Hour 1: Where were you and what were you doing on 9/11/2001? What did you think? What did you predict life would be like today, ten years later?
Hour 2: How does life today compare with what you predicted ten years ago? What do you think will happen in the next ten years? Thoughts on Obama’s and on other leaders’ speeches, and some recommended articles.
If you were unable to attend live and would like to hear this week’s webcast/podcast, click here for hour one, and click here for hour two, or you can access the files via iTunes (link on the right-hand side of this page >>>>>> ).
Thanks to all who participated live! Use the comments portion of this post to leave comments, and to suggest topics for future shows. If you are enjoying the podcasts, don’t forget to “Like” the show’s page on Facebook (link also on the right-hand side of this web page >>>>>), leave ratings and reviews in iTunes, and tell your friends. Thanks!
If you would like to register to attend next Sunday’s webcast live, which will take place in two weeks from tonight, click here.
Don't Let It Go 
I’ll be composing a commentary for Rule of Reason and other blogsites on Obama’s, Bloomberg’s and Bush’s 9/11 addresses. Also, my “Post 9/11 World” piece was picked up by innumerable other blogsite other than the usual suspects, and have been told it’s being translated into German and Hebrew.
That piece (“Post 9/11 World”) should be turned into a movie.
to think our actions in the middle east haven’t caused a lot of the hatred against us is irresponsible and ignorant.
“To think our actions” have any bearing on their pre-existing “hatred against us is irresponsible and ignorant.”
How dare you imply that we provoked what was done to us? I am not ignorant: I know that, as Craig Biddle wrote in The Objective Standard, “Islam is not a religion of peace and love that has been hijacked by “extremists”; it is a religion of war and unspeakable evil that some Muslims take seriously and others do not.” And I know that their abhorrent, death-worshipping cult is the cause for Muslims’ hatred of us, because America stands as a repudiation of their backwards, mystical nonsense. I think that appeasement and self-abnegation in the face of attacks from hostile forces who hate us because we are good, are irresponsible and ignorant.
Its an irrational religion like any other. As for the USA, I don’t think they have the faintest clue what they stand for. One can only listen to americans talking about democracy when after reading their founders, one comes to the conclusion that the system is not intended to be a democracy at all.
To everyone reading this post:
Do yourself a favor and read Edward Cline’s “Post 9/11 World” piece.
http://goo.gl/yDfGJ
Talal: Our actions are responsible for the attack on us? In a manner of speaking, yes, they were. We let Nasser seize the Suez Canal. We let backward, religious, primitive barbarians seize the oil wealth these same barbarians had been slaughtering each other over for 1,400 years without a clue to what was beneath the sand and desolation all that blood was soaked into. We let Khomeni and his jihadist thugs hold Americans hostage for over a year. We have always turned the other cheek when Arabs and other Muslims committed some outrage against American and other Westerners. I could go on. But the point is that, yes, we are, in a manner of speaking, responsible for the attacks on 9/11, because our government refused to acknowledge our enemy. And our enemy said: Okay, try this one for size. Your capacity for grief and suffering is immeasurable, and we mean to make you grieve and suffer – before we conquer you. And then “you ain’t seen nothing yet.” Nikita Khrushchev was an amateur when he claimed, “We will bury you!” We intend to bury the West and produce absolutely nothing.
My teeth grate when I read or hear someone carelessly, and ignorantly, refer to the United States as a “democracy,” or a “constitutional democracy.” The Founders abhorred democracies, having studied their histories from ancient to their own time. Even a casual reading of the Federalist Papers, of the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the debates on the Constitution will reveal an almost unanimous revulsion for democracy. The French Revolution established a “democracy,” and produced the Reign of Terror, a costly civil war, a directorate, and finally Napoleon. Unfortunately, many people believe that “democracy” is synonymous with “republic,” and it is a republic that the Founders established. Also unfortunately, the term “republic” has been corrupted over several generations of sloppy usage to mean virtually any political system, including communist, socialist, and theological ones. Recapturing the intended meaning of the term, so that it means without qualification political system that upholds and defends inalienable individual rights, poses a daunting challenge.
Ed,
Would you agree with the term “Democratic Republic” to signify that we are a republic but with our representatives chosen by election? I have heard some of the better Conservatives make the argument that that is the only way the US is “democratic”.
I too hate the term democracy. Anyone who uses that term is by definition clueless about politics. And all this “spreading democracy” in the Middle East that is preached as gospel by both pro-Obama Leftists and pro-Bush NeoCons turns my stomach. “Democracy” is just a term to smuggle in either outright socialism or extreme welfare-statism. It should never be used.
No, I couldn’t agree with that usage. The term “democracy” is too notorious (at least it is with anyone who can make fundamental distinctions), open to endless sloppy equivocations. I would prefer the term “Constitutional Republic,” which is more specific because the emphasis would be on “constitution,” which would be the basic and inviolable document of the “republic.” This is how the Founders meant the document to be. The unadulterated Constitution is a marvel of simplicity, just to read it, but that simplicity was the result of unprecedented, and, today, unappreciated intellectual labor, requiring a knowledge of history, of natural rights philosophy, and a commitment to reason and a respect for individual rights. The Founders made it as statist-proof as they could imagine. It wasn’t enough, of course. It didn’t keep the federal government out of the economy, and if individual rights are going to be secured against corruption, lobbyists seeking favors, and politicians seeking to grant them, then an amendment to the document should banish the government from the economy and so help to preserve individual rights and private property.
I was in the 9th grade at a catholic school on 9.11.01. While I have never been religious, my father wanted me to attend private school. I mention the school’s ;/ religious affiliation because my principal prohibited students and teachers from watching this historic event on television and I believe his religious views influenced his decision to shield us from that day. Many rules religious people adhere to are there for the purpose of protecting children, while in reality it has left me feeling resentful. As a lover of history, having to sit in a room and pretend like nothing was happening upset me tremendously, especially while others my age were able to watch history unfold and discuss it with their teachers. I can’t think of a rational reason to keep 15 to 18-year-olds from watching the events of 9/11. While everyone has emotional stories, mine is nothing but a dull classroom with a room full of students forced to have their heads buried in the sand.
But then were you able to watch it and discuss it with your parents when you got home, at least? And with your friends outside of school?
Yes ma’am, it was my sister’s birthday so the entire family was home. My parents were busy trying to contact my other sister who lived in New York City at the time. Mainly while discussing the day with my friends I felt like I missed out on something life changing. It may not seem like a huge deal since the media replayed it all 24/7, but I felt detached.
On Sunday I posted a sarcastic “thank you” to that principal on Facebook. I was surprised by how many of my former classmates agreed with that sentiment.
Equality 7-2521: I’ve had that suggestion from others, and also requests to turn it into a full-length novel. I’ve lost count of the times people have asked me at booksignings if the Sparrowhawk series is going to be made into a movie, as well, or at least a multi-part television series. But book or movie, the “Post 9/11 World” idea would require years of work on my part with no financing at all. Thank you for the suggestion, however.
The idea that America caused Islamic hatred of the US is probably the most ridiculous idea that is currently floated in this country. Here’s the fallacy: We are the human beings, they are merely billiard balls and are not really human. Oh, really. They have no ideas of their own? They have no philosophy of their own that guides their action? In short, they can only react like a lower animal? For this idea to be true means they could not be human.
One’s anger/hatred is an emotional response because one’s values have been stepped on, violated, destroyed. So, that is an evaluation. That however is not the determinant of one’s actions. The determinant – at least for a rational man – is how he is going to create and secure his values.
As an aside: Ron Paul really does himself a huge disservice with his view of the Middle East situation. He creates himself sooo arrogant. “I’m the human, they are not.”
I listened to your podcast this evening. My experience was a little different than what I heard, so thought I’d write about it.
I remember turning on the TV on Sept 11 and seeing the first building burning. In riveted disbelief, I watched the second building hit and then both of them coming down. I was so aware that this was a wake-up call – that I had to become morally stronger than the Muslims to defeat their evil.
I knew I was not strong enough intellectually and morally to be a force to be reckoned with in standing for political freedom and individual rights. That event set off an intense re-acquaintance with Rand’s work and now that 10 years is past, I’m clear who I am in the matter. My whole life has transformed from one acting a lot from fear to one creating value. I now have a long and solid intellectual tap root that is not going to have me blow over in a storm.
The net effect for me has been that I chose to live as a rational egoist. It took eight years for me to get myself to the place where I made that choice, fully conscious of what I was doing.