“Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints”
Not long ago, the satirical newspaper The Onion ran a fake news story that began like this:
“At a well-attended rally in front of his new ground zero headquarters Monday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11. ‘My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise,’ said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. ‘As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all.’ If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world’s conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.”
Like all good satire, the story made me both laugh and cry, because it reflected something so true — how much, since 9/11, we’ve become “The United States of Fighting Terrorism.” Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote: I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.
I actually grew up in a country that believed in building a better life for all – instead of only a crusade for death to our enemies!
Overdue!
You know what makes it even worse? Every time you need a policeman or an ambulance, what do you have to dial on your phone? 911!
FEAR! FEAR! GO SHOPPING!
Tommy “Suck on this” Friedman. What a guy.
He’s very wise. That’s why he writes columns for the Times.
The fact that he came to this conclusion several years after the rest of the world in no way detracts from his seriousness.
Give me your hungry, your tired your poor I’ll piss on ’em
That’s what the Statue of Bigotry says
Your poor huddled masses, let’s club ’em to death
and get it over with and just dump ’em on the boulevard – Lou Reed
And don’t forget this one from the onion as well, NYC Unveils 9/11 Memorial Hole.
>>The fact that he came to this conclusion several years after
>>the rest of the world
I guess somebody forgot to send Dumbya and Rudy the memo.
“I actually grew up in a country that believed in building a better life for all – instead of only a crusade for death to our enemies! ”
Really, what country was that? We here in the US have a long history of crushing our enemies.
We are led by a bunch of somnambulant bed-wetters so terrified by their own nightmares that they will destroy all that is good to sooth their fears. Are a bunch of keystone-creeps so lacking in talent at their chosen profession that they can’t even successfully drive a flaming van into an airport really so scary that it justifies this cowardice?
Al Quida could give us 10,000 9/11’s, and we would survive, but their is no knife that strikes so sure as one held by our own hands. . .
U.S. politicians were desperately searching for a boogie man to place under everyone’s bed long before 9/11. With the end of the cold war and friendship with Russia, it was very difficult to continue politics as usual (i.e. us against them) when there was no ‘them’ available as an enemy.
Thank God for Osama and Saddam! They were Arabs, wore strange clothes and embraced a totally different, fractious religion that could be misinterpreted to encourage and justify xenophobia just as easily as the Christian religion. Really, they were absolutely perfect new enemies.
I suppose the sheer size and diversity of the U.S. makes its’ citizenry too difficult to terrorize and therefore control without an active enemy at the gates to unite everyone.
If the U.S. does ever get to 9/12 it won’t matter; a dangerous new enemy will have to be found and fought.
Its interesting to see how the UK and US deal with bombings and terrorists attacks. In the UK whenever something blows up the first priority of everyone is to act normally and pretend nothing happened. But then, the UK never has anything as big as 9/11 (although the threat of bombing in the UK has been around for so long now that few remember what it was like when there wasn’t a threat).
The simple fact is that the radical Muslims want to alienate that huge portion of the Islamic world that don’t actually want to blow shit up, but rather like listening to the iPods and having a McDonald’s every once and while. The number of nut-bars is fairly low, but every time they blow something up, and every time everyone makes a huge deal about it, start calling all Arabs rag heads and shout about how we need more police and tougher immigration law, the terrorists win some more.
If you want to win the war against terrorists, fly over Iran and drop New York Yankee baseball caps, Nikey running shoes, and some big macs, because at the end of the day, that is what the terrorists are fighting against and that is what the terrorists really want to stop!
Okay, this is a blog after all, but jesus f’n christ, why is it always so simple with some of you? 9/11 wasn’t just about dead people. The WORLD TRADE CENTER was demolished by a few religious hypocrites. Aside from the few thousand deaths is 10’s of billions of dollars in damages. It wasn’t a church in Anyville, an Xcorp headquarters in Somewheretown. You’d think that it was a point well made, but some of you are too obstinate to get it.
It settled one thing for certain; there is nothing the largest free democratic country can do to prevent any type of terrorist attack, ANY type, no matter what you do, without infringing on your freedoms. If you don’t want your freedoms touched, then get off the shitpot and make peace with the terrorists. You’ll have to compromise if they are willing to compromise, but it will stop the bloodshed, fear, anger, threat and erosion of your liberty. Are you prepared for that? It seems to me that you’ve chosen the third alternative … to do nothing.
I don’t see any demonstration that America is willing to negotiate a deal in any way, even on this thread. If you care to look in the mirror, those of you who see the US reaction as fear and not anger, will see staring back at you, self loathing and denial. Your are either right back to “it was a fluke, and won’t happen again”, or “Let it happen. They can’t kill all of us”. Are you insane?
Have you ever heard the phrase “the bigger they are, the harder they fall”? The USA is a huge target, from within and from a distance. If a country lobs a few nukes onto the USA, what are you going to do? Nuke them back? Unless it’s Russia, China or Australia, you’ll have to go at it the old fashion way… and we all can see how proficient you are at that. From within, there is no problem at the present time to make a nuclear bomb, dirty or otherwise, and detonate it wherever they please. Your borders are too expansive, and many of you, from what I often read here, aren’t even on alert.
Instead of being back-seat drivers and name-calling those who express concern and are trying to at least solve the problem…”oh you coward, crybaby, whimp…. bla, bla, bla”… why not suggest your version of an alternative solution that will keep your country free. If your solution is to do nothing and they will go away, you have learned nothing and are being stupid beyond belief.
#10, Ben, I just read your post. Good man. It’s the sentiment that counts of course, but someone here will attack the baseball cap idea as if you were being literally conclusive.
In case someone gets the wrong idea about my post… Bush is a MORAN, okay?
We do have a new enemy after 9/11 and it is the same one we’ve
had before 9/11 and it is God Himself, take heed therefore of the
old Proverb:
There is no weapon
or design that
prosper against
GOD.
[Duplicate post. – ed.]
Jeez it’s tough to watch “American Idol” and shop at Whole Foods and get my teeth cleaned and still have to block out the fact that America is at war.
RBG
Really Eidard? What era did you grow up in? Because I recall Desert Storm, and before that was where lost my father in Vietnam, and I read about Korea, WW II, WW I… Personally I can’t think of a generation where there wasn’t some kind of crusade (despite the underlying reason) where there wasn’t a “crusade for death to our enemies”
#15 pedro
I didn’t say anyone faked anything. Saddam was just an ex-ally and another low level, middle-east dictator and Osama was just an ex-ally and someone who happened to hate Americans for invading his holy land. No fakes. Just very real, very dangerous, chosen enemies…
Saddam never really lived up to his potential as a chosen enemy but Osama did.
JimR, the WTC was a building; concrete steel and glass. The Germans razed whole English cities; did they cower, give up all that made them English to face the threat? Did Churchill ask that the people give him absolute, ‘unitary’ power to counter the German threat, one that was at least a thousand times more dangerous than these creeps? Should we make peace with ‘them’? No, of course not, because they have no desire to compromise. But it would be wise to make peace with the 90% of people that surround them that, at best, look upon their activities as being of questionable value. Attacking countries left and right when the terrorists don’t care at all about borders unites the moderates behind the evil ones, at the same time that it boxes us in behind borders that they do not respect. So you want my strategic solution? Here goes;
Recognize that we will have to take a hit every now in then. We can take it. Destroying America to save it is ironic and stupid.
Stop respecting borders so much, and give up on any plans to take and hold territory in the mid-east. Of course, the neocons want to take over the world by grabbing at the energy supply, but this is a stupid and counterproductive vision that will only embolden our enemies and cost us far more than simply developing new technological solutions would. If they strike at us, strike back wherever they are with flexible air power and commando forces, -then leave-! The strategic strength of our enemies at the moment is that they can retreat into the House of Saud and rest, build new bombs, then return. There should be no safe haven, and there should be no easy target (Iraq) for our enemies to focus upon. Doing so plays into their guerilla tactics and costs us far too much blood and money to be justified strategically.
Finally, discourage this behavior by forging alliances between people of faith across this world, towards cooperation and mutual respect. That, of course, requires showing actual respect, and it also requires an ability to see solutions to problems that don’t involve killing people and enriching friends in the death industry.
Our problem isn’t a lack of solutions. The problem is a lack of common sense and basic decency. For, you see, both Al Quida and the administration saw the attacks on 9/11 in precisely the same light; as an opportunity to destroy our republic and put in it’s place a unrepresentative junta. Does it matter if this junta is ruled by Sharia or the ever shifting rules of greed?
9SLASH11 was a day not to be joked about or forgotten. Remember what we’ve forgotten, that 9/10 came before it and the weather was just as clear as on 9SLASH11. 9/12, when the smoke cleared was a day that made the day before it seem like a whole day had gone by.
#13 – #14 Suffering from a little gender confusion, are ya?
Li, your very first sentence of your rebuttal tells me that you have missed the point of the attack altogether. You state that the WTC is “just a building; concrete steel and glass.” Nothing More? It didn’t represent anything to you?
I’ll tell you what the terrorists succeeded in doing. The USA used to be respected by either example, fear, leadership… any number of things. The moment those planes destroyed the WORLD symbol of commerce, in the epitome of democracy USA, with no interference and in broad daylight… right under your nose Li, freedom as you know it was destroyed then and there. What is freedom to do or be, when anyone can take what you’ve done and who you are and destroy it on a whim, anywhere, anytime… without consequence?
I hope you are speaking only for yourself when you say “Recognize that we will have to take a hit every now in then. We can take it.” The WTC was destruction of a symbol. If they had instead chosen to kill people for their point, you would have seen millions die. Pay attention to the news. Recently, reporters tap danced across the Canadian-US border on back roads carrying full duffel bags 6-7 times without being noticed. They could easily have smuggled enough to make a dirty bomb, or even a nuclear bomb. That’s what’s so wonderful about freedom when you’re a terrorist.
You are wide open and you prefer to leave it that way? Hey, if you want to go sky-diving without a parachute be my guest. Unfortunately you want to take everyone with you (and call them names when they think differently).
So, it was just a bit of steel and glass eh?
And your solution… “If they strike at us, strike back wherever they are with flexible air power and commando forces, -then leave-! ”
…Ah, i see, find the culprits that probably killed themselves first, follow them back to their lair, and bomb part of downtown Chicago or Los Angeles, or Toronto, Canada. News flash, there isn’t any use for the lair after the fact. As for finding the culprits if they succeed, you can’t even find Bin Laden.
Are you a US citizen Li? Don’t you feel embarrassed or humiliated at all?
How appropriate that the US would make war on a noun.
I knew America was in big trouble literally MINUTES after the strike on the WTC — it was when New Gingrich got on Fox and declared… “This is another Pearl Harbor.”
The inherent trouble with letting conservatives fight your wars is that they are always LOOKING BACK and not at the present reality.
That’s been at the root of this whole boondoggle of the supposed “war on terror” which is just fueling radicalism.
Conservatives got the whole paradigm wrong so, of course, it’s been one big goose chase since 9/11.
(Plus, of course, their shamelessly playing politics with it.)
Save the world, Kill all the politicians… Lawyers NEXT…
Politicians DONT fight wars, they DEBATE wars…
JimR
You are missing the point in so many ways. Sure, it was a symbol; does that mean that if they burn a flag that is just as bad? Holding symbolism over substance is stupid and counterproductive. Second; do you really think that people who are so incompetent that they can’t drive a burning SUV into an airport can handle nuclear materials, let alone maintain a nuclear bomb? This is not an easy task by any means, and I speak from experience as a competent lab tech. Hell, the only reason they even managed to pull off 9/11 is that NORTHCOM was running an exercise that day that had the exact same scenario, and Cheney didn’t authorize the shoot-down in time. In other words, dumb luck or collusion.
As for bombing Toronto; why do that when we have police? We don’t have effective police forces in Somalia, or Yemen, or Saudi Arabia, and those are the places I was speaking off.
The overall theme of your letter is that you are a coward. How many millions did the Germans kill? If we had been led by people like you back then we would have surrendered.
But, then again, given your vision of America, perhaps that would have suited you just fine.
JimR
Terrorists may blow up buildings. But they can’t destroy our way of life or system of government. We did that.
We were fed fear as the reason for the erosion of civil liberties. We were fed fear for a government more concerned with giving cash to its friends.
Now, we watch “Real Life” Cop Shows. Is that the way you want your police force to operate? Read the news about people being tasered by sadistic cops. Is that the way our police should arrest someone?
Cry about some lives lost. That is tragic. But, more people will die this month in automobile accidents, or from medical mistakes, or because of obesity then died in 9/11. If you need to fear something, then fear those things that hurt us. Fear those whom trample our rights. Fear those in power who lie to us. Fear those who would turn against a false enemy to exact revenge instead of the man ultimately responsible for 9/11.
I’ll try and keep this brief.
1. Burning a flag is no where near as bad Li unless the terrorists first chartered a bus, drove up to the white White House, pulled down the flag and burned it, all in broad daylight and killing everyone in the White House with almost no resistance. You don’t seem to be able to see the difference.
2. If you think the 911 terrorists are so stupid, America has to be brain dead by comparison. It was a well planned attack, they practiced it in the open on American soil and they were successful.
3. I want to fight back.
You are the coward and traitor that thinks 3000-4000 dead Americans, 5 billion dollars+ in damages, and a slap in the face of freedom is just a hit Americans should take now and then.
4. WTF are you talking about Germany and WW2 for? There is absolutely no comparison. You’ve lost the argument when you resort to the sensationalism of Nazi Germany.
5. “Freedom” has to be protected. That’s why there are borders. That’s why there are armies. That’s why there are police. That’s why there are laws. All those things are already in place to protect your freedom. So why are you against strengthening those things in ways to protect us from a new threat, terrorism? Li if anyone is scared it’s you. You are afraid of change and evil government plots… the boogeyman under the bed… and are irrationally concluding that security is bad for freedom.
6. Mr Fusion, the difference between getting killed in a car and being killed by a terrorist is that I have the freedom of choice whether I will expose myself to traffic or not.
7. We aren’t fed fear Mr. fusion, we create it. “We” are the same as ever before. The gamut of society runs from insane to genius, from have-nots to grossly affluent. Double or triple that population in confined spaces (cities) and the intensity of crime, corruption, everything doubles or triples. It’s nothing new and management of internal social planing and management has very little or nothing to do with 9/11. If congested population, more “stuff”, and LESS government is what Americans want, be prepared to suffer by your own hands.
8. Mr. Fusion, your fear of having your “rights” trampled seem irrational. Read #5. Freedom can’t exist for long without security for it. Either do what’s necessary to protect freedom (of the innocent) or be prepared to give it up. What you see as encroachment of “rights” is actually a fear of overly securing freedom. Terrorism from other countries is relatively new for the USA. I would sat that the prudent reaction would be to secure against it effectively, and then back off as the threat subsides through other means (war, negotiations, whatever), or if it is shown that we have become overly secure. The fact that a group can carry spent plutonium and other necessary items across your border and make a dirty bomb and blow it up wherever they please and as often as they please means that you are not securing your freedom effectively, and you could actually lose it in REALITY and not by misinterpreted symbolisms like standing in line to be checked before boarding a plane so it will be safe.
JimR : As a lightweight here, lemme weigh in anyway. I didn’t see where Li was advocating completely disregarding our responsibility to protect ourselves, just the opposite. Saying that any comparison to,perhaps, the only really justifiable war we’ve ever participated in is an invalid comparison and then not specifically providing a comparative example is simply name calling,imo.
I cannot see where we need to become more like our enemies to successfully fight them and/or defend ourselves from them. The point you keep missing here is that we already are our own worst enemy because we have never done more than knee-jerk ourselves in exactly the direction any idiot could predict and that idot group of fear mongers have led us . Isolationism ? Close the borders and lock everyone inside into rules and laws designed to protect us from the enemy within and without ? I thought this was done already ? I think it still is being done ? I guess I still think what we used to believe in was a better example of how to lead the rest of the world than what you appear to want.
DeLaMa, I’m taking an unpopular stance here, so I would appreciate you checking your facts and being fair, instead of making erroneous assumptions.
Why not take a more direct approach and tell me why you think any of the 8 points I made are wrong?
It is an erroneous assumption that external threats are more dangerous than internal ones. Look at the history of any nation that has fallen to tyranny and murder, and you will see men who used a minor threat to create unquestionable power.
The people of this nation may be generous, hard working, and brave, but we are not angels or devas. To think that we are immune from the same sort of perils every good government has faced in the past is perhaps the same sort of ignorance that leads a person to think they can win a civil war, when it has never once been done before.
1. You said that it was worse because it was a symbol. I still don’t understand how that is relevant, your objection aside.
2. The 9/11 terrorists are dead. Are you worried their super smart zombies are going to kill you yet? Terrifying.
3. You might want to fight back, but I want to fight them. Killing random people and taking territory when they don’t care about borders is stupid strategy, rather like punching out the waitress in a bar fight. It wins you no friends and rids you of no enemies.
4. WWII was far more horrible, and yet we did not have to anoint a king to win it. Are you so dense that even simple examples are beyond your grasp? I could have used the example of the War of 1812, when they burned Washington DC down, but you don’t even know that civil wars can’t be won by an outside force, so I was sure that example was beyond you.
5. Borders that are open. Armies which are at the breaking point. Police who think themselves above the law. Laws which are freely broken when done by the rich and powerful. Terrorists that got away because laws and responsibilities which existed already were not observed. Defending freedom means valuing it, not destroying it, you doublethinking fool.
6. So, you are free not to go to work? Sounds like fun, sign me up.
7. Worthless, ignorant, asinine, drivel. It counters itself.
8. How about we secure your freedom by locking you in a rubber room, in an underground bunker, while wearing a straight jacket? I assure you that you will be utterly safe, and we can be secure in the knowledge that someone who thinks exchanging security for freedom is a safe transaction is in an appropriate place.
Point by point, you don’t have one, except this one;
Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death.” And then he was shot.
JimR says, “Take my freedom, just keep me alive!” Then he wets his pants.
Li, you’re either drunk or 12 years old. Either way i’ll not waste my time with your nonsense.