September 8, 2002

6:16 AM

"Thank goodness they got those buildings. I've always hated them! They're so ugly." This article goes to show it's not just extremists who have (or initially had) inappropriate feelings about 9/11.
posted by etc (55 comments total)

Wow...great post

They are necessary evils to be countenanced in an honest analysis of the time. They keep us from creating a distorted, overly sentimental picture of our national reaction to disaster.

After seeing melodramatic 911 programs on almost ALL newstations this weekend this captures my feelings exactly. Perfect. After all, we're only human (mammals).
posted by poopy at 6:42 AM on September 8, 2002

I confess that I'm somewhat uneasy about "inappropriate" or "improper" feelings -- not the feelings, but rather the concept. It may be inappropriate to express those feelings (or it may be inappropriate to not consider one's surroundings carefully when one does so), but the bleeding-heart in me bristles at the notion that ANY feelings aren't legitimized by their very existence. As the article points out, they emerged from our mental ether, and they deserve to be part of the record of that day and its aftermath.

If you're uncomfortable with the way you're feeling, then perhaps you shouldn't deny those feelings, but rather try to explore their existence. Know thyself!
posted by Vidiot at 6:47 AM on September 8, 2002

great antidote to all the anniversary respectfulness and solemnity, etc--thanks!
posted by amberglow at 6:52 AM on September 8, 2002

Great post.

I think it's extremely important to note many of the people who felt apathy or even anger rather than sorrow.

I really feel with the people who hated the annoying surge of patriotism that followed 9/11.

PS: This is my first post! Hello all. :)
posted by gwong at 7:06 AM on September 8, 2002

Interesting read. But I'm not so sure I understand the point of printing said reactions. I think everyone can admit to have "mixed feelings" that day... and even sharing them with other people. I don't think, as the article claims, that most people kept the "not so emotional" thoughts to themselves, preferring not to share them with others for fear of being insensitive. I think it was quite the opposite. I think most people kinda let it all hang out that day.
posted by Witty at 7:17 AM on September 8, 2002

Hello, Gwong, and welcome.

Ugh this hit so many of my buttons. The ersatz patriotism. The surge in popularity of Bush. The deification of the firemen and policemen. The excuse for bigotry.

While I don't believe it is necessary to denigrate the victims, I have to confess to rolling my eyes every time I heard another thumbnail biography, God forgive me. Perhaps it was the way the sainthood of these people was forced down our throats. I wish that one of the networks had had the idea of doing one little 60 minutes-type segment on one person or one family a week, so that we could really meet them instead.

That said, it was a timely article and a great post.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:32 AM on September 8, 2002

Darn 15K+ers...nah, just kidding. Welcome, gwong.
posted by Vidiot at 7:33 AM on September 8, 2002

I think most people kinda let it all hang out that day.

I know I didn't let it all hang out. I felt anger, sadness, and all the outspoken emotions of that day, but there was something else involved also which I didn't dare talk about with anyone else (except for family members and close friends). It's kinda weird but we have a hard time admitting that destruction and tragedy sorta 'turns us on'. It sounds harsh and unfeeling but it's the truth. What kind of story makes the headlines?

I'm reminded of the movie, Crash (not really a good movie IMO, but it made it's point).

On preview - to reiterate Gravy: I don't mean to denigrate the victims and their families. Just an observation on human nature.
posted by poopy at 7:46 AM on September 8, 2002

"Inappropriate feelings". Sorry, I didn't know the Thought Police really existed. *begins flooding mind with show-tune jingles*

Whether you agree with them or not, people can feel however they want. If someone seems to think the events of September 11th were a 'good thing', then that is their right.

Sure, it may be crass, cold, callous, enraging, etc, but "inappropriate" doesn't figure into it. There is no such thing as an inappropriate feeling or thought -- it's our actions, as a result of these thoughts / feelings, that determines if they are appropriate or not.
posted by Dark Messiah at 7:55 AM on September 8, 2002

No, No, No, Poopy-- I didn't mean you at all. I was referring to this quote from the article:

I would read these profiles every day and think, yeah right. Was everyone in the WTC a super amazing person? Someone who worked there must have been an asshole." -- Female reporter at a major business magazine

That said, I loved that story of the Texas woman who ended up with her lover in a sordid little afternoon of extramarital sex. So human. I have to chuckle a bit at how every time "Patriot's Day" is mentioned she has to feel like dog doody.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:00 AM on September 8, 2002

Well, Dark Messiah, I would have to disagree with you. If someone felt gleeful (I mean someone other than the instigators and supporters of the attack) I would think that was inappropriate. Also, I would worry about someone who while watching footage of the destruction felt sexual arousal.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:06 AM on September 8, 2002

Also, I would worry about someone who while watching footage of the destruction felt sexual arousal.

Well, some people thought the world was going to end. One of my friends called me a few days after 9/11, telling me he "sealed the deal," so to speak, with his long time girlfriend who had until then refused his advances. I guess the whole uncertainty of the times makes for great promiscuity.
posted by gwong at 8:18 AM on September 8, 2002

OK, maybe "inappropriate" was the wrong word. Unpopular? Unusual? The article uses words like "forbidden" and "disgraceful" which are probably even more judgmental.
I certainly didn't mean to sit in judgement of the people in the article, because I can sort of see where they're coming from. I've often thought "they can't all have been wonderful people"...
By the way, I don't want to steal Gwong's thunder, but this was the first link I've posted (although I've responded to a couple) - glad it went down well ('inappropriate' phrasing aside...).
posted by etc at 8:19 AM on September 8, 2002

I agree that inappropriate may be the wrong word. I would say that a lot of them have to do with comments being made in bad taste, like the Ann Coulter quote about invading and converting. But I guess you can't expect much more from her. The two that disgusted me the most were the woman spitting on the Indians and the editor that recreated the falling of the towers with her friends. For these, the level of bad taste displayed in these actions is inappropriate. Perhaps its all just relative.
posted by rift2001 at 8:37 AM on September 8, 2002

"inappropriate" was exactly the right word to use, because it already carries with it a whole bunch of connotations about political correctness etc - at least for me. when i read the fpp i smiled at how exactly right the word was. come on folks, aren't we sophisticated enough here to not need "scare quotes" around words before we think about how they are being used?

i thought the very last quote in the article (iirc) was the most illuminating - the guy who first of all decides it's a republican plot and then wants to kill arabs in revenge. kind of sums up, for me, the danger of people who want to stuff everything into a tiny well-ordered box, removing all doubt and confusion. not that far removed from the people who would have committed this act.

my own personal inappropriate thought - i saw things "almost live" over the internet, in the uk (i was the first person i know to hear the news) - was a definite satisfaction in seeing someone finally hit the "superpower" where it hurts. just like seeing the school bully getting floored.

given my comments above, i hope people will believe that i can both feel that and understand that it was a terrible personal disaster for many people. and people who reply to this saying i should only feel one thing and not another - well, you already have my response.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:37 AM on September 8, 2002

memory. i didn't "see" things - i read them. i watched articles starting to appear on blogs. waited for the first details on the bbc... later, i watched.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:40 AM on September 8, 2002

Indeed, a great post. I feel better reading some of this, it fights the media blitz on all of it. I'm going in search of more.
posted by agregoli at 9:08 AM on September 8, 2002

I watched from the states on the BBC web site ... the site was slow that day ... I remember getting annoyed at the choppy feed and feeling that I was missing something. Regarding "inappropriate," I made my first public faux pas slightly later that day when at work, when everybody was watching a projection of CNN on a big screen (a projection of nothing happening, actually, as it already was the afternoon), and I said something like "Hey, they already have a 'special report' news logo designed!" (you know the thing that says 'Attack on America' or something like that). Nobody laughed. I later felt I was vindicated in some way when The Onion later came up with their H* F* S* issue.s
posted by carter at 9:08 AM on September 8, 2002

I have to admit that a tiny bit of me was glad about getting a day off of school, and that that actual attack on the towers horrified me but was also strangely interesting. Because usually those things only happen in movies or history books, and for some actually physically significant to happen while I was alive, just felt bizarre.
posted by puffin at 9:13 AM on September 8, 2002

was a definite satisfaction in seeing someone finally hit the "superpower" where it hurts.
i feel the same way about how american G.I.'s dated english women. It was nice to seen empire brought to it's knees. *sarcasm*

i hope people will believe that i can both feel that and understand that it was a terrible personal disaster for many people.
keep it up if it helps you. but i don't think anyone would believe you if you stand by that statement.


"20. Homage to Giantism
....This formalized expression of megatechnic chaos is the negative counterpart of the outward drill and discipline of the daily round. The Port of New Yorks Authority World Trade center, 100 stories high, is a characteristic example of the purposeless giantism anf technological exhibitionism that are now eviscerating the living tissue of every great city. The Port Authority, a quasi-governmental corporation, was in origin a happy political invention, first installed in London: but unfortunately it's social function have been subordinated to pecuniary motivations.... But Dinosaurs were handicapped by insufficient brains, and the WTC is only another dinosaur."

-Lewis Mumford, from 'The Myth of the Machine: Pentagon of Power'

"inappropriate feeling" that is the worst expression. it negates the emotion whilst it tries to validate others that have been deemed proper.
posted by clavdivs at 9:17 AM on September 8, 2002

of course Mumford was a Canadian and I think he goes to limits to state the obvious about some things and ascribe meaning towards his slanted data and 'pick and choose' examples.
posted by clavdivs at 9:20 AM on September 8, 2002

My thought of that day: "The finally got them". Them being the towers. An irresistible terrorist target. I always knew another terrorist group would be back to take another swipe at those buildings.

As for the most innapropriate quote of that day, I was walking around the neighborhood that day and we were standing around this radio that a store had put outside, listening to news. This guy I know, Glen, says, "My sister is going to make so much money off of this. She's a lawyer you know."

I just walked away thinking, there are going to be so many people who will say things about this event that are inappropriate and wish in the future they had kept quiet.
posted by lampshade at 9:28 AM on September 8, 2002

great antidote to all the anniversary respectfulness and solemnity.

I really feel with the people who hated the annoying surge of patriotism that followed 9/11.

You know, I understand that 9/11 has been manipulated by the Bush administration, and I have no problem with difference of opinion, but good lord, do we have to be so cynical and dismissive about it? It was truly a tragedy, real people did actually suffer horribly and die, ya know. A lot of the flag-waving post 9-11 was chest beating but I still believe the majority of it from ordinary citizens was merely to show solidarity and came from a good place.

Statements like the ones quoted above make me glad you all weren't in charge of things after Pearl Harbor. I suppose you would've found all that patriotism to be annoying and solemn as well...
posted by jonmc at 9:39 AM on September 8, 2002

"inappropriate feeling" that is the worst expression. it negates the emotion whilst it tries to validate others that have been deemed proper.

I agree with this. While it's true public actions can be judged "inappropriate" by society, how can feelings be inappropriate? They are feelings. They can't really help being felt, and as they are personal emotions they are not really affecting anyone else.

A lot of the flag-waving post 9-11 was chest beating but I still believe the majority of it from ordinary citizens was merely to show solidarity and came from a good place.

That's the whole point though, right? That's how you felt, but maybe others felt different. And that's okay.
posted by puffin at 9:46 AM on September 8, 2002

puffin--100% true. And it's also okay for me to be a bit...disappointed in the dimsisiveness of some of the sentiments voiced here. and to say so.
posted by jonmc at 9:50 AM on September 8, 2002

jon, have you ever asked yourself why every single person who died in the WTC was an exemplary father, mother, sister, brother, community leader, etc--that no one clawed their way to the top or was an ass? and did you not realize that firemen are people too, and might use this to hit on women (most of them are being pretty successful too), and that Giuliani was seen by many new yorkers as dominating and hypocritical (preaching against what he considered obscene art in museums while strolling in the same museums with his girlfriend), etc?--but that because he did his job on 9/11 and after he's a saint? i could go on, but won't...

We all know all about 9/11 and that people died--we've been hearing about it for a year (and have lost rights, and are in an endless war because of it, etc)! I don't think it's dismissive or cynical to call this post an antidote to the excessive consecrating and sanctifying of everyone and everything involved.
posted by amberglow at 10:10 AM on September 8, 2002

You know, I understand that 9/11 has been manipulated by the Bush administration...

I wouldn't thank Bush for that; I would like to thank the media and then ultimately US, the people, for all the melodramatic B.S. Afterall, it is we that buy into it; we're the ones that drool over the repetitive footage of the towers on fire.

And when I say 'we' I mean 'me' of course. I've been glued to the television for the past 16 hours. Melodramatic B.S., but 'hot damn! That's some good entertainment!'

Excuse me...Larry King is showing 'Where were you on 911' again...
posted by poopy at 10:12 AM on September 8, 2002

I think it took less than a day for me to hear the first sick joke, and I laughed at it. And sick jokes are a kind of formalised, slightly displaced version of thoughts like the ones collected here; and those thoughts are natural, unless and until they get amplified and warped from impulse into ideology. Which they haven't. It's like telling jokes at funerals.
posted by riviera at 10:16 AM on September 8, 2002

"If I see someone come in that's got a diaper on his head and a fan belt around [it], that guy needs to be pulled over and checked."

see, this is what bugs me about 'pc', and it's quite evident here on mefi: reactions such as these aren't 'inappropriate' and 'wrong'. 'ill thought out' perhaps, 'uttered in the heat of the moment', yes. but they are natural and human reactions. fucking ragheads anyway.
posted by quonsar at 10:27 AM on September 8, 2002

hey everyone, did you know that if you said september eleventh backwards it sez 'thne vele reb met pes'... ?!?!?! pretty fucking inappropriate, i'd say.
posted by quonsar at 10:29 AM on September 8, 2002

But I'm not so sure I understand the point of printing said reaction.

For me, reading these inappropriate reactions is a more refreshing affirmation of humanity than most of the overwhelming barrage of treacle we've been subjecting ourselves to for 12 months. We're human; I couldn't endure tragedy without black humor. I love the quote about the oily fireman trying to use 9/11 as a pick-up line.
posted by rcade at 10:35 AM on September 8, 2002

jon, have you ever asked yourself why every single person who died in the WTC was an exemplary father, mother, sister, brother, community leader, etc--that no one clawed their way to the top or was an ass?

amberglow--Obviously as I said, it's politicians manipulating the tragedy to their own ends, which I find nauseating no matter who it's coming from. And I'm sure some assholes died in the towers along with everyone else. But, assholes or not, It was not up to Mohammed Atta/Osama Bin Laden et al to make the call whether it was time for them to die.

firemen are people too, and might use this to hit on women

I know that very well. Last time I hung out with Rob The EMT I met his whole crew of paramedics, and yeah, there as human as the rest of us, but they also face more shit in a week than most of us will face in a life time and if they wanna use it to get a little conjugal bliss, more power to em.

Giuliani was seen by many new yorkers as dominating and hypocritical (preaching against what he considered obscene art in museums while strolling in the same museums with his girlfriend), etc?--but that because he did his job on 9/11 and after he's a saint? i could go on, but won't...

I've always had mixed feelings about Guiliani as I stated way back when but during the crisis he behaved with class and dignity and deserved praise for it. You say "did his job" as if his is an easy one. I don't think I could do it, could you?

an antidote to the excessive consecrating and sanctifying of everyone and everything involved.

Yeah, a lot of remebrances are there to boost TV ratings and sell soap. No argument there man. But at the same time I do worry about us becoming so cynical and dismissive that 9/11 becomes just another historical event,"business as usual". I'd find living in a world where where something of that magnitude to be shrugged off to be a bit scary.

Finally, amberglow, you seemed like a nice guy when I met you at the MeFi summer party, so don't take any of this as a personal attack. It's just me saying what's on my mind.
posted by jonmc at 10:38 AM on September 8, 2002

reactions such as these aren't 'inappropriate' and 'wrong'. 'ill thought out' perhaps, 'uttered in the heat of the moment', yes. but they are natural and human reactions. fucking ragheads anyway.

That's a nice double-standard, quonsar -- you expect people to soften the words that they use in response to horrid racist sentiments like "fucking ragheads." Heaven forbid anyone call a bigot a bigot.

Oops. Did I say bigot? I meant "unfortunately ill-educated adverse-judgmental racial observer."
posted by rcade at 10:41 AM on September 8, 2002

jonmc - isn't that the way things work? time heals all etc.

clavidvs - ouch that hurt me - you win.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:45 AM on September 8, 2002

it's not you, jon--and i'm sorry if i came off too strong, but this anniversary stuff is overkill to a nth degree (It's not like it hasn't been in the news every single day since 9/11)...even at work on that day we're having a mandatory voluntary breakfast meeting to watch the coverage before we actually start working--ugh!

this is one of the first stories in any media that i've seen that has acknowledged the (sometimes unpretty, but very real) complexity of people's emotions and reactions to 9/11 and its aftermath--I think that's all to the good...

also, I think it would be impossible to minimize it to where it became "business as usual", nor does anyone really want to...
If now--a year later--it's still not ok to share the facts and emotions and actions that don't feed into the acceptable media story of heroism and sacrifice and patriotism, then we as a society really have problems, i think.
posted by amberglow at 10:51 AM on September 8, 2002

oh, i forgot this: I think we both would be great mayors, but it's a shitty job to begin with.
posted by amberglow at 10:52 AM on September 8, 2002

It's weeks like these that I am profoundly glad I have been television free for 5 years. On the day of the attacks there were tv monitors at every corner of every hallway of my building. I was teaching that day so my primary concen was for the safety of the Turkish and Indian students in my department.

I had already developed a bad attitude towards TV news after a family visit was spoiled by watching Peter Jennings interview anyone who ever saw a Kennedy in order to cover up the fact that there had been no news for 12 hours when John Kennedy Jr.'s plane crashed. So the bombardment of speculation made me run to my office for cover.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:53 AM on September 8, 2002

Good post, but not a great piece of journalism. A lot of the things in there are interesting anecdotes and reactions, and some of it is pretty hateful... But it tries to get away with all that by claiming to be just a random assembly of "inappropriate" thoughts.

It ain't. A lot of the quotes are geared towards exaggerating a certain political outlook (presumably the author's). If the article was truly committed to showing the breadth of human response, there'd be, for instance, a whole lot of unvarnished, angry racism there. There isn't - in fact, the only quotes that really touch upon that is one from the point of view of someone who is renouncing their racist (former) friend and a recanted statement from a politician. Also note the distinct lack of "incorrect" thoughts from muslim New Yorkers.

Claiming to be "un-P.C." is a trendy thing lately, but it's an empty phrase - it's usually just a lame justification for being the specific kind of asshole that you want to be.
posted by adameft at 11:01 AM on September 8, 2002

andrew, if it's any consolation I had similar feelings. Then later, when I went out in the centre of London, everyone was talking about whether London would be hit, and I admit part of me really wanted that to happen. So it's not just other people's countries I have these feelings about. I'm not proud, it's the way it was. Life is dull, people love drama. Just admit it.
posted by Summer at 11:02 AM on September 8, 2002

I freely admit to making a comment along the lines of "suck it, capitalist scum" at some point that day. I also remember complaining (and the weirdest thing - I heard no less than three other people within the following week say this exact same thing) that they really should have hit the Oscars instead.

The one thing I could never find any humor in - despite hearing quite a few 'that's a 10.0 dive right there, Jane'-type jokes, was the jumpers. I felt so horribly sorry for those people, they got neither the instant release of impact nor the relatively painless release of passing out from smoke inhalation. For some reason that one really got to me and everything that made light of it was, for me, inappropriate.

Another interesting reaction that fits the topic at hand was a first hand account of an anti-globalization march in Britain where the protesters cried at the news of the WTC and cheered at the news of the Pentagon.

The only thing I can find to glean from this is reinforcement of the knowledge that everybody has their standards and lines in the sand. Which makes me think of a great way to spend my 9/11 anniversary - surfing through rotten.com purposefully desensitizing myself to anything and everything. If the media wants to spend the day trying to get me weeping over people I never met and have no connection to, I can't think of a better way to - if not honor them, then at least prevent myself from joining in dishonoring them through contrived spectacle.
posted by Ryvar at 11:03 AM on September 8, 2002

surfing through rotten.com purposefully desensitizing myself to anything and everything

i hate to think what that would do to your sex life. please - don't do it. just stay inside, leave the tv off, and curl up with a good book. if you haven't read a s byatt's posession, now is the time (no, it has nothing at all to do with 911).
posted by andrew cooke at 11:11 AM on September 8, 2002

Did I say bigot? I meant "unfortunately ill-educated adverse-judgmental racial observer."
hahahaha! touche, rcade!
posted by quonsar at 11:52 AM on September 8, 2002

I'm terribly sorry for all the people that died. Assholes or no.

What bothers me most about this is the faux patriotism that followed. The sickening "togetherness".

What is horrible about it is that it was so short lived. Not one month after, people weren't together, everyone was back to their day to day lives. Still flying their newspaper flags or driving around with their idiot bumper stickers that said "United We Stand" or some such pathetic saying.

The feeling is gone and we're losing our rights left and right because of this attack and people just don't care. If you question, you're a scumbag communist. Although that to me is the true meaning of Patriotism. Question your leaders, question authority.

I'm sick to death of all the maudlin, minor key tributes as well. It's a commercial event. It sucks.
posted by damnitkage at 12:13 PM on September 8, 2002

I think my first rational thought (after my brain stopped melting as I watched the towers collapse) was, "My god, how many glurges am I going to have to live through for this?"
posted by RylandDotNet at 12:21 PM on September 8, 2002

I think my first rational thought (after my brain stopped melting as I watched the towers collapse) was, "My god, how many glurges am I going to have to live through for this?"

Oh, Lord No! Please make the insanity stop!

*Squealing squirking on the floor, holding head, mumbling something about rainbow sherbert and lemonade*
posted by poopy at 12:28 PM on September 8, 2002

I called up my boyfriend -- Do I have to use the word 'lover'? It's so cheesy -- who was also sent home from work. We went to a local Chili's, drank gin-and-tonics and watched the TV. Then we got a hotel room together and in between making love, we watched the events unfolding on the TV.

So, let me get this straight. "Lover" is cheesy, but the "making love" of horrible '70s cock rock is OK. Man, if you're going to be inappropriate, at least be appropriately inappropriate - as in, don't act oh-so hep and disdainful of a certain word or phrase, only to use what most sensible Americans would feel is a vastly cheesier one.
posted by raysmj at 12:36 PM on September 8, 2002

poopy:After seeing melodramatic 911 programs on almost ALL newstations this weekend this captures my feelings exactly

I can see how this article would be a welcome antidote. But, my question is why anyone would be watching any of those melodramatic TV programs in the first place. My TV is off.

What's so special about this article? That it shows that humans are complex? That we have a public persona, a face we show to the world and to others as we slyly gossip behind each others backs? I knew that.

When I heard that there might be an attack on the San Francisco bridges, I remember thinking that it'd be cool of the Bay Bridge were blown up. So did others. We all hunger for drama in our lives and some grand shared event that will bind us to our neighbors.

People died in the WTC attacks. Friends of friends of mine died. I am sure there were assholes who died and wife-beaters and thieves and possibly murderers or just people who lived by some strangled code of ethics. They were human and it is ridiculous to believe that they were all saints.

But, it is equally ridiculous to believe that in a public mourning we would do anything but focus on the loss of life and on the nobler aspects of the deceased. Funerals are not (at least not in American culture) courthouses where we cast out verdicts about who deserved to die and who did not. The dead cannot defend themselves.
posted by vacapinta at 1:10 PM on September 8, 2002

But, it is equally ridiculous to believe that in a public mourning we would do anything but focus on the loss of life and on the nobler aspects of the deceased.

And who mourned for Rwanda? Did we mourn for them?
posted by poopy at 1:20 PM on September 8, 2002

I'm not saying that loss of life is something that should be taken lightly. But all I see is that americans don't bother to think about the loss of life around their world unless that loss of life happens to fall bloody and broken on their laps, and then, only then, if it's an american life.
posted by poopy at 1:23 PM on September 8, 2002

I think I'm with Andrew Cooke here. Conflicting emotions and responses to a tragedy is kind of human. I remember finding it hard to remain composed that day as I read to colleagues news about people jumping from upper floors of the WTC, and yet when I got home, saying jokingly to my housemate, "let's watch on BBC News 24, that's in widescreen". That same day I feared what Bush's response would be, and yet at the same time had hope that the people of America would learn a bit more about the world around them, and would handle the events with dignity.
As I type, I'm watching a documentary about the Here Is New York gallery, and I'm admiring the beauty and humanity of the pictures, whilst knowing full well that they are showing me the deaths of nearly 3000 people.
posted by chill at 1:28 PM on September 8, 2002

andrew cooke: Oh, my fiancee and I have been through good portions of rotten.com together. But there's so much more in there - it's like a bottomless well (of shit). It's a good deprogramming exercise from a world where insensitivity is a million-dollar lawsuit and the your notice is tastefully packaged in the name of consumerism.

damnitkage: I agree with and identify with your post more than any single sentiment or post on MeFi in the past month if not more.
posted by Ryvar at 1:37 PM on September 8, 2002

My point is that in this case (unlike Homer's ode to alcohol) the solution is not the same as the problem.

The wretchedness of insitutionalized grief cannot be undone by that same institution (Salon=media.) If you're looking for a relief from politicized memorials, a greater insight into the true human response to this tragedy, then talk to people about it - your friends, your family. Humans are even more complex than a bunch of quotes on Salon.com.

And who mourned for Rwanda? Did we mourn for them?

Agreed.
posted by vacapinta at 1:41 PM on September 8, 2002

My point is that in this case (unlike Homer's ode to alcohol) the solution is not the same as the problem.

Agreed. But, who can argue with these words of wisdom?

I saw this movie about a bus that had to Speed around a city, keeping its Speed over fifty, and if its Speed dropped it would explode! I think it was called 'The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down'
posted by poopy at 1:59 PM on September 8, 2002

well, I don't know, children die every day due to non-existent sanitation, and hell by 2015 about half of them may well be able to enjoy one of the most rudimentary conveniences. People don't seem to give a hoot about that, it was a terrible occurence, but wallowing in grief is not the answer.
posted by johnnyboy at 4:57 AM on September 9, 2002

Salon has letters from readers about the article that are pretty interesting.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:35 PM on September 10, 2002