 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With a bit of difficulty, I managed to avoid most television coverage of the anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks. Echoing the sentiments of some of the relatives of those killed on 9-11-01, I think we should remember what happened in New York City and elsewhere, but we should not wallow in memories of the tragedy. Doing so serves primarily to dredge up horrible recollections of gut-wrenching unpleasantness. Who other than a masochist desires to be dragged yet again down that nightmarish road?
Tens of thousands of other equally innocent individuals were murdered in this country that year. Their relatives and friends suffer as greatly as any of those whose loved ones died at the hands of terrorists. Yet we do not bring the nation to a standstill nor invoke those relatively anonymous deaths as an excuse to save freedom by destroying it.
Unfortunately, both mass media and adherents to the modern cult of victimology prefer to push emotions above intellect. Regardless of the source or intensity or appropriateness of the reaction, "feeling" is elevated to a virtue that is designed to trump all objections.
Besides, it is far easier to indulge in visceral "feeling" than it is to focus one's mind and to weigh and evaluate evidence according to objective principles of logic. The former is an automatic process, a talent even animals possess. The latter is work -- sometimes very difficult work -- and is a trait unique to human beings. The bias of those who champion the former approach over the latter betrays the shallowness of their humanity and the baseness of their character.
And, no, this is not an issue of "repression" or denial of the reality of sadness, loss, and misery. This is an issue of propriety and balance and perspective. Life is meant to be lived. Happiness and joy should be our touchtones, not whether we can constantly elicit tears over a lost past. As Ayn Rand said, pain is not metaphysical in any deep philosophical sense. Catastrophe is not the essence of existence. If it were, our species would have died out long ago.
Such facts, however, have not prevented certain arrogant and presumptuous relatives of 9-11 victims from seeking to exploit their anointed status as better-and-more-important-than-anybody-else-who-has-ever-suffered-in-life. Nor has reality or morality deterred various politicians from hopping onto the disgusting agenda driven by those who preen before the bright lights and blank eyes of the television cameras.
In kind if not degree, such people share some of the same fundamental mental traits as the terrorists who exploited and expropriated America's own values to strike against it.
One television program I did watch concerned the efforts of dedicated and hardworking engineers and construction workers to remove the smoldering debris from "Ground Zero." With admirable and traditional American ingenuity, these men and women labored to devise safe yet effective methods for disposing of the massive mounds of concrete and steel and glass that resulted from the collapse of the two towers. When, for instance, they discovered that the basement retaining walls that kept water from the river at bay had, in many places, buckled, they did not weep or wail or complain about the injustices of life or declare that someone else had to deal with the issue. No, they studied the problem, drilled holes in the thick walls, and used cables to secure the concrete slabs in place.
No excuses, no indulgence in infantile behavior, no attempts to force others to solve the difficulty for them.
Observation, analysis, action. Those prime virtues guided these folks in their quest to clear the site. Such exemplars of rational behavior managed to complete their goal well ahead of original estimates.
How refreshing...and how divergent from the meanness -- in both senses of that word -- of some family members of 9-11 victims.
One such distasteful example in particular set my teeth to grinding.
A widow whose husband had perished in the World Trade Center self-righteously and unabashedly appeared again and again throughout this program discussing suggestions for what to do with the WTC site. Her self-important attitude shone through with startling clarity as she declared with imperious certainty that nothing should be built on this prime real-estate. The deaths of her spouse and the nearly three-thousand others on that horrible day trumped all other considerations.
That land, she haughtily informed us, was "Sacred Ground." In her cavalier judgment, that property should remain forever and always a memorial to the dead. In her nihilistic consciousness, the indisputable fact of Death was far more central to existence than the dynamic processes of life and commerce. A field of grass and somber memorials to remind us of those dire events were the only uses of that space that could possibly be justified.
Sadly but not unsurprisingly, this paragon to overbearing hubris has some famous backers. Ex-mayor of New York City, Rudy Guiliani concurs with her that this square stretch of land should not be "sullied" by the ignoble pursuit of money. Leave it empty, he declares on national television.
That this emotionalistic narcissism is not dismissed out-of-hand tells us more than we really want to know about much of the American public.
Do these disdainful, would-be tin-Napoleons own those sixteen acres? Do they hold the lease to the property?
Of course not.
Such niceties no longer hold much sway in modern-day society.
It's bad enough that the land is owned by a government agency -- the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey -- rather than private individuals. But not even the lease holder, Larry Silverstein, has final say on what will -- or will not -- be built on the site. The city-state Lower Manhattan Development Corporation is in charge of making that determination. Reflecting today's nonsense of "stakeholders," families of 9-11 victims, residents of the area, urban planners, politicians, and others contemptuous of morality and basic human rights all have a "say" in what will happen with that property.
For some of these high-handed folks, none of the suggestions that include actual buildings, actual living are to be tolerated. The issue for these people is "nonnegotiable." Why? Because that is how they "feel" the outcome should be which thus grants them the right to use coercion to get their way.
How remarkably similar in kind to the mindset of the terrorist hijackers who stole privately-owned multimillion dollar jets; who cared nothing about any plans the passengers and crews might have had for their own lives; who could reach their warped goals only by seizing the property, the ideas, the creativity of those they hated and using the very values of the creators against them; who worshipped death and destruction above life and living; and who thought nothing of wielding force against innocent people to obtain their goals.
In a free society, the only ground that should be worshipped and cherished and worthy of the title "Sacred" is land that someone owns. Such truly Sacred Ground should be inviolable. Such Sacred Ground should be off-limits to any who would enter without permission or presume to tell the owner how he may peacefully use that property. Such Sacred Ground should be a haven from the human jackals and hyenas that skulk in the shadows, ready to leap in and seize the property of others. Such Sacred Ground should provide the boundary, the fortress walls between an owner and the envious multitude who would dictate and force and steal what they cannot -- or will not -- achieve on their own.
Those sixteen acres in lower Manhattan should be sold. The collectivists and statists scornful of property rights should be shown the door. The kibitzers and clamorers for attention should be silenced.
The Sacred Ground that is one's private property should be honored for the guarantor and protector of one's life and moral autonomy that it is.
All others should butt the hell out.
