James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 03:43:01AM -0700, Paul G. Allen wrote: >>> DJA wrote: >>>> Lan Barnes wrote: >>>>> Yup. They're joining the ACLU. Two of my favorite organizations. (A list >>>>> that the '06 Congress, alas, is not on.) >>>> Me too. My other list grew quite a bit longer last week with the >>>> passing of the FISA bill: the list of impeachable traitors. >>>> >>> Including Obama. There seem to be few congress critters that have a clue >>> as to what their office is about and what the Constitution really says >>> (and if they do, they don't give a damn). >> Let's try to understand *why* FISA supporters think it is a good idea. I'm >> not >> saying it is a good idea, but, let's try to walk in their shoes..... Pretend >> today is the day after Islamofascist extremists have just taken out an entire >> US city with an atomic bomb..... >> >> Would you feel the same way about FISA then as you do now? >> > > Your question reminds me of a sensationalism-reaction style of > "journalism". Perhaps your point is that that's the mindset of supporters? > > Everything in risk management is a cost/benefit tradeoff and nothing can > be decided without estimating probabilities. > > Would you spend your insurance budget on getting-hit-by-meteorite > coverage in preference to uninsured motorist coverage? >
Re-reading my post suggests improvements: I should have said "the language in your question.." I should have said "should one spend.." And that last part of my response is not terribly germane anyway. I probably should have said that inordinate attention to sensational concerns may be a symptom of under-analyzing the overall problem. Regards, ..jim -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
