Airman1270

...warned newly re-elected President Bush today against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ And this would be a bad thing because...? There is no Constitutional "right" to an abortion. The 1973 ruling was invented out of thin air and IMPOSED on the country by activist judges. The long-term health of the nation would benefit by a return to Constitutional principles. With regard to abortion, the court should abandon the "Roe" idiocy and return the issue to the states. Regardless of your opinion on that issue, it should be up to the individual state legislatures to decide the matter. Bring on some common sense judges. Cheers, Jon

...I'm assuming this would make him feel "disinfrancised" (i have no idea how to spell that)... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No problem, these things happen. In my work I read police reports every day. Some of the things I see would make you cry: "The subject past my patrol car at a high rate of speed..." "The intruder knocked a whole in the wall..." "The victim said she saw to men behind the building..." "The vehicles break lights were not working..." Etc., etc. And don't get me started on grammar and puctuation. It doesn't inspire confidence. On the lighter side, remember George Carlin's take on cop-speak: "Officers apprehended the alleged susect as he emerged from the edifice." Cheers, Jon

Thanks to those who took part in the airport "security" discussion that evolved from the "can't fly with a rig..." thread. The current practice of harassing harmless citizens at airports is an offensive, ridiculous waste of time that does NOTHING to make air travel safer. Passengers are already screened for weapons. There is nothing to be gained by hyper-searching old people, children, etc., especially after they've passed the initial screening. I do not suggest non-Arabs are incapable of committing a crime. I DO suggest that, if "security" is really the focus, that young, muslim males should prompt a higher level of concern BECAUSE they belong to a sub-group of people who have killed Americans and have declared their intentions to do so again. To hell with accusations of "profiling." Can anyone here imagine, just ten years ago, that they would be defending the practice of "wanding" old ladies, removing shoes from children, and telling passengers they cannot lock luggage which has already passed successfully through metal- & bomb detectors? We can thank the litigation lobby for this. The legal industry has been imposing the religion of secular humanism on this country, one tenet of which is the belief that mankind can achieve perfection; Thus, if something goes wrong, it must be somebody's fault and legal action is in order. Ask any DZO after a customer hurt himself after failing to follow instructions. People no longer have to worry about being sued only for doing bad things. Now, they can be sued for failing to prevent bad things from happening. (This explains the trend toward requiring AAD's at some DZ's.) If someone DOES manage to get on board an airliner with evil intentions and bring it down, a long string of other people will face lawsuits. The TSA jerks are simply trying to cover their asses, so as to present a courtroom defense indicating they did "all they could" to prevent tragedy. Remember, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, how lawyers were lining up to sue the owners, shareholders, etc. of the airlines, the World Trade Center, etc., for failing to anticipate such an attack and keep it from happening? Ultimately, the answer to this mess might be reform of the legal system, so as to prevent lawyers from suing people who are not responsible for (insert bad experience here.) Then, perhaps the airport security industry could allow its people to exercise discretion & common sense. While I make an unfair, broad accusation of incompetence on the part of the TSA people, I imagine there are plenty of times when they wish they could stop harassing citizens and treat people with more respect without having to worry about being accused of not doing their jobs. Cheers again, Jon

Way to go. I trained on rounds and have almost 50 round jumps, including three reserve rides. In 1994 I borrowed a friend's PC, my first round jump in ten years. All went well. At about 100' - 200' or so, as I watched the ground some up, I remembered I weighed about 25 lbs. more than I did the last time I flew one of these. I don't know what made more noise - me hitting the ground or everyone saying "ooh" at the same time. Good ol' PLF... Cheers, Jon

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Wow... I'm sorry. I got the impression that some people think it would be a poor idea even with an extra reserve. Didn't mean to interfere. I'll be good. Jon

In the mid- '80's I was a novice watching a video of one of the instructors (1000+ jumps) chopping a good main just for fun. I asked why he did it and the first thing he said was that he wore an extra harness with a second reserve. With such planning, is this really such a dangerous idea? Cheers, Jon

20 years today since my first square jump. (Remember "first square jumps"?) I was a student at Duanesburg, NY, with just over 40 jumps (long, drawn-out student career, static line program.) I learned about a DZ an hour closer to home called the Blue Sky Ranch & stopped by. At the time I was jumping rounds and asked Joe R. if they had a P.C. I could use. He looked at my logbook and asked "Wanna try a square?" (At the time my home DZ required students to pay extra for "square training.") "Sure." They gave me a briefing & a Strato-Cloud, put a radio on me, and sent me up. The radio guy didn't say much. A non-descript flight & landing not too far from the peas. All for the price of a single jump ticket. This was back in the days when you could actually jump a Cessna at the Ranch. Finished my student career at Duanesburg, using a Manta, & graduated using my "new" used rig w/a Cloud & no AAD. Thanks guys. Cheers, Jon

...I'd really hate to meet the shrew, screaming harpy of a bitch wife he's married to. ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This is too funny - I thought there might be a response, but wasn't expecting what this has turned into. She's not all that bad, most of the time. Wasn't expecting such harsh words from a moderator. No problem, though. Please don't ban him. Thanks, Jon

N/A

...First, I think you're stereotyping women with those questions... Yes. Yes I am. But it's happened more times than I care to think about. (Maybe I just attract this type?) ...counselor... Great advice. I've been suggesting it for seven years. It's encouraging knowing there are plenty out there who are more like you. Cheers, Jon

[ Bwa ha ha! Yeah, because Ann's all about being rational and logical...she never poisons the well or makes a personal attack. LOL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yes, she can be a bulldozer, and in political discussions she can mix it up with the big boys. But if you read her columns, you'll see she uses logic to arrive at her conclusions and can back up what she says. Jon

In response to the "What Annoys You" thread, I think this might be worth it's own discussion: Women who are dominated by emotion at the expense of logic. It drives me nuts when my wife gets pissy about something but cannot articulate a reason for her displeasure, nor explain what can be done to correct the situation. You haven't lived 'til you've had an argument with a 40+ year-old woman whose response to a question is "Because!" If I lay out a connected series of statements explaining why I think thus about a situation, her eyes glaze over and she accuses me of "lecturing." (If I don't say anything, I'm "not communicating.") When I ask why she thinks thus about the issue, she gets frustrated because she's not developed the skill to express herself effectively. For example - she has a problem controlling the kids, a pattern I noticed years ago. (When giving a toddler a command, you don't finish by asking if it's "okay"... As in "Pick up your toys, okay?") When they do the usual things kids do, such as not obeying, etc., it's a learning moment and it must be dealt with. But this doesn't mean you need to lose your composure and freak out. She'll get flustered, give up, and ask me to fix the problem. Yet, while acknowleging I have a talent for dealing with the kids, she'll not accept any advice. If I try to offer some anyway she'll quickly point out some irrelevant fact regarding my own imperfections & shortcomings. At times like this I wish I was married to someone like Ann Coulter. I've not often been attracted to thin women, but I could make an exception for A.C. because, when we do eventually have a fight, I can expect her to offer a rational, logical explanation, rather than just make some cruel comment about one of my weaknesses. So what's up, ladies? And while we're on the subject, can someone explain this powerful drive to make a scene in front of people, rather than keep the quarrel private? Just wondering, Jon

...3. Missing the Simpsons... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Good one. A few others would be: 1) People who try to merge into highway traffic at 40mph. It's not just annoying, it's dangerous!; 2) People who describe any attempt to explain Biblical principles, or correct someone else's misunderstanding, as "forcing" beliefs on them. (In my 22 years of skydiving, I've spoken frequently about the sport, sometimes with enthusiastic detail, with people who have no interest in participating. Nobody has ever accused me of ramming parachuting down their throat.); 4) Doors that close automatically. Ever try to carry something past a screen door that is trying to close itself? The door rubs on you and snags your clothes. And for what? Just pull it closed behind you, already! Snarl, Jon

QuoteIn my opinion, while not stupid, he's not much over average in intelligence. I'd rather have someone who is significantly more than average in intelligence as president. Yes, I do think you can make it through Yale and Harvard MBA without being a genius. But his biggest failing is his unwillingness to seek or even acknowledge dissenting opinion when he's set his mind to a course... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fair enough. I'd rather have someone in there with average intelligence & common sense, who will pursue a libertarian/conservative agenda, than a highly-brilliant mind that seeks to restrict Constitutional rights and micro-manage the way we live our lives. According to all available evaluations, Bill Clinton is an exceptionally intelligent man. But every time he got what he wanted we lost more money and more freedom. He aggressively pushed for tax increases, restrictions on gun rights, and appointed judges who leaned toward making law from the bench. Far worse than that, he is a blatantly dishonest man whose entire adult life has been a continuous pattern of deception. He won election in '92 by misleading Americans as to his intentions. Since their late teens, he & his wife have been focused on the goal of gaining power and authority over us so they could force us to do things we don't want to do. I don't accuse John Kerry of the same motives, but he has clearly demonstrated a desire to increase taxes, emasculate the military, and subordinate U.S. authority to the U.N. (Then, when Bush used military force to enforce U.N. resolutions, he criticized the effort...) Where is the evidence that Bush did not seek dissenting opinions? And once a course of action has been determined, what is there to gain by endless hand-wringing over options which have already been considered & overruled? Whatever the issue du jour, it appears he carefully considered the facts, made a decision, and stayed with it. I imagine that if he later thinks he made a wrong choice he'd say so and seek to make the correction. (The "No Child..." education thing, and the restrictions on campaign spending could use some reconsideration...) I don't know this, but I base my ASSumption on the fact that he's proven himself to be a man of integrity. Kerry appears to be unwilling to state firmly what he thinks about any issue, and is reluctant to place himself in a position where he might have to answer hard questions. To me, this renders irrelevant any claims regarding his alleged superior intelligence. Thanks, Jon

Thanks, guys - interesting variety of responses... Not to troll for more-of-the-same, but there seems to be some blind acceptance of the carefully-created myth that G.W. is not an intelligent man. Can anyone back this up? It's one thing to disagree with policy decisions, but do people really think it's possible for a stupid man to earn an MBA from Harvard, fly fighter jets, run a major league baseball team, and serve as governor of one of the largest states in the nation? I'm not stupid, but neither am I a good debater nor a polished public speaker. Even so, if I had the ability to "impose" my political priorities through legislation you'd all end up with more money and more freedom. Vote for me - my campaign slogan will be "I will leave you alone!" Cheers, Jon

Sometimes I get one, sometimes I don't, for the same reasons already mentioned here. In 1985, fresh off instruction at a new DZ I asked a very experienced guy (with an instructor rating) for a pin check. He helped me out, but added that I should "learn to take care of myself." I'm sure he was just trying to help me become more self-sufficient, but I was very inexperienced and this attitude made me nervous. Not wanting to cause any problems I wrote a note to USPA (without identifying anybody) asking advice as to how to deal with this unusual situation. They never replied to me personally, but published my letter in PARACHUTIST. The good news was that my instincts were right. The bad news is that they kicked me off the DZ. The moral: Get a gear check, and know that anything you send to headquarters can end up in the magazine if you don't specifically ask them not to print it. Cheers, Jon

... ... Ummm... It's the liberals who have destroyed the education system, and Bush signed a "more-of-the-same" measure written by Ted Kennedy. (More proof he's not a true conservative.) Plenty there to criticize, but I don't see how paying your kid's college tuition destroys your credibility on the subject. Thanks, Jon

I went through a very long period (late '70's - mid '90's) where I didn't want to hear it anymore, but it's still a fine song. After years of avoiding Zeppelin music I bought a "best of" CD in 1994 and listened, with headphones, as though I was hearing it for the first time. Yes, it's fine stuff. In small doses. Recently we were doing a song in the church band that used the repeating Am - G - F chord phrase. Just for kicks (during Sunday service, no less) I strummed the "F" chord using the same staccato rythm J. Page plays following the line "...and as we wind on down the road..." before returning to the Am chord. Everyone older than 30 knew full well what I was doing. The keyboard player looked at me, stunned, before breaking into a wide grin. Meanwhile, the other guitar player ripped into a brief, sizzling lead line... This is not your grandmother's church! Last year I came up with an adaptation of "Rock 'n' Roll" that I could play well enough to perform solo in front of people. Damn Page - it's a basic three-chord song that took me nearly 30 years to figure out! Cheers, Jon

As the '04 election approaches, many people, who don't normally keep abreast of public policy discussions, are beginning to evaluate information presented in debates, campaign ads, etc. It would be useful if these people understand what is meant when politicians use certain words & phrases, which might not mean what ordinary Americans assume they mean. To facilitate intelligent evaluation of campaign rhetoric, here's a short list of useful political definitions: CIVIC GROUP - A group of citizens who support your candidacy LOBBY - A group of citizens who support your opponent's candidacy SPECIAL INTEREST - A group of citizens whose political philosophy is shared by your opponent "IN THE POCKET OF...(CORPORATIONS, etc.)" - Your opponent receives contributions from business groups, etc., which agree with his political philosophy and support his campaign "ANTI-LABOR" - Is not hostile to business owners, and does not support the imposition of crushing taxes and regulations on businesses which employ people and provide products/services most of us want "ANTI-EDUCATION" - Opposes throwing more money at a failed public school system which wastes taxpayer's money while maintaining a carefully-groomed facade of poverty, and which aggressively pushes an agenda hostile to the beliefs of most parents while claiming self-righteous concern for "the children" "VOTED AGAINST (WOMEN, CHILDREN, THE POOR, etc.)" - Voted against ill-conceived legislation which wastes taxpayer's money on inefficient programs EXTREMIST - Not a liberal RELIGIOUS FANATIC - Not an atheist RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST - Goes to church; is not a liberal FUNDAMENTALIST - Actually believes & respects the Bible OPEN-MINDED - Claims relationship with/respect for the Church while rejecting the fundamentals of one's religion "FORCES BELIEFS DOWN MY THROAT" - Tells me what he thinks about spiritual matters "WANTS A THEOCRACY" - Does not believe the government is obligated to demonstrate hostility to religion, nor offer knee-jerk support for anything the Church opposes SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE - Vacuous claim used to justify efforts to restrict the right of non-liberal Christians from participating in the legislative process PROGRESSIVE - Liberal TOLERANT - Agress with liberals (usually used in conjunction with intolerant accusations toward non-liberals) HATE - Disagreement with liberals MEAN-SPIRITED - Disagrees with liberals FREE SPEECH - Blasphemy, pornogaphy, profanity, slander against non-liberals HATE SPEECH - Expression of support for moral standards HATE CRIME - A crime in which the victim is not a straight, white, non-liberal HEALTH CARE CRISIS - The government does not fully control the medical profession WAR ON DRUGS - Erosion of Fourth Amendment protections & the expansion of police powers TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH - Tax breaks for everybody Think carefully & vote wisely. Cheers, Jon S.

On the highway I occasionally see another car with a USPA sticker, etc. "Oh - a skydiver. Anyone I know?" So I try to catch up and make contact. The trouble is, once we start to approach 5 - 10 mph over the limit I've had about enough. Yet, even doing 75 in a 65 zone I still can't catch up. It seems skydivers like to drive real fast. Are my perceptions correct? What percentage of us have more than one speeding ticket in the last five years? Cheers, Jon

Hee hee... Back in June I visited the Ranch in NY, and was sitting in the back of the Otter by the door looking forward. Nobody knew me. The door was open, which I thought would help, but it turned out that the air flow was moving toward the front. After cutting loose a particularly award-winning sample, I could follow its progress by watching the horrified reactions on everyone's faces as the specimen wafted along on its journey. Sorry, guys. Cheers, Jon

You'll be fine. I've had my share of layoffs. The last few were particularly interesting in that when I returned I was barely nervous; even when the door opened I was just taking in the sights. (This from a guy who took a long time getting past the "gear fear" thing due to a long, drawn-out student career.) You might want to consider a night big-way horny gorilla with borrowed gear for your first jump back, but it's not absolutely necessary. Have fun! Cheers, Jon

...Fascists? Maybe. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This word is thrown around a lot in political discussions. How is it defined? Jon

...I frequently run on the shore by moonlight. But I'll acknowledge that at some beaches you would have to park your vehicle outside of the beach lots past a given hour. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It's good to know that this can still happen. Don't get me wrong - We still offer more freedom than you'll find anywhere else, but we're going in the wrong direction. Jon

Married 13 & a half years; if we can make it another year we will have surpassed the length of my parent's marriage. Of course, my wife doesn't appreciate it when I point this out. I don't want "out", but that comment about "communication" was right on the money. Of course, now that we've "communicated". I'm waiting for some response. She seems to think that there's some virtue in maintaining her distance. I've not cheated (yet) but I have to admit there have been times where the only reason I haven't had to do with lack of opportunity. I understand why some guys can be tempted. It's tough to maintain loyalty when your wife tells you to go to a prostitute, or "find a 20 year-old." Ladies, please cut the crap. (This comment is not directed toward those of you who do not pull this crap on your man.) Cheers, Jon