"I was depressed by the ease with which a cheap point can get applause in the mouth of a really unscrupulous person. When I turned my head - which I tried not to do - it was like looking straight into the piggy eyes of fascism."
--Christopher Hitchens on his disgust in sharing the stage with a bloviating Baathist.
For those who might be interested, C-Span 2 will be broadcasting last night's debate at the following times:
Saturday, September 17 at 9:00 pm
Sunday, September 18 at 12:00 pm
Monday, September 19 at 5:30 am
I'm sure many of you will hit that Monday airing.
I don't always agree with Peggy Noonan's opinions or takes on policy issues, but is there anyone more able to capture certain impressions or emotions more accurately in words? I'm frankly not sure if there is. In today's Wall Street Journal, Noonan writes about Katrina and her impacts on the Bush presidency.
She introduces the piece with this description of her emotional reaction to 9/11, which resonates deeply with me. I couldn't think of a better way of describing it.
If you lived through 9/11 in New York you have nothing worthy of the city, its people, and the event worth saying that has not already been said, or, if you do opinions for a living and are relatively sane, has not been said by you. I will tell you only this. For something like four years 9/11 was for me a bruise in my heart. Someone would refer to it or I'd see a picture in a newspaper and I'd experience it as a pressing on the bruise, and I'd hurt. My feelings were immediately accessible and immediately there. This year for the first time it is not a bruise but a scar--jagged, less open to remedy, comparatively numb. My heart has healed and is ever altered.
Noonan goes on to write about the political impacts of Katrina on Bush. Her analysis of these issues seems to me to be very astute. She begins with a truism which is generally troubling, but is in fact a positive for Bush:
George W. Bush still enjoys a bright spot in terms of his foes. Liberal politicians continue to respond to the calamity with delighted anguish. Their critiques are attacks and their attacks are opportunistic. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi have come across as pols coolly using the suffering of others to club the opposition. As for liberal pundits, some of them have taken on the ways of mere party operatives: Every event exists to be used.
She then goes on to clearly and honestly enunciate how Bush failed to meet the challenges posed by Katrina:
But the White House made two big mistakes. The first was not to see that New Orleans early on was becoming a locus of civil unrest. When an American city descends into lawlessness, and as in this case that lawlessness hampers or prevents the rescue of innocents, you send in the 82nd Airborne. You move your troops. You impose and sustain order... Second, lame gazing out the window is mere spin, not action. Soulful looks from the plane are spin. The White House was spinning when it should have been acting. I do not agree with the critique that Mr. Bush should have done a speech with a lot of "emoting." This is the kind of thing said by clever people who think everyone else is dumb. Bill Clinton felt everyone's pain, and that is remembered as a joke.
The rest of the piece speaks to Bush's other failings in response to this crisis and of opportunities the president may have before him. Worth a read.
Well, not really. But as someone who attended the event, last night's debate between George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens was an interesting experience. You had two very polished debaters, a controversial topic (Iraq) which inflames deep passions on both sides, a fairly rabid crowd, glitterati onlookers such as the hysterical Katrina vanden Heuvel, metal detectors and a timekeeper named Elizabeth Wrigley Field (no, I'm not joking). So all of the key elements were in place for an incendiary event.
So did it meet expectations? Not quite. While both Galloway and Hitchens displayed strong rhetorical flourishes, I'm afraid that the discussion rather quickly descended into the sort of disengaged argumentation which has typified the debate since probably a month before the invasion of Iraq. Both sides, deeply entrenched in their positions, simply talk past one another and there is precious little engagement. And once that happens, personal attacks and raw emotions surface. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised. After all, this has unfortunately been my personal experience in debating Iraq, as well. It almost doesn't pay to discuss one of the most important issues of the day because it will ultimately turn into an ugly shouting match.
And so it was with Galloway-Hitchens. Hitchens spoke first and methodically laid out a strong, logical case for the war. Galloway countered with a meandering succession of cheap, well-worn broadsides which seemed a desperate attempt to play to the passions of the crowd. And thus, the devolution began.
My hopes for deeper engagement on substance went largely unrealized, I believe, because of the uncompromising positions of the participants as well as the contrast in their styles. And indeed it was an odd pairing. Hitchens is a more logical, understated and cerebral speaker. He organizes facts, builds an argument and presents strong conclusions. Galloway, on the other hand, is a fiery orator who peppers his opponents with staccato sound bites and petty insults. This campaign rally style certainly whips the crowd into a frenzy but does precious little to advance the dialogue on substance. Sure, it sounds great. But where's the beef? It was probably at about the point where Galloway argued that 9/11 didn't "come out of a clear blue sky, but out of a swamp of hatred created by us" that the "debate" for all intents and purposes was over. To that point, Hitchens had tried to engage his opponent on key points, even going so far as to organize Galloway's arguments relative to his own for the crowd. But once the Ward Churchill "chickens coming home to roost" argument had been advanced, I think Hitchens sort of threw up his hands in realization that the politician Galloway was content to simply win the popularity contest.
Interestingly, however, once things descended to that level I found Galloway's argumentation to be more compelling. Not convincing, but compelling. Perhaps this was because Hitchens had switched off and was now playing on Galloway's turf; turf with which he is not as familiar as George. But even so, when one looks at the substantive issues, Hitchens had won the debate once Galloway's first fifteen minutes were up. Galloway did precious little in the way of attacking Hitchens' case and didn't even do a good job of presenting the Unhinged Left's talking points. Unless you consider "...Hitchens, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neocon gang..." and "The US and UK are the biggest rogue states in the world" to be legitimate support of the anti-war case, then you were really left to ask whether Galloway is capable of preaching to anyone other than his own choir.
Although I was somewhat disappointed with the debate itself, as an event it was a very interesting thing to see and I'll be blogging more about it intermittently throughout the day.
We're here now. Finally. Both of us, and the dogs too.
Suffice to say that my getting here on Saturday was an adventure to say the least. I was leaving Phoenix at 11 AM to meet family in OC for an evening of fun to celebrate my wife's birthday. All was well 'til Mapquest sent me on a wild goose-chase for a highway interchange that, to the best of my knowledge, does not exist. Took the next-best thing and ended up going south on the 215 only to realize that I was way too far inland and south to be getting where I wanted to go ("I'm how far from Temecula!?").
It all sorted out, and the evening was a good time so no problems there. Anyway...
Monday was my wife's actual birthday so my in-laws treated us to dinner...way out in the middle of nowhere, also known as Casmalia, at The Hitching Post. THP is a steak joint that, according to it's history, doesn't appear to have changed much since the 1950's. Which is fine; it was the best Sirloin I think I've ever had.
Yesterday brought the job hunt to the top of the agenda. I got the whirlwind tour of Santa Barbara County: down to SB for an appt. around 11:30 A.M., from there another in Los Olivos and the wine country NE of Santa Ynez.
After a brief detour that involved unpacking at the house, it was off to Santa Maria for the most enjoyable and hopefully, ultimately most productive of the days efforts.
I figure at this rate I'll have most of the county down fairly quick...say a month or so of driving through the hills, re-learning how to drive canyon roads again while following the map and trying not to miss the many one-block-long, sneeze-and-you-miss-em towns that litter the countryside.
As our regular readers know, we've been trying to encourage more comments and debate from our audience. We believe that audience involvement and interaction is a vital part of evolving My Dogs into an informative and entertaining destination for our readers. However, as more people participate we feel it is necessary to enunciate a clear policy on comments to insure that this remains a place for meaningful dialogue.
The policy is fairly simple and straightforward. All comments are welcome, regardless of point of view. However, we will not tolerate abusive posts of any kind, whether directed at us or other posters. And we retain complete discretion as to how "abusive" is defined. As a result, we will emply a two-strike policy on comments. Upon a first violation, we will simply delete the comment in question and issue a warning to the offender. A second abusive post will result in an IP ban for the offender which will prevent him / her from making futher comments.
I don't anticipate any problems, but we want to be clear from the outset that this blog should be a source for lively and healthy debate rather than a source of negativity and personal attack. It was largely upon that basis that the blog was founded.
So we encourage everyone to post comments. And certainly feel free to tell us what you like or don't like. In our effort to improve the quality of our content, we will entertain all reasonable requests. In the meantime, keep on the lookout for some big changes in the coming weeks. We've got some things planned which we think (and hope) you will enjoy.
-The Management.
Well tonight's the big night. No, really it is. I'm sure of it.
George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens will be debating Iraq tonight at Baruch College, and your intrepid reporter will be there in one of the front rows. Which means I'll be taking a trash bag, because I expect the intellectual pugilism to be something akin to sitting in the front rows at a Gallagher performance (I've been waiting for months to make a Gallagher reference).
In any case, Hitchens stokes the pre-debate fires in Slate. Here are a couple of snippets to give you a sense as to where this might be headed.
Thus, and thanks in part to Eve and Jane[Fonda], the "anti-war" movement has as its new star a man who is openly pro-war, but openly on the other side. A man who supported the previous oppressors of the region—the Soviet army in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq—who supports its current oppressors—Bashar Assad and his Lebanese proxies—and who still has time to endorse its potential future tyrants in the shape of the jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere. Galloway began his political life as a fifth-rate apologist for the Soviet Union, but he has now diversified into being an apologist for Stalinism, for fascism, and for jihadism all at once! All this, and Jane, too. One's cup runs over.
But it's not just on the issues where one finds the enmity. It's personal. Hitchens continues
Galloway's preferred style is that of vulgar ad hominem insult, usually uttered while a rather gaunt crew of minders stands around him. I have a thick skin and a broad back and no bodyguards. He says that I am an ex-Trotskyist (true), a "popinjay" (true enough, since its original Webster's definition means a target for arrows and shots), and that I cannot hold a drink (here I must protest). In a recent interview he made opprobrious remarks about the state of my midriff, which I will confess has—as P.G. Wodehouse himself once phrased it—"slipped down to the mezzanine floor." In reply I do not wish to stoop. Those of us who revere the vagina are committed to defend it against the very idea that it is a mouth or has teeth. Study the photographs of Galloway from Syrian state television, however, and you will see how unwise and incautious it is for such a hideous person to resort to personal remarks. Unkind nature, which could have made a perfectly good butt out of his face, has spoiled the whole effect by taking an asshole and studding it with ill-brushed fangs.
Yeah, this is going to be brutal. You can listen tonight at 7PM EDT here.
Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is one of my least favorite politicians. And because he is a conservative and in such a powerful position, it drives me crazy because he gets so much air-time. And that's not to mention all of the scandal surrounding him. So I really do wish he would just go away.
But when I saw this article in the Washington Times this morning, I nearly lost it. DeLay, responding to questions about the budget in the wake of emergency spending measures for Katrina, had the temerity to say
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing. Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."
What kind of crack is this guy smoking? Does anyone really believe that the government is operating at peak efficiency? Yeah, I guess we saw that in its response to the hurricane. And I think we're seeing it in every article we read about record budget deficits.
If there's one thing that George Bush and the current crop of Republicans are not, it's fiscal conservatives. They've become what any entrenched majority ultimately becomes: pork-addicted pols who are ultimately more concerned about patronage and sustaining their grip on power than leaders focused on what is best for the country. And the DeLay regime is emblematic of the whole thing. One need only look at the recently passed Energy and Transportation bills, which DeLay presided over, for evidence.
When faced with an emergency spending imperative, like hurricane relief, our leaders should be tightening their belts elsewhere. While the cuts might be difficult or politically challenging, we count on our leaders to make such tough decisions. But the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress have demonstrated a maddening penchant for not setting priorities and making tough choices. In the final analysis they basically fund everything and then add a nice layer of cream on top. Unfortunately, the taxpayers will pay the price down the line.
During the course of the Bush Administration we have heard more about Think Tanks than at any point I can remember. Democrats, Unhinged Leftists and Conspiracy Theorists (yes, I do distinguish between the latter two) have spent a pretty fair amount of time deriding the influence of these research houses. In particular, it has been said that Think Tanks have been part of an overall Republican political strategy and that they are responsible for helping elect George W. Bush. Moreover, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has been charged with unleashing an evil neoconservative cabal on our government which sought to foment a war with Iraq, secure more oil supplies and consolidate American hegemonic dominion over the planet. AEI , Heritage and Cato are all called shills for Bush, even though the record suggests that there have been more than a few differences of opinion with the White House.
Paradoxically, in the aftermath of the 2004 election one of the things Democrats have identified as a weakness in their political infrastructure is a 'think tank gap.' And a necessary step in regaining the White House is...developing more, liberal Think Tanks. Billionaire Bush-hater George Soros is heavily involved in this process. Of course, as I pointed out in that post, the Dems already had quite a few. So it's clear where this is all headed: A Think Tank arms race!
Daniel Drezner speaks to the subject of the Think Tank race and describes its evolution. Basically, the Think Tank as we know it is disappearing. The new Think Tank culture will be one of serving as a communications arm to the political parties.
However, several participants enmeshed in the think tank culture argued that this wasn't the direction thik tanks were going. Instead, several of them -- and Heritage, Cato and the Center for American Progress were the leading examples -- had switched their focus from churning out deep policy proposals in favor of op-eds. Indeed, the staffing at many think tanks had shifted, with the communications and PR sides receiving a much larger share of the pie relative to the policy wonks.
Anyone who knows anything about organizations recognizes that all bureaucracies like to use quantifiable metrics, and surely op-eds would be one example. And it would be insane to argue that think tanks should forswear the op-ed. But the overall point was that the cost of this change in direction for think tanks was fewer in-depth monographs or books, and more output devoted to the 24-hour news cycle. Some would like this trend to accelerate -- one of Matt Yglesias' themes is that think tanks need to blog more.
As I've said before, there is plenty of blame to go around when criticizing the government's response to Katrina. Andrew Sullivan synthesizes what was happening on the Federal level. And it's not good.
According to Sen. David Vitter, a Republican ally of Bush's, the meeting came to a head when Mayor Nagin blew up during a fraught discussion of "who's in charge?" Nagin slammed his hand down on the table and told Bush, "We just need to cut through this and do what it takes to have a more-controlled command structure. If that means federalizing it, let's do it."
It took a city mayor to tell the president to do his job. But Blanco balked. And Bush dithered, while more lives were lost. When you get a senior Bush aide describing the White House bunker as "strangely surreal and almost detached," you know we have a problem.
Agreed. And as Andrew properly points out, what does this say about homeland security as it relates to terrorism and the war in Iraq?
In this polarized moment in history we hear an awful lot of false distinctions being drawn.
My personal favorite is "I oppose the war, but support the troops." This is Michael Moore's untenable position, I think, if you've seen F 9/11. As if one could oppose a mission but support the instruments of its execution! So given that physical and logical impossibility, what this translates to is "I hope no Americans die." OK, well, I supported the war and I can honestly say I hoped that no Iraqis would die. So where does that leave us? Nowhere. It's rhetorical air spouted by those who recognize the frailty of their own position.
Another one we hear is "I don't hate America. I love America. I just hate its policies." I often hear this one from the folks who talk about all the questioning of patriotism that goes on. (By the way, where IS all that commentary? All that patriotism questioning? I see some, but not very much). OxBlog provides us with some thoughts on this strawman using this quote as a teaser:
There is nothing patriotic about hating your country or pretending that you can love your country but despise your Government.
I may be the only person around these parts who is interested in this upcoming debate on the Iraq War. But if any of you are interested in a debate between a communist-Baathist Oil-for-Food exploiter and socialist-cum neocon on the merits of America's invasion of Iraq, then I've got good news for you.
You can listen to the debate live on Wednesday night at 7pm EDT. It also appears that you can download the debate as a Podcast or listen at a later date. It would be great if those of you with an interest were able to listen, because
1. It should be a pretty darn good debate; pitting two knowledgeable, eloquent and passionate speakers against one another. They also happen to have a visceral dislike for one another and one is eminently more intellectually honest than the other, but that's just the showbiz aspect. They also both happen to be Brits, so this is going to be like an afternoon at Speaker's Corner.
2. You'd be able to test my skills and balance as a reporter.
3. It might serve to stir some interesting debate in the comments section. Frankly, I'd like to shake things up here a little and one way to do it is to get our readers more involved. I did a call for comments last month and while we've seen some more posts, we'd like to get more and from more corners.
In any case, hope you can check it out and that you'll provide your thoughts on the debate.
Just doing a little test on site traffic. If you don't know what I'm talking about, there's no hidden meaning. You haven't missed anything.
I had hoped to write an uplifting post about the San Diego Chargers' season on Sunday. But I had to jump on a train out to Ronkonkama (LonG IIIsland) to meet loyal reader and peerless commenter Joey for the Chargers-Cowboys game. So before I could write my hopeful puff-piece, my guys suffered an opening-day defeat to Dallas, 28-24. At least I got some BBQ, though.
Last year's 12-4 record and playoff visit has combined with the addition of some quality talent at key positions to fuel the hopes of all Boltheads for 2005. It'll be a tough road, though, as the Chargers tackle the NFL's toughest schedule this year. And yesterday's game looked like a winnable one. But while the game was close and the Chargers were in position to win at the end, dumb penalties on defense, a shanked punt, an inexplicable failure to utilize LaDainian Tomlinson more in the final quarter, and the suspension of Antonio Gates conspired to seal the Bolts' fate. We're just going to have to make it up somewhere else down the line against a Philly, New England, Pittsburgh or the like. Tough, but this talented team can do it.
Oh yeah, and the Padres are still in first in the NL West with a .500 record. Meh.
David's Medienkritik exposes our German friends again. Stern, one of the most popular weeklies in Germany, claims
The History of the USA: No nation has ever dominated the globe like the USA. And its people could care less about the rest of humanity."
Ray takes them to task with some fact-based argumentation.
Honestly, I sometimes wonder why we even bother. And of course it raises the question why so many people in this country even care what our "allies" think.
neo-neocon is an interesting blog which I peruse from time to time. The author is a lifelong Democrat whose views on politics and especially foreign policy changed dramatically on 9/11. I suspect she represents a significant segment of the political spectrum, also reflected in groups like the nascent Truman Project. One thing I really like about her is that she's an extremely thoughtful writer, not merely responding to the terrorist attacks on a purely knee-jerk basis. She manages to weave together cogent positions on the basis of both rational analysis and emotion. She's definitely worth a read.
Yesterday, she began a series explaining how her orientation changed in response to 9/11. I'll link Part A to get you started over there. Hopefully you'll enjoy following the series as it evolves. I know I will.
Here's something to nibble on. Apparently in preparation for their big debate over Iraq on Wednesday, Christopher Hitchens has compiled a series of quotes from George Galloway. The most troubling are those which show an unhealthy fealty for Saddam. Like ones that take it into "manfriend" territory. But then there's the humorous ones like this to just to get you in the spirit:
...Yes, I did support the Soviet Union and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the greatest catastrophe of my life...If there was a Soviet Union today we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging the globe. (The Guardian, 9.06.02)
Tasty. Love this guy.
Last night when I came home, I re-read my 9/11 post from yesterday and wasn't quite pleased with the way I concluded it. So I made some revisions which may do a better job of capturing my feelings on the subject. Just an FYI for those who want to read something here but find a dearth of activity over the next few days.
over the next couple of days. Quite a bit to do in the real world, so as I'm able I'll weigh-in. Hopefully, Dr. Paul is in a better position to contribute these days. Be sure to tune in on Thursday for an analysis of Wednesday's Galloway-Hitchens tilt. I expect nothing less than haymakers.
This has been the view out of my living room window for the last several nights. Well, almost. This picture is taken from the southwest of Manhattan. My view is from the southeast. But for all intents and purposes, it is has been my view.
I must say that when I first observed its return to the skyline a few nights ago, I felt strangely comforted. I love these lights. It would be my greatest desire for the memorial honoring the victims of 9/11 to make these lights a permanent fixture of the Manhattan night skyline. But alas, the tremendous amount of electricity needed to power them is deemed wasteful. Probably right. But even so. I love them.
They are beautiful. They are awe-inspiring. Unless you see them in person, you cannot possibly comprehend how far they shine into the night sky. To give you some sense, if you stand in lower Manhattan with your back turned to their source, you can see them in the sky just in front of your face. In an interesting optical effect, they bend with the curvature of the earth. Like beams from a flashlight, if you look closely, you can see them full of dust-debris in the air. They are mesmerizing. I cannot take my eyes off of them. They are unique. They are silently poignant-- a gentle reminder of the hell that shattered New York and the country on 9/11. They are haunting; a ghostly hint of iconic buildings which no longer grace our skyline. They are clearly a tribute to those who lost their lives that day. These lights reach out to them in the heavens, serving as a palpably imperceptible link between those departed and those left behind.
One of the designers of the tribute shares his thoughts on them here.
I have a special relationship with these lights. This is my third year of commemorating the 9/11 attacks from Brooklyn. And in both the first and second years over here, something very strange happened in the earliest hours of Sept. 11. My first year, I was up late working on something. Couldn't concentrate. Decided to take a quick walk around 12:30 AM. As I stepped out onto the street, I immediately perceived the lights. I decided to walk toward the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, which is a long stretch of pathway that overhangs the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and provides dramatic views of lower Manhattan and the Brooklyn Bridge. About a 10 minute walk. When I arrived over there, I was very surprised to see dozens of people wandering around. Usually, at that time of night not many folks are out there. It's hard to explain, but so many of these people seemed distracted. Deep in thought. Restless. I got the strange sense that they had all been drawn there like me. Kind of like Richard Dreyfus being drawn to Devil's Tower in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. A couple of people shuffling along in pajama bottoms and slippers. A young couple huddled together staring at the lights from a bench. Some people taking pictures. A group with a telescope. Some people lighting candles. But mostly it was just strangers whispering to one another in the dark. Somber, reflective silence outlined by the sound of warm, rushing air and humming tires on the Expressway below. I stayed at the Promenade for about two hours. Looking at the lights. Remembering 9/11 and the victims. Thinking about New York and perceiving its beauty at night. Thinking about my time in New York and how different life has been here since the events of that day. Thinking about my future and career. Experiencing a severe episode of melancholy. Of something lost. Of the hope in renewal. Personally and as part of a community.
Last year, I was ensconsed in a sound sleep at 3am on Sept. 11. Suddenly, I sat straight up in bed. Wide awake. I got up, kind of stirred around the apartment with certainty in the fact that I wouldn't be able to get back to sleep. With no idea about what to do, and having quickly dismissed the notion of cleaning the kitchen or something, I peered out my front window and saw the lights again. I immediately decided to return to the Promenade. Upon my arrival, I was surprised to see a repeat of the scene I had encountered the year before. Same shuffling, distracted, reflective, restless people. Were they unable to sleep like me? What had drawn them here at 3am? Had they lost loved ones? Were they just returning from a night on the town? Did they live in the neighborhood or had they come from afar? Soon I entered the familiar and comforting meditative melancholy of the year before. As in the previous year, tears welled as I was overcome with emotion. An hour or so later, I returned home and went to sleep. The interludes on the Promenade seem to calm a restless spirit. My restless spirit, anyway.
Last night, I planned to go. I decided I would head over to the Promenade around midnight. But for some reason this year, they didn't turn on the lights the night before the anniversary. Strange, because they had been on all week. But I went to Brooklyn Heights anyway. Sure enough, I encountered this same crowd, even though the lights were not on. I again sat and thought and walked and thought some more. Eventually I found my way home and crawled into bed.
Four years later, we New Yorkers still feel it. With or without the lights. Sure the rest of the country feels it, too. But we feel it in our own way. In a way unlike anything I have ever experienced and I wasn't even in the country the day it happened. But I can attest to the way we have responded on a psychic level. And New York has never been the same. We all bear a scar that is hard to quantify or express. This is a fumbling example, but in a way which allowed a group of Yuppie-type friends sitting around a dinner table to talk about the nightmares they continued to have nearly a year after the event. That they had them, was perhaps not so surprising. But that they all volunteered them...one after another....in monotone voices and with unfocused eyes seemed rather unique. Haunting is the only way to describe it. And though such conversations rarely take place anymore, we New Yorkers still feel it. And the lights draw us out in the middle of the night to confront it.
It's actually kind of odd how I even came to call myself a New Yorker. Though I've lived here for six years, it took the 9/11 attacks to galvanize my love for this city and to make me really feel part of it. To that point, I had always felt like a long-term tourist. But I'm not. No matter where I go or what I do, I will always be a New Yorker. Because I still feel it. And I believe I always will.
And as they are for all restless, sleepless New Yorkers, the lights are mine. They will always be mine.
Who Links Here
