The hole in the ground
Ray Nagin's an incompetent jerk, but he did have a point (sorry, Time$elect).
Yep. The impotent mixture of political and business interests, with the doleful addition of the bereaved's needs for a monument to their losses, have left a hole in New York; an opportunity to -- out of the devestation -- inject some life into lower Manhattan has been squandered.
Â"You guys in New York City can'?t get a hole in the ground fixed, and it's five years later," he said. "?So let'?s be fair."?
When CBS disclosed his remarks last week, the better to promote its Sunday-night "60 Minutes" broadcast, some people asked, How dare he!
How dare he use "?hole in the ground"? to describe ground zero, they said. Those 16 acres of ruin are "sacred ground" to people who assign theological significance to a devastation wrought by killers guided by religious motivations of their own.
The storm over Mr. Nagin's statements, while not equal to a Category 3 hurricane, was substantial. It was enough to force the mayor on Sunday morning to become a penitent on NBC'?s "Meet the Press."? His confessor was the program's host, Tim Russert.
Mr. Russert'?s interviewing style can span a range of emotions. At times, he is a tough-as-titanium interrogator. Other times, he comes close to turning himself into the national tear duct, to steal H. L. Mencken'?s description of William Jennings Bryan. He was a bit of both on Sunday when he asked Mr. Nagin if he would apologize for his language.
The mayor's first response was to suggest that his comments were taken out of context. (When a politician claims to have been quoted out of context, you are well-advised to keep your hand on your wallet.) But then, under Mr. Russert'?s doleful prodding, Mr. Nagin began to backpedal. "?Absolutely," he was "?very sorry,"? he allowed, and "?meant no disrespect" to 9/11 relatives.
To describe ground zero, he said, "?I should have probably called it an undeveloped site as of yet.? His real point, he added, was ?to show how difficult it is for people to rebuild after a major disaster.?
Now, many New Yorkers may not give a hoot what Mr. Nagin has to say, one way or another. It'?s not as if he has been a beacon throughout his own city'?s ordeal. His main talent at times has been to open his mouth only to switch feet. Remember his reference to New Orleans as "chocolate city"? He didn'?t mean that he saw it as a potential rival to Hershey, Pa.
But even though the mayor'?s wording may have been crass, was he wrong?
"You know,"? he told Mr. Russert, "?I'?ve gotten some calls from New Yorkers that said, '?You know, no one has really said this, and really pointed us to the fact that it'?s five years after the fact.'"?
NOT quite. Mr. Nagin is hardly the first to notice that nothing has been built where the twin towers once stood. Few facts are more obvious. The question is whether we in New York have become so soft that we cannot face reality, even if it comes inelegantly wrapped.
There is no reason to believe that is so.
A readiness to look realistically at Bernard B. Kerik turned him from a hero into a punch line. A more cold-eyed assessment of Rudolph W. Giuliani is under way as well after years of hagiography.
The men who led the federal commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks now lament that they treated the former mayor with kid gloves. Separately, HarperCollins has just published "Grand Illusion,"? by two New York journalists, Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins. Their book praises Mr. Giuliani as having been a tower of strength on 9/11 but also faults him for serious managerial missteps that may have made the day more calamitous than it had to be.
Wherever the reality may lie, surely New Yorkers can take it. That certainly goes for anything Mr. Nagin says about the lack of soaring progress at ground zero, mired in battles over insurance, design plans, security and pacifying 9/11 families.
The New Orleans mayor now prefers to call it "?an undeveloped site as of yet"?? Fine. But it doesn'?t mean he was wrong the first time. To the dismay of most New Yorkers, it sadly remains, five years later, a hole in the ground.
Yep. The impotent mixture of political and business interests, with the doleful addition of the bereaved's needs for a monument to their losses, have left a hole in New York; an opportunity to -- out of the devestation -- inject some life into lower Manhattan has been squandered.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home