Much of what I’ve read, both in print and online, written in remembrance of the sixth anniversary of 9/11 has been quite remarkably partisan.  More than a few lefties are taking yet another opportunity to repeat the point that Bush derailed the war on terror by invading Iraq.  More than a few righties are seizing the day to imply that those who oppose Bush are sabotaging the war on terror.  And I’ve seen writers on each side imply that the other side is dishonoring the memory of the 9/11.

These writers themselves are dishonoring the memory, very much, if you ask me.

The people who died in the World Trade Center weren’t left or right, rich or poor, old or young, male or female.  They couldn’t even be stereotyped as Americans, by any means; there were victims from 90 different countries, from Antigua to Zambia. 

And in the first days after the event, partisanship fell away.  I remember a time — a very brief time — when, aside from a few obscenely jaded political operatives, some of whom would soon sharply influence the course of events — almost all of us were shocked out of our daily routines to see each other not by labels and stereotypes, but simply as people.  Fellow human beings.  There were gay victims, and illegal immigrant victims, and gun-toting NRA victims, and wingtip-shoe-wearing victims; in their passing, they were all the same.  And in observing their loss, we were all the same, too.

Remember that?

Beyond these borders, as the world mourned its own victims and ours, moments of silence were observed across Europe, and memorial vigils were held from Japan to Iran.  For a moment, in our grief, humanity became the only thing that mattered.

We promised we would never forget.  And look how much we — all of us — have forgotten already.

Six years later, I think that’s what we’ve lost.  That’s what we keep losing every day.

I think maybe that’s what we ought to remember.

And then we should act on that memory, every day, like it matters.  Then we’ll be honoring the victims of September 11th.

My two cents, anyway.

Apparently it’s not just a "set of beliefs" — it may simply be who we are:

Trying to step outside ideology (if that’s possible), and leaving aside the loaded words "liberal" and "conservative" for a bit, maybe I’m missing something, but if studies like this keep coming up with the same results, this information may have important practical implications. You need to land a damaged plane, deliver a baby under stress, win a battle on the ground, etc.? A brain that simply does not process distractions, alternatives, and conflicting information might be much better at it. You need to make long-term plans and decisions in a complex and constantly changing world uncharacterizable by singular notions? The all-the-options brains might fare better.

Otherwise, you get policy driven by ideology.  And we all see just how peaceful a world that makes.

What leapt out most while working on Who Hates Whom is the symmetrical thinking of reactionaries — we’re completely in the right, the other side consists of lesser beings who do not see the truth and must bend to it and become like us, yadda yadda yadda — leading both sides of many (certainly not all) conflicts. This is of course a lot less troubling to look at in faraway conflicts than one you’re more directly involved in, which is part of what I hope will make the book useful. (Still, you enjoy feeling troubled, Jon makes a bit of a hobby out of finding disturbing parallels between our own unsavory leaders and others. Rainy day fun!) Over and over, extremism — which is, after all, merely a heightened inability to consider alternatives — fuels its counterpart on the opposing side, often to the detriment of all.

In short: Barry Goldwater once said, "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Maybe not, but it’s frequently a direct contradiction in terms.

Not that we aren’t all getting a daily lab course in this, if we care to notice.

And of course, the idea that how your brain processes information should somehow largely determine the course of your life (which, of course, it does) in any way other than the sort of self-selecting manner that already exists may run counter to everything a free thinker holds dear. So maybe there’s no valid application for the UCLA/NYU findings after all.

Worth thinking about, though.

Watching France v. Argentina in the opening match the other night, I couldn’t help but think I’d seen French second-rower Sébastien Chabal somewhere before.

Oh. Right.

Then again, I still say Munster scrum half Peter Stringer is really Bat Boy from the Weekly World News.

Incidentally, if you missed New Zealand v. Italy or Australia v. Japan, you can re-enact the lopsided results by taking a bag of rugby balls the edge of Niagara Falls and throwing them over, one by one.

Each ball is a Kiwi or Aussie possession, and the air resistance on the way down is the Japanese or Italian defense. When the ball hits the river below, count that as a score for New Zealand or Oz.

Each time the ball bounces all the way back up the falls and lands in your hands, give five points to Italy or Japan. Then toss that ball directly back over the edge.

When you run out of rugby balls, add up the score.

SPOILER ALERT

If you don’t know how the final of the quiz show Grand Slam came out, and you’re planning on watching it later, avert your eyes!

Read no further!

Switch!

Congrats to our Trebekistan bud Ken Jennings for a truly awesome display against cartoonish supervillain Ogi Ogas in the Grand Slam final. Dude brought his A-game, and by the end, Ogi had not only been defeated, but transformed against his will, Bruce Banner-like, back into an ordinary human being, able to smile and converse and compliment others. Truly a comic-book-hero performance.

Ken’s a modest enough guy, incidentally, that his only blog post to date on the issue is genuine praise for Ogi, along with a call for the public to understand that he’s not a monster, he’s just a mad scientist gone astray. Pretty classy, you ask me.

Incidentally, Ken’s newest book, Ken Jennings’s Trivia Almanac: 7,777 Questions in 365 Days, will be available just in time for… the day after Christmas, according to Amazon. Hmm. Apparently the marketers at Villard aren’t as quick on the buzzer as Ken himself.

Anyhow, my congrats to the Brigham Thumb on that as well — I know a little about how much work getting a new book ready can be, although more on that shortly.

Speaking of Ken’s buzzer skills, if you missed it, we had the chance to do a joint book signing (Trebekistan meets Brainiac) a while back, followed later by an exhibition match between Ken and me and Ed Toutant from Millionaire.

If you’re wondering, Ed won, running away from Ken and me as if we weren’t even there. This surprised a few in the crowd, but not anyone who knows how good Ed is when he brings his A-game. (Incidentally, yes, Ed really is nine feet tall.)

When Ed was on Jeopardy!, he lost after only a couple of games. But 74-win Ken accepted his ambush trouncing from Ed that day with exactly the same grace he showed in winning Grand Slam this weekend.

Which is ultimately the thing I want to point to here — not how Ken won, but how Ken won. Anybody who uses this guy’s name as a shorthand just for braininess is missing a big chunk of what’s cool here.

Ken deserves a lot of congrats at this point. A lot of which don’t have a damn thing to do with quiz shows.

PS: Btw, I gotta admit, while I loved Grand Slam, I’ll confess: playing along at home, I felt kinda like a boxer who’d been passed over for a major bout. I coulda been a contendah! I coulda had class, Charlie! Oh well. Maybe next year.

SPOILER ALERT

If you don’t know how the final of the quiz show Grand Slam came out, and you’re planning on watching it later, avert your eyes!

Read no further!

Switch!

Congrats to our Trebekistan bud Ken Jennings for a truly awesome display against cartoonish supervillain Ogi Ogas in the Grand Slam final. Dude brought his A-game, and by the end, Ogi had not only been defeated, but transformed against his will, Bruce Banner-like, back into an ordinary human being, able to smile and converse and compliment others. Truly a comic-book-hero performance.

Ken’s a modest enough guy, incidentally, that his only blog post to date on the issue is genuine praise for Ogi, along with a call for the public to understand that he’s not a monster, he’s just a mad scientist gone astray. Pretty classy, you ask me.

Incidentally, Ken’s newest book, Ken Jennings’s Trivia Almanac: 7,777 Questions in 365 Days, will be available just in time for… the day after Christmas, according to Amazon. Hmm. Apparently the marketers at Villard aren’t as quick on the buzzer as Ken himself.

Anyhow, my congrats to the Brigham Thumb on that as well — I know a little about how much work getting a new book ready can be, although more on that shortly.

Speaking of Ken’s buzzer skills, if you missed it, we had the chance to do a joint book signing (Trebekistan meets Brainiac) a while back, followed later by an exhibition match between Ken and me and Ed Toutant from Millionaire.

If you’re wondering, Ed won, running away from Ken and me as if we weren’t even there. This surprised a few in the crowd, but not anyone who knows how good Ed is when he brings his A-game. (Incidentally, yes, Ed really is nine feet tall.)

When Ed was on Jeopardy!, he lost after only a couple of games. But 74-win Ken accepted his ambush trouncing from Ed that day with exactly the same grace he showed in winning Grand Slam this weekend.

Which is ultimately the thing I want to point to here — not how Ken won, but how Ken won. Anybody who uses this guy’s name as a shorthand just for braininess is missing a big chunk of what’s cool here.

Ken deserves a lot of congrats at this point. A lot of which don’t have a damn thing to do with quiz shows.

PS: Btw, I gotta admit, while I loved Grand Slam, I’ll confess: playing along at home, I felt kinda like a boxer who’d been passed over for a major bout. I coulda been a contendah! I coulda had class, Charlie! Oh well. Maybe next year.