Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?Well, the most obvious reason is that there is almost nothing to comment on. It's as devoid of detail as a piece could be.
Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?
The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
Listen, Paul, next time you feel the urge to impugn the character of others, send a note to your mother, but don't print the damn thing in the New York Times. It's embarrassingly empty of substance, though I do appreciate it's brevity. I wish all your articles were so brief. Sadly, that's not the case. Just a couple of days before the economics professor and New York Times columnist wrote how pleased he was with the president's new jobs proposals as voiced in his recent speech to the combined houses of congress.
What a ding-bat.
I see The Hyacinth Girl noticed Krugman pissing off in the corner and had a few choice words for him. She's a good one.