Just Kidding

In a follow up piece to his "bring it on (again)" column, To save America, we need another 9/11, Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelphia Daily News retracts -- sort of -- his most recent column, I was wrong about another 911. His latest gem is not really an apology, but more of an "I was right, but I was wrong" theme:

MY HYPOTHESIS last week that another 9/11 attack would unite America was wrong, judging by e-mail and voice-mail responses. When I stopped reading at 1,000 (lots more unread) roughly 65 percent disagreed with me, many violently and obscenely.

* * * *

Interview requests rained in from radio (local, national and Canadian) and TV (Fox News, CNN Headline News.) I accepted as many as I could.

Doing what it was supposed to do, the headline captured attention, but it was slightly off. It said a 9/11 attack is "needed," which was a bit beyond what my column said.

I led my column saying, "I was thinking another 9/11 would help America." I was speculating on the effect of an attack, not calling for it. Later I said I had no doubt terrorists are planning to attack us again. "If it is to be, then let it be." I am resigned to an attack, not calling for it.

One point he makes is that the original headline ( "we need another 9/11") didn't correspond to his point in the column. I'd say the same is true with this one -- he doesn't exactly say he was "wrong" in the first column about wanting another 9/11 to unite us, only that he doesn't think anything will really unite our divided nation. In essence, he's saying he was right to want to unite us, but wrong that even another 9/11 would do it.

I do agree that he's wrong about one thing: as I said in United We Are, I think the country is pretty united -- just that it's against the War, not for it.

As I read this piece, I couldn't help but wonder if he was up for a raise? If so, I'm sure the attention he brought to the paper will definitely be a big help in his negotiations. If that was his real point, he was right after all.

On the other hand, rather than Bykofsky's approach, I think the approach proposed by William K. Wolfrum is the better course to follow: To Save America, we need the Black Death. Picking up on Stu's "sick bastard" idea, Wolfrum observes that he is:

A bastard so tired of listening to people use their freedom of speech that he thinks it’s long past the time that half or more of them suffered a cruel death. So many of you have gotten so carried away with your freedoms, that you have forgotten what is most important to America - to kill other people in the name of that freedom.

We have reached a terrifying point in America - too many people are acting brave in front of a grave threat to our own existence.

* * * *

Luckily for us, George Bush has done his part. He has helped make al Qaeda stronger, has helped promote international terrorism on a whole, and has helped the world despise us. He stands in front of the nation on a regular basis, shouting to us all to be afraid, be terrified, head for the hills. But now, after six years, people are not listening. They are being brave.

The Black Death would change that.

Starting in the 1300s, and by some accounts, lasting in some form or another to the 1700s, the Black Plague killed millions, and by some estimates, wiped out two-thirds of the world’s population.

And it brought people together.

There was a sense of community and purpose as people rushed to bury and burn bodies. There was no debate over politics or policies or war. There was only endless mourning and death.

If you are at all interested in saving our county -- go read the rest. It may well be the only thing that can save us.

Tags: Commentary, Philly, Bykofsky