The Dish

Salon has an article by Alissa Torres, a 9/11 widow:

[In] the absence of concrete facts about how my husband died, I created my own story … Here's how I see it: Eddie looks out the window into a clear-blue sky, the kind of view you only see on postcards, and he smiles at the view he will now enjoy every day. A plane zooms into the frame — cut to Mohammed Atta, the pilot, almost the same age as Eddie, as the plane dips slightly and crashes into the building a few floors below. Lights flicker out. Screams. The tower trembles.

A woman cowers under a desk on the floor as crowds trample toward the nearest stairwell. "You can't stay here," Eddie says in a calm voice, helping her to her feet. "Come with me. It'll be OK." They run together from stairwell to stairwell, but it's too congested, the air is getting thick with smoke, the heat is unbearable. Instead, Eddie breaks a window and they stand there, holding hands, contemplating the fall below. Maybe he thinks of me. Maybe he thinks of everyone he loved. "This'll be just like skydiving," he says.

They kiss and jump together. Shock of the blue sky and then: The screen goes black.

I put this story together over time, based on what I knew, what I speculated based on Eddie, and, of course, what I hoped. Since I was already embellishing the story — before I imagined the best that could happen, I certainly entertained the worst — why not add something sweet to lessen the horror? But even this has been hard to hold on to when, deep down, I knew it couldn't be true. Even factors like whether or not Eddie jumped. For a long time, it seemed so certain, but even that theory fogged over with doubt. These days, I don't even ask.

(Photo: a photo of a 9/11 victim – not Eddie – by Chris Hondros/Getty.)

A collection of the Atlantic's best essays on the mass murder – and its consequences. My reflections on the anniversary here.

A reader writes:

I hate to presume that a blogger is posting in bad faith, but when an intelligent guy like Matt Welch asks an opened-ended question to which he could easily look up the answer, I'm not sure how else to interpret it. In point of fact, the mandate in the House bill would apply to all resident aliens, irrespective of their immigration status. And the Exchange would be open to all, so that they could buy coverage. Welch ought to know this, because the articles to which he links use these facts to insinuate that the bill will extend coverage to illegal immigrants.

But what it would actually do is force illegal immigrants to buy coverage without the benefit of subsidies.

In other words, the very elements of the bill being used by critics to demagogue on illegal immigration would actually force them to pay for their own health care. This would have two salutary effects – reducing the amount of uncompensated care, which the rest of us currently subsidize, and raising the relative cost of living in this country illegally. If those most concerned with illegal immigration would stop trying to find evidence of a nefarious conspiracy in the bill, they might notice that it actually advances their goals.

This reader is mostly correct, though enforcing a mandate on illegal immigrants may prove challenging. Here's the Congressional Research Service report (pdf) that sparked this debate, and here's an important excerpt:

Under H.R. 3200, all legal permanent residents (LPRs), nonimmigrants, and unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test [present in the United States for at least
31 days during the current year and at least 183 days during the current year and previous two years] would be required to obtain health insurance. Noncitizens meeting the definition of nonresident aliens (e.g., temporary visitors, temporary workers in the United States for less than 183 days in the year) would not be required to obtain health insurance. Notably, the IRC does not contain special rules for individuals who are in the United States without authorization (i.e., illegal or unauthorized aliens). Instead, the IRC treats these individuals in the same manner as other foreign nationals—an unauthorized individual who has been in the United States long enough to qualify under the substantial presence test is classified as a resident alien; otherwise, the individual is classified as a nonresident alien. Thus, it would appear that unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.

The WSJ writes today that:

According to an analysis last month by the Congressional Research Service, Congress's nonpartisan research body, the House version of an overhaul that was passed over the summer excludes illegal immigrants from a requirement that most uninsured people either purchase insurance or pay a tax.

Unless the WSJ is talking about a different report, or the Dish and the reader above are mistaken, this is wrong. The CRS report above says the exact opposite. Short-term illegal immigrants won't be mandated to get insurance but long-term illegal residents will.  Polifact rates the Republican claim that "the health care bill won't check who's illegal" as half-true. Read their analysis to see which half.

Jonah hearts Beck.

Pawlenty vs Palin? But he's still a wimp.

Ambers has the scoop.

He's concerned about the tiger some in the GOP are now riding. His defense of Cass Sunstein is very well put.

Five writers remember 9/11. Here's Tim Kreider:

It wasn’t until I actually went to New York City a week after the

attacks that I understood how empty and inappropriate an emotion anger was to bring to the circumstances; it was like picking fights at a wake. New Yorkers, who had been so profoundly wounded, hadn’t given in to rage; what they were, mostly, was sad.

I hesitate to say this, but that was not only a ghastly time; it was also it was a beautiful time, in the same way that a friend’s funeral can be beautiful.

New Yorkers seemed to have had their shells torn off, the gelid stuff of their inner selves exposed and flinching at the air. Jealously tended hierarchies temporarily evaporated, and the worthless currency of human decency reacquired street value. Strangers made eye contact and got too choked up to speak. I heard about a wave of tender and desperate spontaneous sex — it would be the opposite of the truth to call it “casual.” Graffiti appeared that actually spoke instead of just marking territory, like the overheard murmurs of a city talking to itself or fitfully dreaming. I saw a spray-painted message that would’ve seemed trite or sentimental a week before: YOU ARE ALIVE.

A horrible story of a double-murder. It's not clear yet whether the shooting was politically motivated since it was accompanied by the guy shooting someone else as well. We'll find out. But there's always something horrible about the murder of anyone engaged in a political demonstration for whatever reason. May he rest in peace.

From today's Miami Herald, an op-ed from the commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999 and the commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994. 

On this solemn day we pause to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11. As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light — as it inevitably will — it embitters and alienates the very people we need most.