BigWaveDave

Quote

Who are you, where did you jump before, where are you jumping now?

David, Zephyrhills (skydive city) on both...

Thanks guys...

@popsjumper... Yup, always has been. Where do you normally jump?

Hello all!!! Just made my first jumps after 7 years out of the sport. Unfortunately, life just got in the way, but now nothing's holding me back. Damn it's good to be back...

Blue skies...

Does having a liquid lunch count?

OMG...that's one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

And here I thought (when I first opened the thread), that this was about LOTR or something...

Quote

Personally, I like Ireland's policy...

one drink, or one pint, you're considered legally drunk, and therefore shouldn't drive.

I completely support people's right to drink. I do not believe one has a right to drink and drive. Just from personal experience, I'm buzzed after half a beer. Legally, my blood alcohol level is WAY below the legal limit. Would I be safe on the road: NOPE. and I have enough sense to realize that.

The problem lies in people believing they are capable of driving when they aren't, and I've taken keys away from a good many people in that situation.

Drink. Use whatever substances you choose. Just don't get behind the wheel of a car when you do it. There are plenty of people willing to come pick you up. If you're a college student, most campuses have a program where you can call the campus security and they will come get you and drive you back to your dorm room, no questions asked.

The problem though, is that this goes way beyond drinking and driving. A man’s “castle” is no longer safe, and neither is his tavern. It will probably surprise you to learn that “you can’t be drunk in a bar.” So says Fairfax County (VA) Police Chief J. Thomas Manger. He claims that public intoxication is an offense worthy of arrest, and a tavern is a public place. This January, officers burst into Northern Virginia bars in search of intoxicated patrons. Anyone registering over .08% BAC — the state’s legal limit for driving — was subject to arrest. Bar-goers with that unlucky fate “would be transported to an adult detention center until they sobered up.”

Here’s The Washington Post with one woman’s story: “as the designated driver in her dinner party, Pat Habib was careful to consume no more than one alcoholic drink and follow it up with two sodas. So she was shocked when a police officer singled her out of the crowd at Jimmy’s Old Town Tavern in Herndon and asked her to step outside to prove her sobriety.” That’s right. The police forced her to prove she was sober — in a bar. Among the tactics they used to tell who might be drunk: “frequent trips to the bathroom.”

You’d think law enforcement would have something better to do than play hall monitor. They insist that their policy of harassing social drinkers is “proactive,” and claim to be targeting “the root causes of alcohol-related deaths.” In other words, they’re subjecting people to arrest for what they might do. As former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) noted in the wake of the raids, The Department of Precrime in the Tom Cruise film Minority Report was supposed to be fictional. Unfortunately, when it comes to the zeal of anti-alcohol forces, it seems that nothing is off limits.

Great job on the helmet. Its amazing what a little paint job can do.

Now I feel like a dumbass for blowing $300 on a helmet.

Quote

What if this firemen blows off some steam and has a .04 BAC when stopped at a checkpoint. 45 years-old, 20 year veteran, 3 kids, a wife and a house. No priors, maybe had 2 beers after work where he dealt with the grief of pulling a charred child out of a burning house. A pretty rough day made rougher by the new law stating .02 is the limit.

He's a drunk driver now. I'd defend him. This man should be put back into the community ASAP.

Everyday upstanding citizens are those usually pinched for DUI. THey are more useful out of jail than in.

Great example.

Quote

I agree 100% w/ you benny! Fine, make it 0 tolerance, drink & you don't drive. I also agree w/ unstable in that drunk drivers should have much more harsh penaltys for breaking the law.

It is almost rediculous to think that there would ever be a prohibition era again... never know though. But I thought we were fighting the muslims so they could drink too... ()

In response to you though Dave

Quote

Is that number suitable justification for the mass hysteria sweeping the nation?

No, but I hadn't noticed any mass hysteria anyway.

Quote

Does it justify the one and half million arrests for drinking and driving each year?

hell yah, even if there were only one person killed each year by a drunk driver, the rest of them should lose their license

You're absolutely right, one death is too much, and people who habitually drive drunk should lose their license. BUT, these measures to lower the BAC threshold do little to deter the problem. You see, hard drinkers are the ones who cause most of the accidents. Its akin to lowering the speed limit from 65 to 50 in order to catch people who regularly drive 100 mph. The "new criminals" aren't the problem, and targeting them diverts valuable resources form catching the people who are.

The reason why there are more drunk driving arrests every year is because they keep redefining what "drunk" is. Add that to the fact that there is a mountain of evidence supporting the fact that a .08 BAC does not impair you that much. The NHTSA, along with MADD, keeps pushing for a lower BAC limit, and the NHTSA had issued some studies supporting it. The GAO took them to task, saying "The evidence does not conclusively establish that .08 BAC laws by themselves result in reductions in the number and severity of crashes involving alcohol. ...NHTSA's position-that the evidence was conclusive-was overstated."

In fact the GAO found that the NHTSA suppressed its own studies that did not support the lower BAC threshold.

Quote

I'm right there with ya Dave. The answer for people in the US, when it comes to alcohol, other drugs, or even gay sex, has too long been prohibition. And as a consequence, we have seen all of these activities take place under dangerous circumstances. MADD should not be attempting to prohibit or even reduce drinking. Drinking will take place even if we have to return to moonshine stills. The answer if to truly provide readily available and viable alternatives for people to travel safely after having consumed intoxicating substances.

You're right. We should also focus more on rehabilitation. Organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous do a great job at this.

Hey, Optimus Prime was a badass robot!

But you gotta admit Megatron was the shit.

Cool punishment, definitely unique.

One more thing…,


MADD president Wendy Hamilton in a Reuters article just prior to the July 4, (2003) weekend: "Last year, 18,000 people were killed in drunk driving crashes." This not true, however. MADD twists the facts to benefit their cause. This statistic is actually alcohol related fatalities, and is compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Here’s how the NHTSA comes up with this figure:

1) A measurable amount of alcohol means anything above .00 percent, up to and including a sip of beer or cough medicine.

2) Drivers impaired by drugs, be it aspirin, cough syrup, crack or heroin, are often counted as drunk drivers.

3) If a pedestrian is involved and has a measurable amount of alcohol it is considered alcohol-related.

4) If the accident is a sober driver’s fault (i.e. a sober driver runs a red light and crashes into a driver who had a beer after work) it is alcohol-related.

5) If the residual presence of alcohol is found (an empty beer can) it is considered alcohol related, even if tests prove no one has any alcohol in their systems.

6) The NHTSA arbitrarily adds 9% to all the alcohol-related statistics it receives from the states. Why? Because they feel like it.

7) If a passenger has alcohol in his system, it is considered alcohol related.

8) To further inflate the numbers, The NHTSA just started using what they call the Multiple Imputation Method to inflate alcohol-related statistics even more. The method automatically assumes that anyone involved in an accident who was not tested for BAC (probably because they were obviously sober) could actually have been drunk, and the numbers are jacked up by a set percentage.

So lets say you are the designated driver for the night (ie: stone cold sober) and you drive your buddy home after he’s had a few beers. If a SOBER driver runs a red light and smashes into your car, and somebody dies, then its reported as an ALCOHOL RELATED FATALITY, courtesy of the alcohol in the PASSENGER’S system. Now we have another death caused by a drunk driver? According to MADD, yes.

Of course one death is too many. But instead of 18,000 drunk driving deaths per year, more accurate studies put the figure between 500-1000. Is that number suitable justification for the mass hysteria sweeping the nation? Does it justify the one and half million arrests for drinking and driving each year?

Another lie MADD likes to shill is they have no interest whatsoever in de facto prohibition of alcohol. Sift through the Official Position Statements page of their website, however, and you’ll think you’ve accidentally clicked into the Anti-Saloon League’s homepage. They have broadened the scope of their anti-alcohol crusade to include: higher taxes on alcohol, reducing access to alcohol for the community in general, prohibition of drinking while playing golf, banning alcoholic drinks from having fancy or fun labels, the ability to sue bars, liquor stores, breweries and distilleries for damages sustained from one of their customers, a ban of alco-pops, forcing bars to close earlier and uniformly, a ban on happy hours, the curtailing of beer ads on the air and banning them entirely from billboards, and etcetera.

None of which has anything to do with driving, unless you’re talking about golf carts. Making the roads safer is no longer their goal or function.

The Rise Of The Neo-Prohibitionist

Sorry for the long post…

Anyone who has known me for any length of time will know that I am an ardent libertarian. I dislike government intrusion on many of the liberties we Americans have enjoyed since the inception of our great nation. Over the last decade or two, there has been a movement to curb and/or wipe out the consumption of alcohol in our country. This is something that has been obvious to me for several years now as alcohol laws become more and more restrictive, and enforcement becomes more and more draconian. This is indicative of the long shadow cast across the American social landscape by those who think they know what's best, spiritually, morally, and corporally (sp?) for us.

If you critically read the MADD site, you'll soon see that this organization is at the head of the neo-prohibitionist movement. While I am not going to sit here and argue that drunk driving laws are a bad idea, it's fairly obvious that the sentiment against drunk driving is being perverted to drive a campaign against drinking altogether.

Here is a paper put out by the CATO institute regarding this very subject. It is a great, albeit long, read, but it details many of the ways our freedoms are being curtailed.

Back Door To Prohibition

If you don’t have the time to read the entirety of the CATO institute report, here are some important quotes and facts to back up this assertion.

• ”Once you’ve consumed your first drink, you’ve lost that ability to make a sound judgment.” --MADD Chapter President, Penny Wagner.

• A Backgrounder on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the largest and most influential of the many contemporary temperance organizations.

• “It’s time to get the country looking at the alcohol industry in exactly the same way we’re looking at tobacco…We’re 10 to 15 years behind the tobacco people, and we want to close that gap in the next year or two” –Anti-alcohol activist Sandy Golden

• “If .08% is good, .05% is better. That’s where we’re headed, it doesn’t mean that we should get there all at once. But ultimately it should be .02%." --Steve Simon, Chairman, Minnesota State DUI Task Force

• This is a good, well-referenced page.

• "We may wind up in this country going to zero tolerance, period." --U.S. Senator and MADD supporter Barbara Boxer

• "...if you are a 170 lb. male, you can drink four drinks on an empty stomach in the space of one hour and not exceed the limit. If you are a 137 lb. female, you can consume three drinks on an empty stomach in a one hour period before you reach the .08 BAC limit. MADD believes that .08 BAC is a generous definition of impairment and that level of alcohol consumption can hardly be characterized as social drinking." --Katherine P. Prescott, Former MADD President, testifying before the US Senate on 7 May 1997

• The Center For Science In The Public Interest in 1998 reminded the U.S. House Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America that "alcohol is a drug too."

• "We're not a Prohibitionist organization," (past Pennsylvania state chair Nancy) Oppedal said. "For those who drink, we encourage moderate consumption, which is one drink a day for women, and two for men. We're not after everybody." (Bigwavedave: What's the point of two drinks?) Are we facing a return to Prohibition? --Philidelphia Daily News, 7 April 2003.

• "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," said (Candy Lightner) MADD's founder. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." --"MADD Struggles to Remain Relevant." Washington Times, 6 August 2002.

A few Google searches will tell you everything you need to know. These people are out there, and their movement is real. It is well-funded and supported by powerful people. Be afraid, people. Be very afraid.

My first canopy is a Sabre (original) 170, slightly used with less than 100 jumps on it.

Executive Recruiter (Headhunter)

Quote

What do you mean "some pink" You have a pink rig my friend!

-OK

Hey Oren....where's the love bro?

You're right, I probably shouldn't care too much what the color is... The important thing is NO MORE RENTAL GEAR!!!!!!!!!!!

With all the support, maybe I'll be able to deal with having pink on the container after all.

Quote

Quote

You can be brutal,

Well, not really. The "no personal attacks" rule will still apply. I don't want to give anyone the chance to say something really mean about someone and then say, "but, I kid, I kiiiiddddd."

Fair enough....no mean personal attackes. But there's nothing wrong with some good natured ribbing.

Quote

I once ended a nearly two year relationship with a girl I had been dating in high school. I had tried to break up with her a couple times before and I didn't have to gumption (first gf) anyway this time I was for real and she told me that I left her driveway she was going to walk inside and kill herself. That's some whacked out crazy shit right there. Apparentally this happened to my brother and my dad on some of their ex's. Is it just my family or have any of you guys had this kind?

Hasn't really happened to me. I tend to avoid dating psychotic ones. Just my own rule of thumb really... But hey, to each their own, right?

I'm fairly new in the sport, but I've learned a few things about the skydiving community.

1) Its fairly tightnit (sp?)
2) Its like a big family, we all take care of eachother
3) and lastly, we all love to rip on eachother...

So in honor of the Friar Club's Roasts, you now have the chance to make fun of our fellow DZ.commers.

You can be brutal, you can be funny, you can be novel, anything. For the most part, what happens on this thread stays on this thread.

Now---remember this: A roast is supposed to be funny. If you make stupid jokes, you are the one who is going to look stupid, not me.

And lastly, don't be malicious. Let's keep this all in good fun.

Quote

Pink?... Pastel pink = Bad. Hot neon Pink = Badass color.


***

It USED to be hot pink but now it's almost pastel (sorry Dave, I couldn't resist )

Well...you've seen my rig. Does it make me look studly?

Never heard of him, but anyone who starts jumping at age 60 and gets in 2000 jumps by 75 has earned my respect.

There's always blue skies up in heaven.

Blue skies Wiley...

Hey...I'm all about personality!

Just be gentle with me, this will be my first visit to another dropzone besides Z-Hills...

Oh shit! Does that mean I have to buy beer?

Quote

Personally, I don't really car how bad someone fucks with me.

I will NEVER cheat on anyone again. Been there, done that, paid for it with my deepest emotions.

Instead, the second that I feel the urge of attraction toward someone else, I bring it up. That's right, I will tell them right to there face that I am getting physically attracted to other women now (in a way that I am tempted to talk to them). And I tell them that, to me, that means that there is a problem that needs to be fixed or the relation is going to have to end.

...of course, I say all of this with a great deal of charm.

That would have to be a whole lot of friggin' charm!