Joe Hawk on 9/11: "I did not shed a tear. Not one."

I remember a few years ago, Elizabeth Wurtzel said some similiar things in an interview about her reaction to 9/11 as it was taking place. Just how it seemed more surreal than anything to watch, etc., etc. She made the mistake of saying it was "beautiful" to watch - of course, taken out of context, that seems horrible. But she made a good point - it was tough to connect what you were seeing with its actual implications. There was a disconnect because it was so unbelievable.

Of course, she got killed for it by people. Of course, she's a drama queen to begin with. But that's what happens if you invoke 9/11 and deviate from the approved script of how you speak about it.

That's what makes Hawk's column really courageous. There are going to be a lot of people who refuse to see the forest for the trees. He'll get emails demanding his firing, etc., etc., etc. Probably one of the most frustrating aspects of being a columnist. Even when your point is crystal clear, people go nutso when you hit a nerve.

 

i hope this asswipe gets nuked.

 

I'm not sure I get why the 9/11 reference was even necessary. I get his point--didn't cry during our greatest national disaster, yet cried about his dog--but the two seem very mutually exclusive. One is shared by millions...the death of a pet belongs only to you. Maybe I missed the point.

 

he's not a weeper.

 

I got that. I guess the better analogy would be someone who didn't weep when Grandma died, but wept for the dog. To me, it seems 9/11 is just a very different thing.

 

I didn't cry on 9/11 either... I was too numb to do so... It didn't seem real.

Six weeks later when I was in NYC covering a game, I went to Ground Zero and if you were able to keep a dry eye then, well that would have been tough...

It was a great column... If anybody reads it and thinks "Joe Hawk hates America" you're truly missing the point...

 

So the guy doesn't like Vick because his dog died and it hurts him?

Haven't I read this column in EVERY SMALL PAPER IN AMERICA over the past few months?

 

I visited Ground Zero three months after 9/11 -- weirdly enough, the day after Dick Schaap died. Anyway, I never cried. Instead, I was empty, shaking and in shock -- and somewhat appalled at the Disneyland nature of it, with tourists snapping photos of a big friggin crater where body parts forever shall lie.

I didn't cry over Dick's death, either, but it left me feeling pretty hollow.

Anyway, I am sure the Republicans will come out in full force on this one to tar and feather the guy. Heaven forbid someone issues his opinion, no matter how thoughtful and sincere, if it's not from the party line. Yes, you can argue that he's sensationalizing the piece with the 9/11 reference, but it also makes it hit home for a lot of people.

 

"People who know me well know that I love dogs and tolerate people."

No false analysis by oj at all.

 

The Republicans are going to come after Joe Hawk??

I hope you mean the ones on this board, not the Washington ones.

 

I'm amazed this thread has reached 34 36 37 posts without the discussion turning to the hiring practices of the R-J. This is almost, but not quite, on par with a thread solely on the merits of the column written by an SE at a paper somewhere in New Jersey, the name of which escapes me at the moment. The Newarkonian? Eh, whatevs.

Not a horrible column, but Passan/Jenkins/Plaschke-level stuff it was not. Hey everyone, killing dogs is naughty!

And wicked: was the dig at Repubs really necessary? I know they're guilty of everything from the flouride in the water to Jesus hanging on the cross, but I doubt a C- column on Michael Vick is going to get the RNC hate machine gearing up.