Can’t think of anything else to write about today. I’m unqualified to say more about the anniversary, and any other subject seems inappropriate.

I’d gotten messages to fly the flag today, but it was raining, and I subscribe to old fashioned Flag Etiquette, which says don’t put it out in the rain.

I probably won’t be posting here tomorrow, since I’m leaving in the afternoon for Walker, Minnesota. I mean, they name a town after me, the least I can do is go and visit.

Actually, it’s their annual Ethnic Festival. Come by if you’re in the area. I’ll be in the Viking encampment by City Hall.

This poem is a bit humanistic, but it strikes a resonate chord for today. The men we remember today were some of those good men we hear about often, the good men who did something in order to keep evil men from prevailing. This is “The Hero,” by Sir Henry Taylor.

What makes a hero?—not success, not fame,

Inebriate merchants, and the loud acclaim

Of glutted Avarice,—caps toss’d up in air,

Or pen of journalist with flourish fair;

Bells peal’d, stars, ribbons, and a titular name—

These, though his rightful tribute, he can spare;

His rightful tribute, not his end or aim,

Or true reward; for never yet did these

Refresh the soul, or set the heart at ease.

What makes a hero?—An heroic mind,

Express’d in action, in endurance prov’d.

And if there be preeminence of right,

Deriv’d through pain well suffer’d, to the height

Of rank heroic, ’t is to bear unmov’d,

Not toil, not risk, not rage of sea or wind,

Not the brute fury of barbarians blind,

But worse—ingratitude and poisonous darts,

Launch’d by the country he had serv’d and lov’d:

This, with a free, unclouded spirit pure,

This, in the strength of silence to endure,

A dignity to noble deeds imparts

Beyond the gauds and trappings of renown;

This is the hero’s complement and crown;

This miss’d, one struggle had been wanting still,

One glorious triumph of the heroic will,

One self-approval in his heart of hearts.

Today I’m thinking about people standing at the edge of a void, weeping in terror, a raging fire at their backs.

I’m thinking of those lonely, lonely falls.

I’m thinking of passengers on planes, calming their children, and calling loved ones on their cell phones to say goodbye.

I’m thinking of “Let’s roll.”

Never forget. Never forget.

The Italians, according to this Daily Telegraph article, and growing upset about the number of “ugly” English words worming their way into their language.

You know what? I’m OK with that. My view is that pretty much anything that perpetuates traditional cultural divisions is probably a good thing in our strange times.

With exceptions, of course.

Hat tip: Mirabilis

Anthony Esolen over at Touchstone Magazine Blog offers what seems to me a splendid meditation on the loss of “B” movies (and a lot of other very decent “B” art) in today’s culture.

Today is primary day in Minnesota, and I exercised my immense personal political clout by voting. The previous statement contains 35% less irony today, because there weren’t a lot of voters out (the counter on the machine at my voting place said [at about 4:45 p.m.] that they’d gotten 631 voters so far).

In the general election, especially in a year like this, I might be tempted to consider my vote a molecule in a bucket. But today I wielded considerable (relative) influence.

There was a certain amount of agitation, among Republicans, to cross over to the Democrat column and vote for the woman who’s challenging Al Franken in the Senate race. I did not do this. Not only do I object to the tactic on principle (as I’ve said here before), but I’m very happy to have Norm Coleman running against Al Franken. If he can’t beat Al Franken, he might as well resign now and become a blogger. Or a consultant. Or a consultant to bloggers.

I take particular interest in the judicial elections, because the whole judicial election system in Minnesota is a mystery hidden within a scam. I think the law requiring a candidate for a judgeship not to reveal any opinion he may hold has been loosened up a bit, but it’s still pretty hard to figure out how most of the candidates intend to interpret the law, based on their campaign statements.

There are hints, though, if you take time to deconstruct their campaign web sites. One tip, for instance, is if they state very strongly that politics should have no part in the selection of judges.

I’m pretty sure that’s code for “I’m going to make the law up as I go along, and I know you probably won’t vote for me if I tell you that.”