I remember the day with great clarity. It was horrible. It left scars on me. I commemorate it every year.
At the same time, I am glad that kids who are now becoming adults -- 21 year olds -- were not directly scarred by it, and learned about it from their history books. I am glad that they are not as consumed by it as the nation was for the first decade after it happened.
The nation survived, and part of that survival is a gradual diminution of intensity and rawness. Whenever loved ones die, we have to remember them, and we have to heal, and it can be hard to get the balance right.
Anyhow -- "Rest in Peace to the 2,977 people killed," as you said.
I actually am glad too that young adults are not scared by it. Our county went through basically a collective psychosis because of it. Criticism of Bush policy? You don’t like the troops man! The idea that terrorists are more like criminals and not a nation state army was derided (Kerry was right!). I first heard about that cretin Laura Loomer with the ground zero mosque (actually with DJT yesterday.
Speaking of DJT. There are obviously a lot of reasons why DJT became a viable presidential candidate when any sane person should see he shouldn’t be local dog catcher (apropos the disgusting lie he made about Springfield Ohio). But I’m a big believer that the post 9/11 anti Muslim backlash is a factor. In others words; there became this permission structure to be horrendously bigoted to a group of Americans and not suffer consequences.
Agree 100%. It's been a full generation and we haven't forgotten 9/11. I know the online jokes bother people and I don't really like them either. But humor is part of the process of moving an event out of the current day and into history. Young people are ready to find something different to define their adulthood.
I will always carry the trauma of that day and its aftermath. It still feels recent to me. But collectively we've grieved and built our memorials and it's good we are no longer defined by it.
I'm of mixed opinions on the diminution of intensity around this event. On the one hand, yes, 20 terrorists killing thousands of people isn't an existential threat to the nation and should be put in context. On the other hand, the ideology and extremism behind that attack (and hundreds more across the US, Middle East and Europe) is as strong as ever and continues to be a threat to the world.
I think the Jihadi threat, that we might characterize as radical Sunni terrorists doing attacks on civilians, has diminished in the two decades since, largely due to the efforts of the United States in suppressing it. Attacks in the west are now extremely rare, and in the USA they basically haven't happened in years.
Now, what is true is that radical Islamism is still very powerful. In a lot of ways the threat has transformed to simultaneously be more restrained when it comes to targeting Western civilians yet more focused in a way that is a greater threat to the geopolitical interests of Western countries. You now have a bunch of paramilitary or even state-level groups that are actually governing territory and raising real militaries and they are all linked together in one grand strategic campaign overseen by Iran. But to be honest this is largely the direct result of the complete failure of Al-Qaeda and ISIS to prove that doing random acts of large-scale violence halfway across the world is a compelling model to achieve their goals.
"...are all shi’ite and thus hate the Taliban...."
Oh, there you go again with your "not all foreigners are the same" nonsense. How are we ever going to maintain our moral clarity on the world stage if we start distinguishing some foreigners from other foreigners? They're all foreigners, dammit! That's all there is to know!
One interesting thing to me is how little ISIS or Al-Qauda has been in the news for years. Obviously today Hamas is very much in the news and they certainly should be at least somewhat linked to other Islamic extremist groups. Having said that, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that Hamas and the Israel-Palestine conflict is almost it's own unique situation (don't want to get too into the weeds about the conflict just making a more narrow point).
I remember reading that until 1917, the big scary thing that was thought to a danger to America and the world was anarchists. It was maybe the first modern social/political "panic". And the thing is, just like worries about Islamic extremist inspired terrorism, it's not like there was no reason to be concerned. An avowed anarchist killed a sitting President in 1901. Haymarket riot. Heck a supposed anarchist started World War I (aware that his designation as an anarchist is in dispute; Black Hand was definitely in my book more of a Nationalist movement. Nonetheless instructive for this discussion that he's been labeled a terrorist).
On another note, I "joke" with my wife that the person who ended the Covid pandemic was Vladimir Putin. The reason I say that is it's the Ukraine invasion that finally permanently put COVID off the front pages. Obviously COVID is still around and will probably be around forever. But as a front a center topic of discussion, outside of fringy left wingers like Taylor Lorenz, it's just not a focus anymore.
The upshot of all this is that's remarkable to me how much the worry of the moment is based on what news decides to focus on. And also instructive that the focus of news story is so so often NOT the most important or most acute danger facing the country.
I was not yet 1 years old for 9/11 and I feel like the attitude amongst my peers about is quite good. A real understanding that it was an absolute tragedy that also somewhat understandably caused truly crazy politics.
I have such a clear recollection of a field trip I took in high school to NYC where we saw the musical Come From Away (an excellent 9/11 story) and visited the 9/11 museum. It was the first time I and my classmates were exposed to the full timeline of events and really grappled with the events of that day. We were all deeply affected. I'm not sure I've ever seen a group of 16 year old's behave so respectfully in my life.
I watch United 93 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_93_(film)) almost every year around 9/11 and the ending never fails to leave me stunned at their heroism in the midst of chaos and tragedy. I think Greengrass did an incredible job capturing what it felt like for so many people on that day (and it certainly helps that most of military and FAA personnel in the ground scenes are playing themselves), and I feel like he truly honored the memory of the passengers and crew by portraying them as ordinary people who found their courage as the news of the attacks that morning trickled in.
ETA: Ironically, I've been to the memorials in Manhattan and at the Pentagon, but the Flight 93 Memorial in PA is the only one that I haven't yet visited.
Used to work at in office in Battery Park from 2015-2021. I actually had to walk through the memorial almost every week day for 5 years (pre Covid) because that was genuinely the fastest way to get from the subway to my office.
Interesting experience. Definitely was solemn, but it was also clear that the memorial (at least for some tourists) was just another site seeing spot along with the Freedom Tower, Statue of Liberty and everything in downtown Manhattan in general. Especially because because the best shot of the Freedom tower probably was from the memorial space. For the most part was fine with that; end of they day a lot of monuments we like to see on tourists visits are often at least to some degree monuments to the dead (thinking war memorials for example). I did remember admonishing a few younger tourists because they wanted to take this action photo next to one of the main memorials (the one where you jump in the air to make it seem like you're floating). I was like "come on guys not here".
However, there was one day that memorial was a very unpleasant place to be; anniversary of 9/11. Why? Because that's the day all the crazies and conspiracy theory nuts showed up with signs and shouting about how 9/11 was a hoax or some secret plot (you can guess who they often blamed). Just some of the grossest people showing up all at once on anniversary day. Fun times.
Amen. One of those things forever seared in memory. I can recall right now exact details of how I found out. Freshman year of college, about to go to class when a kid named Adam who lived in the corner dorm room let me know three planes had been hijacked (didn’t yet know about the 4th that crashed in PA). Me rushing back to my dorm room to wake up my roommate from his top bunk and turning on CNN and seeing the first tower on fire (second plane hadn’t hit the other tower yet)
I can’t tell you what I had for lunch four days ago but I can recall minute details of that day. I was at school in VA which meant a lot of the kids in my dorm were from NoVA and handful had parent who worked in Pentagon. So a lot of chatter that day was about the 3rd plane crash into the Pentagon.
I was also a freshman in college. I remember all the phone lines were jammed, we all just wanted to call our parents and check in even though we were nowhere near the east coast. Very real “you’re not a kid anymore” moment.
I remember texting my wife on my blackberry (it had come out 2 years prior), telling her to fill up the car with gas and take as much cash out of the ATM as she could.
My colleagues and I were in meetings about 20 miles outside Manhattan and we were stuck there for 5 days while the airspace was closed. Much alcohol was consumed, business plans were adjusted, and the fear was palpable.
I worked in NYC at the time and I remember how hard it was to make a call on my cell. The networks were completely overwhelmed. Couldn’t get through to my wife, then tried calling my mother who I knew would worry about me when she heard the news (I worked in Midtown at the time, but I didn’t think she’d draw the distinction), and finally got through to my sister. I told here where I was, what I could see, and how at first I thought the think, black smoke was casting a shadow on the side of the North Tower only to realize, oh my God, that’s not a shadow. That’s a hole.
My sister promised to call my wife and mother to let them know I was safe. And she told me to call my brother(the news director of a talk radio station in PA) because he’d want to hear from an eyewitness. I was eventually able to get through, asked for the newsroom and a woman picked up. I recognized her voice because I had met her on a visit to the station a year or two earlier. I asked to speak with my brother and she said, “He can’t. He’s on the air covering a major story in New York. Planes crashed into the World Trade Center.”
“I know,” I said. “I’m looking at it.”
She asked if she could record and interview me. I told here where I was, the direction and approximate distance to the towers, and how I mistook the hole for a shadow. I mentioned the smoke’s contrast with the clear blue sky. I don’t recall what else I said before I lost the cell signal, but 45 seconds or so of my account was made available to Clear Channel stations all over the country. I have no idea if any used it.
I remember hearing about it on the radio as we were driving in to school (my dad's office just happened to be right next to my HS campus), and thinking that it must have been a grave accident at first. But by the time I got to school, the second plane hit, and it was clear that it was an intentional attack.
The school library wheeled out one of those tall carts with a TV on it so that we could watch the news in between classes. I just happened to be on one of those breaks when the first tower fell, so we watched it happen live.
::blinks slowly:: Holy crap yes. Did my nerdy history references to American revolutionary period, antebellum period and civil war period give me away?
Lived in Dillard my sophomore and first senior year (long story). Was constantly reminded it was once an insane asylum. It’s actually now demolished (for the best).
I’m now extraordinarily curious. What did your husband study and did he have any classes in the shitcacular Morton hall built on an Indian burial ground (probably apocryphal but fits the horrendous nature of the building).
I said to Marie Kennedy and at the same thing to you. I’ve seen your posts for awhile now and somehow only learning now with your 9/11 recollections that we are the exact same age.
I remember very well. I was fresh out of high school, working as an intern in my mother's law office. We turned the TV on about 10 minutes before the second plane, so I watched that happen live.
I remember arguing with all kinds of people about all kinds of ridiculous things like nuking Saudi Arabia and whether our friends or ourselves were going to join the military.
I remember being very worried that we would become a police State.
But, I also remember the best headline ever, from The Onion:
I kinda hope so. I hear the Harris campaign is pushing for another debate. But it's really hard to imagine a second one going any better: she absolutely crushed him. So why give the media even the tiniest excuse to push a "Trump the debate underdog does much better!" narrative? If he improves his performance from last night's "horrible dumpster fire" to merely "awful train wreck" the Village will anoint him The Comeback Kid.
I'm guess I'm just risk averse. The bold move, of course, would indeed be to debate him again.
Nah, I think this is good strategy for Harris. She’s not ahead by enough to just play it safe, and the problems that caused Trump to bomb in the debate (being senile and emotionally incontinent) aren’t fixable (and indeed, will likely get worse over time.) And if he doesn’t accept, she can call him a coward and attack him for being weak.
Probably not. Though polls may tell a different story in ten days. This really was a blood bath. And I'm loving the timing of the Swift endorsement. Kick him when he's down!
I wholeheartedly agree he cannot "fix" the utterly massive gap between himself and Harris as a debater. I'm not worried about that. I'm worried that our media—in its constant, ravenous, never-satisfied hunger for a horse race to report on—would massively blow out of proportion even a microscopic debate improvement on the part of Donald Trump.
He can't erase the cognitive/intelligence/skill gap. But does it really seem out of the question he could do a *teensy bit better* in round two? Or, let's put it another way: can you imagine his doing worse? (Obviously not impossible, and never say never, but, my gosh, I personally can't see how! LOL).
Maybe I'm making too much of a sports analogy here, but when a sports team goes on a losing streak "the losses are getting closer!" has never been the dominant headline.
Yeah but sports have objective final scores which definitely determine the outcome. The "winner" of the the debate can just be whoever the media feels like crowning, provided it doesn't obviously go horrible for one candidate.
Oh for sure. But—and I haven't caught up with the latest developments on this story—it seems to me Trump may well feel his best move is to debate again. I doubt he relishes another go-around with Harris, but maybe he'll feel he has no choice.
But according to himself, he won—he always wins—and anyway she cheated. Seems the only way he’d want another debate is if it’s on Fox News with his favorite conspiracy-mongers as moderators, and Harris’ mic is shut off at all times.
If Harris has an advantage in debates, she should wring all the juice out of that advantage that she can. She won't be so far ahead after this debate that she can coast.
Harris baiting Trump with a plan that was so obvious everyone immediately understood what she was doing is actually more useful than some sort of clever mastermind strategy. It demonstrated that he is, in fact, an emotionally unstable moron who is trivially easy to manipulate, i.e., he should not be President.
In the first portion of the debate Trump was reasonably restrained and focused and definitely seemed to be remembering his talking points.
Harris somewhat randomly pivoted to talk about how his rallies were boring and stupid and everyone leaves them early because they're no fun. This immediately set him off and he started melting down and went on a 2minute rant about how he has amazing rallies, Haitians are going to eat your dog, etc. etc. And for the rest of the night he was off his game, super flustered and incoherent.
She answered a question then threw a line in about Trump supporters leaving his rallies out of boredom. He took that bait immediately. Whenever he tried to pivot to the issue at hand, he became distracted and garbled. It's like he was trying to talk while his ego was jabbering into his ear.
She could turn his strongest topics into weaknesses this way.
I’m curious as to why the moderators decided to fact check like they did; especially that Springfield Ohio story. I mean I’m glad! I’ve been one of the people who has railed the most about trumps lies not being properly pushed back on or “both sidesing” something outlandish he said with something way way less outlandish (or not outlandish at all) that a Democrat said.
My hypothesis. The story was so fresh that the reporters actually did fact checking either yesterday or today and meant confirmation this garbage rumor about Haitian immigrants was still in their heads in away that they could recall immediately the facts of the response they got from the city commissioner. Other hypotheses is that the story was horrifically bigoted (as in a southern segregationist from the 50s would blanch) that the reporters sort of felt they had no choice but to rebut this line of attack.
Anyone else have theories why the moderators pushed back here in ways they normally haven’t in the past?
I think in the past, they've been concerned that doing any actual fact checking would open them to accusations of bias. I think to ABC's credit, they knew that this would've happened no matter what. If Trump wanted less pushback, he should've lied less.
The pet eating thing really is something though. I know that we're all kind of numb to Trump's BS on one hand, but a lot of my friends, none of whom like Trump and are fairly jaded to his nonsense, were shocked that even he would go that far. It's a really disgusting slur, even for him.
The Springfield and Aurora anti-immigrant stories are a real danger to people - like pizzagate. The police and mayors of both places have debunked both, but (as usual with Trumpland), they’re being ignored. The aborting babies at birth, the same. People are put in danger because some nut head will take it upon himself to do something.
First thought in my head is "Comet Pizza". What lunatic Trump supporter is going to drive to Springfield, Ohio with a bunch of guns so he (and let's face it, will likely be he) can save the cats.
Right...so it's obviously not something the reporters fact checked yesterday and is fresh in their heads.
Maybe our criticism got to them? Like "you guys, at some point you have to push back against the most insane and blatantly obvious lies. Otherwise you're doing a disservice to your audience".
I didn’t watch the debate because he activates my anxiety and 9 is about my bed time all else equal but my wife startled me with audible cheering.
And for my little corner of the internet that I mostly talk about pop music Taylor Swift ‘finally’ endorsed. I say finally because people have been bitching about it for months and that got turned up to 11 when she was seen in public with Ms. Mahomes who ,as best I can tell, is a terrible human for having liked one Trump post.
There's a bunch of hate for Mahomes in regular sports social media. People are just sick of the Chiefs winning and always being in prime time. Haters be hating.
(I'm not a Chiefs fan but dude is already a HOF-worthy QB.)
IDK what it says about me but I am a total dynasty lover. I'm going to root for the Chiefs every time they're in the Super Bowl because I want to be a lame dad talking to my future kids talking about "the greatest team of all time" and stuff. Did the same thing with Warriors for their dynastic period, and can't help but root for the Astros (despite by abhorrence to their cheating in 2017).
To be fair, there’s been a latent anti Brittany Mahomes backlash ever since her famous husband first became a star. There’s always been a sense she’s been mugging for the camera as a way of piggybacking off of Patrick’s stardom.
Now I do think at least some of this anti-Brittany sentiment is pure sexist “doesn’t she know she’s supposed to remain demure and silent as an athlete wife” garbage. But let’s put it this way. If I said to a hardcore NFL fan Brittany Mahomes is going to be on next seasons “Real Housewives of Kansas City” I think the reaction would be something like “that tracks”.
Point being the Brittany Mahomes backlash definitely pre dates her apparent Trump support.
How happy I am, that I know nothing about these people!
(actually, I have seen her hubby play football, and he is a legit phenom. And I say this as a fan from the Joe Namath, Fran Tarkenton, Sonny Jurgensen era.)
Fair enough though I’m not sure how much that has has entered the Swiftiverse. Like before the US Open there was a bunch of Kremlinolgy about them not sitting together at the opening night.
CNN's poll says Harris won the debate by 26 points but the NYT front page has an article titled "Pundits Said Harris Won the Debate. Undecided Voters Weren’t So Sure" which features them speaking to half a dozen people most of whom don't express a clear view one way or the other as to who won. Why oh why do they keep doing this.
I understand your frustration because winning by 26 points should be the bigger headline. That said, undecided type voters are weird and more common then many of us might think. And their thought process and info diet is often very different from what a typical SB subscriber's would be. It's not totally terrible to keep a focus on them, since they ultimately decide the election, although the NYT's coverage is probably click-baity and possibly semi-fake
I wonder how useful these focus groups are though. In my estimation most swing voters are either highly weighting some heterodox issues (see Matt's lobsterman article) or they're just not paying much attention.
When swing voters get put into these groups and asked to articulate their thoughts, how many are gonna go, "Well, I don't actually care or know much about this stuff, but I don't wanna look stupid or lazy, so here's a half-baked opinion that I made up on the spot"?
Swing voters are very much a real group of people, and politics should try to understand their concerns, but idk how useful these specific forums are though.
Between Trump repeating lies about post-natal abortions and masses of immigrants eating people's pets... last night was insane. He couldn't even answer yes/no questions.
I'd say the dem party already has and is expecting so much fundraising that the marginal dollar would better be donated on mosquito nets or anti-drone devices for Ukraine or almost anything else.
There’s just not the same type of ruthlessness in the Republican Party. Trump is old, senile and clearly mentally unstable. Fine for some random citizen, not for a future president of the USA. When will republicans grow a pair?
It will be interesting to see what this debate win does for Harris. She has been laying low compared to Trump. This strategy puts more relative weight on this performance for her. Trump will just go back to rallies and interviews. My guess is she gets a bump but it doesn’t last. Vibes are ephemeral and burn quickly. She won this debate mostly on vibes and optics.
She landed some real blows on abortion in part Trump fumbled his rebuttal. But he landed some real blows on fracking and in PA that’s a real issue. PA has the lobsterman equivalent for fracking and they have friends and family that care about their wellbeing. Most here don’t care about fracking so it doesn’t land with you.
So a big sugar rush from this debate win. We will see how long it lasts.
23 years since the hijackings and attacks on NY and DC. Rest in Peace to the 2,977 people killed.
I remember the day with great clarity. It was horrible. It left scars on me. I commemorate it every year.
At the same time, I am glad that kids who are now becoming adults -- 21 year olds -- were not directly scarred by it, and learned about it from their history books. I am glad that they are not as consumed by it as the nation was for the first decade after it happened.
The nation survived, and part of that survival is a gradual diminution of intensity and rawness. Whenever loved ones die, we have to remember them, and we have to heal, and it can be hard to get the balance right.
Anyhow -- "Rest in Peace to the 2,977 people killed," as you said.
I actually am glad too that young adults are not scared by it. Our county went through basically a collective psychosis because of it. Criticism of Bush policy? You don’t like the troops man! The idea that terrorists are more like criminals and not a nation state army was derided (Kerry was right!). I first heard about that cretin Laura Loomer with the ground zero mosque (actually with DJT yesterday.
Speaking of DJT. There are obviously a lot of reasons why DJT became a viable presidential candidate when any sane person should see he shouldn’t be local dog catcher (apropos the disgusting lie he made about Springfield Ohio). But I’m a big believer that the post 9/11 anti Muslim backlash is a factor. In others words; there became this permission structure to be horrendously bigoted to a group of Americans and not suffer consequences.
Agree 100%. It's been a full generation and we haven't forgotten 9/11. I know the online jokes bother people and I don't really like them either. But humor is part of the process of moving an event out of the current day and into history. Young people are ready to find something different to define their adulthood.
I will always carry the trauma of that day and its aftermath. It still feels recent to me. But collectively we've grieved and built our memorials and it's good we are no longer defined by it.
I'm of mixed opinions on the diminution of intensity around this event. On the one hand, yes, 20 terrorists killing thousands of people isn't an existential threat to the nation and should be put in context. On the other hand, the ideology and extremism behind that attack (and hundreds more across the US, Middle East and Europe) is as strong as ever and continues to be a threat to the world.
I think the Jihadi threat, that we might characterize as radical Sunni terrorists doing attacks on civilians, has diminished in the two decades since, largely due to the efforts of the United States in suppressing it. Attacks in the west are now extremely rare, and in the USA they basically haven't happened in years.
Now, what is true is that radical Islamism is still very powerful. In a lot of ways the threat has transformed to simultaneously be more restrained when it comes to targeting Western civilians yet more focused in a way that is a greater threat to the geopolitical interests of Western countries. You now have a bunch of paramilitary or even state-level groups that are actually governing territory and raising real militaries and they are all linked together in one grand strategic campaign overseen by Iran. But to be honest this is largely the direct result of the complete failure of Al-Qaeda and ISIS to prove that doing random acts of large-scale violence halfway across the world is a compelling model to achieve their goals.
The ones that are linked to Iran are all shi’ite and thus hate the Taliban and Al Qaeda and ISIS, right?
"...are all shi’ite and thus hate the Taliban...."
Oh, there you go again with your "not all foreigners are the same" nonsense. How are we ever going to maintain our moral clarity on the world stage if we start distinguishing some foreigners from other foreigners? They're all foreigners, dammit! That's all there is to know!
One interesting thing to me is how little ISIS or Al-Qauda has been in the news for years. Obviously today Hamas is very much in the news and they certainly should be at least somewhat linked to other Islamic extremist groups. Having said that, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that Hamas and the Israel-Palestine conflict is almost it's own unique situation (don't want to get too into the weeds about the conflict just making a more narrow point).
I remember reading that until 1917, the big scary thing that was thought to a danger to America and the world was anarchists. It was maybe the first modern social/political "panic". And the thing is, just like worries about Islamic extremist inspired terrorism, it's not like there was no reason to be concerned. An avowed anarchist killed a sitting President in 1901. Haymarket riot. Heck a supposed anarchist started World War I (aware that his designation as an anarchist is in dispute; Black Hand was definitely in my book more of a Nationalist movement. Nonetheless instructive for this discussion that he's been labeled a terrorist).
On another note, I "joke" with my wife that the person who ended the Covid pandemic was Vladimir Putin. The reason I say that is it's the Ukraine invasion that finally permanently put COVID off the front pages. Obviously COVID is still around and will probably be around forever. But as a front a center topic of discussion, outside of fringy left wingers like Taylor Lorenz, it's just not a focus anymore.
The upshot of all this is that's remarkable to me how much the worry of the moment is based on what news decides to focus on. And also instructive that the focus of news story is so so often NOT the most important or most acute danger facing the country.
I was not yet 1 years old for 9/11 and I feel like the attitude amongst my peers about is quite good. A real understanding that it was an absolute tragedy that also somewhat understandably caused truly crazy politics.
I have such a clear recollection of a field trip I took in high school to NYC where we saw the musical Come From Away (an excellent 9/11 story) and visited the 9/11 museum. It was the first time I and my classmates were exposed to the full timeline of events and really grappled with the events of that day. We were all deeply affected. I'm not sure I've ever seen a group of 16 year old's behave so respectfully in my life.
I recommend visiting the memorial site in NYC. It’s appropriately solemn and affecting.
I watch United 93 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_93_(film)) almost every year around 9/11 and the ending never fails to leave me stunned at their heroism in the midst of chaos and tragedy. I think Greengrass did an incredible job capturing what it felt like for so many people on that day (and it certainly helps that most of military and FAA personnel in the ground scenes are playing themselves), and I feel like he truly honored the memory of the passengers and crew by portraying them as ordinary people who found their courage as the news of the attacks that morning trickled in.
ETA: Ironically, I've been to the memorials in Manhattan and at the Pentagon, but the Flight 93 Memorial in PA is the only one that I haven't yet visited.
A great film. Not an easy watch, but very moving.
Used to work at in office in Battery Park from 2015-2021. I actually had to walk through the memorial almost every week day for 5 years (pre Covid) because that was genuinely the fastest way to get from the subway to my office.
Interesting experience. Definitely was solemn, but it was also clear that the memorial (at least for some tourists) was just another site seeing spot along with the Freedom Tower, Statue of Liberty and everything in downtown Manhattan in general. Especially because because the best shot of the Freedom tower probably was from the memorial space. For the most part was fine with that; end of they day a lot of monuments we like to see on tourists visits are often at least to some degree monuments to the dead (thinking war memorials for example). I did remember admonishing a few younger tourists because they wanted to take this action photo next to one of the main memorials (the one where you jump in the air to make it seem like you're floating). I was like "come on guys not here".
However, there was one day that memorial was a very unpleasant place to be; anniversary of 9/11. Why? Because that's the day all the crazies and conspiracy theory nuts showed up with signs and shouting about how 9/11 was a hoax or some secret plot (you can guess who they often blamed). Just some of the grossest people showing up all at once on anniversary day. Fun times.
Amen. One of those things forever seared in memory. I can recall right now exact details of how I found out. Freshman year of college, about to go to class when a kid named Adam who lived in the corner dorm room let me know three planes had been hijacked (didn’t yet know about the 4th that crashed in PA). Me rushing back to my dorm room to wake up my roommate from his top bunk and turning on CNN and seeing the first tower on fire (second plane hadn’t hit the other tower yet)
I can’t tell you what I had for lunch four days ago but I can recall minute details of that day. I was at school in VA which meant a lot of the kids in my dorm were from NoVA and handful had parent who worked in Pentagon. So a lot of chatter that day was about the 3rd plane crash into the Pentagon.
I was also a freshman in college. I remember all the phone lines were jammed, we all just wanted to call our parents and check in even though we were nowhere near the east coast. Very real “you’re not a kid anymore” moment.
I know we’ve communicated personal details to each other but only now it’s hitting me we’re the exact same age.
There something kind of surreal about the idea that our memory of 9/11 is how I’m learning this.
I remember texting my wife on my blackberry (it had come out 2 years prior), telling her to fill up the car with gas and take as much cash out of the ATM as she could.
My colleagues and I were in meetings about 20 miles outside Manhattan and we were stuck there for 5 days while the airspace was closed. Much alcohol was consumed, business plans were adjusted, and the fear was palpable.
I worked in NYC at the time and I remember how hard it was to make a call on my cell. The networks were completely overwhelmed. Couldn’t get through to my wife, then tried calling my mother who I knew would worry about me when she heard the news (I worked in Midtown at the time, but I didn’t think she’d draw the distinction), and finally got through to my sister. I told here where I was, what I could see, and how at first I thought the think, black smoke was casting a shadow on the side of the North Tower only to realize, oh my God, that’s not a shadow. That’s a hole.
My sister promised to call my wife and mother to let them know I was safe. And she told me to call my brother(the news director of a talk radio station in PA) because he’d want to hear from an eyewitness. I was eventually able to get through, asked for the newsroom and a woman picked up. I recognized her voice because I had met her on a visit to the station a year or two earlier. I asked to speak with my brother and she said, “He can’t. He’s on the air covering a major story in New York. Planes crashed into the World Trade Center.”
“I know,” I said. “I’m looking at it.”
She asked if she could record and interview me. I told here where I was, the direction and approximate distance to the towers, and how I mistook the hole for a shadow. I mentioned the smoke’s contrast with the clear blue sky. I don’t recall what else I said before I lost the cell signal, but 45 seconds or so of my account was made available to Clear Channel stations all over the country. I have no idea if any used it.
Lot of my family worked in Manhattan including downtown at the time. They have a lot of similar stories to yours.
I remember seeing fighter jets lazily circling high in the skies over Boston from my balcony.
I remember hearing about it on the radio as we were driving in to school (my dad's office just happened to be right next to my HS campus), and thinking that it must have been a grave accident at first. But by the time I got to school, the second plane hit, and it was clear that it was an intentional attack.
The school library wheeled out one of those tall carts with a TV on it so that we could watch the news in between classes. I just happened to be on one of those breaks when the first tower fell, so we watched it happen live.
It was third period, social studies class, I was in junior high. We saw the second tower get hit on live TV.
"...I was in junior high...."
Oh lord. I'm getting traumatized just by how *young* you people are.
Yes, I was in my third year of law school at the time!
::blinks slowly:: Holy crap yes. Did my nerdy history references to American revolutionary period, antebellum period and civil war period give me away?
Was freshman in Monroe hall.
Lived in Dillard my sophomore and first senior year (long story). Was constantly reminded it was once an insane asylum. It’s actually now demolished (for the best).
I’m now extraordinarily curious. What did your husband study and did he have any classes in the shitcacular Morton hall built on an Indian burial ground (probably apocryphal but fits the horrendous nature of the building).
I said to Marie Kennedy and at the same thing to you. I’ve seen your posts for awhile now and somehow only learning now with your 9/11 recollections that we are the exact same age.
I still pray every time I go past the local memorial.
"...I go past the local memorial."
What's your rough location? Tri-State area? DC? SoCal?
I'm just curious to know where there are local memorials to the 9/11 attacks.
Baltimore World Trade Center has a metal girder and a list of names of people who's lives were taken too soon.
Thx!
They’re all over the place. Here’s one tucked away in a little park in Miami:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/p77cDNdKRXZVf9J58
Edit: Here’s an article about memorials in various places in Maine:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/pieces-of-world-trade-center-are-powerful-reminders-across-maine-communities/ar-AA1qlhn5
I remember very well. I was fresh out of high school, working as an intern in my mother's law office. We turned the TV on about 10 minutes before the second plane, so I watched that happen live.
I remember arguing with all kinds of people about all kinds of ridiculous things like nuking Saudi Arabia and whether our friends or ourselves were going to join the military.
I remember being very worried that we would become a police State.
But, I also remember the best headline ever, from The Onion:
"Holy Fucking Shit! : Attack on America"
I was working for USG in Nigeria and was proud to feel like I was working to defeat the ideology behind the attack.
But then I was very embarrassed by the domestic reaction the fear, TAS. And then 1000% more the invasion of IRAQ.
"TAS"?
Lawrence O'Donnell: "We may have just watched the last debate of Donald Trump’s life."
https://x.com/Lawrence/status/1833714296943005870
I kinda hope so. I hear the Harris campaign is pushing for another debate. But it's really hard to imagine a second one going any better: she absolutely crushed him. So why give the media even the tiniest excuse to push a "Trump the debate underdog does much better!" narrative? If he improves his performance from last night's "horrible dumpster fire" to merely "awful train wreck" the Village will anoint him The Comeback Kid.
I'm guess I'm just risk averse. The bold move, of course, would indeed be to debate him again.
Thanks for the free episode, Matt.
Nah, I think this is good strategy for Harris. She’s not ahead by enough to just play it safe, and the problems that caused Trump to bomb in the debate (being senile and emotionally incontinent) aren’t fixable (and indeed, will likely get worse over time.) And if he doesn’t accept, she can call him a coward and attack him for being weak.
>She’s not ahead by enough to just play it safe<
Probably not. Though polls may tell a different story in ten days. This really was a blood bath. And I'm loving the timing of the Swift endorsement. Kick him when he's down!
I wholeheartedly agree he cannot "fix" the utterly massive gap between himself and Harris as a debater. I'm not worried about that. I'm worried that our media—in its constant, ravenous, never-satisfied hunger for a horse race to report on—would massively blow out of proportion even a microscopic debate improvement on the part of Donald Trump.
He can't erase the cognitive/intelligence/skill gap. But does it really seem out of the question he could do a *teensy bit better* in round two? Or, let's put it another way: can you imagine his doing worse? (Obviously not impossible, and never say never, but, my gosh, I personally can't see how! LOL).
Maybe I'm making too much of a sports analogy here, but when a sports team goes on a losing streak "the losses are getting closer!" has never been the dominant headline.
Yeah but sports have objective final scores which definitely determine the outcome. The "winner" of the the debate can just be whoever the media feels like crowning, provided it doesn't obviously go horrible for one candidate.
"So why give the media..."
The narrative "Trump is scared to debate" is a pretty good one, and it doesn't happen if they're not pushing for it.
Oh for sure. But—and I haven't caught up with the latest developments on this story—it seems to me Trump may well feel his best move is to debate again. I doubt he relishes another go-around with Harris, but maybe he'll feel he has no choice.
But according to himself, he won—he always wins—and anyway she cheated. Seems the only way he’d want another debate is if it’s on Fox News with his favorite conspiracy-mongers as moderators, and Harris’ mic is shut off at all times.
If Harris has an advantage in debates, she should wring all the juice out of that advantage that she can. She won't be so far ahead after this debate that she can coast.
Harris baiting Trump with a plan that was so obvious everyone immediately understood what she was doing is actually more useful than some sort of clever mastermind strategy. It demonstrated that he is, in fact, an emotionally unstable moron who is trivially easy to manipulate, i.e., he should not be President.
Anybody care to recap for those who missed it?
In the first portion of the debate Trump was reasonably restrained and focused and definitely seemed to be remembering his talking points.
Harris somewhat randomly pivoted to talk about how his rallies were boring and stupid and everyone leaves them early because they're no fun. This immediately set him off and he started melting down and went on a 2minute rant about how he has amazing rallies, Haitians are going to eat your dog, etc. etc. And for the rest of the night he was off his game, super flustered and incoherent.
She answered a question then threw a line in about Trump supporters leaving his rallies out of boredom. He took that bait immediately. Whenever he tried to pivot to the issue at hand, he became distracted and garbled. It's like he was trying to talk while his ego was jabbering into his ear.
She could turn his strongest topics into weaknesses this way.
Lol there’s definitely ketchup on the wall at Mar-A-Lago tonight.
I’m curious as to why the moderators decided to fact check like they did; especially that Springfield Ohio story. I mean I’m glad! I’ve been one of the people who has railed the most about trumps lies not being properly pushed back on or “both sidesing” something outlandish he said with something way way less outlandish (or not outlandish at all) that a Democrat said.
My hypothesis. The story was so fresh that the reporters actually did fact checking either yesterday or today and meant confirmation this garbage rumor about Haitian immigrants was still in their heads in away that they could recall immediately the facts of the response they got from the city commissioner. Other hypotheses is that the story was horrifically bigoted (as in a southern segregationist from the 50s would blanch) that the reporters sort of felt they had no choice but to rebut this line of attack.
Anyone else have theories why the moderators pushed back here in ways they normally haven’t in the past?
I think in the past, they've been concerned that doing any actual fact checking would open them to accusations of bias. I think to ABC's credit, they knew that this would've happened no matter what. If Trump wanted less pushback, he should've lied less.
The pet eating thing really is something though. I know that we're all kind of numb to Trump's BS on one hand, but a lot of my friends, none of whom like Trump and are fairly jaded to his nonsense, were shocked that even he would go that far. It's a really disgusting slur, even for him.
To borrow from Talleyrand, it's worse than disgusting, it's strange.
"Please stop talking to me on the bus, stranger" strange.
Weird.
They might have finally found a way to deal with the continuous torrent of lies that Trump spews: fact check the most ludicrous ones
They really only pushed back on demonstrably untrue statements that Trump won’t drop.
The Springfield and Aurora anti-immigrant stories are a real danger to people - like pizzagate. The police and mayors of both places have debunked both, but (as usual with Trumpland), they’re being ignored. The aborting babies at birth, the same. People are put in danger because some nut head will take it upon himself to do something.
First thought in my head is "Comet Pizza". What lunatic Trump supporter is going to drive to Springfield, Ohio with a bunch of guns so he (and let's face it, will likely be he) can save the cats.
Well the crazy cat ladies sure aren't motivated to go to Ohio, thanks to Vance. So yes, it will have to be a he.
But they also fact-checked him on the claim that some babies are being killed after birth, which is a few years old.
But Trump has been saying it a lot, now. He said it during his debate with Biden and he’s been saying it at rallies. So, it’s timely and pertinent.
Right...so it's obviously not something the reporters fact checked yesterday and is fresh in their heads.
Maybe our criticism got to them? Like "you guys, at some point you have to push back against the most insane and blatantly obvious lies. Otherwise you're doing a disservice to your audience".
“Trump never had the makings of a varsity athlete”
I didn’t watch the debate because he activates my anxiety and 9 is about my bed time all else equal but my wife startled me with audible cheering.
And for my little corner of the internet that I mostly talk about pop music Taylor Swift ‘finally’ endorsed. I say finally because people have been bitching about it for months and that got turned up to 11 when she was seen in public with Ms. Mahomes who ,as best I can tell, is a terrible human for having liked one Trump post.
There's a bunch of hate for Mahomes in regular sports social media. People are just sick of the Chiefs winning and always being in prime time. Haters be hating.
(I'm not a Chiefs fan but dude is already a HOF-worthy QB.)
IDK what it says about me but I am a total dynasty lover. I'm going to root for the Chiefs every time they're in the Super Bowl because I want to be a lame dad talking to my future kids talking about "the greatest team of all time" and stuff. Did the same thing with Warriors for their dynastic period, and can't help but root for the Astros (despite by abhorrence to their cheating in 2017).
> greatest team of all time
What, you mean the Patriots?
To be fair, there’s been a latent anti Brittany Mahomes backlash ever since her famous husband first became a star. There’s always been a sense she’s been mugging for the camera as a way of piggybacking off of Patrick’s stardom.
Now I do think at least some of this anti-Brittany sentiment is pure sexist “doesn’t she know she’s supposed to remain demure and silent as an athlete wife” garbage. But let’s put it this way. If I said to a hardcore NFL fan Brittany Mahomes is going to be on next seasons “Real Housewives of Kansas City” I think the reaction would be something like “that tracks”.
Point being the Brittany Mahomes backlash definitely pre dates her apparent Trump support.
"... the Brittany Mahomes backlash...."
How happy I am, that I know nothing about these people!
(actually, I have seen her hubby play football, and he is a legit phenom. And I say this as a fan from the Joe Namath, Fran Tarkenton, Sonny Jurgensen era.)
Fair enough though I’m not sure how much that has has entered the Swiftiverse. Like before the US Open there was a bunch of Kremlinolgy about them not sitting together at the opening night.
CNN's poll says Harris won the debate by 26 points but the NYT front page has an article titled "Pundits Said Harris Won the Debate. Undecided Voters Weren’t So Sure" which features them speaking to half a dozen people most of whom don't express a clear view one way or the other as to who won. Why oh why do they keep doing this.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/11/politics/election-poll-trump-harris-debate/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/us/politics/undecided-voters-react-debate.html
Professional undecided voter remains undecided to keep receiving more media attention. Like, c'mon.
I understand your frustration because winning by 26 points should be the bigger headline. That said, undecided type voters are weird and more common then many of us might think. And their thought process and info diet is often very different from what a typical SB subscriber's would be. It's not totally terrible to keep a focus on them, since they ultimately decide the election, although the NYT's coverage is probably click-baity and possibly semi-fake
I wonder how useful these focus groups are though. In my estimation most swing voters are either highly weighting some heterodox issues (see Matt's lobsterman article) or they're just not paying much attention.
When swing voters get put into these groups and asked to articulate their thoughts, how many are gonna go, "Well, I don't actually care or know much about this stuff, but I don't wanna look stupid or lazy, so here's a half-baked opinion that I made up on the spot"?
Swing voters are very much a real group of people, and politics should try to understand their concerns, but idk how useful these specific forums are though.
Between Trump repeating lies about post-natal abortions and masses of immigrants eating people's pets... last night was insane. He couldn't even answer yes/no questions.
I'd say the dem party already has and is expecting so much fundraising that the marginal dollar would better be donated on mosquito nets or anti-drone devices for Ukraine or almost anything else.
If that were true you'd be seeing far more ads in reach places like Texas and Florida.
Great recap! Sharing widely.
According to prediction markets the Trump wipeout didn't matter much...only a 4-5 point swing in likelihood of victory for each candidate.
Only? If that shift is durable and not a short term blip it sounds very consequencal to me.
Don't be a cheap date.
Not all that many people watch debates. Not all that many people are persuadable.
What units are 4-5 points in? 4-5 percentage?
Harris' chance of winning went from ~47% to ~51 and vice versa:
https://electionbettingodds.com
I appreciate that the cold open immediately happened.
There’s just not the same type of ruthlessness in the Republican Party. Trump is old, senile and clearly mentally unstable. Fine for some random citizen, not for a future president of the USA. When will republicans grow a pair?
If you’re trying to figure out where to donate, GiveWell’s Top Charities Fund can save a life for about $5K. https://www.givewell.org/
It will be interesting to see what this debate win does for Harris. She has been laying low compared to Trump. This strategy puts more relative weight on this performance for her. Trump will just go back to rallies and interviews. My guess is she gets a bump but it doesn’t last. Vibes are ephemeral and burn quickly. She won this debate mostly on vibes and optics.
She landed some real blows on abortion in part Trump fumbled his rebuttal. But he landed some real blows on fracking and in PA that’s a real issue. PA has the lobsterman equivalent for fracking and they have friends and family that care about their wellbeing. Most here don’t care about fracking so it doesn’t land with you.
So a big sugar rush from this debate win. We will see how long it lasts.