On 2001-10-17 11:50, madscientist wrote:
I read about it too. I also think it is stupid. But then again, maybe they don't grasp that we are in a 4T. But they'll find out when a mob burns down CBS.

Heh :lol:
'Mob Burning down CBS' that is a classic!.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2001-10-18 02:51 ]</font>

Zogby: In Crisis, It's Bush Over Clinton by Landslide
A Zogby International poll released Monday afternoon shows that Americans prefer to have President Bush leading them through the current terrorist crisis over ex-president Clinton by a landslide margin of 72 percent to 20 percent.


The poll, taken in conjuction with Associated Television News, surveyed 1,011 registered voters between Oct. 8 and 10 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent.


On Monday, Clinton was quoted as saying that he wished he was still in White House and has reportedly lamented privately that he had no major crisis, beyond his own impeachment, to shape his presidency.


Despite the Zogby survey's stunning result, the poll has received virtually no mainstream media coverage.


(10/16/2001)
- NewsMax

I feel like I have one foot in a 3T and one foot in a 4T. I still watch survivor, but I also watch the news more. I am taking advantage of lower airfares for an impromptu trip to New Orleans, and I'm setting aside a couple days to disaster-proof my house. Part of me is acting "normally", and part of me is battening down the hatches. Occasionaly my behavior is almost manic - I deliberately ignore an undercurrent of fear and uncertainty and throw myself into having a good time.

I can certainly relate to those feelings. I still see and feel lingering feelings that I almost *want* the 3T to continue. Like I didn't do enough when I had the time.

But as someone who actually protested our involvement in the Gulf War (long story with plenty of youthful nievity). I'm the one wearing red, white and blue ribbons now. I'm the one who rolls my eyes at people protesting for peace.

Meanwhile I'm still planning to travel to Italy for my honeymoon in a few weeks. Part of it is out and out "they can't get me!" attitude, the other part is still a little afraid to go.

If I'm right about the mood change, look for the 2002 elections for a major revolution. Not from Democrat to Republican or vice-versa, but from Silent to Boomer leaders.

Yes, I think a lot of people's trepedation about this being the 4T is that the leaders to handle it aren't in place. But we also have to remember that the Civil War started with about the same constellation.

That doesn't bode well for our future, but it does suggest that 4Ts can start early, and I think in this case that has happened.

But I do agree with you that the 2002/2004 elections are going to be interesting.

In Virginia we're about to elect a new governor this year. While the candidates here are still running on 3T issues (whether Northern Virginia should be able to appropriate more for road construction and whatnot is the major issue).

One thing I'm seeing is that one candidate here is starting to run in a 4T sensibility, the other still mired in the attack ads, and the whole "my issue is that I have issues with the other guy" type campaigns that are definately 3T.

It's going to be interesting to see how this one pans out on election day. TTBOMK right now the 4T candidate is in the lead.

Additionally, I've never been one of those "typical" 13-ers that shirked the polls. Even if I didn't feel that my vote was really going to matter, I've voted in every election but one since I've turned 18.

(The one I missed, ironically, was a major sentate race between Ollie North and Chuck Robb. I missed it because I was covering the election for a newspaper here, and was stuck doing exit polls for the duration polls were open at a polling place that wasn't my own).

Final comment - about the Anthrax scare. I agree with Jenny Genser that something doesn't feel right about it. It feels more like one of our home-grown loonys targeting the democrats and the media - those "damn liberals".

I still have to question the home-grown aspect of this.

One thing that is REALLY irking me about this whole Anthrax thing is why haven't any of the perpetrators come down with the disease?

I know it's not impossible to be around the stuff and not come down with anything, but you'd have to imagine that the people who have these spores are either accepting that they are going to die from it themselves, or walking around in Hazmat uniforms. (how do they get these letters into mailboxen without wearing these uniforms, unless they are *willing* to be exposed to it?)

I don't think it would be homegrown, because from what we know of a lot of our homegrown terrorism is that the terrorist themselves aren't into dying for their cause. Most of the abortion clinic bombers did not walk into these clinics with bombs strapped to themselves, they planted them and ran away. Even Tim McVeigh didn't die in his own terrorism.

One thing, which I don't think has been addressed much in the media, is the possibility that the 911 attackers were the ones who created these envelopes.

Knowing they already had a death sentence from anthrax, they boarded these planes. For the strategists of these attacks, this has te added bonus that none of the perpetrators of the anthrax letters is going to show up dead in some apartment somewhere from the disease.

Given that we so far haven't found someone outside of the intended victims dead from exposure to anthrax makes me lean towards this theory that the 911 attackers were quite busy long before they boarded these planes.

Jen

That raises another interesting point: if this is a 4T, how long do you think it'll be before somebody does somethat really stupid, expecting to be treated as he/she/they would have been six months ago?

I think that's already happening. Plenty of loonies seem to find pleasure in mailing baby powder off to people, and/or sprinkling it in public buildings.

Another interesting turn in events from 3T to 4T for me is that the local news here said last night that they would no longer report on false anthrax incidents.

Pertially because I think they'd spend all their news hours reporting these false alarms (I think we had over 3 building evacuated in the city yesterday because of anthrax scares), but also because I think even the media now has a sense that everything is getting overly alarming.

A few years ago, all these false alarms would have been um... interesting news. Now they're alarmist, and dangerous.

I find that quite an interesting change.

Jen

On 2001-10-17 11:48, Matthew Elmslie wrote:
Something really stupid? How about CBS announcing a sitcom about a romance between two people who lost their spouses when the World Trade Center was destroyed? The operative word being 'sitcom'.

I don't know if it's true or not - I read about it elsewhere on the 'net - but if it is it's sure stupid.

They're discussing it. I've seen a few reports about it. I doubt it is going to get very far. I don't think anyone is in the mood to laugh about WTC. Just like they've never made a comedy about Pearl Harbor either. (though the movie's plot was laughable) :smile:

Seriously though, one thing I have noticed is the lack of "sick" jokes following the 911 attacks. There are plenty of jokes about Bin Laden, but none about the attacks themselves.

When Challenger (the only major stuck moment event of my life) happened, there were plenty of jokes running about my middle school about it. There were even some jokes about Colunbine.

I've not heard anything of that ilk in relation to the 911 attacks. And that to me says there's something "different" about them, like there was something different about Pearl Harbor.

Just something to think about.

Jen

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: oddlystrange on 2001-10-18 08:54 ]</font>

Looks like Hollywood may have gotten it wrong again -- seeing the towers might make us proud rather than upset...

I think it depends on the situation. Here in Richmond they have been airing the Jeep Liberty commercials in the movie theaters before movies. They did this for a few weeks after the attacks.

When the shot of the two World Trade Center towers came up in the theater there was a collective gasp through the whole crowd. It seemed mighty insensitive for them NOT to edit that scene out when trying to sell a car (even one call the Liberty).

While I also would cheer at the sight of the WTC in a movie or other form of entertainment, I think that there's a definate backlash against what appeared to be the exploitation of those buildings for profit (even though the commercial had been airing long before the WTC attacks).

Jen

On 2001-10-18 08:32, oddlystrange wrote:

One thing that is REALLY irking me about this whole Anthrax thing is why haven't any of the perpetrators come down with the disease?

I cannot find a good article at the moment but I saw one linked at Drudge yesterday which pointed out that one of the 911 hijackers was sick with flu-like symptoms consistent with anthrax infection as he boarded the plane in Boston, I believe. Furthermore, this particular hijacker rented an apartment from the wife or widow of the owner of American Media (whatever it is) where anthrax first appeared in Florida. And this is obviously a possible linkage between the anthrax and the current terrorists. Also note that the anthrax in New York is the same strain as that used in Florida.

If you do a search of the AP and Reuters reports, you might find this article (from yesterday or the day before). Sorry for not having the link.

On 2001-10-18 06:34, Marc Lamb wrote:
A Zogby International poll released Monday afternoon shows that Americans prefer to have President Bush leading them through the current terrorist crisis over ex-president Clinton by a landslide margin of 72 percent to 20 percent.

well, if 72 percent of americans say something, it must be correct.

but seriously, marc, so what? hell, even i would have to agree with the 72 percent in this case. but it's only because bush picked folks for his administration that are better suited to this crisis. now, i guess you could say that his picking them shows how he is a better leader (a spurious argument at best), but it's all about the context.


TK

Since there has been some debate here on the source of the recent Anthrax exposures, I thought that I would pass on a news item. Agence France-Presse is reporting that a Kenyan family, whom the Kenyan government will not identify, were exposed by a letter containing Anthrax that was mailed from Atlanta, George on 8 September.

This may prove to be a false report. Personally, I am dubious, as that letter would have been mailed quite a bit earlier than the others that we are aware of.

The poll numbers speak much less about Bush than they do about Clinton.



What those numbers speak loud and clear is that 911 will define the legacy of William Jefferson Clinton.




Not Monica.

On 2001-10-18 13:16, Marc Lamb wrote:

The poll numbers speak much less about Bush than they do about Clinton.

ahhh. point taken.


TK

On 2001-10-18 13:16, Marc Lamb wrote:
The poll numbers speak much less about Bush than they do about Clinton.



What those numbers speak loud and clear is that 911 will define the legacy of William Jefferson Clinton.




Not Monica.

Unless you mean by the contrast effect, I don't agree. Last night (October 17 2001), Jay Leno was making jokes about the anthrax in Washington, and he says something to the effect of: "remember when the only person spreading spores in Washington was Bill Clinton?"

Can you picture any other U.S. President in living memory, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, who could plausibly form the target of the sort
of jokes we're still getting about Clinton?

Anger, fury, admiration, disgust, distrust, etc, yes, but spore jokes?

I think that the name Monica will be the shadow to Clinton as long as he is much remembered at all by the general public(Which may not be long, if we are heading into a 4T. I can picture the Monica legacy being replaced with Clinton being the President Buchanan of the Millennial Cycle. I wonder which he would prefer?).

On 2001-10-18 06:34, Marc Lamb wrote:
Zogby: In Crisis, It's Bush Over Clinton by Landslide
A Zogby International poll released Monday afternoon shows that Americans prefer to have President Bush leading them through the current terrorist crisis over ex-president Clinton by a landslide margin of 72 percent to 20 percent.


The poll, taken in conjuction with Associated Television News, surveyed 1,011 registered voters between Oct. 8 and 10 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent.


On Monday, Clinton was quoted as saying that he wished he was still in White House and has reportedly lamented privately that he had no major crisis, beyond his own impeachment, to shape his presidency.


Despite the Zogby survey's stunning result, the poll has received virtually no mainstream media coverage.
{Italics added by H.C.)

(10/16/2001)
- NewsMax

Wow! If I didn't know we had an incorruptibly unbiased media, I might almost suspect them of favoring Clinton. :smile:

"I think that the name Monica will be the shadow to Clinton as long as he is much remembered at all by the general public."
--HopefulCynic68

In the light of nearly 6000 dead, plus what comes of the 'war,' I think 'history' will be less kind to Mr. 'that woman' than Mr. Leno.

That's funny.

When Mr. "that woman" Clinton bombed the bioterrorism facilities in Iraq, everybody squacked and said, it's Wag the Dog! it's Wag the Dog! (everyone except those of us who had access to the European press ... we knew what was going on while the American press contemplated cigars and blue dresses) He also went after Osama twice and ditto, ditto, ditto.

Now, honestly, I'm hardly his biggest fan, but he's not to blame for *everything*! Bush Sr. has at least as much to do with this mess as anyone. Not to mention Osama, that spoiled millionaire child with an army he bought with Daddy's money.

(does anyone but me really get cheesed that this man killed people who work for a living when he's never had to? Or is that my flashback to Rocky Mount Senior High? just checking.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2001-10-18 22:35 ]</font>

On 9-15-01, Mark Weber wrote:
President George W. Bush said on national television that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." The next day he said that "freedom and democracy are under attack," and that the perpetrators had struck against "all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world."

But if "democracy" and "freedom-loving people" are the targets, why isn't anyone attacking Switzerland, Japan or Norway? Bush's claims are just as untrue as President Wilson's World War I declaration that the United States was fighting to "make the world safe for democracy," and President Roosevelt's World War II assurances that the US was fighting for "freedom" and "democracy."

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, speculation has been rife about who the perpetrators may have been. That itself is an acknowledgment that so many people hate this country so intensely that one cannot easily determine just who may have mounted these organized attacks of suicidal desperation.

These shocking attacks were predictable. In 1993 Islamic radicals set off a bomb at the World Trade Center that claimed six lives. In August 1998 the United States carried out missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan, strikes that senior Clinton admistration officials said signaled the start of "a real war against terrorism." In the wake of those attacks, a high-ranking US intelligence official warned that "the prospect of retaliation against Americans is very, very high'." (The Washington Post,
Aug. 21, 1998, p. A1)

Our political leaders and the American mass media promote the preposterous fiction that the September 11 attacks are entirely unprovoked and unrelated to United States actions. They want everyone to believe that the underlying hatred of America by so many around the world, especially in Arab and Muslim countries, that motivated the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks is unrelated to this country's policies. It is clear, however, that those who carried out these devastating suicide attacks against centers of American financial and military might were enraged by this country's decades-long support for Israel and its policies of aggression, murderous repression, and brutal occupation against Arabs and Muslims, and/or American air strikes and economic warfare against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Iran.

America is the only country that claims the right to deploy troops and war planes in any corner of the globe in pursuit of what our political leaders call "vital national interests." George Washington and our country's other founders earnestly warned against such imperial arrogance, while
far-sighted Americans such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Garet Garrett and Pat Buchanan voiced similar concerns in the 20th century.

For most Americans modern war has largely been an abstraction -- something that happens only in far-away lands. The victims of US air
attack and bombardment in Vietnam, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Serbia have seemed somehow unreal. Few ordinary Americans pay
attention, because US military actions normally have little impact on their day-to-day lives.

The best information available concerning how the U.S. is seen by the world is on the web, accessing databases from ABROAD. An interesting site is: Radio Islam, in Sweden, of all places.
http://abbc.com/islam/index.htm

good grief sv81..... how many more outright racist, anti-jewish hate sites are you going to suggest people go to for information???? frankly, i hope everyone does go to that "radio islam" site just to see what evil, moronic, nonsense is being spouted there! sheesh!

i sympathize with the plight of the palestinians but not when people who are supposedly their "allies" want to post the same kind of low,malevolent, bilge water that you normally find on nazi, aryan nation, and ku klux klan recruitment sites!

i imagine that people who actually believe such bile as is listed on that site do have a low opinion of the united states. frankly, i would be ashamed of this country if they did not.

What those numbers speak loud and clear is that 911 will define the legacy of William Jefferson Clinton.

Or will it lead back to Bush Sr. in the long run? Perhaps even back to Reagan, but Bush Sr. was the main one who got us knee deep in the Middle East [1]

Whatever you think of Clinton, I think his most enduring legacy is going to be a scandle ridden presidency that culminated in the US's second ride down impeachment alley.

I'm still wondering if it's possible that the fact that Bush Jr. was put into office acted as a further barb in the side of these people who were already angered over his father's actions as president?

It's too soon to know the underlying reasons behind why the ante was upped with this latest attack. Just like it's far too soon to be truly optimistic about its end.


[1] Fun typo of the day, I originally typed Missle East

Can you picture any other U.S. President in living memory, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, who could plausibly form the target of the sort
of jokes we're still getting about Clinton?

How about Nixon. They were still making jokes about him until he died.

What other president would have the lasting legacy of giving the american cynic phrasebook: "I'm not a crook!"

Jen

(does anyone but me really get cheesed that this man killed people who work for a living when he's never had to? Or is that my flashback to Rocky Mount Senior High? just checking.)

If that's all that cheeses you off about the fact that he's still wasting oxygen, you're pretty tame in my book :smile:

Jen

Enjolras writes about http://abbc.com/islam/index.htm, Radio Islam? good grief sv81..... how many more outright racist, anti-jewish hate sites are you going to suggest people go to for information???? frankly, i hope everyone does go to that "radio islam" site just to see what evil, moronic, nonsense is being spouted there! sheesh!

I spent about 30 seconds on the Radio Islam site before encountering a page on how the Jews are planning to destroy Germany, and a copy of the Protocols of Zion. They also print several works showing how Churchill was dominated by the Jewish Conspiracies, written by Adolph Hitler. The first feature article on their lead page is on Jewish Racism, a speech by Farrakhan. Yep, Radio Islam should be taken with more salt than the Dead Sea.

Still, I don?t trust Dubya?s and the American liberal media?s spin on this, either. One has to be aware of both sides of the story. One has to have filters to separate fact from propaganda from worldview. One interesting piece of advice found on Radio Islam was advice to trust Israeli media accounts of what is happening, and not American. American media sources are strongly biased towards the Israeli establishment position. The Israeli people, however, live much closer to the problem. They expect and demand a deeper and more accurate level of coverage.

The problem with personal filters to separate fact, propaganda and worldview is that they are biased towards one?s personal worldview. Many Americans are ready to believe western democracies fight for liberty and equality. Many Arabs are ready to believe Israel is a racist, expansionist state. There is truth in both stereotypes. There are seeds of truth in many racist opinions. However, seeking truth though one?s own filters and the filters of biased medias is tricky business.

I don?t see that a knowledgeable opinion can be formed while one relies entirely on sources biased towards one side of the conflict. The Internet, in theory, should allow one to taste various perspectives. Yes, Radio Islam?s is an extremist position. Can anyone suggest a good English language source several steps closer to the Arab?s main stream? Or is Radio Islam the main stream? Does Radio Islam reflect a significant minority opinion from the Islamic cultures?

"Or will it lead back to Bush Sr. in the long run? Perhaps even back to Reagan, but Bush Sr. was the main one who got us knee deep in the Middle East."



nah, it goes all the way back to old tj who framed those silly words 'conceived in liberty'

i mean what a really stupid notion this must sound like to the taliban. :wink:


msl




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-19 08:27 ]</font>

I had a fast forward flash to the next 3T this morning.

Can't you just see the next generation of collegiate conspiracy historians positing this thesis: "What Really Brought Flight 93? Were Passengers Heroes? Or Did the US Military Shoot It Down and Conspire to Cover It Up?"

On 2001-10-19 08:25, Marc Lamb wrote:
"Or will it lead back to Bush Sr. in the long run? Perhaps even back to Reagan, but Bush Sr. was the main one who got us knee deep in the Middle East."



nah, it goes all the way back to old tj who framed those silly words 'conceived in liberty'

i mean what a really stupid notion this must sound like to the taliban. :wink:

And what a stupid notion it obviously sounds like to this administration and the previous two.

9/11 sitcoms?

Expect them in the next 2nd Turning. Remember McHale's Navy and Hogan's Heroes? My GI father loved those shows, and I loathed them (except for Ensign Parker saying "Gosh, I love that kind of talk" whenever McHale said anything nautical). Perhaps, if we survive this 4T, 35 years from now some Millie may create "Ferruci's Fire Department" or "My Favorite Muslim." :sad: