Roger Waters is dead to me as an anti-Zionist

Tucker Carlson, or Cucker Tarlson, has never meant anything to me politically other than being a capitalist chattering class talking head willing to say anything to increase his Swanson heirship big bucks that he already has.

So, I don’t care if he’s promoting yet another conspiracy theory.

I do care, though, if Roger Waters is promoting that conspiracy theory, as both reportedly are.

“There is no way the North and South towers and Building Seven came down because of airplanes hitting. Just not possible,” Waters said during the interview.

Waters suggested the buildings were brought down in controlled demolitions and questioned who might have been responsible. He also raised the possibility that elements within Israel or the US government had prior knowledge of, or involvement in, the attacks.

First, per my piece, your first paragraph is ignorance. Willful ignorance, just like other 9/11 Falsers. That, with link to the Popular Mechanics story refuting your ignorant ass, is in my 9/11 anniversary piece.

Also at that link? Since I called “Israel did it” type 9/11 conspiracy theories antisemitism, not anti-Zionism, you’re dead to me.

The full shebang? Listed here. The International Center for 9/11 Justice is an official falser group.

“9/11 was the first step in the plan for US-Israel hegemony in the Middle East.”

I wish I had a better link than Times of Israel, but I’m not wasting that much time. That said, apparently Waters has been a falser for some time. Had I known so, I wouldn’t have defended him in the past. That said, it has one interesting point. $150 a pop to go to this event. So, some good capitalist grifting as a sidebar.

To look at a few more known names?

Dennis Kucinich continues to deny being a 9/11 falser. More and more, though, it rings about as hollow as Dr. Jill Stein denying being an antivaxxer. He’s also a UFO falser of some sort and other things.

Bret Weinstein? GACK. Even if not a 9/11 falser, he’s a definite conspiracy theorist and general nutbar.

Jimmy Dore? GACK. General conspiracy theorist, including JFK assassination, 9/11 and Seth Rich.

Karen Kwiatkowski? Member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, presumably part of the majority who endorsed the Guccifer 2.0 idea and thus, by default and silence, also endorsed, or gave a pass to, the odious Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Indeed, her Wiki says she was a founder of the group.

William Rodriguez? NOT the “last survivor,” but that apparently hasn’t stopped his capitalist grifting either.

Meryl Nass? Low-grade COVID conspiracy theorist and general nutter, part of an early summer round of Substack blocks.

For extra shits and grins, speaker James Li is apparently a Charlie Kirk killing conspiracy theorist.

9/11, conspiracy theories and more

This is a pretty highly edited and reorganized version of a recent newspaper column. Paywalls don't exist here on Blogger, but it's enough different from the original that I did not paywall a similar version on Substack. (I almost totally omitted Trump refusing to adhere to Santayana’s dictum about learning from the past — namely, Shrub Bush’s past — and emphasized other things more, namely, the "conspiracy theories" angle.

Two things about 9/11 need to be put up front on this 25^th anniversary.

The first is that 19 hijackers connected to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in a degree that both duopoly parties still try to hide to some degree took control of the two planes that flew into the World Trade Center, the one that was flown into the Pentagon, and the one that passengers force-crashed in Pennsylvania.

Period and end of story. More on that down below. But, no, Mr. Drain the Swamp Trump has no desire to touch this swamp with his Saudi friends and Abraham Accorders involved. Neither did Genocide Joe, after trying briefly to mildly push back against the Bone Saw King, Mohammad bin Salman.

No, it was no false flag, nor similar, “9/11 Falsers,” and that’s what I usually call you. Deal with it.

The two worst conspiracy theories are claims of a false flag controlled demolition and the claim that Mossad or some other agency of the nation of Israel did it.

As for the former? Popular Mechanics’ story, written in 2005 after a preliminary investigation and follow-up report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, explains in detail just how the two jet collisions could have caused what they did, including the collapse of WTC 7. It was eventually included in a larger book about 9/11. Lightly updated, still online, and without a paywall, it’s easily available.

Second, the spooks and snoops of the CIA and NSA? The ones who didn’t figure out Snowden until it was too late, a dozen years later? The ones who missed CIA, NSA and FBI spies, for Russia, Israel and other countries, for years? They couldn’t have pulled off a false flag.

As for the latter? It deserves no more comment. And I consider it antisemitic, not anti-Zionist, at bottom line and in most versions. That's especially with the "dancing Israelis" subtheme, or the "Jews didn't show up to work" subtheme. That said, the "dancing Muslims" claim is just as loathsome.

Within the Middle East, though, beyond Israel and Iraq, the ongoing whitewashing of Saudi Arabian connections should not be forgotten. With Mohammad bin Salman hopping in bed with Trump and vice versa, and Abraham Accords papering over the Middle East and further kicking Palestinians down a shithole, this cannot be emphasized enough. And, the House of Saud will continue to give Palestine the back of its hand for the foreseeable future.

The second main thing is 9/11’s role in conspiracy theorizing in general.

For a younger generation, I think 9/11 has replaced the John F. Kennedy assassination as the most popular conspiracy theory. (Well, that is, other than the “Zionists whacked Jack” asshattery.)

Spoiler alert: Lee Harvey Oswald did it, acting alone, six months after nearly killing Gen. Edwin Walker with the same Carcano rifle. It’s not that hard a shot for a Marine-trained sharpshooter at best rating, especially if you go to the Sixth Floor Museum, or even on the ground at Dealey Plaza and scope the scene. I’ve done all of that, and walked Dealey Plaza many a time, including on a Nov. 22 that fell on Thanksgiving Day.

That said, for some far-righters and a few far-lefters, the far more odious Seth Rich conspiracy theory may also be in the running as the most popular one today. Spoiler alert: The Russkies hacked both DNC and RNC servers. See my long and detailed piece, building off Duncan Campbell, refuting various nutters within “Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity,” refuting Patrick Lawrence (who has never written again for The Nation, good, even though it’s duopoly), and refuting various Greenies within VIPS like Ray McGovern, who was already way behind the 8-ball in my world.

Even more than 9/11, the Internet drove that conspiracy theory, and especially the social media world.

Otherwise, I reject conspiracy theories in general.

First, I know the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. Beyond that, which covers specific actual conspiracies as well as conspiracy theories, I wrote about third parties and conspiracy theories. (That, in turn, ties indirectly to my David Keith Cobb obit.)

Otherwise, per the World War II cautionary dictum of “Loose lips sink ships,” most conspiracy theories have way too much faith in the ability of, or the desire to, keep secrets by participants in the alleged conspiracy. Even Saudi involvement in 9/11 partially reflects that, as a lawsuit continues its slow journey. Meanwhile, the pretendian tankies at r/AskHistorians really show they’re not leftists by running flak.

That’s more true than ever in today’s social media world.

Per the World War II cautionary dictum of “Loose lips sink ships,” most conspiracy theories have way too much faith in the ability of, or the desire to, keep secrets by participants in the alleged conspiracy. That’s more true than ever in today’s social media world.

Speaking of? Via Joe Costello, Hunter S. Thompson used that phrase in the last paragraph of his column written in the immediate aftermath.

The lid is on. Loose Lips Sink Ships. Don't say anything that might give aid to The Enemy.

So, was he gonzo? Or was he going over to the dark side? Or rather, was this calling out the dark side? A closer read shows he was calling out the dark side one last time, but with dashes of his gonzo style.

Otherwise? Good old Occam’s Razor, named after the medieval theologian though going back as far as Aristotle, otherwise still holds true, and the average conspiracy theory multiplies ideas way beyond necessity. Speaking of medieval worlds, conspiracy theory in general reminds me of the ancient religious movement called Gnosticism. I wrote about that as further thought vis-a-vis the Seth Rich conspiracy theory’s ongoing legs and related issues. Being a theoretically secret party to insider knowledge is attractive, along with being able to move up the rungs of a movement by becoming devoted to the conspiracy theory cause. In a nation now over the 340 million mark, feeling “in” in such ways surely has its social psychology attractions.

Hot take on uncritical leftists supporting Jimmy Dore Thought

As regular readers here know, I've done several blogposts about uncritical, nonskeptical leftists peddling, and drinking themselves, the Kool-Aid of Xi Jinping Thought.

Now it's time to turn domestically and look at Jimmy Dore Thought for the first time.

I just do not get why Greens like David Bruce Collins think Jimmy Dore is a good dood, ignoring that his political framing on Force the Vote was likely wrong, and all of Dore's other issues.

Oh, yes, all those "other issues."

Per Rational Wiki, with which I do NOT fully agree on what is conspiracy and what is conspiracy theory, Dore is:

A JFK conspiracy theorist;

A 9/11 falser;

A Seth Rich conspiracy theorist.

This ignores his bromance with/whitewashing of the Boogaloo Bois, which DBC also ignores. That said, elsewhere, DBC ignores Caity Johnstone's past support of red-brown alliances in trumpeting her calls for "unity" on the left.

Sidebar: Dunno about Dore, but Greenwald is also a sexist, which DBC may not know. Glennwald has sexism going back 25 years, and yes, gays, despite bigotry against them, can be sexist — in fact, some of the most vociferous sexism I've run across has been from gays.)

Given that many people, like Bob Fisk at Douma, have pointed out realities otherwise, Rational Wiki is full of shit in saying that claims that Assad didn't do every chemical weapons attack attributed to him is a conspiracy theory. And, sometimes Rational Wiki is not just wrong, it's full of shit, and there's no other way to put it. I've done an editing note, similar to ones at Wikipedia, and we'll see if it sticks. (That said, this and related issues, such as whether OPCW has internally lied about some of this or not, is in many ways a cesspool.)

And, if people claim I'm hypocritical? No, based on how I know how to use evidence and critical thinking, I know the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. So, both conspiracy theorists and Rational Wiki can go get stupid.

The Green Party craps its national pants (updated)

Friend Brains has promised something on this year's national convention of the Green Party, but I've already seen enough to post something now.

We've actually had two different but, with exquisite timing, somewhat intersectional (I see what I did there) pants-crappings.

The first is over the ongoing role and powers of AccommoGreen-in-Chief David Cobb. That, in turn, has gotten tied up with Counterpunch giving him repeated paddlings over his willingness to partner up or whatever with Caitlin Johnstone, 9/11 truther, alt-right fellow traveler and other things.

Joshua Frank has led the recent charge against both of them at Counterpunch. It was a follow-up to this one by Yoav Litman.

I blame Cobb to a fair degree for the relative poverty of Jill Stein's showing last November. Yes, the Libertarian Party nationally is more popular, relatively, than the Greens. But, Stein shouldn't have finished with just one-third the vote of addled pseudo-Libertarian Gary Johnson.

I blame him to some degree for her open endorsement of Bernie Sanders in the California Democratic primary, followed by her offer to step aside for him as the Green presidential nominee — an offer she then claimed wasn't exactly that. Both of these actions were WAY outside the bounds of the Green Party acting as an independent political party. That said, for AccommoGreens like Cobb, being an independent third party trails behind being a social movement that will hopefully nudge Democrats a step or so left.

(Oh, and yes, on Johnstone. Frank's got links documenting both that she's an alt-right fellow traveler, even if only tangentially, and worse yet from my POV, a 9/11 truther. That said, the Green Party has more of those than it does antivaxxers, from what I can tell.)

Per this Counterpunch analysis of some video statements of hers ... erm, wow. No, not the deepest thinker. Yes, Caitlin, Mike Cernovich is going to pay attention to you when you tell him on Facebook he's "not doing something good."

(And, given her willingness to work with the alt-right, and by name, Cernovich? Let's note that this memo by former NSC staffer Rich Higgins now blowing up the Net is filled with not just Steve Bannon versions of nationalism, but directly attacks social justice ideas AND plays with anti-Semitic tropes. And, it's linked to Cernovich. And, she's probably having an orgasm over it because it mentions "deep state.")

Frank et al were wrong, though, IMO, not to let Cobb/Johnstone have one shot to respond on-site rather than elsewhere. Let them have their one best shot before cutting them off.

As for the latest pro-Johnstone flak? Any "lies on Syria" she is calling out are lies by Democrats or national media. No halfway informed Green believes these things, or did when they happened.

Brains and David Bruce Collins both also have pieces about this portion of Greens' national meltdown. DBC goes full defensive on not only Cobb (acceptable, though I disagree) but also on Johnstone. I also didn't think Kevin Zeese, in his Counterpunch stuff, was THAT harsh on Cobb or Stein. Much more on Zeese below, as it ties to national convention issues. Brains, who has been tracking my direction more and more on Johnstone, still defends Cobb more than I will, and thinks I'm too harsh on Stein.

But, I think I have a legit stance. Stein's recount late last year WAS partisan, done only in states Clinton lost, trying to help her only. Stein — and her campaign manager Cobb — lied about that at the time (along with lying about related issues), lied about it afterward, and lie about it to this day, including lying about it being a private Stein recount, not an official Green Party one, which leaves them with a private donor list they could try to sell back to the party — or to a Berniecrat third-party or to Democratic "Socialists" of America. It's part of both of them being AccommoGreens.

OTOH, Counterpunch publisher Jeff St. Clair still has a quasi-hatred of the GP, I think. He's still butt-hurt over Ralph Nader not being renominated in 2004.

Two things happened after Nader's relatively successful 2000 campaign.

One is that the GP decided it wanted to run a "safe states" strategy in 2004. I halfway disagreed then and totally disagree now. But, it was a party decision, just like British Labour decided to oppose Brexit, only to see Jeremy Corbin mumble in his beard. (That's one reason I remain less than a total fan of Corbin.)

The other was that, in line with post-2000 actual and potential growth, the GP decided to go to a formal caucus and convention presidential nominating process. Yes, some state GPs (are you listening in Ohio, Bob Fitrakis? and whoever should be in California?) were then, and are still today, the equivalent of British parliamentary rotten boroughs or pocket boroughs from 200 years ago.

No matter. It was an organizational step forward.

And Nader wouldn't personally jump through the hoops.

Anyway, that's why 2004 GP presidential nominee David Cobb will never be allowed to write an article in Counterpunch. And, while I'm at it, Jeff, I'll take ANYTHING you personally say about either the GP or Nader with at least two grains of salt until you get more honest about this.

On the third hand, Peter Camejo, whether or not he was a Nader cut-out, won the Green primaries in 2004. Clearly won them. (I know who Carol Miller is, the co-author of the piece, and lived in New Mexico when she ran for Congress. I think she has a generally accurate take on the issues at hand.)

And yet, Cobb got nominated. Why? Because the Green Party's "organization" still kept those rotten boroughs in place, which is what the state nominating conventions were in many cases. And, it let "insta-Greens," or something equivalent, vote in convention when coming from those states.

This is — as a sidebar — why I have problems with Greens' "decentralization" among its Ten Key Values. Because, per it, the likes of a Fitrakis can push a "rotten borough" state party forward, and, if it doesn't have a primary, run it like a little fiefdom.

On the fourth hand, if you will, St. Clair also ignores Nader's defense funds in 2000, like Stein's in 2012 and 2016, holding oil and defense stock portfolios.

On the fifth hand, in his response, Cobb was too stupid to separate himself from Johnstone. So, he kind of deserves to get crapped on.

===

That said, that first pants-crapping didn't actually happen at the convention.

What did, but what got tied up with the first, was no African-Americans getting elected to the party's national steering committee. (DBC's link above partially covers this as well; Brains just deals with the pants-crapping above.)

Yes, the GP is largely white — not as white as the GOP but more white than the Democrats.

Here's a take by a black member of the Louisiana Green Party who was at the national meeting. Sounds simple, right? Blacks were shut out and the party has a long way to go. After all, that's part of what happened at the Texas state convention, discussed by me in this post, and it also seems a sidebar issue per KPFA radio in Houston, per Brains, with his initial discussion at this post, and follow-up at this one.

Not so fast, says Bruce Dixon.

Bruce, the editor of the Black Agenda Report, has several problems with this spin.

First, he sees at least a small degree of tokenism.

Next, Dixon said neither the candidates themselves nor the Green's Black Caucus (of which the Louisianan above is a member) campaigned enough.

Third, he notes that Greens need to reach outside traditional black bases where most black Democrats come from. He rightly, as Greens are generally more "frou-frou" religiously (setting aside the secularists) than Democrats, let alone black Americans of any party, notes that the black church is definitely NOT a place to look.

Yes, this makes it harder. Bernie Sanders found that out within the Democrats; that's a primary reason he, a secular Jew, didn't get more black votes.

But, admitting it's difficult doesn't erase away reality.

Next, Dixon notes that the Greens are not a dues-paying party, and wonders how deep of roots some of the black steering committee candidates have or had. (Dixon, along with 2016 Green VP Ajamu Baraka, are big pushers of the dues-paying model.)

The New York Green Party having trouble with Democrat and even Republican state judicial candidates trying to run under the Green banner shows that the idea of "insta-Greens" is actually true, at least in some cases.

Finally, Bruce, as a member of the Georgia GP, has had a run-in or two with race issues there already. He's not blind on that issue. But, he's right on this:

There absolutely should be a black caucus in the Green party. But caucuses shouldn’t get automatic votes on the national committee or the steering committee. Those bodies should be elected by state parties instead of being anti-democratic phantom organizations responsible to nobody in particular. … 

 Liberalism offers easy answers to the problem of recruiting token blacks to leadership. But the black leaders you get that way are opportunists, who can only win followings by deception, by manipulation of the unwary and by the laziness or inattention of others responsible for the institution and the mission of the party. That mission is to struggle for power, and to build a movement of movements against capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy and endless war. There are no shortcuts.

There you are.

I don't know if Dixon is right, re the first paragraph of the pull quote and earlier up in his piece, about the black steering committee candidates being newbie Greens. But, it's possible. And, even if not, that doesn't negate his other worries.

The intersectionality? Or simply the good old-fashioned intersecting? Here, per Zeese. Andrea Mérida Cuéllar, a Colorado Green who's battled racism in the national party, got used by Cobb and Stein as a pawn in the steering committee battle. Well, not totally a pawn. It was Cuéllar who led objections to no blacks being elected. After that, she became a tool in the Cobb-Stein fire, more than a pawn.

Other Greens are shocked over Dixon's "white liberal guilt." There, I agree more than I disagree, and I note that left-liberals to leftists both black (Adolph Reed) and white (Doug Henwood) have talked about this in detail for years.)

Hey, white liberal greens? I think there's something to this. And, it's OK to drop your own attachment to it, to purity test ideas behind it and more.

I don't totally agree with Dixon, Reed or Henwood about this; even less do I agree with their claims that racism always reduces to classism. Henwood disliked my specific counterexamples, and follow-up. enough that he blocked me on Twitter.

But, a certain amount of the time, a specific race issue DOES reduce to class. Other times, like with Jim Crow in the South, it doesn't do so, but class can still in a case like that exacerbate and extend the racism.

For more on this issue, and the possible "tokenism" of which Dixon hints, I suggest some Greens (and some SJWs) need to read up on Frantz Fanon. More on Fanon at this blog post of mine.

DBC, from what I can tell, disagrees with all of this and takes pretty much a straight-up "this is racism" stance. Sorry, David; gotta disagree.

Now, about a related issue: Privilege.

Do I deny it exists? No.

Is it always race-based, though? No.

It's sometimes class-based. Or sex-based. Or sexual orientation based. Or religion-based (versus atheists).

Barack Obama, a rich African-American with enough money from his grandparents to go to a private high school, then Occidental College before Harvard, has more privilege than I do.

===

Overall, I'm with Bruce more than I'm against him. I've seen some of this myself. But, from my bits and pieces so far of investigating left alternatives, I don't think the situation is any better at the Socialist Party USA. At least on this particular issue. But 2016 SPUSA presidential candidate Mimi Soltysik promised the party would get better on GMOs.

Besides Green and Green-leaning 9/11 Truthers, I've seen other Greens who continue to insist Stein's recounts last year were totally non-partisan and neutral, rather than designed to help Hillary Clinton. And, again, who was her recount manager as well as her campaign manager?

David Cobb.

David Fricking Cobb. (And, per Zeese's link, had a Democratic lawyer, John Bonifaz, help with recount issues.)

At least the SPUSA doesn't have AccommoSocialists. Those would be ... Berniecrats at best, who are enough of a plague on the Green Party.

This first pants-crapping has been a long time coming. Setting aside the St. Clair animus, the Green Party needs to be the Green Party, not a Green equivalent of the Democratic Socialists of America.

I've made bits of noise here before about how I've done more looking at the Socialist Party USA, and did a bit of deliberation about pulling its write-in trigger for president last year.

I'll go further now and stipulate that not only will I not vote for Stein in 2020 if Greens nominate her for a third term, but I won't vote for any GP presidential candidate who uses Cobb as campaign manager.

Finally, at The North Star, somebody totally gets it!

The Green Party US, as in the national party, is nothing more than another state party. That's why the GP has disorganization, not decentralization, with state parties acting like the equivalent of British parliamentary rotten and pocket boroughs of 200 years ago.

#EndlessWar is still about oil in the end

NPR graphic; numbers as of 2012.

President Obama, who's kept troops in Iraq, bombed Yemen, bombed and CIA-ed Libya, and other things to expand Bush's War on Terra, has proven that more than once.

The biggest proof just came down the pike today, though, with his threat to veto a bill that would let 9/11 victims and their families sue the government of Saudi Arabia.

Despite both the Bush and Obama White Houses doing all they could and can to stonewall looking into, and making public, Riyadh's connections to 9/11, it's clear that dots are out there waiting to be connected by legal action.

As for BushCo, Sen. Bob Graham has long claimed that Shrub shit-canned any attempt to bring the Saudi connection to light. He just reiterated that on Saturday.

Now, a couple of points.

First, both House and Senate passed the bill by voice vote. How many Congressional cockroaches will scurry for daylight when forced to stand on a record vote remains to be seen.

Second, what will the Saudis do if it becomes law? While the "shale revolution" has helped decrease the percentage of oil we import, we still import a lot. Just not all of it from the Saudis.

If the Saudis did try an embargo, it's likely both Iran and Iraq would do all they could to fill the gap. U.S. producers would step to the plate. And tar sands in Canada would ramp up. I can't see the U.S. having a major hurt, at least in the short term. And, after commodities futures markets got done with their rumor-mongering, I think the per-barrel price would settle at around $65.

#NeverForget ... all those preventable deaths besides 9/11, hyperpatriots

I actually did a newspaper op-ed column about this two years after Sept. 11, 2001. But, I know the basics of it still, and with flags being waved in plenty, let's roll. (sic)

First, I can call out American exceptionalism without saying anybody on 9/11 deserved it.

Second, I can call out our government for whitewashing the degree of Saudi involvement, like Jill Stein, without being a 9/11 truther.

OK, I've cleared the decks.

Let's roll.

The United States has millions of cases of preventable deaths every year. Some are of diminishing returns, as far as regulatory efforts, or self-control, or both.

Three are not, and two of them directly involve government regulation that's blocked by right-wingers.

Let's roll.

Tobacco, with 450,000 or more killings a year, kills more people every three days, than died in 9/11. Big Tobacco knew it was producing a killer even before the 1964 Surgeon General report. Rather than cooperate in any way, it spread its denialism to Big Oil, on climate change and other issues. We continue to pay the price.

Alcohol problems, from cirrhosis and cancer to DWIs and work accidents, kills as many people every 10 days as died in 9/11. This one is equal opportunity. Alcoholism, like illicit drugs, kills across all races, all socioeconomic statuses, and presumably all political stances.

But, let's go back to that first link.

Violent deaths in America kill as many people every three weeks as died in 9/11. And, in the U.S., unlike most developed nations, most the violent homicides and a high percentage of the suicides are from guns.

The guns that right-wing hyperpatriots don't want regulated.

So, guns kill as many people in America every six weeks as 9/11.

And, 9/11 happened just once.

EVERY three days, tobacco kills another 3,000.

EVERY 10 days, alcohol kills another 3,000.

EVERY six weeks, guns kill another 3,000.

Never forget?

Let's start by remembering that.

As for 9/11, the long history of U.S. coups in the Middle East and elsewhere has also killed more than 3,000 people. Again, this doesn't mean that "America deserved it."

But, just like hypocritically unhealthy living, it does mean America should look in the mirror.

Is the #9/11 Museum gift shop tasteless, or not?

As New York City's 9/11 memorial and museum get ready to open on Friday, some people are objecting to the museum's store.

The New York Post, bastion of Murdoch-ism, of all people, calls it tasteless, though in not so many words. (That said, people who object to a cafe there are being ridiculous, I think.) That said, it's not alone.

Think Progress, that bastion of nuanced left-edge neoliberal Obamiacs, defends the place, primarily by comparing it to the Oklahoma City bombing memorial and museum.

There's two BIG differences, though.

First, OKC, at $12, costs half as much to enter as 9/11. Yes, I know everything is more expensive in New York, but still.

Second, OKC doesn't have a "crypt" of survivor remnants.

And, if Think Progress wants to compare the 9/11 museum to Auschwitz in having a store, I'm sure Auschwitz doesn't have a crypt, either.

I think that there's one other thing at stake, with that crypt, besides tastelessness.

It's that good old American exceptionalism.

There's still greed, too.

Hey, the FDNY stuff is "officially licensed and co-branded"! And, the charging of such rates after a $5 million donation store donation from a law firm that sued the city over first responder injury payouts probably adds to a lot of people's sense of tastelessness.

Let's look more at that money.

Invest it at, say, a 5 percent return and you've got $250K a year in revenue stream right there. You can sell a more tasteful line of tchotchkes, lower your admission price from $24 to $20 or $18 and still do fine on revenue.

Or you could go over the top and find every one of the most nutbar 9/11 conspiracy theory videos out there — I mean, start with Alex Jones and go more loony than that — and see what sort of gravy you can rake in.

That said, beyond greed, there's one other American commodity in hot trade here, one that probably carries more of a premium in NYC than in flyover land.

Vanity.

That law firm's already cashed a pretty big check of it for its $5 million donation, all of which was tax-deductible, of course.

Did we overreact, and other 9/11 thoughts

Online friend John Horgan says a definite yes to the rhetorical question inside the first half of the header, as well mark 12  years since Sept. 11, 2001.

And he's not even counting the blatant overreact of attacking Iraq when it had nothing to do with 9/11, a point well remembered today as some people continue to try to mong war against Syria's Bashar Assad when we don't know for sure who was behind the sarin attacks. (Horgan does mention the Iraq War under generic "fighting terrorism," but doesn't mention that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.)

I did a column two years after 9/11, addressing a couple of his issus in more detail.

As many people die from smoking related illnesses every 2 days or so as were killed in 9/11, all entirely preventable.

As many people die from largely preventable diabetes complications every 2 weeks or so.

As many people die from the preventable portion of fatal auto accidents every 2 months or so.

Yet, Americans, since Sept. 11, 2001, have not done more at the federal level to crack down on smoking. 

If anything, the government has played a part in abating the fast-food issue, combined with low-wage rushed jobs and other things, that have contributed to the Type II diabetes-fueling obesity epidemic.

And, we've done little more to address DWIs, and nothing to address texting while driving, on fatal accidents.

(I didn't even count overall preventable alcohol-related deaths, since they didn't fit the nice "2" theme, but, that's a death equality level about every week.)

Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control lists heart disease and cancer as the two top causes of death iu its top 10. The great majority of cancer death is preventable, as is a fair chunk of heart disease. So are a fair amount of stroke and other respiratory deaths. Stop smoking, stop eating so much and so much bad food (while getting even a modicum of exercise if you don't now) and stop overdrinking.

Beyond that, as Jim Wright at Stonekettle Station says, at some point, we need to let history become history.

And that leads two Part 2.

Not the overreacting versus other preventable forms of death, but the overreacting of overreacting.

Like the Transportation Security Administration making us all take off our shoes, except those to whom it's selling an $85 five-year pass to cut the line.

The massive increase in border security fueled in part by tea party type fears that al-Qaeda was going to slip across the Mexican border in some remote place like Big Bend National Park. Or requiring passports to go to Canada. Truth is, 150 years ago, we were letting Irish nationalist terrorists slip across our border into Canada.

The expansion of the national snooping state under President Bush, and the redoubling of its expansion under President Obama.

The money wasted on military spending for the Iraq War and all that snooping.

But, to follow up on Jim, let's remember George Santayana, and as we let 9/11 become history, let's learn enough to not repeat all of our past mistakes.

They include:

American exceptionalism in various forms;

The idea that what's good for America is good for the world;

The related idea that we know what's best for other countries, especially with our indirect imperialism;

The related idea that we can painlessly impose this.

Speaking of those talking points, let's not forget "the other 9/11." Today is the 40th anniversary of the U.S. supported generals' coup in Chile against Salvador Allende.

Finally, I just don't "get" the idea of, or buy into the need for, a President as comforter in chief. If you're religious and need such comforting, there's your faith community and its religious leader. If you're not religious, there's freethought centers in some places, online secular communities, or counselors.