Skip to content

Baseball to honor those lost in the 9/11 attacks today

Sep 11, 2013, 9:16 AM EDT

ground zero, Sept 11, 9/11 AP

Baseball was an integral part of our nation’s healing after the tragedy of 9/11, and as it has done every year on the anniversary of those attacks, baseball will honor the memory of those lost on that day.

Today there will be on-field tributes at all 15 parks hosting games, with players, coaches and umpires, wearing an American flag patch on the side of their caps (the Blue Jays will have an American flag on one side, Canadian flag on the other). Special lineup cards will be used for each game. Home clubs will mark the anniversary with pregame ceremonies, including a moment of silence, and the “We Shall Not Forget” MLB silhouetted batter ribbon will be displayed throughout ballparks. Today at 12:30 PM MLB Network will re-air the “Nine Innings From Ground Zero” special about the Yankees-Diamondbacks World Series which took place after the attacks.

The caps, as has been the case for a few years, will be available for sale at MLB.com, with 100% of the net proceeds being donated to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York, the Flight 93 National Memorial in Stoystown, Pa., and the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial.

  1. skids003 - Sep 11, 2013 at 9:30 AM

    Good for MLB. These people should be honored, including those who were killed last year on 9/11. They should be remembered too.

  2. thomas844 - Sep 11, 2013 at 9:34 AM

    I agree that baseball was a huge part in our nation starting to recover from the attacks. Mike Piazza’s big home run during the first game back is one of the greatest sports moments of all time (coming from a non-Mets fan).

  3. cohnjusack - Sep 11, 2013 at 9:40 AM

    On 9/11, Errol Miller was in kindergarten.
    On July 4th, 2013, he was killed in Afghanistan.

    I look forward to an entire day of empty sloganeering and a bunch of people saying “never forget!”. But you know what else we shouldn’t forget? The world before September 11th. Since 9/11, we started two wars that didn’t come close to achieving their objectives, began a torture program, essentially militarized police departments around the nation, embarked on a large scale invasion of privacy and detained people for indefinite periods of time without trial. We took an awful tragedy of 9/11, which killed 3,000 people, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands in response. In other words, the US response to 9/11 was exactly what Al Qaeda wanted.

    • polonelmeagrejr - Sep 11, 2013 at 9:42 AM

      iS IT SNEAK ATTAK DAY AGAIN, ALREADY?

    • koufaxmitzvah - Sep 11, 2013 at 9:56 AM

      Not only is Al Qaeda happy with America’s 9-11 response, but so is the Military Industrial Complex.

      Of course, to some of us, AQ = MIC, and not only because folks like Rummy have had their asses kissed by both.

    • skids003 - Sep 11, 2013 at 9:57 AM

      It’s sad you hate our country. My father and son fought for the rights you have here, for the right to say things like that. I’m lucky they both didn’t have to make the ultimate sacrifice like many others. You just don’t know how lucky you are.

      • Kevin S. - Sep 11, 2013 at 10:13 AM

        Aaaand we have our first post equating criticism of policy with hatred of nation, sprinkled in with stories of relatives who fought for every right except the right to hold contrary opinions. For what it’s worth, I have an uncle currently serving in Israel and a sister stationed on a ship that would deploy to either the Mediterranean or the Gulf in the event that Syrian hostilities escalated. I’m very proud of their service, but I’m no fan of policies that put them in harm’s way for reasons that really aren’t related to our national security.

      • Francisco (FC) - Sep 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM

        The Syrian question is interesting: What is the USA’s highest Priority? National Security? Human Rights? What are the consequences of just letting Syria do whatever the heck it wants? What are the repercussions? Will other wannabe repressive governments look and see how the rest of world reacts to see how much they can get away with in their little corner of the world? We live in interesting times.

      • skids003 - Sep 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM

        Kevin, they fought for the rights of people like you to have contrary opinions, and I am proud of them for that. I am not a fan of putting American troops in harm’s way either, and I hope we don’t escalate this mess either, kevin. So even though you seem to be taking a potshot at my post, I do agree with you evidently on some things. I hope your uncle and sister stay safe. I guess cohnjusack doesn’t like the USA too much.

      • kalinedrive - Sep 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM

        It’s sad you hate our country. My father and son fought for the rights you have here, for the right to say things like that.

        This is the kind of b.s. that perpetuates a twisted idea of “patriotism” and “heroism” and results in more people getting killed in senseless conflicts while their families wrap themselves in the flags that draped their coffins and console themselves with thoughts of honor and duty and service.

        First, to say anyone hates our country because of any opinion they may have (other than “I hate the United States of America”) is unacceptable. The phrase is used to silence and degrade people who don’t share your view, and has no other intrinsic value. I didn’t hate America when George W. Bush was President, and I don’t hate America with Barack Obama as President. I have never hated America. But I do disagree with many of our government’s policies.

        Second, the idea that anyone is fighting for our rights, our freedom, or our safety is an overblown exaggeration that only serves to make people feel more noble about being in the military. Unless your father fought in World War II, his service did nothing to protect any of our rights or freedoms or safety. The United States has not been threatened since then, and all of our rights and freedoms have been safely guarded by our three branches of government. Nobody in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world has ever been a threat to our freedom. We fight to spread our idea of how they should be governed, or to protect people we feel should be protected, but not for our own freedom or rights.

        My rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and I don’t fear them being lost to any enemy, foreign or domestic. So don’t fight for me, and don’t expect me to exalt you if you fight for whatever reason you think is noble. Most of our servicemen and women join for a job. The pride and honor they feel goes with it is for their own self-esteem and gratification, and I am not obliged to share it.

      • skids003 - Sep 11, 2013 at 12:54 PM

        First of all, my father was in the Pacific, so don’t tell me it’s all BS. You may have rights grantd in the COnstitution, but without a strong military do you really think we would not have been threatened?

        I disagree with our government on many policies, but am still glad I’m here, not somewhere else.

        I am and always be proud of those who choose to put their lives on the line, even if it’s for people like you, who don’t appreciate it. I could care less what you think.

      • daveitsgood - Sep 11, 2013 at 2:20 PM

        My grandparents were born here and yet were forcibly put into internment camps during WWII. Kudos to your father and son for their service, they’re better people than I am for that, but explain to me how he was fighting for the rights of my grandparents?

      • nolanwiffle - Sep 11, 2013 at 2:33 PM

        Kalinedrive: ……………

        “Second, the idea that anyone is fighting for our rights, our freedom, or our safety is an overblown exaggeration that only serves to make people feel more noble about being in the military. Unless your father fought in World War II, his service did nothing to protect any of our rights or freedoms or safety. The United States has not been threatened since then, and all of our rights and freedoms have been safely guarded by our three branches of government. Nobody in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world has ever been a threat to our freedom. We fight to spread our idea of how they should be governed, or to protect people we feel should be protected, but not for our own freedom or rights.

        My rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and I don’t fear them being lost to any enemy, foreign or domestic. So don’t fight for me, and don’t expect me to exalt you if you fight for whatever reason you think is noble. Most of our servicemen and women join for a job. The pride and honor they feel goes with it is for their own self-esteem and gratification, and I am not obliged to share it.”

        _______________________________________________________________________

        I don’t think I’ve actually ever seen that level of direspect shown American servicemen in writing. What an incredibly selfish attitude to hold. It would, undoubtedly, do you some good to visit Arlington National Cemetary sometime.

        “A veteran – whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve – is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The ‘United States of America’, for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.'”

      • skids003 - Sep 11, 2013 at 2:36 PM

        That’s a tough one to answer Dave. At that moment in time, he probably wasn’t, but he was fighting for the freedom of the world to not be under the Japanese or Nazi flag. What was done to your grandparents was wrong, but it was a different time, people thought differently, which we see as wrong now but they didn’t. We have to learn from the past if we are to ever have any future. I am sorry for what happened to your grandparents. Hopefully after the war your grandparents were able to resume their lives here.

      • kalinedrive - Sep 11, 2013 at 2:56 PM

        nolanwiffle, I have been to Arlington. It is a somber place and worth retrospection. However, I do not agree that it is disrespectful to anyone who has served to say that they did not fight for me or for my rights or freedom, at least not since WWII as I said. That is the last war that actually mattered to America in any tangible way. Ever since then, anyone who has died in battle has died in vain, and was not “protecting our rights” unless it’s our right to assert our power.

        Yes, we need a military and we need them prepared for battle. However, the battles we have sent them to since 1945 have not once been to protect our freedom or our rights. And if we hadn’t sent them where there was no threat to our freedom and our rights, there would be a lot more retired veterans to thank for their service and a lot less graves to reflect on and shattered lives to grieve.

      • nolanwiffle - Sep 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM

        @kalinedrive: I know it’s been 12 long years, but I’m fairly certain this country was attacked on 9/11/2001. An attack similar to Pearl Harbor. The only difference being, one was perpetrated by a sovereign nation, the other by Islamic radical terrorists.

        Should the US not have sent troops overseas to catch and punish those responsible for waging war on her homeland?

      • kalinedrive - Sep 11, 2013 at 3:24 PM

        No.

      • nolanwiffle - Sep 11, 2013 at 3:57 PM

        1993 – World Trade center was bombed
        1998 – USW Embassy in Kenya was bombed
        2000 – Uss Cole was bombed

        Exactly how many times is one country supposed to “turn the other cheek” before it is allowed to respond with force? That’s rhetorical. I’d rather not see another smarmy one word answer. Thanks.

      • elmo - Sep 11, 2013 at 4:28 PM

        Oh please, that was no response. If America actually wanted to strike back at the sources of radical Islamic terrorism, it would have attacked their primary sponsors, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Of course, that likely would been a disaster many times more epic than Iraq, but at least it could have been properly called a direct response to 9/11. Instead, the USA cynically manipulated the trauma of the event in order to enact an unrelated plan against Iraq, all while calling those other two nations our close allies in the bogus “War on Terror.” It was absolutely shameful.

      • kalinedrive - Sep 11, 2013 at 4:38 PM

        Smarmy? No, there is nothing smarmy about saying no when asked a yes or no question. It was a direct response to your question, and I’d rather not spend more time arguing with you when your mind is made up and you will not listen to any reasoning about why our military battles have largely been wasteful expenditures of life and limb and vast amounts of money. If you don’t understand that the military industrial complex serves more to funnel money to friends of Congress than to protect our freedoms and rights, then you are not paying attention to the man behind the curtain. So go ahead and keep venerating those who are brave enough to serve, while devaluing their service by subjecting them to useless danger.

        smarmy: excessively or unctuously flattering, ingratiating, servile, etc.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Sep 11, 2013 at 5:07 PM

        “Should the US not have sent troops overseas to catch and punish those responsible for waging war on her homeland?”

        Nolan: The man who had our army invade a country not affiliated with 9-11 also allowed Bin Laden’s US family to fly out of America on the very first flight.

        Context is important. That President really screwed up. I also happen to think he was hoodwinking us. As such, the reason for the war that we’ve been fighting is a bit murky.

    • CyclePower - Sep 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM

      I was anticipating a comment like this. Pity it only took until post #3 before part of the Angry Cynic Brigade made an appearance.

      • indaburg - Sep 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM

        You mistake critical analysis for angry cynicism. That is a grave mistake.

    • cur68 - Sep 11, 2013 at 12:51 PM

      I’m never sure what to say to Americans about 9/11. Mostly I think roughly what you have to say on the topic is correct, Cohn. The response to the terrorist attack has been precisely what Al Qaeda wanted. A reduction in American freedom, and invasion of privacy, military-style police and a (you forgot this one) a religion-izing of your government. In short, Al Qaeda’s actions against the USA caused the USA to become more like Al Qaeda.

      Make no mistake: us Canadians enjoy a tremendous advantage by being your neighbour. We maintain a much smaller standing military since yours is so formidable. We have international clout above our population or production due to our large friendly southern ally. We can vacation in your country with relative ease. We can even woo your women over the internet and cause them to swoon over us even though we are relative trolls in comparison to the women we are chasing after. Then we can take a vacation over there and meet them.

      All that, but we can also choose not to engage in the same Al Qaeda-izing of our nation. It might not be terribly well known south of the border, but there have been a number of Al Qaeda plots foiled here in Canada. They bear us a certain amount of animosity, it seems. Somehow, though, we’ve avoided becoming more Al Qaeda-like in response. It can be done.

      ps: its Pvt. Errol D.A. Milliard, of Birmingham, AL, you mean, I think.

      • skids003 - Sep 11, 2013 at 12:57 PM

        I always suspected you Canucks of being underhanded. LOL

        Actually, I’m glad to have you there.

    • crisisofinfinitephils - Sep 11, 2013 at 1:23 PM

      This happens every year. 3000 people died in a horrendous attack. Seeing footage people jumping from buildings is still haunts me. Yet we came together as a country to help our fellow man to save as many lives as possible. On every anniversary that’s what I chose to remember. I chose to remember those whose only crime was going to work, who had nothing to do with what followed this country after 9/11. But then there are always those who relish being a turd in the punch bowl.

  4. blues1988 - Sep 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM

    everyone stop the debating and just watch this, i get chocked up every time for many different reasons:

    • blues1988 - Sep 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM

      choked*

  5. redhatpoodle - Sep 11, 2013 at 11:09 AM

    Baseball is an integral part of our American identity. I’m glad they have continued to honor this day with the decorum it deserves.

  6. hojo20 - Sep 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM

    $38.99 for a friggin’ baseball cap!?!?!

    • kalinedrive - Sep 11, 2013 at 11:56 AM

      Meh. Figure it at $25 for a baseball cap and $13.99 for a flag patch.

    • sportsdrenched - Sep 11, 2013 at 12:05 PM

      ‘Merica!

    • zzalapski - Sep 11, 2013 at 12:17 PM

      A cap that’s made in China, at that.

      • cur68 - Sep 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM

        Crikey. Really? Made in China? Uh…is this irony? Because last time I checked, China was a communist country, that used virtual slave labour to make cheap goods, which it then sold to capitalist countries.

        Say, perhaps your country could have those caps made in Canuckistan? That way you’d get a handy commemorative cap made by the folks who brought you Operation Yellow Ribbon.

      • krazi1zkid - Sep 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM

        Yes but get this, the Blue Jays cap is made in……………. You guessed it America…
        http://shop.mlb.com/product/index.jsp?productId=13335183&cp=1452370.1452930.703248

      • cur68 - Sep 11, 2013 at 2:17 PM

        Of course it is. This way my people can honour that nice country that does so much for us. See? You don’t HAVE to buy Commie Caps.

      • krazi1zkid - Sep 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM

        Also- Miami Black Cap with Flag- Made in Columbia- Orange Cap in one size at that— China

      • paperlions - Sep 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM

        The caps may not be made in America, but gosh darn it, the profit margin from their sales is.

  7. misterj167 - Sep 11, 2013 at 4:26 PM

    As I said in another subject:
    Let me know when they start dragging the coffins of dead soldiers out onto the field and screaming at the fans “Why can’t you be more like them?”

    I’m a veteran from a family of veterans and all this military hero worship disturbs me. Particularly when it’s sponsored by a corporation like BofA. How many soldier’s homes have they foreclosed on while they were over in Afghanistan or Iraq? Thanks for your service, kid, now here’s an eviction notice.

    Here’s my take on 9/11

    The Bush Administration didn’t give a damn about terrorism because they came into office with no other purpose than to stuff their pockets full of gummint money, then when 9/11 happened they used it as an excuse to do what they (meaning Cheney and Rumsfeld primarily, frankly I don’t think Bush really knew or cared what was going on) wanted to do since Clinton took office, invade Iraq. They followed Goerring’s advice on how to get people to go to war and then stuffed their pockets with gumming money (Halliburton).

    If it had been President Gore, he would have taken the threat of a terrorist attack seriously and it’s possible that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened at all. And even if it did happen, he would have reacted differently, though the GOP probably would have tried to impeach him for something or other, any excuse, you know.

    If there’s any lesson we should remember from 9/11, it’s that we should stop electing morons and criminals.

    As for the “Why do you hate Murka?” crowd, explaining the difference between patriotism and nationalism, as well as the difference between worshiping the symbols of freedom as opposed to actual freedom (and to quote George Carlin, symbols are for the symbol-minded) is a pretty pointless gesture, since you likely think with your “gut” as opposed to your brain.

    • jimeejohnson - Sep 11, 2013 at 5:24 PM

      “Symbols are for the symbol minded.” Carlin was anything but symbol minded. The distinction you remind us of concerning freedom is HUGE, and a definite focus of a lesson I teach English language learners, soon. Thanks.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Soler (3308)
  2. Y. Molina (3261)
  3. R. Castillo (2851)
  4. D. Wright (2235)
  5. D. Murphy (2082)
  1. B. Colon (2066)
  2. S. Doolittle (2063)
  3. D. Ortiz (2031)
  4. T. Lincecum (1974)
  5. R. Cano (1949)