[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: The decade that was and wasn't (click to view)
Date: September 11, 2011
The other day, on a somewhat ghoulish whim, I decided to tour this cemetery near my house. My God. Have you been to one lately? Doe-eyed teddy bears and lawn flamingos. Sports pendants and Hotwheels cars. Enormous stones emblazoned with photos, clip art, embarrassing nicknames, and corny in-jokes. Awful, awful poetry. The sort of gauche cheesiness once exclusively reserved for roadside memorials for pretty sophomores killed by drunk drivers is now standard-fare for tombs of all ages.

Obviously, grief can pour out of us with an intensity that is not always easy to moderate or censor, especially in the aftermath of a genuinely unexpected tragedy.  A friend of mine died in a car crash a few years ago, and I have to cringe when remembering some of the cloying things said at his funeral; not because the motivation was in any way disingenuous, but because grief can make us lose our dignity in a way that’s almost borderline disrespectful to the departed.

It’s for this reason that I’ve had a hard time stomaching the round-the-clock 9-11 memorializing that has dominated all forms of news media not only this weekend, but at least the entire previous week as well. Flashy montages of falling rebar, dust clouds, and Mayor Giuliani set against Sarah McLachlan's warbling tones. Meandering, pointless editorials with nothing to say, but still professing to chronicle "all we've learned." Extreme close-ups of tear-stained faces on 60 Minutes, again. President Bush yelling out of that megaphone, again.

David Brooks wrote a good thing in the New York Times the other day, in which he contrasted the grandiosity of this decennial with the 10-year anniversary of Pearl Harbor in 1951. It was not much of a big deal, David Brooks said. By 1951 America had not only long won World War II, but was close to winning a new war in Korea, too. Pearl Harbor was relevant for the families of the victims, but had lost its emotional standing within the larger American zeitgeist. Everyone had moved on.

Away from all the day-long chat shows and pull-out weekend supplements, the actual Ground Zero commemorations were tasteful and dignified, though I understand this was a rare exception to an otherwise troubling trend. On August 31, the Village Voice ran a striking expose of what they dubbed New York's "memorial-industrial complex,"  the vast network of architects, businessmen, politicians, lawyers, bureaucrats, charity workers, and even victims' families and first respondents who have exploited the aftermath of the tragedy to enrich themselves through various schemes to keep the grief forever raw. 85 books about 9-11 will be published in the next nine months. The September 11 memorial museum will cost almost six times as much as the one that commemorates World War II (if it ever gets finished, of course). There are enough multi-million dollar "charity foundations" to buy several new WTCs by now, but of course that hasn't been done yet, either.

The same compulsions of greed, stagnation, corruption, and ineptitude are obviously involved in perpetuating America's other complex — the military-industrial one — that has been the other legacy of 2001. It's absurd to argue that Afghanistan is somehow the most difficult and complicated war America has ever fought in her 235-year history, yet it will now hold that status — by choice, not fact — for decades to come. And then there's Iraq, the proud recipient of all sorts of New York-style scams and hustles, care of unaccountable contrators, crooked politicians, and various international men of mystery. Were they good wars or bad wars? That doesn't seem to be the point anymore.

I was 17 on 9-11, and have matured in an age in which the idea that America (or the West, for that matter) simply cannot win wars within a single generation or protect its people without engaging in endless, cast-of-thousands, budgets-of-billions, decades-long "projects" of unclear objective and uncertain consequence forms the mainstream consensus of our time. It hasn't been fun, but luckily it kind of washes over you like a cool breeze after a while.

I used to think that 9-11 changed everything, and resented it for doing so, but I'm less sure today. A more accurate catch-phrase might be that it "exposed everything." Exposed our vulnerability, sure, but also our hysteria, naiveté, myopic mawkishness, and general bureaucratic ineptitude for solving large problems in a rational and mature way. It exposed many good things too, and watching all of yesterday's much-hyped documentaries on the big networks, it was comforting to be reminded that there is a spirit of selfless heroism and strength that can still be summoned from the hearts of so many, even in this selfish and indifferent age. But the very fact that we are moved so tremendously by such things, and feel the need to endlessly celebrate them in such a mushy, sycophantic, pink-flamingos-on-a-tombstone way, exposes something about our own insecurities and failings that's more than a little unsettling.

More than flowers and books and museums and memorials and charities and speeches and songs and TV specials, I imagine the victims of 9-11 just wanted to finish living their lives in a world where every year was a little bit better than the one that came prior. We haven't been able to fulfill that modest objective, of course, because it's a goal that requires more than symbolism, more than slogans, and more than sympathy. It requires actual sacrifice, actual creativity, and actual leadership.

It requires more, in short, than we've shown we possess.

[Macguyver]

I was sort of sick to see all the 10-year 9-11 hype. I watched one show on CNBC about this guy who defrauded the Red Cross out of a couple hundred thousand bucks claiming his gay partner had died in the WTC attack. Apparently this guy never really existed. And they went on about people cashing in on tragedy, how distasteful these people were....Then they broke to a commercial for Tide and some Miracle Bra 2 minute infomercial amongst other things. I was a little sick to my stomach so I changed the channel.

We did watch a great documentary Saturday on the FEMA photographer who was given full access to the site immediately after the attack. That was a gooder...she tracked down people that she had photographed to get their 10-year perspectives.

I'm not sure if it was the same show or another, but they interviewed Rumsfeld and showed shots of him helping the wounded at the Pentagon (actually carrying a stretcher) and Condoleezza Rice who has an awkward way about laughing about people dying and even though I have great distain for that woman I gave her a pass because I could tell that sort of discussion made her uncomfortable, and laughing and smiling about it was in my mind, just her unconscious way of dealing with it. I like the part when she tells GW Bush not to come to Washington then hangs up on him. And the commercials were limited. I thought that was classy.

I just thought the whole weekend was mostly a bunch of crap and bullshit. Like the article says, everyone cashing in on grief, prolonging everyone’s agony for their own personal gain.

[commanderkai]

Strangely, I can't get into your site, JJ. I'm trying from both my university network and my home network.

[Brenda]

Me neither. Google Chrome could not find it...

[BartSimpson]

In contrast to David Brooks (who ripped the idea from George Will) of the New York Isvestia...

Quote:

Posted on September 11, 2011 by Steven Hayward

Ten Years On

George Will notes this morning that the 10th anniversary of Pearl Harbor passed quietly in 1951, with little public or media notice. It is quite true that the growth of insatiable mass media, and the sentimentalization of American life in the post-War era that is difficult to quantify but is nonetheless evident, would compel the excess of pathos we’re going to see played out today on TV. If I have to sit through one more interview with Tom Brokaw furrowing every wrinkle on his hangdog face I’m likely to break my TV.

It is significant, by the way, that in the wall-to-wall coverage we’ll see today, we won’t see two things: the media have assiduously avoided showing the awful video of the people who jumped from the towers, and we won’t see any video of the throngs in the Arab world dancing wildly in the streets celebrating on 9/11. Both might stir up politically incorrect sentiments. Instead, as Mark Steyn points out, we’re going to be treated to a lot of self-loathing equivocation that will avoid recognizing pure evil for what it was and still is.

This points to the most egregious theme that has been playing out for a while now, and will be reiterated again today with an exclamation point: that Pearl Harbor generated a time of national unity in World War II—remember, we “all came together” then—but that “we” (meaning President Bush and the mean Republicans) have squandered the potential for an extended period of national unity and global sympathy after 9/11. Nonsense. I was certain at the time that it wouldn’t take very long for the Left to channel its inner Noam Chomsky; besides, Michael Moore’s hoagie budget was running low.

But the familiar image of “national unity” and spontaneous choruses of Kumbayah in World War II is overstated, and in a few respects wrong. Fred Siegel’s terrific and underappreciated book, Troubled Journey: From Pearl Harbor to Ronald Reagan, reminds us that “Wartime surveys taken by the Army revealed that troop morale was dangerously low.” The isolationist America Firsters did not go away, but, like 9/11 Truthers today, spread the word that FDR was complicit in a plot to bring about Pearl Harbor: “They were convinced that a devilishly clever Roosevelt had maneuvered the country into an unnecessary war against the wrong foe just as he had used his wiles at home to foist the alien measures of the New Deal’s ‘creeping socialism’ on an unsuspecting nation.” A number of Republicans complained openly they while we should of course fight Japan, why are we fighting in Europe? (Shades of the criticism of our war against Iraq a few years ago.) In the 1942 off-year election, Republicans picked up 44 seats in the House, reducing the Democratic majority to just seven seats—hardly a ringing endorsement of FDR. In fact, Democrats had targeted 115 House members for defeat explicitly for their isolationism; 110 were re-elected.

And partisan rhetoric? How about Henry Wallace, FDR’s pro-Communist Vice President, who in the 1940 campaign said: “Every Republican is not an appeaser. But you can be sure that every Nazi, every Hitlerite, and every appeaser is a Republican.” His campaign slogan was “Keep Hitler Out of the White House.” Yes, that was before the war started, but it prefigured FDR’s 1944 State of the Union speech where he implied that a Republican victory in that year’s election would mean installing fascism at home and squandering our progress in the war against Hitler.

Personally, I always thought we should observe VE and VJ Day, rather than Pearl Harbor Day, and maybe we should make a new holiday now, to be called “Special Forces Day,” on May 1 (a nice counterpoint to May Day) to mark the day we bagged Bin Laden. Actually, I always send an e-mail to a few friends every August 6 with the subject line, “Happy Hiroshima Day,” as a deliberate politically incorrect gesture amidst what has become another occasion for leftist garment-rending. Which suggests a nice social experiment to try out in our post-9/11 world. Next time you hear some lefty say something along the lines of “it’s our fault” or “we had it coming on 9/11,” just say, “Yeah—just like the Japanese at Hiroshima,” and sit back and watch the reaction. Because as we all know you can only use that argument on America.

[Psudo]

National Geographic has had a few documentaries of interest on the topic, but mostly I've been living too much of a hermit's life to see much of the 9/11 hoopla.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson wrote:

In contrast to David Brooks (who ripped the idea from George Will) of the New York Isvestia...

Quote:

Posted on September 11, 2011 by Steven Hayward

Actually, I always send an e-mail to a few friends every August 6 with the subject line, “Happy Hiroshima Day,” as a deliberate politically incorrect gesture amidst what has become another occasion for leftist garment-rending. Which suggests a nice social experiment to try out in our post-9/11 world. Next time you hear some lefty say something along the lines of “it’s our fault” or “we had it coming on 9/11,” just say, “Yeah—just like the Japanese at Hiroshima,” and sit back and watch the reaction. Because as we all know you can only use that argument on America.

I wonder how this tool would feel if he got "Happy Death to Americans Day" emails on September 11 every year...

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga wrote:

I wonder how this tool would feel if he got "Happy Death to Americans Day" emails on September 11 every year...

Given that the leftist Ward Churchill started that ball rolling when he called the victims of 9/11 "Little Eichmanns" who deserved what happened to him I'd say we've been seeing such things since 9.12.2001

[Macguyver]

It is too bad we need a left and a right spin on such a memorable occasion.

Most of what I read and heard was the depths of sorrow that everyone went through, the triumphs from the tragedy and the heartbreak of waking up 10 years later with the same, or worse, divisions that as human beings is destined to be our demise.

I choose not to propagate either side and just let it be what it is, a moment in history that should be reflected upon from time to time.

[BartSimpson]

Macguyver wrote:

It is too bad we need a left and a right spin on such a memorable occasion.

Most of what I read and heard was the depths of sorrow that everyone went through, the triumphs from the tragedy and the heartbreak of waking up 10 years later with the same, or worse, divisions that as human beings is destined to be our demise.

I choose not to propagate either side and just let it be what it is, a moment in history that should be reflected upon from time to time.

Things like this can't be anything but political in the final analysis.

9/11 started as an act of terror and the political divisions set in immediately. People were called racist for assuming this was done by Muslims and there were no apologies after the fact when it turned out that the Amish had nothing to do with this.

Ward Churchill, of course, takes the cake for saying that the victims...all of them...deserved it simply because they were in America.

Bill Maher got in trouble for saying something that was really just too soon. He said the terrorists were not cowards and while that was true, it was too soon after the event to engage in a dispassionate intellectualization of the deaths of 3,000 people. The response to Maher's comment was along political lines and partly that's because Maher is a liberal political pundit. He can't speak to the weather without it being seen as a political comment.

As to the worst political comment of 9/11/2011?

That would go to Michelle Obama at the 9/11 Memorial:

"All that for a flag!"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... emony.html

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

I wonder how this tool would feel if he got "Happy Death to Americans Day" emails on September 11 every year...

Given that the leftist Ward Churchill started that ball rolling when he called the victims of 9/11 "Little Eichmanns" who deserved what happened to him I'd say we've been seeing such things since 9.12.2001

Two wrongs don't make a right, Bart.

And my comment wasn't directed at lefties or righties, just Hayward.

If Hayward wants to wish people a "Happy Hiroshima Day", then people should feel free to wish him a "Happy Death to Americans Day". Odds are there are few people that would be so callous, but I have no doubt that he would take umbrage at such a comment.

One of the commenters nails it right on the head;

Quote:

It is unbelievably callous that you chose this day, not to honor those who died on 9/11, and those who heroically rebuilt our trading system within days, but instead chose partisan rancor as the subject of your post.

Instead of remembering those who died on 9/11, the partisans (on both sides) are too busy attacking each other.

No wonder America is so fucked up these days.

[Psudo]

Bootlegga wrote:

the partisans (on both sides) are too busy attacking each other.

No wonder America is so fucked up these days.

If you're talking about both sides of the border, then you're living down to the example you decry.

[bootlegga]

Psudo wrote:

Bootlegga wrote:

the partisans (on both sides) are too busy attacking each other.

No wonder America is so fucked up these days.

If you're talking about both sides of the border, then you're living down to the example you decry.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Sure we have issues with partisan politics up here, which have grown in the past 20 or so years - largely due to American political influence I would argue (thank you for nothing) - but we have never had a situation where both right and left were so busy vilifying each other that their inaction did actual harm to both our own and the global economy.

When you can find an instance (in the past generation or two) or Canadian partisan politics having as far reaching an effect as your debt crisis did last month (or the Iraq war, etc.), then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're just projecting your own problems onto us.

[Macguyver]

BartSimpson wrote:

That would go to Michelle Obama at the 9/11 Memorial:

"All that for a flag!"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... emony.html

Actually her last three words are "fold that flag" .

Play the video and try to sync the words with her. I'm guessing she's asking "how many white boys does it take to fold that flag???" lol.

Look at the lips when she says the second last word. "a" would be a brief barely noticable movement. It is obvious she is not saying "a" as in "for a flag". Maybe "For That Flag".

Notice the end of the third last word. The "R" sound is not made like the "d" sound. I'm 99% sure the last three words are "fold that flag".

Like I said, say it with her. Do it once and say "for the flag" when she apparently does, then say "fold that flag". Let me know what you think.

[Macguyver]

Also not the comments on your link, looks like I'm not the only one not in agreement with the far far far right.

Quote:

Good-Buddy Yesterday 11:03 AM

Come on now, folks. Let's not let hatred of circumstances become hatred of persons. I have watched a beautiful flag ceremony many, many times as a military spouse. Always I am impressed with the precise folding and solemn event. I imagine her words are something about how they so carefully remember to "fold the flag". He nods his agreement, also impressed by the moving event. Save the nastiness for Evil. It is time for Intellectual and Righteous Leadership by both elected officials and Citizens. Faith and Reason leave no room for low behavior. show more show less
Flag Fionnagh Yesterday 11:09 AM

Well, whatever she said, clearly Obama nods in weary agreement. What is even more telling is the fact that this video was posted at all. Less than three (long) years ago, the question would have never been asked, the suspicion never raised. Would have been beyond the American psyche to even contemplate our First Lady voicing such an opinion. Amerika transformed. mmm, mmm, mmm. show more show less
(Edited by a moderator)

Flag truzak Yesterday 11:12 AM

I am no Obama fan - Barack or Michelle - by any means. But how you get "All that for a flag" from her comment is beyond my perceptive powers. As the Brits are fond of saying, "Sorry." show more show less
Flag rlr001 Yesterday 11:30 AM

What!? So we are now lip reading in order to accuse the President and his wife of anti-patriotism....P.L.E.A.S.E........I looked at the clip several times, she could have easily said "all that to fold a flag", or something similar. Nevertheless, this is not productive or factual, just speculative with a negative perspective. We know they do not exhibit great patriotism, evidenced by many other facts - but lets not start lip reading journalism.