lifewithoutanet

Touche`. Good point. You got me there. Something brought the officer(s) there. Whether s/he witnessed it or was called by some "nosey onlooker", keeping the peace is his/her job. And I never said 'criminal investigation'. I simply said 'investigation': a detailed inquiry or examination. Let's say, hypothetically, that you and I are in a bar...scratch that, bad example. We're somewhere public and we get into an argument. To any onlooker who doesn't know us, this could be one of a few things. We could be friends in an argument that will amount to nothing or we could be two strangers about to start throwing punches. We'll keep it at those two hypothetical outcomes for now. A cop witnesses this and walks over to check things out. Would you expect him/her not to? If they stood back and waited for something more to happen, you could argue after the fact that they could have intervened. You can armchair quarterback it all you want, but looking into a scene that seems volatile, as it's happening, you don't know what relation any two people hold with each other. Walking up to the situation a "What's going on here?" wouldn't necessarily serve to diffuse it. Both parties are going to want to tell their sides. "What's your name?", on the other hand, is a simple question that serves to interrupt the argument and doesn't offer the chance for either to continue arguing. Seems like a good tactic to me. If he never resisted arrest and cooperated fully, then I don't understand what crime he was guilty of, either. I don't know what led to his daughter being thrown to the ground and arrested nor why she wasn't convicted. But, the case in front of the Supreme Court is billed as a privacy issue, not false arrest or wrongful detention. The police had cause to determine what was going on there and Hiibel's decision to not identify himself could easily be interpreted as suspicious, not to mention a bit unreasonable. -C.

"Christ in a sidecar." To anything in particular. And a recent favorite from last weekend at the DZ, though not one I can claim for myself... "See, this is why it's not as dangerous as they say it is." -C.

This is part of what I'm getting at. It's counter-productive to universally subscribe to one particular side of an issue. There are circumstances in which a policy or position, while 'right' in one instance will be 'wrong' in another. In Hiibel's case, it's perfectly within his right to remain silent, but what are his next choices of action? Law enforcement was brought to the scene somehow and has an obligation by their sworn duty to investigate matters that have been brought to their attention. Hiibel could "lawyer up" and demand an attorney. Does that require that he be first taken into custody? If so, what choice does law enforcement have but charge him with something? I don't know the whole of the circumstances, but if I were a cop and was dispatched to the scene of an argument between an older man and a younger girl, I'd act on the side of caution and do a little bit of investigating to see what's going on. If a cop simply walked up to Hiibel and said "What is your name?", sure, he's got a right to refuse, but we need to look at the circumstances that led up to the question in the first place. In this case, the circumstances certainly seemed to warrant a few questions. This reminds me of something a more experienced jumper recently told me after I made a stupid decision on approach. "Stupid decisions are rarely spontaneous in nature. They're typically the result of a poor choice a few decisions back." We can dissect these issues and separate each step, one from another for singular, unrelated analysis...but doing so rarely paints an accurate portrait of a sequence of events. Basically, pick your battles wisely. Some don't need to be fought. -C.

One broad, generalist statement deserves another...or two... "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Without the former, there can be none of the latter. I will not sit idle under the premise that a terrorist can attempt to kill me, but damned if someone tries to look in my backpack. -C.

Random stops of cars? Seems impractical to me. Shopping malls? That, too. For now, at least. You are right...we are damn close to a slippery slope here and soon the danger is going to slide elsewhere. Terrorists seem fixated on our airlines, but how long is that going to last? When will the threat move to another area at which we're more vulnerable? When we've secured our planes to the point that they become impractical targets, they'll find another place to target us. Compromises must be made in order to mediate terrorist threats, but neither side is willing to budge. Compromising civil liberties could lead, as Unformed warned, to regressive change and a decline of the liberties this nation was founded on. Not compromising leads to vulnerabilities which open us up to possible attacks. What are we willing to sacrifice? Liberties or victims? The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack, overall, are slim enough that most people take the familiar position of "It won't happen to *me*." This is different for people in areas such as NYC or DC. Fact is, there's a *me* out there that it will happen to. How do we go about mitigating that risk? -C. Edited to add: Well, the only rig I could see myself carrying on a subway is a BASE rig, unless you know of a downtown DZ. Those don't have reserves and I don't BASE, so I guess, personally, "That won't happen to *me*".

Hey, Unformed. I don't think we've met. You're infering a little too far into my opinion on this. Incorrectly, I might add. Maybe I didn't elaborate enough. *When* they attempt to institute random search or siezure on the streets (and I, too, believe *they* at some point will), I will have a serious problem w/ it, but with context. In a broader view of scrutinizing or subjecting citizens to random search, I'm against it. However, if the time comes where we're living in absolute fear of suicide bombers on buses, in cafes, movie theatre's or malls--like present-day Isreal--I can see my stance on this changing somewhat. The question then will be, "too little/too late?". -C.

Okay, I see your point... However, the alternative to this is a security checkpoint at the turnstiles, upon entering the stations. It's a mass-mode of transportation, not unlike an airplane. We're not talking about them stopping random people on a street. So, while I see your point, I think the differentiator is that once you're in the train system, you're subject to search as a reasonable means of deterence of terrorist actions. If it were to spill over to the streets, I'd agree that it would be stepping over a line. Just my take on it. -C.

Whatever you do, don't look over your shoulder... -C.

You just reminded me of an incident at my house a little over a year ago. It was before I'd adopted my dogs, but my roommate at that time had a three-year-old German Sheppard that was a total spaz. This one night, I start cooking up a homemade tomato sauce. It's full of proscuitto, lean ground beef, portobello mushrooms, basil, and an assortment of other ingredients. It was in one of those HUGE pots...the type Glen Close could've boiled a family of rabbits in. So, it's simmering on the stove and a friend calls to see if I want to go grab a pint or few. I turn the stove off and go out. It's covered, the sauce takes a few hours to cook, but it's best to be home when the burner is on. I get home a couple of hours later and walk in to find a white tile floor COVERD in a thin film of red sauce and a dog whose jowls are stained red as if she'd just taken down a zebra. The damn dog consumed what must have been several liters of tomato sauce. So, yeah...tomato sauce is a bitch to clean...yes, even much more than dry ice. -C.

Why worry? They'll just evaporate over time. Edited to add: I'm an idiot. I read that as "dry ICE". Someone needs a cup of coffee and I'm betting that that someone is ME. -C.

Losing people who are very close to me, friends or family alike, and being powerless to do anything about it. -C.

You got it. Wonder when Ritchie is going to come out w/ a third. Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels kicked ass. Snatch followed well in suit. Along those lines, if you can ever find the movie Croupier, check it out. Tough to find it to rent, but Barnes & Noble has it. -->Croupier -C.

My friend, if we're really trying to dispose of a body, I'd say we have a bigger problem than not having a pig-farm within a convenient distance. It's from a movie...hence "give it a name"... -C.

You're always gonna have problems lifting a body in one piece. Apparently, the best thing to do is cut up a corpse into six pieces and pile it all together. Then when you got your six pieces, you gotta get rid of them, because there's no good in leaving it in a deep freeze for your mum to discover now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do is feed them to pigs. You gotta starve the pigs for a few days then the sight of a chopped up body would look like curry to a pissant. You gotta shave the head of your victim and pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggy's digestion. You could do this afterwards of course but you don't wanna go sifting through pig shit now do ya? They will go through bone like butter. You need at least sixteen pigs to do the job in one sitting so be weary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs two-hundred pounds in about...eight minutes. That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of un-cooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression: "as greedy as a pig." Give it a name... -C.

Well, yeah, there was definitely some humor in it... The Ashcroft bit. The "Have's and Have More's"... While continuously missing the point? Can you clarify? I'm not sure I really get the point, other than sensationalist, yellow *journalism* (and I use *journalism* lightly). Is the point of Moore's film to entertain? I can see it might have some value there. Or is his point to "open the eyes of the public" as he so often states. My eyes, Mr. Moore, are wide open. Subject matter aside (read: not being a Bush apologist), what I see is a Hollywood wannabe in the advantageous position of not making himself vulnerable by taking responsibility for his own actions (inflamatory, sensationalist *journalism*), content to blame others while providing little value beyond entertainment, all the while hiding behind a 'stance', basking in the notoriety of the press (who, themselves, are in the business of selling the news) and some Hollywood insiders. His actions come off more like 'antics' to me. Not directing this rant at you, Andy. Genuinely curious as to what value the film actually will provide and what others' opinions are on it. Cheers, -C.

Additionally, Chuck Norris is supposed to be jumping w/ him. Norris was at Perris last weekend. Apparently, if he's to jump w/ or around the former pres, he's gotta go tandem. So, this past weekend he came out and did a one so he wouldn't "look like a complete newbie". Something like that, at least Didn't meet the guy, but watched a lot of people walk up to him. Each and every time he stuck his hand right out to shake hands and appeared to be pretty excited to be there. -C.

Tank commander, going ashore at Omaha...I think. I'd have to check w/ my dad. My grandfather doesn't talk about The War at all. At least, not about his experience. -C.

I'm gonna regret responding to this, but... I didn't find Moore's trailer too invigorating or awe-inspiring. In fact, I found it, well, stating the obvious... The clips of businessmen looking to make a profit...hmmmm, isn't that what business is about? Would you prefer socialism, Mr. Moore? Pressuring congressmen to enlist their kids into service in Iraq...it *is* a volunteer armed forces. They chose not to volunteer. I'm being somewhat light-hearted (or attempting to be so) in the examples above, but the one part that struck a nerve was the part about the US government "secretly whisking" members of the Bin Laden family out of the country immediately following the the 9/11 attacks. So, let's see...our government decides to protect the alienated family members of Bin Laden, lest they face repercussions from an act perpetrated by someone tied to them by blood? Those bastards. Certainly, if we hadn't gotten them out of the country and they'd become the focus of death threats or even been attacked for their relationship to Bin Laden, he'd be slamming the same administration for not having done anything to prevent it. This is not a complete answer and I'm not looking to ignite a fire. I just fail to see the hype in all this. -C.

I've traveled w/ my rig numerous times already and the most scrutiny I've faced has been from other passengers. I've gotten some interesting looks. The "What? Didn't you get one?" is a fun response when people ask if that really is what they think it is. TSA officials--in all of my experiences--appear to have been well-trained. They'll swab it and probably ask questions. The most popular of which is, "Do you do that...like...jumping off of buildings and stuff?" My advice would be to follow what others have said here. The primary concern is the security of your rigs, so carry them on, but pack the other essentials in checked baggage. After all, suits and other gear are much more easily (and more affordably) replaced. Still, chances of them actually losing anything are relatively slim. As for "Flying Arab" being stitched on your gear...I'd hate to think that that is something that may raise a flag, but I understand what you're saying. Any chance in having someone sew up a sleeve that can cover up the stitching (velcro, maybe?). This is assuming that the stitching is on the shoulders. One other thing...if you get asked anything about your AAD. It is not a "charge", "pyrotechnic", and god-forbid not an "explosive device". You get what I'm saying here. Keep the answer simple. "It cuts a line that deploys my reserve." I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. In any case, safe, uneventful travels. -C.

97 and counting w/ no reserve rides. Incidentally, one of my AFF instructors back in Colorado was telling me about his first reserve ride. He's got something in the range of 6-7k jumps and just had his first cutaway w/ a tandem a few weeks back. That's what I'm shooting for, too. -C.

0:8:0 Mixed a few sits w/ some RW. Funneled a 7 way when I took center only to spin wildly through and out the other side. Two tracking dives at the end of the day. One stellar; one not so stellar. Had hoped to hit the big 1-0-0, but I guess that will be next weekend. -C.

Shit...I haven't been here even HALF a year, yet, and I can already vouch for this one! -C.

Discussion is ongoing over here, guys: Incidents Forum -C.

No shit...really? (attachment) -C.

Well, I'm not a nutritionist, so I can't speak as an expert, but here's how it works... Glucose (either straight glucose or a glucose polymer) is a simple carbohydrate that is broken-down and absorbed into the bloodstream while in the intestines. So, if it were to sit in your stomach for a while before entering your intestines, it's not doing much for you, at least not as rapidly as you'd like. -C.