>>And it was NYC that was attacked on 9/11, and we (no quotation marks)
>>were among the least bellicose people in the U.S. People in the
>>heartland, who are more likely to get hit by a tornado than a 747 or a
>>dirty bomb, were the ones really out for blood. Human nature is a very
>>plastic thing.
>
>I don't know how a sophisticated analysis of the contrast you point out (a
>very true one, I think), between the blase New Yorkers and the
>bloody-minded heartland Americans after 9/11, would run, but I might
>suggest that: (1) The New Yorkers, especially those in the lower part of
>Manhattan, I assume, were plenty shaken up that morning, but once it
>became clear that it was just the two planes, they reverted to the normal
>New Yorker mode of existence, which is coping with minor and major
>disasters as SOP. Hey -- it's New York, right? Whaddaya expect, for
>Chrissakes? Whereas out in the heartland, people are used to a somewhat
>more peaceful environment. And after all, one plane did crash-land in
>Western PA, which is certainly the heartland; it didn't fall on anyone, if
>I remember correctly, but it very well could have.
Since this is the second person to claim recently that more "cries for blood" came from the heartland than NY I would like to see the source of this belief. Seat-of-the-pants stuff or anything more substantial like results of a decent poll? Last time I checked disasters like major floods and tornados pretty regularly hit the midwest. Far more often than NYC so I don't think New Yorkers are somehow more likely to take disasters per se as SOP in their lives as some have claimed. Any actual evidence New Yorkers took the 9/11 attacks any "better" than the rest of the country or the midwest in particular? ChuckO lives in KC. Any feeling on your part Chuck that KC'ers wanted more blood spilled after the 9/11 attacks than the residents of DC? That is where you were residing before KC isn't it?
John Thornton