I know that it’s considered poor form to just post a link and be done.
But really.
I just can’t think of anything else to say here.
I don’t know, can’t we just take their word for it that this is something specifically for the victims and their families and they really don’t have room for another 3000+ people?
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but the first responders sound like whiners when they say “I don’t think they want us there because of all the problems we’ve had…It’s like we’ve been dropped off the face of the earth.” or ‘If the responders attend the memorial service, “the promise ‘we’ll never forget’ becomes a blatantly obvious lie – a public display that the government didn’t do right by us,”’
On the other hand, have the first responders really been getting ignored? Are they not getting health care or help with their injuries or sicknesses from helping on 9/11? Has their been other evidence that NYC has been trying to hide them from the public eye?
Also, I’m reading else where that the first responders could be as many as 91,000 people and that the city is planning something else for them,
I find it kinda hard to be all that sympathetic, truth be told, because to me it looks like the beginning of a slippery slope. You have to invite the responders to a commemoration? They’ll be insulted if you don’t? So does every 9/11 anniversary from now on have to get run by the responders first? And if the responders get invited to a commemoration and the surviving families do not, have you insulted the families? There’s just way too much potential for manufactured outrage here. And what’s the remedy for an insult? An apology? An invitation? Cancelling the event outright? Can the “insulted” party keep bringing it up over and over in future?
Actually, I’m reminded of an incident on this board not long ago. I mistakenly attributed something to a poster that was really said by another poster with similar beliefs and a username that started with the same letter. The misattributed poster demanded an apology and though I immediately (and rather sheepishly) admitted my error, I didn’t believe his injury was a fraction of what he was claiming. His response was to demand an apology several more times and, as far as I can tell, he’s stopped talking to me “until” I apologize, which I see as his using an excuse for self-righteousness and a rationalization to ignore difficult questions from me in future. I decline to play his game and while I recognize the sacrifices and heroism of the first-responders, I’d decline to play theirs, too.
This is a memorial specifically for the families of those who were killed which does include families of First Responders who died. There simply isn’t room for anyone else. I’m not getting the outrage.
That kinda bugged me as well. In at least one article I saw a first responder whining about not being able to go and then mentioning that a relative of his was a victim (not a first responder)…well then you’re invited dumbass. Go! Yes, I know what he was getting at, he wanted to go as a FR, not as a family member of a victim, but still…
Dude, it’s a fucking MEMORIAL CEREMONY, not a “celebration”. IOW, it’s for close relatives of the people who fucking died on that day.
The article clearly states that there is another event planned for first responders.
Let’s assume for a moment that the location of the ceremony does not, in fact, violate the laws of physics. This means that it can hold a finite number of people. Presumably, it is also possible to calculate, at least roughly, how many people that is, taking into consideration the fact that you want those attending to be able to move and to breathe.
If the families of the victims, combined with the first responders, exceed the number that can fit in the space, then presumably someone is going to have to miss out. It’s the same principle that applies when 200,000 people want to attend a Superbowl in a stadium that can only seat 80,000.
I just can’t get too worked up about this, i’m afraid.
ETA:
If they have space issues, i also wouldn’t have a problem, for example, with restricting the victims’ families by closeness. For example, immediate families (spouses, siblings, children, parents) rather than extended families.