It's Tuesday Morning again.....
I've started this post a thousand times in my head, each different, and yet what keeps coming back over and over is Tuesday. It's Tuesday morning again. September 11, Tuesday. And I have go teach class.
September 11, 2001 was supposed to be the same way. We were living in Chapel Hill, and a friend was visiting. I had planned to take her to the airport in Raleigh before making my way to school to teach my lab section. I didn't make that trip for almost three weeks.
I've told my story of that horrible day before. That day that broke all of us inside. That day that so many people are eager to forget, to push away the pain that makes it real, to scapegoat because that's easier than seeing the truth.
I think back a lot to how it used to be, how I used to be. I was so different. But something inside broke that day, sitting in my chair that I used to love, my big orange 1970's wing chair rocker, and watching people fall from the sky.
When I think back to 9/11/01, that's what I remember. Not the buildings collapsing in a heap of ash, or the bright flash of a 747 hitting the side of the towers. Just brave men and women choosing their own destiny, rather than waiting for the suffocating horror of flame and falling debris. What a beautiful last gift to their loved ones: to know they didn't suffer, and that at the end, they were truly free.
Six years later, those images still haunt me.
But life goes on they say, and so must we. And here I am again. Tuesday Morning. September 11. Only it's 2007 this time and I made it to school. I taught my class and the lab that goes with it. Had a meeting with my dean. When I finish this, I'll make a cup of tea.
And yet, there's a part of me still sitting in that chair, unable to turn away from the news for weeks. I left parts of me behind that day, and came away with something new. Tougher maybe, sadder, more vigilant, and definitely PISSED OFF. So pissed off I'm still mad today.
What makes me more angry though, are the ones who don't know, those who forgot, and the ones who seek to tarnish the truth through conspiracy theory and supposition.
The truth, my friends is this: Evil exists. We saw its hand on September 11, 2001, and still we feel its icy grip.
Forgetting this cheapens the memory of the ones we lost, the innocent, the heroes, and those left behind.
Yes, it's hard. Staring evil in the face is the most difficult thing we can do in life. Remembering who we've lost and what we've lost is just as hard. But that doesn't excuse us from remembering, from hurting, from pausing every once in a while to think about what happened that day and vowing to never let it happen again.
There have been thousands of tributes, but I'll share with you MY favorite because it's message, in the end, is hope.
The first of this year's 9/11 posts
Eat this, truthers.
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
Once the collapse began, it was destined to be "rapid and total."
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
[...]
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings.
4
How does the mere posting of a referral to a paper not yet even published constitute a "proof" or "demolish" his critics? Where are his assumptions, his calculations, his results? Science works by creating hypotheses, testing them, having them challenged by counter-hypotheses, etc. This type of self-congratulation by those who believe the official account just shows how much we merely rely on the pronouncement of some authority rather than do the much harder work of really examining the evidence on all sides.
Posted by: bsep at September 11, 2007 10:22 AM (pZJrT)
5
Well, since it got published in a well respected journal, I suspect you can do that legwork for yourself. That's how peer-review works, bsep.
Do I really need to post the actual journal article for you?
Don't come on my blog and presume to tell ME about how science works, buddy. I'd delete you without comment, but your stunning lack of understanding of what it means to be published in a leading scientific journal is amusing.
Posted by: caltechgirl at September 11, 2007 11:37 AM (/vgMZ)
6
bsep - you assume that the gentleman in question didn't really examine the evidence from all sides before writing the paper; that the journal in question didn't check his work; that he cited no sources (or that nobody checked them either).
Some people do blindly rely on authority. Others just as blindly dismiss authority, and routinely suspect any supporting evidence the authority gives for itself. Nothing convinces such a person becuase every new reason just becomes "part of the coverup," another suspect "fact" from the authority itself - and any third party is automatically "selling out" if they agree.
If you really prefer to rely on evidence, this is a foolish way to live.
Posted by: nightfly at September 12, 2007 10:05 AM (PuuC1)
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 13, 2007 09:22 AM (VNM5w)
8
the guys at popular mechanics have explored every one of these conspiracy theories and torn each one into bits. it is too bad that some people are too stupid to look at the facts and go from that but instead let their crazy gene take over and talk for them making them look stupid. dont they see all they are doing is making the conspiracy theorists look even stupider? anyone with a conspiracy theory has a motive for that theory and it usually goes back and benefits the original theorist in some way.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
take a look at the popular mechanics research and if you still have a theory that has not been debunked then say something. otherwise, nobody wants to hear your uninformed crazy babble.
Posted by: Kimmy at September 13, 2007 11:24 PM (wGvEl)
9
Kimmy and Caltechgirl
Ask around campus abut a guy named Richard Feynman who figured out the cause of failure for the first space shuttle. He has some wise stuff to say about science and honesty. How does WTC 7 come down, look in slow motion as the towers come down. How does gravity create the POWDER and the Flashes and the sustained collapse??? You have the name of Cal Tech to Honor and Support!!
Posted by: Thomas Spellman at September 19, 2007 02:45 PM (11Qpf)
Posted by: pam at September 08, 2007 05:07 PM (l6NIn)
2
1. Scrabble :: Tile
2. NyQuil :: Get some rest medicine
3. Roadtrip :: California
4. Idiot :: Savant
5. Bandages :: Knee
6. Series :: World
7. Summer :: Lovin'
8. Prompt :: Rejoinder
9. September :: The Happenings
10. Chicken :: Little
Posted by: Jay at September 11, 2007 10:54 AM (Vm1bR)
I STA* I am going to start keeping alcohol in my desk
For days like today.
No, really. 7am-7pm. I'm going to have to move my office and share with someone else, and some dickhole in another program is using his status as faculty to piss on his students and make their lives miserable and it's my job to defend them.
It's a good damn thing my bartender doesn't drink. They're stronger that way.
*Swear To Allah
UPDATE: Actually I left AFTER 7:30pm..... I ended up going home, eating, and crashing. Alky tonight :-)
1
Oh, are we boozing it up tonight? 'Cause me? I'm in.
Posted by: ZTZCheese at September 07, 2007 06:32 PM (2//TA)
2
*sigh* Sorry it's been such a horrid week. May I say that the students in question are very lucky to have such a wonderful person defending them.
Hope you're enjoying the buzz by now!
Posted by: Teresa at September 07, 2007 07:41 PM (rVIv9)
Posted by: wRitErsbLock at September 07, 2007 08:02 PM (0Pi1o)
5
I'm sorry you had such a crappy week.
And boo to dickholes who use their status to make life hard for people. I know people like that and they irk me no end. I certainly hope karma bites your particular "dickhole" in the ass.
Posted by: ricki at September 08, 2007 07:17 AM (O5SYw)
6
I'm with you:
http://frictionandharmony.com/?p=244
Posted by: Mrs. Who at September 08, 2007 08:55 AM (GWbHW)
7I am going to start keeping alcohol in my desk
Yeah, Lou Grant had the right idea.
Oddly enough, I actually have alcohol in my desk. Just a beer, but there's an amusing story behind it, and I'm saving it for when I REALLY need that bottle.
(if the video won't load, here's a transcript of the segment)
And here's the "official" announcement, from Fred08.com:
Run Fred Run!
Win Fred Win!
BTW, if you want to know why I'm a Fredhead, I'll sum it up for you in two words: Testicular Fortitude. Fred has it. The others so far don't seem to. Even McCain who ought to have TF in spades, given his history, but he's just as wimpy and consensus driven as the other used car salesmen in the race. If Fred proves me wrong, then I'll be voting for ABH/O (Anyone but Hillary/Obama)
1
I heard about this early this morning and I've been giddy ever since.
Posted by: Contagion at September 06, 2007 02:27 PM (loeSs)
2
hope it can swing it and pick either Tancredo or Paul for his running mate..the others are dim-a-crits in GOP clothes
Posted by: GUYK at September 06, 2007 02:44 PM (uyoGg)
3
I'm with you.
Maybe we could start our own party. Something like FFUHCtABH/O.
"For Fred Until He's Castrated, then Anyone but Hillary/Obama"
Although, looking at the acronym...it needs work.
Posted by: Phoenix at September 07, 2007 07:40 AM (4N2f4)
4
I'm with you guys too.
". . . a MENTAL institution, Michael." HEH. I loved the way he said that.
Posted by: dogette at September 07, 2007 09:14 AM (q/UVc)
From the DUUUUUH file
Kids whose parents model responsible drinking at home, including letting the child have small amounts of alcohol in a family setting, are ONE THIRD as likely to develop severe binge-drinking behaviors in their teen and young adult years.
What kind of parents would ever allow their children to drink at home? Doesn't this put youngsters at risk?
The answer to the first question is simple. Most of the state laws include a specific exemption for children drinking at home during family and religious ceremonies. Observant Jews, for example, traditionally serve children small glasses of wine during Friday night Sabbath ceremonies. Other cultures also begin socializing children into drinking at an early age--including Mediterranean societies such as Italy, Greece and Turkey (and non-Mediterranean societies such as China).
As for the second, two international surveys--one conducted by the World Health Organization--revealed that these Mediterranean countries and Israel had the lowest binge drinking rates among European adolescents.
In societies where children drink with their parents, this typically means giving a kid a small amount of wine or other alcohol, often watered down on special occasions or a family dinner. Many European countries also lower the drinking age for children when they are accompanied by parents. In the United Kingdom, for example, the legal age is 18, but for a family at a restaurant it is 16. In France and Italy, where the legal age is 16, there is no age limit for children drinking with parents.
But what might all of this mean for teen drinking problems in America?
Several studies have shown that the younger kids are when they start to drink, the more likely they are to develop severe drinking problems. But the kind of drinking these studies mean--drinking in the woods to get bombed or at unattended homes--is particularly high risk.
Research published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 2004 found that adolescents whose parents permitted them to attend unchaperoned parties where drinking occurred had twice the average binge-drinking rate. But the study also had another, more arresting conclusion: Children whose parents introduced drinking to the children at home were one-third as likely to binge.
"It appears that parents who model responsible drinking behaviors have the potential to teach their children the same," noted Kristie Foley, the principal author of the study. While the phrasing was cautious, the implication of the study's finding needs to be highlighted: Parents who do not introduce children to alcohol in a home setting might be setting them up to become binge drinkers later on. You will not likely hear this at your school's parent drug- and alcohol-awareness nights.
So why file this under DUH? Because it's the first principle of adolescent psychology: If you want a kid to NOT do something, take away its taboo. The driving force of childhood is to find one's place in the world. To learn the rules and decide which are important to follow, and which aren't. Teenagers in particular make this an art form, with their kid's minds in little adult bodies. Kids who occasionally share small amounts of alcohol with their parents do not see drinking as either rebellion or escape, because it's something they do in the confines of the family. It's just not "cool" if Mom and Dad do it with you, right?
This is not to say that it's ok for parents to do this with other drugs. Alcohol is the least likely of the drugs of abuse to have adverse consequences on brain development, especially in the small quantities relevant to these studies. A single dose of cough syrup is likely to have more alcohol in it that whatever a child consumes in a responsible home setting.
Nice to see common sense coming out of psychosocial research for a change.
1
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement:
"Because it's the first principle of adolescent psychology: If you want a kid to NOT do something, take away its taboo."
I do not believe, however, the comparison with European and Mediterranean Society's is comparing apples to apples.
I believe the 'drinking' sited in most of these studies is referring to an alcoholic beverage as an accompaniment with a meal. That would be wonderful if it was the case in the U.S., but I believe it is far from how drinking is viewed here.
In the United States, the psychology of drinking is not as an accompaniment to a meal but rather the drinking is viewed as an end in itself.
And it's not just the parents doing the influencing.
Our TV screens are filled with the idea that drinking is THE MOST IMPORTANT activity, bar none. A recent Heineken ad tells us "It's all about the beer"; another beer ad shows a young girl's excitement over a blue strip on a pregnancy test completely dashed by her husband's excitement over his beer label turning blue; and my personal 'favorite', a couple of years ago a commercial shows the party in Heaven coming to a halt because the beer runs out. The angels then cause cases of beer to fall off a delivery truck and the broken bottles' spirit floats up to heaven, so the party can resume.
The U.S. has elevated drinking - and particularly beer drinking - as the ultimate means of having a good time.
A meal with the family never enters the picture.
Until we urge our lawmakers to initiate laws to reduce the glamorization of beer drinking on TV, similar to the restrictions on cigarette advertising, drinking in this country will always be the supposed cool thing to do.
Joe Lukawitz
Nashua, New Hampshire
Posted by: Joe Lukawitz at September 03, 2007 04:51 PM (WXIEq)
2
A drink with a meal is most assuredly NOT the kind of drinking most Americans think of, but this is the behavior under study here, and it seems that this type of drinking at home can prevent the kind of drinking/partying behavior most common among teens and young adults in this country. Amazing.
Posted by: caltechgirl at September 03, 2007 06:36 PM (IfXtw)
3
I have pictures of sherlock as a 7 or 8 year old slamming shots of Aguardiente (some serious liquor).
We drink socially, but are more likely not to drink if RTY is with us (mostly because we have her so infrequently, we don't want alcohol hindering in any way). We are very likely, however, to have a glass of wine with dinner and save the mixed beverages for parties.
(Well, except for from about the end of September through the beginning of January when I have my seasonal depression and drink vodka like water to ameliorate my mood.)
Posted by: wRitErsbLock at September 03, 2007 06:37 PM (0Pi1o)
4
This may be one of those cases where it's difficult to tease out the elements of causation vs. correlation. Alcoholism tends to run in families, so if you start out with alcoholic parents, there's a good chance their kids will abuse alcohol too, regardless of what behavior the parents model (which, given their own issues with alcohol, will either be teetotaling or hard-core abuse, while healthy parents model healthier, more moderate behavior).
Posted by: Xrlq at September 03, 2007 08:40 PM (zf9t4)
5
I realize I'm a data point of one, here, but - when my parents drank, it was wine (or a beer) with a meal. My brother and I were allowed tiny tastes of wine (or beer, except I never could get past the SMELL of beer to want to taste it) as teens.
Neither of us drank in college (I don't drink now after learning that even a half-glass of wine is enough to fire up a nearly-instantaneous migraine). My brother drinks beer and wine but only with meals, and never to excess.
I think maybe having parents who behave responsibly CAN help counteract the "slam some brewskis!!!" model that is presented for American drinking. (If I think about consuming alcohol, usually my first thought is of a couple at the dinner table sharing a half-bottle of wine over dinner.) I always thought the kids in the dorm who got wasted every Saturday night (and paid for it every Sunday) were kind of stupid. Observed from the outside, it seemed to me that the high wasn't worth the hangover, or the fear of having done something really irresponsible while under the influence.
Posted by: ricki at September 04, 2007 05:28 AM (O5SYw)
6
CTG - you are absolutely correct.
While there will always be alcoholics - I've always said we could very likely stop much of the binging and over the top drinking if we stopped looking at the drinking itself as the most evil thing in the world.
By all means have extremely strict rules about drinking and driving... but leave it alone when people are drinking at home and will be staying there. *sigh*
We're being pushed back into Prohibition and we all know how well THAT worked. Sheesh!
Posted by: Teresa at September 04, 2007 08:52 AM (rVIv9)
7
I was able to drink at the tender age of 18 -yeah, I'm old. My children will have tasted several beers and beer styles before they reach the age of 21. In fact, if they want to watch the game with their old man while sipping on a brew, I'll be glad to supply it.
I'll admit to having broken the law since the federal government decided to extort the states during the Reagan administration. I use to work with some 18-20 year olds, pretty responsible kids. After a 60+ hour week, they wanted to chill out in front of the TV while drinking a beer. I knew that they wouldn't be driving anywhere so I bought them beer. And I'd do it again. Like, say, when my children are somewhat older.
This "federal" law has irked my since it was enacted, and I wasn't even affected by it. I contend that if you aren't deemed adult enough to drink responsibly, you shouldn't be able to vote, serve in the armed forces, or be tried as an adult. I'm all in favor of extravgant punishment for douchebags who drive drunk, but treating 18-20 year olds like children is absurd.
For what it's worth, there are some people advocating raising the drinking age to 25 or more, which should be a tipoff that this isn't about protecting the children. It's merely another step down the roads towards Prohibition, Part II.
Posted by: physics geek at September 04, 2007 09:51 AM (MT22W)
8
My parents gave us small glasses of wine on holidays (basically, whenever everyone else was having it, which when I was little was just holidays). If they were having a beer, they let us taste it. They never drank to excess in front of us. It works. It was never some weird mystical thing that I didn't know about.
Posted by: silvermine at September 05, 2007 03:55 PM (4gdyI)
