Connect with us

September 12, 2011

Published

on

I wrote a piece on September 15, 2001, as downtown Manhattan was engulfed in flames, fear and dust, panicked about the notion of seeking revenge by targeting the wrong people. I was thinking of innocent Afghanistan citizens who were already targets of the Taliban, who would likely bear the brunt. I hadn’t even contemplated Iraq.

What changed for me permanently on 9/11 was magnitude. I couldn’t comprehend the damage or loss of life from the first tower as it was hit, and then the second, and then the collapse, of the first, and then the second. Sure there was Hiroshima, but that was before my time. And I didn’t watch it live on television.

By that point what happened to the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvanian field was almost collateral damage – a sideshow away from the main feature. The notion that a hijacked commercial plane flying into the Pentagon seemed trivial was simply a result of the magnitude of what had happened in Manhattan. That the apparent heroics of Mark Bingham and others who brought down Flight 93 could be so easily relegated to an afterthought unless I actively force myself to consider what happened, and what could have.

The article I wrote was a desperate plea to take a step back. A foreboding prediction of what might otherwise become, which came true far worse and much quicker than I had imagined.

Timing and our capacity to heal wounds – both physiological and psychological — plays a significant role in how we respond to tragedy and how we recalibrate our world view and human understanding. The notion of “too soon” applied to comedians that use humor or artists that use their craft to laugh or comment on something that is still raw is the first step in permission to heal.

On the first anniversary of 9/11, I produced a piece called “Things Go Better,” depicting the twin towers as giant Coca Cola bottles looming with vaguely comforting familiarly behind the Statue of Liberty. An unmistakable, globally recognized icon of American brand power and reach. Fused with the fallen symbols of America’s economic might. Fragile, vulnerable made of glass, easily crushed. The response from many – disgust, vitriolic messages and threatening warnings – was as much a response to the timing of the piece as it was to its content and message. The deeper truth was what proved more upsetting. That it was just a matter of time before 9/11 became a cheap, gaudy commoditization of tragedy to be packaged, wrapped in jingoism and paranoia, and exploited to feed our consumerist obsession and stoke our fear. A subconscious foreboding that the blatant message that Osama Bin Laden sought to visually depict as America’s economic downfall was not simply a metaphor, and would become, and since has, a reality.

On the second anniversary of 9/11 I produced a piece called Phoenix Rising, the identical landscape as the first, except that the Statue of Liberty wore a gas mask, her outstretched arm like a Sig Heil salute. The once proud towers morphed and twisted into a swastika. Perhaps more misunderstood than any piece I’ve done (and for which I bear responsibility) the image was a warning. We were already heading that way. Godwin’s law renders the reference of Nazis or Hitler out of bounds in the pursuit of consensus or intelligent debate, but when the comparisons are so stark, why not?

The passage of the newspeaky Patriot Act that made emergency powers commonplace and threatens the very tenets of democracy, that fundamental extremist terrorists abhor, which continue. The denial of habeus corpus and our extraordinary rendition program. An ironic exercise in which we “extradite” detainees to countries like Egypt (although that now remains to be seen), where they can be tortured legally, because we supposedly don’t. (And of course, when we do, we pretend we didn’t really, and “look forward” instead.) America doesn’t torture so how can we prosecute ourselves for it?

The conflation of the twin towers with a symbol so universally reviled (except for those who hate a black president more than they desire economic relief) produced the same vile, ugly, threatening response. The first year was “too soon” for any symbols, even proudly American ones. The second “too soon” for iconic associations like swastikas designed as a warning to refrain from becoming something different. Phoenix rising from the ashes was a call to remember what was once valued, not a comment on who we had already become — or were fast becoming.

And so now, ten years later, having seen a new generation, who were too young to experience 9/11, dance in the streets at the death of Bin Laden – orchestrated by a Commander in Chief who put an enormous amount at stake for only a momentary boost to his approval ratings, without any understanding as to what else we lost that day, or how similar the dancing in the streets looked on 9/11 in various parts of the Middle East.

America has become a very different place from that fateful Tuesday. The outrageous costs of life and treasury in two wars that have done nothing other than to give credence to Bin Laden’s ugly predictions have left our economy in ruins, our political system immobilized and useless and our moral standing lost in the ashes of the rubble at Ground Zero.

Thousands upon thousands of lives later, countless tortured confessions later, we are no safer nor better off than we were on September 11th. Only more universally reviled and just as likely to blame every Muslim that lives and breathes – or those killed on 9/11 – for the events of that fateful day. Millions of photos and tears later, we rage without introspection, still unable to separate our anger from our self-righteousness.

Billions of confiscated bottles later, we still wait barefoot in lines at airports, subject to radiation or molestation by the TSA. While our unsupervised railway lines, busses and uninspected ports remain just as vulnerable as they ever were, thanks to regulation loathing politicians who would sooner give a billionaire a tax break than a federal job that serves us all to someone who desperately needs it.

Thousands of gay bashings later, and concerted efforts to brand, scapegoat, marginalize and ensure or retain second-class citizens, far too many Americans still seek to deny rights to anyone who isn’t straight or part of an idealized nuclear family. The same rights they would deny Mark Bingham, or Father Mychel Judge as they weep over their memorials. The same ugly, dangerous, hate-filled vitriol vomited by the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell remains unchanged, other than that Jerry Falwell is now somewhere answering to his bitter, uncompromising God. As the Pamela Gellers and Michelle Malkins of the world fill the void in a sad, ironic salute to gender equality.

Millions of hypocritical musings and flag-draped, lip-serviced, patronizing mutterings later, the first responders hailed on Fox News and other right wing blogs and websites and radio stations, are the same people whose membership in unions have deemed them enemy number one, as America seeks to cut their wealth and weaken their collective bargaining rights to ensure greater profit and less accountability to anyone or anything other than the bottom line.

Millions of iPads and iPhones and smart this and smart that later, our incredible advances in technology come with very costly strings attached. Secret Apple “investigative units” acting in concert with the San Francisco Police Department, cell phone companies (that were aiding and abetting illegal secret wiretapping policies) and transportation agencies cutting off service to quell First Amendment rights of protestors against police brutality, fifty-four page intellectual property contracts and draconian digital rights management policies, and an unprecedented erosion of privacy that we complicity accept in the name of convenience, just like we do unconstitutional legislation under the guise of security.

Millions of underwater homes later – both from loan-sharking predators killing the lives and dreams of those seeking to better themselves, and literally underwater from an old, crumbling infrastructure – we continue to prop up banks and financial institutions that got us into this mess, while cutting vital services we expect from the government, such as the Federal Aviation Agency, so vitally important on September 11th.

Billions of carbon emissions later, we still choke our environment with shrieks for reduced “job-destroying” regulations that fly in the face of science, deny the realities of climate change, and allow giant corporations like BP to continue reckless drilling experiments at the expense of our oceans, marine life and livelihoods, while they “remedy” accidents by pouring toxic, inadequately tested dispersants to hide rather then fix the devastation.

It’s difficult to contemplate the almost irreparable, catastrophic damage exacted on the American people and rest of the world by a greedy, profit-only-at-any-cost-motivated, corrupt, dishonest, thieving, financial industry, dependent on a boated military industrial complex designed to make defense industry CEOs and Wall Street billionaires even richer at the expense of everyone else.  With the help of a complicit, empty joke of a puppet-controlled political system disguised as two-party to keep everyone divided and distracted.

Had so many of the victims not been regular, hard-working people going about their day, or homeless victims asleep in the subways below, or first responders rushing to help and save their fellow citizens, the symbolism of Bin Laden’s attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon might be a lot more readily understood, if not applauded, by Main Street — would it have happened today.

Ten years later, we are just as stupid, pathetic, unsafe, and deluded as we ever were, if not more. The only thing that’s changed is that we have grown older as the memories and potential lessons of 9/11 fade into the distance. And unless and until we do something about it, Osama Bin Laden won.

Clinton Fein is an internationally acclaimed author, artist, and First Amendment activist, best-​known for his 1997 First Amendment Supreme Court victory against United States Attorney General Janet Reno. Fein has also gained international recognition for his Annoy​.com site, and for his work as a political artist. Fein is on the Board of Directors of the First Amendment Project, “a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and promoting freedom of information, expression, and petition.” Fein’s political and privacy activism have been widely covered around the world. His work also led him to be nominated for a 2001 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Published

on

Hours before his attorneys would mount a defense on Tuesday claiming he had not violated his gag order Donald Trump might have done just that in a 12-minute taped interview that morning, which did not air until later that day. It will be up to Judge Juan Merchan to make that decision, if prosecutors add it to their contempt request.

Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office told Judge Juan Merchan that the ex-president violated the gag order ten times, via posts on his Truth Social platform, and are asking he be held in contempt. While the judge has yet to rule, he did not appear moved by their arguments. At one point, Judge Merchan told Trump’s lead lawyer Todd Blanche he was “losing all credibility” with the court.

And while Judge Merchan directed defense attorneys to provide a detailed timeline surrounding Trump’s Truth Social posts to prove he had not violated the gag order, Trump in an interview with a local television station appeared to have done so.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

The gag order bars Trump from “commenting or causing others to comment on potential witnesses in the case, prospective jurors, court staff, lawyers in the district attorney’s office and the relatives of any counsel or court staffer, as CBS News reported.

“The threat is very real,” Judge Merchan wrote when he expanded the gag order. “Admonitions are not enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint. The average observer, must now, after hearing Defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.”

Tuesday morning, Trump told ABC Philadelphia’s Action News reporter Walter Perez, “Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. He’s got no credibility whatsoever.”

He repeated that Cohen is a “convicted liar,” and insisted he “was a lawyer for many people, not just me.”

READ MORE: ‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Since Cohen is a witness in Trump’s New York criminal case, Judge Merchan might decide Trump’s remarks during that interview violated the gag order, if prosecutors bring the video to his attention.

Enter attorney George Conway, who has been attending Trump’s New York trial.

Conway reposted a clip of the video, tagged Manhattan District Attorney Bragg, writing: “cc: @ManhattanDA, for your proposed order to show cause why the defendant in 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 should not spend some quiet time in lockup.”

Trump has been criminally indicted in four separate cases and is facing a total of 88 felony charges, including 34 in this New York criminal trial for alleged falsification of business records to hide payments of “hush money” to an adult film actress and one other woman, in an alleged effort to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign, which experts say is election interference.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.