bin Laden is dead. Reports are saying that Navy SEALs found him in a vacation manse in Pakistan, and instead of coming along peacefully, he decided to resist capture with the typical results.
The New York Times goes for seven pages of obituary, tying him to every recent terrorist attack we know by name, over the administrations of five United States Presidents.
Was he really that important to worldwide terrorism? Did his family really refer to him as the "slave child?" There is so much in that story that I want to believe, so much of it that seems plausible. Doing so might mean a real blow has been struck against worldwide terrorism, just by eliminating one man on a personal mission.
I pondered over how much damage one man can do, and how much damage that one man actually did. We heard his name before the day "September 11th" was seared into our collective consciousness. Just look at the irreparable damage he has left in his wake. That would be true, regardless of the words in the New York Times.
So, I'll also ponder the power of words, written on the page, to write history as it happens.