Sick this week, I have had time to watch quite a few films.  Some were excellent, some mediocre, a couple pretty bad.  In case it is of interest (and to keep my brother happy by making a long post) I offer a review here.  Ranking movies quantitatively can be near-impossible (not to mention foolish), but I do my best to rank the following films in descending order of my preference.

1. Cabaret Balkan: This film is entitled Bure Baruta in the Serbo-Croatian.  It is difficult to keep this review anything but an exercise in superlatives.  The plot is deeply symbolic, with each of the characters seemingly an archetype, or, as one reviewer put it, “an aspect of the Balkan psyche.”  My knowledge of the specific history of the region is limited so many of the references are probably lost on me, but many themes are comprehensible without context: perceived emasculation under an oppressive regime, the resort of a traumatized people to absurdism, a status quo of mutually accepted violence smoothly escalating to murder, the blinding effects of nationalism.  In one vignette, the author seems to contend that “Western cleverness” cannot be transposed into the Balkans, which is something to ruminate on.  Despite a few heavy-handed allegories (for instance, the young activist who takes a bus full of people hostage, intent on making the passengers aware of their surroundings and angry at injustices, and is killed by the official driver just as his message begins to sink in) the symbolism is effective.  The use of an absurdist, effeminate, decadent cabaret performer as the vehicle for direct authorial voice intrigues me.  The film is marked by magnificent acting (excepting a few minor characters), especially from Nebojsa Milovanovic, Mirjani Jokovic, Aleksandar Bercek, and Nebojsa Glogovac; the former two offered portrayals that I expect to be seared into my memory for life.  I rated this movie 9 at IMDB.
2. Memento: I don’t remember the last time a suspense film has been this effective for me.  It takes the feeling of the last minutes of The Usual Suspects, Fight Club, or Se7en and extends it over a two-hour film.  I recommend you do not de-Rot13 the following unless you have seen the movie already.  N srj cbvagf bs cflpubybtl ner n ovg jrnx (pna bar ernyyl ratenva pbzcyrk ireony zrzbevrf guebhtu pbaqvgvbavat?) naq guvf gnxrf njnl sebz gur chapu bs gur raqvat fyvtugyl.  Ohg V jnf pnhtug hc va gur pyrirearff, gur gehr fhfcrafr nf gb jung jnf tbvat ba, naq gur terng npgvat.  Gur fpevcg frrzf irel rnfl gb jevgr cbbeyl naq irel qvssvphyg gb jevgr jryy.  Puevfgbcure Abyna (jub nyfb qverpgrq vg) unf jevggra vg jvgu terng fxvyy.  I strongly recommend seeing it without even reading the back of the box.  I rated this movie 9 at IMDB.
3. Genghis Blues: Like many people, I expect, I was first introduced to the culture and music of Tuva through Richard Feynman’s books.  A few years back I purchased Deep in the Heart of Tuva from the always-cool Ellipsis Arts….  The mini-book that accompanies the CD discussed the fascinating Tuvan rituals and culture.  When Genghis Blues, a film chronicling blues musician Paul Pena’s trip to Tuva debuted at Sundance, I knew I had to see it.  Unfortunately I missed it in the theatres, and I have waited until this week to see it.  It is a charming, sometimes heartbreaking, at all times amazing story.  Pena, who is blind, taught himself Tuvan throatsinging by ear; he also taught himself the Tuvan language at home using an electronic text reader, translating Tuvan texts letter-by-letter into Russian, then translating from the Russian to English (no Tuvan-to-English dictionaries existed.)  The film, though marred at times by amateurish photography, shows the beauty and generosity of Tuva and its people, the courage and devotion of Pena, and the enchanting and haunting Tuvan throatsinging in a more in-depth fashion than I have yet seen.  I highly recommend this film, which I rated 8 at IMDB.
4. The Gift: This film, about a psychic woman’s investigation of a murder, is one of those films in which the quality of the final product is far better than it has any right to be.  Based on a cheesy, formulaic plot and featuring uninterestingly-written characters, this film is redeemed by the top-notch acting talent who imbue the characters with magnificent depth.  The always-amazing chameleon Cate Blanchett provides a convincing portrayal, as do Giovanni Ribisi and Greg Kinnear (who is showing himself to be quite a talented actor.)  Katie Holmes is miscast (about five years to young for the role) and Keanu Reeves (an actor whose performances I sometimes respect) is barely competent, but they are made up for by the trio I mentioned first.  The plot could have been ten times better, but the acting talents commandeer the reins and turn a cheesy pseudo-suspense film into an interesting, if predictable, character-driven story.  The acting leads me to rate this as high as 6.5; this turns into 6 on IMDB‘s scale.
5. Willow: I have not seen this charming family-film fantasy since the late ’80s, when I enjoyed it much more.  There are charming touches to be sure (the dwarf Nelwyn referring to the normal Homo sapiens as “giants” and using miniature horses as mounts, for instance) but the film in general comes up lacking.  Sets look cheap and unimpressive, there are plenty of obvious façades, and the plot lacks a true climax.    Val Kilmer as Madmartigan, the self-proclaimed “greatest swordsman who ever lived” is fun to watch, as is (for entirely different reasons) the gorgeous Joanne Whalley, but the good points are not enough for me to rate this above 5 at IMDB.
6. Vatel: This film is a period-piece-for-the-sake-of-making-a-period piece, an overindulgent costume drama, a story in search of a plot.  The sad and depressing elements of it are simply not balanced by sufficient quality, and I was left thinking “that’s it?” at the end of it.  Uma Thurman and Gerard Depardieu are both talented actors, but they are given nothing to work with in this film and (unlike in The Gift, reviewed above) predictably make nothing of it.  There is a certain foolishness that embraces swooning, unrequited love stories regardless of how trite and vacuous they are; this film falls into that category.  “Oh, isn’t this film lovely and romantic?”  Well, frankly, no.  This gets a 4 from me.
7. The 6th Day: OK, what can I say?  This is the enantiomorph of Vatel, which I review above.  Perhaps to satisfy some cosmic symmetry, this film provides the vacuous, trite “guy film” counterpart to the vacuous, trite “chick flick”.  Cheesy psuedoscience runs through it, the kind that makes one wish they hadn’t bothered trying to explain the premise in the first place.  Arnold is Arnold, true to form.  The jokes are lame, the effects high-budget but unoriginal, the script the thinnest vellum placed over a camp-wannabee star vehicle. Arnold intones, in his strong bass, “You cloned the wrong man!”  You now have the entirety of the story as well as a large serving of the cheese, and you have saved yourself the $4.50 you might have spent renting the DVD.  This gets a generous 4 from me.

Out of curiosity I checked IMDB‘s user ratings of these films; aside from moving Cabaret Balkan from slot #1 to slot #3, my ordering is the same as the ordering of the amassed IMDB scores:

I have spent a couple of hours making this front page, and all of the archived pages, HTML 4.0 compliant.  I hope this will help the page render more consistently across platforms and browsers.

Well, it’s quite late.  I have wanted to finish my vast overhaul of Postal Cancel Art for the past few nights and did not have a chance.  I should be asleep, but I’m glad it’s done.  I plan to add commentary on them soon.  Let me know what you think of it.

Today I was thirsty and went to one of the vending machines here at work.  This machine dispenses 20 oz. bottles of soft drinks for $1.00 apiece; this price seems a bit high to me, so I can justify buying exactly one at this price if I am very thirsty.  I insert my dollar, press the button for Wild Cherry Pepsi, and hear the clunk as the bottle enters the tray.  I pick it up and turn to leave.

As I am turning, I hear another clunk.  Sure enough, there is another Wild Cherry Pepsi sitting in the tray.  What luck!  I am about to leave once more, but I then begin to wonder if the machine is malfunctioning so that it always dispenses two bottles per dollar.  There is no way to confirm one way or the other except by trying, but it seems a win-win situation.  If the machine behaves properly I get a third Wild Cherry Pepsi, making the bottles $0.66 apiece, which is a reasonable price.  But if the machine continues to misbehave, dispensing two bottles, then I will have four bottles at $0.50 apiece, less than what it would cost at the grocery store!  We have a refrigerator in one of our labs, so the extras will stay cold until I want them.  You will note that at no point in these deliberations did any ethical concerns bother me in the slightest.  I put the second bill into the machine.

Care to guess what happened?

That’s right: the machine ate my second dollar.

“Remember, under the oppressive Taliban regime, people live in constant fear of an oppressive order to which all must submit.  …  There is no freedom of speech, press, or assembly, as dissent of any kind is not tolerated.  …  All who fail to unquestioningly obey are punished with reprisals of brutal violence. We must not allow such a regime to threaten our great democracy….

“It is therefore urgent that all Americans be quiet, stop asking questions, accept the orders of authorities, and let us get on with the important work of defending liberty, so that America can continue to be a beacon of freedom to all the world.”

Click here for full text of the satire.

I had an interesting experience yesterday.  I am collaborating long-distance with a researcher in another state, and we have started to investigate a particular problem.  I was working to understand it and ended up stumped on one part, so I sent him an email asking a question.  While I was waiting for a response I continued looking at the problem.  An hour later I realized that I had completely misunderstood the problem, which would render my question not only useless but also foolish.  After another hour of research I realized that I had asked exactly the right question but for entirely the wrong reason, so my email, rather than appearing foolish, would appear quite insightful.

I TiVoed an episode of FoodTV’s Good Eats on the subject of chilies and watched it this evening.  One of the interesting claims that Alton Brown made was that capsaicin (the chemical responsible for the “heat” in chilies) is alcohol-soluble.  “So should you drink beer to get rid of the fire?” he asked.  “No, because beer is mostly water.  You would have to swill pure ethyl alcohol.”

But this got me thinking: distilled spirits are only a factor of two away from the proof of laboratory ethanol, and have fully ten times the alcohol content per volume as beer.  So it should work, right?  I decided to try an experiment.  I went to get the big bottle of cheap vodka that I have been storing for a couple of years since I tried making liqueurs, but I realized that I had used it to combat our ant problem this summer (using it was a burst of sudden inspiration: it kills ants on contact and completely obliterates their scent trail, apparently.)

I then remembered that I have a bottle of Absolut in the back of the liquor cabinet that I purchased when I didn’t know any better (they have a damn fine advertising campaign, but the spirit is so feinty that the best tasting notes would be something like “the lining of a rain-proof parka wrapped in a wet tarpaulin covered in vomit.”  My guess is that the accountants are making the decision of how much of the distillation run to keep rather than leaving the decision to the distillers.)  So I poured vodka for mouth rinsing, a large glass of milk as a fallback, and I clipped a habanero from the garden.

Crunch, chew, contemplate, spit.  “This one is not that hot, Jenn,” I say.  Crunch, chew, contemplate, swallow.  Contemplate.  Begin to suffer seriously as the apparent heat rises and rises and rises.  “Time to try the vodka,” I think to myself (if I had tried to say it out loud at this point it would have come out “pime poo pie uh ah-kuh”.)  Swig, rinse, contemplate.

You curious?

OK: it didn’t work.  If anything the burn of the ethanol on the sore taste buds made it worse.  I quickly gave up on the vodka and switched to the milk (for the record, that did not help all that much either, but at least it was cold and coating.)  I drank more milk (probably three quarters of a liter) than I have likely drunk in the past month total.  And now, getting to the end of this post, my lips and tongue are almost back to normal.

So the lessons:

1. I grow very hot habaneros.
2. Vodka is not a magic cure-all for spice overload.
3. Taking enormous bites out of the world’s hottest chilies when one is experiencing acid reflux already (this last one is just starting to dawn on me) may not be the brightest idea.

You might want to just take my word on these points.

My brother has a new, excellent website at davidjmcgee.com.  I have now come to the realization that he put the site together in order to clearly demonstrate that he has far more useful and interesting things to say than I.  Seriously worth a look and a bookmarking.  One note: if you cannot get to mcgees.org, you probably will not be able to get to davidjmcgee.com either, as they are hosted on the same machine.

The answer is “James”.

I asserted that Ari Fleischer was lying when he said “human rights has [sic] always been at the forefront” of the actions of the “American military and our nation.”  It has been bothering me that I did not provide any justification for this accusation, so I wanted to take a moment and do just that.  This also lets me share a link to the National Security Archive if you are not yet familiar with this group.

In April 2000, the U.S. State Department released, under the Freedom of Information Act, a startlingly frank interagency study of recent U.S. humanitarian interventions entitled “Interagency Review of U.S. Government Civilian Humanitarian & Transition Programs.”  The National Security Archive hosts a scanned copy of this document.  I cite from Annex 1, “Kosovo Case Study”:

The U.S. response [in Kosovo was] significantly shaped by the lack of a humanitarian voice in senior policy deliberations.  …  The first phase was a confused scramble, during which there was a disturbing perception at the highest levels of the USG [(U.S. Government)] that no one was in charge of USG civilian humanitarian programs.  …  It became apparent that little forward planning had been conducted, including the establishment of prior collaborative arrangements between USG civilian and military agencies.  …  [Later,] while humanitarian components within the USG cited the need for a more aggressive posture vis-à-vis the Macedonians in humanitarian forums, they made no effort to push for a shift in policy at more senior levels.  …

The KCC [(Kosovo Coordination Council)] was established by the White House one week after the bombing to provide high-level leadership of the humanitarian aspects of the Kosovo crisis.  …  [It] had mixed results.  …  Its impact on policy formulation was largely marginal: most policy decisions were taken at the daily [video teleconference] or at [other high level] meetings  …  It [(the KCC)] was ad hoc and lacked continuity and follow-through.

If we grant that life, health, shelter, and nutrition (i.e., humanitarian provisions) are human rights, then Fleischer’s claim seems untenable.

Some more points from the latest round of press briefings that may be interesting.  First, to draw attention to one passage from Tuesday’s briefing:

MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I think if you take a look
around the world, at all the actions that over time
our American military and our nation has been called
on, human rights has always been at the forefront of
it.  It’s true in the manner in which the United States
military conducts its operation and the manner in
which any type of harm to civilians has always tried
to be kept to the absolute, absolute minimum.

This rather blatant lie set me on guard (Note: I justify this accusation in a later post.); this is relevant for my reaction to the next passage I cite, from Wednesday’s briefing:

Q: Is the United States taking a softer line on Russia
over Chechnya in return for the cooperation Putin has
offered in this effort?

MR. FLEISCHER: President Putin gave a very important
speech the other day. … [The President] wants
to note particularly President Putin’s remarks … in
which [he] called on Chechen insurgents to
disassociate themselves immediately from the
international terrorist networks.

…

Q: And so, the administration believes, with President
Putin, that the resistance in Chechnya has been
infiltrated and is linked to the same terrorist
networks that committed the atrocities in New York?

MR. FLEISCHER: [T]here is no question that there is an
international terrorist presence in Chechnya that has
links to Osama bin Ladin.

…

Q: Haven’t we made many statements denouncing Russia
for its attacks at Chechnya?  And is there some image
of some freedom fighters there?  And all of a sudden,
you’re calling them terrorists?

MR. FLEISCHER: As I just indicated, the concern for
human rights remains a vital part of American policy,
and the only solution to the problem in Chechnya is a
political one.

Q: Yes.  But why is it just today that you’re calling
them terrorists?  What has changed?  Is this what Putin
has asked for, in exchange for his help?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated, that’s not the
case.  That’s been the longstanding position.

Q: I think this is the first time — is this not the
first time you’ve used this word at that podium?

Q: It’s the first time we’ve heard it.

MR. FLEISCHER: I’m not sure that I have discussed the
situation in Chechnya with the White House Press Corps
prior to this.  We haven’t had much reason to do so.

…

Q: Sounds like a deal, though.  It sounds like in
exchange for Putin’s support, we, rhetorically from
this podium, are lending him support in characterizing
the opposition as international terrorists.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, no such conclusion should be
reached.  This is consistent with actions taken by the
previous administration, because it’s an accurate
statement about developments in Chechnya.

Q: Can you give us the date of [the] Senate testimony
[you mentioned regarding Chechnya]?

MR. FLEISCHER: If I recall, it was November 1999.

“Yeah, right,” I thought to myself.  “You have really outdone yourself this time, claiming that there is Senate testimony identifying the Chechen rebels as terrorists and linking them to bin Laden.”  So I dug around, using November 1999 as the guide.  I decided Fleischer had to be referring to S. Hrg. 106-294, entitled “Chechnya:  Implications for Russia and the Caucasus,” from November 4, 1999 (Text|PDF), and I read this with interest.  And I found that Fleischer was absolutely correct.  I stress this now because I certainly would have made a big deal out of it if Fleischer had been lying.    From the testimony of Stephen R. Sestanovich, U.S. State Department:

Chechen insurgents are
receiving help from radical groups in other countries,
including Usama [sic] Bin Laden’s network and others who have
attacked or threatened Americans and American interests … Russian government statements
linking Osama Bin Ladin’s organization to Chechen fighters Basayev and
Al-Khattab are plausible.  We are aware of continuing cooperation
between Bin Ladin’s Al-Qaida organization and Chechen rebels, including
Ibn Al-Khattab.  It is likely that some of the non-Chechen rebel
fighters coming from outside Russia have received training, funding,
and other logistical support from terrorist organizations.

Fascinating.  If the media did not know of this it is their own dumb fault, as it is clearly a matter of public record.  But before we leave the transcript of these testimonies, I would like to excerpt a few more passages:

In the name of rooting
out terrorists, Russia is using force against Chechnya in an
apparent effort to undo the military defeat it suffered … Islamic fundamentalism obviously
affects the stability of the region as a whole.  Yet suppression
of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists may be a very convenient
pretext for Russia to pursue its designs in the Caucasus.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to draw a parallel between this and the current situation, substituting ‘U.S.’ for ‘Russia’ and ‘Afghanistan’ for ‘Chechnya’.  The State Department seem to have had a good perspective on the issues less than two years ago when they dealt with a foreign government; let us hope they can apply it here.

Also fascinatingly, there is a senatorial question from this session on record as follows:

From the perspective of the Administration, how can we
tell when the United States should discourage Russian military excesses
combating Islamic forces in the Caucasus, and when–if ever–should the
United States consider collaborating with Russia in fighting Islamic
sources of terrorism?

The answer, in retrospect, seems quite clear: the U.S. decided to collaborate with Russia once U.S. soil was attacked.  Just so we are clear on this: Russia, supposedly our allies, suffered attacks resulting in extensive loss of life from terrorists funded by extremist Islamic groups.  Congress then talked about “when, if ever” we should join Russia “in fighting Islamic sources of terrorism.”  They talked about it, and, to my knowledge, made no commitment until the attacks of 11 September.  The new President, backed by Congress, then had the audacity to announce to the world, including Russia, that the U.S. will begin the international war against terrorism, and if the rest of the world, including Russia, did not support us 100%, then they should be considered the enemy.  The hypocrisy here is stiflingly thick.

An article I read last week in Le Monde sported the headline «George W. Bush se pose en chef de guerre et leader du monde civilisé.»  No kidding.

I did not know until today that White House press briefings are published on whitehouse.gov.  This is very good; it allows us to bypass yet one more level of spin and agenda, that of the print and broadcast journalists who compose stories for public consumption.  And it is reassuring to know that hard questions are being asked, even if they seem not to make it to the front pages of newspapers.

The most recent briefing contains several important questions and responses that I would like to consider.  Emphasis is added.

Q: Ari, it does seem that across the board, on proving that these charitable organizations, non-governmental organizations, [and] banks have links to terror; on proving that bin Laden is behind these acts; on what plans the administration has post whatever movement we make in Afghanistan; the answer is always, “that’s classified, trust us.”  Does that really serve the democracy well if all this information on which the government is basing its actions is classified?

MR. [Press Secretary Ari] FLEISCHER: I think the American people get it.  I think they understand that as the nation moves from a peacetime footing to a wartime footing, the government’s need to hold certain pieces of information closer is an important need.  And I think the American people are accepting and understanding of that. And I think you all will be the judge if you believe the government has gone too far.  But I don’t think there’s any indications among the public, certainly, that that is the case.

…

Q: — the Swiss and the Cayman Islands and other governments, places where money is usually — large amounts of money are usually stashed and they have strict rules about giving out information to law enforcement?

MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated earlier, we’re going to continue to work with all nations around the world and we’re going to continue to see what the level of cooperation is with each nation.  But make no mistake, what is so different about the executive order the President signed last night is now the United States is prepared to take action against nations that don’t take action themselves.

Q: So the U.S. is willing to take action against the Swiss?

MR. FLEISCHER: The United States is prepared to take action against nations that don’t help in this cause.

Q: How will that process work?  For instance, you identify one of these groups and you go to a foreign bank and say, we want you to freeze the assets of this organization.  Will the U.S. just attest that this is linked to terrorists?  Will they supply some sort of detailed information? How do you avoid — how do you do that and avoid using sources and methods?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, every case is going to be different. … I can’t be in a position of being the spokesperson for every bank or foreign nation around the world.  We’ll see what they do to cooperate. …

Q: No, but I was asking you what the administration intends to do, not what they intend to do — what you intend to do to give them information to convince them?  I mean, if someone came to a U.S. bank and said, by the way, lock up this account because we think these guys are terrorists — you would have to go through some legal procedures, you couldn’t just say, oh, the Swiss told [us]–

MR. FLEISCHER: [The Departments of Treasury and State] will be the most appropriate places to go [with these questions].

…

Q: The Treasury — the response from the Treasury Department to that this morning was, “we will act like responsible adults.”  I think those were the words he used, even.  I mean, you’re really asking people to trust the government on this.  And without being more specific, do you intend to be more specific soon?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think what you need to do is talk to these foreign governments and talk to the foreign banks and get their point of view. I think you are surmising what their point of view may or may not be. … [W]e’ll see where it goes over time.

That is quite a bit more informative for me than most news reports.  More unsettling, too, as it reveals the efforts Fleischer makes to emit sounds from his mouth without answering the questions.  I am not a scholar of history so my depiction may be incorrect, but this seems to be the pattern in our country’s history:

1. We limit freedoms (Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, McCarthy’s witch hunt) for what seem to be valid reasons.
2. We later decide that the restrictions were excessive, but justifiable given the circumstance.
3. Even later, we decide that the restrictions were an abuse of governmental power and that the actions were unjustifiable in any circumstance.

Proofs from history are inherently flawed, but I am not attempting a proof, rather a comparison.  When the nation is in a state of hysteria, the sacrifice of our freedoms seems a price we are willing to pay.  Spurred by the sense of closeness and trust engendered by foreign hostility, we seem to accept that “the government are our friends”, that “they would do nothing to take advantage of this situation.”

And here arises the logical fallacy I am intending to address: we cannot fundamentally change the state of a system and have any confidence that the system will continue to exhibit the same behaviors.  Thus it is (strongly) arguable that the very reason the government seem our friends is that the Constitution explicitly limits their power by delegating responsibility to the people.

The past few weeks seem to indicate America turning a blind eye to many abuses.  Racial profiling in the federal investigations, for instance: how many of us think that the FBI agents did not take the passenger manifests and scan them first for Arabic names?  “Well, Josh, it seems to have worked,” my hypothetical conversant replies.  Well, yes; but enforcing a police state, or creating a dictorship, or executing people for their thoughts are all means to ends as well.  We cannot use expedient methods that violate Constitutional principles to accomplish a temporary aim.

“I don’t think there’s any indications among the public” that they resent the government telling us to trust them as benevolent, says Fleischer.  I hope he is wrong.  And I certainly hope the U.S. government will come to their senses and stop saber-rattling (“The United States is prepared to take action against nations that don’t help in this cause … We’ll see what they do to cooperate”) against countries that keep a cool head through these events.

Another exchange:

Q: A statement broadcast today, apparently a fax from Osama bin Laden, in which he called on Muslims in Pakistan to “fight the American crusade.”  A, does this administration believe the statement is credible, and do you have any reaction to it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there have been so many different statements coming out of the Taliban that I think the only statement that the President is looking for is a statement of action.  And the words that were issued today by the Taliban are a chilly reminder about how serious and real this is.

I reread these passages a couple of times to make sure I was reading correctly, and I left the passage intact to show I am not selectively quoting.  Since when were missives from Osama bin Laden identical to statements by the Taliban?  Oh, right: since the “we will make no distinction” speech.  Let us assume that North Korea decides that they are not too keen on letting the U.S. government stomp all over their banking system, and refuse to open financial records to American eyes.  Could we envision this exchange at a White House press briefing?

Q: A fax from Osama bin Laden called on Muslims to begin a Jihad against Americans.  Do you believe this is a threat?

FLEISCHER: Well, North Korea has been engaging in many threatening behaviors in the past few years, and we are worried about their possession of nuclear weapons.  But we are really waiting for an explicit declaration from North Korea before we start taking bin Laden’s threats seriously.

I am trying to figure out what flaw my hypothetical conversation partner would find in my analogy, but I cannot find anything (“bin Laden is on Afghan soil” is insufficient.)  I thought the “make no distinction” speech was posturing, a statement of hegemonism, a threatening and imposing way of saying “Help us NOW!”.  I did not think the administration would literally make no distinction between the terrorists and harboring states.   That just doesn’t make sense.

It has been a while since I have written any malts reviews.  I added one tonight, and I remember now how much I enjoy doing so.

I purchased Nickelback’s new album Silver Side Up yesterday (the album was released, rather unluckily, on the eleventh.)  I have been a fan of Nickelback’s since May 2000 when I heard “Leader of Men” from The State, purchased the album, and was extremely impressed.  The new offering is quite solid.  On my first listen, “Never Again”, “Good Times Gone”, and “How You Remind Me” stood out prominently, the latter dramatically so.  I believe “How You Remind Me” will be the track that makes them a household name.  On that listen I thought there was a lot of filler on the album, but I have listened through it once more, with “Hollywood” and “Where Do I Hide” catching my attention and the remainder sparking more interest than the first time.

A flip-through of my CD collection should indicate whether you (the reader, personally) should trust my musical recommendations.

The Washington Post ran a story [local archive] headlined “Chinese Working Overtime to Sew U.S. Flags,” relating to the rocketing number of American flag purchases in the wake of the terror.  This is not surprising, given that U.S. mythology casts Betsy Ross as Prometheus: a legendary figure who once gave us a great gift, before the means to produce it became cheap, widespread, and completely disposable.  Many U.S. citizens fail to realize that the headline indicates the source of the problem in the first place.

I purchased Michael Moore’s Downsize This! tonight and have read the first ten chapters.  In a previous post I tore Moore apart and wondered if “Mr. Moore is just an idiot or if is his aim is more sinister,” in response to his distorted figures and half-truths.  My verdict: he’s an idiot.

Eric Bogosian once described Oliver Stone as being not a liberal, but rather what conservatives want people to think liberals are like.  I cheerfully appropriate this and apply it to Michael Moore.

I TiVoed the Tribute to Heroes telethon last night and watched it this morning.  I took note of the artists who appeared and present the list here.  This is in no way official or guaranteed correct.  These are just my notes.

1. Bruce Springsteen
2. Tom Hanks
3. Stevie Wonder
4. George Clooney
5. U2
6. Will Smith and Muhammad Ali
7. Faith Hill with Paul Shaffer
8. Kelsey Grammer
9. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
10. Jim Carrey
11. Enrique Iglesias
12. Neil Young (covering John Lennon)
13. Cameron Diaz
14. Alicia Keyes
15. Robin Williams
16. Limp Bizkit (covering Pink Floyd)
17. Dennis Franz and Jimmy Smits
18. Billy Joel
19. Callista Flockhart and Amy Brenneman
20. The Dixie Chicks
21. (Montage set to U2′s One)
22. Dave Matthews
23. Conan O’Brien and Sarah Jessica Parker
24. Wyclef Jean
25. Tom Cruise
26. Mariah Carey
27. Ray Romano
28. Jon Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora
29. Lucy Liu
30. Sheryl Crow
31. Sela Ward and Jane Kaczmarek
32. Sting
33. Julia Roberts
34. Eddie Vedder, Mike McCready, and Neil Young
35. Chris Rock
36. Paul Simon
37. Robert DeNiro
38. Celine Dion
39. Clint Eastwood
40. Willie Nelson (with all-star chorus)

If I have made any errors, please let me know at joshua@mcgees.org.

I began with the intention of posting a complaint about the name “Operation Infinite Justice” applied to the terrorist retaliation efforts.  Does “Operation Infinite Justice” cause you (the reader) to shudder?  What we are hoping for (right?) is a finite struggle.   And damaging as it may have been, the attack was of finite scale, and therefore deserves finite retribution.

It is also problematic that “infinite justice” comes with heavy religious weights attached to it.  To propose that the U.S. could (let alone should) mete out such retribution would seem to offend most people.  The religious would be offended by the implicit arrogation of divine right, while the non-religious would be offended by casting a secular, military-political issue as a religious conflict.  I grimaced when George W. Bush used the word “crusade” to describe the conflict, but “Operation Infinite Justice” is not much of an improvement.  As Salon’s Scott Rosenberg writes, “The crusade, it seems, is on again.”

But good news, in the “this just in” sense: Rumsfeld announced he is “considering” finding a new name after hearing from Muslim clerics that it was offensive.  I think this can be read as a guarantee that they will change it (What else would he do?  Hold a press conference, announce that it is offensive to Muslim Americans, and then keep it?)

On two occasions in the past week I have heard television newscasters use the phrase “beg the question” to mean “leads one to ask the question.”  This is not the meaning of this phrase.  To “beg the question” has a precise definition in logic: it means to assume in your argument that which you are trying to prove.

Examples might be more enlightening than a definition.  Consider “Everything in the Christian Bible is true because the Bible tells us so.”  Or “Lying is bad because one ought to tell the truth.”  Or (from an August post) Coca-Cola‘s proof that dining experiences are improved by ordering Coke, due to the fact that a program to increase Coke sales succeeded, and thus improved customers’ dining experiences.

I did a search and found a World Wide Words column on the topic (if you are interested in words and are not yet subscribed, you can sign up for a great email newsletter at the site.)  According to Michael Quinion (the author), the problems propagated from a 1581 translation of “petitio principii” as “beg the question.”  Quinion suggests that “laying claim to the principle” would have been a better translation.

If all this is confusing, I may have simply done a poor job explaining it.  Read Quinion’s column and see if that elucidates things.  If it is still confusing after that, you probably want to avoid using the expression.  While the corrupted meaning has arguably (and, in my opinion, quite unfortunately) entered common usage, using it as such will draw the condemnation of people with logic training.  To be more succinct: if you are attempting a logical argument and blatantly misuse a logic term, you have set yourself at a significant disadvantage.

If you really like the ring of “begs the question” in the incorrect usage, try saying “invites the question.” I expect that it should be comparably satisfying.

The new Nimda worm is much, much worse than was Code Red.  As of this writing, mcgees.org has been hit with over 18,000 attacks from over 1,000 machines.

[Johnson] charges himself with not rising early enough … “One great hindrance is want of rest; my nocturnal complaints grow less troublesome towards morning; and I am tempted to repair the deficiencies of the night.”

        - James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson

This seems to quite applicably describe my insomnia.  In my attempts to repair this, it would seem logical that, were I to rise early, I would be tired enough by evening to fall asleep at a reasonable hour.  This does not seem to be the case.

From the Department of Redundancy Department of CNNfn:

United Airlines … plans to cut at least 20,000 employees, or 20 percent of its workforce. … United currently has about 100,000 employees.

How can a film that announces “No animals were harmed in the making of this film” contain scenes of the actors eating meat?

Would a short diversion from tragedy be in order?  1994 saw the release of a couple of cheesy action movies centered around skydiving, one of which was the Wesley Snipes vehicle Drop Zone.  I saw this in the theatres, and was won over by a character in the film called Swoop.  In the midst of a so-so film emerged an engaging, interesting character, acted better than any of the others.  I remember having multiple conversations to the effect that “the movie stinks, but it is worth watching for the character of Swoop.”

I did not watch much television for most of the mid-nineties, so I did not catch onto Homicide: Life on the Street (which I now consider to be the finest television drama of the 1990s, bar none) until 1998, when I started watching from episode 1 on CourtTV.  Homicide is stunningly rich in acting, screenwriting, directing, cinematography, and the bravery with which they addressed issues.  One of my favorite characters was Detective Tim Bayliss, acted with enormous complexity and skill by Kyle Secor.

Today I caught the end of Drop Zone on an HBO network.  I was astonished to realize that the character of Swoop, who had stood out so prominently for me, was portrayed by Kyle Secor.

I guess it was too good to last: Michael Moore has followed up his previous, reasonably balanced column with more of his normal incorrect, knee-jerk statements that give liberalism a bad name.  Moore writes:

Back in May, you [Bush] gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48 million dollars of our tax money. No free nation on earth would give them a cent, but you gave them a gift of $48 million because they said they had “banned all drugs.”

Unless one believes the U.S. State Department is boldly lying to the American public on all significant issues of its foreign policy, this is such unmitigated bullshit that it has my blood boiling.  I am left wondering if Mr. Moore is just an idiot or if is his aim is more sinister [Note 23/9/2001: Click here for my verdict.]

Following are the facts, as presented by the U.S. State Department.  I emphasize a subset of the points that Mr. Moore distorts.

The Taliban government issued a ban on poppy production.  This goes nicely with the U.S. War on Drugs, as Afghanistan produces some 75% of the world’s opium, which is then used to produce heroin.  The problem is that poppies are a very effective cash crop for poor Afghan farmers: they can harvest two crops a year, then grow watermelons or other food crops on the same land to feed themselves.  They have experience growing poppies, the poppies are drought-resistant, and since they are high-maintenance they employ many people.  The Taliban poppy ban came at a particularly bad time, as it was instituted two years into a terrible drought, and the drought has lasted another year.  The drought, coupled with the outlawing of crops, puts some 4 million Afghans at severe risk of famine.

The U.S. is by far the largest (but far from the only) provider of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan; in 2000 the U.S. provided approximately $114 million in aid.  The U.S. State Department are not idiots (unlike, perhaps, Mr. Moore.)  They realize that giving the money to the Taliban would defeat the purpose.  In the words of Secretary Powell, “Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it.”  Leonard Rogers (Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Humanitarian Response, USAID) expands: “The money will all go through either the United Nations or nongovernmental organizations, and some of those nongovernmentals are American organizations like CARE and International Medical Corps.”

In May 2001, the State Department announced an additional $43 million (not $48 million) in aid, in order to address the effects of the drought, the effects of outlawing poppy production, and general concerns of poverty and famine.  This raises year-to-date contributions to $124 million, a less than 9 percent increase over year 2000 funding.  And the U.S. is not flying over with attaché cases full of “benjamins”.  The disbursement includes 65,000 tons (NB: tons, not pounds) of wheat, $5 million in foodstuffs designed for therapeutic feeding programs for malnourished children (notably vegetable oil and nutritious corn-soy grain blends), and $10 million for “livelihood” assistance such as health assistance through UNICEF and seed- and tool-giving programs.  According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States, US hard wheat export prices in April 2001 were $134 per ton.  This means that ($134 * 65,000) + $5,000,000 = $14 million of this was given to U.S. farmers.  Think about it (I know this is a browbeating tone, but so few people seem to actually be thinking): take $14 million from U.S. taxpayers, buy surplus grain from America’s heartland, decrease the need for farm aid, and feed countless starving people.  What are we arguing about?

Now here is Moore’s quote again for you to read:

Back in May, you gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48 million dollars of our tax money. No free nation on earth would give them a cent, but you gave them a gift of $48 million because they said they had “banned all drugs.”

A bit of a different picture, eh?  This aid would be greatly appreciated even if poppy production had not been outlawed; it is absolutely critical now.  I wonder what Moore would have us do: stop humanitarian aid?  Stop feeding starving families?  My sense is no: he would like us to provide this much humanitarian aid, but the voters to believe that a Republican administration wasn’t doing so.

Sorry again for my livid tone … but do your civic duty and read the State Department briefings and their responses to our questions before you start demonizing U.S. foreign aid.  I know that in my comments on the Unity piece I came out against pro-American propaganda.  But are we supposed to replace this with anti-American propaganda?  Fact: the U.S. feeds refugees in Afghanistan.  Fact: the U.S. does this without giving money to the Taliban.  Fact: the U.S. does this while retaining Taliban sanctions.  Fact: the U.S. encourages the Taliban to stop their civil war, become self-sufficient, and not starve their population.

It is taking enormous effort not to end this posting with a paragraph of anger against Michael Moore.  I’ll restrain.  Read Moore’s article, read the State Department briefings, and fill it in mentally for yourself.

A friend sent a very thoughtful and intelligent email to me regarding the recent events, prompted by the postings on this page.  He passed along two valuable links.  First is a column from Michael Moore that was far more moderate than I would have expected.  This statement (one of the few moments of rhetoric that he allowed himself) seems to land close to the mark:

Will we ever get to the point that we realize we will be more secure when the rest of the world isn’t living in poverty so we can have nice running shoes?

Second, this personal recollection makes for enlightening, if chilling, reading.

Note added 5 December 2001:  It turns out I was wrong in at least one respect.  I am now convinced that the images were not doctored: see here and here.

My apologies to those whom I harshly accused of idiocy.

If I had slightly less faith in humanity I might have seen this coming: so far 29 (see below for current number) people have hit my Live Recordings Trade Center looking for variations on a theme of “Satan/Devil face in World Trade Center”.  Can we assume there has been an imbecilic rumor floating about that if you freeze-frame one of the explosion recordings, and turn your head just right, you see the face of (whoooah, man!) Satan?

I know on an intellectual level that people are scrambling to make sense of the disaster, but the fact that this story is being gobbled up strains credulity.  Maybe they are Asimov fans: his 1956 short story Hell-Fire covered this ludicrous ground.  Regarding the Asimov story, reviewer John Jenkins writes:

This and “Silly Asses” are Asimov’s two worst nuclear war
cautionary tales, being too short, too obvious, and having nothing
of merit outside of their message. In this case, the fact that the
story’s conclusion–the face of Satan is visible in the explosion–has basically been headline material for the likes of the
National Enquirer doesn’t help it. Avoid this story, if possible.

Yes, folks: avoid this story if possible.

Note added 14 Sept 2001, 21:30:

The total searches for ‘devil in trade center’, ‘satan face in world trade center’, etc. to hit my site now number 122.

Note added 16 Sept 2001, 10:30:

The total has now grown to 207.

Note added 17 Sept 2001, 23:45:

We are up to (brace yourself) 352.

Note added 19 Sept 2001, 11:15:

We have now reached 443.

Note added 20 Sept 2001, 11:15:

Another 89 hits in the last 24 hours; now up to 532.  And this has to be a very tiny sampling, since savvy web searchers would disregard the “hit” from the Google excerpt that shows on the search results page.  If one searches for “devil face in world trade center”, the following appears on page 1:

Live Recordings Trade
Center: List of Recordings
… Devil
By His Side; … In The Free World; Tuning Up for … 95,
The Delta Center, Salt Lake
City … so if you trade
with me I … Flow; Daughter > Broken Face > Real Me >
Another …
mcgees.org/livereclist.html – 17k
- Cached
- Similar
pages

If one searches for “satan face in world trade center”, the following appears on page 2 of the results:

Live Recordings Trade
Center: List of Recordings
… In The Free
World; Tuning Up for … Small Town; Rats; Satan’s Bed;
Once; Sonic … 95, The
Delta Center, Salt Lake City …
if you trade with me … Daughter > Broken Face >
Real Me …
mcgees.org/livereclist.html – 17k
- Cached
- Similar
pages

I finally gave in and looked into this rumor a bit more.  A Salon article attributes much of the hullabaloo to Art Bell.  Apparently he discussed this on his radio talk show, and posts some faked pictures on his website.  Here I will be blunt: If a viewer has even the slightest sophistication regarding, or experience with, digital images, it will be immediately obvious that these are nothing more than rather poorly-executed fakes.

Note added 22 Sept 2001, 12:00:

661

Note added 24 Sept 2001, 11:20:

This post is about to fall off the front page of mcgees.org, so this may be the last addendum.  The total is now a staggering 826.

I am still quietly fuming.  Last night, participating in a weekly Yahoo! chat, I was admonished post facto for “political” discussions.  By this is meant that “bomb the Middle East”, “go after our enemies whether or not they had anything to do with the attack”, and “torture is too good for bin-Laden; cut his balls off and let him die a eunuch” are not political statements, but urging care and restraint is.  Implicitly (and not very obscured) is the point that bilious tirades, racist generalisations, and threats of (further) unprovoked military force are harmless and on-topic; conversely, arguing in response that we should actually investigate who the guilty parties are before considering a storm of terror is “political”.  Note that for the soldiers who have been successfully brainwashed by our armed forces, the definition of “political” is actually “pansy-assed”.

Oh, I forgot that my views were also “shockingly naive”.  This, by the way, after I had left the chat.  A note to Yahoo! chat users: if a user goes “away from desk”, the browser still retains a log of what is discussed.  I vehemently reject the premise that diplomacy, research, and a respect for life are inappropriate in this circumstance.  I am cautiously heartened that Bush and Powell have so far demonstrated a willingness to think, rather than act on bigotry, the “they’re all the same” mindset, as despicable as that which motivated the attackers.

ESR, whom I did not know was capable of this level of political opportunism, sent a message to several news organizations on Tuesday afternoon subtitled First lessons from the 9/11 attack (note that the American-centric stance extends even to his date format.)  In this editorial … and I am finding it difficult to even transcribe this … he advocates arming all airline passengers as a way to prevent terrorism.  This bears repeating: according to Mr. Raymond, if you allow any passenger to carry loaded firearms onto a civilian airliner, you will prevent hijackings.

This is a complex editorial, but only in the sense that its audacity, irresponsibility, and insanity vie so closely for superiority that it is difficult to determine which comes out on top.  Situation: Armed passengers.  Result: Potential hijackers train as crack marksmen, carry semiautomatic pistols and wear Kevlar jackets.  They position themselves at various points of the plane and announce the hijacking.  They explain that anyone who resists will be shot, and will also cause two children on the aircraft to be shot.  Someone resists, is shot, as are a random four-year-old and six-year-old from among the passengers.  Someone else tries to resist, gets off a panic shot, punctures a window, and triggers an explosive decompression of the aircraft.  Now this is progress.

It “is arguable that the lawmakers who disarmed all the non-terrorists on those four airplanes, leaving them no chance to stop the hijackers, bear part of the moral responsibility for this catastrophe,” claims Raymond.  In point of fact, the crash in Pennsylvania suggests that unarmed passengers did succeed in stopping the hijackers; it seems quite likely they would not have been able to do so had the hijackers possessed firearms.

In an excellent bit of satire, one jsm ridicules and shames ESR’s and others’ rants (Thanks to Keith Dawson‘s post on Media Grok for the pointer.):

Of course the World Trade Center bombings are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved.  However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct.  Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened  …  My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events  …  [We must] not lose sight of the fact that I am right on every significant moral and political issue, and everybody ought to agree with me.

A response by alprazolam continued the thought, sans satire: “Disturbing people assume that the best response to tragedy is to abandon reason and order.  No matter what political differences I may have with the current administration I’m glad that cool heads have prevailed and the U.S. has not erupted into widespread vigilantism.”

People are hitting my Live Recordings Trade Center as a result of searches for “live trade center pictures” and the like.  I feel awful that my inconsequential pages pull them away from their searches.

These are the accounts of my brother, who studies in Manhattan, of Tuesday’s events.  I publish them with his permission.

My morning began with several reset alarms.  I
kept getting up, and thinking that I could sleep just
a few more minutes and still be on time.

There sure were a lot of sirens, though.  I
didn’t pay too much attention to them, because of my
proximity to Bellevue Hospital.  And if there
were a few more than normal today, I didn’t think it
anything special. 

We woke up at 9:05, Jason and I.  We trudged
around a little bit.  I showered.  When I
got back to the room, the phone rang.  Jason
answered, paused… muttered “You’ve got to be
kidding me” and pushed the power button on our
TV. 

I don’t remember what station it was — it doesn’t
matter, they were all showing the same thing.  A
plane had crashed into one of the World Trade
towers.  Another had followed shortly after,
smashing into the second tower.  As I was waking
up —  just a few miles away, acts of terrorism were
being carried out.  At this point, all the rumors
were conjecture… if only one plane had hit, I
may have believed it an accident until proven
otherwise.  But two… certainly this was a
terrorist attack. 

The phone call was from my father… he told me
that he had just turned on the news, and that this had
just happened.  The south wind was blowing the
smoke away from me, or I certainly would have known of
this before.  I hung up and called the
office.  Brian answered- I told him I was coming
in, and asked if he knew.  They all knew, he
said.  They were all watching.

Sam and Will from down the hall went to look from the
roof- Sam grabbed his camera, and they headed out the
side doors of our 26th story. 

I headed downstairs, still in disbelief.  I
walked to the subway station on Park Ave.  and
23rd.  A man sat with a newspaper and a cup of
coffee.  I asked him what had happened.  He
told me the same- an airplane into each tower. 

The pillar of smoke ever in my sight, I continued to
the subway station.  I used the last of the fares
on my metro card.  There were businessmen and
women huddled together.  Once again I asked what
had happened.  A plane into each tower, the man
told me.  And one hit the Pentagon.

I couldn’t believe what was happening.  I asked
if anybody had claimed responsibility.  Nobody
knew. 

The subway was silent as I rode to Astor Place. 
I have never heard the subway silent before.  I
exited — the cloud of smoke and ash was much closer
now.  I walked on Astor to Broadway- turned
south.  A huge cloud of smoke had suddenly
erupted from the ground, under where the other flames
had been.  People began to run, screaming. 
People began running in every direction. 
“ANOTHER EXPLOSION, ANOTHER EXPLOSION!” As I walked by
an unmarked truck, I began to fear that I was next to
a car bomb.  My pace quickened… I moved
downtown against the beginning flow. 

Outside of 721 Broadway I turned.  I wanted to
see what had happened… I wanted to see it with
my own eyes.  I came to a crowd of people
standing on Green St.  Again I asked “What
happened?” A guy my own age turned and looked at me,
tears streaming down his face- “The left tower just
fell down.”

My heart stopped.  Surely this could not be
happening.  A certainly deadly terrorist attack
had just leapt into utter devastation.  My hand
leapt to my mouth, agape.  There was so much
smoke.  I kept walking toward Washington Square
Park.  The Main Building of NYU emptied. 
The word that classes were cancelled spread
quickly. 

I turned around and headed back toward 721
Broadway.  My hand still at my mouth, my heart
and mind not truly believing it.  I walked
inside, up to the third floor.  My office was
empty.  I saw Chris standing down the hall with
some students.  I walked up to him- voice
shaking- I asked “Chris… did one of them just
fall over?” He nodded at me… those always wise
eyes suddenly filled with unknowing.  We sat
there, gathered at the doorway, listening to the
radio.  Two or three other guys, one girl with
tear stained cheeks.  I had to sit down, my legs
were shaking.  As the others slowly departed to
go make important phone calls, I stood back up. 
My cell phone, 60 hours old had no signal.  Of
course, I thought — communication towers are on the
World Trade Towers. 

I walked back to the office, dropped my bag. 
Tried both friends, tried to get to CNN website
nothing was working.  All I could think about was
getting home.  I heard that classes weren’t
cancelled, but I didn’t care.  I needed to find
something else to do. 

Downstairs I saw the same girl from upstairs…
Lindsay, she said her name was.  We shook
hands.  Trying to force a smile, I said that the
next time we met I hoped it would be in better
circumstances.  And we parted ways, with wishes
of good luck. 

I reached Chelsea outside of Tisch… she hadn’t
heard what had happened.  Jenny’s parents had
just called from Beijing and asked if they were
watching the news.  She said she was just about
to call me.  It was her turn to ask “What
happened?” And I stood outside of Tisch, leaning
against the wall, sobbing.  I told her what had
happened.  New York.  Washington D.C. 
She was sobbing now, too.  “How could this
happen?” She asked.  I had no answer to
give. 

I joined the mass emigration moving northward along
major streets.  We all looked behind,
constantly.  There was no tremendous thunder
clap, there was no fanfare- but when I turned around
that last time and saw no more smoke coming from the
sky, and billowing clouds of ash from the ground, I
knew the second tower had fallen.  Women walking
next to me had no signal on their phones.  One
asked if she could use my phone, she had to call her
family- but once I disconnected, I too had no
signal.  The streets were filled with people
moving uptown.  Away and further away. 

Rumors filled the streets- the Sears Tower had been
hit, I heard.  Car bombs were exploding all over
D.C., I heard.  I looked up at the Empire State
Building, hoping it would last the day.  I feared
that it might be next.  There were so many people
on the streets.  I feared car bombs.  People
were staring at cell phones, willing them to work,
looking behind with dread.  As I turned on 26th
St., I started talking to some businessmen. 
“What the fuck is going on?,” I asked? As one turned
and wished us good luck, the second echoed my
question.  “Where are you headed?” I asked. 
“I’m going to Bellevue, try to give blood,” he
said. 

I joined him — I was in such shock, it honestly
hadn’t occurred to me to donate blood.  We
quickened our pace again, and made toward
Bellevue. 

It was caution-taped shut.  “Nobody comes in,”
the police officer said.  “We want to give
blood,” we said.  “Nobody comes in.”

So I parted ways with this man too — he told to me to
try again later, and to get as many people as I
could.  I told him I would certainly do so. 
And I walked back to my dorm.  Up to the 26th
floor.  Into Sam and Will’s room.  The
images from his camera on his computer already, I saw
the now destroyed twin towers smoking- as they had
stood two, maybe three hours earlier.  But I knew
they weren’t there anymore… nothing in my life
has been so surreal.  As I walked back to my
room, the thoughts in my mind were of a new day that
will live in infamy.  Of the thousands upon
thousands upon tens of thousands that must have been
dead in the destruction.  And I couldn’t really
work it out in my head… I couldn’t get it to
click. 

Zach was safe, Zach was here.  We talked about
how frightened we were, what we had seen, what we had
heard.  My concern became for Aaron — I knew
that Jason couldn’t have possibly gotten that far
downtown — he had left the dorm after me, and as all
public transit systems were down, he couldn’t have
gotten down there.  But Aaron was gone when I
woke up, and we hadn’t heard from him.  He called
relatively soon — he was safe at a friend’s
dorm. 

Jason got back to the dorm.  He had been trying
to give blood at other hospitals — St. 
Vincent’s and Beth Israel.  He had tried Bellevue
too.  They all turned him away.  Too many
patients, too few doctors.  All the TV stations
said that there was a shortage of blood — but we
couldn’t find anybody to take ours.

I couldn’t get a phone line out.  Ethernet
worked… I got Jonathan Johannsen to call my dad
and tell him I was OK, and to have my dad call Chelsea
and Josh.  Chelsea signed online shortly after,
my dad shortly after her.  I was inundated with
instant messages.  I spread the word that I was
OK, but that New York was a warzone.  There were
so many people. 

Nine or ten of my friends were downstairs, making the
trek to Laura’s.  Alive and well and accounted
for were all those that I hadn’t heard from. 

And through the day as I watched the news, I got back
in touch with my family… I found out that
Chelsea had been planning on surprising me with a
visit the next day.  She had a plane ticket to
come and see me for the next five or six days, as a
wonderful surprise.  And I begged and begged her
to wait at least a week to come again.  The last
thing I need is for Chelsea to be on a plane right now
– as if I could rest easily with that on my
mind.  As if I can now…

And that was the rest of the day… news, and
phone, and typing… letting everyone know that I
was physically alive, and mentally pretty
ragged. 

So I watched the news, and talked to friends, and
tried not to think about the things that were
happening downtown.  Sooner or later, maybe, it
will hit me what has happened.  It will hit me
that New York’s largest buildings are a heap of
200,000 tons of steel, mixed with concrete and
glass… but it hasn’t yet.  Maybe it will
hit me how many died…  but it hasn’t yet. 

But it has started to hit me how everyone came
together in this city… it’s started to hit me
that those places that are taking blood have lines
around the block, that usually gruff New Yorkers were
sharing cell phones, and wishes of peace. 

This really doesn’t change the fact that tens of
thousands died today, that I watched a building
collapse, that others were closer and others lost
loved ones and others had their planes hijacked and
flight attendants were stabbed and pilots probably
shot, that people decided to fall rather than burn,
that rescue workers simply helping out are gone
too. 

It doesn’t change any of that.  But in a hopeless
situation it gives me a glimmer of hope that I
desperately need.  And I want to side with that
businessman on the street today who said “I hope we
give a big “fuck you” to the world and build ‘em back
again, this time bigger.” And I want to send love to
those who are offering shelter and food, and to a city
always divided to come together so well.

Today it takes an attack, but that hope is there –
that someday it won’t have to come to that.  I
don’t know, but I hope.  It’s been the longest,
scariest, worst day of my life.  Good
night.  And Peace-