|
Randy Cassingham's BlogHistorical Details and Author's Notes from This is True®
|
9/11: Reader Reaction
My 9/11 editorial last week brought two kinds of responses. Marjolein in the Netherlands wrote:
Free Weird Newsletter
Thank you for this nice piece as an anniversary story. My first reaction when I saw the [plane] hit was: Oh, that must have hurt -- BAD. But the second was: I am not going to let them win. The moment they get me/us frightened, THEY WIN, whether they actually get to wound or kill us or not. That's where the name's derived from. They win the moment your life gets flooded with fear and panic. Every happy minute is a victory over them! So, my search for the good life (nice home, being happy, supporting my son with his difficulties) was strengthened by this. Sadly, the boyfriend I had on 11 Sept 2001 wanted to stay frightened. We split a year or so after that, because he thought I wasn't doing the right things (being scared and very insecure about everything). Your piece is going to make me think my life over again. Thank you. There might be more I could improve on than I already have now. And I hope it encourages more people to, at least, not give in to the terror. Because in your country and mine, that's still awfully needed.
But Mike in New York seemed to disagree. He wrote:
I had to read your comments on 9/11 a couple of times and then think a bit before responding. I live just across the East River from Ground Zero. As a software consultant in the financial industry, the World Trade Center was the hub of my world. You're welcome to move into a more isolated, less tempting target; actually it's your right to do so as well. Your call for this who don't desire to move or just wish to carry on, to re-evaluate and think about their decision is admirable, but...there are those who will never be able to move or achieve the level of self- sufficiency you desire. In fact, unless you're going to adopt the Amish model, you'll probably be more dependent on the rest of us than you realize. I know this because I considered a rural existence in the days following 9/11 -- I was unemployed and, yes, one of the first subscribers who you carried [with a sponsored renewal] (I later bought a number of subscriptions to pay it forward, and will do so again). I don't agree with most of the methods our government/politicians have chosen to handle the situation. But I do believe that 'carrying on' is the best response -- refusing to be cowed or changing my way of life. Failing to preserve my way of life is a victory for the enemy. I have introduced changes to my life to mitigate the risk, but I will always accept some level of risk; there will always be someone ready to throw a bomb, poison the water or perform some heinous act for their ideals. My relatives who died in the Auschwitz, Dachau and Birkenau, my ancestors who perished in the pogroms before that, understood this all too well.
I say Mike "seemed to" disagree since he apparently does at the start, but we're in total accord by the time he finishes: preserve your way of life; refuse to be cowed; do intelligent things to mitigate risk -- all a summary of what I said in my essay. But there's one spot of disagreement: "there are those who will never be able to move or achieve the level of self-sufficiency you desire. In fact, unless you're going to adopt the Amish model, you'll probably be more dependent on the rest of us than you realize."
To ensure I'm clear, I don't suggest (let alone desire) that anyone become totally "self-reliant", especially to the point of withdrawing from the national or world economy; I consider that as foolish as cowering in fear. My moving to a rural area wasn't a way to escape terrorists, but rather to realize my dream of, simply, living a more rural, more quiet life -- just a personal choice.
"Increasing your self-reliance" is simply another way of mitigating risk. Like what? We all live in vulnerable places, whether from earthquake (as when I lived in California), bad storms or floods (think Katrina), even snow storms blocking the roads for days (as where I live now). We have learned again and again we cannot expect government to race to our aid within a couple of hours after a disaster. That's not some sort of government "failure", it's simple reality. But do you have enough to live on for a minimum of three days? A stocked refrigerator may not be it: what if power goes out? What if your water is shut off? Now can you survive without leaving your house for three days? If not, I think you need to "increase your self-reliance".
What if, say, bird flu becomes pandemic in your area, and neighbors start dropping dead? There could be (well founded) panic. Supermarkets might be stripped of all supplies within hours. Their supply chains could be cut off for days, even weeks, as workers fall ill. Now can you survive? I'm working toward being sure I can answer "Yes" -- not just for 72 hours, but for weeks. I may not be as comfortable as I'd like, but my wife and I will have enough food and water to make it without help. Does this require a rural area? Absolutely not. The point, of course, is to think it out before you need it, since these risks are real for all of us, and could be sprung on us at a moment's notice. (How nice that hurricane-prone areas get so much notice! That's not the case with a terrorist attack or an earthquake.)
I suggested last week that we can use the new age of terrorism "as a wake-up call to reevaluate where we are and where we're going" -- to "turn evil into good." Not just as a defense against terrorism, but to just stop and think. Living a rural life was a decades long dream for me. Rather than just say "someday" forever, I used that stop-and-think time to say "let's take action" instead. And we did take action -- made plans -- and less than two years later we moved, even though it has been a financial stretch for the first few years. Your change may not be as dramatic. Indeed, you may decide no change is needed. But even making that decision is still far better than sitting in the dark in fear.
RSS