As we approach 9/11’s 25^th anniversary it’s hard not to think of that shocking day—especially for New Yorkers I suspect—recalling where we were that morning and when we learned about the devastation.

I would normally have been at work but I had a 9:30 appointment in Grand Central Terminal to meet clients. We were going to see what a magazine had done with the client’s products in a decorative installation in Vanderbilt Hall.

I was at the bathroom sink when I heard the hosts of a morning radio show report that they’d just seen a plane crash into the World Trade Center. As I rushed to turn on the TV I called out to Homer who was working in his home office. We were standing in front of the TV when the second plane hit.

I left to meet the clients—I lived a few blocks from the station. The sky was pristine blue. We were in the installation with the editors when we were asked to leave the station. A plane had just hit the Pentagon. Now we were even more alarmed.

My clients walked me home to 35^th street and proceeded downtown to their offices.

Homer accompanied me to my office on West 44^th Street to pick up some work. Madison Avenue was filled with people walking uptown. Nobody spoke.

We saw the top of the Chrysler building from our bedroom. The city lights were turned off—including the building’s iconic art deco necklace—so the city would be less of a target for additional attacks.

The events were so shocking that I didn’t touch the work I brought home. Such paralysis had never happened for me even after the deaths of my parents. Intrepid New Yorkers who never flinched at a siren or jumped at a backfiring truck became on alert all the time.

In a way we are going through a similarly shocking patch in slow motion watching as lives are lost and citizens suffer. A New York Times article by Luke Broadwater and Maggie Haberman sheds some light. The headline and subhead: “As War Grinds On, Trump Relishes Renovation Projects–President Trump is basking in the momentum of the various projects he has spurred around downtown Washington.” Are these projects a modern-day version of the mythical violin that Nero played in 64 AD as the Eternal City burned?

Why is it that we tend to remember the supremely sad days and not so much the moments in which we’ve been lauded or told good news? Where were you on 9/11?

   

I usually know who I am voting for long before an election and nothing short of a legit scandal will change my mind.

This is why I am puzzled why so often it is the candidate with the biggest war chest that wins.

He/she can stuff my mailbox with postcards or cause me to grab for my remote when the zillionth political TV commercial pops on my TV screen either attacking the opponent or showing the person hugging children or seniors. It won’t change my mind.

The New York Times article by Shane Goldmacher and Theodore Schleifer that made me decide to write again about this enigma is “Millions of Dollars in Secret Spending Could Upend the 2026 Midterms–At least $1 billion from anonymous donors is flowing into the midterm elections. Dark money is not new, but it now permeates nearly every major contest.”

This may be a legitimate issue –as is the idea that I support that there should be a limited amount permitted for every candidate to spend–but it doesn’t explain why smothering voters with marketing junk leads to a win. Who falls for the falderal?

   

I remember my transition from writing first drafts of press releases and memos from a lined legal pad then a typewriter to moving straight to a computer—deep sixing the pad. [I couldn’t find one to photograph to illustrate the post.]

There has definitely been a change in my brain because now I think more clearly using a keypad than using a pen or pencil. In addition, long before AI, spellcheck and Google have made me lazy.

My experience is anecdotal and statistically insignificant. But the University of Chicago made a move that gave my observations some credibility.

Starting with the fall semester, “The University of Chicago is introducing an ‘analog’ approach to its undergraduate Social Sciences Core this autumn, requiring students to attend classes in person, keep most electronic devices away and complete coursework without artificial intelligence assistance,” wrote H. Yang in The Educationist.

“The new approach is set out in guidance issued by the university’s Social Sciences Collegiate Division (SSCD), which says the policy reflects a ‘strong consensus’ among Social Sciences Core chairs and faculty that the sequences are best understood as a pedagogical setting ‘without AI.’”

The policy “establishes a broader learning environment centered on face-to-face discussion, human interaction and independent reading, writing and thinking.”

The stated aim is to “equip students to “read, write, and think without dependence on AI” before progressing to higher-level study.”

Students must attend in person, and no devices will be permitted in classrooms.

The instructor/professor will grade the students—no internes or teaching assistants of “large language models.” This caught my eye because as I reported previously on this blog, an assistant gave me a poor grade on an exam while I knew I’d regurgitated precisely what the professor had told us in class. I met with the professor, explained my upset and he changed the grade.

Do you think the students will suffer from turning back the dial on technology or that their experience will enhance their education? Have you noticed how your brain has changed as you use tech advancements?

   

We are all at risk of falling for a scam.

Yesterday a friend opened his computer to flashing lights and warnings that terrible things would happen to his documents if he didn’t call the posted number right away–which he did. Long story short he’s OK after a visit to his bank that reassured him and noted he was far from the only one to fall for the swindle. They did not offer him a new credit card.

He had provided the last four digits of his credit card and his address. He was asked–by a man with an American name and pronounced Indian accent–to get gift cards at Lowes and Home Depot. His first mistake was to call the number that accompanied the flashing lights–and not AOL whom the caller claimed to represent–to confirm that there really was a problem.

I don’t answer unrecognized phone numbers and try to see who the caller was especially if there’s no message. Most of the time I don’t get anywhere but with this number–844-335-8230—Google found this from a potential target: “844-335-8230 called and said they are United Health Care and they wanted to talk to me concerning my prescriptions. I told them I didn’t need to talk to them because I can talk to my doctor about my prescriptions. At first I thought they were United Health Care and They asked for my date of birth and I gave it to them. Then I hung up on them.”

The number called me three days in a row. I never picked up.

This is what Google taught me about 844 numbers. They “are toll-free and legitimate, but repeated calls from them are often scams using caller ID spoofing or aggressive tactics to extract money or personal information.

“The 844 area code is a toll-free prefix in the North American Numbering Plan, similar to 800, 888, and 877. It is non-geographic, meaning the caller could be anywhere in the U.S. or Canada, and the prefix itself does not indicate legitimacy or a scam. Legitimate businesses, such as banks, insurance companies, and customer service centers, frequently use 844 numbers. However, scammers also exploit this prefix because it appears official and can bypass local suspicion.”

Watch out for 844 numbers that seem to come from a legitimate company or messages about legal action or account fraud. There may be repeated calls without messages [as I got] and the well-known request for personal information, even remote access to your devices.

“It’s always something,” a friend often says. Stuff seems to come at us faster and faster. Have you become aware of scams that are new to you or did any of your acquaintances fall for a swindle recently?

   

One of the goals of public relations is to get a fair shake—a balanced story with media—if controversy arises about their client. While this didn’t always happen in the past, you had a good shot as most reporters strove to produce balanced stories.

Hard to do these days as illustrated by the latest intrusion by the administration on the 165 year old Stars and Stripes. The Pentagon fired publisher Max Lederer, editor-in-chief Erik Slavin, and Middle East reporter Lara Korte. Lederer was scheduled to retire but they fired him anyway.

Associated Press reporter Jocelyn Noveck reasoned the firings of the EIC and reporter were for “insubordination after they spoke publicly against any interference by the Defense Department in the military news outlet that has a long history of editorial independence.” She continued “It was the latest move by an administration that has grown increasingly aggressive toward the news media.”

Noveck wrote “The moves come at a time when the Trump administration, in its second term, has been progressively combative toward the media — including sharply curtailing Pentagon access for the press corps that covers the Defense Department. Trump or other parts of the executive branch have also, in policy and in the courts, grappled with The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press and The New York Times — in addition to using the FCC to target broadcast networks.”

She quoted Slavin as saying “he was being fired ‘for stating in a CBS interview that hypothetical censorship of news for service members would constitute a red line.” Korte participated in the same interview.’” And “I stand by the principle that Stars and Stripes must remain editorially independent, as required by law and by the department’s own policies.”

How many canaries in the coalmine do we need to experience before we put our collective feet down or am I overreacting? Will the media recover from these assaults?