Alarming News

September 11, 2005

Looking back

On September 11, 2002, I wrote that while I liked ‘G-d Bless America’, the song we needed as a country was a fighting song, our anthem, ‘The Star Spangled Banner’. I couldn’t get over that day. I didn’t want to.

September 11, 2003 was the beginning of a return to normality. The two years before this day had passed in a daze. I became such a homebody after 9/11. I didn’t want to go anywhere or do anything. I think many New Yorkers felt the same way. It wasn’t fear, at least not after awhile, it was more the feeling of pointlessness and loss. How could I care about anything when 3000 Americans died at work, at breakfast, in planes going on vacation? 2003 was when I started to feel like myself again, although I can’t say that I don’t think about 9/11 on a regular basis even now, in 2005. It changed everything. It definitely changed me.

Last year, September 11, 2004, I was in Dallas with my Halliburton Girl. The election was coming up and things were ugly. All the togetherness and community spirit of 2001 was completely gone by 2004.

I thought this year was better. The election was over. How much energy can be wasted hating a term-limited incumbent? Apparently, as the liberal response to a hurricane has demonstrated, a whole lot.

Look, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t argue over issues. I believe that smaller government and lower taxes are better for our country, you disagree, that’s fine, we don’t need to hate each other over tax policy. Even on social issues, why do we always have to take everything to the lowest common denominator? If someone is against gay marriage, that doesn’t mean they hate gay people (no matter what Andrew Sullivan or Downtown Lad think) and someone that is pro-choice doesn’t love killing babies, they just have a different set of principles and beliefs. It’s not the end of the world. Planes into our buildings, that’s closer to the end of the world. I wrote this a lot during the election as a reason to vote for Bush but it remains true today: none of our arguments will matter if we’re all killed by a nuke that has gotten into the wrong hands.

It isn’t just the president’s job to take terrorism seriously, though we’re lucky to have one that does, it should matter to each of us. You didn’t agree with the war in Iraq? Ok. Well. There’s a war over there, whether you wanted it or not. Be on our side. Hope America, and by default Iraq, wins. Don’t root against us. Don’t hope for defeat. Don’t side with the terrorists just to show up Bush. It’s insanity. Try to remember how you felt that day, the violation, the anger. The people at their desks at Cantor Fitzgerald or Aon weren’t thinking about politics. They were killed because they were Americans. And yeah, you don’t like hearing that they hate you for your freedom, because then it’s harder to blame Bush, but they do hate you for who you are and how you live.

The war on Islamic Fascism, and on their terrorist methods, is going to be long and hard. Afghanistan and Iraq are just the beginning. Yes, it is hard to change an insane culture into a healthy, stable one but our lives depend on it. We can pretend it’s not here, that this pause in attacks is because the forces that spurned Mohammed Atta have given up or walked away but we should all know better.

The band Bright Eyes, led by an anti-Bush leftist, Connor Oberst, has a song called ‘Road to Joy’, sort of the title track of his last album ‘I’m Wide Awake It’s Morning’ (since that’s the chorus of ‘Road to Joy’). In it, he screams ‘And no one’s sure how all of this got started, but we’re going to make g-ddamn certain how it’s gonna end’ in regards to the war. I know he means it as a criticism of our ignorance or arrogance or short-sightedness. Well, I’m sorry, even if you don’t understand how the war got started, even if you found it pointless, I don’t see anything wrong with wanting it to end the way we’d like. As I wrote in a comment section, if we take down a culture that had children’s prisons and human shredders while making ourselves safer, what’s wrong with that? And if the ’side’ of freedom, liberty, justice, capitalism, equality (or if you can’t suspend your America-hating to believe that, at least the side that practices these things a million times more than ‘the other side’) wins, what’s so bad about that?

On 9/11/01, we knew we had a country worth defending. I still feel that we do today. I hope that the great majority feels the same.

Posted by Karol at 06:12 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

On 9/11/01, we knew we had a country worth defending. I still feel that we do today. I hope that the great majority feels the same.

They don’t. Great post, though.

Posted by: Allah at September 11, 2005 at 6:25 pm

*yawn*

Posted by: Henrieta at September 11, 2005 at 7:19 pm

“I believe that smaller government… [is] better for our country”
Well, thats really funny seeing as the government has GROWN almost 30% while Dubya has been in office. Kinda goes against your statement, eh? Also, your claim that our president “cares about terrorism” is suspect at best. See, disaster relief woul be top-tier priority to anyone who ACTUALLY cared about terrorist strikes, seeing as right after preventing terrorist attacks (first priority), cleaning up after the inevitable one that slips past the goal would be right behind it. Rather than giving thought to this, he selected someone who officiated at horse and pony shows!

Posted by: political animal at September 11, 2005 at 7:32 pm

Thanks, Allah, that’s totally depressing.
PA,
The fact that Dubya SUCKS on limited government is exactly the point of this post. It’s not my top priority right now. Terrorism is. And on this W and I see eye to eye.
Disaster relief is important but more important is ‘addressing root causes’, something liberals always wanted until there was a Republican president. Well, I believe in addressing root causes, that’s what I feel we are doing in Iraq. But, again, you don’t have to agree with me to want us to win. Do you want us to win?

Posted by: Karol at September 11, 2005 at 7:38 pm

While I like “God Bless America,” I think the real battle song would not have been “The Star Spangled Banner” but “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” with its powerful image of a God of justice, with His terrible swift sword, and His Son Christ Who died to make us holy so let us die to make men free. While there would be the usual politically correct complaints, you really can not disassociate America from its Christian traditions, heritage and culture. It is a most powerful tune and would have been very appropriate if we were calling for the Lord to guide this nation.
Considering that 60% of us would take money out of Iraq to help Lousiana, I think we all better get used to what Allah is saying.
We can talk about a long twilight struggle against Islamo facism. I think we need to be talking about it. We should be prepared for it. The insurgency is not in its death throes. Mission is not accomplished and major combat operations are not over.
BTW, four years and a few weeks after Maj. Anderson surrendered to Gen. Beauregard, Jeff Davis was caught. Four years after Pearl Harbor, Hitler and Il Duce were dead and Tojo in our custody with three years before we executed him. While I know the court party will say it does not matter where Osama is, on a PR front it matters. Big time. Yes, I want Osama caught or at least accounted for. But then I want us-the West-to win.

Posted by: Von Bek at September 11, 2005 at 8:07 pm

Great comment Von Bek.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 11, 2005 at 9:01 pm

Thanks, Allah, that’s totally depressing.
Don’t kill the messenger, babe. Let’s be honest: the left and right in America now regard each as other enemies. Not in the same way that the jihadis are an enemy, of course; we’re all civilized people, so ours is (and hopefully will remain) a cold war. But it is a war.
A great man once said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. I wonder, when will our house collapse?

Posted by: Allah at September 11, 2005 at 9:15 pm

To paraphrase something that iowahawk said recently, leftards don’t realize that, just because they hate Bush as much as the jihadis do, that doesn’t make them their buddies.

Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at September 11, 2005 at 10:53 pm

I came out of hibernation to write a fourth anniversary post too, if anyone’s interested.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at September 12, 2005 at 1:01 am

September 11th, 2005

I don’t have anything to say right now about September 11th, 2001. I’d rather keep to myself and observe in silence for today. Here are a few thoughts from others which I appreciated: Rememberance Looking back A day of mourning…

Posted by: Eye Dream Awake at September 12, 2005 at 3:58 am

Best verse of the Start-Spangled Banner: the fourth, and last
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave
http://www.thenationalanthemproject.org/index.html

Posted by: meep at September 12, 2005 at 5:35 am

Terror war all but forgotten on home front

Terror war all but forgotten on home front
September 11, 2005
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Sept. 11, 2005 — the fourth anniversary of the start of the war. That is, if you believe it’s a ”war” A lot of people didn’t want to, even in those first da

Posted by: inf@ectio.us at September 12, 2005 at 6:10 am

Care to find me ONE person. Yes, ONE single person, who is against gay marraige, but does NOT hate gay people.
I don’t think you can.
And if you do – please show me a supporting statement where they actually ANYTHING positive about gay people.
I’ll send this challenge out to anyone.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at September 12, 2005 at 10:45 am

you really can not disassociate America from its Christian traditions, heritage and culture
Except for the part where you completely can, and should, Von Bek. That part is “all of it.” The point of the 1st Amendment was to protect religious freedom because the founders were smart enough to both resent England and know that their descendants would eventually make the same mistake that England did. They predicted you.

Posted by: ugarte at September 12, 2005 at 10:58 am

I fail to see how Fisher Ames, the father of the first admendment and an advocate of using the King James version of the Bible to teach children the English language, felt that his handiwork was for the complete divorce of church and state. I have a copy of the Papers of Mr. Ames on my bookshelf (the version edited by his son and updated by W. B. Allen). Please tell me what I missed, ugarte. Enlighten me.
Do not think that I am calling for a state sponsored church, like the Church of England. But I think it is foolish to try to deny the overwhelming Christian culture and background of the American experience. I am a firm supporter of religion being in the public square. You really can not understand the civil rights movement, the Progressives, and, sadly, both sides of the slavery question without it.

Posted by: Von Bek at September 12, 2005 at 2:20 pm

Because, VB, they didn’t put Fisher Ames’ biography into the first amendment. They simplified it so that Fisher Ames could teach his own kids English with the bible – and advocate its use as much as he wanted, but didn’t allow for establishment of religion.
We can argue about what “establishment” meant, but the founders clearly recognized that one of the religions that they were taking pains to avoid establishing was Christianity.
You are right that a proper understanding of the history of the country requires an examination of the many Christians involved in its founding. Also, that Jefferson was essentially an agnostic and he wasn’t the only one of the founders who was.
Still, knowing that history says very little about what we have learned in the intervening 200 years about the wisdom of keeping religion out of the public sphere. The country didn’t become less religious, it became more religious – and still that increasingly religious country saw fit to expand the meaning of “establishment” to prevent that religiosity from infringing the rights of the non-Christian and non-religious. It is only recently that religious groups have joined the identity politics game and it is an absurd proposition.
It astounds me that as religious groups have attained the most political power they have ever had in this country, all of their arguments are made as if they were weak and oppressed.

Posted by: ugarte at September 12, 2005 at 6:03 pm
Post a comment