The Sunday Night Thinkpost - I </3 NY -OR- Better Red Than Dead

[penpusher]

It's been almost three weeks and I really didn't want to think any more about the election. Even though some of my friends continued to point out the inaccuracies of the voter tallies in swing states, etc. Even though they're pointing out how Bush's cabinet is forming a line to resign, And even though that Sorry, Everybody website has grown beyond 600 pages of photos, I felt the best thing to do for my own sanity would be to put it completely out of my mind. Sure. There's nothing that can be done, and besides... who cares who the president is anyway?

But there was an angle of all of this that bothered me. Something that I couldn't get out of my mind. Something that was, maybe... just a little bit evil on the homefront side?

I thought back to when George W. Bush came to Ground Zero. The World Trade Center was a smoldering pile of pulverized metal, rock and human remains. A fire chief tossed the Commander-In-Chief a bullhorn and our President spoke into it so everyone could hear what he had to say: he vowed to bring the people responsible for this act to justice. It was a powerful image. Meaningful. It suggested that there was a plan, that the plan would take us closer to being safe and that everyone cared about what happened here.

But maybe that wasn't exactly true.

If you look at the map, it's really obvious to see how the voter breakdown took place. It's not really so much Republican and Democrat. It's Safe Area v. Likely Target.

Obviously, New York is a main target, since the bullseye was already hit. But, other likely targets are the cities on the West Coast. So is Chicago and to a lesser extent Detroit. Boston? Sure. and The people of New England probably, in great part, got to come down and see in person what those two hijacked planes accomplished in Lower Manhattan. Television could not have captured the sight of that site in person. It's still staggering, even after the cleanup is complete, to see the sheer size of the area affected. If you haven't seen the World Trade Center site with your own eyes, either before or after the attack, you really can't get a true perspective on what happened.

But, really, isn't there a bit of resentment by people who don't live in those targeted cities? I have personally met people who tell me that they "HATE New York!" These are American citizens, mind you, not terrorists. New York Magazine even did a cover story a few years back about the people outside of here that don't like New York or New Yorkers, so this is hardly a revelation. So, yes, there are people who not only don't care what happens here, but hope that we would go away, just like homosexuals, abortionists and other equally evil deviants.

I was just wondering how many people actually feel like they're safe from terrorist attack where they are.

And sure, there is a responsibility, a feeling of importance in being one of these targets. Being a target means that you "matter." And, in a sense, there's a certain resentment about that. Why do these places draw attention more than other places? At least in some ways, that's because of the media and what goes on there. There's Big business, Wall Street. It happens here. Eastern Time is often referred to as "New York Time." And no city has had more films and television programs set in its borders. Country Mice are jealous of and annoyed by City Mice.

There have been discussions this past week about the possibility of a nuke going off here. And really, that's far more likely today than during The Cold War. Nukes are smaller, and with suicide bombers, easier to deliver. Most people in town aren't phased, but it's just one more thing to keep in the back of your head as you negotiate the sidewalks. I can't help but think that retribution for these selfish acts is on the way.

The policies of this government have been murder. And We The People of the United States are headed for a very big fall... but, really, when you look at it, it's more than likely that only those of us in the Blue states are gonna that pay the price.

Comments

[classyclvr.livejournal.com]

"I was just wondering how many people actually feel like they're safe from terrorist attack where they are."

that's a really good observation about the "safe" zones of the US and the potential target areas.

as a permanent resident of the DC area, i definitley felt a threat of terrorism.

as a temporary texan, i feel a slight threat, because its bush's home country, and being so close to dallas/ft. worth.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

I wonder how the voting would have gone, if everyone in the country had experienced 9/11 the way New Yorkers did, the unkept promise of this administration and this war which is sinking us deeper in danger with the Middle east.

But Texas is safe, I'm sure!

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Maybe, but there's something about the correlation between areas of higher education and voting for Kerry that's intriguing.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

Yes... I saw this.

I don't know. It's pat to say that people who are less educated voted for Bush. I think it's more complicated (npi) than that.

If you think about human psychology, and you think about people wanting to control their own destinies, which is part of the American Agenda, people tend to want to be considered important. They want where they live to be vital. Such is the case of the red state dwellers. Geo. Bush is their champion because he listens to them. He cares about them. He coddles the south and their values. Kerry "opposed" those values, because that was true to the spirit of the Constitution. But most folks didn't get that. They just heard that he wasn't willing to sponsor a bill to ban abortion or was going to create programs that would cost more taxes.

I don't want to sell the people who voted Bush short. I think they voted for what they wanted. But I'm thinking that if they were at Ground Zero, and had been through this, maybe it would've been a different outcome.

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

But I think part of the reason they did vote for Bush is that they do think he is more of a hawk and more willing to wage war to "protect" the U.S. I think they're more afraid of the U.S. being attacked again than those of us on the coasts who are more likely targets.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

I agree, but the point is that if you don't think anyone is targeting you, it's easy to back the Hawk, because you won't have to deal with any retribution yourself. You're safely tucked away in some dot on the map that nobody outside of your own county can name, let alone hit with some bomb.

That was part of the point, anyway.

[tamperevident.livejournal.com]

oh ok, so that's what you were saying. if this is true though, i doubt it's conscious. i don't think anyone out there is actually sitting there thinking: let the people on the coast get hit, while we do things our way. or at least i doubt that.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

Well, not so much that they want us to be attacked, but there is a undercurrent of dislike by a lot of people who aren't from or haven't visited here. Part of it is the media portrayals, since that is where many people get their impressions, rather than empirically. The image becomes the truth. And people think that our concepts are partially responsible for their unhappiness or lack of control, or delay in Jesus's return, or whatever!

I don't know that I completely believe this, but it's something I was thinking about...

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Could be. But I dunno. You're talking about how the people in the middle of the country have no reason to fear retribution against the actions of a Hawk president. And yet they're apparently quite fearful of a less hawkish president and a supposedly weak defense against terrorist acts here at home.

I just think there are too many factors involved in the way the election went the way it did. Opinions about the war in Iraq, so-called "Christian values," the extreme spin and campaign control by Karl Rove, and voting irregularities in Ohio and Florida, are just some of those factors.

Various groups will try to focus on specific issues to regain the soul of our country in 2008, and I think the best each of us can do is to put our effort into whatever action(s) we think might be most worthwhile. I can't analyze what went wrong, I can only keep on keeping on, trying to turn this bird around.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

I think the Bush package was tailor made for those in Red states. It had it all.

On the foreign policy side, it continues the "war on terror," as we help Iraq to freedom. It is aggressive, which is great if you're playing dodgeball and no one's throwing at you.

On the domestic side, it had the "family values" and "moral convictions" that are at the heart of "Middle America." Plus no new taxes.

As long as we have this Coke and Pepsi set up when it comes to our elections, we will always have problems with our leadership. It's time for new flavors, before our tongue gets cut out.

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Yeah.

Meanwhile, I'm working for peace. And to protect civil liberties (ACLU is finally opening an office in the South Bay!). And to support a woman's right to choose. Those are my top 3 issues for engaging in positive political action. I hope I can keep up the fight(s) for our future and overcome my depression, anger, and sadness over our present and immediate past. *sigh*

totally off subject

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I like watching the spinning earth with the eclipsing sun right below it. :-)

Re: totally off subject

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Nice convergence of icons, eh?

[tamperevident.livejournal.com]

you know, i might disagree with your accessment of "safe zones". i think people in the midwest might feel more targeted, and more scared, hence the instinctual reaction to stick to a leader whom they perceive as strong, but who really has the more agressive agenda. i believe agression is a direct result of fear. but why do they feel tagreted? well, thats a whole other different question. i think maybe because whats really threatened here by what happened on 9/11 is most people's familiar way of life. the so-called "american dream" has been stripped away, and those that are the most conservative feel the most affected. Bush's promise is that he will keep America "strong" -- meaning, unchanged. those of us on the coasts might be more in touch with and focused on reality, and with what's going on outside of our own continent, i think.

[tamperevident.livejournal.com]

i.e. for us, on the east coast, things had already changed, irrevocably.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

With regards too Bush's promise to keep America safe, and how that promise was viewed by the voters...

I think that everyone felt threatened by the September 11th attacks, but I would say that we here in the midwest don't feel that same fear anymore. The threat still makes us a bit nervous, but the fear isn't palpable anymore. So those in the midwest may feel safer than they did three years ago, while those in the target areas may not.

[tamperevident.livejournal.com]

ok. but why vote for a militant leader if you feel safe?

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

That's my question, too.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Because after such a horrendous attack, Bush is the one who made the country safe. Or in the case of those who don't feel safe, Bush is the one who has not lived up to his promise.

At least that's the way it could appear to the people feeling or who felt the fear, and looked to the president for safety.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

I agree that people are looking for ways to protect themselves and that some think that "a good offense is the best defense." But the point I was making here is that it's very simple to buy into that thought if you know that you aren't on the opponent's RADAR. The reason the Balance of Terror between the Soviets and the US remained was because both sides had targeted weapons for dozens of cities on the other side. I'm pretty certain that no one believes that this is the case now.

[tamperevident.livejournal.com]

But the point I was making here is that it's very simple to buy into that thought if you know that you aren't on the opponent's RADAR

-- thats what i was saying, too. for them, there is no reality check.

similar thoughts

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

This, from a friend who lives in D.C.:
Living in Washington, DC, this was crucial, because if some sort of disaster happens, the consequences in this city will be immediate. (And I'd like to add something here: if you don't live in DC or New York City, and you worry on a daily basis about a terrorist attack: fuck you. Come to DC for a month, and you'll know what it's like to live in a city under siege.

Re: similar thoughts

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

It's really true. NYC has been on and remains at Orange Alert since 9/11/01. That's over three years now.

There is no rest here.

[rachbee.livejournal.com]

I definitely don't feel safe at Disney because they remind us all the time how it would be a really easy target. We even had to go through special training, not to mention all of the extra security precautions.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

Disney would probably be the top targeted Theme Park, but I don't think theme parks are very high on the list of places for terrorists to attack. They'd much rather go for things that could disrupt commerce and business, which is why New York is still a huge target, or government, which makes DC the other likely point of attack.

But, it's great to be prepared anyhow! I'm sure Disney is more prepared than NYC is, and we've already been attacked! There's not a lot we could do anyhow. Escape routes are very poor. I mean, the West Side Highway? FDR Drive? Bridges and Tunnels. Anyone who tries to get around here during rush hour knows how tough it is... just imagine if panicked people are all trying to flee something. It wouldn't be good.

I'm certain that there's some orderly method at Disney for moving people to safe areas that is in place, and that people are trained to keep everyone calm. You're much safer there, Rach, even if they did attack!

[meadmaiden.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but "under siege"? Compare to London in the 80s when the IRA was bombing on a regular basis or Gaza or anywhere where people have really had to deal with terrorismn on a daily basis. The Sept 11 attacks were a horrible tragedy, but relatively isolated events, thankfully. No matter what color "alert" any city is under, it is a perceived threat and not actually "living with terrorism". We Americans really have no idea what that is really like.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

Under siege? I didn't say that.

And yes, compared to London during World War II, or Northern Ireland throughout the IRA skirmishes, or practically anywhere in the Middle East, we have been spoiled. But that wasn't my point.

The fact that we are dealing with terrorism at all is the question. For us, this is what living with terrorism is like. And really, I think it's going to get worse because of what we're doing.

[meadmaiden.livejournal.com]

You are right, but I was actually replying to one of the replies you got from someone else...my bad.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

That's a good point. In the interests of being concise, I didn't include his whole comment. The rest of it is:

Then again, people living in Iraq now (or in a hundred other places on the face of the planet) have the absolute right to tell me to fuck off, because the state of things in DC is nothing whatsoever like it is in a city that's literally under siege. My point, however, is that the sense of danger here is greater than it is in the vast majority of places in the US; whenever I travel out of DC, I notice the difference immediately. Other places feel safer.)

[meadmaiden.livejournal.com]

Fair enough.

[bubblesinmyhead.livejournal.com]

I posed the same argument too. I was looking at the statistics of people in New York City that voted for Kerry and in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx the statistics were close to 80% in support of Kerry. I said to myself why is is that we the people who experienced one of our nations foremost tragedies are confident enough to change leaders "during wartime", WE'RE THE VICTIMS, but these other states still feel the need to cling to Bush for support.

I don't know what your opinion of Fahrenheit 9/11 (or if you saw it) was but nevertheless one scene in it that struck me was when the government announced that some small town in some random state was suspected of being a terrorist threat. The people of the town couldn't believe it but they feared it nevertheless and when interviewed on where would be the likely target: "Walmart" was unanimous. These people really don't realize how useless that is to a terrorist in terms of economy or any kind of crippling to power of a nation. Some places in the midwest or south really is kind of filler to the rest of the country.

The other thing that strikes me is that these "red states" may voice a hate towards our urban culture yet they love it on television. Just think in terms of American movies and television. How many featured television shows are in your average red state or movies. They all love to watch the Sopranos and Sex and the City but then they criticize our leaders in these states. It's like they only want us to exist on television. If you know what I mean.

Sorry for the rant. Politics does that to people hehe.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

Hey, wow! You jump right in! Nice.

I did see Fahrenheit 9/11 and I remember that scene. People definitely have a different view of what they think makes for a good terrorist target.

As for the media... well, that's a double edged thing. Films and TV program producers set their projects in NYC because lots of things happen here, lots of people have visited here, it's a good backdrop for a story and the implication is that people will be interested in it. It's just a great setting. But, yes, people do like New York, but at arm's length...

Unfortunately, people believe the clichés and react accordingly.

This was a great welcome!

[bubblesinmyhead.livejournal.com]

Thanks. :) See I became useful on your friends list. hehe.