muff528

I think they have a Fatherland. It's the Russians who have a Motherland.

My guess is that you looked a bit familiar to him in the website pics but he just couldn't place you, so he just shrugged off the slight feeling of deja vu. ...then he saw you in person and it all suddenly clicked. Maybe a specific mannerism or expression. He realizes that you're the girl who works with his wife! You know her but not him. He knows you only by sight, when picking his wife up, etc. You don't know her well ...only through casual day to day interactions. You do speak to each other, if only with polite, trivial banter. but you've never met her husband. Now, through a chance click on a website, you have! He's probably hoping that you didn't get a really good look at him and will forget the whole thing ever happened. ....or he's just a jackass.

If an oppressive country is generating refugees who are fleeing that oppression and entering into the US as refugees, then the State Dept. solution has already failed. That leaves the Defense Dept. solution (which, I assume you are advocating) ...or the Treasury Dept. solution. I think we should use embargo and trade sanctions before war when possible. Using your example, I don't think refugees are fleeing oppression in the US and traveling to Finland (or anywhere else). Maybe a few emigrants, or even emigres are traveling there, but not refugees. If Finland has a "country-to-country" issue with our foreign policy or with any acts by our country that does not directly involve their nation (to the point that they are refusing immigrants from the US), I'd think that that is a job for a competent diplomacy. That's what the State Dept. is for. An example in the opposite direction would be our looking beyond China's (or Iran's ...or even Saudi Arabia's) human rights violations to the point that we don't even bring those travesties up when negotiating our relationships with those countries.

I have his autograph. I met him at a restaurant in Texas '66 or so. He was having breakfast at the same place as my Cub Scout group. Our den leader knew him and took us over to meet him. I always thought it would be cool to meet him and ask about that fly-by. I have a copy of the newsletter article and would have liked to have gotten an autograph on it. IIRC - the article mentioned that he had been a student at Bartow Air Base. My dad worked there during the 50's until 1960. He worked for a couple of civilian companies that provided flight training and maintenance for the Air Force during that time. Ran across the article I mentioned.

Yes ...and no: YES - We might "designate" Mexico a refugee "producer" and treat them as such. And, as such, we would not allow refugees to return, send money, or travel in Mexico, until the Government of Mexico seriously addressed the problem. The nature of our relationship with Mexico should reflect their status until they change their behavior. ...like Cuba! --oh wait, bad example! NO - as things are at this time, Mexicans are free to travel back and forth like tourists, whether they are illegal immigrants or US citizens. As a single example, I have a relative who at first was an illegal alien, residing in this country and who is now a naturalized citizen. He and his family traveled either way, without fear and without problems, before and after he became a US citizen. Not just to TJ or Juarez, his family is way down near Mex City. ...and family down there are not in any hurry to move from there. I'm pretty sure that there are not many refugees fleeing the US for Finland. Other problems they may have with us can be settled through either the State Department or the Defense Department.

By "oppressed" country (oppressive?) are we talking about Mexico? Cuba? Virginia? UK? Nigeria? A Middle Eastern or European country? I think we should accept refugees from any county if they are fleeing "oppression". I also think that if we officially confer "refugee" status, the "offending" country should be subject to sanctions and be forced to pay reparations to us or any other country that accepts their refugees. Also, illegal immigrants are not necessarily refugees, but if they are given "refugee" status it should ..uh, trump, any "immigrant" status they might have...officially, that is. Otherwise, enter legally and follow our rules.

No need for a union? Most folks? I bet you are not fully informed. Instructors should just be happy that they get free jumps and a line of BS to pick up chickies after the beer light comes on ...or versie vica as the case may be.

Have you tried ipconfig /release and then ipconfig /renew at a DOS command line when the problem occurs?

No need. Unless things have changed in the past few years, most folks working for the skydiving industry are very well paid with full benefits, retirement packages, job security and paid holidays.

Yes, of course. A sunny beech.

For the US, I think we'd have to go with "boarders". is there a fairly clear defination of boarders? isn't it the lyne that dafines the edje of a land masse? No, that's called a "beach". Maybe "seastrand" if you're old enough and from the old country.

If necessary.

For the US, I think we'd have to go with "boarders".

So it would be ok if the Feds had changed it, but not ok that the Feds have changed it? Or it would be OK if your "the Feds" changed it but not that his "the Feds" changed it? Ok Lewis Carroll.... OK. The US Board of Geographic Names (BGN) is usually in charge of naming geographic sites.. On their website they state that they have never had such opposition to their efforts as with the Denali/McKinley name-change, and also that “The 38-year impasse between the BGN and Congress was unique in BGN history...". So, after a little further research, I can see where there might be an argument for intervention by the President, although I still do not agree with the necessity of intervention in such things. Keeping with my position on the issue, the mountain will be named what it will be and I'll go along with it. I disagree with the premise that the name must be "Denali" simply because that was the "original" name, which most likely it was not. (which was my original point ...period). I agree with earlier posters that "Denali" is the cooler name. That is a probably a better, more valid, reason to change it. I also do not believe that the intervention by the Secretary was not "suggested" by the President to punctuate his upcoming visit. I believe it happened now for political punch and was orchestrated as such. Not an uncommon thing at all. No one has to agree with that. Outtatime

It doesn't! I didn't make it a political issue. The Administration did by effecting the name change to coincide with his visit. You are continuing the politicization of th issue by referencing the Salon snippet. Why would the Salon writer be surprised at Palin's reference to "Denali" and go on to mention "offhandedly" her "resgning halfway..." if (s)he didn't think it was, or try to make it, a political issue? I am neither "for" nor "against' the change. The most that can be said about my position is that I may be leaning toward the possibility that I might be trying to maybe make a case for the idea that the "most valid" name for the mountain may possibly be "McKinley" ....but, maybe not. That's it!

That right there is funny. At no point in any of my posts did I say anything other than remark about the name of the mountain and whether or not a name may or may not be "valid". (My opinion ...any name is valid. The mountain is like the honey badger ...it don't care.) The only reference to President Obama, a tangential one at that, was later, and only in describing how "the change" is taking place ...and then, only in response to a direct attack on my opinion. And I think I'm pretty accurate in that regard. You might disagree with that, but tell me the alternate process that might have taken place and I might be persuaded differently. BTW - I did say that ALL presidents do this type of thing. That would include Bush as well as Obama. I don't have to like it from any of them.

You got that right! BS It hadn't been done earlier BECAUSE it was "edict-free".

You realize your post makes no sense, right? "If the Feds wanted to call it Denali it would have already been done..." implies that it is only a problem because it is happening now. What is it about the timing that is a problem? "...without needing an edict handed down from on high." What edict are you talking about? Just because Obama made the annoucement doesn't make it an edict. The change was made by the Interior Department. The President just announced it. It was not an edict. This whole thing is just a raging case of ODS. The Department of the Interior is a cabinet-level agency. Its secretary gets marching orders, especially politically motivated/charged marching orders, directly from the President. This is purely a political move ahead of his visit. All President's do this sort of nonsense, not just Obama. No ODS needed here ...it is just what is happening. You said the "Feds want to call it Denali". I said "If the Feds wanted to call it Denali it would have already been done ...". Turns out that it did take an edict by these particular Feds to get it done ...or, like I said, it would have already been done. Doesn't matter anyway, my whole point is being missed, and it really has nothing, whatsoever, to do with Pres. Obama, the Feds, or anyone else ...only the name or naming of the mountain, itself. I've decided that I'm going to start calling it "Mt. Outofamolehill".

Um, that's what's happening. The Feds want to call it Denali. What's the problem? Well, Alaska has been trying to change it since 1975. They should just change it and let everyone else argue over what to call it. If the Feds wanted to call it Denali it would have already been done without needing an edict handed down from on high. ...and we seem to have 3 pages in SC dedicated to "the problem".

Why doesn't Alaska just start calling it Denali. The Federal Government (and anyone else) can call it whatever the hell they want to call it. Oh, wait! ...the Feds would prolly just strong-arm the State by withholding funds to pay park rangers and "Don't Feed the Bears" signs, and such.

In an effort to clear up any confusion, I have decided to keep a "Mountain Name Registry". I will compile and keep an "official" list, and for a small, nominal fee, registrants will be able to name their favorite peaks for all time. No submitted names will be subject to censorship of any kind! Be assured that your registration fee will only cover administrative and marketing costs, create and maintain a legal defense fund, provide for my personal eating/drinking habits & hobbies, etc. You will be issued an official certificate from the Mountain Name Registry entitling you to use that name in any references you may make concerning that mountain. First come, first served ...But don't fret! If someone beats you to naming your peak , I will, for a slightly discounted amount, include your chosen name as an "official" alternate name. AND! ...the number of alternate names permitted to be registered will be UNLIMITED! Somewhat smaller certificates will be issued to these registrants, so please try to keep the length of the names short enough to fit on a postcard-sized certificate in 24-pt type. (Please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope, or at least a stamp.) Watch for future name Registries for other geological sites including valleys, rivers, outcroppings, sinkholes, beaches, and many more! All currencies accepted.

That's no excuse. But, I suppose any old "First Nations" name, even if it's not the very first "First Nations" name, is better than naming it after a Scot. ...especially since the whole hemisphere is named after an Italian. And "Denali" does seem to have an Italian "ring" to it.

That's no excuse. But, I suppose any old "First Nations" name, even if it's not the very first "First Nations" name, is better than naming it after a Scot. ...especially since the whole hemisphere is named after an Italian. And "Denali" does seem to have an Italian "ring" to it.

I don't care whether we call it Denali or McKinley or some other name. But, before we spend a wad of money replacing maps, textbooks, brochures, souvenirs, etc., are we sure that this is the original aboriginal name for this hill? http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mount-mckinley-denali-20150204-story.html Well Hell! .. if Sen Sullivan and the LA Times say so, that's good enough for me!

I don't care whether we call it Denali or McKinley or some other name. But, before we spend a wad of money replacing maps, textbooks, brochures, souvenirs, etc., are we sure that this is the original aboriginal name for this hill?