People keep talking about how the world changed on 9/11.
It didn’t. The world was filled with terrorists, and bombs, and people living in fear, and attacks on home grounds. The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed. We became both of and in the world.
It’s five years later. Anyone feeling safer?
I also find it interesting that the Democrats have surrendered the moral high ground in terms of TV presentation. Here the GOP managed to get the Reagan biopic banished to cable because they didn’t like the way it presented their political saint, and now the Democrats managed to get the miniseries on 9/11, based on the findings of the bi-partisan committee, re-edited so that it wouldn’t seem as if President Clinton was too distracted by Monicagate to go after bin Laden…except I find it difficult to believe any reasonable person could think that the harassment over Lewinsky didn’t impede Clinton’s effectiveness on any number of levels.
Quick, kids. There’s some history. Let’s rewrite it.
PAD
• 
“Posted by Den at September 12, 2006 11:27 AM
You folks here haven’t said anything that I haven’t heard on any talk radio station.
Neither have you, for that matter. Actually, your attempts to sound pithy and clever sound more like talk radio points than anything else said here. You even hit the highlights: Neville Chamberlain, World War III, convert or die. Everything you said sounds like it was pulled directly from talk radio.”
–I’m rubber, you’re glue. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah.
Why is talk radio all of a sudden, wrong?
Why is posting on a blog of a website of a blog of a guy who writes comics for a living somehow more holy and pristine and talk radio?
Why, out of all the salient points I posted in my last message, did you pick the most inane one to respond to? Could it be that you see some wisdom in the other ideas?
Why can’t you stay on topic?
Jesus, and they call ME childish…grow up, dude.
“That’s a rhetorical question, so I won’t bother to answer it. I will say this, though: I believe the bulk of the conversations here are quite intelligent. I believe you are sincere in your desire to merely “inject some humor,” but I can also tell you that, from my perspective, you’re failing to do so. Furthermore, I believe you are lowering the quality of the conversation, not because you disagree with me, but because you are expressing yourself in snarky little soundbites. From my perspective, you sound more like an talkshow on AM radio than most of the rest of the posters here.
Dan, you seem to be an intelligent and impassioned individual. Why not try toning things down a bit and engaging in a dialog, rather than all of this cyber-snark? You might be surprised at how worthwhile the results will be.
Mind you, if you want to continue with the snark, it’s no skin off my nose. But I certainly can’t spend anymore time engaging in conversation with you if you do. I just have too many things to do to be bothered to engage in non-productive conversations.”
–Does this mean that I win?
P.S.–Regarding “snarky” dialogue–Re-read Hulk #341–in the last panel, Hulk says:
“Whatever else you do doesn’t matter. You’re ALREADY punishing him. you’re going to let him LIVE.”
Sounds pretty snarky to me.
BTW, Peter David wrote that line. I’m just trying to copy the style of the master….
Why is talk radio all of a sudden, wrong?
When was it ever right?
I detest the sound bite mentality and the “you don’t agree with me, so I’ll just make fun of you and then hang up” attitude that talk radio promotes. It is childish and inane.
Why, out of all the salient points I posted in my last message, did you pick the most inane one to respond to? Could it be that you see some wisdom in the other ideas?
Snarky comments aren’t “salient points”. That’s why I’ve been trying to explain to you. Like Bill said, you seem to be an intelligent person, but your efforts to try and sound clever are coming across as juvenile in the extreme.
And with that, I’m turning my attention to the adults in the room.
BTW, Peter David wrote that line. I’m just trying to copy the style of the master….
Then please stop before you hurt yourself.
Dan, you are no longer making sense. If this is a genuine attempt to engage others, quit and reevaluate. If this is just trolling…well, you did a good job but one must ask if it’s a job worth doing.
Okay, just an off-topic point here: Snark.
Wikipedia defines snark as (or more exactly, defines snark in one way as): ‘a style of speech/writing that could loosely be described as “snidely derisive”.’
snidely derisive?
Now, “snide” is defined as: derogatory in a nasty, insinuating manner. “derisive” is defined as “characterized by or expressing derision; contemptuous; mocking”
So, previous comments were derogatory, nasty, insinuating, contemptuous and mocking?
How? Because I am able to express myself in short sentences, where it takes you guys paragraphs to even get one thought across?
This is the way I express myself. I grew up reading comics. I liked comics because they got their ideas across using as few words as possible.
My words may not be flowery, and I may not be long-winded, but when I am answering a question, I try not to bore the reader with other crap that I may personally think is important, and I try to get right to the point.
If that is perceived as ‘snarky’, I do apologize.
But like I said, that’s the way I talk, that’s the way I write.
Its also the reason I like Peter David’s work so much.
Also, if you couldn’t tell, most of the time I was trying to be sarcastic. That’s another aspect of Peter David’s work that I enjoy.
I mean “Quick, kids. There’s some history. Let’s rewrite it.” Now THAT’S snark. I would argue that its even snarkier that a lot of the stuff I wrote.
So again, I apologize. If that doesn’t satisfy you, tough noogies.
Just an observation on the idea that there can be no peace between militant islams and the rest of the world.
My (admitedly limited) knowledge of the Bible includes a passage (I’m not one to remember chapter and verse) about how you’re supposed to kill anyone that follows a false God, or attempts to tell you that you’re following the wrong God. It seems to me that a goodly number of Christian faiths today no longer follow this bit of Old Testament directive.
So, apparantly, things do change.
Militant Islam is a small faction of the Muslim world. It’s able to grow and take root because of the social and economic conditions that exist in the Middle East. By bringing about real change and stability to the region…however it’s done…we’ll kill off the roots that allow terrorist groups to recruit from.
We’re not in a kill or be killed situation.
“Dan, you are no longer making sense. If this is a genuine attempt to engage others, quit and reevaluate. If this is just trolling…well, you did a good job but one must ask if it’s a job worth doing.”
–I guess I’m not clear in what you mean it is to ‘engage others.’ I thought I was expressing some ideas, some different viewpoints.
I was taking the role of the fatalist. Partly out of sarcasm, but also out of a sense that your discussion was getting nowhere–it was becoming an exercise in literary masterbation–I just do this to make me feel good.
Do you perceive my responses as snarky becuase you don’t agree with my politics? I would argue that you don’t even know what my politics are.
And while were’s at it, YOU called me childish FIRST. I did not make any derogatory comments until you started things. I never even made this personal until you people started railing at ME PERSONALLY.
And I don’t feel that I’m trolling. I think I’ve made some salient points, coming from a fatalist point of view. They just don’t happen to agree with yours.
And if you can’t handle a dissenting point of view, then I suggest you reconsider and rethink what you define as a ‘discussion.’
Do you perceive my responses as snarky becuase you don’t agree with my politics? I would argue that you don’t even know what my politics are.
snarkiness is a matter of tone. you yourself said you were trying to be sarcastic. sarcasm and snarkiness shall forever be linked.
“My (admitedly limited) knowledge of the Bible includes a passage (I’m not one to remember chapter and verse) about how you’re supposed to kill anyone that follows a false God, or attempts to tell you that you’re following the wrong God. It seems to me that a goodly number of Christian faiths today no longer follow this bit of Old Testament directive.”
I’m not sure that there was such a directive, as it would naturally contradict the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” I’ll do some checking…
“At one time, slavery was a legal and commonly accepted practice throughout the Western world. “Today, there are no Western industrialized nations where slavery is legal.”
–Who cares if its legal or not–its still being done. People hire illegal immigrants so that they can pay them slave wages to do work they are either too lazy or too arrogant to do themselves–oh, so that’s not ‘technically’ slavery? Splittin’ hairs, dude.”
That is ridiculous. You cannot compare slavery, in which the slave oftentimes was forcibly removed from his home, has no rights and no freedom, to illegal immigrants–who were not forced to come here–and are simply underpaid. It’s not “splitting hairs.” The point is correct: Things DO change. Former enemies become allies. Practicing witches in the United States are no longer hung, burned, or pressed; criminals in England are no longer publicly stripped, disemboweled, drawn and quartered. The world in many respects is, quite simply, more civilized than it was. Otherwise the things done by Muslim extremists wouldn’t be considered barbaric, but rather SOP.
“I mean really, how serious a discussion can you have on a blog of a webisite of a guy that writes comic books for a living (no offense, Peter.)?”
A rhetorical question, greeted by another rhetorical question: Why is it that people think that saying something remarkably offensive and following it with “no offense” somehow mitigates the offensiveness?
PAD
“snarkiness is a matter of tone. you yourself said you were trying to be sarcastic. sarcasm and snarkiness shall forever be linked.”
So, is snarkiness necessarily a bad thing?
Peter David wrote:
“It’s five years later. Anyone feeling safer?”
Tell me that you see no sarcasm in that.
He also wrote:
“Quick, kids. There’s some history. Let’s rewrite it.”
I think the tone of that sentence speaks volumes of snarkiness.
If I am wrong, tell me how my writing differs in tone from those two sentences.
It seems to me that there’s a fine line between literary perception and literary bigotry.
Do you perceive my responses as snarky becuase you don’t agree with my politics? I would argue that you don’t even know what my politics are.
Er, no. Which is why I never brought up your ploitics. Or the word snarky, for that matter.
And while were’s at it, YOU called me childish FIRST. I did not make any derogatory comments until you started things.
What the HÊLL are you talking about? You do know that our names are listed above our comments, right? Jesus. I take it back; you’re not even trolling well.
And if you can’t handle a dissenting point of view, then I suggest you reconsider and rethink what you define as a ‘discussion.’
Please. Like anyone “can’t handle” your scary intellect. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Mistake noted.
Fly away little troll. Fly, fly.
To the Rev. Mr. Black: I hope to hëll I haven’t scared you off, man. I very much hope to see another post from you — or maybe even an e-mail to let me know things are all right.
To everyone: the last time I said I’d ignore someone, it was spiderrob8. I declared him a troll but I changed my mind. I was overreacting. He’s cool. Danny-boy, not so much, though. So let’s play a game: let’s pretend Dan Nakagawa isn’t around, and get back to the cracking good discussion we were having before this little boy tried to barge into the adults’ table.
Anyone with me?
“That is ridiculous. You cannot compare slavery, in which the slave oftentimes was forcibly removed from his home, has no rights and no freedom, to illegal immigrants–who were not forced to come here–and are simply underpaid. It’s not “splitting hairs.” The point is correct: Things DO change. Former enemies become allies. Practicing witches in the United States are no longer hung, burned, or pressed; criminals in England are no longer publicly stripped, disemboweled, drawn and quartered. The world in many respects is, quite simply, more civilized than it was. Otherwise the things done by Muslim extremists wouldn’t be considered barbaric, but rather SOP.”
I would argue, sir, that events do often change, feeling sometimes do not–that was the original point that I was trying to make.
Again, your honor, I bring as evidence, Hulk #341, in which Man-Bull, arguably a ‘monster’ is being hunted by a town, much in the same manner the Hulk was, back in the day. Yet the Hulk is not being hunted–indeed, he has gained more than a modicum of respect.
Seems to me that either the Hulk should have been hunted down by the townspeople just as much as the Man-Bull, or the townspeople should have realized that Man-Bull was simply on a Hulk-like berzerker rage, and should have simply let the Hulk and crew handle the situation.
Wasn’t a main theme of that story “the more things change, the more they stay the same?”
You’re right–slavery is not exactly like illegal immigration–we have evolved in the social sense of…but my argument is that we haven’t come all that far in the economic sense of ‘slavery.’
I remember watching a TV show wherein a detective had one of his staff to go into a company that hired illegal immigrants and look for work. She was promised a sum of wages and went to work.
When she returned to the office, she was paid a sum that was significantly less than what she was promised. When she argued that this was not the amount she was promised, the office clerk grew violently angry (literally, like a Jekyll and Hyde) and threatend to report her to the authorities for deportation if she didn’t just shut up and take the money…
I hope that I was able to argue my point without snarkiness.
Bill Myers Says:
“So let’s play a game: let’s pretend Dan Nakagawa isn’t around, and get back to the cracking good discussion we were having before this little boy tried to barge into the adults’ table.”
I was going to comment on how painfully childish this little guy’s attitude was, but I’d say that’s all too painfully apparent. Geez, if he takes comments on a blog this personally, I wonder what he must be like in real life–since he’s ignoring me, I guess I’ll never know. I was halfway expecting threatening e-mails from the guy.
Condiering the fact that he’s a comic creator himself, I wonder how he deals with negative criticism.
Kind of sad, really.
I liked comics because they got their ideas across using as few words as possible.
Clearly you’ve never read most of Stan Lee’s scripts, then. 🙂
TWL
“I liked comics because they got their ideas across using as few words as possible.
Clearly you’ve never read most of Stan Lee’s scripts, then. 🙂
TWL”
–LOL–That’s also the reason I stopped reading John Byrne….
Den: Seriously, the adults here are trying to have a serious discussion.
Dan Nakagawa: No you’re not. You folks here haven’t said anything that I haven’t heard on any talk radio station. I was just trying to inject a little humor here…I mean really, how serious a discussion can you have on a blog of a webisite of a guy that writes comic books for a living?
Luigi Novi: An extremely serious one. Why do you ask? Are you of the opinion that the occupation of a blog’s owner mitigates the quality of the discussion on it, rather than the intelligence of the participants in it?
Dan Nakagawa: Again, your honor, I bring as evidence, Hulk #341, in which Man-Bull, arguably a ‘monster’ is being hunted by a town, much in the same manner the Hulk was, back in the day. Yet the Hulk is not being hunted–indeed, he has gained more than a modicum of respect.
Luigi Novi: Um, no, because that issue in question was actually part of a storyline in which the Hulk was on the run from S.H.I.E.L.D. with Clay Quartermain and Rick Jones. Even three years later, when he allied himself with the Pantheon following his personality merge, he did so partially because he was convinced by Agamemnon that the authorities would continue to come after him because of all the destruction he had previously caused, and in allying himself with them, again came into conflict with the Avengers, and then S.H.I.E.L.D. again.
So your statement that he was not being hunted is clearly false.
Dan Nakagawa: “I was going to comment on how painfully childish this little guy’s attitude was, but I’d say that’s all too painfully apparent.”
Dan, I’m probably going to kick myself for failing to follow through on my own call to ignore you. But I keep hoping against hope that you’ll see the light of reason.
You called me “bucko,” you told a another poster “…I’m rubber, you’re glue. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah…”, and you’ve insulted our host, Peter. You can claim that it is I, and not you, who is being childish, but that won’t change the fact that the reverse is true. It’s like calling a circle a square. You can do it ’til you’re blue in the face, but a circle is still a circle.
Dan Nakagawa: “Geez, if he takes comments on a blog this personally, I wonder what he must be like in real life–since he’s ignoring me, I guess I’ll never know. I was halfway expecting threatening e-mails from the guy.”
Oh, grow the fûçk up. Nothing that I’ve written here could be reasonably construed to be remotely threatening. Frankly, I’ve given back to you merely a fraction of what you’ve dished out to me. And clearly — you can’t take it.
Dan Nakagawa: “Condiering the fact that he’s a comic creator himself, I wonder how he deals with negative criticism.”
Dan, I suggest you check out my own blog. One thread consists of critiques of the first issue of my comic, from friends and strangers alike. Many of the criticisms were negative. I handled them just fine.
Dan Nakagawa: “Kind of sad, really.”
Whatever.
To everyone else: yeah, I should probably just ignore this guy, but when someone accuses me of acting threateningly when I did no such thing, I get a bit hot under the collar, y’know?
I was going to comment on how painfully childish this little guy’s attitude was, but I’d say that’s all too painfully apparent. Geez, if he takes comments on a blog this personally, I wonder what he must be like in real life–since he’s ignoring me, I guess I’ll never know. I was halfway expecting threatening e-mails from the guy.
You know, just saying something doesn’t make it so. As you have noticed–if this “I’m totally oblivious to how I come off” act isn’t actually how you are–the only one coming off as a petulant child is you. Bill Myers is probably too busy with his job, hobby, friends and girlfriend to pay you much mind, though your pathetic attempt to get him to pay attention to you speaks volumes.
And with that, I now task myself with ignoring your no doubt killer ripostes. I’ll try to ignore you until you say something actually worth the time it takes to read it. It wouldn’t be the first time someone came on the board acting like an ace high weenie and then calmed down, but I won’t hold my breath.
Troll away. You get the last word.
Hi Luigi,
“Luigi Novi: Um, no, because that issue in question was actually part of a storyline in which the Hulk was on the run from S.H.I.E.L.D. with Clay Quartermain and Rick Jones. Even three years later, when he allied himself with the Pantheon following his personality merge, he did so partially because he was convinced by Agamemnon that the authorities would continue to come after him because of all the destruction he had previously caused, and in allying himself with them, again came into conflict with the Avengers, and then S.H.I.E.L.D. again.
So your statement that he was not being hunted is clearly false.”
I stand corrected. Still, the fact remains that the townspeople did not immediately seek to hunt down the Hulk as they did Man-Bull, so clearly they saw Man-Bull as a threat, but not the Hulk (or, not as much of one, anyway).
Er, no. Which is why I never brought up your ploitics. Or the word snarky, for that matter.
Since I was the one who used the word snarky, I guess I should address this: It was never about Dan’s politics, whatever they are. In fact, I made it a point to avoid getting involved in his obvious “Dem yahoo administration” comments. I’m simply bored with the talk radio-inspired debating tactic of first belittling someone’s opinion, then making a quick sound bite, followed by cries of innocence when someone calls them on this tactic.
I don’t care which side of the political spectrum this tactic comes from, it’s tiresome and does nothing to advance the debate forward.
Why is it that people think that saying something remarkably offensive and following it with “no offense” somehow mitigates the offensiveness?
One of the funnier parts of Talldega Nights: The Legend of Ricky Bobby involves a discussion on the similarly related “with all due respect” prefix.
Peter said:
People keep talking about how the world changed on 9/11.
It didn’t. The world was filled with terrorists, and bombs, and people living in fear, and attacks on home grounds. The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed.
Then IJ said:
“The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed. We became both of and in the world.
PAD, that is just plain weak. That is like saying if I find out that I have cancer, nothing really changed, just my perception of it.
I’m searching for the hair that PAD is splitting, but my microscope must be on the blink. Unless it’s the watering down that IJ gave with the use of “really” and “just” in his comparison. Otherwise, the simile holds up just fine.
Then again, the subtopic is about rewriting history, and the denying of things being said.
RJ, your analogy isn’t exactly correct. It’s more like you knew you were sick, but then found out you had cancer. Nothing’s changed but your understanding, your perception. Things you might have waited to do until later you might now work harder to do sooner, knowing that you’ve got cancer.
We knew before 9/11 that the world had some bad people in it. That terrorists were out there and wanted us dead. We just didn’t think they could really hurt us on our own soil. We always knew they’d try, and I’m sure at some point we thought “y’know, we really ought to see about bettering our security, just in case.”
So now we find out we’re just as vulnerable as the rest of the world. Our understanding of this sickness that infects some parts of the world got better on 9/11. It didn’t get worse, just our understanding, our perception of it did. Everything really still the same. We just have some extra motivation to do something about it now.
One of the funnier parts of Talldega Nights: The Legend of Ricky Bobby involves a discussion on the similarly related “with all due respect” prefix.
If memory serves, our host here had a bit of business about the phrase in one of his works. I’m not remembering where, though — New Frontier, maybe? It was something about “why does that phrase always mean you’re about to get your head handed to you?”, or something like that.
Does anyone else remember anything like this, or am I just nuts? (And yes, I realize the two are not mutually exclusive…)
TWL
Yes, and yes. Although I can’t for certain give the credit to PAD. It seems like something you’d find in a New Frontier book. Or a Joss Whedon script.
Tim Lynch
Not crazy but I think it was in the 2nd Apropos book but I’ll ask Peter when I see him later.
Kath
“”I mean really, how serious a discussion can you have on a blog of a webisite of a guy that writes comic books for a living (no offense, Peter.)?”
OK, enlighten me please. Where is it permissible to have a serious discussion? A scientist’s blog? How exactly does Peter’s profession have anything to do with it? He also writes novels you know. Does that afford his opinions more legitimacy? Oh Wait they are Sci-fi and fantasy novels so I suppose in your opinion they don’t. Hmmm lets see nope I can’t see any reason that the seemingly educated (at least most of them) people who post here on this arguably brilliant and prolific fantasy writers blog can’t have a serious discussion. Ahhh but many of us do read comics, so you’re right of course. Best to limit our discourse to another geeky debate on could superhero A beat superhero B. You know wouldn’t want to accidentally express an opinion and hurt ourselves.
JAC
Tim, you are nuts, but you are also correct. In the second New Frontier book (at least I believe it was the second), Admiral Jellico says something very close to the following: “Just once, I’d like the words ‘with all due respect’ to be followed with a sentiment that’s genuinely respectful.”
Mind you, I’m paraphrasing.
Anyway, this is something Jellico says aloud to himself after Shelby tells him, “With all due respect, you can go screw yourself,” and then storms out of his office.
I really shoulda let Peter or Kath field this one, but it feels so good to be “in the know” just this once!
Also
“I was just trying to inject a little humor here…”
I do suppose congratulations are in order. 95% of my posts here over the last i guess 3 years are simply for humor value, and I’m not aware of anyone I’ve really pìššëd øff. If I did really piss anyone off they weren’t nearly as vocal about it as they are now to you. WOW
JAC
Iowa Jim, sitting in the middle of a corn field in Bumf88k Iowa, telling us he feels safer is just a f88king joke.
DON’T FEED THE TROLLS
Notice how many “new” posters there are for this thread.
New posters are always welcome, I am sure, but some “new” posters are obviously merely here to stir up trouble.
PAD,
Fine. I cannot read you with an unbiased eye. I won’t debate the point. But my point is simply this: I would have preferred something that honored those who lost their lives at the hands of terrorists to a comment that nitpicked how we use a particular phrase. That was what was weak — a wasted opportunity to remember those who perished on a horrible day 5 years ago.
Iowa Jim
“That was what was weak — a wasted opportunity to remember those who perished on a horrible day 5 years ago.”
Not to actually comment on what you and PAD are talking about, but in my opinion what was weak and wasted opportunity to remember those who perished was a presidental speech using 9/11 and Iraq together. It’s like Bush has a pull string coming out of his back.
JAC
Iowa Jim, sitting in the middle of a corn field in Bumf88k Iowa, telling us he feels safer is just a f88king joke.
Alan, that’s not exactly fair. An argument can be made that we are, in fact, safer. And whether or not a person feels safer is rather entirely dependent on the person and their situation, yes? PAD asked the question and it’s unfair to slam someone for giving an answer.
In point of fact, I do feel a bit safer, in some ways. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I’ve been predicting disaster for years. I fully expected us to be in the throes of a full fledged bio-war by this time. The fact that I was wrong about how easy it is to use anthrax as a weapon has been a tremedous relief to me. All the predictions I and many others made about how, after 9/11, our new reality would include regular terrorist attacks, turned out to be wrong. So far, at least.
Either the terrorists are less organized than I thought or our counter measures are more effective. Either way, cause for relief.
Your mileage may vary but if you are going to mock others you might at least give some rational reasons why your opinion is more valid.
Iowa Jim wrote: “I would have preferred something that honored those who lost their lives at the hands of terrorists to a comment that nitpicked how we use a particular phrase. That was what was weak — a wasted opportunity to remember those who perished on a horrible day 5 years ago.”
Must we tiptoe around any critical discussion of the events and attitude pertaining to September 11th because people died? Since when is every discussion on the topic an “opportunity to remember those who perished”? And since when is not taking advantage of every single said opportunity “weak”? I read Peter’s post and I certainly did not FORGET those who died that day. Did you?
Opportunities to honor the dead abound. How do you, one who passes judgment on others in this regard, spend your time remembering them?
Thanks, Bill — dámņ, you’re good.
For anyone who wants to check, it’s on page 19 of the 2nd New Frontier book. (Once I had Bill’s lead, I went to my bookcase and checked.)
For the record, Bill, your quote was really close. Jellico actually says, “Just once, I’d like it if someone coupled the phrase ‘with all due respect’ with some sort of sentiment that was genuinely respectful.”
Now I can actually sleep tonight. 🙂
TWL
Ahem.
As people who are familiar with my postings here can attest, I sometimes come into a thread leading with my heart. Then I cool down and re-enter the fray with my intellect ascendant.
Such is the situation here.
I wish to hëll I could start over, but I can’t. Instead, I’ll try something unusual for me: rather than following tangents, I’ll address Peter’s initial post head-on.
Peter David: “People keep talking about how the world changed on 9/11.
“It didn’t. The world was filled with terrorists, and bombs, and people living in fear, and attacks on home grounds. The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed. We became both of and in the world.”
Peter, I hope you will take this in the spirit with which I offer it, because I don’t think I disagree with you as much as I have a… different perspective.
The world did change on September 11, 2001. The United States, a sleeping giant, was awakened. We experienced foreign terrorism on our own soil of a magnitude for which there was no precedent here. It changed the way we think and feel, and thoughts and feelings are the precursors to actions.
Before September 11, 2001, no president would have been able to muster the support needed to invade Afghanistan, even though every reasonable and well-informed person knew Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were dangerous. After September 11, 2001, there was very little internal opposition to such an invasion.
And I think it goes without saying that no President would have gotten away with invading Iraq for the purpose of regime change prior to September 11, 2001. The American people would have ridden him out of town on a rail.
For better or for worse, we are a Colossus of a nation. It is impossible for us not to have a huge effect on the world. The things we do as a collective inexorably ripple outward. When we act, there is massive consequence. So, when there is a change in how we act, the world changes with us.
So, yes, I do believe the world changed on September 11, 2001. It all depends, as Obi-Wan Kenobi told Luke Skywalker in “Return of the Jedi,” on one’s point-of-view.
Peter David: “It’s five years later. Anyone feeling safer?”
I don’t know if I feel safer or not. In many ways I’ve become numb to our new reality. Part of that is the unfortunate decision of our current administration to attempt to make the war on terror “transparent” to us. Remember shortly after September 11, 2001, when George W. Bush asked us to resume going about our normal daily routines? I’m not sure that was a good idea. We have been lacking in unity over the last several years. Shared sacrifice often brings unity. War bonds, victory gardens, what have you… these things may sound quaint, but giving people some “skin in the game” is a great way to build true unity.
Am I safer? It’s tough to say. I revile our current administration, and believe our president has waged the war on terror with great ineptitude. Yet I am forced to acknowledge that we haven’t suffered another significant attack since that fateful day, five years and one day ago. Even if we aren’t doing everything right, I don’t think we’re doing everything wrong, either. I think the recently averted plot to blow up planes en route to the U.S. from the U.K. was an example of Something Done Right. I believe that in spite of the ineptitude and corruption that exist in our government, there are nevertheless dedicated, capable and honorable individuals who are making a difference.
I’ve written about unity. It’s a tricky concept, because I don’t believe we should cease to disagree. We have legitimate differences that can and should be expressed, even in times of war. That is not our weakness, but instead our strength.
Yet there is such a thing as being too fractious. Look at this thread! Dan Nagakawa’s insincere foolishness aside, look at how many of the rest of us — myself included — have been parsing each other’s words, poring over them them with a microscope looking for fault. I believe most of us here are decent, sincere, intelligent, and well-meaning individuals, and yet it’s so easy for us to come to verbal blows anyway.
I mean, I look at how I attacked the Rev (KEEP THE NICKNAME, BUDDY). I was looking for a fight. I’m not alone in that. I’m far from alone in that.
We need to find the unity that allows us to stand together against our very real enemies, yet allows us to also speak about, debate, and act on our legitimate differences.
What should that unity look like? How will we achieve it? I’m not sure. It is clear we have much work to do. Our contentiousness here is a microcosm for the divisiveness exhibited by our entire nation.
I believe I can start to contribute to the effort in a teeny, tiny way. From this day forward, I will endeavor to disagree without rancor or derision. I will endeavor to remember that men and women of goodwill can disagree without being enemies. I will endeavor to recognize that people with a perspective that is different from my own aren’t necessarily any more wrong-headed than I believe myself to be.
This is a small thing, and not the only thing I can or should do. But it is a start.
I will do this in rememberance of the victims of September 11, 2001. Because I truly believe that we must eliminate unnecessary divisiveness from the national dialog. And I believe that the effort to do so starts not with someone else, but with each and every one of us as individuals.
Thank you, Peter, for allowing me to use this forum to express my thoughts. And thank you to anyone who took the time to read this post.
Tim Lynch: like television character Adrian Monk, I have a memory that is both a blessing and a curse. 🙂
Of course I should also acknowledge that Peter has a knack for writing dialog that is memorable. That makes my memory’s job a bit easier. 😉
Bill, it’s funny that you should put it that way, the colossus line I mean. I’ve been kinda thinking of it for the other end, that there are a colossal amount of people out in the world that really don’t like us and most Americans were blissfully unaware until five years ago. I’ve really been looking at it like people were walking around supremely comfortable in Our Place At The Top Of The World And We’re America And They’re ALL The Way Over There And Can’t Hurt Us. Now, I’ll be the first one to bemoan the seeming loss of the unity that seemed so prevalent five years ago. But, I also think that we’ve gained a hëll of a lot. (Rev, this could kind of go to you, too.) Look around. I see people more willing to help each other than they used to be. I see people actually willing to voice their opinions, dissenting or not, rather than just letting other people worry about problems.
Now, do I feel safer? Seriously? Yeah. A little safer than I did five years ago. Now, do I feel secure? That’s a different question. Five years ago, most people I know thought we were the top of the food chain as far as countries go. I’m now really aware of the fact that there is an outside world, outide of this country. Sometimes, it scares the hëll out of me, but I don’t miss the myopia I used to have. I see a little further than my doorstep now.
“I’ve written about unity. It’s a tricky concept, because I don’t believe we should cease to disagree. We have legitimate differences that can and should be expressed, even in times of war. That is not our weakness, but instead our strength.
Yet there is such a thing as being too fractious. Look at this thread! Dan Nagakawa’s insincere foolishness aside, look at how many of the rest of us — myself included — have been parsing each other’s words, poring over them them with a microscope looking for fault. I believe most of us here are decent, sincere, intelligent, and well-meaning individuals, and yet it’s so easy for us to come to verbal blows anyway.
I mean, I look at how I attacked the Rev (KEEP THE NICKNAME, BUDDY). I was looking for a fight. I’m not alone in that. I’m far from alone in that.
We need to find the unity that allows us to stand together against our very real enemies, yet allows us to also speak about, debate, and act on our legitimate differences.
What should that unity look like? How will we achieve it? I’m not sure. It is clear we have much work to do. Our contentiousness here is a microcosm for the divisiveness exhibited by our entire nation.
I believe I can start to contribute to the effort in a teeny, tiny way. From this day forward, I will endeavor to disagree without rancor or derision. I will endeavor to remember that men and women of goodwill can disagree without being enemies. I will endeavor to recognize that people with a perspective that is different from my own aren’t necessarily any more wrong-headed than I believe myself to be.
This is a small thing, and not the only thing I can or should do. But it is a start.
I will do this in rememberance of the victims of September 11, 2001. Because I truly believe that we must eliminate unnecessary divisiveness from the national dialog. And I believe that the effort to do so starts not with someone else, but with each and every one of us as individuals.
Thank you, Peter, for allowing me to use this forum to express my thoughts. And thank you to anyone who took the time to read this post.”
—That was beautiful, man (wiping a tear from my eye)…*SNIF*..*SNIF*…just beautiful…*SNIF* *SNIF*…
Come on, everybody…group hug….
Bill, do the people in your life tell you that you gotta get on a quiz show, too? I hear that all the time. And if you hadn’t pointed out NF2, I would’ve. Seriously! I would’ve! No matter how hollow that sounds!
Militant Islam is a small faction of the Muslim world. It’s able to grow and take root because of the social and economic conditions that exist in the Middle East. By bringing about real change and stability to the region…however it’s done…we’ll kill off the roots that allow terrorist groups to recruit from.
it’s worth pointing out that even among islamic terrorists, those who believe in attacking the west directly are a small minority.
i strongly recommend the BBC doco The Power of Nightmares.
you may disagree with the conclusions, but there are some very interesting facts presented.
my attempts to post links seem to all disappear down the spam-catcher hole so i’ll just say that the three segments of this documentary can be found on google video.
1.) Yes, I do feel safer. The a lot of people I talk to don’t feel safer is because ignorance is truly bliss. PAD is right to a degree. Terrorists obviously existed and had expressed hatred of the U.S. long before 9/11.
2.) This also why I think a lot of people DON’T feel safer, even about walking down the street. Since the 24-hour news cycle now covers Natalee Hollaway and JonBenet Ramsey with minutes and presentation that once would have been reserved for truly extraordinary events like the Kennedy assassination and even local news focuses on such bad stories, is it any wonder parents are more afraid to send their children out down the block than they were in say, the 1950s? A lot more scary things are coming into people’s homes than there were then. So individual incidents spread an inordinate amount of fear.
3.) So yeah, since the hostage crisis, there was really nothing Islamic terrorists had done that riveted the nation’s attention. “Fear of Terrorism” wasn’t a big political issue, even though the jihadists never stopped hating us or seeking to destroy us. Even the killings of over 200 Marines in Beiruit in 1983 did not wake us up, because it happened SOMEPLACE ELSE, to SOLDIERS. I feel Reagan’s subsequent withdrawal was one of his bigger mistakes. It made us look weak. If there is one thing Islamic Extremist Fundamentalist Killers respect, it is strength. But with the mood of the country, the Cold War on and a Democratic Congress it is not surprising that withdrawal was deemed best politically.
4.)Again, Reagan and Bush 41 both had to contend with the Cold War. Remember the 1980s? They absolutely had to give that their focus. What, really, was Clinton’s excuse? With a “peace dividend” and a good economy, couldn’t he have rallied support in the War On Terror? Couldn’t, in an address to the nation or even a State of the Union he have used his oratorical skils to make the case for why we HAD to go after people like Bin Laden? He spent a lot of time and energy in pushing for Health Care Reform because he thought it was important (the same way Bush has pushed for Social Security Reform). Leaders lead. We put them in office precisely because they may need to make important decisions and have access to information that we don’t.
5.) One can reasonably conclude that terrorism (and foreign policy in general) was not a priority for the Clinton Administration. His initial economic plan, NAFTA and putting more cops on the streets(which succeeded) and Health Care Reform (which failed) certainly were. In foreign policy, he brokered a bad deal for the Israelis at Oslo and got faked out by North Korea. To blame his failure to recognize the threat and take the steps he could have against it on “Republicans” and Monica Lewinsky is unfair to both entities. Frankly, if Clinton was THAT distracted and that was why he couldn’t make decisions to protect us, then on that basis alone he should have resigned – whether the Lewinsky scandal was an impeachable offense or not – and let President Al Gore focus on the nation’s threats and problems.
6.) Tim, you beat me to the punch! I remember that line in “New Frontier” fondly and think of it whenever anyone says “With all due respect”. By the way, you don’t need to send me a receipt. Although we don’t really know each other I do consider you to be honorable and honest. I’ve never called you a liar or a similar term, even if you’ve taken joy in calling me a “big dope” 🙂 I was at BaltimoreCon this weekend and told Jim McLauchlin that I had gotten someone to donate $100 and he was thrilled. Thanks!
“What, really, was Clinton’s excuse? With a “peace dividend” and a good economy, couldn’t he have rallied support in the War On Terror?”
With Ken Starr and the GOP congress attempting to topple his presidency? Absolutely not.
PAD
Even had the Lewinsky scandal not materialized, and even had the GOP not been obsessed with toppling Clinton’s presidency at all costs, I don’t believe Clinton could have “rallied support” in the “War on Terror.” Prior to September 11, 2001, terrorism wasn’t at the forefront of the national debate, nor the minds of most individual U.S. citizens.
Again, I ask: does anyone really believe that a president — any president — could have mustered support for a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan prior to 9/11? Or a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq? I don’t believe so.
I don’t believe it is productive to argue about whether one president or another did enough about terrorism prior 9/11. I don’t think we as a nation would have been willing to go to the necessary lengths.
Hindsight is 20/20.
The question is, has anyone done enough since? They stopped the plan in England, but now it seems that it was nowhere near coming to fruition, the way that all the media types seemed to be indicating. And are all the containers coming into the country checked yet?
“A rhetorical question, greeted by another rhetorical question: Why is it that people think that saying something remarkably offensive and following it with “no offense” somehow mitigates the offensiveness?”
-PAD
Thank you Admiral Jellico