10 Years On

I was in New York City last week for work and happened to be staying in a hotel downtown that overlooked the World Trade Center site.  I have been down to the site maybe seven or eight times since 9/11/2001, but it had been maybe a year or more since the last time.

I walked over to check out the progress on the construction - which is impressive - and chatted with one of the literally hundreds of construction people in the area.  "Even ten years on," I said to him, "looking at this still gives me chills."  It really does.

"A lot of people died in there," he replied after a moment, "but this," he indicated the buildings going up with a wave of his arm, "is a big 'F*$%  You' to them."

I have to say, I am inclined to agree.  To look around the area - the many city blocks of cranes, hard hats, half-built skyscrapers, eight-story-deep holes in the ground, and memorials both formal and informal - is to see one of the key ingredients of what it means to be American. 

We have always been a country of rebirth, of second chances, of mistakes rectified and odds overcome.  There is a fundamental defiance, and pride, and a whole hell of a lot of back-breaking hard work going into the WTC site.  These are some of the metals that went into the initial forging of America, and it was gratifying to see that we can still build our future with these same ingredients.

We may not be perfect - no one is - but I came away from my trip extremely proud of what America can be, and what Americans can do when they put their minds to it.

Ends and Means

You often hear, "the ends don't justify the means," but I'm not sure that is entirely true. 

Actually, most of the time the ends do justify the means - otherwise, you wouldn't be using those "means" or even putting in the effort to get to a particular "end".  For example, if you need a hole in the backyard (the end) you get a shovel and dig it (the means). 

Really what that expression means is that, "the ends do not justify the use of any and all means to get to them."  In this case, it would be inappropriate to use a bunker-buster bomb to put a hole in your suburban backyard.


So it becomes a question of degree, and that's where it gets tricky.  It is much easier for us to agree when the choices are far apart (use a shovel; use a bomb), but when the choices are much closer together we have a harder time deciding if the means are justified or not.  This is the basis for the slippery slope - a small escalation is ok, but after 50 of them, you have effected a large escalation.

So the question is, at what point do you throw a flag and cry, "no more"?  From a world-stage standpoint, this is a hugely important discussion.  Do you allow Germany to rearm in 1937?  In retrospect, maybe not so great.  Do you allow Saddam to develop WMD?  Again, in retrospect, we should have let that one slide. The problem is that we will always have imperfect information ahead of time, and all choices can go awry. 

On a smaller stage, you are faced with everyday questions like: discipline the kids or let it slide? call out a co-worker or wait it out?  take a public stance on a town issue or work behind the scenes? 

I guess everyone has their own set of tipping points for different issues.  A question: do you consciously choose to cross that line or does it happen without your thinking about it?