|Regional differences in impact of 9/11?||Silverback|
Jan 15, 2003 11:51 AM
|This relates to some posts in the last couple of weeks, where one of the issues was a difference in the impact of the WTC attacks depending on how far you were from Ground Zero. The Los Angeles Times did a story featuring interviews with people in rural Nevada who had barely been affected. It wasn't that they didn't care, but it seems so far away, and had so little direct effect on their lives, that it soon faded (Note to easterners: You may not be able to judge these people by your standards. Some of the towns are hours from anywhere, with few visitors and not even reliable television reception--New York is as foreign to them as Dakar).
I've visited NY twice since 9/11, and spent a lot of time in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Even in the cities of California, the impact is much smaller than in New York. It just isn't a day-to-day issue on the West Coast.
I'm not condemning either side--if the terrorists had crashed into the TransAmerica Tower in SF, then people there would be reliving the horror and New Yorkers would be back near normal. But...anybody live where it's different than this?
Jan 15, 2003 12:45 PM
|I think it's only natural that those closer to it will feel it more.
However, I don't think a day has gone by when I was not reminded of it somehow, with the news, flags on cars, travel issues, etc.
It still makes me ill to see replays of the towers coming down.
|It's not just distance,||TJeanloz|
Jan 15, 2003 1:47 PM
|Physical distance isn't the only factor. I grew up in rural New Hampshire (which I say as if there was an "urban" New Hampshire), and people mostly weren't gripped by it in the same way people in nearby Boston were. The New York urban lifestyle was emotionally so far away from the New Hampshire status quo, that it all seems very unreal. Keep in mind, 100 times more people worked in the WTC as live in my hometown. People in Boston, and even Portland (Maine, that is), the urban centers that serve our communities, were much more effected by it all. But New York, despite only being a 5 hour drive, might as well be on the moon for most New Hampshire folks.|
|When was that big earthquake in Cal-lee-fornia?||Sintesi|
Jan 15, 2003 2:50 PM
|re: Regional differences in impact of 9/11?||Alpedhuez55|
Jan 15, 2003 6:31 PM
|It is simular in a sense to a natural disater out there, whether it be earthquakes or the floods in California. Many people including myself donated to the Red Cross in the 1989 & 1994 earthquakes. It did not effect my day to day life other than some work contacts who were not available, but it did touch me when it happenned. By the time they finished rebuilding the LA Highways, all I was thinking about is how quickly they did it.
Sure 9/11 touched me more than most Claifornians because I had friends among the the victims. My day to day life was back to normal within weeks. Sure I watch the news a little more closely even now. The fact that the papers had to go to rural Nevada to find people who do not have feelings say it did not effect them tells you how much it really did effect the country.
9/11 was an attack against All of America, not just New Yorkers or Washingtonians. This was an attack at the American Economy and way of life. They were going directly at our stock markets in New York and our Government in Washington. The fact that most peoples day to day life was back to normal within weeks of the attacks shows the strenght of our country.
Silverback, you keep telling us the events of 9/11 have not effected you. I say it has more than you want to admit. You are one of the most outspoken opponents to the Presidents Foreign policy I have seen on this board. You have posted some prety wild theorys such as your one about the whole war in Iraq being a plot for oil companies and defense contractors to to steal from Grammies Social Security & Medicare.
This is just the newest talking point for the Anti-War activists. First they were trying to say Hussein had no direct links to Bin Laden, but that did not work since links are there. Then they rehashed the "No Blood for Oil" and that did not work either. Now they are trying to say that most of the country outside of the Northeast does not care about the attacks anymore which will not work either.
Our elections are decided by about half of our population. There is a lot of apathy out there. The anti-war activists have run into more apathy at the colleges over the last few months. They are finding more people support the president than they expected. Here is an example from the Heartland:
And even in Berkeley:
Apathy is not a good enough excuse to avoid taking action to protect our way of life.
|You're kidding, right?||TypeOne|
Jan 17, 2003 2:09 PM
|I live on the West coast and I feel affected by the attacks, but I don't support a war with Iraq. In fact, I can't support much that Bush has done. Moron.|
|re: Regional differences in impact of 9/11?||Duane Gran|
Jan 16, 2003 10:08 AM
|I live in Washington DC and I can attest to this. I would rate 9/11/01 as the worst day of my life and I hope to never experience such a thing again. It is only natural to feel a bit different about it depending on how directly it affects you. Geography is just one impact, but someone half way around the world would be affected if a loved one was involved.|| |