Funny you should mention it

because the Times magazine's depressing, and convincing, lead story was on the same general theme. And, for that matter, so too was one of the shorter pieces. (For that matter, the other short piece was really interesting, too.) I really want there to be a strong counterargument to the lead article, but no one leapt to mind when I read it. Does one exist? (It was easier to respond to the article about the new intellectual magazines.)

Last night I went to see the Tribute in Light from the parking garage they shone from. (MAS organizes, owns, and operates Tribute.) It was a pretty unique opportunity, but I didn't take any pictures, unfortunately. They're really nice; I think they're the most perfect memorial we have now, and I'm hard-pressed to think of any other that speaks so eloquently both to the human loss (beams of light rising up can be read so many ways) and the dislocation felt by other New Yorkers who didn't lose anyone. The lights clearly, directly, and respectfully evoke the World Trade Center and, in doing so, fill the void created by their absence. They're really quite touching--an excellent memorial for New York City. The rest of the country might not get them. They interpreted 9/11 differently. It wasn't an attack on their home, but on their homeland. Maybe they're able to look beyond the immediate attack to see what the attacks meant abstractly. I can do that--hell, it's one of the major reasons you and I are writing back and forth here--but I can't ignore the local impact.