SivaGanesha

I was mainly referring to the dollar cost: http://threetrilliondollarwar.org/ Of course, bin Laden had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq. But he created an atmosphere of fear in which people thought 9/11 and Iraq were connected--and that fear nearly destroyed the US economically. Whether all this was bin Laden's original intent, I do not know. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Actually in dealing with cold (or hot) war with an established, recognized, entrenched power like China, I can see the arguments for secrecy. If the government has technological know-how that they don't want China to know about, I can see that a trial where such information is revealed would be a problem. But a terrorist isn't trying to win through technological superiority. Bin Laden nearly brought down a nuclear superpower with a few box cutters. A terrorist attempts to destroy innocent people through low tech techniques, fear, and secrecy. Reducing the atmosphere of secrecy and fear is the right approach in such a case. We need to distinguish between terrorists--who seem to seek only to destroy and don't care much if they destroy themselves in the process--and traditional enemies/opponents who may wish ill of us but still want their own countries to be strong. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

This is another part of the case I don't understand. If his alleged crimes were committed on British soil, what accounts for the British decision to extradite him but not prosecute him themselves? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

In one sense I don't think it is especially relevant whether this man is actually innocent or guilty. Secrecy was the wrong tool for the government/prosecution to use in either case. If guilty, he has been sentenced to only 15 years which is an unbelievably light sentence for the crimes he was accused of--and this light sentence was made possible given the government's apparent fear of confronting him with the evidence in open court. If innocent, it is a terrible travesty of justice. Either way the outcome is very wrong. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I guess the question is why the government feels that secrecy is a good weapon to use in dealing with terrorists. I would have no problem with amending the Constitution to allow more secrecy in dealing with terrorists if this were part of a recognition that we live in different times now and secrecy is a necessary tool in order to save innocent lives. But it seems to me that an atmosphere of secrecy only helps the terrorists--it doesn't help innocent people. In an open and speedy trial, yes, more information about terrorists and their intentions would become known to the general public. But wouldn't that be a good thing? A terrorist can only succeed if they can keep their plans secret. The more the public knows about terrorists and their intentions, the harder it will be for terrorists to carry out those intentions. It has become common, in various public venues, for the public to be urged to help confront terrorism with the plea "if you see something, say something". In an atmosphere of secrecy, though, the public has no idea what specifically to look for, so it is hard to know when they have "seen something" for which they should "say something". Can anyone who has experience in such matters offer a rational argument--not one motivated by rage because of past attacks on Americans or Israelis--as to why they feel secrecy is a good tool for dealing with terrorism? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

In my opinion, the best thing you could do for her is to find someone else to take care of your cats when you travel. She's been stuck in a caregiver role her whole life. Taking care of your cats is a continuation albeit on a smaller scale of the role she played with her grandparents and parents. It's a role she has grown used to even though it also is limiting to her. Help her to break out of that role by not accepting her help. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Again, I've formed an opinion based on the available information. The only way you are going to change my opinion is if you present me with new information. Do you have any? The newspaper is partly correct, partly incorrect. The skydiver is dead either way. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

It may be new information, but it is hardly supportive of the woman. It confirms that she is, indeed, the subject of a criminal investigation. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

That she defaulted on her loans. I highly doubt they got that part wrong. If the press reports a skydiving fatality, then it is highly likely that that person did, in fact, die skydiving--and not from the shock of dropping a bowling ball on their foot. It's when it comes to the details that the press usually messes up. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I'm not forming a final opinion because we don't have all the facts. My initial impression of her, based on the facts we do have, is not positive. She defaulted on a loan that you and I, as taxpayers, now have to pay. If and when more information becomes available, I am happy to reconsider. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, though: defaulting on a student loan is definitely NOT a rational and mature decision made with the kids best interests in mind. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

My post was solely addressing the context of the article--not your situation or wmw999's situation. In the context of the article, I would want to know why the father has custody, and why she hasn't taken care of her loans. A number of the scenarios you mention essentially involve a responsible mutual decision--and I'm not buying that in the context of this case. Responsible people take care of their loans, especially if they have kids. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Yup I've met both skybytch and diablopilot and lived to tell the tale so I'm sure I'll be able to manage the 'TW4' training. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Very true. Then again--it's an opportunity to get a top to bottom review--something that doesn't always happen when you're current, except maybe on Safety Day. Some things you get to practice on every skydive if you are current. Other things--especially EP's--don't come up on every skydive even when you're current, so the so-called 'Twilight 4' should provide a good opportunity to review those skills. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

It's unusual for a father to have custody of the children following a divorce. When he does, there is usually a story behind it--would be interesting to know what that story is. Often it is because the mother is known to have been involved in criminal activity. Defaulting on a loan isn't usually a crime. Committing fraud--which might consist of lying to a federal agency to either obtain the loan in the first place or delay payment--might well be a crime. There was probably a criminal investigation of the wife related to student loan fraud underway. Based on the article a search warrant might well have been justified. None of this justifies handcuffing the husband although I'd have to think about what SOP should be when a search warrant is legitimate in a criminal investigation and a non-suspect individual is found in the process of executing the warrant. Basically I suspect the warrant itself was probably justified. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Have you noticed how it's only in the House that guys like this are pressured to resign? In the Senate seats are way too precious for anyone to resign, no matter what the scandal. The thing that catches my attention is that there seems to be a different set of ethical rules in the House than the Senate. This Democrat and previously Republicans such as Chris Lee and Mark Souder were under pressure to resign. OTOH in the Senate Republican Larry Craig and Democrat Roland Burris were both allowed to serve out their terms despite serious ethical issues. My conclusion is that when every seat counts--as it does in the smaller, less frequently contested, and closely divided Senate--ethics take a back seat to hanging on to seats for both parties. In the House--where both parties can afford to lose a seat or two--the parties make a show of being deeply concerned about ethics. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Good points DougH and popsjumper. In general I've found it works better to ask questions about instruction directly of an instructor--rather than try to get manifest to find an instructor on a day when I'm not at the DZ. In this case both skybytch and diablopilot have worked as AFFI's at the DZ in question and have played a role in my training in the past--so I would trust their answers to any questions of a general nature. But I'll verify when I see my instructor on Saturday. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

This assumes that the gay guy doesn't start hitting on the straight guy himself. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Thanks diablopilot and skybytch

I've often wondered how the extremely rich prove that they are extremely rich when they are dying in the emergency room. Some extremely rich (eg Bill Gates) are household names but many are not. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

If everyone followed this advice we might as well shut down these forums except, perhaps, for Bonfire and SC. Forums are a good place for asking questions of a general nature--which this question was intended to be. If this is a DZ-specific term (that's what I'm trying to find out) I'll need to wait until the DZ is open on Wednesday. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

10 months/ 61 jumps (don't go by my profile

I haven't jumped in a little while so I called the DZ over the weekend to schedule a recurrency jump. After asking about my jump total and period of inactivity, she said I was scheduled for a 'TW4' on June 11. I assumed I could look up 'TW4' online, but I've searched for it and can't find any reference to it. I assume the 'TW4' is a form of recurrency training and I'll find out the details when I arrive at the DZ on Saturday--but does anyone know specifically what 'TW4' means? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

It's an interesting article but I'm not fully buying it. No business hires out of charity. A business hires only because right now they can increase their profits by doing so. The American workplace is generally at-will, so if, in future, business conditions change (and that includes the regulatory environment), it is easy to let go of excess employees. What I get from this article is an older guy, still with lots of energy and far from being ready to throw in the towel--but with less appetite for risk than he might have had 10 or 20 years ago. That's his right but the idea that he couldn't possibly take the risk of expanding his business and taking on more employees doesn't seem plausible. I personally think this recession is all about an aging generation who made a lot of money in the 1980's and 1990's, held their own in the 2000's, but are getting too old to take big entrepreneurial risks in the 2010's. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Yes, I'd be annoyed, but you did mention that Mary is close friends with the woman who runs the shelter that you wanted the stuff to go to. Is it possible that Mary is closer to the situation than you are and had a reason for feeling that your items--although apparently a good fit for the women's shelter--could actually have been better used by the girl scout troop or the homeless shelter? In any case she should have run any changes by you in advance, even if she had good reason for suggesting a change. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014