Discovery channel ran an excellent two hour documentary several times last night. "Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation" was narrated by Christiana Amanpour and was uninterrupted by commercials other than an 800 number to aid the refugees. It does not appear in the listings so I don't know when it will run again.

The show knocked me "off the fence." I now side with NATO on their decision. The evidence presented leaves little doubt that Milosevic is a war criminal and the worst threat to Europe since Hitler.

Sometimes there are no easy choices, only intelligent decisions.

-- a (a@a.a), April 10, 1999

Answers

a...

Do you think it possible that that was the intent.

"Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse." Sophocles

don't forget your penny...for...Charon

-- Charon (Thatplace@downbelow.com), April 10, 1999.

Charon: I thought about that, but I don't think so. You really need to see the piece yourself and I think you would agree. It is a very complex situation and one that the producers seemed to take great care in presenting in an unbiased fashion. I was mistaken in some of my beliefs, and the show pointed this out.

IMHO, Discovery channel gets Two Thumbs Up for this.

-- a (a@a.a), April 10, 1999.

BTW, the show goes back 10 years (with a brief account of the confrontation in the 1300's) and covers the Fall of Tito, the early balkanization, the Serbian-Croatian war, the conflict over Bosnia-Herzogvinia, the Dayton accords, and recent ethnic cleansing activities.

Most astounding about the show was the amount of actual video and audio tape recordings of all the events. There have been media crews documenting this thing since it began. This is a big difference with previous wars, where all that exists is words in a history book.

-- a (a@a.a), April 10, 1999.

A friend of mine in intell has a habit of being surprisingly objective about things going on in the world; seeming to know more about it and be less affected by the media 'spin' since most of his info isn't from the media. He's been moderate on folks I figured he'd hate, since the media had told me to do so. But about Milosovic, he said we should have put a bullet in his head years ago and we've known it and did nothing and it's our fault it got to this point -- pointing out how ludicrous it is that it is "not allowed" for our intell agents to assasinate somebody anymore. Instead we have to go to war, kill our own soldiers, spend millions or billions, and kill lots of innocent civilians. It wasn't okay to shoot Slobodan years ago but it's okay to send half the world to war now. Sigh. Anyway his perspective is usually so balanced that I was surprised at his response to this. That carried a lot of weight with me re: the need for us to be there.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 10, 1999.

I saw some of the news reports of refugees fleeing the first few days. They were sincerely begging for us to help them, and there is no way it could have been staged or faked. Of course there are times when our government and media are not completely honest about the consequences of our actions, but there is no doubt in my mind that we sincerely have good intentions in doing what we are doing, and that they desperately needed our help.

-- @ (@@@.@), April 10, 1999.

PJ I've thought the same thing. A hired "Jackal" could take care of the Butcher of Belgrade and save all the misery the refugees have suffered, and the money that's been spent, and the enemies we've made and not put half the world in a turmoil. It's a shame they outlawed that option.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), April 10, 1999.

Let's just hope our intervention in Kosovo is worth starting WWIII, as it definitely seems to be headed in that direction. Face it, it was a CIVIL war of limited scope until NATO started bombing. Yeah, the guy's a butcher. Some of the old South's slave owners were real sadists, too. But how would we have felt if another nation butted in on our personal business in our civil war? England did give the South some aid during the civil war because they would have loved to see the USA split apart. Do you think England had a right to interfere with our civil war? The problem with Viet Nam was that we didn't realize it was a civil war between people who wanted to be communist and those who didn't. Look at the mess we got in there. And if you think we should be in Kosovo, then why not all over Africa where this and that group is killing at least as many people as in Kosovo. Ever hear of Rwanda? At least in Africa we wouldn't be starting WWIII. It's terrible how many are suffering in Kosovo but it's NOTHING like the billions that will die when WWIII breaks out from our messing with the Serbs. It's a warm fuzzy to think we are helping the people there but those who support it need a reality check. Thousands of Albanians dying in a CIVIL war or BILLIONS in a global thermonuclear war? Hmmmm

-- steve albright (albrecht@ndak.net), April 10, 1999.

Steve: what about Saddam? should we let him develop and acquire nuclear weapons?

Should we have joined the effort to eradicate Hitler?

-- a (a@a.a), April 10, 1999.

That was one of the best things that I have seen on television in a long time. Not that I watch much of tv anyway. I, too, have a much better understanding of the situation and I recommend it to anyone who may be interested in learning more of the history of the area. It certainly altered my view of the entire situation.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), April 10, 1999.

a,

Don't you think it RATHER coincidental that this particular program JUST happened to be ready and available for airing JUST as we are about to send in ground troops.

It takes TIME to put together a programme like this.

As for the intel agent - I don't doubt that he is wrong - my take is that old slobbo was ALLOWED to run rampant in the region for the VERY reason that the public outrage encapsulated in this "show" would sway the populace in favour of NATO aggression...

Think outside of the box, people, there is an extremely high stakes game being played out here. If Yugoslavia had failed, back-up plans are in place - Greece/Turkey and of course always our old friends Saddam (conveniently left to fester by Bush as somewhere to bomb when the time is right) and Bin Laden and Muhammar Ghadaffi...

I could go on but I think you get the picture. Maybe.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 11, 1999.

Andy is right. We must have "bad guys" other wise how can we be the good guy? There are hundreds of "bad guys" around the world to fight with, but we are going to Kosovo for a reason. African countries commit genocide on a revolving basis, but we let it go "unpunished". Pol Pot was let loose for 10+ years in Cambodia, but we had enough of SE Asia. There is always something bad happening. Clinton used tanks to kill members of a church..... I can just hear him now "kill that motherf...er Koresh" Look at the Clinton enemy death toll. Talk about psychos!

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), April 11, 1999.

Sheesh! I get so tired of people comparing Ol' Slobbo the Serb to Adolf Hitler or the mad man of Iraq. The only simularity is that all of them killed people. Now here's the difference and I believe it's a big one: Slobbo did not run a blitzkrieg on several nations as Hitler did. Slobbo is not even close to the level of international aggression unleashed by Hitler. Saddam also invaded another nation, Kuwait and threatened to lob Scuds to a multitude of other countries Slobbo's buchery was confined to a CIVIL war situation. No other nations invaded in a land grab, as per Adolf. If we are to use killing people as a criteria for being called a threat equal to Hitler then the world has a lot of Hitlers running around in it right now and we had better start sending U.S. troops to a multitude of countries to stop all these Hitlers. Reality check needed here - we don't have the resources to bring peace and joy to all people everywhere. It's a lovely concept but realistic it ain't! Plus the current liar-incheif is not exactly the statesman we want at the helm if we are going to play nuclear brinksmanship in the Balkans. Russia is nowhere near the pansy portrayed to the public and they are made as Hades. Frankly, I don't think it's worth having my 6 and 8 year old sons turned into radioactive ash because of a CIVIL war in a place where killing one another has been their national pastime for the last several hundred years. Americans simply can't think any more. This is not some "raghead" that we can bomb every few months when we feel like it. There are truly grave consequences here. Nobody seems to realize we are playing nuclear chicken with the Russians here. The media isn't helping any. Maybe if they showed the huge Russian militay mobilization that is taking place, people would wake up. Nah, the stockmarket's breaking 10,000, what else do we need to know. Turn on the TV and let's watch another sitcom.

-- Steve Albright (albrecht@ndak.net), April 12, 1999.

This was an excellent show - for what it showed, and up to the point of what is told. Particularly impressive was the "current interviews" with the actual leaders were giving the orders and inside the talks.

Now - recognize a few things, presented as a matter of interest and discussion.

One. The show was completed about two years ago - right after the Dayton summit, and is ONLY good up to that point. The "link" from the Dayton agreement to today's events (March, April 1999) was "stuck on" by the narrator after the fact and in a different format than the previous - probably a different writer and producer. There were no linked graphics or translation in the story from post-Dayton to today. Thus, I agree with the observation that this was "canned" a long time ago and "re-surfaced"" now for education ("indoctrination" some would say, by a compliant media? This media, after all, was promised 5 billion in anti-drug money for a fully government-paid ad campaign.)

Two. The people fighting there are NOT going to be persuaded by any two=bit bombing campaign. They MIGHT be invaded and forced to change mayors or police officails, but they have a tradition of insurrection and resistance dating back to the Ottoman invasion of Kosovo. It is as if the Canadians started bombing Boston and New York to force the US to let the British take over Concord Bridge and Lexington, Fort Ticonderoga, Yorktown, Plymouth, and Valley Forge.

Ain't gonna happen. The Germans invaded with 800,000 troops and a total-war total-intimidation total-terror atmosphere - and they lost after four years of bloody fighting. The only Europeans to be invaded and NOT conquored were the Russians and Yugoslavians - who were invaded by the Germans (as they are now being invaded by the hated "NATO-defending Germans") and who beat them.

Three. There are crimes are on all three sides - Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia-Herr. There is hatred (no peace - ever) on all three sides that has been recently rekindled by recent atrocities - by all three sides.

Four - The abject failure of fifty years of refugees in Palestine and Syria and Lebonan, caused by outsiders (Europeans) in the forced removal and replacement of one ethic group of people for another, regardless of the overall morality of the people and cultrues involved, should indicate that any solution won't work and will destabilize the region.

As in Northern Ireland - the hatred and fighting - even between two people with a common language and a common heritage - will not stop at one generation - unless quelled by the active secret police and thought police and weapons of something as oppressive as the Communist Party's KGB's weapons or the Spetza in East Germany.

Last. My own observation should be treated as personal opinion, as the above are facts. However, something smells rotten - something is not right about the rushed nature of the whole event, the timing of the PR campaign that began it, the false and unneeded deadlines about an issue that began almost 600 years ago.

I don't what the real reason is, it may become more obvious later - but this - the agressive use of NATO against a sovereign country engaged in a civil war after 50 years of pure defense against an legitimate outside foe intent on conquering Europe - is wrong. Dead wrong - particularly when Russia is tipping back to agressive militarism and xeno-phobia against the West in general, and the US and Germany in particular. They have supported the Serbs in the past.

Remember the cause of WWI - a Balkan internal dispute, encouraged by Sebian internal agression against Austria-Hungary ruleing classes (who are now members of NATO) and their allies (Germany, etc.) against Serbian foes and revolutionaries in Sarajevo, who in turn received support (by their traditional allies) in Russia. That was only two generations ago.

Soemthing is terribly wrong here. And the aggressors (the US Democratic Party and the Socialists in Europe) are actively being "propagandized" by the press here and in Europe - far better, far faster, and far more enthusiastically than aything Goebels could have anticipated for his master Hitler.

There were many "closed" meetings in mid-February, held off-record by Clinton to selected members of the press - did they discuss this? Did they (the media) get the word to promte this? When did the media (as they did when Clinton bombed Iraq to intimidate Congress before the impeachment) get the word early to get their cameras in the right place. Where they told to propagandize the refugees? Where they told what to cover, when to start, and what to say? Why are the people supporting this the same who opposed the Vietnam War? But who first supported that same war when it was initially escalated by Kennedy-Johnson administration by the Gulf of Tonkin shooting?

Like the Gulf of Tonkin, like Johnson, like Cambodia, like the Stalin mass-murders, like Hitler, like Mao, like China - the findings from an impartial history will be very different than the current media massive propaganda supporting Clinton's "fine little war".

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 12, 1999.

CNN's Christiane Amanpour is the wife of State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin. One might conclude that dinners with his boss, Secretary of State Albright, have been very "enlightening", especially considering that Secy. Albright's father was Czech ambassador to Yugoslavia (before they all had to flee Czechoslovakia in the late 40's), and that she lost family in the Holocaust. There's lot of "history" there.

It would be very surprising if this did not influence some of Ms. Amanpour's work. Now if they also have had dinner wtih his boss's boss, it gets even more interesting...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), April 12, 1999.

A two-hour documentary run twice, back-to-back, with all the commercials filtered out on a commercial cable tv channel... What's up with that?

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 12, 1999.

You're right - presented commercial free ...... who paid the bills for this little trick?

Other than the taxpayers, of course....

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 12, 1999.

Actually, I think it was a three hour special. I just assumed the "no commercials" was a public service to Int. Red Cross...but now you've stimulated my wonder gland....

Robert: as usual, an erudite post. One note, however, this thing now has bipartisan support.

I posted a while back that this may be (among other things) a pre-emptive move to get US military might forward deployed to Europe to handle the inevitable chaos that will result from an unprepared Eurasian and Mid-Far East after y2k. Can we take the chance of a resurgence of communism in the vacuum that may ensure when and if the governments of the lesser nations fail?

Also, you seem adamant that this was a mistake for us (NATO) to become involved in. I assume you support the Gulf War and WWII causes; so where do you draw the line? In your opinion, what would have been the appropriate course of action in the Kosovo situation?

-- a (a@a.a), April 12, 1999.

If this is needed - Vietnam was essential in protecting the Southerners from the crimes and murders committed by the North.

Cambodia (under the Communists' murders of half their population) should have resulted in immediate invasion and permanent "peacekeeping" - until "peace" was imposed.

Palestine (and North Ireland ?) should be invaded and the participants should be ??? Ethiopia, Uganda, Ruwanda, South Africa, Chile, North Korea, China, Tibet, Iraq, Kurdistan, Afganistan, Pakistan, Russia, (earlier regimes under the Communists: Poland, East Germany, Rumania, Bulgaria), Greece - when they were opposign Communists in the early fifties? Turkey, Iran, Iraq (earlier, before and after the Gulf War)? Who do we police?

Where - if we police - will the people accept the "foreign rule" imposed by us and actually (internally, eally, and morally) make a pemanent "peace" with their neighbors?

Can't give you an answer.

I can tell you that the people now clamoring for war - have never, in the past fifty years, called for opposing Communistic regimes or socialist terror anywhere, at any time, in any country.

They have vigorously, religiously, adamently opposed using US forces overseas - even when asked by the governments in charge - they have spent their entire lives opposing the use of force overseas against real dictators who were far more dangerous than this creature.

He (Milosovic) has never - under any cases, or at any time - wanted more anything more than a united Yugoslavia - under his despotic control of course, but never outside lands. Never other countries. He is a hienious criminal - but certainly no less an international criminal than M. Kadafy or Idi Amin.

Something stinks here - something about the timing, the urgency, the abrupt and "fatal" attraction to some artificial deadline arbitrarily set by Washington (Clinton) and the socialists in Europe isn't right.

Soemthing about this stinks worse than the Chinese money that was discovered going to Clinton. At the time, we didn't know why the Chinese were paying off Clinton - and the media didn't want to investigate, and John Glenn and Janet Reno got to stonewall the investigation trying to find out why.

Well - now we know why - the Chinese had already "bought" nuclear weapon secrets, satellite technologies, and the nuetron bomb. they had already consolidated their hold on the Panama Canal - with bases at both ends and a compliant government in the middle. They had already tested weapons against Indian and Pakistan - who had to create new nuclear bombs to protect themselves.

But the press didn't want the public to knwo - so they politicaized the investigation, mis-represented the Republicans, demaned the motives, and ignored contraditory and difficult revelations. The national media worked very hard to present only the White House story - and they succeeded all too well in covering up Clinton's role as a (traitor) or (ignorant patsy) - you choose.

Here the clamor, the propaganda - the stories - the exact administration line-by-line media dominiance is frightening.

Frankly, if I trusted Clinton, I would not be as worried. If anybody but Clinton were in power, I would not be worried. But then again - if anybody but Clinton were in power, we would not be bombing Belgrade. This engagement would not have happened.

He is at the center of this problem - and I don't know why. But we have no business there - and we cannot bring peace to that region. The Yugoslav's - every one of them - every race, every nationality, every religion, have to WANT peace with their neighbors - real, lasting, loving, peace.

But they don't want peace within - and we cannot impose it from without. Its a tragedy - but we cannot impose peace there. At best, we could conquer them physicxally - but germany tried - and failed - with 800,000 troops and four years. Those Germans who survived the fighting - were killed by the Yugoslav's in literal "death marches" to their graves.

Do you want to try 200,000? 400,000? 800,000 - again? 1,600,00? How many Yugoslav's do you need to kill so the rest will love you and want to live peacefully with you?

These people do not want peace - they want to kill their enemies ans remove their enemies from their villages: Croates, Serbs, and Moslems - each wants to oppose their enemies - none have shown they want to peacefully coexist - nor that they trust their fellow Yugoslav to live in peace.

They are all willing to fight very hard to kill their enemies. To wait a long time to kill their enemies. To continue to train their children, and their children's children to kill their enemies.

And their enemies now include you and I.

Because Clinton attacked them. And we don't know why.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 12, 1999.

Worst threat since Hitler?

Stalin?

Kruschev?

Andropov?

Mao?

Hitler never killed as any many Europeans as these. He never enslaved as many as these. He never killed as many of their own people as these.

But Clinton went to Moscow to praise their regime - while opposing the war fought by his country to oppose their surrogates.

Be careful of what you learn, of what you repeat, and know the background (and rational) who you learn it from. All of us have reasons for our actions and decisions.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 12, 1999.

Didn't the bombing start the minute Congress went on a two-week recess?

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 12, 1999.

Nathan: wouldn't have mattered -- Congress didn't need to be consulted.

Robert: OK, you make some good points. Here's a couple for you:

o Illicit technology transfer was not invented by the Clinton administration. Russia tested a H-bomb within a month of us. They spit out a carbon copy of the Space Shuttle during the Regan years.

o You describe the media as being manipulated by the government. If this is the case, why couldn't they have kept the Monica scandal under control? Surely you don't think that was part of the plan?

o Nazi Germany also started out as a "civil war". Was it any of the world's business how many million Germans Hitler executed?

o Clinton is a man. A man has the right to change his philosophy as he becomes wiser.

o And finally, I know it may seem incomprehensible, but maybe the govt. knows something we and CNN don't. Maybe they know what they're doing. After all, the "evil empire" is the other guy, right?

-- a (a@a.a), April 13, 1999.

>>Nathan: wouldn't have mattered -- Congress didn't need to be consulted.

Wrong

>> Illicit technology transfer was not invented by the Clinton administration. Russia tested a H-bomb within a month of us. They spit out a carbon copy of the Space Shuttle during the Regan years.

Right

>> You describe the media as being manipulated by the government. If this is the case, why couldn't they have kept the Monica scandal under control? Surely you don't think that was part of the plan?

They sure manipulated the outcome.

>> Nazi Germany also started out as a "civil war". Was it any of the world's business how many million Germans Hitler executed?

Nazi Germany started out as a democracy.

>> Clinton is a man. A man has the right to change his philosophy as he becomes wiser.

When hell freezes over.

>> And finally, I know it may seem incomprehensible, but maybe the govt. knows something we and CNN don't. Maybe they know what they're doing. After all, the "evil empire" is the other guy, right?

CNN knows what the gov tells them. THAT'S the problem.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 13, 1999.

Monica - they DID keep it hidden - until Drudge forced the media to admit that they had a story. It had been "killed" by Newsweek, Time, several others - until he told people that they had a story that was being hidden. Then - like they did about the rape of Broaderick - still tried to keep it hidden, and off the front page.

And since then - they (the media) very, very, carefully presented "his" story - attacking any who presenting opposing views, spreading any rumor or malicious story desired, hiding other opinions, and for a year - sheltering him fomr the real crime while palying out the "it only sex" story that was essential in getting him off. They zealously attacked the republicans, misrepresenting and outright manipulating public opinion religiously to pretect "their" president - the ownership goes both ways - 90% of the national media voted for him and supported him - actively and personally and preofessionally - in both elections.

Look at their response at the Natiional Press Club when Tripp walked him - vocally yelling at her and booing her - in public, but among their friends in the media. The whole year was a sham - equal in spirit, magnitude, and success, only by their equally rigorous attack of Nixon in 73-74. The impechment was real - but futile when it is opposed by the press who control the public's access to information.

Newsweek, for example, had something like 48 "pro-Clinton" full page pictures of Clinton and Hillary that year - all but 2 just a stunning compliment and rose-blossom perfect image-enhancement.

25 of the Republicans - or Republican-associates - 2 complimentary, 3 nutral, and 20 blantantly negative. Like Gingrich - in "black face after the election - where the Republicans held the majority for the first time in forty years - calling him "LOSER". Or the Republican Womens press conference - where they photographed their shoes - canning the whole thing to show how "like-minded" these women were. And this is the press and these are people who dare claim they (the press) want to respect women issues and opinons? Nope - only the people who favor abortion are wanted to represent women in Clinton's press corpse.

Nobody else need apply. No other opinions are wanted. No other opinions are presented.

For example - there were 70 stories in the national TV news about Anita Hill the first five days it was broke - by people in the Democrat Senate's office who opposed Thomas' selection and who forced her to bring it public. In the same time period after Broaderick story was "released" - there were five stories on the regular national TV news - and NONE by the national news-anchor heads - even on the TV network who aired her story in their tabloid news magazine - and then promptedly locked it so no copies were ever aired by anybody else. ALL other parts of the story were "covered" either on the late night talk shows - where Clinton was defended by the Democrats - or on Fox News Channels. Limbaugh, WorldNet Daily, Drudge again, were the ONLY ones to continue to analyze it. The rest of the news media didn't want to - and so closed it up. Or covered it up - if you wish.

What was covered up by the national press - in every instance - was forced out - again by alternative press sources - again, Drudge, among others - and was delayed for a critical five weeks by that national news network to prevent it from coming out during the Democrat's show-and-tell story in the Senate.

Nazi Germany saw more coverage of Aushwitz than we have been given of this story. Or of the Chinese bribery. Or of the other 45 plus corruption scandals of this administration.

Or of the 11 convictions that Starr already has gotton in the WhiteWater case. Or of the 800 plus times somebody in the Clinton administration has said "I don't remember" in the Congressional investigations of the Chinese money received by the Democrats. Or of the 115 plus people who claimed the Fifth Admendment, or fled the country outright to avoid testifying before Congress about the Chinese money.

And you wonder why you don't see these facts in public? Because the national press doesn't want you to see them. They continue to protect him - and he protects and promotes their liberal agenda.

Now - what I can't figure out - is why the press doesn't have the same "love" and "protection" for Al Gore. He, if anything, is even more socialistic thatn Clinton - but is not as photogenic, or isn't not carrying the Kennedy memory they are doting on - but for whatever reason - the press is NOT shielding and sheltering Gore like they do Clinton.

They certainily collectively "love" and adore Hillary - look at what they are doing to promore her "future" Senate run in NYC - and don't really seem to care about Tipper. Don't know about this one.

---------- Nazi Germany. I disagree that it was a civil war of any kind. Hitler was clear since " Mein Kamp" in the 1920's that he wanted to conquer Poland and the Russian states west of the urals for "living room" - that he explicitly wanted to replace these people with pure-bred Aryans and that he was going to kill the Jews. The western press corps didn't want to believe him. There never was active opposition to Hitler after the fire that was used to throw out Hindenburg. Internal, hidden opposition maybe - but nothing in any report shows active political opposition of any credible level.

Churchill knew about Hitler's territorial desires, a few others did too. The press, and other powerful British politicians, didn't support Churchill them - before the war, didn't like him during the war, and promptly threw him out of office after the war was over.

---------

Can Clinton change as he grows older? Sure - but has he changed much since last Sunday's interview with Dan Rather? Or is he still the lying, amoral, hypocritical megalomanic that he was in that interview?

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 13, 1999.

hmmm..just saw an ad hawking the tape on Discovery channel...says its a five hour series...

-- a (a@a.a), April 14, 1999.

Yes - it is a full five hours - saw the last four and a half hours of it - but I figured it wasn't worth pointing out that discrepancy.

Until you realize that this means "somebody" paid for five hours of commercial-free propaganda on a national TV network......if it isn't tax dollars, who is the benefactor, who is the beneficiary (other than Clinton's administration - of course) and hwo did the "arranging" of the time and the broadcasting.

Anybody see any TV guide ad's or other "pre-release" promotions of this five hour broadcast? Any early ad releases (on Discovery, A&E, NPR, GPTV (etc) or CNN, or other "public service" TV channels before this Sunday) or any press releases from DC or LA?

They normally spend three weeks advertising the same-old-same-old National Geographic "shark week" specials - if this were palnned ahead - it seems soemthing equal would have been done.

If it were a legitimate commercial TV show released for "profit" by a commercial TV network like all the other TV specials that are released by commercial TV networks, that is.....

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 15, 1999.