Monday, September 12, 2011

No room for firemen at World Trade Center 10 years later...

Mark Steyn on Mayor Bloomberg's exclusion of firemen (and clergy) from the ceremonies at Ground Zero:

What’s missing from these commemorations?
Firemen?
Oh, please... As Mayor Bloomberg’s office has patiently explained, there’s “not enough room” at the official Ground Zero commemoration to accommodate any firemen...
On a day when all the fancypants money-no-object federal acronyms comprehensively failed — CIA, FBI, FAA, INS — the only bit of government that worked was the low-level unglamorous municipal government represented by the Fire Department of New York. When they arrived at the World Trade Center the air was thick with falling bodies — ordinary men and women trapped on high floors above where the planes had hit, who chose to spend their last seconds in one last gulp of open air rather than die in an inferno of jet fuel...

The podium accommodates plenty of New York pols, no doubt. Dignitaries by the busload. But they can't fit in a few firemen, police officers, EMS folks. No room for the first responders.


“Which is kind of weird,” wrote the Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle, “since 343 of them managed to fit into the exact same space ten years ago.”

29 comments:

  1. I watched the ceremonies on television. There seemed to be plenty of first responders in the ceremony and in attendance, but hey, why let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to use 9-11 to disparage your fellow Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @anon:

    Bloomberg publicly announced that first responders would not be on the podium as a part of the ceremony.

    I didn't watch the ceremony, but I take Bloomberg at his word.

    So far I see no evidence that he broke his word.

    If it turns out that he did, fine. But why would he announce the exclusion of first responders and clergy in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why should clergy be on the podium at all in a civil ceremony? Have your own religious ceremonies without state sanction. There's no reason to include any clergy in the observance.

    But the real reason first responders were not on the podium is that the podium was mostly occupied by members of the victim's families. Rather than "dignitaries by the busload" there were a tiny number of "pols" and a stage dominated by people who lost loved ones. But saying "first responders and clergy were left off the podium to accommodate large numbers of bereaved individuals" doesn't fit your chosen narrative, so you didn't bother to do any research before you began shrieking. As usual, facts aren't your strong suit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @anon:

    [Have your own religious ceremonies without state sanction. There's no reason to include any clergy in the observance.]

    That sort of gets to the heart of it, doesn't it? You're an anti-Christian bigot, and you want Christiantity expunged from public life.

    There will be a push back.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're an anti-Christian bigot, and you want Christiantity expunged from public life.

    I said nothing about Christianity. I said there's no reason to include clergy in a secular event. That includes Christian clergy, but also authorities from other faiths.

    It is an indication of the divisive nature of your thinking that you singled out "Christians", since it is now clear that in your opinion the only clergy who should have been included were Christian ones. Which has the effect if trampling on the rights of members of every other faith, and those who are members of no faith.

    By all means, keep shrieking. You are losing this cultural conflict and every time you squeal and gibber about how you need to prop up your dying cult with state approval it just drives more people away from your faith.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @anon:

    [I said nothing about Christianity. I said there's no reason to include clergy in a secular event. That includes Christian clergy, but also authorities from other faiths.]

    This is all about Christianity. Atheists are bootlickers for other faiths. how many Muslim websites have you commented on?

    [it is now clear that in your opinion the only clergy who should have been included were Christian ones. Which has the effect if trampling on the rights of members of every other faith, and those who are members of no faith.]

    Jewish too, and any other except Muslim. I would not permit Muslim clergy at the event. The murders were committed in the name of Islam, and including Muslim clergy is an affront. That does not mean that I blame Muslims as a group, but I do feel that simple decency requires that they play no role in the ceremony.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Mike,
    It seems like an unforgivable gesture, as far as the FD goes. It SHOULD be political suicide, but I am not so sure in today's looney environment.
    As to the clergy, they and their facilities, funds, and contacts were all welcome after the attack. As were the numerous religious based charities that rushed to help. Not so much now. Disgraceful.

    @Anon,
    There was need to include clergy and religious charity in the aftermath of the attack. There was need for clergy among the victims and their families, also. Consequently, there is need to recognize that outreach by those same religious groups at a memorial service.
    To exclude representatives from these groups is needless pandering to a tiny and selfish minority.
    There is NO/ZERO excuse for the firemen.
    You inability to reason from this perspective lends credence to Dr Egnor's assertion on your motives for objecting to the presence of clergy.
    As does your little tirade about 'cultural conflict' (class struggle maybe, Comrade?) a 'dying cult'.
    So to encapsulate your answer:
    'No, I am not an anti-Christian bigot. I am intolerant of ANY presence in a memorial event. Further, I simply view any defence of the rights of Christians as need to prop up your divisive dying cult that is pushing people away'.
    Okay. Sure thing, comrade.
    Anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  8. @anon:

    [I said there's no reason to include clergy in a secular event.]

    The event has secular and religious significance. Your narrow view is not the view of most other people.

    You're a fringe, and I want to keep it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ anon:

    crusadeRes brings up an excellent point. The services of first responders and clergy are always sought in the crisis, but you want to cast them aside after they've sacrificed so much.

    One of the first people to die on the ground at the WTC was Fr. Judge, a Catholic priest for the FDNY. I have a very close friend (a Lutheran pastor)who spent months with the workers at the site.

    The clergy and first responders were running into the building. Which was do you think the godless ran?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Which way do you think the godless ran? Based on what evidence?

    Oops, I almost forgot that ideology trumps evidence in your deluded mind.

    Let me remind you that the 9/11 perpetrators were acting in the name of the same fictional "Abrahamic" god that you worship. The sick deluded fucks were led to believe by their clergy that their reward would be in heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @troy:


    [Let me remind you that the 9/11 perpetrators were acting in the name of the same fictional "Abrahamic" god that you worship.]

    Nope. Learn some theology.

    [The sick deluded fucks were led to believe by their clergy that their reward would be in heaven.]

    Christians look to heaven as well. We accept self-sacrifice, personal suffering, non-violence, and love for neighbor as part of that hope.

    Sound like Islam to you?

    The only thing that has stood between Islam and world domination in 1400 years has been Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Christians look to heaven as well. We accept self-sacrifice, personal suffering, non-violence, and love for neighbor as part of that hope.

    Sound like Islam to you?


    Sounds exactly like Islam to me. Ask any Muslim whether they accept the same stuff. The answer will be yes.

    I regard Islam as even more retarded and dangerous than Christianity, but Muslims might disagree, seeing as the Christian George W Bush saw fit to invade Iraq based on lies and cause enormous suffering of millions of people. The suffering caused by the 9/11 attack pales in comparison.

    The only thing that has stood between Islam and world domination in 1400 years has been Christianity.

    Maybe. Who knows what would have happened if the battle at Poitiers/Tours had been lost by the Christians. Perhaps there would have been a Muslim "enlightment" and things would be pretty much the same. Or not. Nobody knows although I think it's fun to speculate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jewish too, and any other except Muslim. I would not permit Muslim clergy at the event. The murders were committed in the name of Islam, and including Muslim clergy is an affront.

    In other words, just as I pointed out earlier, you would use religion to divide people. Keep shrieking. It just makes it that much clearer that you are losing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nope. Learn some theology.

    Do you know anything about Islam? It explicitly claims to bean updated version of the faith you adhere to.

    ReplyDelete
  15. how many Muslim websites have you commented on?

    A couple dozen. Their pronouncements make no more (or less) sense than yours. Your point?

    ReplyDelete
  16. @troy:

    [Sounds exactly like Islam to me. Ask any Muslim whether they accept the same stuff. The answer will be yes.]

    Yes. But that would be a lie.

    [I regard Islam as even more retarded and dangerous than Christianity,]

    I regard atheism as even more retarded and dangerous than Islam. Christianity isn't retarded or dangerous.

    [but Muslims might disagree,]

    Duh.

    [seeing as the Christian George W Bush saw fit to invade Iraq based on lies]

    A mistake is not a lie. I oppose the Iraq war, but it was a mistake, not a lie.

    [and cause enormous suffering of millions of people.]

    Millions of people were already suffering. Saddam killed well over a million by war, executions, torture. We libertated Iraq. I just don't think that it was worth our blood and treasure.

    [The suffering caused by the 9/11 attack pales in comparison.} Iraqis are better off without Saddam. We are not better off after 9-11.

    [Who knows what would have happened if the battle at Poitiers/Tours had been lost by the Christians.]

    Islam would have conquered most of Europe.

    [Perhaps there would have been a Muslim "enlightment" and things would be pretty much the same.]

    Why so theoretical? Islam has been large and powerful in many parts of the world for 1400 years. Where's the enlightenment?

    [Or not. Nobody knows although I think it's fun to speculate.]

    If Islam had conquered Christendom, we'd be writing this on parchment. Science, literature, art, political freedom would be non-existent.

    But you really don't care about all that. Your issue is hatred of Christianity, and you will excuse anything if it advances the cause of bashing Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @anon:

    [how many Muslim websites have you commented on?
    A couple dozen. Their pronouncements make no more (or less) sense than yours. Your point?]

    I don't believe you.

    Try this: comment under your real name here, and make critical comments on Muslim blogs (insulting Allah as you do God) under your own name. Impress me by giving enough personal info so that you can be identified.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The event has secular and religious significance.

    If the event is religious in nature, then the government has no business putting it on. That may be a little hard for you to understand, given your love of trying to get state sanction for your dwindling cult.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't believe you.

    Who cares? You're a small man with a small fictional God that you desperately hope to prop up by invoking the power of government since when left to their own devices people are deserting your cult in droves.

    ReplyDelete
  20. [Sounds exactly like Islam to me. Ask any Muslim whether they accept the same stuff. The answer will be yes.]

    Yes. But that would be a lie.


    No it wouldn't. Most people feel that way regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

    [I regard Islam as even more retarded and dangerous than Christianity,]

    I regard atheism as even more retarded and dangerous than Islam. Christianity isn't retarded or dangerous.


    Christianity is very retarded and dangerous. It adheres to demonstrably false beliefs and makes many lives unnecessarily miserable.

    [seeing as the Christian George W Bush saw fit to invade Iraq based on lies]

    A mistake is not a lie. I oppose the Iraq war, but it was a mistake, not a lie.


    Yes it was a lie. They knew there were no WMD. They knew that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet they destroyed many lives based on lies.

    [The suffering caused by the 9/11 attack pales in comparison.} Iraqis are better off without Saddam. We are not better off after 9-11.

    Are the Iraqis really better off? One dictatorship has been replaced by another. Iran has major influence now. By what measure can you justify your claim? You're just lying because you want to protect your Christian buddies.

    [Who knows what would have happened if the battle at Poitiers/Tours had been lost by the Christians.]

    Islam would have conquered most of Europe.


    Or maybe not.

    If Islam had conquered Christendom, we'd be writing this on parchment. Science, literature, art, political freedom would be non-existent.

    But you really don't care about all that. Your issue is hatred of Christianity, and you will excuse anything if it advances the cause of bashing Christianity.


    Not at all. I despise all religions because they threaten liberty and the advancement of humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I regard atheism as even more retarded and dangerous than Islam. Christianity isn't retarded or dangerous."

    My irony meter just broke. Again.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Troy / anon etc,
    Your naked hatred of Christianity and religion is apparent for all to see. Your pretences of science and reason are transparent fiction, as evidenced by what you have stated here.
    You do nothing to address the assertions of Dr Egnor or myself and add nothing to the conversation. Profanity and insults seem to be the total of your philosophy.
    The only thing more pathetic than your jealous rants against God is the revisionist garbage you pass off as history. But why should that surprise me? After all you lot twist logic and science all day long.
    Monist idiots.
    Climb out of the cave.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think these people just think they are smarter than every one else and just don't give a shit about New York or 911. I don't think they care what people want.
    Some jerks with half an education who think they can tell other people what they have seen and experienced because they have "science". What bullshit.
    I am agnostic, and I can tell you - the most fanatic cult or sect in this US of A, are the atheists. I have some friends who are Catholic, Mormon, and Buddhist and they never bug me about god stuff.
    The atheists I know are nuts. It's like they hate god and the idea of god.
    They push and push that stuff all day long. They worship a god all right - Themselves.
    Oh yeah, that and the color of money.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "By all means, keep shrieking. You are losing this cultural conflict and every time you squeal and gibber about how you need to prop up your dying cult with state approval it just drives more people away from your faith."

    You can add that delusion to your stockpile. As I told Ed 'Tubs' Brayton several years ago, "the only thing worse than an [expletive] moron is a pretentious [expletive] moron like you."

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Do you know anything about Islam?"

    Yes.

    "It explicitly claims to bean updated version of the faith you adhere to."

    Actually, Islam claims to be a continuance of "true Christianity," as opposed to "Pauline Christianity," which Muslims view as "corrupt." The truth, however, is that Islam is the corruption. (Muhammad turning heaven into a lupanar being a fine example.)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Robert: Actually, Islam claims to be a continuance of "true Christianity," as opposed to "Pauline Christianity," which Muslims view as "corrupt." The truth, however, is that Islam is the corruption. (Muhammad turning heaven into a lupanar being a fine example.)

    That's an interesting situation, Robert. Christians, Muslims, and also Jews are convinced that their version of Abrahamic faith is true and that the other two are misguided. I don't think there is any way to resolve in an objective way which one, if any, is correct. It's your word versus theirs, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Christians are hypocrites. They claim to believe in "Jesus" and "God", but in reality they just try to hide their hatred of the one true God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But you're not fooling anyone.

    I'll pray for you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Oleg,

    I think a good case can be made for Christianity as opposed to the other two religions but those arguments require certain assumptions which I judge entirely reasonable but others might disagree. So, I would agree with you that it cannot be resolved neatly like luminiferous aether vs. relativity or steady-state vs. big bang were resolved but even so I think my choice is justified.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bloomberg detractors are invariably close relatives of schoolteachers, except the fringe who still think he's Uncle Martian. Bloomberg kept did what Pataki brought him in to do: tame the UFT which brought down Damoto.

    ReplyDelete