Airman1270

Me. Because nobody else does. Cheers, Jon

So much of the movies are truly inside digs. Zeppelin seemed to be a favorite target... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Such as the double-neck bass. When did you ever see a double-neck bass? I like the three bass players in the song "Big bottom." Jon S.

QuoteToo funny....I'm watching it right now (for the third or fourth time) and here you are! One of my favorite lines - "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever." But there are so many great ones.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Remember after the band landed in New York and they were driving to a gig in Philadelphia?...The guys wanted to know why they weren't booked in NY and the agent said "Well, New York isn't a big music town." "They were still booing him when we came onstage." "We had a Stonehenge in danger of being crushed by a dwarf!" "Can you record it in dubly?" PUPPET SHOW and SPINAL TAP , Jon

QuoteI always get nervous when I see jumpers with older gear back out of the door to float. Main pin flaps bouncing around in the air, possibly loose BOC spandex. I say the less wind the better on the container at that presentation into the wind... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Is this really a problem, or is it a fear born of too many campfire discussions about older gear among people who have little experience with this stuff? I've used a Wonderhog (w/belly band) since 1985 and have done plenty of floating, diving, backloops, and even a few horny gorillas and a sit-fly, without incident. Sure, I love my new gear, but "rig o' death" is still in service and I intend to get the reserve back in date soon. I believe the issue is not the age, but rather how well maintained the equipment is. Back in the days when everyone was using older stuff, was there a much higher rate of premature container openings involving well-maintained gear? Frankly, I'm much more afraid of a premature Cypres fire. Rare, yes, but possible. Meanwhile, I recently took my old Strato Cloud, with about 300-ish jumps, out of retirement and hooked it up. Had to flat-pack the thing, it's so bulky. Better let me go base, and bring your weights! Cheers, Jon

Dude, you're bringing back memories. Made my first jump & completed my student career at Duanesburg in the early/mid-'80's. Hope all is well with Bob & Rosanna, etc. Cheers, Jon S.

...Where the heck is Airman1270?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Georgia. On Friday I had to cover for two other guys as well as do my own show, etc. On the air for more than five hours, didn't have much time to cruise DZ.com. Thanks for the input, everyone! Cheers, Jon

...I think it's odd that you would mention this, given that you propose censoring science teachers... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Wow. You've done a masterful job of twisting my words completely inside out. My position on this issue is that students should be exposed to ALL information on the subject. You take the position that half of the debate should be withheld, and the only justification you can offer is that some of the material might be what you describe as "religious." Does this mean that students should not be encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, or harm others? After all, to attempt to influence their behavior in this manner is to impose "religious" ideas. Furthermore, the theory of evolution is itself based on a religious idea. By censoring the other side, you are imposing the religion of secular humanism. My suggestion that compulsory attendance laws be repealed is a fair compromise. The schools can teach what they want, and parents can decide whether to submit their kids to their curriculum. This is the most "pro-choice" position one can take on the matter. As to the suggestion that I send my kids to private school, fine. Stop forcing me to pay taxes to support a system that contradicts my values, and I'll be able to afford to do so. (In this scenario, though, I probably wouldn't have to, because if attendance was voluntary the schools would be forced to modify their curriculum to attract customers.) Again, the issue is not that evolution is taught. The issue is the one-sided approach, coupled with the inordinate priority given the topic. If we were talking about any other subject you'd likely agree with me. A liberal is someone who is pro-choice about abortion and anti-choice about everything else. Thanks, Jon

Hey guys! Regardless of the topic, it seems the subject of religion frequently pops up here, with Christianity taking the lion's share of hysterical criticism. I have a question, but I want to be very specific. I'm not looking to get into a typical discussion of whether God exists, or what bad church experiences someone may have had in their childhood, etc. The question is: IF God is real; IF the Bible is true; IF Jesus is who He claimed to be; and, most importantly... IF it was possible to prove this beyond all doubt... Would you receive this as good news, or would you be disappointed? Please resist the temptation to answer a question that wasn't asked. Thanks, Jon Deuteronomy 23:13

I can prove to you that evolution exists with a jar of fruit flies... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Nobody is claiming that some form of evolution has never occurred. At issue is the claim that one species of life evolved into another type. That's like saying that either your parents or Santa Claus brought you presents when you were a kid. They're both possible, right? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No. Because one is based in science and the other in religion. Teach the science in a science class, teach the religion in a religion class. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I keep hearing this, but suppose we agreed to this compromise. The same people who make this suggestion would suddenly start bitching about their kids being exposed to a religion class. I have a better idea: Just remove the discussion from the curriculum. Students can study information which HAS been established as scientific fact without getting distracted by how life did or didn't begin all those years ago. Parents who want their children to know about evolution can teach it at home. Again, I don't object to my kids being exposed to the subject. I object to the intolerant, biased, one-sided view being rammed down our throats by the government, using my tax dollars to do so. By the way, both sides can be described as "religious." One is consistent with a variety of non-atheistic religions, the other is consistent with the religion of secular humanism. Perhaps the real issue here is that so many people have been brainwashed into thinking that a particular piece of information should be censored simply because it can be identified as being consistent with a non-atheistic point of view. And these are the same people who will lecture the rest of us about the importance of being "open-minded." As in so many other subjects, the solution would be to let the schools teach whatever they want to teach, and just repeal the compulsory attendance laws. Problem solved. Glad to be of assistance , Jon

QuoteYes, I want my credit damnit!!! I can't fry eggs anymore because the bottom of all my pans are dented... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hee hee... This has got to be one of the funniest lines I've heard in a long time in a public policy debate. It ranks up there with a comment made by a State House candidate during an interview here at the radio station. The guy (a Democrat, no less) described the recently-expired "assault weapons" ban as "a ban on ugly guns." Cheers, Jon

Even when there's scientific and biological basis for one, and absolute proof against the other? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ There is no proof, "scientific" or otherwise, that the evolution theory is true. Much of the "evidence" has long been discredited. There is no proof that creationism is a fact. There is some evidence, but it is difficult to explain without being accused of "preaching" or "ramming religion down my throat." We're left with two competing theories, neither of which can be proven. In a classroom setting, why would you NOT want your kids exposed to both? The schools should not be in the business of trying to persuade them to accept one or the other. Cheers, Jon

QuoteIMO Evolutionism is a theory that follows the scientific method. One of the requirements for being a cientific theory is that somehow that theory can be proven wrong... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Actually, for something to be established as a scientific fact is must be predictable, observable, and repeatable. Evolution fails to meet these standards. There is no contradiction between science and Christianity. Many scientists are Christians, and many are creationists. To claim that fundamentalist religious faith impairs one's ability to intelligently evaluate information, scientific or otherwise, is to expose one's own bigotry. While the vast majority of Christians do not believe that the earth is only 7000-ish years old, this belief is no more irrational than the belief that complex life forms evolved from a mud puddle. Cheers, Jon

I have kids in the Cobb County, GA schools and have an interest in this matter. But I think the current debate misses a more important point: Why is this issue assigned such inordinate priority? The best way to deal with the origin-of-life issue is to divide a textbook page in half, with a paragraph or two detailing the differing theories, then move on to more important matters. What justification is there for taking up so much classroom time on this topic? Perhaps this case could eventually move to the Supreme Court, after Bush replaces retiring liberal justices with some sensible folks who actually believe their role is to interpret the Constitution rather than impose their beliefs on the country. Then the whole "separation-of-church-and-state" myth can be exposed for the vacuous piece of fiction it always has been. The government is under no obligation to support any idea that comes along simply because it contradicts the views of the Church. The schools are under no legal obligation to censor a piece of information simply because it might happen to agree with the Bible. The people who would impose one viewpoint while silencing the other are the irrational extremist fanatics, regardless of whether they believe, on faith, that 1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, or 2) Everything was created, by nobody, from nothing. Both views are "religious." Cheers, Jon

This one's a bit raw, and only works when told my a man in the company of other men: "How can you tell if a guy is queer?" "His dick tastes like shit." I know, I know, but it seemed funny at the time... , Jon

In the interest of fairness, here's an example of a cop who (I think) helped me. The story begins long ago, on a Georgia street in April 1997... I was driving a Camaro (that was my FIRST mistake.) As I made a right turn onto the street in question, there was a large Blazer-type SUV waiting to make a left onto the same street. More than a mile down the road, as I was doing about 45 on a 40mph zone, I saw the motorcyle guy with his radar gun and blue lights on. I almost drove right past, because I knew he wouldn't stop me for going 5mph over the limit and I wasn't doing anything else wrong. After briefly sharing eye contact, I stopped as the Blazer passed us by. He said he had me on radar doing 63. I was stunned. I politely & firmly told him that he was mistaken. He asked how the radar could be wrong. I remember once reading that guilty people will try to come up with an explanation that deflects blame, and I didn't even try; I just said "I don't know." (This exchange happened several times.) Once he began writing the ticket, I stopped protesting my innocence and switched to asking procedural questions (what happens next, etc.) I asked what he thought about my chances in court. He said it could depend on the judge, and what they thought about be calling him a liar. I said no, if his radar read "63" I take him at his word; it's just that I didn't cause it to do so. He spoke with me another moment about court dates, etc. I thanked him for his help, and departed. The prosecutor tried to offer me a sweet deal, $50 fine & no other penalties. I was facing a fine in excess of $120 plus "points", but I took a chance and told her I didn't do it and wanted to speak with the judge. No lawyer, just a clean record to back up my claims. I was given another court date. The next time, she met with me one last time to offer the $50 special. I turned her down, and half-jokingly said that for going 5mph over the limit I'd had to miss two days of work and pay for parking, and can we call it even? She smiled and said the judge would be with me shortly. During this time, as I waiting my turn, I thought I saw the cop in the hallway behind the courtroom, looking out at me. Wasn't sure it was him, though, because he didn't have his helmet on. By this time I had figured out that the Blazer, which had caught up to me just as we came into the radar's view, had probably triggered the "63" reading. I had prepared some papers illustrating the profiles both vehicles would have presented to the unit, and the probability of the Blazer dominating the system while the cop was reacting to the fast-looking Camaro. I never got a chance to explain. The judge told me the witness against me had failed to appear and I was free to go. I almost said "No, he's back there, I just saw him!" I ASSume these guys develop a sixth sense which enables them to sniff out a bullshit story, and he decided mine had a ring of truth. My cordial demeanor and clean record probably didn't hurt, either. His name is Rickets, with the Cobb County P.D. If you see him, tell him I said "thanks." By the way, while waiting my turn I saw a bunch of people in their late teens/early 20's who had accumulated a string of violations in their short driving careers. It provided a glimpse of what these guys deal with on a regular basis. Cheers, Jon

I hate it when people who don't know the law argue about it. You are both wrong. There are about a thousand exceptions and exclusions to the probable cause or warrant requirement for a search. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Actually, I WAS aware there are exceptions. My concern is that the list of exceptions continues to expand beyond Constitutional parameters. I understand full well that you guys can get away with a lot of stuff that you have no Constitutional right to do. The Bill of Rights is meaningless if the courts do not require you to operate within its boundaries. To paraphrase some defense lawyer I once heard speak on the subject, there ARE no Constitutional rights on the side of the road (during a traffic stop.) Sometimes I wonder: If the Bill of Rights was formally repealed, to what extent would life in America be any different than it is today? Jon

Unless things have changed, he can search within the passenger's arms reach no matter what... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Without probable cause, you cannot search anywhere, arm's reach or not. Why would you search without probable cause? Just write the ticket, or give the warning, and be on your way. (Obviously, if you have probable cause, you can search. Hint: Probable cause requires more than a "Greatful Dead" bumper sticker.) Well, that would make you a murderer or a dead guy. I don't know if there is an objective definition of "spanking", but if I were to come across a parent "spanking" a child with anything other than an open hand or from the neck down, I would stop it too, and I don't need no stinking baydges for that. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It was an open hand. And, by the way, you fell into my trap. The issue is not what I would do if provoked, the issue is: Why would I be provoked? If confronted with this situation, you will (if you're a decent guy) apologize to the woman and pehaps press charges against whoever called 911 for false report of a crime. If you have a shred of human decency, you will NOT arrest the Mom. Period. Thanks, Jon

No. We're all friends, at least until you push me away. We disagree about a bunch of things, but we skydive. I love you, man. Cheers, Jon

I read the raw reports. In the case of the guy sleeping in his car, the report did not mention allegations of drunkenness. The narcotics guys are a world unto themselves. I've noticed that they frequently don't even bother to offer a justification for an automobile search. Most of the other guys will at least articulate a reason for the search, such as the smell of pot, a crack pipe in plain view, etc. The drug teams will offer some vacuous reason for making the stop, such as "failure to maintain lane" or a broken tag light, but everybody knows they stopped the guy just to check him out and see what they can find. A local grandmother who fails to signal a turn may have nothing to fear, but God help two guys in their 20's passing through on the interstate with out-of-state tags. In the event the cops find nothing and let the driver go on his way, they don't turn in a report for the incident. I don't much care what happens to traffickers, but they're not the only people being stopped, searched, and treated like crap. My point is that "free" Americans who are not doing anything wrong are being hassled in ways that used to be unthinkable. This problem is compounded by legislatures inventing crimes, making it illegal to do things we were once free to do. Thanks, Jon

(Part 2... I had to leave my desk to do the news. My station manager treats this place like his personal living room, and thinks nothing of deleting my stuff so he can do something he could just as easily do at his own desk...) By way of explanation... I (figuratively speaking) signed a contract with society as I entered adulthood. I agreed not to hurt people or take their stuff. In return, I could expect to be left alone. This system worked well for many years. Even when I drove from California to New York at the age of 20, with long hair and a bumper sticker that said "Warning- I Break for Hallucinations", I was never hassled without cause. The few traffic stops I experienced were minor incidents, most of which did not result in my being cited. (I was pleasant & polite, and did not have a bad attitude. Perhaps that helped...) In the late '80's I was walking through town at night and was stopped by two cops who apparently thought I fit the description of someone they were looking for. They quickly determined that I was not the guy they wanted, said "thanks", and moved on. They did not demand that I empty my pockets, show I.D., run my name through a computer, or grill me as to where I was going or why I was out. They did their job without being unecessarily unpleasant. This did not seem at all unusual at the time. 15 years later I read of people being stopped & questioned in the absence of any evidence of criminal activity. This is offensive, and I resent it. If it can happen to others, it can happen to me. I've been taking late-night walks for nearly 30 years and don't appreciate the treatment I can expect when the day comes that a cop wants to know where I'm going and I explain that it's none of his business. My brother-in-law is a recently-retired New York City cop. He told a story once that explains some of the pressure from above: He was working traffic and stopped an out-of-state guy for making an illegal turn. The guy was lost & confused, something anyone who has ever driven in NYC can appreciate. Bob gave the guy a verbal warning, then gave directions to help him get to his destination. That guy drove away with a healthy respect for the police and the city; meanwhile, Bob was chewed out for not writing a ticket. Bob spent the rest of his career working diligently to combat serious criminals, but doing only the bare minimum required to comply with orders regarding the petty stuff. Of course, NYC is firmly in control of liberals and their concomitant tax- and social policies. The city needs money, and the courts are regarded as a revenue source. I've spoken to several former cops who explained that they got out of the business because they were under pressure to treat the job as a money-making endeavor. In other words, I have a reasonable idea of what I'm talking about and resent my concerns being dismissed as "cop bashing." I live a quiet peaceful life, and in return expect to be left alone. If I commit an infraction, I expect the police to deal with me in the least intrusive manner possible. Write me a ticket, if you must, for failing to signal my lane change, but, no, you can't search my car without a warrant. This business of being held liable if you treat citizens as you would want to be treated is a valid concern. I'd like to see the police leadership start making noise about this and pressure the legislatures to address the situation, perhaps as part of the process toward legal reform. Ever notice how every investigation into the erosion of freedom always seems to arrive at the role played by the litigation lobby? Cheers, Jon

...The original post had a certain bias to it. I have a feeling no matter what I say, Airman is going to have negative feeling toward the police... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Thanks, guys. If there is a common theme to your responses, it's the fact that you are held personally responsible for failing to prevent bad things from happening. I would like to see more aggressive complaining to the state legislatures regarding this. You all belong to professional organizations which have plenty of clout. Yet, when new laws are proposed, such as "family violence" laws, etc. which require you to interfere in people's personal lives, I don't see the organized protests, the letters to the newspapers, etc., against this idiocy. You may have the best of intentions, but when you bust into someone's home because they had an argument, get involved in a personal family matter that is none of your damn business, and make an arrest despite the fact that 1) nobody is hurt, and 2) nobody wants to press charges, you're nothing but a nazi. Yes, the law may require you to make an arrest, but the law does not require you to work this job. At what point do you finally draw the line, look your supervisor in the eye, and say "NO, this is not why I became a cop"? In the example I cited regarding the guy sleeping in his car, there was no allegation of intoxication. The guy was just sleeping. There's no reason the cop could not have tapped on the window and said "I'm sorry sir, but I have to ask you to move on." The guy would have driven away, and the cop would have gotten what he wanted without being a prick about it. I don't accept the premise that it's necessary to put the screws to people because of an endless list of things that "could " happen if you don't. I've lived 46 years without causing problems or getting in trouble. I have a clean record, and have no personal ax to grind. Any negative attitude I have is a recent development, prompted by the way the police treat us. I guess the eye-opener occurred ten years ago when a woman who lives near my home was arrested for spanking her kid in a supermarket. Any cop who ever interferes with my family in this manner would be wise to expect a bullet. This is not a rock-solid guarantee, but the chances of it happening are far greater than I ever thought possible. Respect goes both ways. Peace, Jon

In my work (radio news) I read police reports daily, and have noticed a disturbing trend toward arresting people for minor, non-violent violations. The jail staff complains about the lack of space. The courts say they can't keep up with the workload. Meanwhile, a "free" American can be arrested for sleeping in his car in the Wal-Mart parking lot. In addition, few people suspected of a crime are charged only with that crime. You can do one thing wrong and end up with five charges against you. For example: The legislature passed a law imposing additional penalties for using a gun "during the commission of a crime." The law was sold to the public as a deterrent to misuse of a firearm. Yet, I read of a guy arrested at his home on a drug charge, and is additionally charged with a weapons violation simply because he happens to have a gun in the house. He didn't threaten anyone and didn't misuse the gun, yet was charged anyway. Not too long ago, police work consisted of 1) helping people and 2) chasing bad guys. Now, the job description includes 1) helping people, 2) chasing bad guys, and 3) harassment of citizens and the enforcement of liberalism. I invite anyone who disagrees to explain why automobile searches have come to be described as "routine." To what extent are these guys permitted to exercise discretion & common sense? If a situation can be resolved by writing a ticket or issuing a verbal warning, why is it necessary to make an arrest? Since childhood we've been told the difference between a free society and a totalitarian dictatorship is that, in "free" America, the cops cannot stop you and demand to see your papers without cause. Yet, one cannot take a late night walk in certain places without being stopped by a cop demanding to see your I.D. Suppose you swerve to avoid a loose dog, hit some wet leaves, and slide into a ditch. In the old days, a cop might offer a word of encouragement and help arrange for a wrecker. Today, he'll likely write you up for "driving too fast for conditions", a nebulous charge that can neither be proven nor refuted. Why do they want to work a job that requires them to treat their fellow man in this manner? The WFFC was moved from Quincy because of abusive police practices. They treat us like crap, then go off duty and whine about the public's lack of respect for law enforcement. What's going on here? Cheers, Jon

...If there were so many police officers posted on the street that I could not leave the sight of one without being in the sight of another, I would consider myself to be living in a POLICE STATE, and YES, I would be just as displeased and angry about it... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A few years back a history-buff listed some interesting stats... He said that the U.S. has more police officers per capita than did nazi Germany in the late 1930's. In addition, we have computers, sophisticated communications equipment, helicopters, night vision goggles, etc. If nazi Germany was a police state, what does that make us? At times politicians try to prove how "tough" on crime they are by claiming we need "more cops." No, we don't. In fact, we have too many cops. We have so many cops that these guys are under pressure to harass citizens, in the absense of any evidence of criminal activity, in an effort to ferret out minor violations and "prove" they're doing their jobs. Perhaps it's time to create another thread... Cheers, Jon

A cop friend once was assigned undercover duty at a public restroom. He said it was a quiet day. When he wrote his report, he closed by stating that his efforts were "fruitless." Cheers, Jon

The best part was surfing channels I don't usually watch Tuesday night. I almost felt guilty enjoying the obvious distress on the faces of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Judy Woodruff, etc. But then I remembered the way they look down on me with snotty contempt and quickly got over it. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. I'm not offended that they're liberal; I'm offended that they insist they're not, when their facade has been crumbling for years. Don't want to get too gloaty, though. It won't be long before it's MY guys losing an election. Then we'll be in trouble, because that will mean the socialists will have won and we'll soon be losing more money and more freedom. Cheers, Jon