RP Listener Forum

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 6:31pm

RichardPrins wrote:

I can ignore the second part of the slogan, because my overlap with them is mostly with the free minds bit (though not always).

I know what you mean. See my earlier response to Lazy8.

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 6:22pm

Proclivities wrote:

It's an interesting article, though little that most of us were not long aware of, if one were to think about it. Personally, though, I'm generally a little suspicious of any organization which uses the phrase "free markets" in its logo/slogan: to me, it pretends that the playing fields are "free" and level.

I can ignore the second part of the slogan, because my overlap with them is mostly with the free minds bit (though not always).

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 6:14pm

Lazy8 wrote:

Proclivities wrote:

It's an interesting article, though little that most of us were not long aware of. Personally, though, I'm generally a little suspicious of any organization which uses the phrase "free markets" in its logo/slogan: it pretends that the playing fields are "free" and level.

Reason is the oldest and most popular libertarian magazine in the US. It advocates for free markets, but I have never seen it claim we have one.

Thanks for that - good point, and I wasn't saying it to dismiss the article or the publication. It's just one of those phrases; you know what I mean?

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 6:07pm

Proclivities wrote:

It's an interesting article, though little that most of us were not long aware of. Personally, though, I'm generally a little suspicious of any organization which uses the phrase "free markets" in its logo/slogan: it pretends that the playing fields are "free" and level.

Reason is the oldest and most popular libertarian magazine in the US. It advocates for free markets, but I have never seen it claim we have one.

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 6:02pm

RichardPrins wrote:

9/11 and Its Legacy of Fear
Sept. 11th has changed America radically—and not for the better.

It's an interesting article, though little that most of us were not long aware of, if one were to think about it. Personally, though, I'm generally a little suspicious of any organization which uses the phrase "free markets" in its logo/slogan: to me, it pretends that the playing fields are "free" and level.

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 5:21pm

9/11 and Its Legacy of Fear
Sept. 11th has changed America radically—and not for the better.

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 12:10pm

. buzz wrote:

NYT should be ashamed. They have 364 days a year to print this. Today should be about the victims.

You're right. Probably why they published it yesterday.

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 12:07pm

buzz wrote:

NYT should be ashamed. They have 364 days a year to print this. Today should be about the victims.

This is the perfect day to print this, while people are paying attention. It is timely and relevant.

Wonder if W and Co will ever face criminal charges?

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 11:46am

aflanigan wrote:

The Deafness Before The Storm
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal . . .

Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it . . .

Hardly news. Partisan counter attack.

Chile: the other 9/11 anniversary
The devastating legacy of Pinochet's coup of 11 September 1973 goes far beyond the economy and the armed forces

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 11:45am

Antigone wrote:

I still think this cover was the perfect evocation of the time. Stunned me then, stuns me now.

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 11:33am

aflanigan wrote:

The Deafness Before The Storm

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal . . .

Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it . . .

NYT should be ashamed. They have 364 days a year to print this. Today should be about the victims.

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 11:25am

I still think this cover was the perfect evocation of the time. Stunned me then, stuns me now.

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 10:38am

aflanigan wrote:

The Deafness Before The Storm

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal . . .

Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it . . .

Gee, big surprise ...!

Posted: Sep 11, 2012 - 9:18am

The Deafness Before The Storm

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal . . .

Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it . . .

Posted: Sep 8, 2011 - 1:10pm

rutgers law has the full goods but the site is getting hammered

http://www.rutgerslawreview.com/

will try again later.

Posted: Sep 8, 2011 - 1:08pm

jagdriver wrote:

And when one respondent, when learning of a hijacking remarked, "Cool...", I thought was a real eye-opener as to who we had providing cross-channel communications.

that was an eye opener wasn't it?

Posted: Sep 8, 2011 - 12:47pm

jagdriver wrote:

And when one respondent, when learning of a hijacking remarked, "Cool...", I thought was a real eye-opener as to who we had providing cross-channel communications.

I was struck by that too but remember these people train and train and sit and sit and sit and sit with nothing happening ever. Contrary to how it sounds, I think that person was a pro, ready to do the work she trained for...

Posted: Sep 8, 2011 - 12:22pm

jagdriver wrote:

Many initial communicators seemed half-asleep, IMO, and there obviously wasn't any sort of established emergency protocol in place. That it took 30 minutes before anyone thought that the missing Dulles plane might be a problem is really bizarre. Hello?

And when one respondent, when learning of a hijacking remarked, "Cool...", I thought was a real eye-opener as to who we had providing cross-channel communications.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We streamed Frontline's (PBS) Top Secret America last night... Bin Laden and Al Qaeda won, folks (although we were simultaneously busy giving all of our global competitive prowess to the Chinese).

Sorry about your kids' educational aspirations, Wyoming's crumbling infrastructure, state park closings and other budgetary problems. We have more control centers yet to build and staff.

That was pretty amazing, huh? Cheney, Bush, and Rummy belong in prison.

Posted: Sep 8, 2011 - 12:20pm

ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Fascinating. I started listening to that this morning, thanks for reposting the link... just an overwhelming situation. Didn't hear anyone drop the ball though. Wonder if there's a streamlined system for reporting this info now?

Many initial communicators seemed half-asleep, IMO, and there obviously wasn't any sort of established emergency protocol in place. That it took 30 minutes before anyone thought that the missing Dulles plane might be a problem is really bizarre. Hello?

And when one respondent, when learning of a hijacking remarked, "Cool...", I thought was a real eye-opener as to who we had providing cross-channel communications.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We streamed Frontline's (PBS) Top Secret America last night... Bin Laden and Al Qaeda won, folks (although we were simultaneously busy giving all of our global competitive prowess to the Chinese).

Sorry about your kids' educational aspirations, Wyoming's crumbling infrastructure, state park closings and other budgetary problems. We have more control centers yet to build and staff.

Posted: Sep 8, 2011 - 12:18pm

Might as well start the Where were you on 9/11? stories:

I lived in the burbs and had an hour train ride to downtown Chicago, and when I got off the train at 9am, the streets were virtually empty, so unusual. Then a woman walked by me and told someone on her cell that people were jumping out of windows...wtf?!?! Then I got to my office, and it was obvious that something was going on, but I had no idea what. Then I listened to my voicemail where I had a message from my daughter about how the plane had hit the first tower. I ran upstairs to the tvs to watch, and then saw the second tower get hit. Everyone was astounded, no one knew what to do! Eventually it sank in that we had to get the hell outta there, especially because it was possible that Chicago would be the next target, the Sears Tower (now known as The Big Willie). So after we figured out that would would not be able to fax or FedEx, I left, walking, along with thousands of other zombies, about 2 miles north, where my brother picked me up. I hung around there until I felt it would be save to take the train home.

We had no work for the next couple days and I remember sitting in my yard and staring up at the sky, where there was an obvious lack of planes. (When you live near O'Hare/Midway, there is a constant presence of planes flying). It was like waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I was working at Morningstar (Morningstar gives this fund 5 *****s) and several people who died in the towers worked for fund companies, so it was particularly sad. Just outside my office window was a clear view of Sears Tower, and I spent hours after that staring and waiting for a plane to hit.

The Tribune ran the names of those who died and every day on the train I read those names and cried my eyes out.

I sure wish we could turn back the clock.