394.
SEPTEMBER 11TH

It is now the first week of November, almost two months after the milestone in history which has made the title of this essay an unforgettable date. In truth, I am still not comfortable with the subject, but the sense of urgency created by this whole affair is beginning to leave me with a sense of guilt for not having attacked such a monumental event in the life and times we live. Perhaps this is not the best frame of mind to embark upon such a journey, but it seems to be now or never. Here's hoping I can say so'~ething worth listening to.

This inability to write about such a mega-event has somewhat puzzled the writer. At first such prudence seemed logical, for there was so much information --- rumor, innuendo, spin, hind- sight, foresight, slant, bias, posturing, history, strategy,

politics --- in short, so much bull to sort through and catalog, that stepping back and letting the dust settle, both literally and figuratively, seemed the proper course of action. Now that almost two months have passed, I cannot find fault with such strategy, but I have come to realize that it was not the primary reason for my tentative approach to the subject.

Much of what I'm about to write will not be what the vast majority of the American people want to hear. In the days and weeks immediately following the barbaric act, and, indeed, even as I write, the muscle of the Yankee propaganda machine was unleashed with all the frightening dementia of a steroid crazed linebacker. Indeed, for this writer, the most memorable aspect of these events will be the power and cohesion of this mechanism. Even a Scroogean skeptic like myself could not have imagined the Goebbels-like precision with which American propaganda can he delivered. The Empire is alive and well as we goose step off to war.

Such overwhelming power, I must sadly admit, had me cowed to such an extent, that, with the rare exceptions of the few people I knew would not be offended by my attitude, I meekly put my tail between my legs and acted like the stars and stripes robot we are all supposed to be. But as the days and weeks turned into months, I began to realize that I am not nearly as alone as I thought I was. We are, it's true, a shadowy presence, almost an underground or secret society, but we are there in numbers our media outlets surely underplay. In much the same way they've created a myth of religious devotion in America (see essay "Jessie Ventura"), they've also created a banal form of reflexive patriotic fervor that overstates the situation. This constant patriotic drum beating can be intimidating. Although I was never so intellectually unarmed as to express the "party line" as my own, I was defused enough to not express my true feelings. I've now passed that threshold.

Undoubtedly, the knee jerk patriots so proudly flying their flags from their SUV's and mammoth sized pick up trucks, along with the hundreds of thousands of fans honoring our "heroes" (more on that later) over and over and over and over again (I really can't exaggerate this) at one sporting event after another, would brand me as un-American, or even as a felonious traitor. They would encourage me to "love it or leave it" and would most likely fly their flags and pray their prayers and sing their anthems in support of whatever information machine they might be living under, be it Hitler's Reich, Stalin's worker's paradise, or the land of the free and the home of the brave. They are the easily worked clay of whoever is preaching to them. They don't hate me intellectually; they hate me viscerally. They don't hate me in their minds; they hate me in their blood. They've been conditioned to hate me, in much the same way they've been toilet trained or introduced to baseball rather than soccer.

I suggest that my refusal to conform to this massive hysteria; that my skeptical attitude towards the icons of my country and culture; that my intransigence in the face of what I perceive to be an ignominious cultural stupidity out of control, is the most American of attitudes. Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and the likes of Thomas Jefferson must be smiling somewhere out on the vast stellar plains of the universe.

Before going any further, it's important

to put this all into perspective.

Any time a life is lost due to the idiotic misunderstandings our lowly evolutionary status so habitually causes in our behavior, it is a tragedy. When 3,000 people, in one moment of such lunacy, disappear from existence, not to mention the significant loss of physical property, one cannot deny the horrific description of such an event. It is a terrible tragedy. But as the drama has unfolded over the last two months, and the American people are repeatedly told to return to normalcy, to go about their lives, to deal with the trauma of it all, as if they've been subjected to the cruelest deprivations and sufferings ever known to mankind, I was reminded of how easy we've had it, of how little we've had to endure as a people. It might not be an exaggeration to call us the spoiled brats in the family of nations, the youngest child who has been adored and pampered and has grown used to it. We've lost two skyscrapers, part of the Pentagon, 3 commercial airliners, and the unfortunate loss of life already alluded to; there's been the ghost like threat of chemical warfare; there's been some residual economic effects, easily absorbed by a nation with a gazillion dollar economy. Other than these most immediate effects, the event has had almost no impact on our daily lives. If not for the incessant, 24 hour a day ranting and raving of our news outlets, filling space until they can get us to watch a commercial, our lives would be basically unchanged. We've continued to stuff our faces with an unlimited bounty of foodstuffs, in never ending varieties and quantities, as we always have. We've continued to work, we've continued to play, we go to the beach, see new movies, watch the World Series, see the same loved ones and fondle the same erogenous zones we always have. Life goes on and it's a darn good life ... and yet, every day we are reminded of how "traumatized" we are, of how difficult it is to "cope", of how "everything has now changed".

Compare this to the years of bombing endured by the British during WWII; or what happened to European Jewry during the Holocaust; or the complete and utter destruction resulting from the fire bombing of Dresden in 1945; or the upheavals caused by the two World Wars that raged and blustered back and forth across Europe in the 20th century; or the rape of Nanking perpetrated by the Japanese during the same era; or the fratricidal slaughter which destroyed Spain in the 1930's. I could go on ... and I will. When I think of the floods and mud slides caused by Hurricane Mitch in Honduras, killing tens of thousands while destroying what little infrastructure there was in this impoverished nation; when I think of the devastating earthquakes which have rocked Armenia and Turkey; or the genocidal blood baths recently occurred in Africa; or the killing fields of Cambodia; or the wars which resulted from the colonial usurpation of Vietnam; I could go on ... but I won't, except to mention the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...

... when I think of all this, regardless of who was responsible, or what historical context or lunatic imbecility rampant in our species caused it, I have to sneer at our attempts to weather the trauma we've been subjected to, as if it were an act of bestial savagery the likes of which has never been seen before, as if we are suffering like no one else ever has. On the Richter scale of cataclysmic human tragedies, 9/11 hardly budges the needle. There's been a wholesale use of the word

"heroes"

in this drama, and I have had to swallow so much from this menu that I am about to up chuck it all in the following remarks.

In much the same way every town with a palm tree calls itself "paradise", we've begun to use the word "hero" with such impunity that it is beginning to lose its value, as if it were a weakening currency suffering the effects of inflation. Once you begin making everyone a hero, you are really making no one a hero.

A hero is someone who does a positive thing that is so extraordinary that we wouldn't expect it to have happened. I
see very little of this with regard to the dramatic happenings at the World Trade Center.

Before incurring any more wrath from the knee jerk patriots, allow me to say the following: I am grateful for the job done by the firemen, rescue workers, policemen, medical personnel, search crews, iron workers, etc., who were called upon to react in this most difficult situation. They responded with zeal, compassion, concentration, and gave it their all. They've been doing their jobs to the best of their abilities and should be commended for it.

But isn't that what we expected of them? Isn't that what they were hired to do? Can you imagine the outrage if they had given a half-hearted effort? Didn't they act like any human beings would have in such circumstances?

But what about the 300 firefighters that lost their lives ...?

Let's examine the facts:

Some people with an absurd, archaic view of the world, with an extremely perverted concept of right and wrong, flew a couple of planes into two of the tallest buildings on Earth, setting off an infernal fire at the upper reaches of the colossal structures. Firemen, being people who fight fires, were immediately dispatched, and, being the good firemen they were, entered the buildings in an attempt to fight the fires. Within an hour or so, both towers had collapsed, killing everyone still left in them.

At this point a question must be asked that has been avoided like an envelope full of anthrax: should these firefighters have entered the buildings to begin with?

I, along with millions of other people, witnessed the collapse of each tower as it happened on TV. I'm probably not just speaking for myself when I say that it was the most spectacular
thing I've ever seen live on television. (I can only imagine what it was like at the scene.) Both buildings collapsed in
the exact same way in almost the exact amount of time after impact. I mention this simply to show a good deal of consistency here, making for a reasonable degree o,f predictability. There seems to be no one in the architectur ~ tructural engineering field that does not concur in why the buildings collapsed. (Melting steel beams, etc.). Being that our hindsight is so perfectly focused, it seems as if our foresight should have been able to see this coming.

OK, let's just say there was no such expert around at Ground Zero, and the firemen, unaware of the danger and being the good firemen they were, rushed into the buildings in a laudable effort to do their jobs, thus becoming lamentable victims of the great tragedy. Let's not blame anyone here. This has all been difficult enough. Let's just say the loss of these unfortunate good men was unavoidable.

But let's also hypothetically say that a certified expert had been there and had told the Fire Chief that these buildings were about to come down, that fighting the fires above was superfluous and everyone still in them was going to be killed at any moment.

Under such circumstances, would not the Fire Chief have been obligated to forbid his men from entering the burning towers? If he had ignored such information, wouldn't he now be
vilified for such an attitude? Would these firemen have entered the buildings knowing they were about to come down? Would we have blamed them for not doing so?

Being a fireman always entails a certain degree of risk. It is not an heroic kind of risk. Almost everyone who becomes a fireman, with a reasonable degree of bumps and bruises, gets out alive and well. Unfortunately, an odd death in the line of duty is not unheard of. I sometimes wonder how the widow who's husband died in that anonymous warehouse fire must feel today. How come nobody is throwing absurd amounts of money at her? Why hasn't anyone ever worn a ball cap for him? And what about those people who died fighting wild fires this summer? Most of all, what I really don't need is some pampered ball player telling me who a real hero is. I've never considered a person who pitches a no-hitter more important than a fireman ... or a garbageman, for that matter.

But what about the people who have worked so hard in the horrible debris and wreckage?

Nobody is saying this isn't difficult work in trying conditions. But people work hard every day in much less glamorous circumstances ... no cameras, reporters, interviews, etc. They mine coal in Appalachia; slop chicken shit on factory farms in Carolina; collect garbage in the tropical heat and humidity of Miami. Everyone involved at Ground Zero is doing the best they can. They are good people working hard. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say we are grateful for their efforts, as we should always be grateful for anyone doing an honest day's work. But heroes?

Since these buildings came down, not one person has been taken out alive, nor has anyone died or been seriously injured looking for survivors. If this necessity to romanticize these efforts as "heroic" must be appeased, then by all means ...
Having now spoken at length about heroes, it seems a good moment to flip the pancake and devote some time to

cowards.

Every time a "terrorist" act is perpetrated in the world, be it Arabs, Basque separatists, the Irish Republican Army,
or whatever, the mouthpieces representing the targets of these unfortunate events refer to the terrorists as "cowards", and the act itself is always called a cowardly thing to do. I've never been comfortable with this phraseology.

Everyone has their version of right and wrong distilled into their own cause to fight for or defend, be it the IRA,
the ETA, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the Palestinians and the broader context of the Islamic movements, the Isrealies defending their perceived homeland, or the representatives at the World Trade Organization trying to impose their gluttonous hegemony of consumeristic indigestion. People dealing from positions of strength will use conventional means to defend their more privileged circumstance: regular military and police forces, armed with superior technology and more formal training. Those operating from less favorable situations must resort to whatever means at their disposal. Being that everyone with a cause feels they are right, the means justify the end. Without getting into who's cause is the more just, trying to decide who is the "coward" and who the "hero" is not a division of labor this writer is comfortable making. Terrorist acts entail a substantial amount of risk just as traditional war does. Are our bombs and missiles more heroic than someone's covert acts of civil mayhem?

With regard to the attacks of 9/11 there is even less ambiguity. I could call these terrorists many things ---
lunatics, murderers, fanatics, zealots, fools, psychotics, misguided, brainwashed, pathetic, unfortunate, even exalted
--- but I cannot call them cowards. When one plans for one's own death over a long period of time as a means to propagate some kind of idealized concept of righteous justice or ... whatever illusion the human race tends to chase after, be it the imposition of Allah or the need to buy ten new neck ties, this person cannot be considered a coward. On the contrary, it is the ultimate act of integrity. Viewed objectively, and taking into account the final result, the suicide pilot hurling himself into the World Trade Center can be viewed much more heroically than the American military pilot raining down unimaginable amounts of explosives, with the use of the most sophisticated space age targetry, on almost totally defenseless, antiquated resistance. A civilized person can only feel a bit squeamish in thinking about the tens of thousands of people killed during the Gulf War when juxtaposed against our losses,
which perhaps didn't reach triple figures. (Let's put it like this, just for heightened effect: 86,432 to 36.) This is a "modus operandi" the American people have grown very comfortable with. (I was highly amused, perhaps two or three days into the Afghani military action, when it was announced that American air power had gained control of the air space over Afghanistan. This is something like the Dallas Cowboys controlling the line of scrimmage against a Pop Warner kids team.) Without getting into the geo-political justifications for such acts, they might be viewed as operations tending more towards the cowardly than the heroic.

It now seems to be the moment to actually talk about the justifications for our actions, be they heroic, cowardly, or
simply pragmatic. One of the phrases we've been incessantly bombarded with since the great event is

"our way of life"
.
When a nation as enlightened, liberal, technologically advanced and overwhelmingly powerful as the United States cannot find a way to peacefully coexist with peoples and cultures so obviously inferior, both emotionally and technically, one must begin to examine how such a ludicrous situation has come to be. If one can truly be objective, it's not unreasonable to start wondering if our sacred "way of life" may have something to do with this.

Most Americans, if asked to characterize our way of life, would probably start blubbering away about freedom of this, freedom of that, and the right to watch Jerry Springer regardless of the degrading aspects of its brain damaging content. "This is America. We have rights! We can watch televised blow jobs if we pay for it, and no friggin' towel head is going to take that away from us."

There is no country in the world that relies more heavily on this soap opera type of propaganda. Your rank and file fireman, so heroically sifting through the debris at Ground Zero, probably believes this is the only country in the world where you can roll out of bed, scratch your ass and say "the President is a horse's ass." He may even believe that everyone else rolls out of bed, scratches their asses and thinks "better keep my trap shut today." He has been so overwhelmed, since the first day he pledged allegiance in Kindergarten, by this hallucinogenic rhetoric about freedom, democracy, liberty and the like, that he believes it the almost exclusive possession of his country.
Even more hallucinogenic is the fact that he believes it totally lives up to its billing.

If you are not one of the approximately 6 billion peopleho are not familiar with these essays, you should know by now that this writer considers much of the freedom-of-this-or-that fluff overrated. What the United States has managed to do better than anyone else is disguise the undemocratic aspects of its society.

There used to be a phrase in vogue that we hear very little of these days: the ''Military-Industrial Complex". It probably saw its heyday during that uproarious Vietnamese era, when so much was being questioned. The puppeteers pulling the strings of the Military-Industrial Complex, beat back this challenge with a very simple device: the volunteer army (see essay "The Volunteer Army"). Now all the arm chair patriots can sit back and chug their beer on NFL Sunday while their mercenaries do the dirty work for them.

I really don't think the concept imbued in the words "Military-Industrial Complex" adequately express who the real power behind the democratic burlesque is. It should be called the "Military-Industrial-Media Complex". It is an equilateral triangle who's points of power are (1) the military - i.e., the last resort mafia hitmen who punish those who don't cooperate; (2) industry - i.e., those who manufacture the stuff, which, nowadays, consists even more of military hardware than consumer schmaltz; and, (3) perhaps most importantly, the media - i.e., those who hawk the products, get out the message (which is intrinsically tied to the incessant commercial propaganda sponsoring all the programs) and generally put on the show, including the election circus, the Democrats and Republicans sniping at each other, and the "objective", self righteous press nobly refereeing it all. They giveth our democracy and freedom, but they also taketh away when someone strays a bit too far off the path they've mapped out for us. For those of you who are too young or simply uninitiated, I suggest you plunk yourself down in front of your Bill Gates machine and look up Senator Joe McCarthy. When it comes to crunch time, the Military-Industrial-Media Complex doesn't give a mouth full of semen for your freedom and democracy.

But why go back to Senator McCarthy's time? Let's look at what is happening right now.
.
Inherent in any democratic society is the rule of law; not someone's arbitrary concept of law, but written law adhered to regardless of what someone's personal needs might be. The purveyors of the Military-Industrial-Media Complex show no shame in disregarding the laws of the land when they feel threatened.

By now we all know that certain Constitutionally guaranteed rights have been tampered with in response to the events of 9/11 and the ongoing chemical-biological shenanigans which have plagued the nation since. People have been rounded up draconianly and incarcerated without being charged with anything, without access to legal counsel, etc. The Bush Administration is even trying to revive the use of secret Military Tribunals to deal with non-citizens suspected of evil doings. Although I am some- what skeptical of such actions, this is not what really bothers me. If we truly are that great democracy living by the rule of law, there is a broader question that only us unknown essayists seem willing to tackle.

One must remember that these infringements on our normal concepts of Constitutionally acceptable behavior generally apply to wartime situations. The Constitution is clear in stating that only Congress can declare war. What exactly is "war"?

There is a litmus test I like to use called the "Lump Of" theory: if it smells like it, looks like it, and feels like it, it must be a lump of "it". Since World War II the United States, in spite of the fact that it is such a peace loving nation, has fought the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, the Gulf War, has bombed the snot out of Yugoslavia, has involved itself in any number of more recreational military diversions, and is currently involved on the ground and in the air over and on Afghanistan in an action that is being referred to as a "war" by every politician and pundit in existence. It has been said over and over again with unanimity that "we are at war". If we test not just this situation, but all the military actions just mentioned against the "Lump Of" theory, it's pretty darn clear that we have a big lump of "it". Since world War II we have fought one war after another and Congress has never declared that this mouth is mine. War is serious business. The Founders felt that such a course of action should be predicated upon more than one man's decision. If we are going to curtail our sacred rights basing our actions upon some wartime exceptions and precedents, let's at least have some formal declaration of war as the Constitution lays out. In the absence of such, the powers to be are watering down our democratic rights and freedoms like a weak drink with no effects.

Let's cut through the Mary Poppins rhetoric because the hills are alive with bombs, bullets, mines and warheads. When push comes to suicide pilots and smart bombs, freedom of this and that can be a big stick of cotton candy that looks much weightier than it is. Let's get real. What is the true essenceof American culture,

what does our way of life really stand for?

Whenever I find myself in a discussion of this nature, it has become standard for me to say something like this: the
true emblem of the American "way of life", its signature, its most recognizable feature, is to BURN FUEL. In the very first essay in this series, now over 400 pages back (see essay "Christians"), I asked, "what is the basic premise of modern Christian thought?" I answered by saying that its most cherished principle "is a cheap and secure supply of oil."

Whenever the United States starts hailing down death and destruction upon someone, it is not defending freedom, liberty, democracy and the rule of law; it is not liberating the Viet-namese people, or the Serbian people, or the Afghani people from tyrannical despots; it is not trying to impose a democratic, enlightened regime. No. It is defending our right to burn huge amounts of fuel; it is defending our right, even our obligation, to CONSUME. (Note the current patriotic exhortations to buy, spend, travel, to act as if nothing has happened. Considering how our way of life functions, a person who lives simply and doesn't consume is far more dangerous than a bunch of religious fanatics with their stone age beliefs.) By liberating the Afghan woman, we might, in the foreseeable future, be able to sell her a pair of designer jeans (and maybe sell our own women an Armani veil). The market research has probably already begun.

In defending this right to over indulge ourselves in this gluttonous consumptive feeding frenzy, we must provide the fuel and raw materials to carry it out. Considering the scope of our consumption, the provision of these energy sources and productive materials has become a Herculean, gargantuan undertaking. These massive energy-raw material necessities mean we have to stick our noses into everyone else's lives, all over the world. This whole concept of life becomes even more pathetic when one begins to realize that just the efforts to market these goods, to promote the consumption, to service the business behemoth, to play the financial games involved in all this, --- among other things --- demand far more energy than the actual production and delivery of the touchable product. One must remember that not one, single, solitary item was ever manufactured at the World Trade Center. In so defending the necessities of our "way of life", we've had to throw a lot of low blows. As the heirs of the original colonial exploiters of the third world, we've become the focus for much of the alienation created by our need to feed this decadent consumptive appetite. The triangle of power represented by the Military-Industrial-Media Complex will only present the tip of the geopolitical iceberg --- the Palestinian question, the Islamic-Christian antagonisms, etc. --- when analyzing the events of 9/11, but they ignore the broader, more fundamental reasons as to why such unspeakable acts of aggression are still such a part of the human condition.

Much of this situation is still a question of colonial style exploitation, whose contemporary manifestations still go back to the original root which began growing from the outset of the Industrial Revolution. There is no "New World Order". It is the same world order that began to form late in the 18th century, primarily in England, France, Germany and the Low Countries. Many of the unfair, less than altruistic aspects of its imposition continue to exist today. Being that the power of this colonial imposition has been consolidated under the leadership of the United States (something like a corporate merger or buyout), Uncle Sam has become the preferred target of what really is not much more than the same third world resentment incubated in colonial times. I suggest that the belligerence shown towards American actions in Afghanistan by the rank and file Moslem population in a country like Indonesia, is instigated more by the imprint left by centuries of brutal Dutch colonial rule, than contemporary religious differences. The mere fact that Indonesia is now a Moslem country further corroborates this argument.

Over the last century or so, millions and billions and trillions of dollars worth of oil profits, along with other raw materials, have been extracted from third world countries by business enterprises in the developed world in an effort to provide the energy and materials needed to produce and market the air conditioned, SUV standard of living necessary to maintain a minimal degree of happiness for Santa Monica Man. (This, without even mentioning such goods as bananas, tea, coffee, cacao, sugar, etc., which have been turned directly into bazillions of dollars worth of profits). In addition to these already earned bonanzas, let's ponder the jagillions, bajillions and trazillions of dollars worth of profit made from the products and services provided by these third world sources of energy and materials ... an unimaginable source of wealth, isn't it? But even more unimaginable is how little of it has found its way back into the pockets of the average third world citizen who has provided much of the labor for this effort. (Or, at the very least, is a citizen of the donor country deserving a reasonable cut of the booty). This leads to some rather disturbing conclusions:

Although the original geopolitical dominance of Occidental interests was created by its technological superiority, the economic benefits it has been able to enjoy rely heavily on a master-slave relationship. Almost all the third world labor necessary for the provision of our "way of life", was paid such microscopic wages by developed world standards, that it might be considered a euphemism for working for free. The new "global economy", if tested against the "Lump Of" theory, does not come out smelling like Calvin Klein's latest after shave. It seems to look like, smell like, and feel like the same old lump of "it". The free trade contemplated in the "new" global economy's operation is really just a front for a quasi-slave labor force stitching together "Dockers" pants in Bangladesh, or Nike shoes in Indonesia, or assembling automobiles in Brazil or Mexico, while the technology and information sources, which is the real power, stays exclusively in the hands of the developed nations.

At this point I can already hear all the handsome young twits at Fox News protesting such blasphemous, revolutionary rhetoric. I'm sure they could rationalize these inequities by placing the blame for much of this third world hardship on the local governments themselves, embezzling and siphoning off, or simply monopolizing the wealth created by our business dealings in their countries. My friends in Spain would call such an attitude "la vista gorda" (literally, "the fat view"), or what we'd express as "looking the other way". Such self serving explanations for the gross material discrepancies that still exist in the world, conveniently omit the fact that almost all these local governments are "our" governments, maintained in power, one way or another, by western interests. There has never been any popular movement lashing out at this scheme of things that the United States has not opposed, either with military aid or downright direct military intervention. All of our post-WWII military actions have been predicated upon maintaining this dictatorial economic pre-eminence of America ~ ccidental interests (including Japan), and "America's New War" is no different. It's not democracy; it's not freedom. Until the Taliban started messing with us, Afghani women could have been forced to wear only Victoria Principle panties in the dead of winter and there would not have been any movies on CNN. Where are all the documentaries about the women who are still sold into bondage in countries like Kuwait, the Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia? Does anyone know that in Turkey, our great NATO ally, a woman still can't go to work without her husband's permission? Is anyone told that Uzbekistan, which has turned out to be the pivotal ally in "America's New War" by providing the land base necessary for the logistics of the operation, is ruled by a throwback cliche of a corrupt, autocratic dictator?

So the next time somebody talks to you about defending our "way of life", forget the romantic love song about freedom of this and freedom of that. What we are defending is a consumptive appetite that has become insatiable. It is an eating disorder that must be brought under control. It is an appetite that has been placated, to a not insignificant extent, by taking advantage of others. It has played a substantial role in creating a group of lunatics who are willing to fly airplanes into skyscrapers.

Perhaps it is time to step back a bit and calm down. I don't mean to imply that Americans are not good people. On the contrary, taken as a whole we are well intentioned, generous, loving, good hearted. But we are human, and, just like all the other humans, easily led astray. Why do we always think we are right? Why do we always think we wear the white hat? Why do our enemies think just the opposite? (Which, in a way, is exactly the same thinking.) But the most fundamental question is this: why do we have enemies at all? Why, in a world that is so technologic-
-ally capable of providing a decent material life for all peoples, do any of us have enemies? Why can't we, as my old friend Jim Morrison once put it, "break on through to the other side?"

In trying to deal with these perhaps simple minded yet universal questions, any chicken soup philosopher must eventually look long and hard at how people get information. This whole book of essays is riddled with observations about

the media

and any discussion of 9/11 would be incomplete without a further examination of the images and explanations given to us by our sources of "news".

I suppose the great breakthrough with regard to the dissemination of information was Gutenberg's printing press. At a time when nobody was privy to any information, it brought many more people into the loop and undoubtedly hastened the day in which reading and public education were to become virtually universal. As we've moved up through the technical advancements embodied in the telegraph, telephone, radio, and the record breaking Barry Bonds of all mass communication devices, TV, what passes for information has become so copious that it is very difficult to sort and process. Ironically, in spite of this avalanche of "news" and information, the truth still seems to be a very illusive target.

From a material standpoint, the human condition has improved immensely since those pre-Gutenberg days of cloistered monks and their isolated attempts to preserve knowledge. From an emotional standpoint, the picture is not so focused. We still commit crime, we still go to war, we still kill each other in horrifying quantities and hate, fear, loathing, paranoia, cruelty, sadism, and a whole host of savage and insensitive traits have continued to flourish amongst this planet's supposedly highest life form, notwithstanding our incessant connection to a never ending flow of news and information. (Of course, we now stand on the thres- hold of Bill Gates' world, which opens a whole new can of cat food. It is still in a too infantile stage of development to know what its effects might be. As of now, the usual suspects, be they the "dot coms" selling goods and services, or commercial news sources, have subjugated the information highway for their own purposes. Those operating outside these systems are still so fragmented and disorganized, that whatever message they may have is still rendered ineffectual. Time will tell). (For more, see essay "The Millennium").

The problem with news is that you must have the proper technology to get it out effectively. Those in control of this technology also control the message. As the history of mankind has inched its way into the present, two kinds of "news" diffusion have developed: (1) State controlled news and (2) news organizations which are business enterprises. The latter, of course, has been placed on a pedestal of devotion and glorification (mainly by themselves) in American folklore, supposedly providing an objective, unadulterated flow of information which allows the listener to adequately be informed as to right from wrong, good from evil, correct from incorrect, and, in general, who the good guys and bad guys are. The State run kind of news, on the other hand, has been ridiculed as a wicked form of mind control and propaganda which enslaves and degrades people.

As my stay on this planet has stretched its way into the realm of graying hair, stiffened joints, and a noticeable lack of adhesion to what now passes for music on MTV, I've begun to understand that the "objectivity" of State run news and commercial news is virtually the same. The self serving aspects of commercial news organizations are no different from the self serving aspects of State run news. They both have interests to protect and will provide the information which accommodates their needs. What commercial news does much better than State news is camouflage this self- interest. It is a much more sophisticated form of vaudeville, set into the cultural background it operates in much more subtly.

The media in the united States claims to be an independent entity, but it is as much a part of the multi-national, big business culture as such industrial heavyweights as Exxon, Siemens, or ADM. Their interests are exactly the same and the "democratic" governments where they operate are no more than servants for these interests. Our commercial news organizations push a Party line that is every bit as formal and rigorous as anything Pravda ever pumped out. Their technological monopolization of the means to deliver their message makes my ability to scribble
these thoughts without persecution nothing more than a romantic civil liberty rendered harmless to them.

For those of you who need something a bit more algebraic or dogmatic, let's put it this way: The images you see floating across your TV screen when tuned to a commercial news organization are provided to you for the same reasons Nike produces a sneaker, Sony provides a disc, or GM sells a car --- to make money. This is, first, foremost, and pretty darn well exclusively, its task in life. How do they make money? By selling air time to other commercial ventures trying to make the same money. Commercial news organizations make money by pushing consumption. The people who pay them to use their airways want as many people as possible watching their sales pitches. All this has a corrupting influence on the flow of information they present to us. (If I may digress for a moment, a stark indication of the B.S.ing quality of commercial news is the religious fanaticism given to the exact moment due a commercial break. No matter how transcendental, universal, momentous and relevant to all our lives a debated issue might be, nothing gets in the way of Coca Cola's next pitch. Many a word of wisdom has been left dangling before the omnipotent power of somebody's sales pitch). It means that "news" is more entertainment than a source of meaningful information. It means that the more dour news items that are not sexy enough --- monotonous budget battles deciding the fate of your tax dollars, decisions by government agencies effecting a whole gamut of things that might really touch your life, etc. --- are crowded out in favor of more succulent items pulling in a larger audience. But this is just chump change when it comes to analyzing what truly makes commercial news sources unreliable and insincere.

There is an inherent contradiction in the way commercial news operates that makes it impossible for them to be objective. They must follow the neo-liberal, free market, World Trade Organization "Party line", not because they are told to, but because they feed from the same trough (for more, see essay "The Seattle Riots of '99"). If the great multi-nationals that are controlling the planet are not selling, neither are they. If the World Trade Organization vision for the world is not put in place, down goes the commercial news business as well. They are not independent of each other. They are really the same enterprise. It is somewhat close to impossible for a commercial news organization to be opposed to the "New World order Global Economy" as set forth by the "Thatcher-Clinton cowboys", the WTO, NATO, the G-7, American bombs and missiles, and other various and sundry manifestations of Michael Jordan's Nike swush empire. Commercial news is as beholding to this "Business Tyranny" as Pravda was to Stalin. (See essay, "The Revolution and Capitalism")

Do any of you out there remember a guy named

Gary Condit?

"Sure", I can hear almost all of you answer, "I remember
him, though I haven't thought about him at all lately."

Exactly. Gary Condit is like a golden oldie, a blast from
the past, something now buried deep in the intestines of your
mind's memory bank, even though he was a long running #1 on
the charts just three months ago.

The three people who have most benefited from the 9/11
attacks are George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani (more on them coming
up) and Gary Condit.

Why, all of a sudden, am I writing about an almost unknown
California congressman who made headlines when an ex-female
aide of his, with whom he'd allegedly had an "affair" (i.e.,
they'd done it), disappeared and is now presumed dead? What
does this have to do with 9/11?

Indirectly, it has a lot to do with 9/11 because it sheds
more light on the shallow, somewhat less than forthright person-
ality of our sources of "news". On 9/10/01, Gary Condit was
being given as big a marquis billing on network news as "Ameri-
ca's New War" is now getting. Day after day, week after week,
on up into the months before 9/11, nothing but Gary Condit.
All the formal news shows, all the high brow pundit panels,
all the shout-me-down Crossfire-Hannity shows, all the Larry
King ass kissing interview shows, all the Bill O'Reilly "I got-
cha" shows, almost everything having to do with information
in the United States ... Gary Condit. With so many things being
so much more relevant to an average citizen's life, the news
organizations decide that all you need to know is that some
backwater congressman had an affair with a girl who disappeared.
And then, on 9/11, something that had been so "important" for
so long was instantly gone from the radar screen, never, like
the girl who he was screwing around with, to return again. "Hey",
our media moguls might explain, "it was good for awhile and
we had some good times, but I found someone better ... younger,
juicier, sexier, you can understand that, can't you? It was
starting to get a little old anyway ... like sleeping with the
same bitch forever. Ta, ta ..."

Much of this reminds me of the day Pope John Paul visited
Fidel Castro in Cuba.

It does?

Yes. On the day the Pope was scheduled to arrive in Cuba,
the whole world was focused on it. It was a very big news item,
and rightfully so (for more, see essay "The Odd Couple or Fidel
and J.P."). Much of post-WWII history was connected to this
event and the whole Cuban-American rift, which has had so much
impact on both countries, was being put in play. It seemed as
if something might be about to break here, or at least be started
down a new road. All the stars of American punditry were there;
Rather, Brokaw, all the serious journalists at CNN. And then,
the news got out;

Monica Lewinsky had given the President a blow job. One
could almost see the dust rising as the stampede back to the
States by America's news industry immediately ensued. Sex ...
you just can't beat it. Nothing sells more cars and PC's on
TV news than sex. Well, maybe war is better, but how many times
do you ever have an honest to God, ass kicking, feel good war
to sell things with? Sex is so convenient. And sex and the Pres-
ident ... Wow! You can't beat that.

I sometimes wonder what the news would have looked like
if the terrorist attack had taken place ... oh, let's say, two
months into the Lewinsky story. Might we have seen something
like this? ... After 15 to 20 minutes of the following " ...
in fact, the President cannot remember Ms. Lewinsky swallowing
anything at anytime, thus deeming such as a sexual act a rather
dubious and uncertain assumption. Indeed, the President went
on to say, the contact of his member with her mouth could very
well have been coincidental, being that they frequently worked
in close quarters and these accidental touchings were, at times,
unavoidable. It all depends, said the President, on what you
mean by 'it' ... In other news today, three commercial jetliners
were hijacked by Moslem fundamentalists ..."

Nah ... probably not. Undoubtedly, if the 9/11 attacks
had happened on Bill's watch, it would have made him the same
hero George W. now is (more on that later) and Al Gore would
be President today.

Once you've cracked the code and begin to realize that
State and commercial news diffusion are equally insincere, equal-
ly protecting their own interests, that they both will twist
and shape real events in an effort to make their necessities
for survival seem correct ... once you've arrived to this conclu-
sion

the information dilemma

becomes very real. Is it really possible to find a sincere source
of daily information?

Up until this moment in the evolutionary spin of the cosmos,
what we humans might define as the objective, unadulterated
provision of information has never come to pass, be it from
the good guys, the bad guys, or that more universal group, the
jerks that live on this planet. Everyone has always been singing
their own tune for their own benefit, and far be it for this
chicken soup philosopher to resolve this thorny problem. Reliable
information ... it is and probably always will be a dilemma.

Perhaps the best we can hope for at this juncture in time,
in lieu of objective information sources, is a less naive listen-
er, one who is aware that whatever one is watching on Cable
and Network News Inc. is a show. It is meant, just like the
Pravda kind of news, to present things as somebody wants them
to be. Superficially, they almost never actually lie to you.
They are much more skilled than that. What they do is take that
huge, all encompassing lump of "news" and mush it into a big,
singular mass of raw material that they work on incessantly;
they distill it, refine it, knead it, work it, they lop off
the fat, mold it, shape it, beef it up here, trim it down there,
beat it, grind it, a touch of spice and condiment, a little
artificial color and flavor and ... voila! just like that straw-
berry ice pop that has nothing to do with a real strawberry,
it comes out looking just the way they want.

In some ways, the State run kind of news is a more honest
(a peculiar word to use here, no?) form of chicanery than the
commercial, news-as-a-business variety. There is much less pre-
tense. The source of the news is far more obvious. Everyone
is well aware of who is speaking on behalf of what. There is
no camouflage. There is no sham of independence. Such a system
probably creates skeptical listeners. Commercial news, on the
other hand, buries its true motivations under an avalanche of
self righteous public service. It is an onion that you must
peel away layer by layer in order to get to its true essence.
Almost nobody has the patience and intellect to do that.

In a more Utopian future, when the sources of information
put out material more proximate to some kind of objective truth,
it will certainly have nothing to do with any kind of business
enterprise. Commercial news, like commercial ventures of any
kind, is responsible, first and almost exclusively, not to the
listener but to itself. Any news that will prejudice the well
being of the business enterprise will be toned down and dis-
guised, if put into play at all. When the truth does not coincide
with their commercial interests, it will be sent to wardrobe
and make up and given the proper look.

So we believe. We believe we are 100 percent right and
they are 100 percent wrong, no matter who it is we are fighting.
According to our news businesses, we are fighting for freedom,
democracy, liberty ... How much do Americans really believe
in democracy? It's difficult to get half the electorate to show
up for a Presidential election, and local elections, which may
have even more bearing on one's every day life, fall into the
20 to 25 percent range. How about freedom and civil liberties?
Most Americans, if they already don't believe in locking them
up, executing them, throwing away the key, just shoot the bas-
tards, could very easily be led in that direction. Very easy
.
What keeps America believing in itself is that we are rich.
When we go off to liberate Afghani women, to put in a "democra-
tic" government, to give them a chance to buy some chemically
flavored slab of funny beef wrapped in foil which they can eat
without even getting out of their cars, we are using rationaliza-
tions to justify actions that are no more than empire maintenance
of the most traditional kind. Yes, Americans are united; they
are united in their wealth, not in their liberty or freedom.
This is not to say they don't have a right to their wealth.
All peoples, cultures, nations and such that have become the
most powerful, the richest, the ones with the most PC's and
porno stations, have had to fight to get there, and they will
have to fight to maintain it, and every once in awhile this
fight means that a hi-jacked plane flies into a skyscraper be-
cause there is always a dark side to being the richest, the
most powerful, the Big Kahuna.

So here we are, trying to maintain this gluttonous, over
indulgent orgy of mindless consumption and we wonder why there
is still so much killing and hate. Everyday we are conditioned
to need more, and we wonder why there is still so much killing
and hate. The dark side of how we've become so wealthy --- who
we've exploited or used for our own purposes --- is hidden from
view under a chocolate coated exterior of democracy, of freedom
of this or that ...

Somewhere back in the bowels of this work I dimly remember
saying that merely by writing such a book one's thoughts begin
to crystallize and, at times, the book begins to teach or control
the writer and not the other way around. (I looked it up. See
essay "Pro Wrestling"). Such a moment may have just happened,
for it has suddenly become obvious to me that the dilemma of
reliable infUrmation can only be resolved in a society that
can transcend the hyper-materialism of our current mind set.
The Occidental culture currently dominating the world is so
mired in material possession, in happiness through things, that
it naturally creates forms of self interest that run contrary
to an unbiased disclosure of the facts. Everyone supposedly
has so much to lose. Everyone must protect their gains.

A society based less on "things" can be much more honest
with the facts. Our essential material needs will have been
met and the special interests of a consumer society begin to
become less relevant. Government, in such an environment, becomes
what it is supposed to be; a dour administrator of the public
necessities, rather than a tool for materially ambitious people
and interests. Information --- news, if you will --- becomes
a more sincere exchange of facts and ideas rather than a mouth-
piece for commercial and political profit. The debate as to
how we progress as a species now becomes a more spiritual dis-
course, less encumbered with material self interest. If we were
to tone down this consumptive frenzy, this artificially induced
material hysteria, the lies we deodorize with words like "public
relations", "advertising", "marketing" and the like (see essay
"The De-Moralized Zone"), become less necessary. The content
of our lives would begin to revolve more around ideas than
things. Our lives would have more to do with being than posse-
ssing. The need to tinker with the truth becomes far less neces-
sary.

obviously, this all has a rather Utopian sound to it, but
we may be closer to such a goal than one might think. Having
now developed the technological means to provide for our species'
material needs, our emotional adjustment to such an environment
becomes a definite possibility.

Unfortunately, as witnessed by the events of 9/11 and the
aggrieved party's response to it, that emotional adjustment
still seems just a remote, unobtainable Utopian concept, an
adjustment certainly not within the capabilities of the world's
current leadership personified by

George W. Bush.

It's important to note the use of the word "personified"
instead of the word "led" when referring to George W. Bush's
role in the world. This man does not lead anyone. He does not
make decisions. He is a front, a spokesperson for the more rele-
vant decision makers he works for. George W. "personifies" power,
he does not wield it. "Image", although important to any Presi-
dent, is all there is of George W. His role goes no further
than that.

The American Presidency, as it continues to evolve in the
hyper-commercialism of the global economy, seems to be drifting
further and further from the American people. Like a divine
Japanese emperor, he keeps himself ever more walled in behind
a phalanx of underlings who do all his talking for him. He never
appears anywhere unless it is a controlled, choreogrpahed event,
i surrounded by friendly fire in the most hospitable of circum-
stances. Nothing hostile is ever allowed near him. He plays
nothing but home games in front of adoring fans.
(I've always felt that one of the great political institu-
tions existing today is the "Prime Minister's Question Time"
in England. In an excellent use of television as a helpful com-
munications device, the Prime Minister, on a weekly basis, must
debate the Parliamentary opposition in a free flow of questioning
and unrehearsed political sparring. It obliges the nation's
leader to actually show what he or she knows about the issues
and what is to be done about it. Such leader, whoever it might
be, must be well versed and up to the challenge. It insures
the nation that he or she --- Margaret Thatcher was downright
intimidating in these sessions --- is truly leading and not
just personifying leadership.)

On 9/10/01, just ten months into its mandate, the Bush
Presidency was already showing signs of stress. The Bullish
economy of the Clinton years rolled unalterably on towards reces-
sion, the unemployment figures were climbing to almost forgotten
levels, and the much ballyhooed federal budget surplus had mirac-
ulously vaporized under the weight of traditionally high Repub-
lican tax cuts. Adding to this weakening of the Administration's
foundation was an unheard of Republican defection in the Senate,
giving the Democrats control of this body.

On the foreign front, George W. seemed to be doing even
worse. America's unwillingness to adhere to a number of environ-
mental and arms agreements had presented an image of an America
going it alone. Backed by the power of its incomparable military
might and economic clout, the world's only super power seemed
to be flipping the bird at the rest of the world, as if to say
"oh yeah, what are you going to do about it?" Compounding this
resentment abroad was a President who inspired little confidence
as a leader. Encouraged by these turn of events, the opposition
was confidently mustering its strength as it took aim at the
next elections. Put bluntly, the honeymoon was just about over
and a President who's electoral victory was still looked upon
as illegitimate by an extremely bitter group of losers, was
heading towards a winter on very thin ice.

And then Osama Bin Laden saved the day.

Before 9/11, the President was having a difficult time
with his public persona. He is not a dynamic speaker. His script-
ed presentations border on the clumsy, while his rare spontaneous
attempts at communication can be, at times, embarrassing. He
had won the Presidency with less votes than his opponent and
primarily due to the perceived immorality of the previous Presi-
dent, not because of his ideology or intellect. Although the
Bush Presidency could not yet be considered sick, the downhill
part of the journey had come to an end, the road was beginning
to tilt upward, and there was nothing in the personal presenta-
tion of its leader that seemed capable of rallying an already
skeptical public. George W., although he can be a likable chap,
is a lightweight and it was beginning to show.

And then Osama Bin Laden saved the day.

On 9/11, President George W. Bush was thrust into a role
where failure had been ruled out. His part in the vaudeville
of governing had changed. A new script had been written by the
Military-Industrial-Media Complex, who's interests had been
seriously prejudiced by this remarkable event. The burlesque
of democratic bickering had to stop, all ranks had to close,
the elephant had been slightly wounded and there was only one
course of action. The President had to be respected, followed
and praised, regardless of ... anything.
A few days after the barbaric event, the President gave
his pep talk to the American people before a full session of
Congress. If Quasimodo had entered the chamber that night, danced
around in that simian style we know him for, and then stepped
to the podium and belched, the room would have erupted in ap-
plause and vituperation.
"Bravo!"
"Beautiful!"
"What resonance, what tone!"
"What style, what grace!"
"What leadership!"
"Bravo!"

The President had not risen to the occasion, the occasion
had been made to lift him.

How far this Administration can ride this horse remains
to be seen, but its residual effects might be even more positive
for its cause than the war on terrorism. The events of 9/11
provide a built in excuse for what probably would have been
a dubious Republican economic policy. It has also made the public
take their eye off the ball with regard to a number of issues
this Administration, by its very nature, would have to defen-
sively struggle with --- the environment, gun control, campaign
reform, abortion and its derivative issues of cloning and stem
cell research. It has fabricated a smoke screen for everything
that may have weakened its position and, although the truth
might be considered in poor taste in this instance, has provided
an unimaginable windfall of political currency for George W.
that he could not have dreamed of on 9/10. Sweetening the pot
is the fact that the war on terrorism , unlike daddy's Gulf
War, is a vague enough entity to not have a finite ending (some-
thing like the war on drugs) and can be used as a political
rallying device in the same way a spigot can be turned on or
off.

The other politician who has found a gold mine in this
singular event is the outgoing Mayor of New York City,

Rudy

Giuliani.
If George W. is little more than someone who personifies
leadership, who merely impersonates the office he holds, 180
degrees around on the circle of life is Rudy Giuliani. Rudy
is a man of substance. Rudy is smart. Rudy is a leader. Be it
as Municipal Dog Catcher or Mayor of the financial capitol of
the world, Rudy is in charge of whatever domain he is responsible
for. He runs the show. No one will ever accuse him of being
a lightweight.

As 9/11/01 was about to make its appearance in the history
of mankind, Rudy Giuliani was wrapping up his eight years as
Mayor. It would be very difficult not to call his two terms
in office a success. The city seemed to have been revitalized
and was no longer the brunt of all those Leno-type mugging jokes.
The strength of Rudy's personality, his energy and articulate
communication skills, had lent an aura of efficiency to his
Administration that seemed somewhat lacking in the previous
Koch-Dinkens years.

And yet ...
in spite of all this, the Democrats were about to regain
City Hall with a relevant amount of ease, the State's two Sena-
tors, including that carpet bagging bitch Hillary, were recently
elected Democrats, and Rudy's withdrawal, due to health problems,
from what had promised to be a gladitorial blood bath of a Sena-
torial election against Hillary, had somewhat tarnished his
tough guy image. Having now watched his remarkably energetic
performance after 9/11, one has to wonder just how "sick" he
really was. From that day on he never looked in better form.
Might his withdrawal been due to personal rather than health
problems? Hadn't he just been dragged through a nasty, dirt
slinging divorce with a bitter ex-wife? Wasn't he now hanging
around with some fresh young meat that would raise some eyebrows
in the "integrity" wing of American politics? Did the opposition
have some juicy details? Considering what the Clintons had been
subjected to in the previous eight years, was Hillary about
to hold back?

It's something to think about.

In any event, after eight glorious years as Mayor, it looked
as if the Giuliani years were about to fade away like dew on
a sunny spring morning.

And then Osama Bin ...

Even in success, it's not unusual for people with strong
personalities to also be divisive people. Notwithstanding what
must be considered his successful run as Mayor, Rudy Giuliani
is just such a person. (Isn't there something about Rudy that
reminds one of Bill Clinton?) Those who hate him do so with
very little ambiguity. In New York City this translates primarily
into the city's community of color, where the Mayor's heavy
handed policing policies have seriously alienated this large
segment of the great urb's population. A number of high profile
police brutality scandals --- the anal-plunger torture of a
Haitian at a local precinct, the killing of an unarmed black
man in the doorway of his home --- had raised the ill will to
a boiling point. Without passing judgment on Rudy's law enforce-
ment policies (I live too far from the scene), it can be said
that one of the few bones to be found in the fish fillet of
his mayoral legacy is the serious animosity existing between
his police and the city's community of color. Rudy used the
9/11 tragedy to rub a little excrement in the faces of those
at odds with his police department.

Everything I am about to say, admittedly, is somewhat of
a generalization, and those clever types at our media outlets
could easily provide the images to debunk my forthcoming asser-
tions, regardless of their validity. In spite of what would
probably be my easy defeat on TV, I am courageous enough to
stand by the fact that they do contain some element of truth,
notwithstanding the romanticized images the media point of the
Military-Industrial-Media triangle has presented us.

What happened on 9/11 was not a black man's event. The
WTC was not a minority venue. It was primarily a yuppie strong-
hold of pale faced American dream types that could hardly be
related to by the boys in the "hood" up in Harlem or down in
Bed-Stuy. It was the hub of a financial community personified
by college graduates in Armani ties who do not listen to Snoop
Dog and the other hip hop gangsters. (In truth, considering
whatever it is that pisses these terrorists off, it seems to
have been a logical target for their frustrations. I'm sure
they'd rather kill white guys with Rolex watches than black
dudes with gold chains.) Almost all the great "heroes" of the
event are noticeably short on black faces. The New York Fire
Department is a remarkably white institution; the New York Police
Department is much whiter than the city it serves; the iron
worker's unions called in to do something with the debris could
probably be called racist in their nature; the rescue workers,
the unfortunate victims ... very white. The Mayor and his politi-
cal cronies surrounding him for weeks on TV ... very white.
Corroborating what has just been said --- and also verifying
the extreme animosity in play between Rudy and the city's black
community --- is the deafening silence of New York City's black
leadership; no Al Sharpton, no Charlie Rangel, no David Dinkins,
no Major Owens. These are people who, regardless of how well
the Mayor has handled the crisis, cannot lend themselves, even
for these remarkable moments in history, to any kind of truce
with Rudy Giuliani.

And Rudy has taken advantage of the situation. Being that
his police department has been the most controversial aspect
of his reign, the events of 9/11 played right into his hands.

I am not what you'd call a knee jerk police hater who simply
assumes that a police officer is a "pig" bullying their fellow
citizens from an advantageous position. Most police officers
are decent people going about their jobs in a way that tries
to serve rather than humiliate. But police work, simply by its
nature, can jade the outlook of even sincere people so that
eventually, and with the encouragement of fellow officers in
a similar environment of stress and tension, they start to lose
their concepts of proper police action and begin to act vindic-
tively and with poor judgment.

And that's the good news.

The bad news is that not all policemen are sincere. All
bodies of police work, since the dawn of our species, have had
to contend with corruption and criminality within their ranks.
It is a kind of work that always attracts a certain number of
thugs who use it as a way to vent. Policemen and criminals gene-
rally come from the same social class. In all police forces
everywhere, a not insignificant amount of participants could
be considered criminal types who have decided to work the "legal"
side of the border for their own self interest. This is a problem
endemic to police work and those responsible for the performance
of any law enforcement organization --- the Police Chiefs and,
where the buck ultimately stops, the Mayors themselves --- must
be very vigilant with regard to this problem.

On 9/11, the New York Police Department was turned into
a band of angels with night sticks and pistols. This heroic,
heavenly portrayal of the New York Police Department is, to
say the least, not an accurate depiction of its or any police
department's character. It would be as far from the truth as
a resident of Harlem describing all the police as sadistic gang-
sters terrorizing their neighborhood. This post 9/11 image of
policemen as shining knights on muscular white stallions is
something Rudy has pushed like a crack dealer from his highly
visible, heroic, post 9/11 bully pulpit. I wonder what the Hai-
tian who had a plunger stuck up his ass thinks about all this?
On a more subliminal but perhaps even more relevant note, is
how thrilled the Military-Industrial-Media Complex must be with
all this. Let's face it, the police, no matter who or where
they might be, are their police.

In the end, 9/11 has given us the true Rudy in all his
glory. Above all else, Rudy is an ego. Rudy is a photo op mon-
ster. Rudy is completely wrapped up in himself. Rudy is the
classic "legend in his own mind". Rudy reveled in his post 9/11
role. Rudy can't get enough of himself. Rudy might actually
feel all the things he says he does, but he can't wait to tell
us. He is now convinced of his greatness like never before.

Rudy and his top aide: a short dialog.

Rudy bursts into his aide's office.
"I just had a great idea!"
oh no, thinks his aide, not again. "Really, what is it
Rudy?"
"I'm going to ask the people to declare me Mayor for life!"
"Rudy, don't you think that's a little extreme?"
"C'mon, I'm bigger than Elvis right now. I'm the only one
who can run this city, it's obvious "
"But Rudy "
" even the Met fans love me "
"But Rudy "
" I'm bigger than Madonna. I am New York. Nobody else can " -
\ "But Rudy "
"What? What? Is that all you can say?"
"But Rudy, this is America. We don't have Kings and Emperors
.. . ."
"C'mon, if Bush's kid can be President, I can be Mayor
for life." He pauses for a moment, wrapped up in his own
thoughts. "Man, can you imagine me as President?"
The aide gets up and walks over to a window looking out
on the devastation of lower Manhattan. The smoke and debris
have almost become a normal part of the landscape. He speaks
while peering through the dirty glass.
"Rudy, nobody in America can declare themselves anything
for life. It's not a part of the American mind set. You don't
have a passport to cross that border, no matter how good you're
doing leading our incredibly unimaginably heroic city."
Rudy sits heavily in an easy chair, sighing audibly as
he sinks into the plush leather. He unconsciously begins playing
with his thinning, blackened hair, trying to cover his balding
dome. Even girls like me now, he thinks to himself, as he compul-
sively smoothes his hair. He speaks as if no one else is in
the room.
"I just can't believe this is going to end so soon. I don't
want to go."
The aide returns to the front of his desk and sits lightly
upon it, obedient before his seated master. The Mayor straightens
himself in the easy chair, assuming a more dominant role. He
continues.
"OK, if I can't be Mayor for life, I'm going to ask for
an extension ..."
"But Rudy ..."
" ... the city is in crisis. Hard times call for strong
leadership, for the greatness of someone like me ..."
"But Rudy ..."
The Mayor throws his hands up in frustration. "Will you
quit but-Rudying me!"
"But Rudy ..."
"I've made up my mind. We're going to ask for an extension
until the crisis is over and a mere mortal is able, once again,
to run this incredibly unimaginably heroic city."

The aide walks slowly back around the side of his desk
and finally deposits himself in the large rolling chair behind
it. Rudy continues to plaster his blackened hair across his
cue ball forehead.
"OK Rudy, we'll run it up the flagpole. Who knows, maybe
they'll go for it?." Rudy is still smoothing his hair, oblivious
to his aide's comments. He seems to be floating in an exalted
trance. "Rudy?"
"Yeah, what?"
"I've got some good news for you."
"Of course it's good news. Since 9/11 it's been nothing
but good news ... and I deserve it. I've saved this city. I'm
bigger than Derek Jeter ..."
"Yes Rudy, exactly. That's what I want to tell you. We've
set up a nice little box for you at the World Series ..."
"oh right, the World Series. I can't wait!"
"We've put your box right next to the Yankee dugout. We've
been out there and done all the tests. Whenever a Yankee returns
to the dugout, you'll be on camera ..."
"And I'll have my Yankee hat on!"
"Right. And every time the Yanks score a run, you'll be
on camera. And every time they show a Yankee on deck, you'll
be on camera. And every time they show a close up of a left
handed batter, you'll be on camera. What do you think?"
"Hey, I just had a great idea!"
oh no, thinks the aide, not again. "Really, what is it
Rudy?"
"I can take my new girl friend. What a stud I'll look like,
eh?"

The aide gets up and walks back to the dirty window looking
out on the smoke and debris. He stands motionless for awhile,
thinking how amazing it is that he's gotten used to this new
vista. He vaguely hears his boss's voice.
"You don't like that idea, do you?"

He turns and looks at the Mayor. "It's a bit too soon for
that Rudy, don't you think?" The Mayor begins smoothing his
hair again. "You are currently the city's selfless, sincere,
sensitive leader. Let's not bring the bedroom into all this."
He pauses. "Why don't you take your son instead."
Rudy has stopped smoothing his hair but his hand has re-
mained motionless at the top of his forehead as he ponders the
situation. His aide knows by his silence that he has accepted
his proposal. He returns to his desk and sits once again.
"Rudy."
He takes his hand down. "Yeah."
"It's gonna be great. Your special box has a very low rail-
ing. You'll be able to get on the field real easy. Joe Torre
can come and lead you out."
The Mayor's face lights up. "Wow, Joe Torre! Me and Joe
Torre."
"Yes Rudy, and you can be like one of the boys, a real
Yankee."
"Wow", says the Mayor dreamily, "like a real Yankee "
He gets up and stretches like a cat that has just woken up.
"OK, be in the media room in 15 minutes. We'll start the day
with one of my bi-hourly press conferences Oh! I almost
forgot. I had a great idea last night."
oh no "Really Rudy, what is it?"

"I've been thinking about my legacy."
oh shit. "Your legacy?"
"We're going to build two new stadiums, side by side "
"But Rudy "
"One will be for the Yankees and one for the Mets "
"But Rudy "
"It'll be the biggest thing since the Pyramids. We'll call
it 'Yankee and Shea Stadiums at the Giuliani Sports Complex'.
What do you think?"
"But Rudy "
"Don't give me that but-Rudy stuff."
"But Rudy "

There is still

a bit more to say

on this 9/11 happenirlg, and I am going to say it. But as this
piece enters the home stretch, I find myself pausing for a moment
and looking back on all I've already said about the historic
event. (An event that is probably the most photogenic news story
in the history of "news".) At this point in time, if we look
in the mirror and examine ourselves, it would be extremely impro-
bable to expect the being in that reflection to not react to
this provocation as the United States has. When one is nailed
full in the face with a roundhouse sucker punch, it would take
a maturity and serenity that almost doesn't exist in our species
to not violently lash back at such a heinous action, and the
cultural personality of the land of the free and the home of
the brave falls far short of such emotional maturity (as, of
course, does Osama Bin Laden and his ship of fools). As I once
again look back at the great military actions of my lifetime
--- Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the Afghani campaign, even
such mirage-like events as the recovery of our grounded plane
in China --- many things have begun to come into focus. I am
beginning to understand my repugnance for such acts: it's less
my country's policies and hypocritical rationalizations that
repel me (an hypocrisy that somewhat represents all of humanity),
and more the idea of

"patriotism"

itself. I don't like patriotism. I don't like it here, I don't
like it there, I don't like it anywhere. I haven't liked it
in the past, I don't like it now, and I won't like it in the
future. Much of what I've seen in America in these last few
months --- the massive, repetitive, God Bless America extrava-
ganzas at our athletic venues; the stylish, Madison Avenue,
stars and stripes hucksterism all over TV, etc. --- inextricably
leads me back to those Hitlerian images of the thirties, to
that exalted fanaticism that eventually laid waste to all of
Europe and beyond. I don't mean to equate our somewhat misguided
attempts to impose our corporate hegemony on the world with
the lunatic racism of Nazi Germany, but the methods used to
motivate both nations are remarkably similar.

Patriotism and religion are close relatives in the family
of human emotions. It's no accident that nationalistic warfare
is almost always ritually blessed by clerical shamans of one
stripe or another. They are both generally premised upon falla-
cious, self serving ideas that demand a reflexive, unbending
kind of obedience which frequently leads to absurd misunderstand-
ings based upon concepts and ideals that are quite often dubious-
ly supported in fact. Patriotism is one of the lower forms of
behavior in the repetoire of human thought. In a world where
one can instantly communicate with anyone on any part of the
planet, even from a place where sunlight has never touched ground
under the dense canopy of the most remote forest of central
Africa; in a world where virtually no people on Earth are com-
plete strangers to anyone else, the provincial tribalism embodied
in the concept "patriotism" is an outmoded, low grade attitude,
generally manipulated by powerful interests for their own bene-
fit. Once the power of this idea begins to wane, we will finally
know that the human condition is making a move forward. Unfortu-
nately, when or if we ever get to that enlightened moment, is
still very much in doubt.

Within the script of American life, this patriotism is
being used to manipulate its rank and file citizens to consume.
(I know, by now it's a broken record, but practice makes per-
fect.) 24-7-365, every hour, every day, all year, incessantly,
this is a culture being led into consumption, being led into
the belief that happiness is a new car, the latest DVD, a bigger
this, a newer that, that the yellow brick road leads to and
winds through Circuit City. And it is all being done in the
name of the American "way of life". I don't dispute the fact
that people like nice things. I like nice things. People need
nice things. But this over indulgence is not a natural act.
It is something we are being pushed into subconsciously and
it goes way beyond our normal material needs and inclinations.

For those of you who find the events of 9t11 unrelated
to these thoughts --- and they are thoughts I've harped upon
naggingly in this work because an addiction cannot be broken
without repetitive effort --- I'll say the following: either
directly or indirectly, every problem currently being faced
by humanity, be it politically, socially, emotionally and envi-
ronmentally --- which might eventually be the most telling prob-
lem of all because it not only relates to our physical well
being, but has an effect on our mental health as well --- can
be traced back to this frivolous, adolescent, simple minded
consumption. It has much to do with 9/11, as it does with most
everything else.

In conclusion
,
I'd like to relate to the reader an anecdote I heard on National
Public Radio perhaps a week after the unfortunate events of
9/11. A journalist had been traveling around the country asking
people about their thoughts and feelings with regard to what
had happened. One of the people he interviewed was an Amish
fellow living on a farm in Ohio. The Amish people, I'm sure
most of you know, shun much of the fruits of modern technology,
choosing to live as they have for centuries without such things
as automobiles, electricity and such, with the logical inference
that they find little use for the bloated cornucopia of consumer
schmaltz that is constantly being foisted upon the average Ameri-
can. Obviously, this could be considered a rather radical stance,
one that this writer has great respect for without necessarily
sharing. I believe in technology, though I strongly object to
how it is being used in this World Wrestling Federation world
of ours.

In any event, when asked to comment on the terrorist attack,
he showed, surprisingly, a certain degree of disinterest. Al-
though he knew what had happened, he felt as if it wasn't his
fight. He instirlctively knew that all this had come to pass
in a world that he did not partake in, that it was the result
of a cultural design he did not live within. He was not interest-
ed in it, in much the same way he was not interested in a new
Mercedes or the latest in Parisian high fashion. It was the
product of a world that did not concern him.

As one who has learned to live comfortably and conterltedly
without the consumption yearned for by the practitioners who
used to occupy the World Trade Center, I found a great deal
of empathy for his attitude. He corroborated my feelings that
the events of 9/11 were caused by a cultural framework that
I do not adhere to. Although I've been moved by the misfortune
of victims that still must be considered innocent, I have very
little appetite for my country's response because the terrorists
have been created by societal tendencies I neither agree with
nor participate in.

It's not my fight ... or maybe it is. Even the Amish people
cannot totally wall themselves off from what they perceive as
the negativity all around them. Their carts and buggies have
to share the road with the noise and filth of fossil fuel travel
and the air they breathe has been compromised by the industrial
excrements of the Youngstowns, Daytons, Clevelands and Pitts-
burghs that surround them, just as I have to put up with the
diesel-deafening traffic jams and the emotional lunacy of the
WTO's blueprint for life on this planet. In the end, when the
pie is out of the oven, cooled down and ready to eat, it's every-
body's fight, for or against, and the intellectual rebellion
embodied in this essay is the life line of any society evolving
healthily into the future. If the mainstream, the status quo,
the establishment, the powers to be, whatever, are able to effec-
tively mute these voices of protest --- and they do seem to
be gaining ground in their efforts --- then we might as well
substitute the stars and stripes for a swastika
.
I suppose the whole point of this essay is to make us rea-
lize that things happen for a reason, that in order to improve
ourselves, as well as the species as a whole, we must not only
blame our enemies but examine ourselves as well.

Relevant Material: "That it was always himself which the
coward abandorled first." From the novel "E1 Mundo Visto Desde
E1 Cielo" ("The World Seen From Heaven"), by the Spanish woman
Angeles Caso.