DanG

That's pretty harsh. I doubt you know too many disabled people. I receive disability and can still work. Hell, I can still drive, type, even skydive. Am I gaming the system? Sucking it dry? Should I be cut off from disability compensation? Would it change your answer to know I lost my arm fighting in Afghanistan? I agree that someone who is faking an injury to get a check needs to be punished, but I don't think we should punish people with permanent disabilities for rising above and succeeding. Cutting people off from disability because they are able to work some Joe job just provides a disincentive for them to work at all. Of course, it sounds to me like you group severely disabled people in with all those lazy people who don't want to work and just want Obama to give them your tax money. I personally make more at work than I get from the VA, but I'll bet a lot of disabled vets don't. Oh well, fuck 'em. They knew what they were getting into when they signed up, right? - Dan G

Where did I say that? If you lose your voter registration card, you have to go get another one, just like you'd have to do if you lost your driver's license under the picture ID system. You still have to present an ID, it is just an ID directly tied to the voting system so there can be no claims that your info doesn't match up like we recently saw in Ohio. In fact, if the state wanted to put pictures on the voter registration card and could come up with a way to do it without adding bars to registration (such as fees, arbitrary photo requirements, need for mailing address, etc.) then I'd be all for it. They can't, so I'm not. Huh? I specifically said that I would take a registration as ID if it was created for that purpose and matched a roll of eligible check writers. Much like a voter registration card. I'm not advocating legalization of voter fraud. I'm saying that making legal voters jump through more hoops is not the answer. Even without the need for a picture ID, voter fraud is illegal. No one, and I mean no one, is advocating changing that. And it is really, REALLY easy to disenfranchise people by adding more and more unnecessary requirements to the voting system. That's what this debate is really about: is it better to make it a little easier for a couple people to vote twice, or to prevent a lot of people from voting at all. I choose the former. Apparently, you choose the later. - Dan G

I guess not. Neither does a utility bill. Sure. Are you implying that someone else might find it and vote in your name? I suppose that is possible. In the grand sceme of things, it would be pretty hard to influence the outcome of an election by going around looking for lost voter registration cards. It would be a lot easier just to deny those cards to certain people in the first place. Totally and completely irrelevant. If I issued people "Dan G Check Writing Registration Cards" then yes, I would take it as ID for someone writing me a check. Since I do not, I do not. Why? Apparently you are concerned with widespread voter fraud from people claiming they are someone else. It just doesn't happen. The risk is too great for the reward. On the other hand, restricting access to the roll by a political party can have great reward with essentially no risk. - Dan G

I think you are mixing up different issues, but I'll respond to each. Convicted felon: many states reinstitude a felon's right to vote after they've served their time. I completely agree with this and think it should be mandatory nationwide. If someone has paid their debt to society, they should be allowed to fully re-enter society. Residency: Agree that you should cast your vote where you reside. Registration: You tellingly write that people need to be "properly" registered. I agree that there needs to be a roll of eligible voters, but when access to that roll is controlled by people with an agenda, you have problems. I think this is the crux of the argument. I think that "properly" registered means you filled out the form truthfully and meet the very basic requirements. It should not mean that you have access to utilities, have paid for a driver's license, have no spelling errors or typos on any legal documents, or have recently moved and the DMV database has not been updated. ID: Right. Your free voter registration card is a great example of a simple ID. Somehow I bet you want more. I disagree about the requirement to provide a government issued picture ID on election day. Screening for eligibility should be done during registration and the proper roll created. Denying someone their vote because of absence of, or mistakes on, a non-voting related document is unfair. - Dan G

And there's your problem. Who decides if an individual has that capacity? The right to vote is fundamental. If someone is a US citizen, that right should not be denied regardless of perceived mental capacity, financial situation, or past history. The fact that we are even debating this means that the founding principle of democracy is at risk. Cool. I did serve in the military. How many more votes than you should I get? That was sarcasm. My point it, there is no such thing as, "more of a right." The right is absolute. Either you have it (are an 18 year old citizen) or you don't. Period. - Dan G

For those that didn't bother to click the link, here is a little more to the story, in fact the lines directly after where the OP chose to cut: - Dan G

Are they US citizens? Then FUCKING YES! I truly fear for the future of democracy after I read some of the stuff people here post. Let me ask you this (semi-)rhetorical question: should homeless Vietnam vets get to vote? I mean, they sleep on grates and have PTSD, are those really the people we want choosing our leaders? indeed. - Dan G

Our students don't even know what "AFF" is in terms of the old 7 levels and then start flailing. We teach them from the beginning that there are Categories A-H and you have to fill out the whole yellow card before you are done with the student program. Sure, some take a long time to get the less fun stuff (like packing and quizes) signed off, but I don't know of any who think they're done after 7 jumps. We do acknowledge the transition to self-supervision (at the end of traditional AFF), but don't make such a big deal about it that anyone stops trying to crank out the card. - Dan G

Touche, good sir. - Dan G

Yes it is - Dan G

At Skydive Orange, when the clothing comes off, the cameras go away. An easy way to get yourself persona non grata status to to reduce the numbers of boobies on the DZ by being skeevy. - Dan G

Tim McVey was convicted in a court of law. Also, you forgot to add in the part where McVey becomes an education reformer, is named a Chicagoan of the Year, and does his work on bi-partisan boards funded by prominent Republicans. Otherwise, I agree, not much difference, assuming Ayers was actually a bomber. I would dispute, however, your characterisation of Obama's relatioship with Ayers, especially the part about launching his political career in Ayer's house. No fan of Ayers, but this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. - Dan G

Informed participation that used multiple sources outside talking points and resources from a multitude of equally viable sides is ideal. Final fix. - Dan G

I'm not sure it is deflection so much as the realization (resignation?) that we only have two choices. Let's say you go with your wife to the car dealer and he says, "I have two cars, the green one and the gray one. The green one gets 10mpg and takes 20 secs to get to 60 mph. The gray one gets 11 mpg and takes 19 sec to get to 60mph. Which one do you want?" In debating with your wife about which to buy, a perfectly valid response to her complaint about the low gas milage of the green one is that the gray one is slower, so therefore also less desireable. Is it deflection? Yes, technically, but that doesn't make it any less useful to the debate. If you had 100 choices, it might be less useful to point out the flaws of car #78 when she is talking about car #33. We don't get 100 choices, our choice is binary, so binary comparisons are useful. - Dan G

Exactly. - Dan G

I think that it is a good thing as long as it is voluntary and uncoerced. I think it is impossible to be fully informed in this day and age, there are just too many issues and too much information out there. I also think it is impossible to be fully uninformed, at least in the US. I assisted with the first national elections in Afghanistan in 2004 (on the security side), and while there was quite a large amount of participation, it is arguable whether it was "informed". In a country where the illiteracy rate is around 75% can you really call the electorate "informed"? Most villages voted for the candidates their local mullah told them to vote for. Their only regular source of information was the mosque. On the other hand, I doubt many people would argue that having elections there is a waste of time. I stand by my believe that any participation is good, but informed participation even better. - Dan G

Yep, participation is a good thing. Yep, Informed participation is a better thing. Fixed it for YOU. - Dan G

Actually, I think the TSA and DHS have a rather brilliant master plan. They will make air travel so unbearable that only terrorists will fly. Then just round 'em up! In serious response to your question, I think a lot of what the TSA does is react to the last (supposed) threat rather that anticipate the next, or most probable, threat. This is completely natural and understandable, but it leads to more and more regulations which in reality have little effect on actual airline safety. No one wants to be the guy that was too lax, so they take the easy route and keep piling more rules on. Furthermore, there is a disconnect between the negative consequences of overblown security (fewer travellers) and the rules promulgating authority. In other words, the market system fails to correct when the TSA goes too far. When the airlines start charging peeople for water, the get the market bitch slap. When the TSA starts making everyone take off their shoes, the get rewarded with larger budgets. Everyone with any sense knows that airport seurity is a joke, but the only way that will change is by someone at the top having the balls to call a spade a spade. That will probably never happen. - Dan G

You said: Perhaps I don't get your point, but it seems to me that all you are saying is that Biden is wrong when he asserts that outside difficulties will lead to unpopular choices, which will lead to lower polling numbers. Do I have it? If so, can you now explain why you think that is wrong? - Dan G

I commend you for having the balls to reply to a nerdgirl post. You failed, however, to address any of her points. The speech made by Biden was his prediction that no leader will be able to get the US out of our current problems and still maintain high popularity. I happen to agree. He also believes that Obama has what it takes to get the country going in the right direction. I also agree with that assessment. You clearly disagree, but fail to explain why. Please offer your opinion on why McCain could avoid the pitfalls that Biden is predicting. - Dan G

There are 25 million small businesses in the US? That would imply that one in every twelve people (including children and retired people) own their own business. Source, please? - Dan G

Yeah, like if he were to dump her and pick Colin Powell... Oh, nevermind. - Dan G

In general, I agree. However, I disagree that one's reaction upon realizing an imminent collision should be dodging to one side or the other. We teach canopy pilots to make small turns to one side or the oher to avoid last minute obstacles, so you may end up juking left just as the pilot jukes left, too. If you think someeone is going to hit you, drop to the ground in place, brace for impact, and cover your head. Chances are they'll either go around you, or go over you. Leaving your helmet on until you get out of the landing area might be a good idea, too. - Dan G

erdarob, you give good advice. What I think you are missing is that in the OP it is presumed that we are already flying around and line twists develop. This means that the brakes are already unstowed and, in the most common cause for low line twists, one is probably pulled down much more than the other. In this case, it is unlikely that your parachute will be flying flat and level. Letting up on both toggles may allow your canopy to return to straight flight, but it may not. All jumpers should have two hards decks. One is the altitude where they need to get a functioning parachute over their head, and will release a malfunctioing main. Many people choose something around 2,000 feet for this first hard deck. The second hard deck is where you will not cutaway what you have, even if it isn't working, and instead try to get as much fabric out as possible. Many people choose 1000 feet as this no-cutaway-below altitude. At 1500 feet with self-induced or collision induced line twist I would cutaway and pull silver as fast as possible (assuming no entanglement or wrap). I also choose to jump with an RSL on one rig, and a Skyhook on the other. I hope that using those devices will increase my probability of getting a reserve out fast in such a situation. - Dan G

Do you think NPR shows a liberal bias? Honest question. I don't think they do, but I'm curious as to your perception. - Dan G