|
Norman Mailer and the Box Cutters
The
backstory in this dream - as we say in We're
in a quandary, and who better to help us out of the muddy mess than our
current third floor guest, Norman Mailer. I make my way up the stairs,
push back the multi-colored tie-dye curtain that stands in for a door, and
find the irascible author kicked back on a bed, his luggage in the corner,
still unpacked. " He
cuts me off with a brisk wave of his hand. "I'm resting," he
growls, "I didn't come here for that." Norman
Mailer thinks I want to talk shop. I quickly inform him that I have come
for sage advice, not a writing tips seminar. I explain the situation. "If
I return the money, will I still go to jail? It's under $1,000." When
Jill arrives home, I tell her of our famous houseguest's generosity, but
we worry over hastily phoning the police to tell them that we are ready to
make good on our crime because there's always the possibility that
Norman's just blowing smoke up our ass and won't actually come through
with the 50 grand. That's
pretty much where the dream ended, and the harsh rays of sunlight beat
feet through the balcony door and urged me out of bed. I
can offer an interpretation of this dream. In fact, I can offer a myriad
of thoughts on the meaning and symbolism of this nocturnal mind wandering.
But to do so, I would be committing a grievous crime upon the reader
because the reader is not armed with the pertinent facts. The reader does
not know all the exhaustive details of my life and career that culminated
to form this dream. How could the reader trust that my interpretation was
fact and not an evasive fallacy? Case
in point: the morning after the Norman Mailer dream, I read the partial
transcript, released by the 9-11 Commission this week, of Flight Attendant
Betty Ong's call to an American Airlines operations desk on an emergency
line on OPERATIONS:
What's the number of your
seat? What's
missing from Betty's account? An interpretation of Betty's waking
nightmare that was spoon-fed to the public by a compliant media for weeks
and months on end after the tragic events unfolded. What is missing, plain
and simple, are two words: box cutters. The
cabin has apparently been maced, Betty calmly explains. And flight
attendants have been stabbed. Stabbed. Not sliced, which would be
the result from an attack by someone wielding a box cutter. There
has never been one shred of evidence to support the contention that the
9-11 hijackers were armed with box cutters. This is a myth that the media
reported as fact, constantly regurgitating the question, "How could
19 hijackers armed with box cutters create such a tragedy?" A
box cutter, you understand, was an object that could easily be carried
aboard a commercial airliner in a pre-9-11 world. But to imply that the
hijackers were carrying knives ("Our number one has been stabbed, and
our five has been stabbed") or other weaponry that made it past the
security screening is to open the airlines up to a whole world of
liability. And
so the box cutter myth was created, carried on by Ashcroft and Rumsfeld in
various press interviews despite no evidence to support the thought. Box
cutters. An interpretation of a nightmare that was sold as valid until
Betty Ong's long-gone voice stepped out of the ether and offered her own
rendering of the hazy tableau. And did I mention that I don't even like Norman Mailer? discuss this column in the forum
|