Before

Here and there, in posts related to 9/11 in varying degrees, I have written in small doses about my life in the hours just before and after the attacks of that awful day. While some who know me like to joke about my almost complete lack of emotion, it’s emotion that has prevented me from fully expressing myself with regards to the two most shocking events in my lifetime: witnessing the destruction in New Orleans’ 9th Ward one year after Katrina, and 9/11 itself. While walking the 9th Ward, I realized that anger was compromising my photography, more or less the same dynamic at work when I try to write about how drastically my life changed on 9/11. It’s possible that someday I will be granted the clarity to properly tell my story, but until then, Jamie has brought some people together to do just that at The Before Project.

99% of posts here are deliberately non-personal as our mission is to effect change on our broken political system. I haven’t yet linked to the Before Project here because the stories are by nature personal. But five years down the road, these stories make plain the fact that we have all lost something at the hands of an administration dead set on keeping us in fear.

Coincidentally, in the truest sense of the word, 9/11 has another meaning to me. This is another issue rarely discussed here (mostly due to the fact that the trolls love to use it against me for some reason), but after a particularly bad bender, September 11, 1998 was the day I decided that I was powerless over drugs and alcohol and took my ass to AA. Today marks 8 years of sobriety.

Earlier this year, Clerks (and more importantly Mallrats) director Kevin Smith posted the nine-part story (1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9) of Jay’s (actor Jason Mewes) struggle toward his own sobriety.

These two subjects have more than a date in common. To get sober, one must be brutally honest with oneself. The same goes for pulling this country’s head out of its ass. No time like the present.

Comments

  1. jamie beth says:

    i encourage everyone who has ever loved and cared for an addict to read the 9 part story matt is linking to in this post. it is funny, sad and horrifying, much like life. i have often lamented the fact that the anniversary of sept. 11 and the anniversary of matt’s sobriety are the same day — today i think it finally makes sense, to him and to me.

  2. sarabeth says:

    I think the country may have already pulled its head out of its ass.

    Of course, the government is another story…

    (Probably never before in our history has the difference between country and government been so striking, the distinction more important.)

  3. matt says:

    I think the country may have already pulled its head out of its ass.

    Are you prepared to put your money where Dick’s mouth is?

    Vice President Dick Cheney said on Sunday he expects fellow Republicans to rally and keep control of Congress in the November 7 election — and offered to bet on it.

    Although polls show unhappy voters may turn over the U.S. House of Representatives and possibly the Senate to Democrats, Cheney said: “I think we’re doing very well out there.”

    Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney told moderator Tim Russert, “I’ll even bet you a dinner that we hold both houses.”

  4. sarabeth says:

    Dick’s head is, of course, still firmly up his ass.

    I’m willing to put my money where his mouth is (and may he suffer multiple paper cuts when I do that), but who will accept my dirty money after that?

  5. sac says:

    I have a very bad feeling about the November elections. In fact, I’m quite confident that there will be little if any Democratic gains in either house. People are upset but not enough to vote the opposite party, if they are Republicans, or to vote in any kind of numbers, if they are Democrats. I’d bet money on that, unfortunately.

  6. matt says:

    People are upset but not enough to vote the opposite party, if they are Republicans, or to vote in any kind of numbers, if they are Democrats.

    i don’t see this as being the dynamic at all. off year elections are always about the base. dems don’t have to turn voters, they just have to turn out theirs. the problem, as always, comes in the squishy middle where people who like to throw up their hands and say “they’re both bad” live. republicans have enough money to encourage those people to stay home. ah, democracy.

  7. sac says:

    Exactly, which is why I have a bad feeling about the elections. For what it’s worth, I vote religiously. I have not missed an election, be it local, state or federal, since 1988. Moderates aren’t apathetic as a rule, just moderate. By predicting a loss for “our side,” I’m not saying I give up or I’m not voting.

  8. matt says:

    Moderates aren’t apathetic as a rule, just moderate.

    maybe, but i really don’t get it. what’s there to be moderate about anymore?

  9. sac says:

    The world’s not black and white. It simply does not work that way. I despise Bush and everything his administration stands for, but I’ve voted for Republican candidates, locally at least, before. I don’t put much value on partisanship.

    And again, I hope the Dems do re-take both houses. I’m just predicting they won’t. I live and work in Sacramento, a much more politically diverse place than the Bay Area. A good 60 to 70% of the people I interact with daily will vote Republican in November. Many are not happy with Bush, but they believe the Dems would do worse. That’s simply a fact. Unhappiness with the incumbent does not necessarily translate to a win for the other side.

    Actually, I’m not sure you live in the Bay Area. Philidelphia? I can’t remember. Anyway, the above still applies.

  10. gijyun says:

    not that this is indicatively earth-shattering, but significant all the same: my father the republican corporate miner and devouer-er of the american dream is not only voting left in the presidential election, but for colorado’s gubernatorial race too.

    it takes a lot to piss off a miner.

    just sayin’.

  11. Nick in Beantown says:

    Matt said:

    what’s there to be moderate about anymore?

    I’d like to see a response to that one.

  12. matt says:

    The world’s not black and white.

    no, it isn’t. but the situation we find ourselves in here is. we can’t get out of this by employing some middle ground solution, the pendulum has swung too far, and things are too messed up for that now.

    Many are not happy with Bush, but they believe the Dems would do worse. That’s simply a fact.

    i’ll bet you good money that <5% of them wouldn’t even be able to voice a reasonable argument. “dems are weak” would be my guess.

    and yes, i live in the bay. thank god for that.

  13. sac says:

    “i’ll bet you good money that

  14. sac says:

    Crap, my comment got truncated. Was supposed to be:

    i’ll bet you good money that

  15. sac says:

    Now that’s annoying. OK, simply said I agree they couldn’t form a good argument, but they will vote. Also, made some point about less than 5% of ANY side can form good arguments, and also that you’d most likely include me with the 95% who can’t. Also, something about stupid and smart people on both sides.

  16. matt says:

    ok, then any argument that has basis in fact and not rovian spin. >5% of democrats could certainly do that.

    you’d most likely include me with the 95% who can’t.

    clearly.

  17. sarabeth says:

    Unhappiness with the incumbent does not necessarily translate to a win for the other side.

    Aah! That must be why all the polls on the basis of which people who claim to know are predicting big gains for Democrats this fall, why all these polls ask who you plan to vote for, not whether you’re unhappy with the incumbent.

    A good 60 to 70% of the people I interact with daily will vote Republican in November. Many are not happy with Bush, but they believe the Dems would do worse. That’s simply a fact.

    It looks a heck of a lot like your opinion, actually.

  18. sac says:

    ok, then any argument that has basis in fact and not rovian spin. >5% of democrats could certainly do that.

    Yes, they’d voice opinions that differed from the party line spewed by Bush & Co. Of course, it would simply be the Democratic party line. If and when they get in power, we’ll see how effective their line of thinking is, or if they even follow up on whatever they said during the election process.

    See, I agree with almost every point you make, but for better or worse, you’re not running for office. (Maybe you should, I’m not kidding.) The Dems are mostly spineless and ineffective. That pisses me off. I have no faith in them and will vote for them only because the Republicans are worse.

  19. sac says:

    Aah! That must be why all the polls on the basis of which people who claim to know are predicting big gains for Democrats this fall, why all these polls ask who you plan to vote for, not whether you’re unhappy with the incumbent.

    Really? This is your proof? I mean, I hope you’re right, but the polls predicted Kerry would win.

  20. sac says:

    Proof that I’m wrong about the outcome of the Nov. elections. If not your proof, then your argument. People say all kinds of things in polls, then do the exact opposite. Polls are useless.

  21. matt says:

    Yes, they’d voice opinions that differed from the party line spewed by Bush & Co. Of course, it would simply be the Democratic party line.

    this is exactly why you piss me off. these two things simply aren’t equivalent. all you see is he said, she said, not the merits, i guess because “partisanship = bad.”

    The Dems are mostly spineless and ineffective.

    what effect would you have them have? simple majority rules the house, and when they filibuster, all the sensible moderates bitch and moan about how it’s supposedly breaking rules. and none of this addresses the lawbreaker in chief. but it’s dems that are to blame because they haven’t, what, burned the place down?

    Maybe you should, I’m not kidding.

    this post alone disqualifies me.

    the polls predicted Kerry would win.

    a few, and only by a few points. and that was all before bush’s pal osama sent a tape.

  22. sac says:

    a few, and only by a few points. and that was all before bush’s pal osama sent a tape.

    This is why you piss me off at times. Always a qualifier. If the Dems had structured an actual campaign with a viable candidate, then Osama’s tape would natter.

    I agree with much (not all) of the Democratic party line. We’ll see if they follow through with it once in the majority. I hope so.

    but it’s dems that are to blame because they haven’t, what, burned the place down?

    I don’t blame the Dems for Bush’s failures, I’m merely criticizing their own, namely their inability to win an election in 2000 at the very peak of an economic boom and 8 years of general peace and prosperity under a Democratic administration, their initial support for the Iraq war (many Dems flapped their lips against it prior to the vote, but voted for it), their inability or unwillingness to play hardball in 2004. I’m criticizing the party I generally support because they are the ones allegedly representing my views and I would like to see them do better.

  23. sac says:

    “would natter” = wouldn’t matter in my made up twin language.

  24. matt says:

    Always a qualifier.

    so take it away, and what do you have? i was commenting on your poll analysis which was overstated at best, simply wrong at worst.

    their initial support for the Iraq war

    we’ve been over this, ad nauseam.

    I would like to see them do better.

    i’d like to see both sides “do better.” “doing better” requires power that one side has and one side doesn’t.

  25. sac says:

    so take it away, and what do you have? i was commenting on your poll analysis which was overstated at best, simply wrong at worst.

    I seem to remember polls predicting a Kerry win, and the exit polls on election day almost certainly did. Of course, that brings up a lot of the mess in Ohio, but that doesn’t invalidate my point that polls are useless.

    we’ve been over this, ad nauseam.

    What, that they didn’t expect the bungling of the occupation or that based on the intelligence info they were given, it made sense to invade? Let’s put it this way: were you for the war? I’m guessing you weren’t. I wasn’t either. So why did the Dems, almost unanimously, vote for it? It doesn’t matter that they would have lost that vote anyway, they should have made a stand on principle.

    “doing better” requires power that one side has and one side doesn’t.

    Yes it does. I hope the Dems have that power soon. But that’s why I’m sceptical of them. They can’t seem to obtain it with the strategy they’ve used in the past 6 years. Will they change strategy in Nov. and in 2008? I hope so, but I doubt it.

  26. sac says:

    Hey, this was fun, wasn’t it? Sadly, I have to go home now. See ya.

  27. matt says:

    What, that they didn’t expect the bungling of the occupation or that based on the intelligence info they were given, it made sense to invade?

    that they voted to authorize force, not to invade. maybe you don’t remember, but the argument at the time was “we need to give the president the credibility to go to the UN and talk about using force.” oh, and the timing, a month before the elections was cute.

    were you for the war?

    not by the time it started.

    they should have made a stand on principle.

    maybe if that was an actual vote to go to war, they would have.

  28. sac says:

    that they voted to authorize force, not to invade. maybe you don’t remember, but the argument at the time was “we need to give the president the credibility to go to the UN and talk about using force.” oh, and the timing, a month before the elections was cute.

    All of it was cute. I never for a second believed it was necessary to invade Iraq, neither did you or any of us on the left. We have been proven right every step of the way, and yet the Dems bleat on about opposing this and that while voting the opposite. Pathetic.

  29. sarabeth says:

    Why rehash the past? There isn’t a whole lot of bleating going on now.

  30. sac says:

    Yes, they’ve assimilated nicely, haven’t they?

  31. sarabeth says:

    You want them to change, and when they do, you want to be snarky about it?

  32. sac says:

    I want them to follow through with something.

  33. sarabeth says:

    That’s dodging the question. Why all the repeated snark?

  34. sac says:

    Well for one, I enjoy it. But also, I’m serious in my disillusionment with the Democratic party. I expect to be pissed off by the Republicans, so I don’t put any energy towards them. I can’t change them, rarely do people switch over from Repub to Dem (although the reverse is quite common), so why bother? I can hope that the Dems will get smarter, win some elections, and enact som policies that make sense to me. But they aren’t doing that, haven’t been for 8 years. Also, I’ve gotten a better understanding of what people are made of since 9/11, and mostly it’s fear, and I don’t doubt for one minute the Republicans’ ability to exploit that successfully.

    So this is why I argue on a site that I mostly agree with. To do so on a site I don’t agree with is pointless.