Still processing after all these days (9/11 Diary)

Still processing after all these days (9/11 Diary)

Summary: In this article exploring the events of September 11, ZDNet Government columnist David Gewirtz examines the role of technology in the aftermath.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Government
12

This article continues our remembrance of the events of September 11, 2001. This editorial was more personal than many I'd published and explores issues from the then very recent tragedy. I talked about the role of technology, in particular mobile technology, in the crisis.

I wrote the following in early October, 2001 and posted it on the ZATZ news pages. I've gone back into the archives, found my posts from those days, and I'm re-publishing them here, raw, and un-retouched. Reading my old posts has helped me get in touch with what this anniversary means. I hope that they serve a healing purpose for you, as well.

Read the rest of the 9/11 Diary series:

I've gotta tell you, I'm still processing all this stuff. It's been about three weeks since the triple play against the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and that plane out in western Pennsylvania. I still haven't quite gotten my thoughts in order and I know few who have.

September 11: Ten years afterI'm writing this in PalmPower because I think it still needs discussing. But I'll warn you upfront. This editorial is raw, intense, and edgy. If you're squeamish, this one might not be for you.

To me, this is a very local story. The World Trade Center is about 50 minutes from here, just up the Turnpike. There are cars parked in the lot at the nearby Princeton Junction train station that haven't moved since September 11.

The Pentagon is about three hours south of here. Managing Editor Denise Amrich and I were in Arlington, Virginia (which happens to be where the Pentagon is located) last week, attending a seminar. You could see the Combat Air Patrols being flown above Washington. When a caravan of what looked like bomb squad vehicles blasted down Embassy Row, right in front of us, we wondered what we'd gotten ourselves into.

During one of our seminar breaks, we had lunch with the spouse of a senior White House official. Apparently, she's a regular rider of DC's Metro (their subway), and, as she tells it, her husband thought it advisable to equip her with a portable gas mask canister, which she now carries everywhere.

So, I'm still processing. It's hard to know what to think. On one hand, I firmly believe that each terrorist needs to be caught and captured, and that the severed head of each and every one should be placed on a pole on the East Lawn of the White House as a warning to all would-be extremists not to screw with us.

On the other hand, I know America's not entirely blameless. This is a country capable of interring its Japanese-American citizens during World War II and committing near genocide on its Native American population. Our motivations in the Middle East are not completely altruistic.

America has its share of morons. There's the guy who decided to attack an unfortunate Indian lady with his car because she had brown skin and so did the terrorists. There's the host of Politically Incorrect, who was really politically incorrect at the wrong time. And the White House Press Secretary who was also politically incorrect in response, saying we should watch what we say.

Yes, we need to be kind and say good things. But it's the fact that we don't have to watch what we say that's the cornerstone of what makes America great. We can have our morons, and we still keep going.

It's strange how we've seen our fellow Americans turn on their brothers after this tragedy. The moron Jerry Falwell blamed liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters for the attack, saying that God had forsaken his protection of America due to their sins. Jerry, here's the deal. Two big-honking airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center. God didn't abandon squat. There are just some big, badass evil guys in this world and using this tragedy to advance your own twisted agenda isn't cool.

Damn, if that didn't piss me off.

Now, before get your buns in a bunch, I'm not condemning organized religion here. I'm just condemning one ill-spoken guy who should have known better. In fact, one of the more amazing aspects of this country is how it tolerates diverse spiritualism.

After the seminar was over on Saturday night, September 22, one of the attendees asked Denise and I if we wanted to do something cool, go to an all-night prayer vigil on the National Mall. I have to tell you that attending a prayer vigil on a Saturday night is about the closest thing to hell I can think of. So, I chose to be the party animal you all know me to be and stay in my room, studying the seminar materials while Denise took off with this woman, who's a teacher of blind students, and another guy, an aircraft carrier officer who was also attending the seminar.

Around midnight, Denise got back and insisted I see this thing. As I said, it was not exactly my idea of a good time, but I acquiesced. Although my religious affiliation is limited to being a devout capitalist, I'm glad I went along. The event was called the Prayer Vigil for the Earth and took place right underneath the Washington Monument. Arranged in a circle, there was a Native American tipi, a Tibetan Stupa, an African altar, a Hindu Yantra, and a Jewish Sukkah. Also, there were Wat Thai Buddhist Monks in prayer, a Yantra of Light, Shinji Shumeikai Jyorei, a Japanese healing drum and chanting, a Mayan staff, a Muslim call to prayer, a gospel hour, the World Peace Flame, and a memorial healing grove, dedicated to the victims of the recent tragedy and all victims throughout history.

This is part of what makes America so amazing and this is probably at the core of what offends our terrorist enemies. Here, in the shadow of the Washington Monument, down the road from the White House, the seat of our nation's power, was an interfaith prayer vigil with all sorts of strange and wonderful people saying all sorts of strange and wonderful things. Here's a country that had been attacked viciously a mere eleven days earlier, a city with armed troops on many corners, and in the middle of it all, under one of our most cherished symbols, a diverse group of spiritualists could get together on the National Mall and have their say.

Next: Technology in the crisis »

« Previous: Under the Washington Monument

Read the rest of the 9/11 Diary series:

I'm still processing.

Will the terrorists take out more airplanes? Are we at risk for satchel nukes? Will somebody dump Anthrax down a subway? How will we go on?

Right around the time I was born (I'm 40, born in 1961), nuclear missiles showed up in Cuba. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, we were arguably a very short fuse away from total nuclear desolation. Throughout the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, and even the early 90s, we were 20 minutes away from mutually assured destruction.

And yet, we got disco, Happy Days, the microprocessor, a few moon launches, and cell phones. Even if you live under a constant cloud of impending doom, you've got to live.

Back in 1989, as I was driving home from the Apple Multimedia Lab in San Francisco, we got hit with a massive earthquake. A portion of the Bay Bridge dropped into the bay. The upper section of Highway 17 pancaked onto a lower level. All the furniture in my house toppled and I found my cat cowering inside a chair.

Earthquakes happen and still life goes on.

I'm still processing, but I think I'm onto something here. If we can live through the cold war, if we can live through earthquakes, we can live through terrorist threats.

We Americans are a wacky breed. But it's our very wackiness that makes this all possible.

And as for whether we brought this on ourselves, let me explain to you my thinking.

I was born an American. These folks are attacking Americans (although, stupidly, they're also killing off citizens of our allies, those few countries who might be able to help keep us calm). Since I was born an American, that's the side I'm on. For good or bad. The bad guys, by definition, are bad guys because they're attacking my side. And that's why they need to be exterminated.

Well, that's not the complete truth. I think they need to be exterminated because they, truly and honestly, committed crimes against humanity.

I'm still processing.

It's been a tough few weeks economically as well. Business is down all over. For a while, it was hard to even think about business in the light (or, perhaps more appropriately, darkness) of this disaster. But commerce is what drives our strength.

Still think it's petty to be thinking about business when talking about this crime? How do you think we, as Americans, could afford to donate the hundreds of millions of dollars we did, in a matter of weeks, to the disaster effort? How do you think it was possible for companies like Microsoft, Cisco, and Apple to each donate tens of millions of dollars to the relief effort?

And how do you think it was possible to fund the development of the portable electronic devices that gave us such an inside view?

You know, now that I think about it, I've got to say, proudly, that technology acquitted itself pretty amazingly well in this disaster. There was the mobile technology that helped us get some of our only information from inside the doomed airplanes. Then, there were all the Internet sites that kept us informed -- and gave us different views of the disaster. And even more, there were the Internet sites that helped people find out about their loved ones.

Turns out, technology was on the side of angels this time.

I'm still processing. I think it's going to take quite some time. But I'm convinced we'll pull through and lead great lives. You know why?

Because that's what we do.

See also:

During our 9/11 retrospective coverage, I invite you to post your thoughts and remembrances, but I also request you remain respectful and polite. This isn't just a story of politics. This is a story of real people, their families, and their loss. Courtesy is demanded at a time like this. Thanks!

Topic: Government

About

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in the History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets and is a member of the National Press Club.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

12 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Everyone blamed everyone else

    Everyone blamed everyone else while holding ourselves blameless, unless they could use the bones of the dead to further their own cause.<p><br>I also heard that within days there were vendors selling 9-11 souvenirs. Didn't take us long to get back into the use anything to get ahead strategies and mentalities.<br><br>Tech in the aftermath ... Pre 9-11 I assumed anything I wrote or said that went over a communication device was subject to Government scrutiny. Buddies father retired as an engineer from Ma Bell, he said that they use to listen in on random conversations, less random if you were a "person of interest". Friends fathers knowledge of this went back to the J. Edgar days. Thebn there was the 60 Minutes report how 'they' listen for us and how we listen for 'them' when communications went through a satellite. Not hard to ship everything through a satellite if only so it can be listened to and looked at.<br><br>Post 9-11 I assume everything I write or say that goes out over a "wire" is scrutinized. It's much easier to snoop now since everything is digitized at the get go.
    rmhesche
  • While you were processing

    While you were processing someone stood up on the floor of congress and said how we need to understand what the terrorists hoped to accomplish, the goles and motivations of the terrorists.

    Then some idiot stood up and said how "they" wanted to get the terrorists psychological help. I thought how that fool was going to get shot down because the first rule is to understand the enemy.

    Was I wrong or what?

    Instead of being shot down I saw this fools "psychological help" statement be taken up on the Web and the Media. I still held out hope that saner heads would prevail.

    Was my hope misplaced or what?

    Technology played a role in this madness and continues to play a role.

    Technology allows us to 'gather' with like minded people or 'tune into' a media outlet and hear only what we want to hear.

    Technology has facilitated polarization.
    rmhesche
    • Technology has facilitated polarization

      @rmhesche <br>Exactly right. The only cure is to deliberately expose oneself to media with which one is inclined to disagree. The cure works faster if one also sometimes talks to people whose opinions are not in harmony with his own.<br><br>It can be highly frustrating and may even make you angry, but it's really the only way.
      John L. Ries
      • The Gulliver Plan

        @John L. Ries <br>In <i>Gulliver's Travels</i>, Jonathan Swift portrayed a scientist who was working on a way to reduce partisan strife: have each "senator" switch half his brain with a member of the opposition. Then the two hemispheres could reason things out internally, everyone would have a better understanding of the issues and the result would be better public policy. Of course, the risk of fatality would have been quite high, but I don't think that would have bothered Swift very much.
        John L. Ries
    • It is important to know one's enemy

      @rmhesche <br>We may not be able to psychoanalyze them, but the better we know the enemy, the easier it is to come up with a plan to defeat him, or where possible, make him our friend.
      John L. Ries
      • RE: Still processing after all these days (9/11 Diary)

        @John L. Ries
        I'm glad someone made that point. Amongst all the group hugs and back-rubs, we need to remain acutely aware that we were *not*, as a society, blameless here.

        We will not be blameless the next time we are violently attacked, because we, as a society, have allowed our leaders to torture "them."

        We want to believe that "they" "hate freedom," and that's why they attacked us. Well, "they" *do* "hate freedom," but that's only one of an encyclopaedia of reasons they chose to attack us. That just happens to be their most successful front, because we, as a society, are now willing to give up all of our freedom at the drop of a hat, or, if you will, the blast of an explosive device.
        RvLeshrac
      • RvLeshrac: &quot;Hate Freedom&quot; was definitely an oversimplification...

        ...but it's hard to imagine that a private army devoted to the creation of a worldwide Wahabi utopia governed exclusively by a cadre of Islamic scholars (ie. Platonic guardians) would be anything but hostile to a very large, wealthy, and influential democratic secular republic such as the USA, even if we followed a policy of strict neutrality in foreign affairs (which we haven't done in a very long time, if ever). No, our own hands aren't entirely clean (nor are those of any other nation state), but we do have to defend ourselves when attacked (I see below that you actually agree with that premise). And no, I don't think we could have realistically made war on Al Qaeda without invading Afghanistan (though making demands that couldn't possibly be accepted didn't help).<br><br>Sorry to say, we don't always get to pick our enemies.

        And I thought the invasion of Iraq was highly questionable at the time. I still do, though given that we did invade, we were obligated to clean up after ourselves (quick in and quick out was never a realistic option).
        John L. Ries
  • Tobogganing down the slippery slope

    I watched the first tower burn from the 31st floor of an investment bank ten blocks away. When the second plane hit, we all got out (no brainer) of our own glass tower. Outside, an African American executive and I agreed that "the chickens had come home to roost."

    Somewhere, deep in the psychological souls of even morons, must lurk an understanding that our own state terrorism breeds counter-terrorism. I'm still processing that the military-industrial wars for profit and the bankster parties still go on.

    America is a wonderful mix. Bush publicly commended a man who stayed with his friend in a wheel chair and phoned goodbye to his family before their tower went down. Bush probably didn't know that the man had been a lifelong anti-war activist.

    Not In Our Name was a movement that included family and friends of victims of 9/11 that sounded a call in NYC while the United States invaded the whole, impoverished country of Afghanistan in search of a few primary suspects.

    My son was a Marine in that invasion. I'm proud of his courage and engagement of hardship, but his service was not in my name, nor was it, in my opinion, in my best interests. He was angry and bewildered that the Marines didn't push forward to Tora Bora in pursuit of the actual suspects.

    And once again, his service was not in my name or, I believe, in my best interests when he was then assigned to the invasion of Iraq under a new pretext--seeking weapons of mass destruction.
    rohjo
    • Stupid question

      @rohjo <br>If you had been President of the U.S., what would your response have been? No cheating by saying that if you had been President, it wouldn't have happened because you would have been following correct policies all along.

      Reply to Rohjo:

      So you would have left the Afghan training camps and AQ headquarters in place? It seems to me that even though it took almost 10 years to kill Osama bin Laden, he was far less effective in hiding than he would have been operating in the open under Taliban protection.
      John L. Ries
      • RE: Still processing after all these days (9/11 Diary)

        @John L. Ries

        If I had been President, I would have actually *read* the dossier provided by the outgoing administration. Certainly, the event might not have been prevented, but I wouldn't remove all of the counter-terrorism resources to focus them on things which didn't matter.

        *Post*-9/11, perhaps we first should have attacked the people who attacked us - al Qaeda - and eliminated or mitigated the threat on that front before beginning an entirely unrelated war.
        RvLeshrac
      • RE: Stupid question

        @John L. Ries<br>I would have used Intelligence (such as it was) to pursue suspects in the field with spec ops well-briefed by every undercover and political asset at my disposal. Bush may or may not have done that, but his posturing of calling out conventional forces (to chase rats with sledgehammers) poured oil on the fire and benefited only the war industry. Contrary to media sentiment, our security in these times is not enhanced by conventional warfare or acquisition by force in our foreign policies.
        rohjo
      • RE: Reply to Rohjo

        @John L. Ries<br>This becomes a matter of accepting official stories. Bin Laden moved from prime suspect to known perp to dead man on the good word of official sources only. His role and death have been questioned by reasonable skeptics. Our efficacy in Afghanistan in rooting out any terrorist networks is also questionable. Our heavy hand, with collateral damages, may have increased fanatical underground activity. Perhaps there are other motivations for our invasion and uneasy occupation. Ever hear of the Great Game? Count me among the fringe, if you like.
        rohjo