One or Two Things to (NOT) think about
9/11 seems almost synonymous with the word terrorism, (and with good reason). But 9/11 is not the entire story. Does anyone recall the anthrax incidents of 2001? Do we ever hear about the progress being made on these cases?
I have to wonder about that. Is there more to the informational vacuum than the feds just don't have a clue?
Truth is, we as individuals have no way of knowing, but it is a pretty good bet that the issue has dropped off our collective radar. I will thank a commenter, JB, for bringing it back up.
In the late 1980's, I worked in an urban environment, was deskbound for the most part, and like many others in similar circumstances, I listened to a lot of radio, (when I could), and read the daily papers as well as any other periodicals that I could get my hands on, (usually for free). I recall reading a news story regarding a protest regarding the rights of AIDS patients. The article interviewed a man who seemed quite stable, (not prone to shouting out damnation and backing it with quotes from Leviticus), and he spoke at length about HIV, and how the virus had been observed in laboratory conditions to be mutating into a form that would allow it to be air borne, (that is, passed from human to human without sexual contact). That notion startled me, and I kept looking for more information, but that was the last that I saw of that issue. My impression at the time was that somebody got to the man, and shut him up.
I bring that anecdote up because it illustrates that sometimes, things just seem to go away.
The anthrax story is another example, although it still gets some coverage by independents on the internet.
But why is the government not keeping us up on this? Is it possible that they really have no clue, or is it a case where solving the case creates more problems than it cures?
If I were following up on this, I believe I would first check on the suspects, (are they still living, and if so, where?). I would also check up on the current status of 'research' in that particular field, (not that one would ever get anywhere with these questions), and finally, I would inquire about any similar incidents, wordwide, since 9/11.
You can read a little about the anthrax incidents here and here.
It might be that there was little drama attached to these actions, and thus, they did not get a large audience from the get-go. But I have to say that the basence of news here is almost deafening.
There used to be a game show called "Who Do You Trust?". That is a very good question.
Who can we trust?
I have to wonder about that. Is there more to the informational vacuum than the feds just don't have a clue?
Truth is, we as individuals have no way of knowing, but it is a pretty good bet that the issue has dropped off our collective radar. I will thank a commenter, JB, for bringing it back up.
In the late 1980's, I worked in an urban environment, was deskbound for the most part, and like many others in similar circumstances, I listened to a lot of radio, (when I could), and read the daily papers as well as any other periodicals that I could get my hands on, (usually for free). I recall reading a news story regarding a protest regarding the rights of AIDS patients. The article interviewed a man who seemed quite stable, (not prone to shouting out damnation and backing it with quotes from Leviticus), and he spoke at length about HIV, and how the virus had been observed in laboratory conditions to be mutating into a form that would allow it to be air borne, (that is, passed from human to human without sexual contact). That notion startled me, and I kept looking for more information, but that was the last that I saw of that issue. My impression at the time was that somebody got to the man, and shut him up.
I bring that anecdote up because it illustrates that sometimes, things just seem to go away.
The anthrax story is another example, although it still gets some coverage by independents on the internet.
But why is the government not keeping us up on this? Is it possible that they really have no clue, or is it a case where solving the case creates more problems than it cures?
If I were following up on this, I believe I would first check on the suspects, (are they still living, and if so, where?). I would also check up on the current status of 'research' in that particular field, (not that one would ever get anywhere with these questions), and finally, I would inquire about any similar incidents, wordwide, since 9/11.
You can read a little about the anthrax incidents here and here.
It might be that there was little drama attached to these actions, and thus, they did not get a large audience from the get-go. But I have to say that the basence of news here is almost deafening.
There used to be a game show called "Who Do You Trust?". That is a very good question.
Who can we trust?
posted by eccentric recluse at 11:47 AM
3 Comments:
Thanks for bringing up the subject EC. I haven't seen very many mentions on web sites I visit about this sad chapter of 9/11.
Who can we trust? I suppose that will be one of the biggest questions on everyones mind when they go to vote later this year.
Personally I will vote for a change and hope for the best!
JB
you are of course, right. my opinion, (and I have mentioned it here), is that democracy is an imprecise thing---we can vote for change, but what we will get will happen in the first couple of months--beyond that point, pol's and parties become embedded and tend to look after their own interests first. Let's keep our fingers crossed!
Hey I remember the anthrax scare. Good song choice, also.
Post a Comment
<< Home