Conference back40::soapbox

    re .0
    
    one could argue these "loses" are simply natural selection,
    politically.

    
    Who covered the "human tradgedy" of the massive job losses at Digital?

    
    
    
    NPR great station.
    
    Jobs being recycled on the hill. One nice thing about the election.
    Like removing the Elevator operator that runs an automatic elevator.
    
    What a waste of money.
    Do these people just like to play Piccard "Make it so number 1"
                           

MacNeil Lehrer is on NPR?

    
    It airs on the local NPR affiliate at 15.00 PST here in SF Bay area.

Note 14.492 by SX4GTO::OLSON

    >why are we chasing a sub in international waters, anyway?  dropping
    >sonobuoys is considered as agressive as locking a targeting radar on
    >a jet.  

wrong dougo. your lack of understanding about US Naval tactics and position
on such matters is obviously lacking - tho understandable. i'm in a generous
mood today so listen up (whatever happened to listenup? but i digress). the 
US Navy has a long standing position that it reserves the right to indentify
any/all objects detected in its "area of operations". the US Navy interprets 
its area of operations to include ALL international waters and ALL 
    international airspace. the Navy also reserves the right to use any/all
    methods
short of actual attack to indentify said objects.

that "short of actual attack" is the sticky point. the ruskies, and i presume
the chinese and a host of others, consider tracking of subs with sonobouys to
be an aggressive offensive attack. the Navy considers those kinds of operations
as prudent defensive measures. as an example:

in the very early 70's i was the lead controller for anti-submarine exercises
about 600 nautical miles NW of pearl harbour. i had a couple of helo's and
we were practicing "dips" on a remote controlled sub. one of the helo's (S2F's
i believe - memory ain't as good as it used to be) reported a warning 
light on for his MAD gear. this was unusual since we weren't using MAD gear 
in the exercises. i vectored the helo a few miles off in the distance and
instructed him to go ahead and light up his gear and run tests. in less than
5 seconds he radioed back "MADMAN, MADMAN". his gear was reporting a large,
underwater piece of metal directly below him.

i asked the pilot if the MADMAN was related to his warning light and he said
he doubted it very much. i ordered that helo onto a new vector to come around
for another pass over the area. i also ordered the other helo back to the
enterprise to load up on sonobouys. just in case. the first helo made another
pass and sure enough "MADMAN, MADMAN". we now got excited. i asked the TAO to
request P3's, or better yet, S2's from Pearl. I requested they be loaded
with sonobouys and Mark 48 torpedoes. just in case.

after about 20 minutes the sonar pukes (we didn't run sonar during ASW ops
for lots of dumb technical reasons) were positive it was a sub. it was 
MOVING at about 3 knots. we tracked him for nearly two hours with the two
helos until the P3's arrived. I had the P3's lay down several sonobouy 
patterns as we were taught. by this time the old man and the effing XO were
in combat watching the show. about 4 hours after the initial discovery (which
i admit was plain dumb luck) i had a P3 drop an bouy right on top of the sub
and go active with it. PIIIIIIIIINNNGG!!!!

i would have given a months pay to see the skipper of that subs face. i had almost
50 passive bouys set up to detect which way he would bolt. i also had more P3s
and a relatively new S2 on the way from Pearl. this was the find of the year
and the brass in Pearl had taken an active interest in the proceedings. the
Navy had bitched for years about ruskies spying on our ops, especially close
to US territory. the ruskies, of course, denied it all. now we had one by the
balls and i was ordered to NOT lose him. i basically had a 3 star admiral give
me permission to use ANYTHING at his disposal to positively identify the target.
at first the finding had been fun. now i was wondering which brig i'd be thrown
in if i lost him.

when we went active i thought the sub would bolt. text book said that's what
would happen. he didn't. he immediately went DIW. there is an underwater ridge
that runs for several hundred miles in that part of the pacific. the water is
relatively shallow. i think the sub just floated to the bottom and shut every
thing down. tho i've no proof of that. in the next 30 hours or so i blanketed
him with everything we had. passive, active bouys. at two hour intervals i
dropped depth charges whose explosions were international "surface and 
indentify" requests. nothing. the sub just sat. after almost 36 hours the sub
went active and bolted. he started a lot of figure 8's at high speed. i didn't
understand at first, but when the bouys started giving inconclusive and 
misleading info i got worried. then all quiet again.

i thought we lost him. it took about 45 minutes (the longest of my life) to
reacquire the target. he set down in EXACTLY the place he took off from. the
waiting game started again. after about 48 hours he started moving again. this
time at about 3 knots heading N by NW. more bouys. more depth charges. at
hour 71 he stopped and surfaced. i didn't sleep a wink the whole time. what
a rush. we had his ass COLD!! i vectored a P3 with camera's over the sub for 
piks and a little "in your face" stuff. and much to our surprise it was the
only whiskey class russian sub in the pacific. a new nuke that we thought
the ruskies to have only 2 of.

after the appropriate number of piks and fly bys we backed off and the sub
moved on at 3 knots. he was probably quite embarassed and mad. but like i
said. we reserve the right to identify ANY/ALL objects in our area of 
operations. period!

    Gene, Robert made much the same point to me in discussion last night.
    I acknowledge the operational requirement to id everything.  I maintain
    that if the Chinese were able to scramble planes that this had to be
    pretty close to their coastline, which changes the nature of the
    incident somewhat.
    
    DougO

    
    
    If the persist in their "shoot to kill" threats, they'll never see the
    Tomcats that nail them...
    

    >Gene, Robert made much the same point to me in discussion last night.
    >I acknowledge the operational requirement to id everything.  I maintain
    >that if the Chinese were able to scramble planes that this had to be
    >pretty close to their coastline, which changes the nature of the
    >incident somewhat.
    
    the US recognizes everything outside of 2 nautical miles from land as
    international waters. 2 miles and 1 foot and we have the right to
    respond. the chinese are just "testing" us. happens all the time. our
    repsonse has, and always will be, predictable.

    
    its a time-honored cold warrior way for captains of subs and of 
    surface combatants to show mynhood without anyone getting hurt.

    
    <-----
    
     I agree... it's good exercise too... as close as "real" gets...
    
    It's when the politicians get involved that causes problems...
    

So does this mean that a Chinese vessel has the right to follow/harass a US
sub 2 miles offshore US somewhere?

Rights aside, what do you suppose would happen if one did?

    
    the sub captain would surface and hail the carrier:
    
    "Would you have any Grey Poupon?"

Note 88.12 by DECWET::LOWE
    
    >So does this mean that a Chinese vessel has the right to follow/harass a US
    >sub 2 miles offshore US somewhere?

    bruce,
    
    as RAH said, its a game. one that is controlled mostly by the
    technologically superior side. a chinese naval vessel has ZERO chance
    of finding a modern US sub, let alone "harass" one. the chinese could
    even stumbled on a US sub and not maintain contact for very long.
    "rights", as you say, have nothing to do with it. with the former USSR
    disvoling into chaos, there really isn't a technological challenge for
    the US Navy in the air or under the water.
    
>Rights aside, what do you suppose would happen if one did?
    
    IF a chinese vessel tried to harass a US sub or other naval vessel,
    they would be quickly disabled - technologically speaking. if the got
    hostile, they would be dead - lickety spilt.
    
    like i said, it ain't a military contest. just a political one. it
    wouldn't even be a political issue if it weren't for the lightwieghts
    in DC.

I'll buy that. "If I'm bigger than you, I can do what I want". Fact of life.
I DO like the Grey Poupon bit !

    .14
    
    Now a Chinese Typhoon class might be a different story.

    the chinese do not possess anything we couldn't hunt down and eliminate
    quickly should we choose to do so. neither do the ruskies anymore.

    Sesame Street Forever 


    RARELY DO CITIZENS reap the immediate and tangible benefits from their
    tax  dollars that public broadcasting allows. 

    It costs about a dollar per person to support the Corporation for
    Public  Broadcasting, a tiny amount that pays off a thousandfold, but
    once again Republicans are talking  about cutting off taxpayer funding.
    Unfortunately, this time they have the numbers to  do it. 

    Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich has said he plans to ``zero out'' the $300
    million a  year financing for the nation's 1,000 public television and
    radio stations. 

    They can pay their own freight, Gingrich says. While some stations
    might  survive, others would not. And if history is a guide, commercial
    stations would not fill the  breach. Verbal promises of quality
    programming would quickly be abandoned in favor of whatever makes the
    most money. Consider the commercial-free programs so taken for granted
    that they have become part of the culture: 

    Sesame Street. The MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour. All Things Considered.
    Firing Line. Barney and Friends. Masterpiece Theater. Car Talk.
    Washington Week in Review.  This Week in Northern California. The Civil
    War. Baseball. Mystery! Wall Street Week  with Louis Rukeyser. Nature.
    Nova. Frontline. 

    Compare such programming with Wheel of Fortune, Beavis and Butthead,
    Inside  Edition, Melrose Place, Beverly Hills 90210, Married . . . With
    Children and Mighty  Morphin Power Rangers. 

    When Gingrich and others complain that CPB is too biased, they are way
    off base.  GOP Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota cited Mario
    Cuomo's frequent presence in  Ken Burns' series, ``Baseball,'' as an
    example of liberal slant in public  broadcasting programming. He forgot
    to mention that conservative George Will also was a star  of the
    series. 

    Over 27 years, public broadcasting has proved itself a national
    treasure. It  would be a crime for the federal government to desert
    such a gem. 
    
    [Editorial from the SF Chronicle online edition of 21 Dec 94]

    
    Bah !  Discontinue it.  I don't care if it's biased or not.
    I don't care if it's quality or not.  You owe trillions and you
    still think you're Santa.  The government has no business running
    any kind of TV stations.  Or doing half (or more) of what it's
    doing.  Pick a department, any department.  Start handing out
    pink slips.  This evyl empire must go...
    
      bb

     <<< Note 88.18 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto" >>>

>    Compare such programming with Wheel of Fortune, Beavis and Butthead,
>    Inside  Edition, Melrose Place, Beverly Hills 90210, Married . . . With
>    Children and Mighty  Morphin Power Rangers. 

	They neglect to mention such shows as National Geographic, Biography,
	The Civil War, and a host of worthwhile programming available on
	COMMERCIAL cable channels. True, the major networks offer generally
	poor material, but there is quality programming out there that is
	not dependent on government funding.

	As was mentioned, it might feel "nice" to fund CPB, but the fact is 
	that we cannot afford to keep funding all the "nice" little porkers
	that the government has been keeping afloat for all these years.

Jim

    I agree with last couple of replies: eliminate the funding for PBS, NPR,
    National Endowment for the Arts.  I don't care about the bias.  I object 
    because Government has no business funding this pretentious nonsense.

    Great.  Just great...

    The Media wants to promote a national debate to save $300m in funding for
    public television stations, but when the Clinton Administration eliminates
    the funding for food banks (which I believe was $245m), most Middle-class
    Americans don't even know it was done.  The Federal Government needs to 
    have a clear set of priorities.

    	It's curious that Sesame Street is always listed first in these
    	kinds of articles/editorials.  Why Sesame Street first?  For
    	shock value?  Cuddly teddy bear sympathy?
    
    	Sesame Street will prevail even if all PBS stations are shut
    	down.  It will be snatched up by commercial TV through a
    	celebrated bidding war, and the victor will be hailed as
    	earning a major coup.  Why will there be such a bidding war?
    	Because the market interest is there for it.  Same thing for
    	many other shows that are currently at risk of losing government
    	funding.
    
    	Yes.  Some will evaporate without such funding.  Why?  Because
    	there isn't enough interest to support it without government
    	funding.
    
    	Why should government fund television in which few people have
    	interest?  Especially with federal deficit dollars?  
    
    	It shouldn't.

    Article 1 - Section 8 - The government shall have the right to promote
    the progeress of science and USEFUL art...
    
    Boy will I rejoice when the National Endowment for the Arts gets
    scrapped!!!  They are Baaaad people!
    
    -Jack

    Just remember that it is Forbes' estimate that last year the Lyons
    Group which owns Barney grossed $400M, and Children's Television
    Workshop which owns Sesame Street grossed near $1B.
    
    Government funding of public broadcasting comprises only 8-10% of the
    total budget. It would be missed but not a killer.
    
    /jim

    If ya'll are so worried about PBS funding, why don't you do what
    I do......send them a check when they have fund-raising drives!
    
    I especially enjoy the Mystery series; I'll continue to send money
    to my local PBS channel to support them.  Those of you who are 
    interested in children's programs that you feel are important can 
    do the same.
    
    Most of us have squandered money on foolishness; PBS is not fool-
    ishness so those of us who enjoy its programming will have to put up
    and have it shut off.
    
    

    
    Actually, I also have sent PBS a check on occassion.
    
    I'd still defund them !  Charity is one thing, taxes are another.
    
      bb
    

>    I'd still defund them !  Charity is one thing, taxes are another.

Would you make your donations non-deductable?

    	Moot point if we have a flat-rate fed tax or a national sales
    	tax.

    I wouldn't object if I couldn't deduct my donations (I'm not exactly
    in the philanthropist category anyway) :-)  
    
    I'm hoping the programs people really want will survive because
    the individuals are willing to support them, not the government.
    
    

    Yup...can it! 

    The PBS programs that would survive are the ones that people watch.
    
    Let the market rule!
    
    ME
    
    PS - What do we define as useful television?

>       <<< Note 88.31 by REFINE::KOMAR "Patsies no longer.  Go Pats!" >>>

    
>    PS - What do we define as useful television?

One that is used as kindling to start a campfire.
One that is used to anchor a small boat.
One that is thrown at (and squashes)a particularly noisey cat.
One that can be tuned loud enough to drown-out your M-I-L's constant yammer.
One that contains a stick of dynamite at a schuetzenfest

Amos

    There are times I agree. :-)
    
    ME