OPINION: Remembering 9/11, scoring a debate, eluding truth

Three thoughts … Hundreds of thousands of Nebraskans will join millions of Americans this week to mark the 25th anniversary of 9/11, the horrible shorthand for violence and death that came to our shores. Much as JFK's assassination or Pearl Harbor became seminal moments for earlier generations, 9/11 did for Gen Y and Gen Z. Twenty-five years ago this week, I gathered around a television in the newsroom of the Grand Island Independent with reporters, editors, ad reps and pressmen to watch the world as it was irretrievably altered. I had been called back from an assignment just in time to see the North Tower of the World Trade Center collapse. We, as a nation, would never be the same. The Independent staff then set about publishing an 'extra,' a special edition of a newspaper that would hit doorsteps later that afternoon. The extra we produced and ran on Sept. 11, 2001, was one of only a handful ever printed in the 141 years of the newspaper's history. I wrote one story for the extra, an interview with the cousin of a graphic artist in our advertising department. She gave me his number on the off chance he might answer amid the terror of that morning. I was shocked when he did. Out of breath and hurrying to get out of Manhattan, he told me he had seen the second plane making its way toward the World Trade Center, flying above the Hudson River, murderers mixed among the hundreds of innocents onboard. He was essentially running for his life. The evil and fear that unfolded that morning altered our national psyche. How we see each other. How we see the rest of the world. How we choose to navigate the increasing antipathy among humans towards each other. We must never forget how the events of 9/11 made us feel, frightened us, steeled our resolve. We might also do well to remember the sense of unity and community we felt with one another and even among those around the globe who had proclaimed, 'Today we are all Americans.' Granted, its staying power waned, but for several months we saw through and over the many divisive walls we had erected. Too bad it took trauma and tragedy to do that. Meanwhile, we remember. * * * My score card for the Nebraska State Fair's Osborn/Ricketts debate worked out to be par for the course. As expected, neither said anything particularly new, GOP Sen. Pete Ricketts touting his experience, what an incumbent usually does, and iIndependent Dan Osborn his plan for change, the bailiwick of the challenger. The hour was spent with the pair agreeing on more than either might cop to, but having a non-partisan in the race lent itself to the sadly quaint notion of common ground. The panel's questions covered a good range of topics in an hour, although I wanted to hear more about why anyone would want membership in a club with the reputation for abdicating its federal government co-equalness to the president. Or the ongoing push by the current administration to disenfranchise voters. And whatever happened to that whole Epstein law all of Nebraska's cCongressional representatives voted for but which seems now to have been buried beneath war, sketchy food and measles? Still, even if we already knew most of the substance, the debate gave a side-by-side measure of style and demeanor, in which I found Ricketts's rapid-fire and Osborn's measured responses instructive. One suggestion: Please leave time for the candidates to question each other. The evening did have a low point. Ricketts' continued an annoying use of the term 'Democrat Dan' for Osborn (37 times in the hour and at least once in every answer). The indecorous name-calling grew old quickly, and by the time debate moderator Dave Griek turned out the lights, it had taken on the vibe of one of those petulant, doom-mongering political ads on TV. The high point: that both candidates showed up for a debate. * * * The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently accused the Pennsylvania Health Department of lying about two measles deaths, touting the federal government's 'commitment to transparency and telling the American people the truth — a foundational principle of the Trump administration.' Wait … what? Transparency? The truth? In a word, no. From why we're at war to reflecting-pool fiction to election-fraud fairy tales to every 'greatest,' 'most' or 'nobody has seen anything like it,' the truth from this administration is extraordinarily elusive. Nor is it only the president. His commerce secretary recently said data centers don't use water. His vice president once insisted immigrants were eating their neighbors' pets. We could go on … for a long time.