October 10, 2004
Habits of the Fall From the Canary in the Mine
By: Donna Marsh O’Connor, Mother of Vanessa Lang Langer, WTC Tower II, 93rd floor
I am posting this with permission, because it touched my heart, and because the message is so poignant and important.
It was October of 2000. My son, Jackson, my youngest child, just seven at the time was and still is a Yankee fan. In our family October has been for many seasons a time to celebrate. When you’re a Yankee fan the number of championship pennants and World Series victories is not a matter of guilt or shame. We take it as a part of the natural order. Baseball is a sport, a place and time where it is okay to root for one over the other, to wait for the mysteries of talent and physics to render one side victorious and the other demoralized, humble, and dejected. It is fine, within the context of most sporting events, not to root for the underdog, not to hope that kind principles prevail.
In my family our historic love for the Yankees was like our religion, except we put more time into the Yankees. My father and my mother’s father, separated in our families by deep cultural divisions (both were Jews, but one was a Russian Jew, both were men, only one was educated, both loved my mother, one not enough for the other) were only able to communicate on one level—the championship level, occupied when the fan becomes the team in victory.
In 2000, Jackson and I were so engaged in the hope of victory for the New York Yankees. He asked, though he had school in the morning, to stay up and watch the Yankees play. He did. They won game one of the series against the I don’t remember now team. But on the night of the second game, Jackson could not stay awake. The Yankees lost game two and Jackson was convinced that it was his fault. Determined to do his part, Jackson stayed awake to watch the Yankees play to victory in game three. Then again in game four. But, as it happens to exhausted little boys, sleep claimed him for game five. I watched, though, and rooted and swore (as I had taught him to do when he roots for his team and as I taught his sister, Vanessa and his brother, James to do as well) and the Yankees won game five and in the year 2000, the last year it mattered to us in the same way, the Yankees were the World Series Champions. I ran up to Jackson’s room and woke him by lifting his head gently in my hands and saying, “Jackie, we won. The Yankees are the World Champions.”
As a family we all were filled with joy: My daughter, Vanessa, considered the victory an early birthday present. She was twenty-eight, newly married, gleeful! Her birthday is October 31st. She came home to Syracuse to celebrate and gave Jackson a framed, black and white picture of the stadium. Over her computer she had a framed, black and white photo of the stadium and another one, same size, same shape, of the World Trade Center. She gave me a Gore/Lieberman yarmulke and we laughed over the relationship between the gifts. We talked about Gore and the done deal of the election. Vanessa and I were certain Gore will would win. Certain. The conviction of the Yankee fan certain. This country would never elect a George W. Bush.
In November of 2000, Jackson was determined to stay up. I watched in absolute delight, waiting for the moment Gore was granted Florida. And it happened. We all shrieked with joy. I went up to check on Jackson. He was asleep. I woke him, cupping his head in my hands. I hadn’t realized until that moment how much I knew the import of this election, how much responsibility I would have to take if Gore hadn’t won. I had done nothing to see that Bush was defeated except to go the polls. But it was done. “Jackie, we got Florida. It’s over. Gore is going to be the next president.”
The next morning I was gone before my husband put Jackson on the school bus. I wasn’t looking forward to the conversation we had to have when he got off the bus in the afternoon. But I waited for him in the falling afternoon sun. When he got off the bus, I put my arm around him. “Jack, there is some bad news…”
“I know, I heard,” he said.
“It may not be over,” I said, hoping still and part lying (because I knew the Bushes, what they were capable of). “Gore may still have a chance.”
I waited for his response. To see, in part, how he processed all that his father and I had told him about the democratic process, to see how much of the ideas of the campaign and of the parties he had internalized. He looked up at me and asked a chilling question: “Are the Yankees still the World Champions?”
I was so disturbed by that response that that night I shared with my husband my fears about America: “we will be at war,” I told him. His reassuring words: “He’s just a Republican. He won’t just go to war.” But I knew different. Call it instinct. Or insight. Only don’t call it intuition because it’s not magic. I knew George W. Bush would find a way to play with every one of his daddy’s toys. And what could be a more compelling toy that United States military?
I am an expert in reading habits of mind. I always thought that this made me a good parent, a compelling teacher, a kind (most of the time in my actions) person.
Now, it has made me an activist.
George W. Bush used my daughter’s name to have his war, a war he was determined to create even as I thought I had the luxury of encouraging my kids to root for their team, to celebrate their birthdays as if they would have many more. He has made the United States into the pinstripes, used our best tendencies (the love for our homeland) and our worst habits of mind (racism and polarization of good and evil as if those concepts are immediately recognizable in a complex world) to kill and maim innocent civilians in Iraq along with our own soldiers. He has blocked attempts by the families of 9/11 to get to the bottom of what happened over and over again by refusing to back the commission to investigate 9/11, by refusing to testify under oath once that commission was established, by refusing to (as did the French, the Spanish, the Germans, etc.) aid the families in their lawsuit to bankrupt terrorism as it sits in the lap of luxury in Saudi Arabia.
He has supported the rich, waged a rhetorical war of hate in this country against gay persons, and has proven himself ready, willing and able to enact racist practice here and throughout the world, racist practice with the most dire of consequences.
During the Democratic National Convention, the Yankees played at Fenway Park, hosted by the Boston Red Sox. On the night before Kerry was to speak, he appeared at the Red Sox game. The Yankees were losing. Jackson and I were watching the game. Jackson is now eleven. His brother, James is now seventeen. Jackson fears that next year James will leave him to go off to college. Jackson won’t be calling Vanessa this year after the season to root, to howl or for any other reason. Because Vanessa’s last Yankee victory was in the year 2000. I wonder, though I am frightened to raise this directly, if Jackson knows that college for James is not the frightening thought that I turn over each and every minute of my waking life. Jackson watched John Kerry cheering for the Red Sox and he got up and left the room. “Where are you going?” I asked him.
“I can’t stand to see it.”
“What?”
“I can’t watch him root for the Red Sox.”
“Jackson,” I told him, “then you stay and root for the Yankees. But you shouldn’t pray for them to win. Because if the Yankees win, they play tomorrow. If they lose, they play again tomorrow. Save your prayers for important things. Save your prayers for John Forbes Kerry.”
Habits of mind in all cultures are largely unconscious. That’s how language works. But democracy cannot function as long as our primary modes for making key choices are left to the habitual, to the slippery methods of taking sides perpetuated by the unconscious. I am afraid that those who know I am right are more afraid that Bush will lose (because there goes the team) than they are afraid for their own lives if he wins. Rooting and voting are different things. Never has it been so important for America to be engaged in conscious choice.
I am so certain of this: We must not think that this election is about taste, or feelings of nationalism or about our personal pride. We must not think this election is about whether or not we get to play again tomorrow. It is not about pinstripes or the flag.
This election is about whether or not we will survive and which human tendencies we will take, in full knowledge, into the future.
Posted by rowan at October 10, 2004 1:07 PM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |VOTE ! VOTE! VOTE !
Posted by: Bill Whitlatch at October 10, 2004 1:26 PMWe need to get this person writtinig campaingn speeches.
Posted by: Jack at October 10, 2004 3:53 PMA wonderful, well-written story with some beautifully layered themes. Ms. O'Connor has really laid it on the line. I had the same suspicions about a war, any war, under this President. His swagger and rigid, angry-dog posturing during the debates translates his bullying intent.
What a profound and personal story.
Posted by: Pamela at October 10, 2004 8:20 PMThis is without a doubt the most hysterical piece of demagoguery I've seen this race, and I've seen my fair share. Granted, it is not without some unintentional comedy. I actually burst out laughing at the "are they going to take away the Yankees victory" part. That is one sick parent.
Posted by: Bushrod Washington at October 11, 2004 12:26 AMA Paradox on The Planet:
Off subject, but NPR said this morning that by mid century the planet's population would be roughly 9.5 billion, and the increase will be mostly poor people. What a way to start out Monday morning. I picked up a local paper and it had a story about pampered pets - in the article it said that 31 billion is spent on pets in the US according to the American Pets Product Manufacturing Assc. We have pet groomers, pet clothing, pet psychologists, pet hotels,pet gifts for holidays, then there is food and medicine industry, and veternarians for pets. American pets eat more protein per annum than many people in 3rd world countries do.
Posted by: goesh at October 11, 2004 5:09 AMCare To Wager.....
That the author of this 'syrup' has wild horses killed to feed her/his cats?
Posted by: goesh at October 11, 2004 5:36 AMOne of the unfortunate trends of the internet is depersonalization. There is a tendency to interact in an environment of nameless, faceless entities rather than real people living in an all too real world. This is accentuated by the creation of internet personas and virtual world games.
Somehow, it is easier to let fly with off the wall comments and outright cruelty when dealing in this faceless, and often nameless, environment. After all, we can say what we want with no consequences whatsoever. We never have to deal with another person's reaction to our action. Courtesy and common compassion become easily discarded amenities. And it is so easy to forget (or ignore) that there is another person we are responding to.
Things that we would never say (or even consider saying) if the individual were standing in front of us are easy in this computer environment. Communication can become cavalier.
I ask that people communicate with each other without attack and diatribe. It is fine to disagree. It is fine to argue a point. It is not acceptable to be cavalierly hurtful.
Posted by: rowan at October 11, 2004 6:14 AMVenting and Pecking:
I 'tune in' to Slate at MSN every so often. I see the diatribes and ranting, and some insightful commentary, and I feel that people are venting more than anything. Perhaps these forums serve that purpose to an unknown extent. Perhaps by venting on the net, people are more able to be reasonable and rational in real life. This is, after all, nothing more than man-made plastic, metal, rubber, glass and electricity. We are attributing a reality to the net that simply does not exist - sort of reminds me of campaign promises made by career politicians. I would suggest that in real life most people in these forums, and not just this one, would get along quite well. There certainly is no data to the contrary. As we peck away at the keys, we are totally self centered and flattering our own egos. I would go so far as to suggest that by imbuing human attributes to computer screens, we are only feeding the corporate beast we so eschew.
Posted by: goesh at October 11, 2004 7:16 AMI am not referring to our relationship to the computer screen, nor am I trying to imbue the internet with personality. My concern is the person pressing the keys. You, me, and Donna Marsh O'Connor.
Since my previous comment apparently was not pointed enough, it was in response to the comments left by Bushrod and Goesh in response to what Donna had written.
Bushrod, would you really stand in front of a mother who had lost her child and say that what she said was a "hysterical piece of demagoguery"? I doubt it.
Likewise Goesh, I doubt that you would stand in front of that same mother and tell her "That the author of this 'syrup' has wild horses killed to feed her/his cats?" Not only is it rude, it is totally off the point.
I was not trying to make some philosophical point with my earlier comment. I was trying to tactfully address remarks that seemed totally oblivious to their potential impact.
Posted by: rowan at October 11, 2004 8:46 AMEditors Dilemma:
Each originator struggles with the same dilemma - what shall I allow and what shall I not allow on my website? To censor inhibits freedom of expression, to not censor allows the dissemination of what is objectionable from the values of the owner of the website, and even false.
I would suggest rowan that you delete me any time you feel the urge, or anyone else for that matter, and I will tell you why:
the people I/you/we seek to influence and the people we purport to be representing and attempting to uplift are simply not tuning in. Some have to work, some that work could care less what we have to say, some cannot afford computers, some can't afford the internet, some cannot understand the words we use, their context and implications, and millions upon millions on the planet do not even have electricity. So it doesn't really matter if you X out some commentary. If the need for cohesion is primary, by all means do so. If there is an equal need for diversity of opinion, use your own values and hit the X anyway if you want - there is nothing personal on a computer screen. This is not the first time the concept of Public is being grappled with. I would suggest that technology is not the Saviour of education and not the holy grail of transmitting knowledge that many of us want and wish it to be. Do you imagine the type of work people do that are here? How they look and dress? What they eat? Do you wonder about their spirituality? What their family is like? What their hobbies are? What they read? What there children look like? What music they listen to and what movies they watch? I don't. Can there be a public without this assessment of each other?
Dr. Wolf: I applaud you for your leadership, you make this old man want to return to school so that I may articulate my feelings without having to stoop to common insult. Civility is someting that seems to be in short supply these days, and countering objectionable behavior with more objectionaable behavior i.e. "talk" radio is not the answer. When I was in the military I learned you could practically say anything as long as you ended with "Sir", in church I was taught to respect the opinion and feelings of others, in school we were taught to disagree, but to disagree with respect and always allow the other person to have the dignity that is God given.
I could go on for some lenght about Christain Values, Boy Scouts, what it means to be American etc. etc. but I am not feeling well today so I will end here.
E enjoy your website and look forward to a continued exchange of ideas with civility.
Posted by: Bill Whitlatch at October 11, 2004 9:38 AMRowan, you have the patience of a saint.
I would suggest, to the provoke and distract (respectively) posters above, that reaction and censorship is what you seek. That way you can feel vindicated for your complete lack of humanity, sir.
This basic human disconnect is one of the saddest elements of our current mentality. What does it take to respect another's response to tragedy ... compassion, empathy, the ability to see another's perspective.
"That is one sick parent"--it seems unfathomable to me that any intelligent, empathetic human being can read the memoir above and come away with that angry cynicism ... but maybe I'm assuming too much.
Pamela,
Are you people for real? This feigned outrage is just too much. All I've done is noted that the article is clearly designed to jerk your emotional chains. The story is so contrived as to be laughable. IF it is true (and I sure hope it isn't), the woman implanting a bunch of anxiety and political hysteria into a child, and, yes, I do find that sick.
What's really going on here is a gradual build up to banning me. I know its coming. Dissenting views and diverse perspectives irritate the intolerant. The woman in the article, for instance, claims that Bush has waged a war of hate against gays simply because he espouses traditional moral values. He has never said anything hateful about gays at all. No such statements exist. Instead, this woman is transforms opposition to gay marriage into a "war of hatred against gays." Sorry, that is hysteria.
Posted by: Bushrod Washington at October 11, 2004 5:58 PMBushrod: I can'tspeak for Rowan, but I have been reading this site for sometime, I know of only one person that has been banned, and that was not for "dissenting views or diverse perspectives" ....the one incident was due to the author's bad language and disrespect for other opinions.
I enjoy an exhange of ideas; however if it were by website I would , and yes ..censor, if you will, bad language, or insulting behavior and like Judge Stewart said of Pornography "I can't describe it but I know when I see it"
Posted by: Bill Whitlatch at October 11, 2004 6:32 PMBushrod: I can'tspeak for Rowan, but I have been reading this site for sometime, I know of only one person that has been banned, and that was not for "dissenting views or diverse perspectives" ....the one incident was due to the author's bad language and disrespect for other opinions.
I enjoy an exhange of ideas; however if it were my website I would , and yes ..censor, if you will, bad language, or insulting behavior and like Judge Stewart said of Pornography "I can't describe it but I know when I see it"
Posted by: Bill Whitlatch at October 11, 2004 6:33 PMWell, I haven't used bad language, so I guess I'd be safe on your site.
Posted by: Bushrod Washington at October 11, 2004 7:01 PMMoving Beyond the Polarity (?):
Gemeinshcaft and Gelleschaft - we are echoing the campaigns - it shouldn't come down to that but I don't see any way to take the edges off the sharp borders of the polarity that manifests here. Bushrod, we have entered a Liberal camp and we have not come with swords sheathed - that much I do know. It will settle down after 11/2/04. That's the best I can do for now, well, I could give another verse of "Fleeing the Black Helicopters" I suppose...
SInce this is not a chat room I hesitate to respond...no I WOULD censor you, I think you are trying to get banned so you can brag about "getting to knee jerk liberals", besides I would only let people on my site that only used their real name (s). Using your real name shows much more conviction about your opinions.
Posted by: Bill Whitlatch at October 11, 2004 7:25 PMBill,
I don't see how my real name is going to change anything. But, okay, my name is Geoff. My favorite Supreme Court justice is Bushrod Washington, hence the name.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/11/biography
Well, I get occupied with working for a living and what happens? My goodness.
I try, to the best of my ability to maintain a dialogue on this site - not a debate. I think the world is too complex for debate. Dissenting opinions are welcome, and I have always allowed them. When I feel someone (or a discussion) is getting out of hand, I try to bring it back to the dialogue. After almost 2 years of operation, I believe I have only "censored" one person - deleted their comment. I have never banned/blocked anyone from the site - even deliberate provacatuers (you may remember the "meaty fly" exchange).
I do have a "point of view." I make no effort to hide it on this site. I also encourage discussion - even with those who disagree, and I imagine everyone has disagreed with me at some point. That's fine.
As I said in my earlier comment, I want us to all realize that we are real people with real feelings, real experiences, and I am sure very real life wounds. That becomes all to clear from time to time.
I would prefer to have us engage with each other. Censorship is a very serious issue with me, a philosophical issue, and a spiritual issue. If people want to be so abusive and disruptive that I would be moved to "censorship" why the heck bother with commenting on the site. I guess I don't understand that perverse undertaking. I don't go on right webs to start fights - though I do read them from time to time. I also feel confident with my knowledge base and analysis that I feel no need to "sharpen my arguements" on sites I fundamentally disagree with. I don't appreciate people using my site for that purpose, but that doesn't motivate me to censorship.
As I have said numerous times on Uncommon Thought, I believe in community. I believe in the Uncommon Thought Community. Communities do not always agree, but we have at least some points of shared confluence. For example, goesh, you participated in the "Call to Action" project.
The basis of community for me is respect. We may all disagree on different things, but my sense is that we all see similar problems and concerns. That too is a bond you know - even if we disagree on how to address it or the hope that things will change. My firm belief is that when we say it is all hopeless, we have lost. When we give up, we give in. For me, no matter how hopeless, I must continue to fight - there is too much at stake -an entire planet at stake - to just say "forget it."
So dissent is welcome - provocation, and attacks are not.
Posted by: rowan at October 11, 2004 10:44 PM"Pamela,
Are you people for real? "--Bushrod, I am only one person, and yes, I am surely for real. I'm not, nor have ever been the moderator of this forum. I have no power of, nor have I EVER sought for anyone to be "banned" from this site, and if you understood the general values that are furthered on Uncommon Thought, you would realize that censorship is not one of them. I have no trouble meeting ideological opposition head-on.
You say, "All I've done is noted that the article is clearly designed to jerk your emotional chains," but that isn't the tone of this statement: "This is without a doubt the most hysterical piece of demagoguery I've seen this race," which is only constructed to inflame, is a gross exaggeration (the MOST HYSTERICAL), and is actually quite ironic given your support of a GOP that is the epitome of demagoguery.
I would suggest that you have no way of knowing if this story is "contrived," yet all creative writing has an element of dramatic tension, even creative non-fiction. This story is MEANT to appeal to the emotions ... maybe that's the only real place left to appeal to in a country so fearful they will excuse lies, misrepresentations, death and aggression, even while they impeached a president for getting a blow job, to the tune of far more than they would spend on the 9/11 commission.
And as for you suggesting that I, or anyone else that frequents this board is "intolerant," is something you can't know based on our extremely limited interaction with me. From where I stand, I know next to nothing about you or what you believe in, and therefore would never make such a leap of judgment based on a superficial interaction. I like to say that the only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance, intolerance for a particular race, or a particular socio-economic group, or for those with different perspectives.
"The woman in the article, for instance, claims that Bush has waged a war of hate against gays simply because he espouses traditional moral values."--I'd surely like your definition of "traditional moral values" ... better yet, your definition of moral. And also your claim to why you have a clearer access to that as opposed of those who believe people have the right to love whomever they choose. Yours are morals based on an interpretation of a religious text, one which I've studied to some degree, incidentally, with no reference that applies in the New Testament. In a country with separation of church and state, in a country that guarantees civil rights to all, how could you justify that?
Pamela,
Don't confuse my defense of someone's right to espouse traditional moral values with my own values, which are neither traditional nor particularly moral.
"I'd surely like your definition of "traditional moral values" ... better yet, your definition of moral."
Morality is a framework encouraging some behavior as "good" and discouraging or punishing other behavior as "bad." There are lots of moral frameworks in this world, but not all of them are traditional. The notion that sodomy is "wrong" is part of the traditional moral framework, as is the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.
"And also your claim to why you have a clearer access to that as opposed of those who believe people have the right to love whomever they choose."
I never said I did. I merely said that there is a competing moral code in which homosexuality is "wrong." I respect both codes as competitors vying with each other in the marketplace of ideas. The author of this piece takes a, shall we say, more extreme and hateful stance toward one particular code, namely, the traditional one. She's a moral absolutist and she's picked her side. I'm a moral relativist, floating between them, enjoying the fruits of each. As I sit on the fence watching the battle, I can't help but notice that the same-sex advocates are far more bitter and hate filled than George Bush, at least in public. What goes on behind closed foreheads is anyone's guess.
Pamela,
Allow me to point out one more thing:
"I like to say that the only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance, intolerance for a particular race, or a particular socio-economic group, or for those with different perspectives."
Given that the vast majority of the world is intolerant, whether based on race, religion, or creed, intolerance of intolerance is very intolerant indeed.
Posted by: Bushrod Washington at October 12, 2004 12:35 AMI am closing this discussion. No further comments will be able to be posted.
It is going nowhere, and it is beyond divisive at this point.
If you have issues about me closing this discussion, please feel free to email me
Rowan Wolf - Uncommon Thought
Posted by: rowan at October 12, 2004 6:19 AM