whell

"Due process may provide legal cover for executions, but then why is it not offered to the terminally ill as a way to achieve their final justice?" I don't even think radical lefty Geoffrey Feiger would describe due process as "legal cover" for executions. And while the state "prohibits" assisted suicide, there is no one I know who couldn't "off" themselves if they really wanted to. Even someone physically incapacitated can choose not to take nourishment. There are also "Do Not Resusitate" (DNR) orders that I can attach to my medical record. I don't think that the citizens of the various 50 states want to see their states become a magnet for the Dr. "Dripper" Kervorkian types who might want to set up shop, this the various state referendums, supported by majority vote in the states that they were held, where the citizens elected not to allow assisted suicide. I feel I would have complete control over any desire I might have to take my own life, but thanks for caring.

Its pretty tough to call "a spade a spade" when we can't agree on what reality is. In your reality, you live in a country where "the State has a right to kill you". I live in a country where the state cannot remove your rights, including right to life, without due process, which includes a trial by a jury of your peers. You live in a country where the "State owns your life, not you." I live in a coutry where the government is charged with protecting all of its citizens, including those who might not have a voice of their own. In my country, the McCarthy era was in the 1950's. In your country, apparently the McCarthy era occurred during the 1860's, which was when the term "In God We Trust" was originally placed on U.S. Currency, and has appeared on various U.S coins and bills since that time. There was a Joint Resolution of Congress in 1956, signed by the President, adopting "In God We Trust" as the motto of the United States. The US Senate that year consisted of 48 Democrats and 47 Republicans, and the House consisted of 232 Democrats and 202 Republicans. Looks like those God - fearing liberal Democrats couldn't wait to shove "God" in our face. I have to ask, what country DO you live in anyway, mdeneen?

mdeneen: The word "fundamentalism" does not need to be defined. Your misapplication of it does. I think the word you're reaching for is "theocracy". Fundamentalism refers to the belief that every word in the bible is the spoken word of God and therefore is true. "Theocracy" more closely matches your definition above. There is no theocracy in the United States. There may be a President in the Oval Office who has a moral/religious foundation (Horrors!). However, we are far from aligning as a society to his religious beliefs, and there is no threat of force to do so, as is present in many historical and current theocracies. " Mr.Bush believes his God has blessed America and handed down a Christian Morality which is to guide not only the American life, but to function as a pretext to enforce it on all other cultures of the world. And so, if it isn't obvious yet, our administration view on abortion, death penalty, science, education and such is entirely based on this God given Morality. Ashcroft is wanting to teach Creation dogma in public school. The Bush administration is categorically identical to the Taliban, or any other fundamentalist regime. They seek to rule the people through application of their "brand" of Morality." You've GOT to be kidding me! If this is truly the view you have of the country you live in, you've got some serious issues. First, if this administration is truly "categorically identical to the Taliban", you'd probably be in the process of being hauled away to a prison camp, or dead, for making the statement that you made above. Woman in this country would be traated as nothing more than a subset of male sexual desire, rather than holding key posts in the administration. Infidels (whoever the theocratic decided to attach that label to) would be arrested and detained, and many killed while in custody. Finally, if you're accurate in your description of the Bush administration, please point out for me where I can find the Bush administration's equivalent of The Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which polices and strictly enforces the Taliban's Islamic law. Punishments, by the way, include stoning, public beatings, amputations or executions for even minor infractions. " Here's the test: Take any of the administration's key positions, like Iraq, and make the case without referring to God, the Bible, Jesus, Morality, Evil, Moral Imperative." OK, I'll bite: the Bush tax cuts. If this were truly a President governed exclusively by "religious dogma" as you state, then he would be guided by the New Testement observation: "The poor will always be with us", and "The first will be last and the last will be first". Instead, as I'm sure that the Left would agree, he is being selfish and giving tax breaks to the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. Taking from the "have-nots" and giving to the "haves". Of course, I disagree that tax reductions would exclusively benefit the wealthy, but the Left swears that the Bush tax cuts are immoral and unjust. So, which Bush would you have us believe in: the God-driven or the God-less?

Audio Flynn: Are you a Spartan too? MSU Class of '84 here! Go green!

Mdennen: "Conservative Philosophy today is essentially Fundamentalist. It is rooted in religious dogma. So that, the world is Good or Evil, Right or Wrong, With or Against, and of course Black and White, Christian God versus other gods. Conservative views are simplified to; welfare=bad; free trade=good; Saddam=Evil; French=Bad; Regulation=Bad; Taxes=Bad; Death Penalty=Good, Science=Evil, and well, you get the point. This means, any view can be expressed in 5 seconds to it's full and complete depth. No ifs ands or butts required." Your attempt to categortize demonstrates one of the fundamental failings of liberals: everyone must be put in a labled box and be dealt with on the basis of the label. The meaning of the label is defined by the liberal, and can be entirely subjective and flexible, stretching as needed to fit any context. I think you need to define your terms, specifically "Fundamentalism". As you use it, it seems to me that "fundamentalist" views are not exclusive to the right. Ask your average environmentalist or animal rights activist. I think you'll find the same type of dogmatic views: Factory = Bad, Fur trading = Bad, Kyoto Treaty = Good, Conservative = Bad, Smoker = Bad, Bush = Bad.

Enjoying it (the debate, that is)? Yep, I'd have to agree. This thread has had more action here than most I've seen in quite a while. Lets all keep it in the realm of respectful discourse, as most have, and let the debate continue. However, your earlier comment about Iraq not having WOMD since they do not, in your opinion, posess the scientific capability, Saddam would disagree with you. He admitted to having such weapons already, though he also stated that they were destroyed. Previous UN weapons inspections have confirmed that Iraw previously had such weapons, and the means to develop and potentially deploy them. If you believe the defected Iraqi scientist who has made the news recently, Iraq continues to posess these weapons, but as moved storage and development facilites underground. The weight of the evidence is, fo me, too much to ignore.

mdeneen: P.S. Israel has ignored UN resolutions for about 30 years! I'm not hearing any war drums beating to knock them senseless for their "recalcitrance." That's playing rather fast and loose with the facts in my humble opinion. Example: UN Resolution 1402 requires " the immediate withdrawl of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah..." Would we hold Isreal to task for defeding itself against suicide attacks? The reason Isreali troops are in "Palestinian cities" (the way the resolution is written should give you some incite as to who in the UN is siding with who on this issue) is to root out and bring to justice those individuals who are responsible for the terrorist attacks against Isreali citizens. So, mdeneen, if you agree that Isreal is inappropriately "ignoring" this resolution, then I guess you would also agree we should not have gone into Afganistan to root out Al Quaida?

Smoking at the Half Note is one great example of Wes at his best. Enjoy!

Craig: I paid scant attention to the protests, though the media relished in the opportunity to cover them. There we also several more well behaved demonstrations this weekend in support of the president and his policies, but these were given scant attention by the press. Nevertheless, many of the comments here, and repeated in the weekend demonstrations, are designed to portray the US and its policies as unilateral, world police, king-makers, war-mongers, etc. I, for the life of me, can't understand how these folks can live with themselves, knowing that possibly the families of the victims of the World Trade Center ATTACK might be watching their protests. We are on the course we are currently on because our country was ATTACKED. We are defending ourselves against the PROBABILITY, not possibility, of another ATTACK. Negotiating with the likes of Saddam Hussein has been demonstrated over time not to be the answer. The so-called inspections have been an absolute farce. Of course Iraq does not have the ability to field an invasion force with conventional weapons and attack the US, much less defend himself from a conventional weapons attack by the US and its allies. But he certainly does have the capability to mass produce and deploy chemical and biological weapons (Hans Blix not withstanding). Hussein himself has intimated that if he is attacked he would use non-conventional weapons to defend himself. For those opposed to regime change in Iraq, I think there is a misunderstanding of why we are doing what we are doing. We are protecting our interests by removing an individual who has been openly hostile to the US and its interests, who has a stated objective of domination of the middle east (and thus gain control of a vast percentage of the world's oil supply), and who we believe to be engaged in the funding and planning of attacks of the US and its interests. Do those protesting this weekend really beleive that we do not have an obligation to protect ourselves and our interests?

The seller's write states the following: "The Klipschorns are immaculate, I have several systems and no longer need these outstanding speakers. Due to their size the best scenerio is a local buyer, I am in Michigan. I will however work with anyone with interest. I am pricing these to move, they should however be rated a 10 because they are perfect! They are Oak (not light oak) with dark grill (black). These speakers currently sell 4 7200.00 with less expensive drivers than the vintage I am selling."

Economic Impact of World Trade Center attack "The three questions are: where do we get the authority, and where does it end? Exactly which countries should be "liberated" and which will be left to their own unrosey existence? How much will all this cost from our public treasury? An estimate will be helpful. Mine is $1 Trillion over 10 years JUST for Iraq - not counting the other 65 countries due for liberation." To answer the question about "authority" you must return to the President's statement of policy following the WTC attack. Remember, this mess we find ourselves in now is because we were ATTACKED, and any evaluation of our policy must be viewed in light of that attack, and our response to it. In essence, what might be referred to in the future as the "Bush Doctrine" is: we will attack terrorist and destroy their capabilities and their organizations, and also regard as enemies those countries that harbor or enable terrorists to threaten the U.S. This "doctrine" was the enabling policy behind our attack on the Taliban in Afganistan and the terrorists that enabled that regime to exist: Al Quaida. It should also be noted that a similar policy governed the use of force in the former Yugoslavia, and brought about regime change and the end of hostilities. The "liberation" of a country's citizens is not a stated military or political objective, but a potential political benefit. Thus, not a jutification for a use of force. A better question is what the impact on the US Treasury, not to mention the health of the US economy, would be for another terrorist attack. We already know what the impact is for the WTC attach (see attachment). One can argue that the economy, and the treasury, have yet to recover from 9/11. sep28WTCreport.pdf

Can Iraq "threaten" the U.S. directly? Yes. The face of war is quite differnt now, as 9/11 should have shown us. We are not dealing with Iraq's army. We are dealing with Hussein's ability to fund terrorism, and provide terrorists with a permissive atmosphere to live, and train, and carry out their objectives. The United States, and its allies, are in the crosshairs of Al Quaida and organizations like it. And Iraq, otehr countries, will continue to position themselves as enemies of the U.S. Can Iraq threaten the U.S. indirectly with its military? Yes. Destablizing the middle east by targetting Israel with its conventional and non-conventional weapons would be the first order of business in such an effort. The U.S. a "*****" for the dictators of the world? Pretty dramatic, and not terribly useful language. The correct frame of reference is how the U.S. chooses to protect its interests via foreign policy and military initiatives. This is not whoring. It is using the world-wide reach of the military to protect our allies, and protect our interests. France and Germany would do well to remember why they have not not had to maintain and fund a large military for the last 1/2 century.

The comparisons are not between Hitler and Hussein, but the way the failures in foreign policy have created and empowered leaders who build lawless regimes. The Versi treaty created the circumstances for Hitler to rise to power, just as certainly as the U.S. and European foreign policy created Hussein. We did support him indirectly during the Iran/Iraq war, and some might construe this as our own meddling in Middle Eastern affairs that resulted in Husseins rise and staying power. However, the question is whether or not he represents a significant threat to U.S. or world interests, and whether or not we should stand by and let it happen, then deal with it later (much the same paradigm as WW II, and the world's treatment of the Nazi regime). The world chose in the 1930's to placate the Nazi regime, and hope it would be satisified with minimal, token capitulations. Ludicrous, given when we knew then of Hitler's ambitions. We know today what Hussein's ambitions are. Will history judge our lack of response as just as ludicrous?

***sigh*** For those opposed to the effort underway to achive regime change in Iraq (that IS the stated goal of the Bush administration...not to go to war for to decimate Iraq, Saddam, Islam, etc.), let me pose this query, and see if the anti-war, peace at all costs philosophy still holds up: We knew before the US joined the Atlantic theater in WW II that Germany was building a war machine capable of conquering Europe. We knew he was building concentration camps and exterminating Jews. Yet, Roosevelt faced the same challenge the Bush is now facing from the European community, and from the "peace crowd" here at home: avoid war at all costs. The problem is that the terms of engagement are set by the agressor: in WW II is was Hitler's Germany, and today it is Hussein's Iraq, NOT the USA. Therefore, Iraq looks at our reticence as a weakness to be exploited, not an olive branch to be accepted in good faith. He is therefore using and capitalizing on the anti war posture of our European friends as a way to continue his efforts to hide his weapons programs and stall reime change. This is much similar to how Hitler used Neville Chaimberlain. So, the query: using the philosophy of the peace first crowd, should we not then have continued to negotiate with Hitler after he invaded Poland and France in WW II? If that is true, then was it England's "selective indignation" at his conquest of France that brought about the short sighted decision to declare war on Germany? Therefore, who do we have to wait for Saddam to attack before we become selectively indignant?

For sale in the town right next to mine (about a 10 minute drive max from where I live). Reputed to be in excellent condition. Still, is the price about right, or too steep, given what you all have seen these going for? Anyway, I might go check them out since I'm curious. If anyone else is interested in some feedback on these, let me know. Buyer prefers local pick up, but might ship to a cooperative buyer.

Just an FYI... I am now surfing the net test driving Netscape 7. So far, not a bad experience at all. The earlier versions of the "Gecko" Netscape seemed to be no great shakes: unstable and slow to load as a program, thought web pages arguably loaded pretty fast. This one seems fater and more stable.

A thread like this is what makes this forum special. My email address and paypal account ID is the same: whelllm@wmconnect.com Would love to be among those who receive copies, and the $15 price seems more than reasonable. Thanks!

I've said it here before so I'll say it again: go for the RB-5. If you'll be listening to music more, than it especially makes sense to opt for the RB-5. Couplied with the right upstream equipment, the RB-5 is a special little performer. RF-5's or 7's for a room that small? Overkill, if you ask me.

The "weak link" of this system is truly the Adcom GTP 740. I went separates for a period of time, and picked one of these units up off Ebay. I was aware of a number of quality control issues that the 740 had. Still, the price was right, and I had owned previous Adcom components that had served me well. The seller had sent the unit back to Adcom, who installed a larger PS, and swapped out the processor, upgrading the unit to DTS capable in the process. Still, the sound quality left alot to be desired. I went from an Adcom to an Acurus Act 3, and it was like lifting a curtain from my system. If someone must have this system as advertised on Ebay, the 740 is the first item I would get rid of quick.

Is the audiophile world starting to take another look at horns (though arguably JBL has never completely left this world behind)? Could the resurgence of tube gear be responsible? Don't think I'll have 13K to cough up for these speakers any time soon, but I'd love to hear them demo'd at some point.

Boom Boom (Out go the lights) was a song released in a live version in 1978 (if memory serves) by the Pat Travese Band. This relates to no part of this conversation, other than the title of the post. I was just taken back to my teen years for a moment when I saw the title. Nostalgia is everywhere!

I've seen Klipsch employees who monitor this forum jump in and assure that creased/dented Reference series speakers are not audibly degraded. If that's true, the next question is whether or not the poor cosmetics will keep you up at night.

Providing the characteristics/measurements of your listening environment would help in providing an intelligent response.

Try hard....very very hard...not to get too sucked in by the opinion leaders here who are strong advocates for tube equipment. I'd have a hard time believing that your Mac amp doesn't sound great with your Klipsch, and would reject the notion that it would sound multiples better to your ear with tubes inserted in the signal path. If you can get a loaner on a tube preamp, and if experimenting would help you sleep better at night to exercise the notion that you might be missing something, then by all means experiment, provided you're not spending too many of your hard earned duckets to fund the experiment.

When you think you're ready for it: look for some good jazz or blues. Someone like Robert Cray is a great artist to listen to to hepl prepare the way as you transition from mass market music to the world of blues. See if you can find Cray's "Strong Pursuader" album, and go from there. John Coltrane and/or Miles Davis will help you start to find your way into the world of classic jazz. You might be a bit young for this leap yet, but a contrary view might be evidenced by the reports I keep hearing that the younger crowd is starting to get turn on to classic jazz and blues in a big way. Hope you fall into that crowd!