengers and their ability to act out their paranoid fantasies upon me. For 4 months after 9/11 I basically dropped all of my dissertation work to focus on political activism and make sure that the new security regime would be one that would keep me safe from terrorism and still allow me to fly. And the few times I have flown since 9/11 I've been basically OK. I received unprofessional treatment while being searched, but I wasn't denied permission to board. But with the drum of war being beaten relentlessly, I think alot of the work that we did is beginning to unravel.
Two men of indian origin were arrested for `suspicious' behavior while flying recently . The authorities have openly stated that they have no connection to Al-Queda or any terrorist cells in the US; ironically they are non-observant (clean-shaven, non-turban wearing) Sikhs.
Since they didn't do anything criminal, and they aren't connected to terrorism, why aren't they being released ? Would their behavior have been considered odd coming from somebody who was not brown, but white ? What's the other side of the story ? Passenger accounts make clear that they were suspicious of these men from the beginning -- so perhaps their behavior had nothing to do with their arrest. Similarly, why were two other men arrested when the plane landed - including one Latino man. And why is there so little coverage of this incident ?
I understand the need for vigilance, but am concerned that now people can be jailed for a long time for simply `appearing suspicious' to others. Perhaps they should have responded to the flight attendent's request with greater alacrity - without hearing the whole story I can't tell. But I worry that our civil-liberties have been completely discarded when people who have done nothing, and who have no ties whatsoever to enemies of the state, can be detained, tried and jailed for a long time.
| Airplanes | Security | Profiling | Race & Ethnicity |
I also research, interview, and produce audio and digital video for the trees. Specifically, I just made an audiovisual program about people's relationship with trees in Prospect Park for the Prospect Park Alliance, and I'm taking this self-promotional moment to invite all the New Yorkers out there to walk, bike, or subway over to the Grand Army Plaza Arch in Brooklyn to see it. The program is part of an art exhibit inside the Arch, called In the Spirit of the Trees. See tough city trees struggle with power lines and baseball bats! Get the inside info on Prospect Park's arboreal beauty spots! Hear from a guy who's always going out on a limb--literally! The show's on every weekend through October 27th, with an opening reception TONIGHT from 6 to 8 pm. (Bonus for you roof access fiends: You'll also get to take in the majestic view of central Brooklyn from the roof of the Arch, which you can almost never do since the inside is usually closed!) See prospectpark.org for gallery hours and directions.
| Multimedia | Brooklyn | New York City | Prospect Park |
Quite a while ago, I posted about some naughty habits that Windows Media Player had w/r/t reporting your audiophilic behavior back to the folks in Redmond.
Now it seems that there’s a new issue with WMP, this time with the latest version of the ultimate sticky product: On Windows ME and XP, you canna uninstall WMP 9 without rolling back your entire OS to the state it was in before you installed it. Any other software that you install after it would therefore be wiped out also. “We tried to make this clear on the download page, ” said Microsoft’s flack. Read all about it at News.com.
| Microsoft | Windows |
This is completely insane. Why do we wonder why NATO's having a tough time with the war against Iraq? Or is that one of the unknown unknowns? Read on...
"It's like he's so far right, he's turned into Michel Foucault. Operation Containment of the Other."
(speaking at a news conference re speech to nato about iraq)
There are no knowns.There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.
So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns.And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.
| Language |
50 Reasons Lord of the Rings Sucks. Found on Angela Gunn's blog.
| Lists |
Lileks writes a letter to himself of a year ago.
| Essays |
September 11, 2002
Dear Ben:
You're only just over a year old now, and can't read this. But someday you will. And someday you'll understand what I'm trying to tell you, about last year, about September 11th.
It all happened so soon after you were born -- the day before you turned one month old. None of us will forget that day, although you were too little then to remember it now.
I had taken that first month off from work, while we all got to know each other, your mom and me and you. You were very small then and I would sing and dance around the living room with you until you fell asleep on my shoulder. You liked Paul Simon (the "mamma pajamma" song) and the Red Clay Ramblers (the "Queen of Skye"). You liked looking out the window at the traffic and the birds and the sky. You slept and ate a lot.
So September 11th was going to be my first day back at work, after spending all that time being with you and watching you sleep and holding you. I got on the subway like I usually do. But the train stopped between Brooklyn and Manhattan. The train stopped, everything stopped, because something terrible had happened at the World Trade Center.
When I was a boy (younger than you are now), and your grandpa lived in New York City, he and I and your Aunt Susie visited the World Trade Center towers together. We were so high up we were looking down on the Statue of Liberty. At that time they were the tallest buildings in the world. They were so tall that you could see them from anywhere in the city. When your mom and I came to live in New York ourselves, we could always find our way by looking to see where the towers were. They were huge, they were beautiful, and they were so much part of the skyline that we usually forgot about them.
But on that morning, while I was going back to work, some very bad men, some evil men, took control of two planes. They flew these planes into the two towers of the World Trade Center. The planes blew up. The towers fell down. Many people made it out, but a lot of people died that day.
I don't need to tell you everything that happened. You probably study it in history class now. But I want to tell you what I learned, because I lived through it.
It's not easy to explain. There are bad people in the world, Ben. There are people who believe that God wants them to kill other people. Some of them are sick and don't know what they are doing. And some of them know what they're doing, but they've convinced themselves that doing terrible things is somehow good.
They're wrong, Ben. There's no good reason for what those men did. God doesn't want us to kill each other. Maybe by the time you're reading this, everyone will have figured that out, and people won't kill each other over religion or land or oil. I hope so.
But I don't want you to be afraid. That's what they wanted, for us to be afraid, to feel alone and vulnerable. But instead of being afraid and alone, we helped each other. Let me tell you what I did, and what I tried to do.
When we were stuck on the train, some smoke started coming into the subway car. Some people got very nervous and upset, but I was very calm. I knew that I was going to see you and Mom again. I knew that I had to keep a clear head, to be ready for whatever was going to come. I took off my tie and wrapped it around my head so I wouldn't breathe so much smoke. And in a calm but loud voice, I suggested that everyone sit down, because smoke rises, and put something over their mouth if they could. And some of them did.
When they finally got the train into Manhattan, the station was full of smoke. Everyone was trying to get out at the same time. I saw that one of the stairwells was empty. "There's more stairs over here!" I shouted. So some people took those stairs, which was safer than if we had all tried to use the same stairway.
When we finally got outside, the air was full of smoke and ashes. It wasn't easy to breathe, even with my tie around my face. I saw a bagel cart, abandoned on the street, and stopped to look inside. Maybe there were some napkins, and I could give them to people to breathe through. I couldn't find any, so I moved on. (Later, they were giving out masks at a hospital on the way to the bridge, so that was all right.)
I don't mean to brag about this stuff; I haven't even told anyone before now. Your dad is not a hero. I didn't rush into any burning buildings to save people. I didn't labor at Ground Zero with the rescue workers. I just tried to do the right thing, and help other people out as best I could. That's what we all did. When I got off the bridge, there were postal workers handing out water. When I got home to you and Mom, we put up a friend who was stranded. In the days after September 11th, we worked to collect and sort relief supplies at the Community Book Store on our block, which turned itself into a volunteer center.
Everyone has stories like this -- 8 million of us New Yorkers -- about how we helped someone, or someone helped us. After we'd been shown what terrible things a few people could do, it was wonderful to see that a lot of people could do a lot of good things, too.
I guess that's what I want to tell you about what happened last year. I can't make sense of why people do evil things. I can't tell you that there was a reason why all those people had to die that morning, and it's hard to accept that there was no reason at all. But what I can tell you is this: in life, you'll face a lot of crises. Some of them small, some of them big, and hopefully none as catastrophic as the attacks of 2001. But there will be times when you're not sure of what to do. My advice is this: Stay calm -- whatever is going to happen, is going to happen. And try to do the right thing. If you're not sure what the right thing is, try helping someone out.
There's so much more I want to tell you, and I hope when you're ready you'll ask me about it, and I hope that I have answers. And I hope you'll remember my story, and my advice, when there's confusion all around you. I know you'll do the right thing, son.
-- Dad
| WTC | 9/11 | New York City | Ground Zero | Ben |
Dave Barry on Flight 93. Via LGF.
| Essays |
