A day that will live in infamy. I was going to give you my recollection of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 and a day that I will not soon forget. If only I could. Though my PTSD has long since subsided, I still remember the day where I believed everything changed for me. My outlook on many things change forever at 9:00am on that Tuesday in lower Manhattan. I would retell my story, but why. You've heard it all before in so many way and, to be honest, I have moved on. Truly, it has long since past the time to move on.
Today, lower Manhattan will once again be a subdued scene of mourning with the families as it has been for 13 years. Perhaps the names of the 2,606 people who died that day will be read. Pardon me for being harsh, but there comes a time where one has to move on. I would imagine that there are very few family members who lost loved ones in the attacks at the World Trade Center who have not move on. For those who still need the yearly memorial, I can sympathize. I really do. But the site has long since shifted from a place of unimaginable devastation to a construction site.
I have witnessed that transformation from my office window almost every day since November 2001 when we were finally allowed back into our building across the street from the World Trade Center. Until just recently, all access to that area has been cut off. A few month's ago, the security wall were taken down around the Memorial Park Plaza and it was opened up with no barriers. And only few weeks ago, pedestrian traffic was allowed to cross Church Street at Cortlandt Street. This may mean nothing to you, but it a major event to me. You see, no one has been allowed to cross at that intersection north of the building where I work since September 11, 2001.
It was a beautiful day for me when I was allowed to cross. I took the time to cross with a sense of great ceremony and victory. Once I crossed, I stood there looking from a perspective that I have not seen for so many years and said a prayer. A prayer to all the innocent people who lost their lives that day and to the brighter future when one day I will again be able to walk across that area with no hindrance like I used to. To maybe go to a Barnes & Noble to look for books or to that Krispy Kreme to buy a donut like I used to or to just catch some rays at lunchtime.
Today, lower Manhattan will once again be a subdued scene of mourning with the families as it has been for 13 years. Perhaps the names of the 2,606 people who died that day will be read. Pardon me for being harsh, but there comes a time where one has to move on. I would imagine that there are very few family members who lost loved ones in the attacks at the World Trade Center who have not move on. For those who still need the yearly memorial, I can sympathize. I really do. But the site has long since shifted from a place of unimaginable devastation to a construction site.
I have witnessed that transformation from my office window almost every day since November 2001 when we were finally allowed back into our building across the street from the World Trade Center. Until just recently, all access to that area has been cut off. A few month's ago, the security wall were taken down around the Memorial Park Plaza and it was opened up with no barriers. And only few weeks ago, pedestrian traffic was allowed to cross Church Street at Cortlandt Street. This may mean nothing to you, but it a major event to me. You see, no one has been allowed to cross at that intersection north of the building where I work since September 11, 2001.
It was a beautiful day for me when I was allowed to cross. I took the time to cross with a sense of great ceremony and victory. Once I crossed, I stood there looking from a perspective that I have not seen for so many years and said a prayer. A prayer to all the innocent people who lost their lives that day and to the brighter future when one day I will again be able to walk across that area with no hindrance like I used to. To maybe go to a Barnes & Noble to look for books or to that Krispy Kreme to buy a donut like I used to or to just catch some rays at lunchtime.
37 comments:
I never really noticed till I left but when I was living in Jersey City and taking the PATH from Hoboken to wherever, I had a great view of lower Manhattan. By the time I left, the new tower (seen in the photo above) was almost finished. I wish I had taken a photo when I first moved there to compare!
I also worked for a week at the 9/11 Memorial Preview site on Vessey - just a temp gig folding NYPD and FDNY shirts in the basement. I was out to lunch when an anonymous donor dropped $10k in the donation box.
And not to sound jaded or cynical but I agree: it might just be time to move on. Pearl Harbor was in 1941. How were people commemorating the event in 1954?
I think that every September 11 we ought to commemorate the attack by randomly choosing some Islamic jihadist group's training camp and putting a few cruise missiles in on them to,,every year..for a long time..
Bev, I concur. I've moved on. I think society at large has basically moved on. Yes, there are still some ceremonies being held, but most people go about their days not really thinking about it. And to me, that's human nature.
We are designed to move on from event, good and bad. We are not designed to fixate on something forever. Being able to move on is healthy, it is what lets us move forward with our lives and build a better future for ourselves and those around us. And while it does take people different amounts of time to move on, thirteen years is way beyond the range of normal.
So at this point, we should mark the day, sure, but that's about it.
That said, I am liking Critch's idea!!
I was quite worried on the morning og September 11, 2001. I had just retired, but my wife was still working. She had gone up to New York that morning on business, and I know she did business with Marsh & McLennan in the WTC. I didn't reall know who she was going to see. Of course, when I tried to call, cell phone service was overwhelmed up there. As it turns out, she was in White Plains, but it was very hard getting back to Philly area. I was extremely happy when I finally hear from her and Knew she was o.k.
Of course, like everybody, I ws glued to the t.v. watching the events unfold. The only events I can relate to it were the Kennedy assassintion, and the slow speed white Bronco chase.
At the time, I felt like it was something that finally happened since they had trie before. And I felt that jihadists were a relatively small group, but we would never be at peace with them unless and until we threw Israel overboard. Prrobably that is still the ase.
BTW, Obama plans to use an authorization for military action Bush used to circumvent Congress. At the time, Obama blasted it and called it illegal. It's amazing how times change, isn't it?
I was put back on active duty in air guard unit on September 13th, I spent most of 2002 on active duty in one place or another...England, Germany and Memphis mostly. My guard wing's Civil Engineer commander was a NYC firefighter, he was a colonel one weekend a month...his speech a few days later when we all assembled alluded to using 500 pound bombs as suppositories...I agree we have to move on, but you don't forget...
Absolutely you don't forget, and you don't forgive terrorists... you kill them.
I suspect we'll be observing September 11th far longer than other days of rememberance, simply because it was decided to refer to it as "September 11th" rather than, say, the al-Qaeda airliner attacks. The only other days of rememberance I can name off the top of my head are Pearl Harbor Day (12/7)—because grandparents—and Veterans' Day, because of the whole 11/11/11 thing.
Somebody really fell down on hammering the JFK and MLK assassinations into our heads. If it weren't for annual TV retrospectives, I'd never know when the dates had come and gone. Same goes for the myriad other disasters that only newsrooms keep on their calendars. Given enough time, there will be no need for news. Every day of the year will be devoted to remembering some past tragedy. I've already forgotten the date Michael Brown was shot, but I'm sure next August the nation's thoughts and TV crews will return to Ferguson.
Since I'm reveling in the long overdue irreverence taking place on this hallowed date, I want to share an article on how the design of WTC 1 was screwwed up. In the second picture, you can really see what the author is talking about. Ouch!
Thanks for sharing that, Bev. I'm glad you are no longer suffering from PTSD.
My wife struggled with it and it can be very debilitating.
Moving on from 9/11 but never forgetting is great advice.
USS Ben - I agree. We must never forget of to be so naive to forget that there are people who want to harm others. Just like we must never forget the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, our Revolutionary struggles, the Civil War and so on.
I willed myself to get through my PTSD because it seemed so self-indulgent when others have had it so much worse. In fact, knowing that my Uncle spent 4 years in a Japanese prison camp during WWII being beaten, starved and tortured, it put my fears in perspective. I will never forget, but I will never allow them to defeat my spirit...
Btw, I think they're gonna have release those monkeys from Gibraltar an d the crows from Buckingham Palace. It looks like the Great Britain will lose Scotland next week and no longer be great anymore...:-(
I'm glad you're both over the PSTD. I've never had it, but I know how debilitating it can be. I'm happy for both of you. :D
BTW, am I the only one who thought Obama looked like a Muppet or something in his speech? He looked really weird.
Also, check out this photo (midway down the page)... he has horns. (Horny Bastard) I guess the "he's the anti-Christ" crowd were right! ;-)
Tyranmax,
It's what happens when you have a 24-hour news cycle and not enough news to fill up 24 hours.
Read a weird article on Big Hollywood yesterday. It was written by Roger Davi (the drug dealer in that one Bond movie) complaining that liberals hadf complained about a 9/11 tribute he narrated in 2008. Someone should have nudged the poor guy and told him 'Dude. Its 2014!'.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/09/10/robert-davi-column
For the 2008 Presidential GOP convention I was asked to narrate more than 80 percent of the videos shown over those few days. The 9/11 tribute video was something I especially wanted to do.
For me, the most important issue of our 21st century is the War on Terror, specifically from that which it is engendered, radical Islam. While, of course, both conventions that year had their partisan speeches and differences, at least the nation would be united on the 9/11 tribute.
I was wrong.
Instead of a unanimous, heartfelt response, some on the left began to vehemently criticize and politicize the tribute.
----------
In all seriousness, I confess I wasn't particularly traumatized by 9/11 because I was sitting at home (suburbs of DC) when it happened. I remember runs on stuff like water and tape (if a chemical cloud engulfs my house, I didn't fool myself into thinking that tape would save me, but a lot of people are more optimistic than me).
I was already aware of the fact a lot of people hate us for no good reason. I've met a lot of foreigners in the US and abroad, some of whom hated America with a passion and felt free to tell me so because I was black and would understand (I disappointed them).
I honestly don't have a position on 9/11 memorials. If people who lost people that day or were simply traumatized by witnessing the horrific events need it to deal...
Anthony, I get Davi's point, but liberals will attack anything that doesn't sit with their current world view. Heck, they attacked Mother Theresa as some sort of hypocrite after she died. This is not unexpected to me.
In terms of the attack, I was shocked when it happened because these things are shocking, but I wasn't surprised. It's been clear since the 1990s that there are a bunch of Arabs who saw themselves at war with us. They had done several things already and it didn't surprise me that they would strike in the US.
KRS, That's a sad story.
KRS - What a wonderful family tradition. I guess what I mean when I say we have to move on, I don't really know. I have witnessed all the other crap surrounding the WTC for 13 years now. And it has been very ugly and self-serving- the endless litigation, the ridiculous demands made from the families before anything could be rebuilt, the endless jockeying for control of the money - government and insurance payouts, and the massive waste, and last but not least ramped up security to the point of stupidity...it's endless. This wasn't so hard for DC and Pennsylvania. The OKC memorial was up within 2 years and is stunning. I realize that it is in one of the most iconic areas in NY, but seriously, enough is enough.
Bev - Yeah, that's been a mess. I do have reservations about allowing families to have that much control over such a site. It wasn't just the families, but that was unprecedented. It's a wonder anything got built.
My Dad gave me a lesson in "moving on" - he fought the Japanese in WWII. Kinda ironic, when you think about it. Dad saw lots of bad stuff and told me that, because of the seemingly maniacal fighting style of the Japanese and the brutality they showed to both prisoners and their own casualties, a general understanding developed among the Americans not to take prisoners unless there was some compelling reason. And, while Dad called them Japs and Nips for as long as I can remember, it was without any animosity. To him, the war was done. They started it; we finished it. Fight over; moving on. And when Japan Inc. rose up in the seventies and eighties, he applauded them. I remember him telling me, "See? Yankee ingenuity works for everyone!"
Zimmerman's conduct continues to reinforce my opinion of him (not a racist, just a violent adrenaline junky though in fairness the term I used back then was play cop). Be interesting to see how much support his inevitable second killing gets him.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-zimmerman-threatened-to-kill-driver-during-road-rage-incident/
The unnamed man called 911 and claimed Zimmerman had threatened to kill him. The following day, the man called 911 again to report that Zimmerman was waiting for him at his place of work and that he felt unsafe. He ultimately declined to press charges after Zimmerman admitted to police that he had exchanged words with the man.
Andrew,
In fairness, its more than Arabs. A lot of people in a lot of the world seem to hold the ills of the world against us (which is ridiculous for a lot of reasons I won't bore you with here).
I will bore you a bit with my pet theory that America's desire to have our foreign policy steer a moral course is admirable and rare, especially among big powers (its easy to be moral when you are weak).
In a lot of Europe and Asia one tends to see naked realpolitik in terms of international relations. The US isn't some babe in the woods, but we often try to do the right thing because its the right thing (provided the cost isn't too high).
If China, Russia, France, Saudi Arabia or pretty much any other country dominated the world the way we do, the world would have a lot more to squeal about.
Anthony, That's true, but at the time (1990s) it was really just Arabs who seemed to be making all the news. It didn't even seem to be an Islamic thing so much as just a bunch of angry Arabs who were upset about Israel or our support for their dictators or whatever.
In terms of foreign power, I think the US is uniquely bounded by being answerable to the American people who are largely libertarian... leave us alone, we leave you alone. Hence, any politician who speaks of American empires will get destroyed and most try to claim that they want to represent us the way we would want to be represented, i.e. as good people. By comparison, in Europe and Asia, the populations happily defer to their betters to do what they think is right for the country, thus, the don't flinch at ideas like trying to manipulate events.
In terms of it being easy to be moral when you are weak, that is entirely true. Only, Europe has found out something interesting: being weak also means that strong countries will use you when it suits them and then laugh you aside when it suits them. I think the Euros have been shocked in the past decade that (1) the Chinese and Russians have laughed them off and done immoral things while daring the Euros to prove they aren't eunuchs, and (2) their weakness has not insulated them from those who wish to cause them harm, in particular Islamic terrorists.
BTW, the first time I heard Islam become an issue was in 1990/1991 in Algeria. Algeria allowed an election and some hardcore Islamic party won in a landslide. This caused the military to step in and crush them.
European and American liberals actually sided with the military-state on the basis that they didn't want to see women's rights vanish.
Then things changed between 1991 and 1995 when liberals decided that Muslims were blameless victims of the mean old Serbs. After that, they started to defend Islam reflexively.
By the time the Taliban came along 1996, liberals no longer cared at all about women's rights in Muslim countries.
"Then things changed between 1991 and 1995 when liberals decided that Muslims were blameless victims of the mean old Serbs. After that, they started to defend Islam reflexively."
So, because one genocidal jerk decided to murder a bunch of Muslims the West has had to hear a constant drumbeat of sympathy for radical wife-beating, Jew-hating, gay-murdering Islamists?
Yes, Kit. As long as they are murdering non-Muslims around the world which apparently okay since we deserve it because of the Crusades in the Middle Ages. Oh, and because the Catholics burned heretics too. And to be fair, they Serbs did their fair share of murdering Muslims too. Well, and Israel. If it weren't for Israel and Jews in General, the world would be a peaceful Utopia. Damn them for refusing not to exist!
Andrew, thanks for that bit of history. I guess I missed it at the time because I was adjusting to this new fangled thing called "middle school" back when it was actually newfangled. That, and my only exposure to news was through some propaganda channel pumped into the school Commons during lunch. But it all makes sense. Libs pick their causes haphazardly and don't know how to step away from them. And the young libs brought up under the status quo just accept that Islamophobia is a thing.
BTW, Bev, you forgot the bit about Islamophobia being a thing, now. If you recognize the connection between Islam and terrorism you're automatically a bigot. Just because a disproportionate number of members from a group commit despicable acts, not all of them are bad. Unless you're talking about men and misogyny. Then the "not all" argument is invalid.
This exchange has haunted me since I listened to it. Bridget Gabriel's answer says it concisely...
http://youtu.be/Ry3NzkAOo3s
Sorry, I can't post a link to click, but my IPad makes it difficult...
Kit and tryanmax, That's how I saw it develop in real time. I was in DC at the time, going through law school and I was reading both the Post and the Times daily and watching a lot of news each night. I still recall how both events warped.
Algeria happened at a time when the left was castigating Bush for supporting Arab dictators. They claimed that our foreign policy must be about supporting the people in the street and not princes or dictators and that evil Bush Sr. was sucking up to dictators like the Saudi royal family, Hosni Mubarak, and the Gulf state princes. They all swore this was evil and that the next Democrat in office must change this.
It was in the middle of that period that Algeria held their first round of elections. The results were shocking and all the liberal politicians and talking heads made a HUGE deal about what this would mean for non-Muslims and women. At that point, the Algerian military stepped in and nullified the results. That began a low level terror civil war with lots of people "disappeared" by the military. I was expecting to hear the usual about how military governments are illegitimate etc. etc. But it didn't happen. Instead, everyone left and right decided this was for the better and they talked about protecting women from these backward religious nuts. Moreover, they de-legitimatized the election by claiming that the only reason people voted for the Islamists was that the government had banned them in the past and, thus, they were the only party who was entirely clean of the government, i.e. people didn't really vote for Islam, they voted for outsiders and these were the only outsiders. Hence, it wouldn't really frustrate anyone's will to let the election be overturned by the military.
Then Yugoslavia began. I still remember the initial reports were entirely fair because the media hadn't picked a side yet. So every day for the first few months, I read about mass graves and ethnic cleansing by ALL THREE GROUPS. After a while, the Serbs began to win because they held the bulk of the former Yugoslav army. At that point, the media changed the narrative. Suddenly, the Serbs were the genocidal murderous rapists aggressors. The Muslims and Croats became uber-victims and their crimes vanished from the news wire. Every night, we saw crying Muslims on our televisions. The media also played up the West's arms embargo (which they had pushed for initially) as stopping the poor Muslims from defending themselves -- they stopped reporting on things like the Iranians and Saudis sending arms and "volunteers" to fight for the Muslims... things they had been reporting on for months.
From that point forward, our left chose to turn a blind eye to radical Islam. They were basically presented as an anti-corruption movement and their crimes were either ignored or explained away.
(As an aside, this is different than their support for the Palestinians. They've supported the PLO since before I was born, but this radical Islam stuff was something new and they chose to treat it as blameless and like some sort of return to innocence movement.)
That is super weird.
What's super weird?
Everything Andrew wrote.
Andrew,
I suspect there initially wasn't much negative coverage of the Taliban because it wasn't clear that life for woman under Islamic nutjobs was any worse than life for woman under warring bandits (Afghanistan collapsed into civil war after the USSR left and big chunks of it fell within the ever shifting lines of conflict).
Kidnappings, assassinations and decapitations (of the few non-Westerners, most of whom were aid workers) were somewhat common even before the Taliban hit so I imagine life was even less of a picnic for locals.
As for the reporting about the Yugoslav conflict, I thought it was more or less fair. To use an analogy, when two drunks get into a fight, both are on the same level, but when one guy gets the other down and then starts sawing off his nuts, then intervention becomes necessary even if the guy losing his nuts isn't an angel.
I remember most of the onus being put on Europe (the thought was that they should have been able to manage a small conflict between pipsqueaks in their own backyard) who kind of diddled around until the US said 'Screw it, we'll solve it'. *Shrugs* Of course, I was studying in England some of that time so I was reading English media more than American media
tryanmax, It's not weird if you think like liberal.
Keep in mind that they think in the here and now. They don't worry about consistency, principle or the future. So calling Bush evil for consorting with dictators was easy.
Fast forward... some religious nuts want to oppress women and keep Algeria from becoming Euro-agnostic. They must be stopped (who's Bush again?).
Fast forward... Yugoslavia is too hard to understand, we don't care.
Fast forward... Look at those meanie Serbs oppressing those poor Muslims (keep in mind that liberals always go with the least powerful person in any situation and always oppose they see as aggressors). Serbs are strong, evil, aggressive, hence Muslims are good.
Enter the Religious Right and Bush 2, who start "hating" Muslims. That confirms and solidifies the liberal view that Muslims are good.
9/11 Liberals has Muslims for killing poor New Yorkers (support the weak, oppose the aggressors).
One month after 9/11, evil Bush is killing Muslims. Muslims are good again.
It all makes sense in a sick sort of way.
Anthony, That's probably true about Afghanistan initially. The only thing I remember our media being upset about was the Taliban destroying "Heritage sites."
In terms of Yugoslavia, the coverage started fair here, but didn't last. If you watched the coverage, it went from "all are bad" complete with reporting on the crimes of each as well as the dirty histories and associations of each, to "the Serbs are evil and need to be punished." There was also tremendous hypocrisy after a while. Specifically, they made a huge deal of the Croats and the Muslims having a "fundamental human right" to break away and form their own ethnic countries. But when the Serbs still living in those new countries tried the same so they could join Serbia, the reaction was "How dare they try to break up these countries!"
In terms of the Euros, that became the focus -- why doesn't Europe do something. So they sent peacekeepers who stood by and let the ethnic cleansing continue... which embarrassed the hell out of Europe. So they started sabre rattling, which got the Russians to support the Serbs. There was even talk at one point of a war starting by accident because of it. Finally, Clinton did some bombing and everything kind of fizzled out.
My two cents on Yugoslav Wars.
The Croats were Catholic, the Bosniaks were Muslim, and the Serbs Orthodox. Western Europe has Catholic ties, Russia has Orthodox and not only are the Russians Orthodox but they consider the Serbs to be their "little Slavic brothers".
I still think that we got involved at least partly to keep the Russians from gaining a major foothold in the region. Or at least it became the major reason later in the decade. As long as they are killing each other, there is a balance of power but if the (Russian-supported) Serbs are winning then that means a potential Russian foothold in Southern Europe.
If you want some proof of this think about this: Of the three countries primarily involved in the fighting, Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, which one has joined NATO. The answer is Croatia (in 2009).
Now, w/ Poland and the Baltic States in NATO, as well as Romania, Bulgaria, and several other Eastern Europian countries. Bosnia-Herzegovina is moving closer to NATO membership.
So I would say, all things considered, the US involvement in NATO provided a net benefit. It moved the current "Iron Curtain"* eastward and therefore closer to Russia and kept the Russians from having a possible foothold in SE Europe.
*A better term might be the "Aluminum Foil Curtain" considering how much it can move.
ISIS has killed another hostage. This time its a British aid worker named David Haines.
LINK
Post a Comment