On 2001-12-28 21:34, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

Bill Clinton has worked primarily for himself, secondarily for Hillary, tertiarily (sp?) for the Democratic Party and its associated interest groups, and as a distant fourth, for the United States, when it didn't interfere with his golf game. Overall, he did the nation far more harm than good.

I could not pass this one up:

"[Rush Limbaugh] has worked primarily for himself, secondarily for the [Bush family], tertiarily for the [Republican] Party and its associated interest groups, and as a distant fourth, for the United States, when it didn't interfere with his golf game. Overall, he did the nation far more harm than good."

On 2001-12-28 21:55, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2001-12-28 21:34, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

Bill Clinton has worked primarily for himself, secondarily for Hillary, tertiarily (sp?) for the Democratic Party and its associated interest groups, and as a distant fourth, for the United States, when it didn't interfere with his golf game. Overall, he did the nation far more harm than good.

I could not pass this one up:

"[Rush Limbaugh] has worked primarily for himself, secondarily for the [Bush family], tertiarily for the [Republican] Party and its associated interest groups, and as a distant fourth, for the United States, when it didn't interfere with his golf game. Overall, he did the nation far more harm than good."

Trouble is, what I said was based in fact, what you said is questionable. :smile:

Stonewall, you've repeated this idea of the Bush Conspiracy (for want of a better word) several times, but you haven't presented your proof. I'm not a worshipper at the Altar of Bush; there's a lot they're doing I don't like, but I do think he's a big improvement over the Clinton administration.

BTW, seriously, I don't hold working for yourself against a private citizen. I do hold it against a president when he/she lets it interfere with the performance of his or her duties. Something Clinton did routinely, and I have yet to see convincing evidence that Bush the Younger has done. (Or Jimmy Carter, for the opposite party.)

Also, I don't hold working for the Parties or their interest groups against a commentator or politician, unless it interferes with official duties or moral duties. Limbaugh has never made any pretense of being anything but a conservative commentator and activist.

It was Clinton's pretense of being a selfless public servant that contrasts with the sordid reality.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-12-28 22:06 ]</font>

This is a excellent article from the Sydney Morning Hearld which seems to describe the late unravelling mood we are in and people who seem to defy the optimism of the age are called doomsayers.


How one Australian defied Age to triumph in a crisis

By Paul Sheehan

Don't worry, Australia has had a great year. You can discount the media's addiction to gloom and blame. Just because the word "crisis" has appeared more than 16,400 times in Australia's eight major metropolitan newspapers doesn't mean we've had one.

We may as well award the Crisis Cup. It has been won, for the sixth consecutive year, by The Australian newspaper. Six in a row. It's a dynasty.

The Australian was again the most crisis-prone media organ in Australia when it used the word 2941 times this year, more than any other newspaper.

It was, however, a wafer-thin victory. Melbourne's The Age, which has also become more crisis-prone in recent years, ran a close second with 2809 crisis credits, making it the runner-up for the third consecutive year. Given that The Age has a close stablemate, The Sunday Age, which topped the Sunday papers with a crisis count of 352, The Age has the most crisis-prone masthead of the year and, arguably, should share the Crisis Cup. Otherwise, it has been another year of successful and vigorous democracy for Australia, with a strong bipartisan consensus on national security, solid economic growth during a global slowdown and, above all, a greater seriousness of national purpose.

A hot war against medieval barbarism has been fought and won. The spectre of militant Islam, while important, has proved to be overstated. The tragedy of September 11 has brought to an abrupt end the appeasement of militant fundamentalism - and fundamentalism comes in many colours.

advertisement

advertisement
For all the growing agitation about "globalisation" (a bandwagon on which militant Islam happily jumped), Australia has emerged from 18 years of economic reform (a process which began the day Paul Keating and Bob Hawke ended the era of Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam) as one of the world's most stable, prosperous, democratic and transparent nations.

It now has one of the world's top 10 stockmarkets, measured by market capitalisation and by the influential Morgan Stanley Capital International stockmarket indices, an important guide for global investment funds.

Australia now represents about 37 per cent of the MSCI's Asia-Pacific component, second only to Japan and more than twice the weighting given to Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan or Singapore.

There is bad news, obviously, but that has already been lasciviously reported in overbearing detail. But metaphorically cast your gaze across the Pacific to Argentina to see how far a country can fall when people listen to utopians who believe in the magic pudding.

A hundred years ago, Argentina was one of the five wealthiest nations in the world. Look at it now. The peso was locked into the US dollar, while the media-maligned Aussie dollar was allowed to fall. We now know which policy was right.

While on the subject of profligate spending, don't expect interest rates to fall any more. Before September 11, the US federal budget was on track for a surplus of more than $US2 trillion ($3.94 trillion). Puff! It's gone. President George W. Bush is starting to look like President Ronald Reagan, who also combined income tax cuts with increased military spending. The Bush Administration's budget director, Mitchell Daniels, has already conceded that the US will be running a federal deficit for the next three years. The war in Afghanistan has cost real money and the spending on national security has only just begun. Interest rates have probably bottomed.

Watch your debt.

On 2001-12-30 00:55, choselh wrote:

To Hopeful Cynic: But you did say in a previous post that Rush Limbaugh has done more or worked harder for the US than Bill Clinton has. I think that's what Stonewall was responding to.

No, I actually was in no way addressing any of the Clinton/Limbaugh questions. HC left a perfect setup complete with a golf reference and I could not help but jump on it.

The question of which of these scumbags has done more for the US is actually a complicated one to which I will not be able to do complete justice at this moment. Given that Bill Clinton has probably never done anything for anything or anyone other than himself, Rush Limbaugh probably wins here because he has done at least a little for the US, even if only unintentionally or incidentally. But I would also argue that Limbaugh is in fact a lower lifeform than Clinton and this deserves a more complete explanation which I will have to provide at some other time. But the end conclusion is that Rush Limbaugh has done more for the US than Clinton, if only inadvertently or incidentally, despite the fact that Limbaugh resides on a rung even lower than Clinton on the human ladder.

Rush Limbaugh is in SHOW BUSINESS. We need to remember that. Part of his act consists of bragging about the size of his, uh, intellect. His braggadacio is obvious and blatant self-parody. Obnoxiously Everest-sized ego? You bet. But I don't see how what he does is any different in spirit than, say, a rap star. Part of a star's job is to make oneself larger than life and engender a somewhat simplistic and caracatured persona. Rush understands this.

He's got a fine gift of gab and says things that infuriate liberals. About half of what he says I agree with--the other half is like yeah whatever. But even though I often think he's full of it and making a big fool of himself, I can't deny that he is one fine entertainer, and can make me chuckle.

With all the vicious name calling and parody of conservatives that comes out of liberal entertainers, it is at least refreshing to see someone who can dish it back.

Of course, I strongly oppose some of the Republican agenda (which, among other things, has a bit of an anti-consumerist, mercantilist take on capitalism). The fact that Limbaugh parrots it can be a bit tiresome. Which is why I don't call up and say meggadittos because I have way too many other ways to spend my time, namely work.

Jon:

I agreed with your analysis up until this last election cycle and, although I was never a "dittohead," I was in fact a Rush defender. Pre-Internet, he was a very good source of information and as much as some saw nefarious purposes behind the guy, I merely saw a relatively harmless Republican apologist. But I noted a very different, very serious, and very nefarious side of the guy which surfaced as soon as the puppeteers began pushing George W. Bush onto in public in 1999. The "entertainer" excuse does not cut it anymore -- not in the slightest. I can detail this later when I have more time.

Opinions of America abroad: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1230-02.htm

Maybe we should start spending more on research. :smile:

He's baaaack!.

On 2001-12-30 11:21, Chris Loyd '82 wrote:
He's baaaack!.

Nooooooo!!!! There is no god!!!!!! :wink:

What about using the scientific method to discuss the fourth turning? That is basically what Strauss and Howe did to come up with their theory of generations and the four seasonal cycles.

1. Observe
2. Describe a hypothesis
3. Use hypothesis to make predictions
4. Test the predictions and record results
5. Modify the hypothesis based on results
6. Repeat 3,4 and 5 to narrow gap between hypothesis and results.

The difficulty is waiting for next 4T and using events as the experiment, and waiting for the end of the Millennial generation and using events again as the experiment.

Too bad we can't devise a simulation on the computer that we could use to run experiments with before actual events happened.

Baby Boomers getting old?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/676843.asp?0si=-

One test of S&H could be to obtain an average cortisol level for the whole American population. Cortisol is a physiologic indicator of stress and anguish. Track for about 400-500 years. If there are unique "peaks" every ~80 years during crises, then the theory might be better supported "scientifically."

A definite sign we have entered the Fourth Turning. Less tolerance for espionage.



Saturday December 29 3:53 AM ET

Guilty Plea in Nuclear Trigger Case

By LOUINN LOTA, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A physicist accused of exporting potential
nuclear triggers to Israel pleaded guilty to two federal counts as part of
a deal with prosecutors.

Richard Kelly Smyth, a fugitive for 16 years until his July arrest in
Spain, entered the plea Friday after prosecutors said they would drop
the 28 other counts against him.

Smyth, 72, was first charged in 1985 with exporting devices known as
krytrons to Heli Corp. in Israel. The two-inch devices can be used in
photocopying machines, but because of their potential as nuclear
triggers, they cannot be shipped without State Department approval.

On Friday, Smyth pleaded guilty to making false statements or false
documents by signing or approving invoices to send the material to
Israel in 1982. He also pleaded guilty to exporting the devices without
a license.

He will be held without bail until his sentencing on Feb. 28. He faces a
maximum sentence of seven years in prison and a $110,000 fine.

Smyth's attorney, James D. Riddet, refused to comment on his client's
motives for shipping the devices, saying he would address the issue
during sentencing.

At the time of the illegal exports, Heli Corp. was owned by Arnon
Milchan, an Israeli-born arms trader who became a successful
Hollywood film producer. His credits include ``Pretty Woman'' and
``L.A. Confidential.''

In an interview on television's ``60 Minutes'' last year, Milchan denied
any involvement in the krytron deal but said he had allowed the Israeli
government to use his company as a conduit for trading with the United
States.

Israel returned most of the krytrons after Smyth's indictment and
claimed they were never intended for use in a nuclear weapons
program.

It might not be scientific, but the local paper had a long, rambling column about biopics, by category, and discussed biographies of scientists. Apparently they were a phenomenon of the 1930s and 40s, the latest one being Madame Curie in 1943. He raised the topic because one of the hottest movies of the post-911 crop is the biography of mathematician John Nash. 3T or 4T?

One of my mother's friends, who I chatted with over the holidays, is nearly 90 and thus old enough to clearly remember the Stock Market Crash and the onset of the Great Depression. She was living in the Chicago area at the time.

She certainly recalled the folks who jumped out the window on 10/29/29 but her family was actually more prosperous during the 1930-1931 period. She doesn't recall hard times really coming on until 1932. With the election and Presidency of FDR, she recalls that the country really pulled together, with the exception of the rich, who hated FDR with a passion.

This fits in with the S&H theory of early 4Ts, in which the mood change after the Catalyst comes in fits and starts and the "social moment" when people realize that Things Are Different and We Won't Return to the Old Days doesn't occur until some ways down the road (in 1932, during the last 4T).

Happy new year, Jen and everyone else.

The period of 1932 or so was the regeneracy. Does this mean that our regeneracy will happen around 2004? It may not be that simple. The lag between the start of this Fourth Turning and the regeneracy may be more than four years. It may be as long as ten years or so. I cannot know.


But the period between the start of the last 4th and its regeneracy was relatively short due to the late start of the Crisis and it being economic in nature. Economic problems are more managable than rebellions or terrorist attacks are. The 20's also ended when the country had already been in Crisis generational constelation for about five years. It is true that in 1930-1932 a lot of people were still doing fairly well and had not yet been hit by the economic emergency then facing the country. The worst came in 1933 with about 25 % unemployment. From there unemployment only started to decline in 1934.

This crisis, though having economic aspects, is not really economic in nature. I cannot think of a good name for it yet. But the main issues seem to be related to national security and the role of religion in politics. It is essentially more cultural than economic. Another difference is the relatively earlier start of the Crisis. If this Crisis had arrived on our saeculum at the same time as the last Crisis it would have gotten started in 2005-2007 or so, about five years after the first Mills had passed into rising adulthood. It didn't.

So because of its earlier start and the more complex nature of our situation than simply being an economic emergency, it is my belief that it may be as long as a decade before we feel the Fourth full force and begin to enter the regeracy. Try to party til then.

All 4Ts are partly about cultural issues, as they answer the questions brought about by the 2T.

While we like to say that the prior 4T was an economic one, it is important to note that economics is very large in all 4Ts, as it deals with production, infrastructure, etc. The Great Depression was really just a surface problem. The issues were actually about labor, socialism, fascism, welfare, etc. So while we like to think of the Great Depression and World War II as being very different things, they are very much connected.

In the prior 4T, cultural issues were quickly resolved (or swept under the rug) because society could not afford to address these issues.

Because of the early nature of this 4T, the regeneracy probably won't come until 2004 or after. This year, Millies turn 20, Xers turn 41, and Boomers turn 59. According to T4T, 59 (or more accurately, 59.5) is young enough to start a 4T, as the Great Devaluation can start at that time, as Boomers start collecting pensions from the government.

Like the previous 4T, this 4T will not rest on just one problem. While terrorism has been made into an issue, the true issue of terrorism is one of security.

With first wave Boomers starting to feel retirement coming, problems with the democratic welfare state will spark national concern.

In a way, Mike Alexander is right, as every major problem can be tied some way to economics. The problems of the welfare state is directly economic.

The Oil Paradigm is one problem that links most societal problems that will need to be addressed in this 4T.

I don't think the regeneracy will take a decade, but at the very most, 5 years. This 4T is seemingly complex. That might not delay the 4T, but is more likely to make it more severe.

i wanted to note how gen xers are responding to the donwturn. a lot of them are taking it in stride and are turning to service to find meaning. some of them are dropping out. many are going abroad like xers a decade ago; now it is southeast asia instead of eastern europe. interesting trends.
http://www.tnr.com/cyberspace/goldberg012401.html

That is a great article.
Last summer i got laid off from my part time at an E magazine. My friends are mostly hitting the road. Alot of us ARE contemplating stays in europe, although Ive heard ruminations about both asia and Africa, and surprisingly South America (Argentina and Brazil)
I might be going to Portland, Oregon after school and maybe try to go to the Seattle area.
Really I just want to get out in to the more deserted areas of america and chill out.
I also want to eventually get to Reykjavik and work on some art...I have a record in my mind, but i need to be surrounded by the Scandinavian women in order to complete it :smile:
As for 9/11...I dunno.
Part of me thinks it wont happen again, and the truth is Im really sick of hearing about it.
Let the 3000 people rest in peace, get Osama bin Laden. enuf talk, "just do it" hehe
and lets get on with our lives that we should be reminded, are so precious and often cut short by tragedy.

What insult? I intended none. I intended a criticism, which is not the same thing.

You said that what I said "says more about me than Rush.." I take that as a statement about me, an ad hominum attack of the very kind you dislike; even more problematic because not stated openly but insinuated.

I ask you, who has worked harder or done more for the US, Clinton or Rush?

The cold fact is that the answer is Rush, out of those two choices.
Clinton worked almost without exception entirely for himself. Again, that is not an insult, merely reality.

You state no facts to back up your accusation, so there is no cold fact to speak of. What you said above was an ad hominem attack; a statement that Bill Clinton is self-serving.

Overall, he did the nation far more harm than good. Those good things that he likes to take credit for in the nineties, particularly the economic boom, were mostly unconnected to him.

I don't see that he did much that was harmful compared to other presidents. To be president of the USA is by very nature to do harm; it comes with the job. But his foreign and military policies were harmless compared to his predecessors; he used the military for peacekeeping and nation-building, policies which have worked, and few US soldiers died in his campaigns. He raised taxes on the rich, which balanced the budget and created the climate for economic expansion; his tax and minimum wage policies also helped to spread the wealth to more people, whereas in the 80s a few tycoons took advantage of the country. His modest gun control measure helped to stop crime, and was long overdue. Every time a problem came up, Clinton was there with a proposal to deal with it; now there's noone at the rudder. Other policies of his probably did some harm; but overall on balance his impact was positive. To even imply that his own sexual escapades had some "effect" on the country is ludricous; all these did was sell newspapers; the same as Rush selling radio time. He worked hard every day, and you guys who insult and personally mock him constantly and mercilessly have no concept of what the job of president demands, as opposed to a ridiclous talk-show buffoon who does nothing but make a fool of himself. To even compare the two as far as who has done more for the country, shows a serious lack of perspective, or worse, which I won't say but only insinuate.

Had you mocked his ideas, I would have disagreed, but not been irritated. It was mocking the person rather than the message, particularly such a disability, that got my back up.

Again I say, get used to it. Public figures will be mocked. What I said was nothing but political satire. I didn't even imply that I was happy that he has a hearing problem; only that his physical condition now matches his already-existing mental one. It is obvious that he does not listen, but only mouths his opinions for entertaining effect-- opinions that never change.

Many Americans have always held these ideas, and Limbaugh (and others) came along at an opportune moment to give them voice. The Awakening tended to give voice to one or two factions while drowing out many others, and resentment built over that.

The large numbers of people who agree with some or all of Limbaugh's ideas already held them, in more or less coherent form, before they ever heard of him. These ideas were not implanted or created by 'right wing propaganda'.

This is blatant nonsense, Cynic. First of all, it was not only Rush that is responsible for this propaganda; it goes back into the Awakening itself, which far from suppressing the right-wing movement Rush represents, was the source of it and represented about half of it. Reagan is the primary source of this propaganda; and the people behind him, and Goldwater before him. Before Reagan made right-wing opinion conventional wisdom in 1981, the political spectrum in America was much closer to the center. Now, it is respectable to attack liberal government programs as problems, instead of solutions. This comes straight from Reagan. Also, the Moral Majority came along in about 1978, and now they and the economic Right control the House of Representatives, whose actions this year speak loudly and clearly of how far right we in America are; not to mention Bush's extreme Right policies. They even held up airport security because they didn't want screeners to be federal employees! This is Reagan/Rush ideology in control of a body of our national legislature. This is an anomaly, not a pre-existing opinion. Before Reagan, the New Deal was the most influential event, and its ideas were the dominant ideology; people who thought like Reagan was far less in number. There was no reason for this change, other than that Reagan was a popular figure who poured out propaganda that people swallowed without thinking, in a nation whose media is owned and controlled by the Corporate and Religious Right and does not give scope to a broad coverage of world events and trends, but mostly entertains.

Incidentally, America is currently the world's dominant military, economic, and cultural power. Unless something happens to shatter that
power, America is not under any particular obligation to follow the path of the rest of the world. IMHO, in fact, the world would do well to imitate America more than they do, but they, too, are not obligated to do so. So simply referring to 'America the sick' makes no impression on anyone who doesn't already hold that opinion.

True; however, the fact is that the USA is well behind most other developed nations in the things that matter. Power has almost nothing to do with the health of a nation. If anything, it corrupts us, as power always does. As it corrupted Europe before the World Wars. We spend far too much on the military, while other nations spend their resources on human needs. The result is that statistics show that we are less educated, less healthy, have greater infant mortality, more murders, more drug use, more people in prison, more pollution, and less efficient energy use than other nations. We "powerful" Americans gobble up 25% of the world resources and use them for our own enrichment, although we are 2% of the world's peoples. We oppose pollution and global warming treaties, we refuse to end land mines. We refuse to build efficient cars and rail systems. We are so backward it is truly pathetic. We could do so much better; we can and should. The only reason we don't is because the right-wing has so much power and influence. And that is because of propagandists like Reagan and Limbaugh, and the cynics who believe them.

I submit also that many people who listen to Rush take him for what his is, a buffoon, and they find him entertaining at best.

Not according to the latest rating numbers.

What a strange thing to say, even for you. It is obvious that the rating numbers, no matter how high, cast no doubt upon my statement, which was about why people listen to Rush, and not how many. Have you no background in logic, Mr. Cynic?

Funny, the Left is always talking about individuality and the rights of the
individual, yet there seems to be this strange subthread that keeps focusing on 'making' people wake up, on 'forcibly' educating them, on compulsory sensitivity training, etc. What an odd dichotomy!
One might almost wonder whether the Left has a faint little streak of authoritarianism running through it!

What I said (and I am not the entire "Left" so why you made this comment escapes me) was that EVENTS would wake people up, and so they will. There is a bit of authoritarianism on the Left, indeed. Liberty is not the only thing needed in a society, unfortunately there have to be laws and regulations, since people aren't perfect and powerful people can impose themselves on the weak. What is funny is how many have swallowed the Reagan/Rush propaganda that claims the Right are for "freedom," when in fact they represent the interests of the powerful who seek to wreak their havoc without interference. What is funny is how since 1981 more people than before cannot seem to grasp this simple point. Are you among them, Mr. Cynic?

I'm not in any sense worried about the corporations. For one thing, I neither love them nor hate them. For another, they are in no particular danger.

:lol:

Well of course not. That's the problem. It is WE who are in danger because of them and their power.

The corporations will fare just fine under the new arrangements. They can afford legions of lawyers, they can buy access to susceptible
politicians and bureaucrats... No, the people who'll end up feeling the bite of the restrictions will be the average sap who can't afford (these) options, and who lacks those connections and opportunities.

Oh, I can tell the difference, Eric. That's why I am not reassured.

You make some sense here, much to my surprise :smile:

But this is why environmental regulations have to be aimed at curbing their power. They can and have fought back all along, although some restrictions on them have been imposed already. That is why it is so important not to fight against regulations on corporate polluters, but to support them, because they DO have such means to beat them. Otherwise the average guy and gal will bear the brunt of the suffering, not to mention the other species.

Just to buy fewer SUVs, or use more mass transit, will not hurt the average guy. But it's things like these that the people will need to do, and that's not a bad thing. It just means, again, not succumbing to the propaganda and advertising put out by the powers-that-be, the commercial interests, and curtailing their power over politicians and media. We have a long, long way to go to do this; including 2 decades-worth of trends in the other direction-- towards even more control by the wealthy few-- thanks to Rush, Reagan and company.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-01-02 19:38 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-01-02 19:48 ]</font>

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/01/kelly.htm

This is an interesting article, but I cannot call Bush a liberal at all.

A Stretch Beyond Skyscrapers
4th Turning doesn't have to mean dehumanization




By Jane Holtz Kay

Even as workers dug through the grim remains of the World Trade Center, the developer's eye
was on the prize. The lease-holders of the once soaring glass towers took a stance: the downed
duo should give way to a new foursome.

The builders would flout the terrorists' deed with this living, breathing, resuscitation of 50-story
towers. The rush to rebuild and re-profit would chug along with zero public input. Joining these
moneygrabbers, the omnipotent New York and New Jersey Port authorities asserted their
ownership of the Trade Center.

If the powerbrokers in post-calamity America prefer to continue business as usual, it is time for the
rest of the population to put planning and everyday people in the process.

It is time to move and build with intelligence, not mindless aggression and institutional
self-aggrandizement. It is time to consider the best fate for the sixteen-acre site for New York and
the nation -- time, too, for the public and urban planners to share in re-shaping this ravaged site.

The World Trade Center was a model of the worst of its time. In an era of mega-towers wrapped
with windy plazas, it was the skyscraper to end all skyscrapers. Its massive 16 acres of enclosed
space and spread out towers, each covering a single acre, shadowed the city. Its random form
disrupted the gridded street pattern of Lower Manhattan.

Inside, the underground mall was dark and filled with homogeneous chainstores; its corridors
jammed with trainriders. Outside, widened roads and a perimeter devoid of shops or cafes
created a lifeless edge: there was no sense of place. "No there there."

We can do better on this prime location. Poised above a major rail system, the site could again
become a nexus, a model mini-village of 50,000. From the dark days of the national nightmare,
we could create a fresh model for the nation's comeback cities.

Cities are built door by door. Some of the densest cities - Boston, Paris, and even much of New
York - are seven stories high. Forget the trophy towers. Bring back the light and life of low
buildings on crisscrossing blocks. Next, go for diversity. Big as they were, the towers held a
fragment of the city's trade. Focussing on commerce here is not necessary for Manhattan's
economic health.

Bring in the commerce but also non-profits, residences, movie houses, restaurants ... mixed-uses
for a 24-hour city. Finally, remembrance is fitting. Start with a green space as a memorial to the
thousands lost. Add a tower fragment, mementos, park benches and streetlights. In an asphalt
jungle, visitors and citydwellers could gain relief from the tragic past.

Mere blocks from the water, today's Ground Zero could become tomorrow's civic plateau --
financially, psychologically and socially sound. Out of the ashes of the glass and concrete
wasteland, this phoenix could show the world the power of a classic way of citymaking.

From Jane Holtz Kay.com

2002: Year of the Radical?

http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/sartre/WRACK/id38.html

I like it Jay. It shows some of the post-awakening consciousness we need for the Crisis to truly reshape our society for the better.

Yes, lets turn ground zero into a park! And a memorial.