NEW YORK TIMES FATIGUE
" Again it comes, for the sixth time now--2,191 days after that awful morning--falling for the first time on a Tuesday, the same day of the week." Thus began a front-page, 1,664-word article by N.R. Kleinfeld in last Sunday's New York Times headlined, "As 9/11 Draws Near, a Debate Rises: How Much Tribute Is Enough?"
For mental health reasons, THE SCRAPBOOK tends to avoid reading all 1,664 words of portentous thumbsuckers in the Times. Fortunately, the nut-graf of this one was right near the top: "Each year, murmuring about Sept. 11 fatigue arises, a weariness of reliving a day that everyone wishes had never happened. It began before the first anniversary of the terrorist attack. By now, though, many people feel that the collective commemorations, publicly staged, are excessive and vacant, even annoying."
Is this true? Is there really a debate about 9/11 ceremonies outside the pages of the New York Times? Are Americans really suffering from "9/11 fatigue"? Do many Americans find the 9/11 commemorations "annoying"?
The Times's data points consist of four family members who lost relatives on 9/11 (they're divided on the "fatigue" issue), three random individuals (all fatigued), and a few mental health professionals (somewhere between concerned and fatigued, as mental health professionals tend to be).
The first quotation goes to a nursing supervisor from Massachusetts: "I may sound callous, but doesn't grieving have a shelf life? We're very sorry and mournful that people died, but there are living people. Let's wind it down."
Almost all of the individuals quoted focus on 9/11 as a day of loss. One compares it to the Minneapolis bridge collapse, another to a tornado. There's no mention of 9/11 as an attack, or an act of war. And no mention that it was a day of American heroism.
THE SCRAPBOOK was reminded that this is not new for the New York Times. Already, three years ago, Times columnist Thomas Friedman was criticizing the Bush administration for being "addicted to 9/11." Friedman looked forward to the day when September 11 would once again be restored "to its rightful place on the calendar: as the day after Sept. 10th and before Sept. 12th. I do not want it to become a day that defines us. Because ultimately Sept. 11th is about them--the bad guys--not about us. We're about the Fourth of July."
At the time, in October 2004, we commented: "We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD yield to no one in our loyalty to the Fourth of July. But September 11, 2001, also cannot help but define us 21st-century Americans. And it defines us not simply in terms of those we have to fight, and defeat. For September 11 is not simply about 'the bad guys,' about the attacks on America. September 11 is also about our response. It is about the police and firefighters in New York, the servicemen and women in the Pentagon, and the passengers and crew of United Flight 93. September 11 was a day of infamy. But it was also a day of bravery, and of nobility. And it could go down in history as a day that began an era in which the American people, and their leaders, rose to the challenges before them--an era in which they acted wisely, and steadfastly, and honorably."
And that is why we--and we would hazard to guess most Americans--feel no hesitation in commemorating 9/11, despite the fatigue of the New York Times.
LUCIANO PAVAROTTI, 1935-2007
THE SCRAPBOOK bids a fond farewell to Luciano Pavarotti, whose death last week, at 71, from pancreatic cancer was not a surprise, but still a shock. Pavarotti was not the first celebrity tenor in modern history--that would be Enrico Caruso--but he was the greatest tenor of his time, the best-loved operatic singer, and (to finish out the list of superlatives) arguably the Voice of the Century. His range was beyond compare, the sweetness of his tone was unique, the voice was unmistakable, his versatility stunning. Pavarotti commanded the stage wherever he sang--the Metropolitan Opera, the Hollywood Bowl, the World Cup finals--and his partners ranged from Dame Joan Sutherland to James Brown to the other two-thirds of the televised Three Tenors (Plácido Domingo, José Carreras).
His genius lay, to a certain degree, in his showmanship, and to stand out among the ranks of opera singers is no small feat. Pavarotti was a gigantic figure, as wide as he was tall, and his beard, white handkerchief, playful manner, and voluminous eyebrows hypnotized audiences nearly as much as his famous high Cs. Is there a greater, more vivid, more accomplished, character in performance today? There was only one Pavarotti.
HSU'S ON FIRST?
"When Controversy Follows Cash: Some Fundraisers With Legal Issues Slip Through Campaigns' Vetting." So read the curiously generic headline on the front-page of our Labor Day Washington Post. Which "campaigns" might that be? You'll never guess.
Sant S. Chatwal, an Indian American businessman, has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns, even as he battled governments on two continents to escape bankruptcy and millions of dollars in tax liens.
Chatwal is the founder of the Bombay Palace chain of Indian restaurants. In 1995 he declared bankruptcy in his native India after defaulting on loans from three different banks. In 1997 he was sued by the FDIC for his role in running a bank, the "First New York Bank for Business," that had gone bust and, according to the government, "resulted in losses to the bank in excess of $12 million." At the time, Chatwal argued he was unable to pay back the cost of his defaulted (American) loans. In September 2000, a few months before settling the FDIC case, he hosted a $500,000 fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign at his Upper East Side penthouse. In December 2000 he was charged with bank fraud in India. The charges were later dropped. Today Chatwal plans to help raise $5 million for Sen. Clinton's 2008 presidential bid.
The Post also mentions good ol' Norman Hsu, the Chinese "textile manufacturer" and Clinton donor (some $23,000) who last week turned himself into California authorities in connection with an outstanding warrant (from 1992!) for his arrest on charges of grand theft. A judge set Hsu's bail at $2 million. Hsu posted that amount and was released until a hearing scheduled for 9 A.M. on September 5. Hsu was a no-show that day. Two days later he was again taken into custody at a Colorado hospital, where he was recovering from an undisclosed malady. Hsu had been on an Amtrak train when he fell ill. No one seems to know where he was going.
Nor does anyone seem to know all the identities of the many donors whose contributions Hsu "bundled" for a total of more than $1 million. According to the Wall Street Journal's John Fund, the Clinton campaign will not disclose the identities of others like the Paw family, whose postman patriarch makes $49,000 a year and lives with his family in a small home in the flight path of San Francisco International Airport. Since 2004, this family of apparently modest means, at the behest of Hsu, has donated more than $250,000 to Democrats including Clinton.
Spokesman Phil Singer told the Post that the Clinton campaign vets major donors "through publicly available records." Sure they do. Our guess is the key question asked of big-dollar donors is this: "Did their check bounce?"
CAMBRIDGE, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
Princeton student and ROTC cadet Wes Morgan "once came home from preschool nearly in tears after learning that teachers at the school, which served a politically liberal population in Cambridge, Mass., had gone through illustrated books about cars and trucks and torn out the pages showing military vehicles."
-- Washington Post, Sept. 3, 2007