fini Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Mark, I've got to tell you, I remember that day, and my excitement, better than just about any other. 13 1/2 years old, alternating between staring at the TV and staring at the Moon, thrilled at the enormity and the beauty of what "we" had done. My brother had laid out the Earth and the Moon, in scale in both size and distance between, chartng the entire mission. I built a couple of "Revell" models, of the LEM, and of the Saturn V (that sucker was about 3 feet tall, with removable command, service, and lunar modules). fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 ---------------- On 10/9/2003 2:22:38 PM mdeneen wrote: To keep any rebut as narrow as possible to optimize clarity, let me say a word about "security." The popular premise about Iraq - we need to be secure - is being used to cover any act or action imaginable. Really - anything and everything is being justified by "the tragic 9/11." There is no end to how far you or the President could take this. However, rather than go down that road, just bring it back to "security" in the real sense - how can WE be secure as a people? So, security is a curve of utility with one axis being the degree of security and the other axis being the cost. The cost includes money, people, time, values, resource, all all the other assets we can document. More security requires more cost. Complete security has an infinite cost. Few would pick the end of the scale requiring infinite cost, so we can assume we all argue for points along the middle of the curve or so. Being secure requires being protected from a wide variety of threats and dangers. If I am killed by a drive by shooter's bullet, it is no more or less virtuous vis a vis security than being killed by an Iraqi's bullet. Dying of AIDS is fundamtally not different than dying of Anthrax. Dead is dead. Death is the insecurity we avoid. Achieving security means reducing risks both known and unknown (or unpredictable). Cruising Oakland's West Side on Saturday night is an increase in risk I can chose to take or not. Delivering huge stocks of deadly weapons throughout the world might be another example of risk I can take or not. Court records document that the 1993 WTC bombers claimed openly that with more time and more money they could "bring down the WTC." Pre-9/11 intelligence uncovered not one, not two but many "references" to using aircraft as flying bombs. So, in spite of known risks, we opted to do exactly NOTHING about impending threats to our security. Such actions, which may or may not have prevented the tragedy, were consciously ignored. These actions would have been CHEAP, EFFICIENT means of "increasing security." So.....we waited until there was a disaster - entirely predictable as it was, and then chose the most costly, most deadly, most obscene, most likely to fail course of "closing the security barn door after the horse was out." Nothwithstanding these indisputable facts — 1) Iraq has (had) no naval or air power 2) Satellites can detect any missile launch on the planet within 30 seconds - including test launches 3) We have invested $5.5T since 1945 in "strategic defense" systems (ICBMs, really). - it would be hard to say we had no security options available that had not already been paid dearly for, tested, proven effective, available and causing less disruption. Now this leads to a single choice. Either, we had been lied to for 50 years about the use of our enormous defense budget and truth be told all those dollars were wasted, or the "threat" being posed - was really of a tactical nature and deserving of a scaled response. Selecting the latter, gives rise to how "better" to use $200B in covering the "other security" needs we might have. You may posit that the Prescription Drug Program is for Bill Gates mom, but my 82 year old mom straighten you out quickly. So to conclude, the chances of me being unsecured (killed) by an Iraqi is about 8-jillion to one. The chances of me being unsecured by a faulty airline part, a stray gang bullet, a cancer, a poisonous hamburger, an astroid and so on, are much, much lower. Now, as a banker, you have to work with actuarials and certainly risk. So you get that's it's all utility. I bet you'd love it for a customer to proclaim, "Give me a loan at ANY interest rate - I don't care HOW high it is!" I prefer a rational approach to security, not a mythical one. mdeneen ---------------- Dying of AIDS is fundamentally not different than dying of Anthrax. Dead is dead. Death is the insecurity we avoid. Patently specious and illogical, IMHO. The risk of contracting AIDS is by and large avoidable and subject to personal choice. The risk of succumbing to some nuts ticket to the land of 99 virgins is reducible and avoidable, provided that we as a people are willing to foot the bill. Sure, we pay a steep price for security, but I haven't seen any evidence of the loss of freedom of which the ultra-left and libertarian right keeps threatening. You seem to be putting up a strawman: we either pay the price for (and suffer the costs of) securing the U.S. or we cure the Nations social ills. I dont buy it. A country that can get to the moon in less than a decade can do both. My experience in banking teaches that economic cycles are just that, and I am confident that the current deficit situation is temporary. I expect we both hope well never see another group of pretend companies (i.e., the dot.coms) come round to artificially inflate the GDP and that a real recovery will put us on solid economic footing The issue of how to replace good paying manufacturing jobs lost to the 3d World while at the same time preserving open markets is beyond my ken. In any case, to sacrifice national security for the sake of domestic concerns would be politically if not literally suicidal. For evidence of the former, see poll numbers for the current crop of Democratic candidates. (BTW, Bush has increased spending and spent more on education in 3 years than Clintoon did in 8!) Anticipating your argument that we are less secure now than before Husseins removal, this descendant of the Auschwitz death camps will have to disagree. Anyhow, a fellow as smart as you knows that its fallacious reasoning to argue from the negative. One thing we can agree on, I hope, it sure would have been nice for the Clinton administration to deal with bin Laden when it had the chance to take him on a silver platter from Sudan. And it also would have been good had the Clinton holdovers at State and DOJ informed their Commander in Chief in a more timely fashion of bin Ladens threat capacity. Alas, bureaucrats seem to be more concerned with CYA than statesmanship. On the mythic nature of my commentary, didn't we already address the fact that ad hominem attacks don't advance the discussion? I suppose one man's rational approach is another's road to doomsday, turning on whose ox is being gored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 gary, please refrain from quoting entire previous posts in your responses, it makes this already painfully long thread EVEN WORSE, and it adds absolutely no value to your response. tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Sorry Tony. Too many others in-between. I'll refrain in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 thanks : ) tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Hello Mark: Given my background and training I can address security. We can bring security to the point to where it intrudes upon every individual on a personal basis. There are too many overlaps within the Agencies used to gather, assess and prepare for a threat to the United Staes. This is not just at home but abroad also. Then there are the territorial points whereupon an Agency feels another Agency is intruding. Somewhat of the it's my ball so we'll play by my rules. The cost of securing our Nation is extremely high. Boundaries with Canada and Mexico have large gaps and so far the main portion of money to Homeland Defense has been to cover the costs of the offices, staff and systems to "Coordinate" information. Homeland Security is difficult and somewhat tragic when one sees that one of the Hi-Jackers was given clearance for entry into the Country AFTER 9/11 and his death. To what price do we give to security? To what intrusions into our personal lives, habits, etc.? All Citizens must be utilized, not as spies, but to note definite questionable activities. We can all volunteer at our local Police Departments if they have a program in place. That can put more Officers on the streets. There are numerous other things you can do. I will not go into all of that in this Forum. But if we are vigilant and not vigilantes that is a help. And now with that said I delare myself 10 - 7. I wish this thread could also be. 10 - 7 is out of service. Win dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptnBob Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Didn't this used to be an AUDIO website? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Well on the terrorist front all I can say is we have been terror fee for over 2 years so the current administration must be doing something right ! There a positive statement something this thread hasn't seen since page one ! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted October 9, 2003 Author Share Posted October 9, 2003 ---------------- On 10/9/2003 11:21:23 AM tillmbil wrote: Jim? Are you still out ther my fellow Floridian? Where are you going now with your tube search? When I get my 299 I might be interested in selling my Dynaco ST70. I am hoping Craig has it now. ---------------- Wow, I can't believe I read this entire thread! But I won't bother joining in on this particular discussion (I remember how I spewed forth my favoritism for going into Afghanistan and later Iraq...hmmm). As far as my tube search goes Bill, I will not abandon the notion, but because my low budget will only allow me so few options, I think I'd rather wait until my income tax refund arrives in February, and I can afford to make more choices. I like the 299s and ST70s, and I also like the more affordable newer PP designs (like my bro's JoLida and others in that range). I may even order a 40 watt per side Ideal Innovations amplifier. But I will never give up on owning vacuum tubes (whether it's an integrated amp or even a preamp)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cut-Throat Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 NOS, Also terror free in the 8 years of the Clinton administration. He must have done things a lot better. Those 8 years of peace and prosperity were sure nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 ---------------- On 10/9/2003 6:00:13 PM CaptnBob wrote: Didn't this used to be an AUDIO website? ---------------- Yes but those not interested in this now politics oriented thread can easily skip it. I personally find it absolutely fascinating as loon from Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 The much-ballyhooed prosperity of the Clinton years was when the bubble was being blown up, bigger and bigger and bigger, getting ready to burst. The dot-com money was mostly make-believe, just people shifting imaginary funds to each other, or advertising credit. Not real money in the bank. Then we had the complete and utter nonsense about Clinton leaving office with a $5 trillion dollar surplus. Wake up! These were absurd figures based entirely on projections of there never being an economic downturn again and the stock market continuing to rise at crazy rates forever. No one in his right mind believed the figures. They were just to impress people in sound bites on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Mr. Painful, When you list an EICO HFT-91, is that supposed to be a 90 or a 92? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Mr. Painful, If you like Castro so much, why not move to Cuba? You're only getting a hint of the glorious life of Cuba, where important mail is sent by carrier pigeon, up in Canada. I heard recently that Cuba's cigars are no longer of the high quality they used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 ---------------- On 10/9/2003 6:50:56 PM paulparrot wrote: Mr. Painful, When you list an EICO HFT-91, is that supposed to be a 90 or a 92? ---------------- Oh my God! I made (yet another) typo... HFT-90 it is. Actually I'm not sure it was a typo. Reception sucks at my place so it doesn't get much airplay. I forgot about the model number. Looks nice on my rack though! Happy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkrop Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Wasn't the FIRST terrorist attack on the WTC on Clinton's watch? I knew I could find the soapbox! Albeit for a much shorter time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Mr. Painful, I just like it when we share the same equipment. I have an HFT-90 as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I humbly stand corrected. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 bkrop, You are absolutely correct about the WTC. Numerous terrorism experts have stated that Clinton's insistence that the bombing be handled as a criminal act, rather than as a terrorist act, was the exact wrong way to deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Thanks for the info, 3dzapper. Not many people care about the truth anymore. It's all about spin. Make an outrageous charge and it'll get media attention. Explain the true story later, people yawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.