Why I'm Uncomfortable With The 9/11 Festivities
Oh, sorry -- they aren't "festivities," but there's something about the way the day is being promoted in the media that led me to type that when I dashed off a title to this blog post.
And then, there's the tacky way Mayor Bloomberg and others have planned the day -- not bothering to make room for firefighters and other first responders to attend. Without those incredible, heroic New York City firefighters and other first responders -- many of whom sacrificed their own lives -- many more people would have died. From International Business Times:
The chain status exploded on Facebook on Wednesday: "Due to 'lack of room,' NYC police officers, Port Authority police officers and FDNY firefighters are not 'invited' to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 at ground zero. Funny -- they weren't invited on that day in 2001, either -- they just showed up and became our heroes. Please repost if you think they belong MORE than the politicians who are invited."...However, the number of politicians attending is much smaller than the number of first responders. Bloomberg, President Obama, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will be there, along with former New York Gov. George Pataki and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who were in office when the attacks occurred, and a handful of other officials. If the space constraints are in fact set in stone, even uninviting the politicians would not allow first responders to attend.
The injustice, then, isn't so much that politicians were chosen over first responders -- it is that city officials did not make enough room for everyone who deserves to be at ground zero for the anniversary.
I am truly impressed by those who acted heroically on that day, and was both terribly sad and enraged about the mass murder of all of these innocent people -- people guilty of no more than arriving to work on time.
Like many who live or have lived in New York (my last apartment was a mile from the World Trade Center), I know somebody who survived the attack simply because he was late to work. He's the husband of a good friend of mine, and she had a meeting that morning, so he had to take the kids to school. If he hadn't, he'd likely be dead.
Here's a sad thing -- a list, from 9/14, informing people of who survived and whether they were injured. Here's a far sadder thing, from Steve Lopez' column in the LA Times:
From my hotel, I called the relative of a friend. Mike Sweeney answered the phone at his home in suburban Boston and told me his story.Early on the morning of Sept. 11, he got a call from his wife, Amy. She was feeling low about being at work and missing out on a chance to see their daughter, a kindergartner, off to school. Sweeney, a cop, talked her through it. There'd be plenty of chances to take Anna, who was almost 6, and Jack, 4, to school. Amy Sweeney, a flight attendant, took off from Logan International Airport shortly after that conversation on American Airlines Flight 11, headed for Los Angeles.
On his way to work later that morning, Sweeney got a call from an American employee in Dallas, asking if he'd heard the news about a plane going into a tower.
He later learned that his wife had called flight management services in Dallas to report the hijacking and the seat numbers of the hijackers. "I see water and buildings," she said as Flight 11 went into rapid descent, according to an FBI document. "Oh my God! Oh my God!"
"The first thing I had to do was pick up the kids," said Mike Sweeney. "I said, 'Guys, today's a real tough day. Mommy was in a plane crash and died.' Anna goes, 'What?'"
Mike Sweeney said Anna wanted to know if other people were hurt. Yes, he told her. They died, too.
The kids had lots of questions: Why would someone fly a plane into a building? Where was their mother now? If she was in heaven, why didn't she just come home?
The thing that's been giving me pause these past few days is that what's going on Sunday is, in a way, a commemoration of a terrorist act. I can't help but think that many in Muslim countries will be celebrating, and that our event -- while a commemoration of deserving heros and a terrible loss of innocent people's lives -- plays into that.
For me, even the memorials there -- twin reflecting pools -- are also memorializing an act of terrorism, and I can't help but think that people bent on doing America and Americans similar harm will turn it into an important stop when they're in New York. Here's the dad of a firefighter, quoted in the WSJ by Michael Howard Saul:
"The 10th anniversary means I haven't seen my son for 10 years--I haven't been able to give him a hug and he hasn't been able to say, 'Hi Dad,'" said Lee Ielpi, whose son Jonathan, a firefighter, was killed.Mr. Ielpi said he considers the anniversary of the attacks an "important day of remembrance" for the city and the nation. But on a personal level, he said he focuses on his son's birthday, July 15, because "I would rather not remember the day my son was murdered."
Can any of you give me another perspective on my feelings about this 9/11 commemoration, or do you agree in some way?
With that kind of logic, we might as well tear down the Pearl Harbor Memorial, and maybe the Alamo, too.
mpetrie98 at September 10, 2011 11:14 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/11/why_im_uncomfor.html#comment-2471092">comment from mpetrie98Those commemorate battles; this commemorates a mass murder.
Amy Alkon at September 10, 2011 11:26 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/11/why_im_uncomfor.html#comment-2471093">comment from Amy Alkonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
Amy Alkon at September 10, 2011 11:27 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/11/why_im_uncomfor.html#comment-2471106">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and while Jihad against the West continues to this day (with a terror alert in New York right now), numerous Japanese and Mexicans are not currently gloating over those who died in Pearl Harbor or at the Alamo, just as we do not gloat over the dropping of the atomic bomb.
Amy Alkon at September 10, 2011 11:29 PM
Time has passed on those. Ten years out I'm sure there were a few who did gloat.
I hope that in 50 years, the Saudis will not celebrate 9/11 either. Hell, polls show 90% of Afghans don't even know what it is already.
LYT at September 10, 2011 11:53 PM
I don't like the way the media has taken on the 9/11 anniversary. National Geographic Channel has been running 9/11 memorial shows rehashing the event all week and it just makes them look tacky in my opinion: almost like they are trying to make it like the super bowl. How many companies knew America would be watching and paid some extra money for advertising time? It's really depressing for me. I wasn't there but I was watching the news when the anchors were getting the word in on their little earpieces, looking confused, not knowing if it was an accident or an attack. I have to turn my head now when I see yet another image or video of those planes crashing into the towers or the poor people jumping or falling in an effort to escape the hell they were brought that day. I understand wanting to respect and remember the fallen heroes and moms and dads, the poor kids who were at school, not knowing the peril of their parents. It seems to me in America that we overdo a lot, including grieving. It was a sad time, and we have every right to still be angry over the loss of our innocent citizens and the peace of mind we all had, but it's time to let the dead rest and be memorialized with a moment of silence. I think the true heroes of that day would like to be remembered as quietly as they were humble during their time here.
Jessica at September 11, 2011 12:00 AM
When you turn off popular media, they cease to exist. This is not a metaphor or a contextual parlor trick... It really works, especially with the mawkish stuff. If you were counting on immoderate servings of television or the New York Times to figure out what was going on out there, you were lost anyway.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 11, 2011 12:15 AM
I liked Donald Trump's idea; just rebuild the towers, but with an extra floor. In hindsight, that would have been a lot cheaper than two wars.
Tyler at September 11, 2011 12:18 AM
I was really annoyed about a radio commercial for some 9/11 event where the speaker sounded happy and...well...festive...if I didn't listen closely to the words I would have thought it was for the fourth of July or something.
The Former Banker at September 11, 2011 1:16 AM
I really have to agree with you Amy. I don't think we should have these giant "celebrations" or whateveryou want to call them, because it just rehashes everything that happened that day.
But I do agree with a memorial being built because really, what else could you have put there that wouldn't have been disrespectful in some way.
However, now that the memorial is finished I don't think there should be a formalized gathering to basically celebrate premeditated mass murder. If people want to come pay their respects that is fine, but making a big to do in my opinion is disrespectful.
Benjamin Pursley at September 11, 2011 1:20 AM
I completely understand where you are coming from, Amy. There is definitely a cheesy quality to it that is hard to put a finger on.
whistleDick at September 11, 2011 2:41 AM
I felt the same way during the days immediately following the attack. Wal-marts were running out of American flags. I remember one neighbor of mine complaining that, "You just can't find an American flag to buy."
I didn't say anything, but I was thinking, "Really? It didn't occur to you to have an American flag to display before this?"
I was always the only guy in my neighborhood to put a flag out every day and take it in every night and in inclement weather. All of a sudden, we suffer a major blow and people decide they're patriotic. Oh, and those cheesy fucking car magnets. Sheesh. On top of that, these newly patriotic Americans who were now displaying their flags were leaving them out all night, leaving them out in the rain, and displaying them all tattered after a while. Nothing pisses me off more than that.
While I'm at it, The American flag, according to U.S. code, should not be used on t-shirts and crap like that. Also, don't let the fucking thing smack against your house as it gets whipped around in the wind. Now I'm just listing pet peeves so I'll stop. I could go on and on, though.
I feel patriotic about many things. Having a handful of filthy terrorists get the better of us is not one of those things that inspire patriotism in me.
whistleDick at September 11, 2011 2:57 AM
The problem isn't commemoration of a tragedy - the problem is 9/11 being folded into the multi-culti PC navelgazing script - commemorating a terror attack with a "peace quilt" - as if we were the intolerant ones...
Just like lefties tried to get us to wonder "why do they hate us" - as if the attacks were America's fault.
See Mark Steyn on the National Review website - he gets it spot on:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276803/let-s-roll-over-mark-steyn
Ben David at September 11, 2011 5:20 AM
For a decade, the media would not show the poor souls jumping from the WTC to avoid being burned alive. This hypocritical, non-offensive to the religion-of-peace ceremony is a travesty.
Meanwhile, we have the TSA and homeland security and assholes bothering tourists taking pictures.
I remember what we lost every day. All of it.
Their leader is dead. Thousands of his jihadi wannabes are also dead. What I want to know is what victory looks like.
MarkD at September 11, 2011 5:39 AM
I rarely watch popular media so I haven't been inundated. I'd have to say I think anything the media laches onto is going to start feeling circusy. I did watch the President Bush interview. I was one of the ones slamming him for his immediate response, so I found it interesting to hear his take on it. Nat Geo said he brought no notes and didn't limit the interview in any way, the whole 2 days. I think he did well.
My second graders' homework for the weekend is interview a grownup about a historical event, and write about it. I'm sure the teacher expected 9-11. I doubt my kids will pick that, as I'm not sure they know about it. But if they do, we'll talk about it.
I am currently leaving for the airport to put DH on a cross country plane. Not thrilled about that today. Other than that, I'll pray today for the survivors, and for muslims who hate us to be enlightened. And I'll drop off a van load of supplies for the fire victims. Helping others is the best way bar none of remembering those who have died unfairly, to me.
momof4 at September 11, 2011 6:12 AM
I think sometimes tragedy brings out the best in us, sometimes it brings out the worst in us, but either way, it shows us who we really are. In the beginning, I think 9/11 initially brought out the best in us, but it wasn't long before it out the worst and continues to do so until this day. That is why I have trouble with commemorating it.
the Strawboss at September 11, 2011 6:25 AM
To me, this should be a day to celebrate the living people who responded and rescued people from the Towers. Yes, remember the dead, but also remember that WE THE PEOPLE did prevail. There hasn't been another attack on U.S. soil since then. Hopefully, there will never be again. When I was in the city this past Friday, it was business as usual and there were a lot of people living, visiting and celebrating New York. (I did take picture, but how do I get them off my cell phone to post? I haven't figured that out yet.)
We didn't make it to Ground Zero, but we walked from Grand Central down to Times Square, then down 7th Avenue to Varick to the City Winery to see Ian Hunter. FANTASTIC show. Glen Matlock opened with an acoustic set and Ian's daughter Tracy sang with him! Great stuff!!
Flynne at September 11, 2011 6:58 AM
Amy, I think your crusade against the TSA and other infringements is truly patriotic. 9/11 and the aftermath exposed the worst of our government - a frothy mix of lies and stupidity. If we become a nation of sheeple, the jihadists win.
Flynne, does your phone have a USB port, SD card or Bluetooth?
DaveG at September 11, 2011 7:12 AM
Saw twenty seconds of a Manhattan ceremony on TV this morning.
I hate sanctimony
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 11, 2011 8:01 AM
Sgt Timmy Roy was a kid I grew up with. We played manhunt and had normal kid wars. Never once while growing up did I think he'd be a responder to a terrorist attack nor did I ever think he'd be killed when two buildings collapsed.
I live on Long Island and was married to a responder. Today driving through my neighborhood there are street signs honoring the fallen, too many street signs. I don't know anyone who didn't know someone who was there that day. I consider it my generation's "Where were you?" John Kennedy moment.
I'm not one who visits cemeteries or feels the need for memorials. I'm not a big fan of turning events that are so personal over to a bunch of politicians for a photo-op. Still, there are those closer than me who find comfort in it so I step back and let them have their memorials.
Ten years later I worry more about the responders who are suffering from different forms of cancer and other illnesses. I feel for the kids growing up who never knew a parent that was lost that day. My heart breaks for the parents who lost a child that day. I know too many. This is something we read about on the news and it is especially difficult when its not about other people but about people we know and love.
Kristen at September 11, 2011 8:14 AM
I understand the frustration with the ceremonies, which have a distressing tendency to turn into campaign rallies. However, I disagree with the Goddess on the necessity for the memorial. You want to know what's disgraceful? The fact that we're nowhere close to rebuilding the site. Don't forget that we not only defeated Santa Ana and Hirohito, but we defeated the ideas that they stood for. The places where those attacks occurred are now among the most successful U.S. states.
On the other hand, in New York, it's ten years later and there are a whole bunch of people there who think it's still September 10. And as they see it, their job is to perpetrate the political correctness, bureaucratic infighting, and regulatory busybodying that made the attack possible in the first place. To them, the WTC is just another construction project and no one should be permitted to get anything done without paying the proper tributes.
This is why we need a memorial. Because these sorts of people need 9/11 rubbed in their faces, every single day.
Cousin Dave at September 11, 2011 8:22 AM
> so I step back and let them have
> their memorials.
The stepping back is my favorite part.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 11, 2011 8:23 AM
"The stepping back is my favorite part."
Always happy to be of service, Crid.
Kristen at September 11, 2011 8:31 AM
Well, K-girl, I think a lot of people get carried away with thinking of themselves as citizens of the WORLD, Man! first and Americans second (or 19th).
But every time some scold starts grumbling about the flag, I wanna take a piss in his coffee. I hate sanctimony.
[CridComment at gmail] at September 11, 2011 8:50 AM
Did I seem sanctimonious? I hope not. It is a fear of mine.
Kristen at September 11, 2011 9:26 AM
> Did I seem sanctimonious?
No, the flag guys, and the ceremony people.
[CridComment at gmail] at September 11, 2011 9:36 AM
Ten years ago today, the fact that US pilots and flight crews are unarmed made it possible for a small group of Islamic terrorists to murder nearly 3000 people.
TX CHL Instructor at September 11, 2011 10:12 AM
Preposterous. This was the sucker punch of the century, but only that. The women who had their throats slashed by these fuckups were essentially cocktail waitresses with a little extra first aid training.
The rest of us were not put on this planet to live lives of maximal aggression and instantaneous interpersonal lethality.
If you think the lesson of 9/11 is that we should live such lives, or that you should do so, terrorism it not your problem.
Or are you just using the anniversary of an atrocity to drum up some business?
Greaaaaaaaaaat, buddy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 11, 2011 11:56 AM
The problem, IMO, is that it doesn't matter how you spin it - practically ALL TV news is "entertainment." Especially any planned speeches or ceremonies. If only grieving survivors of ALL tragedies would realize this before consenting to appear on camera.....
lenona at September 11, 2011 12:01 PM
Forget 9/11. It was a heinous publicity stunt, but has led to the PR bonanza for America's grifters attached to federal bureaucracies oozing tax dollars.
Sheeesh. Get a grip--get a modicum of perspective. Since 9/11 about 300,000 Americans have died in auto accidents. Another 180,000 in gunshots. Let have a national boo-hoo-a-than about that. How about a Niagara of tears for the nearly half-million Americans who died unheralded without a national kum-bie-ahh session.
In WWII, Russia lost 25 million people. Maybe they should just lie on the ground and cry forever.
Wieners, get some perspective. 9/11 is a footnote--its importance was magnified 1000 times by a Bush Administration desperate to keep power, and by defense industry lobbyists.
We have wasted trillions of dollars due to 9/11.
Forget 9/11. Life goes on.
BOTU at September 11, 2011 12:05 PM
BOTU, the problem I have with what you said is that we all have the knowledge that there are car crashes, some fatal. We know cancer exists and isn't always cured. People that went to work on 9-11 in the Twin Towers never imagined a plane being aimed at their building by radical terrorists let alone two planes. I think that the people getting on planes that morning know that there's a always a chance of a plane going down but who would think four planes would be hijacked and used as weapons to symbolize hatred for our country.
I know children who are going up without memories of their parents because they were so young. I know a man who was walking down the stairs during the evacuation and greeted his brother-in-law who was going up those same steps on a rescue mission. He never saw his brother-in-law again. I have many stories from that day and have nothing but sympathy for the people who lost lives that day, their families, and those who survived. Does that mean I don't sympathize with the victim of a car crash or a soldier killed in the line of duty? Its silly that you would even try to compare the losses.
You don't have to agree with the memorials and ceremonies to understand the significance of 9-11. You don't have to grieve for the friend I grew up with who drove over a bridge when he first heard about the attacks and lost his life saving the lives of others. You certainly don't have to think any of the men and women who helped with the rescue effort were heroic. Instead you can come up with ridiculous theories about thousands of innocent people going about their business one day and getting murdered and believe that it was all a publicity stunt. I suppose we all need something to get us through and immature senseless seems to be your thing.
Kristen at September 11, 2011 1:49 PM
Buttfuck, as usual you show what a spineless, dickless, waste of resources you are. What a Fucking idiot, die already and improve the species.
ronc at September 11, 2011 3:34 PM
Most media coverage of, and political reaction to unfortunate events tends to be maudlin, and the extreme aspects of 9-11 seem to have been all the permission the media and politicians needed to never stop being maudlin. They seem determined to beat us over the head with how sad and outraged we are supposed to be.
I agree with you, Amy, that a lot of the planned events and media coverage seem more like celebrations of a terrorist attack than, say, a restrained and dignified recognition of loss. So I ignore as much of it as I can. The best way to defeat the terrorists is to live my life well, and not let their hateful actions dictate how I live my life.
Angel at September 11, 2011 4:42 PM
I refused to watch all news today because of this travesty. The more we "celebrate" the more attention we give the attention seekers and warrant the TSA, Patriot Act, and other things that need to go away so we can go on with our lives. Instead we give everyone a reason to warrant all of these things, the loss after the attack is greater than the loss of lives from the attack.
Happy terrorist celebration day, 9/11/2011, a decade of letting the bad guy win.
NakkiNyan at September 11, 2011 5:33 PM
BOTU, you exercise a fallacy. You've compared different activities. A proper ROI study determines whether a risk or loss is worth a goal, not whether one loss justifies another.
It is NEVER correct to do that.
"The women who had their throats slashed by these fuckups were essentially cocktail waitresses with a little extra first aid training."
Nice. You've demeaned yet more people for having a profession which just isn't yours.
I hope none of them who have to put up with you in person know who you are. You're not getting crackers.
Radwaste at September 11, 2011 5:35 PM
> Nice.
Vinnie just got scolded for tepid sarcasm.
> You've demeaned yet more people
And they're sick about it! Without my positive reinforcement and kind words, their lives have no meaning!
Or were you taking the other side of Mr Handgun's argument?
Y'know, I don't want a world where the women who bring me shitty Cab in plastic bottles at 35,000' are trained (and paid) for ninja warmaking reflexes. I like it as it is now... A job for clear-headed, mildly-athletic women who've had some crisis training and are patient with ill-mannered children.
And when bad things are done to them, we should unleash horrific fury on their assailants.
Meantime, I don't want to have to sanctimoniously fawn over stewardesses any more than over school teachers, dental hygienists, grocery baggers, or busty, busty barmaids.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 11, 2011 6:40 PM
This is so sad. You do this reflexively. Called on something, you pretend you did something else.
"Without my positive reinforcement and kind words, their lives have no meaning!"
"Meantime, I don't want to have to sanctimoniously fawn over stewardesses any more than over school teachers, dental hygienists, grocery baggers, or busty, busty barmaids."
That's not what you did. Go back and look.
Radwaste at September 11, 2011 7:01 PM
What's the difference between 9/11 and a dairy cow?
You stop milking the dairy cow after 10 years.
(This is aimed at the entertainment and news industries, obviously. Too many families suffered very real tragedies from this and still have to deal with the lingering pain. I just think it's tacky to keep poking at those wounds in hope for ratings, quotes, and sound bites. My heart really goes out to the kids that lost a parent or were born on 9/11. Every year they get trotted out by the press who want them to rehash the horror and trauma of the day. )
Elle at September 11, 2011 7:27 PM
And when bad things are done to them, we should unleash horrific fury on their assailants.
Geez, why the hell not? Let the good guys win the next round at 40,000 feet.
Personally, I'd allow everybody to carry weapons on board airplanes. Any vile 911 wannabes would certainly be outnumbered.
mpetrie98 at September 12, 2011 1:04 AM
I also find it tacky. Luckily where I live the folks were blissfully unaware of it, so I could quietly think about it to myself.
I've no objection to a memorial... a statue, garden, whatever, but festivities?
I think these very publicized festivities go hand in hand with intrusive TSA searches, thet keep us hyped up in an "We are at WAR" mentality that makes us more receptive to intrusions in our lives
NicoleK at September 12, 2011 1:06 AM
I saw a Budweiser commercial using 9/11 to sell beer.
Esther at September 12, 2011 5:32 AM
What's your point, Esther?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 12, 2011 7:11 AM
I think within 10 years, the overly gloomy, ostentatious, maudlin memorial at the WTC site will be regarded as a huge and embarrassing mistake.
Should we also put at smaller memorials at the sites where 400,000 Americans have died in the last 10 years in auto accidents? How about the 180,000 who died in gunshots, many bravely defending themselves against robbery or break-ins?
Are we going obsess over a single heinous PR stunt (9/11) forever?
Life is for living.
25 million Russians died in WWII. I guess they just lie down and cry for weeks at a time at month-long commemorations.
BOTU at September 12, 2011 9:06 AM
I didn't watch any memorials, other than what came before a couple NFL games and the women's tennis final. I thought they appropriately memorialized the nihilistic, in that uniquely Islamic way, slaughter of nearly 3,000 people.
James Taranto got it just right in Best of the Web Today:
BOTU:
Oh, of course, why didn't I see it. The intentional slaughter of 3,000 people, while hoping for many more, in the delusional effort to bring down the US, is JUST like auto accidents and violence of the gun type.
You obviously don't have the first clue about how Russians memorialize The Great War.
Others above have said it better than I, but I'll add my bit: Please go to hell.
Hey Skipper at September 12, 2011 2:08 PM
I spent the first few months after 9/11 thinking, "I'd like to hear less about the tragedy and the loss and the memory of those who were killed...and more about what we're going to do to the murderous fanatics who did this to our country. And what we're going to do to prevent it from happening again."
I personally was more interested in revenge than in anything else I heard in the weeks following the attack. I wanted to hear President Bush say, "We've found out who did this, and right now our military is on the way there to repay our enemies ten-fold for what they've done to us. They will die - to a man. We will never stop pursuing them. Our fighting men and women are going to kill every last one of them, so that the world will see what the United States does to its enemies - and fear us. They will see the wrath of America unleashed in its full horror. You attack this country and you pay a terrible price." That's what I wanted to hear him say. Instead he was falling all over himself reminding us that "Islam means peace" (it doesn't, it means "submission") and other platitudes.
Instead, we got TSA agents groping Irish grandmothers, old black men, and Chinese schoolchildren. And nobody, it seems, wanted to talk about the complete incompetence of our intelligence community or the burdensome rules placed on same during the politically-correct 1990s. Instead, we get people carping about what the war in Afghanistan has cost in dollars and human lives, a bunch of hokum about people killed in car wrecks and gun accidents, and others who seem to have nothing better to do than question the sacrifices of America's finest - on 9/11 and in the years since while prosecuting The Long War.
I haven't got a dime's worth of patience for anyone who thinks we've beaten this horse to death. If anything, the networks have been far too timid about showing people jumping to their deaths from burning buildings. The public needs to be reminded of the barbarity of the beasts we're fighting...and that stopping those beasts is more important than ensuring prescription drug coverage, mandating smaller classroom sizes, combating "climate change," or any of the other time-wasters things the government throws money at.
The people who died on 9/11 surely had decent health insurance, had their kids in decent schools, and had some semblance of a retirement plan. None of it saved them when 19 fanatics rammed a pair of jets into their buildings. Stopping that from happening again is Job #1 as far as I'm concerned...and reminding the public ten years on of WHY we're fighting - nothing is more important than that.
Carry on.
Cylar at September 12, 2011 11:41 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/11/why_im_uncomfor.html#comment-2477693">comment from CylarInstead, we got TSA agents groping Irish grandmothers, old black men, and Chinese schoolchildren. And nobody, it seems, wanted to talk about the complete incompetence of our intelligence community or the burdensome rules placed on same during the politically-correct 1990s
I talk about this in an op-ed I just wrote and am trying to place now.
Amy Alkon at September 13, 2011 5:24 AM
Cylar said: The public needs to be reminded of the barbarity of the beasts we're fighting...and that stopping those beasts is more important than ensuring prescription drug coverage, mandating smaller classroom sizes, combating "climate change," or any of the other time-wasters things the government throws money at.
______________________
How about stopping the throwing of money at the continued criminalization of pot?
As more than one person has pointed out, we could have all the money we needed and then some for preventing NUCLEAR terrorism, in particular, if we made pot legal.
lenona at September 13, 2011 4:20 PM
"As more than one person has pointed out, we could have all the money we needed and then some for preventing NUCLEAR terrorism, in particular, if we made pot legal."
I don't see what one has to do with the other - cannabis has no apparent connection to the topic at hand. (This is not to dispute your claim.) We were talking about the reaction to the events of 9/11 and the 10-year commemoration of the attacks.
Money isn't problem. I only brought it up because I'm tired of hearing people complain about the billions it is costing to fight terrorism. Most of the people doing the griping have no problem throwing those same billions on social safety-net programs, education, or pork. What I see is a glaring lack of consistency, as well as a complete disregard for our real priorities. Finishing this war (by killing our enemies) is more important than the rest of the federal budget put together.
National defense is one of the few duties that the Constitution explicitly delegates to the federal government, and probably the *only* thing it handles better than any other entity, public or private. Most of the other things the federal government spends our tax money on is unConstitutional, would be better done by someone else, or unnecessary to start with.
Cylar at September 13, 2011 9:53 PM
I don't see what one has to do with the other - cannabis has no apparent connection to the topic at hand.
Doesnt the government claim that illegal drug use funds terrorism?
lujlp at September 14, 2011 2:04 AM
Doesnt the government claim that illegal drug use funds terrorism?
Has the government ever claimed that cannabis is one of those illegal drugs, the sale of which funds terrorism, or are you talking out of your behind?
Roxeanne at September 14, 2011 8:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/11/why_im_uncomfor.html#comment-2479734">comment from RoxeanneSide note: When people say "behind" instead of "ass" it reminds me of my mother.
Amy Alkon at September 14, 2011 8:44 AM
Here you go Roxy, baby
www.fff.org/comment/com0307b.asp
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cLYJf42d5I&feature
&
www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=DbDSksPqO_8
lujlp at September 14, 2011 5:56 PM
Thank you for making my point for m, lujlp! Those commercials say 'Drugs', not "marijuana'. Again, you are jumping from a true statement made by the government (some drug sales support terrorist activities) to a false and illogical one (all drug sales support illegal terrorist activity), and then declaring the initial statement to be wrong.
Now, I'm only a lawyer, not a drugged-out sixteen-year-old who is convinced that the world would be a better place if I could be stoned 24/7, but I'm pretty sure that your "evidence" doesn't hold up.
This just goes to show that your pro-pot crusade is not founded upon facts but upon a desire to "fight for your rights" or some other teenage-rebellion nonsense. Likewise, as Cylar pointed out, those "rights" are meaningless if the right to life is not respected and defended. I had met some of the Cantor Fitz men who died in that hellish inferno, and I'm here to tell you, national security was a bigger issue in their lives than smoking pot.
Now, please let the adults get back to running the world, and, if your stoned-out haze lets up enough for some critical thinking skills (learn 'em; they'll help you get into college), then please do some research on the opium trade and Afghanistan.
Roxeanne at September 15, 2011 9:18 AM
Wow, your right roxy I guess technically marijuana is not an illegal drug.
To ue your own tactics against you, whislt claiming drug sales support terosism did the government ever go out of its way to say that weed was NOt one of the drugs suporting terrorism?
lujlp at September 15, 2011 10:21 AM
What's "terosism?" Is that a new drug I should try?
Okay, so cannabis supports terrorism just because the government apparently said it does not. It also never said that rainbows, puppies, and lollipops didn't cause terrorism.
Roxeanne is correct - the major terrorism-supporting drugs (to my knowledge) are cocaine and opium, not cannabis.
But let's play devil's advocate and say you're right on both counts - that cannabis was a drug associated with terrorism and that legalizing it for recreational use (which is what I think you mean) would solve these problems. Wouldn't we still have the same issues with the other drugs that are also trafficked by terrorist groups?
It's amazing how some people are able to spin anything into a discussion of their favorite pet cause, isn't it?
Cylar at September 15, 2011 11:14 AM
OK lets recap shall we?
As more than one person has pointed out, we could have all the money we needed and then some for preventing NUCLEAR terrorism, in particular, if we made pot legal.
Posted by: lenona
I don't see what one has to do with the other - cannabis has no apparent connection to the topic at hand.
Posted by: Cylar
Her point was that money wasted on the War on Drugs and jailing defendants could be better spent on your objective of curbing nukes
Doesnt the government claim that illegal drug use funds terrorism?
Posted by: lujlp
My point was the governemnt claims that drugs are bad, Mkay? ANd buying them funds terrorism. Which brings together both your assertion that the govenment wastes money on crap thay shouldnt and hers that the wsted money could be better spent
Has the government ever claimed that cannabis is one of those illegal drugs, the sale of which funds terrorism, or are you talking out of your behind?
Posted by: Roxeanne
Not sure why Roxanne chimed in, bt her aloof distain for what she percived as an inferior agrument turned me on
Here you go Roxy, baby
(variou links)
Posted by: lujlp
here I was just being flirty, I'm better at it in person. And a little reactive, I'm from a broken home so I find angry women especcially hot.
Thank you for making my point for m, lujlp! Those commercials say 'Drugs', not "marijuana'. Again, you are jumping from a true statement made by the government (some drug sales support terrorist activities) to a false and illogical one (all drug sales support illegal terrorist activity), and then declaring the initial statement to be wrong.
Now, I'm only a lawyer, not a drugged-out sixteen-year-old who is convinced that the world would be a better place if I could be stoned 24/7, but I'm pretty sure that your "evidence" doesn't hold up.
This just goes to show that your pro-pot crusade is not founded upon facts but upon a desire to "fight for your rights" or some other teenage-rebellion nonsense. Likewise, as Cylar pointed out, those "rights" are meaningless if the right to life is not respected and defended. I had met some of the Cantor Fitz men who died in that hellish inferno, and I'm here to tell you, national security was a bigger issue in their lives than smoking pot.
Now, please let the adults get back to running the world, and, if your stoned-out haze lets up enough for some critical thinking skills (learn 'em; they'll help you get into college), then please do some research on the opium trade and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Roxeanne
You can here shes probaly a very succseful lawyer. Afterall I only said that the government claimed drugs support terrorism when Cylar appeared to claim he didnt see a link between weed and terrorism. And some how it seen as proof that a. I claimed weed always funds terror, b. I then went on to claim that my original(and olny) claim was wrong, c. I'm on a pro-pot crusade, and d. to stupid to understand I wont get to light up if I'm dead. Its also not so sublty implied I'm a reckless teenager more concered with getting stoned then murder and terrorism.
Seriously I dont know how I manage to upset people so well. I'll bet most of the people you tear apart on the stand have no idea what the hell happened to them
What's "terosism?" Is that a new drug I should try?
An apeal to spelling? Really? Why not pull out the Nazi's while your at it and go for a classic Godwin?
Okay, so cannabis supports terrorism just because the government apparently said it does not.
Actually they imoled that it did
It also never said that rainbows, puppies, and lollipops didn't cause terrorism.
Roxeanne is correct - the major terrorism-supporting drugs (to my knowledge) are cocaine and opium, not cannabis.
Ofcourse she's correct, but thats not the point. I never said which drugs supported terrorism, I said the governemnt claimed that drugs in general supported terrorism
But let's play devil's advocate and say you're right on both counts - that cannabis was a drug associated with terrorism and that legalizing it for recreational use (which is what I think you mean) would solve these problems. Wouldn't we still have the same issues with the other drugs that are also trafficked by terrorist groups
Thats why I support legalizing all drugs and giving them away for free and in as large of quanities as anyone cares to take
It's amazing how some people are able to spin anything into a discussion of their favorite pet cause, isn't it?
Posted by: Cylar
I suppose so, I agree with you that Roxy did quite the job
lujlp at September 15, 2011 12:35 PM
Her point was that money wasted on the War on Drugs and jailing defendants could be better spent on your objective of curbing nukes
And my point is that that is asinine, unsupported, and completely unrelated to the topic at hand, which was "Why I'm Uncomfortable With The 9/11 Festivities."
Now, I'm only a lawyer, not a drugged-out sixteen-year-old who is convinced that the world would be a better place if I could be stoned 24/7...
I'm sure you also bench press 1000 lbs, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, climbed Mt Everest, and have mastered several martial arts. Everyone's a big shot on the Internet.
Afterall I only said that the government claimed drugs support terrorism when Cylar appeared to claim he didnt see a link between weed and terrorism.
You didn't say "drugs." You said cannabis. You backed down after Roxeanne pointed out that the link between cannabis and terrorism is weak. You would have been on stronger ground if you'd stuck to opium and coke, as we both tried to point out to you.
And some how it seen as proof that a. I claimed weed always funds terror...
That WAS your claim. It was up to you to support it, not up to us to disprove it. We got off on this tangent because someone tried to say that terrorism would die down if only we legalized that wonderful, beneficial cannabis.
b. I then went on to claim that my original(and olny) claim was wrong, c. I'm on a pro-pot crusade, and d. to stupid to understand I wont get to light up if I'm dead.
Yeah, because is just how lawyers talk.
Ofcourse she's correct, but thats not the point. I never said which drugs supported terrorism...
Nice backtrack. The poster whose defense you came riding to DID specifically say cannabis, for one, and second, if you're going to ridicule the government's (apparent) claim that drug trafficking supports terrorism, you're going to have to get more specific if you expect to gain any traction.
An apeal to spelling? Really? Why not pull out the Nazi's while your at it and go for a classic Godwin?
Easy there, turbo. (snicker) Even I can't resist the low-hanging fruit.
Thats why I support legalizing all drugs and giving them away for free and in as large of quanities as anyone cares to take.
300 million Americans, all of them stoned or smashed out of their minds on free drugs. What could possibly go wrong?
By "giving them away," of course, you don't mean that you yourself actually intend to pay for someone else's drugs. What you mean is that you want Cylar and Roxeanne to pay for them. It's no different than any of the Left's other socialist giveaways, except this one is even more dangerous. Who's going to be left sober to work and pay the taxes that pay for all those free drugs? Good night Irene, I don't even know where to start with this one.
I suppose so, I agree with you that Roxy did quite the job.
The job of completely refuting your post and obliterating any point you were trying to make? Why yes...yes she did. Good of you to admit it.
Cylar at September 15, 2011 10:05 PM
God you are an idiot.
Lets go thru this step by step.
And my point is that that is asinine, unsupported, and completely unrelated to the topic at hand, which was "Why I'm Uncomfortable With The 9/11 Festivities."
So then, what did your forsy into nuclear terrorism have to do with 9/11 festivites? After all 9/11 festivities is a topic on festivites, not terrorism
I'm sure you also bench press 1000 lbs, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, climbed Mt Everest, and have mastered several martial arts. Everyone's a big shot on the Internet.
I never siad I was a lawyer, that was Roxy, honestly if you cant keep track of who wrote what, even with a record on this very webpage you arent going to fare well in theses debates if you hang around.
You didn't say "drugs." You said cannabis. You backed down after Roxeanne pointed out that the link between cannabis and terrorism is weak. You would have been on stronger ground if you'd stuck to opium and coke, as we both tried to point out to you.
Honestly if you cant be bothered go go back and look at what I posted you arent going to do well in these debates. But since your new, and dont seem that stupid(aside from your bizzare reluctance to read) I'm giving you a very rare thing - This one time only promotional offer to a new poster who I think isnt as dumb as he currently appears
So here it is for the THIRD time, what I acctually wrote "Doesnt the government claim that illegal drug use funds terrorism?". Now maybe I missed it but can you please point out the word canabis as it appears in the above quotation? You cant? Thats odd, its almost like I never mentioned weed specifiacally at all.
That WAS your claim. It was up to you to support it, not up to us to disprove it. We got off on this tangent because someone tried to say that terrorism would die down if only we legalized that wonderful, beneficial cannabis.
No it wasnt my claim, that was Roxys claim. And no one said terrorism would die down if weed were legal, lenoa said(after your rant of government wasting money on things they had no business spending money on) that the money the gvernment wastes on weed could be better spent on your suggestions
Nice backtrack. The poster whose defense you came riding to DID specifically say cannabis, for one, and second, if you're going to ridicule the government's (apparent) claim that drug trafficking supports terrorism, you're going to have to get more specific if you expect to gain any traction.
What backtrack, I never said Roxy was wrong regarding which drugs primarily fund terrorism. But My point was never about which drug specifically fund terrorism, only the governemt not so sublte claim that any illegal drug use can support terrorism. And why do I have to go to the trouble of being specfic and precise in my ridicule of a non specific, non precise PSA conlating getting high with murder and terror?
300 million Americans, all of them stoned or smashed out of their minds on free drugs. What could possibly go wrong?
300 million includes minors and infants, putting that aside the reason most people dont do drugs has nothing to do with their illegality. Alcohol kills more people then herion and yet you can buy in gas stations and grocery stores. Caffine has a more noticable effect on the body then weed and you can get it at the drive thru of dozens of fast food chains. Shall we discuss cigarettes as well while were at it?
By "giving them away," of course, you don't mean that you yourself actually intend to pay for someone else's drugs. What you mean is that you want Cylar and Roxeanne to pay for them. It's no different than any of the Left's other socialist giveaways, except this one is even more dangerous. Who's going to be left sober to work and pay the taxes that pay for all those free drugs? Good night Irene, I don't even know where to start with this one.
Yes I think it would be cheaper to give addicts all the drug they want for free at tax payers expense. It be far cheaper then jailing the ones caught up robbing people to feed their habit. Plus with a free unlimited supply hopefully a nuber would OD that much faster and reduce the number of addicts at large in society, hopefully before they have kids.
The job of completely refuting your post and obliterating any point you were trying to make? Why yes...yes she did. Good of you to admit it.
My point was the government cliamed drugs fund terrorism. I posted two of their PSA. Roxy oblitereated nothing aside from a straman argumrnt about weed - a subject I never even touched until after she and you brought it up.
So as my pon twas the governmt says drugs fund terrorism and your and Roxys counter arguments were 'Actually only these drugs support terrorism, ususally' how exactly does your argeeing with me constitute refuting me?
lujlp at September 15, 2011 11:03 PM
Leave a comment