The Ever-Changing Language of La-La Land

It happens a lot, nowadays, in La-La Land - and if you don't watch out, you may just be hauled away by the La-La Land language police for insensitive speech.  With the terms for so many things changing, we may be told that we have accidentally "hurt" whole groups of people by using a term that they have been told is offensive and intended to hurt... regardless of whether there is anything intrinsically offensive or whether any offense was intended.  The easiest way to avoid offending, it would seem, would be to avoid saying anything to anyone who might be different from ourselves.  But, in this shrinking, tightly packed world, that wouldn't be practical.  Our second-best option, then, is to resort to meaningless conversation, avoid any possibility of conflict, and feign sensitivity in the hope that, given enough time, our feigned sensitivity will become habit.

The religion of La-La Land has its roots in a New-Agey belief that, if you fake anything long enough, it will become reality.  Years ago, La-La-ites began smiling even when they weren't happy in the belief that, if they smiled enough, good things would happen - and sometimes they did happen.  But often their smiling mouths could not mask their unsmiling eyes, and their way of coping was often to run away from anything they perceived as being negative. And real injustices were negative.

In La-La Land, what is up is down, what is black is white, and feelings are the new reality - regardless of the legitimacy of the feelings or the stubbornness of the reality.

In north La-La Land, McGill University, recently burst upon the La-La Land stage with a flourish of sensitivity to these feelings. Recognizing that some people claimed to be offended by its team's name (Redmen), it has decided to change it.  And the fact that the team's name originally referred to the color of the team's jersey (red), not a particular group of people, has nothing to do with anything.  People have claimed that the name is racist, insensitive, and even hurtful - and so the name has to go!  Apparently, in this world of white condescension, there is something offensive about not being white. 

Speaking of "not being white," in La-La Land, a man can be an Irishman, a Frenchman, or an Englishman - but he can no longer be a Chinaman, because using the term "Chinaman" is now considered akin to launching a racist attack.  "Chinaman" was originally probably just phonetically easier than the much more awkward "Chinese man," but in the La-La Land, the term has been deemed "hurtful" because of the past bigotry of people who were not from China (even though Chinese people did, themselves, use the term).  It is, of course, better to write out that part of history, plead mea culpa, and lump all Chinese people into the general continental term "Asian" ("Oriental" is also now offensive, apparently).  If you want to foment racism, just tell people that there is something so wrong with being from China that the term "Chinaman" cannot be used.  Of course, there is nothing wrong with being from China, and people should stop implying that there is -but it is easier just to remove the term from the language, apparently.

Unlike the terms mentioned above, certain other terms have always been hateful and used only by hateful people.  "Kike" is a good example of one word that should send shivers up our spines.  The bigotry that leads to the use of that word must always be condemned.  But although we can still say "Jew" (singular), we cannot be politically correct and criticise the Israeli government.  As the attacks on a Muslim Congressperson recently showed so clearly, if we admit that the Israeli government may not be acting ethically, we must be bigots - regardless of whether half the people of Israel believe the same thing that we do.  And the fact that governments of many U.S. states have forbidden contractors from engaging in public boycotts of Israel does seem to restrict the exercise of certain American consciences - which might be the intention (but of whom?).  Criticism has no place in La-La Land.

In La-La Land, the term "disabled person" has been replaced, in government agencies and among advocacy groups, with the much longer term "people with a disability."  Similarly, these groups have replaced "retarded person" with the wordy "person with a cognitive disability"  (even as fewer people know the definition of "cognitive"). In these cases, the new terms are more accurate than the early ones, since the early ones defined people by their disabilities.  However, the users of these terms always fail to admit that we are all lacking in certain abilities and that we are all "retarded."  Therefore, the newer terms deemphasize the severity of the situation that people with disabilities face.  And if the change in terms does not result in a change of perspective or action, the terms may be a distraction from real positive action.  Are these new terms sugar-coating their challenges?

Sometimes, in La-La Land, political correctness can be downright comical.  One government agency has changed its term for the people whom it serves four times in five years. During those years, it changed "clients" to "consumers," "consumers" to "persons," "persons" to "individuals," and "individuals" to "members."  And in this La-La Land government agency, the people served are never "Division members;" instead, they are "members of the Division."  But did funding for their services increase?  Did services improve?  And does anyone care or notice?

Nomenclature roulette has been around for decades, and it is always an attempt to manipulate the way we see things.  Back in the 1970's and 1980's, in some circles in the restaurant industry, "dining room" became "lobby" and "customers" became "guests."  This change distracted from the fact that the restaurant was not a hotel and the customers were paying for the food.  The new terms did not invalidate the old ones.

To people who may feel hurt or who are told, by their self-styled leaders, that they should feel hurt:  Be proud (or at least not ashamed).  You don't need condescending validation from white, heterosexual males - or from anyone else.  If you think that you do, perhaps you should rethink your place in the world.  You have an intrinsic dignity that does not rely upon what other people think.  You are just as good as anyone else.  You simply have no right to be hurt.  Being hurt is your choice, not theirs.  And you don't need to assume that there is hatred and bigotry everywhere you look - because there isn't (not everywhere, anyway).  Politically incorrect people may simply see the folly of the game, and they may end up being your best friends.  Do not hate strangers because other strangers tell you to hate them.  Know when you are being manipulated.  We need to unite in brotherhood/sisterhood/whateverhood.

Money, Israel, and Not-Very-Kosher Politics

One wonders whether the relationship between U.S. politicians and certain "pro-Israel" camps is kosher.

On Face the Nation this morning, Elizabeth Warren was asked whether she believes that Rep. Ilhan Omar's recent tweet was anti-Semitic (Omar had claimed  that American politicians support for Israel was "all about the Benjamins").   The question was straightforward, requiring only a "yes," "no," or an "I don't know" to reply.  Warren, though, did not answer the question.  In response, she merely stated opposition to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.  

Perhaps Warren was afraid to answer the question.  After all, it was hard not to notice the ton of bricks that had fallen so quickly on poor Omar after the tweet.  Some cows, it seems, truly are sacred.  Mainstream media had united against Omar. The House Democratic leadership had issued a unified statement condemning her comments. And President Trump, who is not known for his agreement with Democrats, had even said that Omar should resign her seat in Congress.  Support for "Israel" (i.e., the government of Israel) makes for some pretty strange and uncomfortable bedfellows.  Whether Omar was right or not seemed to be of no concern to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or the mainstream corporate media.

The elephant in the room is not kosher.  Why the hypersensitivity?  Why the quickness to condemn?  Perhaps it is due to the fact that money from certain so-called "pro-Israel" groups DOES influence policy and law.  A good example of this is found in the laws against boycotting Israel.

According to Wikipedia, a 2011 Israeli law outlawed calls for an economic, cultural or academic boycott against a person or entity because of its association with the State of Israel and/or a specific region under Israeli control.  There was a lot of opposition within Israel to this restriction of their freedoms, but the law stands.

The 2011 Israeli law is now reflected in the laws of 26 U.S. states. In Arizona, for example, agencies contracted with the state to provide service must not boycott Israel.  No other country is so favored.  And The Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle explains what the State of Israel, which governs nine million people, gets in return for the purchase of U.S. politicians: 3.3 billion dollars in 2019 alone.  

In other words, Americans will give 3.3 thousand-million dollars to Israel this year.  That boils down to every man, woman and child in the United States giving $10 to a pot that, when divided by the population of Israel, come out to over $300 for every man, woman, and child in Israel.  Which really isn't much, is it?  Sure, it would be hard for a politician to turn down such a modest request - especially when the return on investment for Israel is so great.  And, considering the cut that the politicians get, who can blame them?

Yet U.S. politicians are very sensitive on the subject of being bought by certain Israeli interests.  Swiftly, almost instinctively, they label people who dare to question quid-pro-quo relationships with the Israeli regime as "anti-Semitic." 

Omar's tweet said a lot more about how money influences U.S. foreign policy than it said about Jews, Judaism, or even the people of Israel.  The political and mainstream media response to her little tweet was appalling.  And so was Elizabeth Warren's refusal to answer a simple question on Face the Nation. Her love-and-peace answer showed her willingness to throw a truth-telling Democrat, and the truth, under the bus.  Bernie Sanders, a Jew, did not throw Omar under the bus.   In fact, he defended her.

And THAT's the hard truth, America.

A Grave Indictment: What Khashoggi's Death Says About Us

Another journalist has been murdered.  The murder of journalists is nothing new, of course.  Journalists sometimes live very dangerous lives, dodging bullets on battlefields and all.  Sometimes, their deaths are collateral damage.  Sometimes they are killed for exposing, or trying to expose, corruption.  And the more unsavory the truth, the more dangerous it is to report it.

Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi did not die on a battlefield.  He was not blown up in a car, as was Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles.  He was not shot six times at a stoplight, as was Sunday Independent reporter Veronica Guerin.  No, Jamal Khashoggi died in the ultimate bureaucratic setting - his native country's consulate.  He was trying to get a marriage license.  As his fiance waited outside in the car, it seems that he was hacked into pieces.

So what was this Indiana State University-educated journalist doing that would incur the ultimate punishment?  Surely he must have been writing incendiary pieces aimed at overthrowing his native country's white-robed government?  Nooooo.  His written voice was gentle.  By exposing human rights violations in his native country, though, he could not help but offend the violators - all of whom happened to be wealthy and powerful.  But sometimes, he simply wrote about normal government corruption - things like sewer covers without sewers underneath.  Bridge-to-nowhere-type stuff.  You know, the kind of stuff that big-city reporters used to report here decades ago.

But, no matter how gently expressed, unpleasant truths sometimes cannot be made more palatable.  And, now, no rose-colored glasses can hide or disguise the appalling nature of this journalist's murder and the even more appalling implications of its aftermath.

Khashoggi was killed in a Saudi consulate.  It was a Saudi government hit job. Period. Yet, the current W.H. occupant says that the Crown Prince may or may not have been responsible - as though the Crown Prince's personal role matters or would need to be proved.  That's just spin, though.  Smoke and mirrors.  Look here, no look there. And to show how hard he's working for the American people, this same W.H. occupant adds that he won't screw up a 110-billion dollar arms deal with the Saudis because of something so insignificant as a non-American journalist's murder in their consulate. Sharing Al Capone's entrepreneurial philosophy, he says we might as well sell them the goods since they're going to get them from somebody.

Regardless of current reporting that the Saudi "deal" is no deal at all, W.H. defenders point out that we are simply doing what we've always done, that we trade with many horribly corrupt and murderous dictatorships, and that the man who currently carries the title of "President of the United States" is simply "telling it like it is."   This time they are right.

So, this holiday season, whether scurrying through the underwear-strewn aisles of a Walmart or wandering leisurely by the elegant displays in a Nordstrom, take a moment to think about those who may have given their lives, in one way or another, for better conditions in those countries that produced that shirt, that coat, those slippers, that television set, and those earphones.  And think about why those items are so inexpensive.

And when you pump gas, remember Jamal Khashoggi.

One Fallen Marine

A country nightclub in California.  Students drinking, chatting, laughing – a simple night out in one of America's safest towns.  Suddenly gunfire, screams, scrambling, blood, death.  A madman.  A fight for survival that many would lose on that night.

Just as the attack had been unexpected, the hero status of the shooter may also have been unexpected. 

Ian Long will always be remembered for one thing: his madness.  He will not be remembered for his heroism or for his many awards for service to his country in Afghanistan.  He will not be remembered for what caused his madness, either.  He will not be numbered among the war’s fallen, though fallen is probably exactly what he was.

He was the kind of person who gets a parade in small-town, flag-waving America.  The list of his commendations was as long as your arm: two Navy Unit Commendations for “outstanding heroism in action against the enemy,” a Combat Action Ribbon, a Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, two Sea Service Deployment Ribbons, an Afghanistan Campaign Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, a National Defense Service Medal, and the NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan.

He was a hero... until he wasn't.

Was it PTSD that caused his murderous actions?  PTSD is just a condition, though; most people with it do not shoot up nightclubs.  Was the cause guns?  Lots of people have guns, but they don’t go around shooting one another.  Should we blame it on Afghanistan?  Many have served there, some nobly and perhaps some not so nobly, but they don’t shoot up public gathering spots of celebration. 

The events of a few nights ago will lead some to call for gun control.  Others will call for more and better mental health treatment.  Others will blame Afghanistan.  And still others will blame war itself.  They will argue with each other, calling each other names, as they defend their assumptions.  For a week or two, there will be a lot of fake sympathy expressed for the victims, too.  Eventually, perhaps too soon, the events of that night will shrink in the rearview mirror.  After all, the United States is now experiencing mass shootings (defined as shootings in which there are four or more victims) on a daily basis.  Most get nothing but local coverage in the media.  Only very deadly shootings with unexpected backdrops become national stories.  Most mass shootings are simply not news - and besides, it wouldn't be practical to cover every mass shooting that comes along.  The United States is not Canada, after all.  Or Britain.  Or Ireland. Or most other countries.

We will never know why Ian Long decided to go to a nightclub and start shooting strangers.  Any possible explanation will be superficial.  Somewhere along the line, Ian Long began to hate people - and maybe we should ask why people hate people.  If we could answer THAT question, we might begin to understand the Ian Longs of the world.  But that question would require a national introspection, a collective soul-searching - and a lot of evidence suggests that this nation generally doesn't do a lot of soul searching.  So expect more shootings.  A lot more shootings.

Is Arizona Really Red?

Is Arizona really a red state?  

There are plenty of reasons to assume that Arizona is a red state.  After all, isn't it a haven for old people living "active lifestyles," zipping around in golf carts by day and playing pinochle at night?  We all know that old folks vote, and we all know that they're conservative, right?  RIGHT?  And of course, there are all of those rich people wandering the artificially quaint streets of Old Town Scottsdale, looking in shop windows and saying things like, "Look, honey, wouldn't that look lovely on the mantle?"  The stereotypical Arizonan has white hair, white skin, perfect white teeth, white shorts, black socks and white shoes - and looks like he/she stepped out of a Viagra commercial.  People like that would obviously have much to fear from of hordes of poor people coming across the border to cut their grass, trim their oleanders, lay their Saltillo, deliver their enchiladas, and then return to their barrios far, far away- right?

And Arizona's politicians are almost all Republican, so that certainly cements the stereotype in the minds of Americans.  

Yup, Arizona is definitely a red state.

Or maybe not. It is hard to tell, since so much of what we "know" is what we glean from words and images fed to us from elsewhere.  In reality, only a teeny-weeny minority of Arizonans ever get interviewed by the press or shown on TV.  Bernie Sanders attracted thousands of supporters to his rallies in Phoenix.  The rallies were almost completely ignored by the local media, but enthusiastic Bernie supporters stood in line in the hot sun until they almost sank into the gooey asphalt.  If they hadn't been so peaceful, perhaps the rally would have been covered by the press.  Maybe a few thousand people at a Bernie Sanders rally, though, just really aren't enough people to deserve media attention.  Compare Bernie's thousands to the President's massive support.  As President, Mr. Trump drew 15,000 flag-waving, cap-wearing, friends to the Phoenix Civic Center.  That's a lot of supporters.  The Phoenix metro area has a population of about 4.5 million people, so the fact that a sitting President's rhetoric could draw a whole one-third of one percent shows just how massive his support is.  And those thousands just must be the tip of an enormous iceberg.  His supporters were far greater in number than those who protested outside and were tear-gassed by police.  But Phoenix, 2017 was no Chicago, 1968.  You'd need a Vietnam to get those kinds of protests.

And we shouldn't overestimate the importance of the 70,000 underpaid teachers and their friends who showed up to protest the fact that Trump ally, Governor Doug Ducey, offered only a 1% raise after funding cuts a decade before had decimated their incomes.  That's only 70,000 teachers and sympathizers - nobody important.  And besides, Arizona state government workers (excluding political appointees, of course) have not received a raise in ten years, but you don't hear them whining (at least not on television or radio) despite the fact that rents have skyrocketed to $1,400/month in the Phoenix area.  "But what about the unions?" you ask.  Well, unions aren't allowed for government workers.  Arizona is a red state.

Some say that Arizona is turning purple. They point out that Democrat Kyrsten Sinema will probably be the next Senator from Arizona (over the strong objections of the state Republican Party, which filed a lawsuit to stop the vote count).  What does Sinema stand for?  Nobody knows, really.  As a Congresswoman, she voted with the President 62% of the time.  Her opponent, a really distasteful woman by the name of McSally, as a Congresswoman, voted with Trump 97% of the time.  So Sinema certainly isn't blue, but she's not as red as McSally.  That MIGHT indicate that the shade of Arizona's blush is changing.  

But given Arizona's slave wages and human rights history, one does wonder whether Trump's support and the consistent election of Republicans really reflect the will of the people.  The Democratic Party routinely puts up lackluster candidates for major offices and then doesn't seem to fund their campaigns well. Often, these candidates seem to be watered-down, lukewarm Republicans whose only positive attributes are that they aren't angry and they don't spew hatred.  Sinema seems to be that kind of Democrat, and the fact that she now appears to be winning the vote count might only indicate that McSally was just too vile, too inarticulate, and too unsympathetic.  McSally tried to ride the President's coattails ("border wall," "invasion," "border wall," "terrorism," "border wall," "aren't you doing better now?"), but she may have fallen off.  We'll know when the votes are counted (and probably recounted). 

Here's a theory:  Arizona isn't blue, but it might not be very red.  Perhaps the Republicans have been winning by default for all of these years.  Perhaps the Republicans who, until recently, were counting the votes were not counting them accurately.  Perhaps the cause of Arizona's redness is not conservatism or even apathy, but despair.  Perhaps all of the above.

An American Warning to Canadians

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL CANADIANS....

Many years ago, one of your nation's greatest singers, Burton Cummings, sang these words: "Stand tall.  Don't you fall. Don't you go do something you'll regret later."  The time has come for Canadians to stand tall, not fall, and not do something you'll regret later.  Sure, politeness is nice.  But there is a difference between politeness and apathy, and bartering away your freedom to a bully for a temporary prosperity will not go well for you in the end.

The problem, as many of you know, is this:  The U.S. Government is demanding that Canadians give up control of their media and financial support of their own arts.  Doing the bidding of what Trump calls "the fake media," Trump's own administration is insisting that Canada open its media markets to big American media companies, which would then set up shop in local Canadian markets.  Eventually, as Trudeau knows well, Canadians would have no control of their airwaves.  This fact would lead to the filtering of relevant and necessary content, and this filtering would lead to Canadians eventually having access only to the information deemed appropriate by the foreign media giants.  In the United States, the "news" deemed appropriate by the media giants consists of gossip,  political snickering at the mention of certain ideas, virtually no real investigative reporting, constant hype, the use of buzzwords designed to instill fear and divisiveness, and a lot of sensational weather-related broadcasting (e.g., Florence, "a storm of biblical proportions").  Then there is the non-coverage of  certain politicians and issues.  News broadcasting in Canada would shrink to a small percentage of its current time allotment.  Gone would be the reporting of anything that really matter to Canadians.  Pretty much, everything that makes Canadian news reporting good would be gone.

Control of information would then naturally lead to control of thought.  Next to go would be Canadian health care - which would be juicy booty for American health care companies.  After all, the hospitals and equipment would already be there, having already been paid for by Canadian taxpayers.  American health care companies would move in, smiling and promising the world, but people currently covered under Canada's system would find themselves uncovered.  Canadians might even welcome the new privatized system at first, having heard such wonderful things on the American-owned stations.  But once in need of health care, Canadians would find that their costs would skyrocket, coverage would be reduced, and insurance companies would deny their claims time and time again (many years ago, an expose revealed that one American health care company's practice was to deny a claim eight times before paying).  Canadian taxes might decrease slightly, but insurance costs would more than eat up any tax savings.  Currently in the U.S., many Americans would rather risk dying than be bankrupted by medical bills.  Crazy?  Exaggeration?  Consider this: Children's Hospital in Phoenix charges more than $25,000 for a single dose of scorpion anti-venom.  Eventually, of course, many Canadians would go bankrupt -- but how likely would the smiling faces on the American-owned stations in Toronto or Calgary or Montreal be to report this story with all of the detail necessary to convey the scope of the tragedy?  Not very likely, especially since their programs would be sponsored by those very same health care companies.  Of course, most healthy Canadians would be blissfully unaware of what's going on unless they have personal experience.. and even that personal experience would likely be considered "bad luck" and not indicative of the larger unreported problem.  That's life.  That's what Canadians can expect if Canada gives in to this idea that American investors with yachts and jets should profit from the sickest and most desperate of Canadians.

Give the U.S. and inch of Canadian sovereignty, and it will take a yard.  Canadians, get tough!  Stand tall!  Don't you fall for it.  Don't go and do something you'll regret later.

5:21 p.m.

Something strange happened. Something really strange.  Something impossible.

If it had happened on any other day in any other city, we might still be demanding an answer.  But because it happened at 5:21 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the impossibility of it all has dissolved in the pulverized rubble of our collective subconscious.

The entire day had been full of impossibilities, after all.  We were in shock.  There was so much information being thrown at us.  We were running on instinct, adrenaline, and a macabre fascination with watching the human drama associated with that morning's events.  It seemed like the movies that we had paid so much money to see in theaters.  Only this show was free.  And it was real.

The events of that day are now a blur in the rear view mirror.  And, along with our consciousness of it, Building 7 of the World Trade Center (WTC) disappeared into the ever-darkening shadows of history.

Building 7 was a massive 47-story, steel-frame structure.  It was taller than the tallest buildings in some major American cities.  It was the kind of building that, if it were almost anywhere else, people could not help but notice.  But in lower Manhattan, on that particular day, it disappeared in just seven seconds.  Seven seconds of impossibility.  It was there, and then it wasn't.

Some did notice, though.  It's disappearance was immediately mentioned on news broadcasts as an "oh-by-the-way."  Dan Rather observed that its collapse looked like a controlled demolition.  As did New York's local anchors and reporters.  Even over a few years that followed, some celebrities added their voices to a chorus of thousands of architects and engineers who just could not believe that the laws of physics and chemistry could be completely usurped by the government.

Earlier on that day, WTC Buildings 1 and 2 had collapsed after being hit by planes.  Thousands had been killed.  Firefighters and police were busy trying to save lives.  Many of them died, too.  And many more would die over the following years from exposure to hazardous chemicals while begging the government to help them.  Those two buildings, people covered in powder running for their lives, and a haboob of debris rolling down Manhattan streets is what we remember.  Building 7 was just an "also ran."  It could not compete for our attention with the human drama that had begun to unfold eight hours earlier.

Even though the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 defied scientific explanation, there was a least the structural damage and the jet fuel to make their collapse somewhat plausible to the uninformed and unscientific armchair patriots who comprise the vast majority of people in the United States.  After all, we saw what we saw. The planes were the cause.  Planes that, we were told, were flown by people with strange names from strange places who did it for strange reasons.

Building 7's collapse was different, though.  There was no plane to make a big hole.  There was no flaming jet fuel to melt steel contrary to the laws of science.   According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), it simply collapsed because office furnishings caught on fire.  There had been, and would be, worse fires in steel-frame skyscrapers, though.  In 1970, a 50-story New York building had burned for six hours on five floors; it did not collapse. In 1988, a 62-story Los Angeles skyscraper had burned for 3.5 hours on five floors; it did not collapse. In 991, a 38-story Philadelphia building burned for 18 hours on 8 floors; it did not collapse. In 2004, a 56-story building burned for 17 hours on 26 floors, and even it did not collapse.  On 9/11, the world had never experienced the melting of stuff that could not melt.

As they say, "only in America...."

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of over 3,000 architects, engineers, and people with expertise in related fields,  continues to call for a new investigation - but to no avail.  Unfortunately, the Freedom of Information Act doesn't seem to apply in this post 9/11 America.  Agencies paid for by the taxpayers will not cough up the information for which the taxpayers pay.  We probably don't care, though.  We may not really want to know the truth.  Maybe we can't handle the truth.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to admit that the collapse of a 47-story building in defiance of the laws of nature deserves some serious investigation.  The federal government has some explaining to do. Why can't the information be revealed?  Why aren't ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN pursuing the story of Building 7's collapse?  In a democracy (or whatever you want to call what we have), shouldn't we, the people, demand an explanation that makes some sense?  After all, what's to stop this kind of thing from happening again?

But even though we Americans have our suspicions and would like more accountability, we are busy with other things.  Like making a living.  Like home-grown Nazis.  Like immigrants.  Like tweets.  Or so the faces on television tell us.  But we don't know them.  They are just faces.  And Building 7 was just a building, a footnote to the events of that terrible day that are now just blurry memories.

It has often been said that "America lost its innocence" on that day.  Every time something tragic and suspicious happens, Americans lose their innocence.  Is there no end to the innocence that we can lose?  If we ever lose it all, we may unleash a torrent of anger that will lay waste to everything in its path. Maybe that is why we can't get answers (and why we never will).