Monday, August 21, 2006
I Forgive His Crimes of Fashion
I came across this Picture of the Bin Laden Family in Comcast's August 2006 Channel Guide Magazine. The magazine (my main TV Guide) features the photo as part of a blurb about two upcoming Osama Bin Laden documentaries. The actual text doesn't appear online (perhaps wisely), but the picture does -- a striking group of fashionable-looking young Saudis, circa 1971.
I like how it captures that self-conscious / self-satisfied moment in adolescence. They look like the Brady Bunch (or a few Brady Bunches), right down to the wide ties. And there is young Osama Bin Laden. Which would probably be "haunting" except he has a huge dorky grin on his face, and is hardly recognizable. The picture (and, I hope, the upcoming documentaries), serves to remind us that goofy, earnest teenagers can become fanatical world-domination-caliber terrorists. He obviously wasn't born a bearded old monster.
I don't think much about OBL. How can I? (I was going to plead "I'm a busy working mother," but realized that Christine Amanpour, who led the investigative report behind the CNN documentary, has a young son just a few years older than mine). At times I find myself wishing he were dead, which feels at once uncomfortable and futile. It's discouraging: I have been terrorized and my government's attempts at retribution haven't worked (because I don't feel any better). Bin Laden is a legitimate threat, if there ever was one, but his death would not sate us (and might not make us safer). He's dangerous because they idolize him, but more dangerous because we demonize him. As an enemy, he is as seductive as he is elusive: we have come to believe that our nation must defend itself, if not from the threat of a single man, than at least from a single ideology. Can it be this simple? Or are we only distracting ourselves from economic, cultural and military realities that are too complex (or too inconvenient) to untangle?
I'm wary, and it's going to take a good documentary to get me to stomach some Bin Laden narrative. I don't know if he's a psychopath, or simply evil. He must have once been a typical man with typical failings (Greed? Ego? Lack of empathy? Ideological arrogance?) and I guess we're supposed to learn about what on earth kind of cultural and political context torqued and amplified him until he reached the current status of monstrosity/idolatry that is truly analagous (little is) to Hitler.
I can't imagine any satisfying ending to Bin Laden's story. In 2003, when we saw the awful wire photos of dead Uday and Qusay Hussein -- grotesque in both their humanity and their monstrosity -- I learned about nothing but pathos. It resonated of Flannery O'Connor's A Good Man is Hard To Find, but I'm still not sure why. I guess it's the brutal questions of cruelty and redemption: Whether we can recognize them, whether we care, and whether it's all still too ugly too face, either way. Bin Laden's story only promises more pathos. Is he the Misfit? And if so, what do we learn when we face death looking him in the eye?
Maybe I'll watch the documentaries and learn something. For now, my fascination is with the blurb Comcast ran in its TV Guide article (sorry I'm having trouble uploading it). They said, "The hideous '70s duds worn by then-16-year-old Osama bin Laden (second from right) in this 1971 photo would be the least of his crimes." I can't tell if this is a joke, because it is not really funny. Because his clothes are not even that bad; he's just wearing a green shirt and flared jeans. The guy with the short orange tie, hip belt, and the Austin Powers hair, maybe his clothes are "hideous." But exaggerated accusations of Osama Bin Laden's FASHION crimes don't really get us anywhere. The caption is so bad its funny, but not in the way it's supposed to be.
It is just a step away from some awful pun like "Fashion Victims of September 11th." Really.
(And I'm not beyond being amused about these things IF something's funny. Bert is Evil is funny)
In the Footsteps of Osama Bin Laden, August 23 on CNN
The Final Report: Osama's Escape, August 29. on National Geographic Channel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
What is interesting about The Misfit, in O'Connor's story, is that he is a truth speaker. He recognized that "Jesus turned everthing on its head." This doesn't make him "good" - because he is a violent man. But the threat of violence does make the old grandmother good, or at least touched by grace.
In the gospels, when Jesus begins his ministry, it is the demons who first recognize him. "What have we to do with thee, oh Son of the Most High?" For Flannery O'Connor, grace stirs the devil into a frenzy.
I'm not sure if this is true or Osama bin Laden. I'm not sure he's evil, and I'm not much for demonizing the people we call "the enemy." That's a very dangerous course. But what if Bin Laden does, on occassion, get stirred into a frenzy, and speak the truth in a hail of bullets and bombs?
We might well be good people, if there'd a been someone there to shoot us every day of our lives.
I don't get it. Do you mean truth or the Truth?
Well, either, I guess. It's important to note that the Misfit - while being a violent and murderous man - only speaks words that are true and prophetic. When comparing him to Osama bin Laden, we have to wonder if bin Laden also speaks words that are true and prophetic. Is America the Great Satan? Is Western Civilization doomed? Or is bin Laden just a mad man? If we're going to compare the Misfit to bin Laden, then we should view them both in the same context. And the Misfit, in O'Connor's story is a truth-speaker, stirred to a murderous frenzy in the presence of divine grace. And odd thing.
Great thoughts. I was being a little pithy in my comparison. I have trouble seeing past the Misfit's violence. I feel too damn scared, realizing they're all going to die. Like September 11th scared -- probably because of O'Connor's evocative writing -- that claustrophic feeling of inevitability and vulnerability. Death is no longer an abstraction.
I'm not prepared to concede that Bin Laden speaks the (Biblical and/or Platonic) Truth. But I'd agree that there is relevance and reality in his anger. His violence isn't incidental to his message -- it IS his message. But responding simply by destroying him, without considering the implications of his larger message, would be futile.
For me (and this is kind of why I'm blogging), political news is a personal experience. The photo of young Bin Laden (I really wish I could upload it -- that was the whole point of my inspiration here) makes me feel like the Grandmother right before the Misfit killed her: "You are one of my sons!" But maybe I'm just being sentimental. That is the Grandmother's point of redemption, right? I don't want to presume that, (extending the allegory) I'm redeemed by recognizing Bin Laden's humanity. That's too simplicistic.
And relieves him of his personal and political culpability, which I will not do.
I don't think the grandmother is redeemed by recognizing the Misfit's humanity. But it is a moment of grace. The Misfit is a demonic figure, and can't tolerate this moment of grace, which is why he shoots her at that moment.
What's always interesting about O'Connor is that she isn't simplistic. Why on earth does the Misfit speak the only prophetic, truthful words in the story? All those "good" people on vacation, and yet none of them are good. The kids are spoiled rotten. Baily Boy is a jerk. The mother is an idiot and the grandmother is selfish and petty. They're all lukewarm and bland.
Then there's the Misfit, who does struggle with faith and God and evil. "If He (Jesus) did what He said, then it's nothing for you to do but throw everything away and follow him, and if He didn't, then it's nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can - by killing somebody..." Pretty bold talk from a demon. But, considering O'Connor's own take on such things, it's truthful talk. Why does she put the truth on the tongue of the devil?
Because, I think, the devil knows God, and consciously rejects Him.
I know I've probably veered this way off direction. I don't know what to think about Osama bin Laden because I don't know how culpable he is. (I do know that someone else brought down Tower 7.) But for the sake of the discussion, let's presume he's responsible, I still say it's worth our while, for the safety of our nation, to listen to why he feels the way he presumably feels. I don't need Osama to tell me that our culture is corrupt every minute of my life, though.
Yep. I also think we can learn about ourselves (a moment of grace, or whathaveyou), by how we respond to demons (or whathaveyou).
And yes, even demons believe -- and shudder. In context:
What good is it, my brothers and sisters,* if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. James 2:14-19
Which I quote because I like it. And because I wonder if that's part of what O'Connor is getting at. What we say vs. what we do.
I'll credit Bin Laden with the culpability he claims for himself (not just the violence but the incitement and terror he continues to propigate). So does it matter whether he knows (or speaks) the truth, if he still does evil?
I didn't manage to TiVo the documentary, unfortunately. So I missed the opportunity to see more about the man.
"I do know that someone else brought down Tower 7." Huh? Unless you're the person who actually pushed the plunger on Tower 7, I don't know how you could possibly say that.
Other people have said it. Silverstein said he and the fire chief decided to pull the building. It was "pulled" at 5:20 in the afternoon. There were only a few small fires. No steel frame building in history has collapsed because of fire (even huge ones) before 9/11. And Tower 7 collpased perfectly, into its own footprint. If you watch the video, you'll see the building crumple toward its center, and the demolition squibs firing along the ridges. The metal was molten at the base of the collapse, which cannot happen with diesel/gas fires, as they don't get hot enough to melt steel. ONly high-temperature explosives, like thermite, can do that.
This buiding housed offices for the NY Emergency Operations Center and CIA and World Comm. There is no way a terrorist organization could have set the explosives that brought it down.
It's also interesting to note that even you say "pushed the plunger." Do you think it was demolished through a controlled demolition? Or are you just humoring me?
As for knowledge only coming through personal experience, come now. Then since I didn't walk on the moon I should doubt it ever happened? There's evidence, conjecture, belief systems and rational deduction all in play here.
Humoring you. It's an insane theory that's based on only three bits of evidence (and I use the term generously): (1) the collapse of the tower LOOKED controlled; (2) the owner of the building said it was "pulled" down, which some people claim (without credible support) is a term of art meaning "detonated"; and (3) the feds haven't conclusively determined how the building came down. I don't think there's anything else out there that supports the theory.
Those are pretty meager facts to use as conclusive proof that the terrorist attacks weren't a proximate cause of No. 7's collapse. And let me tell you this: if Silverstein thought he could blow up his own building in order to get a fat check from his insurers, he's delusional. Because insurance companies are in the business of not paying claims. And if the insurer thought that this theory of yours was even plausible, it would have denied the claim and there would have been frontpage headlines.
You are only looking at the "meager" facts you choose to look at. The temperature of the molten metal at the base of the collapse is not meager. Neither is the fact that no steel frame building in history had ever collapsed due to fire, prior to 9/11.
And I don't believe Silverstien has gotten his money from the German insurers, but I'm not suggesting he did it for the money. As for headlines, puleeze. Jon Bonet has them all sewed up.
If you want to actually look at some objective facts, I recommend:
http://physics911.net/stevenjones.htm
I think he does a pretty good job, and it not your usual kook.
No steel frame buildings in history were ever hit by fully-fueled passenger airplanes piloted by terrorists whose goal was to destroy the buildings.
Steve's a lonely voice in the wilderness. And note that, because he hasn't actually seen the raw data that the National Institute of Standards and Technology used in its report, all he can really do is howl about his theories and demand access to the data. Almost every other reputable engineer and scientist doesn't even think Jones's theories are worth engaging because the facts and data on the WTC collapse are so clear.
To be sure, reasonable questions about WTC No. 7 still exist. But, with the notable exception of Dr. Jones, no serious scientist appears to doubt that burning airplane fuel was the cause. (And, no, Howard Zinn is not a serious scientist.) We know how the fuel got there: terrorists. The question now is how it brought down No. 7.
There were no airplanes crashing into WTC 7, which is why I can say that someone other than Osama demolitioned that building. I leave the WTC 1&2 theories for others to deal with. Suffice to say, no jet fuel can melt steel. Jones is not a lonely voice, I invite you to look closely and honestly at the rest of the arguments on that physics911.net page, or elsewhere. Some are silly, but there are others that are quite good.
Why is there no public debate on this issue? Why isn't all the evidence released for public scrutiny, including the videos that were confiscated (pentagon)? Why are there so many omissions in the 911 Commission report?
Maybe you don't remember a time when the FCC actually investigated plane crashes by reconstructing the airplanes. Now we're just supposed to be satisfied with "the plane was vaporized" (pentagon and penn. field) and go on about our business. Never mind that kerosene can't vaporize titanium. Is that "junk" science? I don't think so.
There were no airplanes crashing into WTC 7, which is why I can say that someone other than Osama demolitioned that building. I leave the WTC 1&2 theories for others to deal with. Suffice to say, no jet fuel can melt steel. Jones is not a lonely voice, I invite you to look closely and honestly at the rest of the arguments on that physics911.net page, or elsewhere. Some are silly, but there are others that are quite good.
Why is there no public debate on this issue? Why isn't all the evidence released for public scrutiny, including the videos that were confiscated (pentagon)? Why are there so many omissions in the 911 Commission report?
Maybe you don't remember a time when the FCC actually investigated plane crashes by reconstructing the airplanes. Now we're just supposed to be satisfied with "the plane was vaporized" (pentagon and penn. field) and go on about our business. Never mind that kerosene can't vaporize titanium. Is that "junk" science? I don't think so.
And I'll say it twice if I have to!
(See, now they're crasing the site!)
I'm not a scientist, and I don't even play one on TV. I leave the heavy lifting up to the folks at places like MIT and Popular Mechanics, who've been uniform in their denunciation of Steve Jones and his theories. (And, no, Jones doesn't limit himself to WTC No. 7. He's also hypothesized that the Twin Towers themselves were blown up by pre-positioned charges.)
I agree that all pertinent information should be made public. That'll put to rest these crazy theories and force Jones and the rest of the cottage industry to focus all of their fear and uncertainty and outrage on things that are true and things that are really scary: you know, global warming, North Korean nukes, religious crazies in Iran with nukes, manbearpig--you know, the scary stuff.
I hope you aren't truly equivalating global warming with manbearpig (is that like a Jackalope?)
I think I'm going to need a separate blog to deal with JonBenet.
Can you cite where MIT has condemned Steve Jones' theories? I'd like to read that. Popular Mechanics is crap, sorry. Brought to you by Nextel and Carlyle.
I know what Jones has to say about all three towers, I was only pointing out that *I* was referring to WTC 7 in my earlier post, which is all I was defending. If WTC 7 was demolitioned, it brings into question the other two towers and all of 911. WTC 7 remains a mystery, even the 911 Commission report stated that they don't know why it collapsed. I'm not really satisfied with that. And my dissatisfaction with the collapse of WTC 7 is WAY more important to me than the trumped up threat of nukes from a country that can't launch a missle beyond it's own beaches. Because if it is an "inside job" (and I think it is), then we have met the enemy and they're already here.
Nina, no. No. There is NO evidence of an "inside job"--just speculation of a few creative people who see the ABSENCE of evidence to be proof of a conspiracy. Steven Jones is a nuclear physicist, not an expert in structural engineering. The faculty at MIT won't even respond to his hypothesis because all of the discernible evidence supports the hypothesis anyone who watched what happened on 9/11 already knows: terrorists brought down the WTC with hijacked planes.
There was no inside job. I suppose I can sympathize with people who want to believe that there was, because cloak-and-dagger government conspiracies are something we can all understand. International jihadism isn't so easy to understand--or control. But it's precisely what motivated those guys to stab airline personnel to death and pilot jetliners into skyscrapers. And it's what we need to learn to deal with in the real world.
Who the hell is Nina?
The only argument I ever hear against the so-called 911 conspiracists (and duh, it WAS a conspiracy, the only question is, by whom?) is just how "dumb" it all is. They shake their finger. Cry "No no no!" Attack the character of people giving opposing views (Steve Jones "howls", etc.). Or they make lame appeals to authority (our experts are better than yours). How about just refuting the claims?
Dierk, you said MIT came down against Jones. Now you say "they won't even consider discussing it." Well, which is it? Show me where MIT discredits Jones.
I honestly think a critical examination of the evidence, some healthy skepticism, an honest inquiry into why evidence is hidden, and what was confiscated, and what the government only allows to be shown, plus the behavior of the media and the government's initial unwillingness to even form an investigative commission into the event (families of the victims had to insist) is reason enough to at least spark some discussion.
But "No no no Nina it's all foolishness and you're a fool to consider it." Well, sorry, I'm too damn old for that, dear. And I've seen this shit before.
Well, it's good to keep working on our critical thinking and listening skills, isn't it. So this makes me wonder (since we all agreed none of us personally detonated the building), how we evaluate evidence and information sources.
Obviously it's important to get past the "it's true because THEY say" attitude. On the other hand, how do we filter the believable evidence from the crap? Do you start out by knowing that Popular Mechanics is just an industry magazine (and, therefore, not reliable), or that Steven Jones doesn't have a structural engineering degree (and is therefore unqualified)? Or do we tend to work backwards from our own biases?
How do we weigh absence of evidence. How do we weigh evidence from unreliable sources. I think about this A LOT when it comes to things closer to home (medicalized childbirth) and will be writing more about it in that context.
But take for example
Like this guy http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
, writes like an asshole, and has a bias, so it's hard to get through. But he also has what look to me like "points" about Tower 7. Could he be making legitimate points? Do we dismiss his whole argument outright because of his obnoxious 'tude?
The main problem I have with the debunking guy is that he isn't just an asshole. He creates "strawman" arguments and that strikes me as very dishonest. For example, when he talks about the molten metal he sites the "dripping molten metal" that was video taped but doesn't take on the greater evidence of huge molten globs at the base of the collapsed towers. He does address the aluminum chemical reactions which might have melted metal, but at that point, yes, what the hell do I know about that?
I'm only asking for a discussion. I'd like to see these issues debated by all the real experts. Too bad this stuff is just on the internet where any idiot can spout off. (And many do).
This is the biggest crime in my lifetime, barring (perhaps) the JFK assassination, and yet there is no public discussion forum!!!???
No time in history, that I have ever known or lived through, has been as tight-lipped and close minded and secretive, as this 9/11 era. Why has the Pentagon only released, what, 7 frames of film from their survalliance camera? None of the frames show the 757. This is the PENTAGON! Don't you think there'd be more than one camera? Why were other survaliance tapes confiscated?
I'm looking forward to a Democratically controlled house, so we can at least begin in the investigations into these questions. If it's bunk, it's STILL WORTH TALKING ABOUT. My God. This is the crime of the century. And it's a whole lot more interesting than who is eating worms on Fear Factor.
I think we can all agree that it's worth talking about.
Two things: I overstated MIT's response to Jones. They explicitly did not personally engage his hypothesis because, in their view, there's nothing to debunk. The facts, they think, are that clear.
And this leads to my second point. The main problem with this "inside job" rhetoric is that it represents a logical fallacy. Here's how it goes: (1) Planes crash into buildings. The buildings collapse. And, later, another building collapses. (2) Millions of people witness the planes crashing and the fire and screaming and falling. (3) At this early stage, we don't have enough evidence to conclusively understand what caused the buildings to collapse. (4) But we have enough evidence to reach a reasonable hypothesis: the planes caused the collapse. (5) Many scientists, from a variety of different places, analyze data to test the hypothesis. (6) Their conclusion? Yes, the planes caused the buildings to collapse. (7) But, as with many scientific inquiries, this cannot be PROVEN because not all of the evidence to support the hypothesis has been--or even can be--discovered.
Now this is where things get goofy. Other people, WITH THEIR OWN HYPOTHESES, point to the ABSENCE or UNCERTAINY of evidence as proof that their hypothesis is CORRECT. All that the absence or uncertainty of data shows is that the original hypothesis hasn't been proven. Yet.
So there are open questions regarding molten steel in WTC No. 7. That's a significant evidentiary issue. But an unanswered question no more supports the hypothesis that 9/11 was an "inside job" than it suggests that the WTC spontaneously exploded, or that the Scientologists blew it up with baking soda, or that the ghost of Flannery O'Connor used a banshee scream to knock it over.
It's another question, of course, to argue that the absence or uncertainty of evidence warrants further investigation. That's what the scientific method's all about. But it's too easy to say that because there are questions, the most popular hypothesis is wrong. Or, worse, that another hypothesis must be right.
That's all fine but it's still a strawman argument. I'm not saying that the absence evidence means my hypothesis is correct. I'm saying there's an astounding lack of evidence to make the claim that a 757 hit the pentagon, or crashed in that field in Shanksville. If you claim that an airplane crashed in a field, with so many number of people dead, then the impetus is on you to provide the evidence of just such an occurance. Corpus delicti, I believe you law types call it.
In Shankesville, there's no evidence of a plane. There were no bodies recovered. The Coroner said there was "not a single drop of blood. None." It takes a great deal of heat burning for a long period of time to incinerate a human body. And airplanes don't simply vaporize.
Similar situation at the pentagon, with some variations. No airplane parts to a 757, though there are parts from another type of aircraft. The engines were never found, which were made of titanium and can't melt at those temperatures (they're designed to burn jet fuel!) The hole in the building isn't even close to the size of a 757. And there is an obvious cover-up because the survalliance tapes are not released. It just goes on and on.
This is not about one unanswered question, or a few crack pots spouting conspiracy theories because they're sexy. I've been looking at this stuff for months, and there are a tremendous number of unanswered, critical questions, which, when weighed together with the evidence we do have, simply blows "popular" opinion out of the water.
I don't buy all the stupid conjectures, we should be clever enough to sort those out. But niether am I presuming that because evidence is lacking for theory A, theroy B must be true. But I will say this: If theory A is not supported by the evidence, then theory A is false. If theory A is false, then something else (other than A) is true. Which, incidentally, is all I had to say originally about WTC 7, if you recall.
Post a Comment