Boomerdog

Once again from Wikipedia: The word catholic (with lowercase c; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective (katholikos), meaning "universal" comes from the Greek phrase (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words; meaning "about" and; meaning "whole".The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church." ("Catholicos", the title used for the head of some churches in Eastern Christian traditions, is derived from the same linguistic origin.) The term Catholic (usually written with uppercase C in English) was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. In non-ecclesiastical use, it derives its English meaning directly from its root, and is currently used to mean the following: universal or of general interest; liberal, having broad interests, or wide sympathies; or inclusive, inviting and containing strong evangelism. Word origin in the 2nd Century...just a "few" years before October 31, 1517.

Actually, the Pope is saying some things neither side is going to like. The Catholic Church sees immigration from the principal view of the sanctity of the family and keeping the family intact. It's evident that immigration places a major disruption and potential dissolution of the family unit. The Church's definition of the family is a father (a man) a mother (a woman) who are husband and wife and their sons and daughters. The Church's definition of the family was established about 2 millennia ago and that definition is not subject to change. So the Pope addresses this issue to the President and the Congress against a backdrop of Democrats looking for a large new voting base and Republicans who are backed by supporters looking for cheaper labor. The Church is supportive in the context of IT'S position, NOT the position of a bunch of D's and R's. If there is any criticism I have of this Pope is that he is at times too nuanced and thus gets misinterpreted by the press who thinks he's saying what they want to hear. The fact is this Pope like those before him cannot and will not deviate from established Church doctrine and teachings handed down from 2,000 years to the present. It's like the iceberg, what is said on the surface in nuanced soundbites needs to be checked against the larger body of teachings and doctrine below the surface. In the end, what the press reports and the readership takes in is very different from what the Pope means. Obviously, many here may not like that and the Church will say that is your choice.

C'mom Ron, you and I have had a discussion over this one. From Wikipedia: "The title Symbolum Apostolicum (Symbol or Creed of the Apostles) appears for the first time in a letter, probably written by Ambrose, from a Council in Milan to Pope Siricius in about 390: "Let them give credit to the Creed of the Apostles, which the Roman Church has always kept and preserved undefiled". But what existed at that time was not what is now known as the Apostles' Creed but a shorter statement of belief that, for instance, did not include the phrase "maker of heaven and earth", a phrase that may have been inserted only in the 7th century." The creed originated in the Roman Catholic Church so the term "holy catholic church" is a reference to the church of origin. I know, I know, the Protestant Church uses the lower case "c" in catholic to mean "universal church" and the Roman Catholics use the capital "C" to mean the Roman Catholic Church. So the Protestants are using a creed (with some slight variations that does not take away the core meaning of the confession itself) originating from a source that may not be Christian? Uh oh...! My point? We're on the same side here. It's just a minor difference of approach, certainly NOT worth fighting a religious war over.

Very true! It was also a hell of a lot easier to pound the living hell out of a place called Viet-Nam. We lost that one. We lost it primarily because in our attempt to win "hearts and minds" we dropped bombs on and the burned villages of the very people we tried to win the hearts and minds of. We won militarily with overwhelming force and lost politically and when the political objectives are lost, so goes the war. A young man is jaywalking. OK...got it. Against the law, yes. Enforced, yes but probably selectively and the suspect probably figured, they're singling me out and picking on me because I'm black and I'm not going to take this anymore and yes the kid ends up getting slammed to the ground...for jaywalking. A purse snatcher or a perp carrying out a random assault warrants a body slam. The police allege the suspect attempted to take the cop's baton from him. Does the film show that? Or if this goes to court, will an eyewitness (or for that matter many eyewitnesses) for the defense testify that they believed the suspect was attempting to take the baton to keep the cop from striking him in an act of self defense? I'm all for law, order, and justice. There are a lot of street thugs out there who do merit the proper application of overwhelming force. In this case, however, the optics of this incident point not to street thugs but thugs with badges. The hearts and minds of "the hood" were lost and only increases the hazards of that locality for all who live there and all who have to keep order there.

Hall of Fame Pitcher Mel Ott (New York Giants) said of Yogi, "He's not much to look at." Lifetime stats: Batting avg: .285 Home Runs: 358 RBI's: 1,430 Selected to 18 All-Star Games Played in 10 World Series Not much to look at perhaps, maybe that wasn't necessary. RIP Yogi. Say hi to Joe D, Mickey, Roger, Pee Wee, for us.

I don't know that one. A few hundred today...several hundred thousand tomorrow? Perhaps all of us have an interest in legally extinguish a brush fire before it becomes a raging forest fire. The case is on appeal. I'm not taking any bets. The contemporary judiciary has proven themselves as batshit crazy as both Kims. I guess the question is what are WE going to do?

Please note the following URL's listed" https://quigley.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/quigley-members-of-the-quiet-skies-caucus-send-recommendations-to-house http://crowley.house.gov/press-release/reps-crowley-israel-meng-and-mccarthy-announce-quiet-skies-caucus-combat-aircraft http://www.timesledger.com/stories/2015/30/longquietskies_2015_07_24_q.html http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/219607-lawmakers-form-new-congressional-caucus-for-quiet-skies https://skyharbor.com/pdf/AircraftNoise_Gallego_letter.pdf Apparently, Ms Gibbs is not alone. In her narcissism, I'm sure she'll think she was the impetus behind the entire quiet skies movement. These five links only represent a few hundred on the issue. Now I work in the Washington D.C. area. It's like this. The truth has nothing to do with what happens here and effects all of us out there. It's what you can sell. If you can wrap manure in a beautiful package, make enough political contributions or scare your Rep and Senator you represent a sizeable number of votes, the manure you're peddling just might make it into law. Welcome to representative democracy. Now we can call Ms Gibbs all the names out there until the cows decide to come home. The fact is, she's "plugged into the process" and as so many of us have said before, she's not going away despite the court rulings against her at present. Laws can be changed. These five URL's are only a small example of the forces organizing against our sport. Once enough of these forces realize the collective influence they can wield, it's not going to be a good day for us. That DZ you once referred to as your second home is now closed simply because legislation designed to impose "reasonable limits" was in fact a trojan horse designed to limit a DZ's operation and hence the revenue stream it needed to stay in business. Trite as it may seem, it is now applicable, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

It's possible the report is accurate but I don't think the whole story and I put the link up after my first post this subject with the understanding that some of what was in the story differs form my observation and opinion. The video records someone being vulgar to the cop who does not respond directly but calls for back up probably bot because of the suspect but the potential threat posed by the bystanders. So in a show of force a group of cops put this kid on the ground rather convincingly. What for? To show the kid and the crowd, "Don't fuck with us, you'll get the same thing too?" So now, this little incident of jay walking in the "roaring" metropolis that is Stockton, California (know the place well, I went to school there at the University of the Pacific) also makes it into the New York Times as well. My opinion for certain but the show of force used to lance a boil was tantamount to a tactical nuke...and for jaywalking. The cops might have had every legal authority to do what they did but they lost it on moral authority and to keep the streets safe, you need both other wise respect and cooperation in the community they are supposed to "protect and serve" is lost. And given the fact that there are more citizens than cops, what then?

A fairly comprehensive report from a source reasonably detached: http://www.ibtimes.com/stockton-police-teen-jaywalker-emilio-mayfield-arrested-because-he-didnt-comply-2103911

True, the video (IMHO) is far from conclusive how "they got there." According to print media, the engagement escalated when the suspect removed the cop's hand from him. Now whether or not the suspect's action to remove the cop's hand from him was aggressive or not aggressive, injurious or non-injurious is of no consequence. The suspect is facing an assault charge and probably resisting arrest. I'm going to bet the cops are going to pile charges to bargain away a law suit. Wars at the national level and fights at the personal level are first fought in the mind according to Sun-Tzu. Perhaps I watch too many movies but I'll refer back to one of the first scenes in "Braveheart" where Uncle Argyle consoles an orphaned William Wallace and promises to William that he will raise him, "First we teach you this," Uncle Argyle points to William's head, "And then we'll teach you that," Uncle Argyle points to the sword. And there is both a ring of truth to teaching one before the other. A teen juvenile gets off a bus and jaywalks, an illegal act. A transit police officer (according to print media) is there to tighten that kid up and let him know in uncertain terms that a law is being broken. But the police officer is the adult so the next question is, did this officer take the appropriate number of seconds to assess the threat level of the suspect before he engaged? If the young man was very low threat, perhaps keeping the temp of the conversation as low key as possible while getting the point across and still write the citation. The way the road and the bus zone is described, the young man could have gotten hurt all by his lonesome. So Mr. Police Officer, be the bigger adult here and appeal to the young man's self preservation instincts and advise him he's going to hurt himself by jaywalking. Be firm, be wise, be the adult, and that means don't be so quick to escalate the situation if no threat exists. In this day and age of everyone's got a video cam, the actions taken may be the difference between staying employed or going to jail and being sued. "To win without fighting is best," quotes Sun-Tzu. Sun-Tzu is right.

What's her hair color?

I share the intent of your optimism. But as ryoder stated, this one is far from over. I like you wish it were, oh I wish it were.

Yes. But now we see deliberate "mission creep" by CQS to the rest of the country. In the case of NorCal Skydiving in Cloverdale, CA, the DZO is facing a two sided assault 1) from a small noisy bunch in the community and 2) a developer who wants the City of Cloverdale to take the airport through eminent domain in order to put a resort in right next to the airport. Air traffic would propose a safety hazard to the resort. This may all be moot given the fact that the forest fires in that region do provide Cal Division of Forestry to park some of their smaller aircraft at Cloverdale. The Cloverdale Airport, however has received over $1M in FAA funding during it's operational history. Local press reports on the DZ indicate the DZO has sunk his life savings into NorCal Skydiving. I'm all for discretion but if whoever runs USPA Airport Access Defense is not involved at this point, they should be. I have to be optimistic that they are. Longmount and Mile-Hi Skydiving just might become "ground zero" for the sport and it becomes much more problematic if this issue is not contained and halted in Colorado.

Different times, differing perspectives. It's not right. No woman deserves to be treated in such a manner. Women were well establishing their presence in the military in the mid to late 70's. Personally, I welcomed it. A lot of the career fields in the military were filled by women who in many cases exceeded the performance of men. What I observed was a lot more acceptance than resistance. When women were assaulted or sexually harassed, both actions were not only vile but negatively affected the good order and discipline of the military and hence required prosecution of offenders if the evidence from the investigation met the legal definition of the respective offenses and at the time, there were solid legal definitions of both.

Personally? I recommended two incidents of sexual harassment and one of sexual assault BACK IN THE EARLY 80's for Court-Martial action and all three resulted in convictions. One more case of sexual harassment I investigated in 1996 resulted in a conviction. You may have a point (of which I will agree) that this issue did receive short shrift on a larger scale. However, if such a situation in my unit on those in my purview of responsibility came my way, we checked it out, investigated it and if the evidence was there, we recommended JAG prosecution. Fair enough?

I'm filing you response under the category of "unclear on the concept." May I humbly encourage you to read America's Favorite Mother-In-Law's comments again. Here's a hint: She's not talking to (or about) those accused and her selective memory (or lack of it) about her husband's past escapades IS the wry irony I allude to. OBTW: Sexual assault DOES occur. We "evil" conservatives are well aware of such horrendous facts.

Nurse Ratchet has posed some wry irony in that quote.

If I may humbly add "...who has been a US citizen for some time now," I hope that provides some added clarity.

Been there done that. The date? April 15, 2009. I told the doc that this was twice in a day I was getting it in the you know where. Bleeding goes away in a few days. All kidding aside, good luck with it, hope it's all negative and gentlemen over 40, bend over at least once a year. Prostate cancer, it's not fun...trust me I know.

Uh no...I'm kind of on the other side of the country but I have this unfailing belief in human nature

Yes you did! Congratulations!

Another one unclear on the concept.

What about Mom? She ought to be right there with you in AFF!

In case of crickets, send for seagulls. It worked for the Mormons!

So the discussion on the 2 murders in Virginia gets lively and all of a sudden, General Curtis "Iron Ass" LeMay gets thrown out there. Not a criticism mind you. In fact I find it's kind of amusing with all due respect to the sobering nature of the original subject. So thought I'd throw out just a few of the General's quote in a separate thread. Love him or hate, LeMay was one of a kind. "If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." "I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that's been fed to them." "That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it." "Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." "We should bomb Vietnam back into the stone age." "Sometime in the future - 25, 50, 75 years hence - what will the situation be like then? By that time the Chinese will have the capability of delivery too." "That's the reason some schools of thinking don't rule out a destruction of the Chinese military potential before the situation grows worse than it is today. It's bad enough now." “We should always avoid armed conflict. But if you get in it, get in with both feet and get out as soon as possible.” “War is never cost-effective. People are killed. To them, the war is total.” “Successful offense brings victory. Successful defense can now only lessen defeat.” “We can haul anything.” “If I see that the Russians are amassing their planes for an attack, I’m going to knock the shit out of them before they take off the ground.” “To err is human, to forgive is not SAC policy” (SAC - Strategic Air Command) “The price of failure might be paid with national survival.” "I don't have time to distinguish between the unfortunate and the incompetent." "I don't want to hear of any of you men getting into any fights with the British. But if you do, you'd better not get whipped."