I HATE Jonathan Safron Foer... Ugh. Just his name makes me sputter.

I just watched the Loose Change video—it was an irresistible procrastination tool from my Qualifying Paper. I didn’t realize it would be an hour and a half until I was hooked. I would definitely recommend it. It makes me sick that the Bush Administration has told so many lies and proven itself to be so untrustworthy that even this video is more persuasive to me than anything put out by the corporate-controlled media about 9/11.

Please check it out—I’d love to hear deeper thoughts on this than mine.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

At the very least, the questions it raises should be seriously discussed. The wikipedia articles introduce valuable nuances in the stories. Undeniably, it is visually very compelling. Somebody suggested to me that the I-house should be the last place in UC Berkeley to be hosting a conference like this. This person may be right... I'd like to hear thoughts about that.

I don't understand why I-house should be the last place to host this conference. Terrorism is a global issue.

Btw, I think you are right, Matt. It is similar to conspiracy theories around JFK's assassination. It is hard for us to accept that such a senseless act committed by a pathetic few could cause so much damage and pain. It is almost easier for our collective psyche to believe that there was some grand plan. Conspiracy theories surrounding the government may even be an effort to make us feel safer because if the government was involved then it was not standing idly by when these heinous acts occurred. If we believe that the government could have done nothing to prevent the attacks then it means that such an attack could happen again. It is a macabre safety blanket.

In what way have we had surprisingly little to say? The event spurred a fairly well known movie (Feirenheit 9/11), it launched a career for Richard Clarke, it shaped an election, and I have seen a number of books about the psychological effects of the event (one of which I own and am happy to let you borrow).

What is it you think is missing from the national discussion about 9/11?

Nathan, I think that you're being a bit hard on Richard Clarke. The man had a long established (if somewhat muffled) career long before 9/11.


I think that what is missing from the discussion are the connective tissues between the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, oil, other pre and post 9/11 activities. Let me put it this way, we know what started World War I. We can trace the build ups and the immediate aftermath, and "know" that history. We don't really "know" what this story is yet - and I think that is why these conspiracy theories are so interesting. I personally want to read the history book 100 years from now to understand the context better.

I agree with Michael. And I think there's a difference between something that is a result of something, and something that is an expression of what that thing is.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is not emblematic of what 9/11 "means" to Americans. Neither is Afghanistan or Iraq. None of these things would have happened without 9/11; but that does not mean they define 9/11. If anything, they fuzzy the boundaries of our national understanding of it.

At this point I think the issue is inarticulable, either due to powerlessness to grasp the nature of the event, or because of proximity to it.

Michael - I meant that it launched Richard Clarke's book career. I should have been more specific because he certainly had a distinguished career before that (I should be so lucky).

Matt - to try to come up with what it "means" to Americans is not only impossible, but any attempt to do so would be from a biased perspective. I'm not sure there's value to say, for example, that Sept. 11th meant that “Americans could no longer feel safe” - after all, many Americans never felt safe if they lived in a neighborhood filled with violence. (Note: this is but one example and I not attributing this idea to you, by any means). I think it would be interesting to know the long term effects of September 11th on, say, Islamic communities in the US, American oil policy, etc. But we need to be careful when we attribute to attitudes, thoughts, and feelings to “Americans.”

Kevin Phillips’ book, American Theocracy, discusses some of the themes Michael is curious about. He discusses issues about the first Iraq war, American oil policy, and the intersection of religion and politics that I (until I read the book) hadn’t read about. It puts some much needed context around the story of September 11th. Because I do agree that there are many issues related to this topic that have been up-to-now not explored by the mainstream media. Michael, I agree that you should be very interested in looking at the themes and influences that led to 9/11, but I don’t think that means that conspiracy theorists with a “the big bad government screwed us again” bent is the way to find out more (it’s like reading the DaVinci code – it has a lot of facts, but it is hard to separate what is real vs what is fake – so you just have to throw it all out). I’m going to copy a line from “An American President” – you’re thirsting for knowledge, but in the absence of true knowledge, don’t drink the sand.

I think I might disagree with Matt only because we’re just thinking about the same issue from two different perspectives. I have the impression that American’s don’t have the attention span or the desire to know about the undercurrents of history, culture, and politics that affect terrorist actions (and, in some sense, people get quickly offended at the very thought that we might have done things to incite violence). Basically, my question is how do we get Americans to eat their vegetables (real information) when all they want are McNuggets?