Leaderboard

Good. Because Pence can take some votes from people who voted for Trump for Trumpian reasons, but who really aren't down with insurrection. And he's way better than Trump, because he does, in fact, respect the system. I disagree with him pretty much down the line, but I can stomach him long before I can stomach Trump. Or DeSantis, for that matter. I get the impression that the job is more important than the power to Pence; it's the other way for Trump and DeSantis Wendy P.

JAG has asked that Dorwin Schreuder be interviewed - I agree! I am rather sure Dorwin would agree to this - good luck. Of particular interest should be the fragment field Dorwin and his colleagues found, its exact location relative to the Ingram find, its contents, its location relative to the Ingram find vis Crystal Ingram's statement about where she said the Ingram's found their money, where the fragments went and are currently stored, ............ and any thoughts Dorwin may have about where the Cooper case goes from here...

Hah! Hah! That reminds me of a conversation with a junior jumper as to why it was unwise for him to do "X" with less than 200 jumps. Me: "Would you like to hear the half-hour explanation?" Junior jumper: "No, never mind, I'll just wait a few more jumps.

Judge Carter rules that certain emails between Trump and Eastman (his lawyer) are not attorney-client privileged due to crime-fraud exemption. The emails are "sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States". They do this because Trump lied in the GA lawsuit. Edited to add that the emails show that he was aware the information he attested to was false and that he filed lawsuits not for legal relief, but simply to try and obstruct.

Another upstanding GOP Christian, protecting us all from lefty perverts. https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/surprise-breaking/2022/10/18/mcccd-governing-board-candidate-arrested-accused-of-public-sexual-indecency/10537120002/

I didn't know you had it in you!

What a moran.

I've never had a neighbor's cat barking at all hours of the day and night.

Fine by me. For that matter shoot their dogs and steal their kids bikes, whatever it takes to get the job done in real time.

let 'em leave. then it is enforced as they can't jump at a uspa dz without being a member. if they choose to stay a member, they abide the rules. easy as hell. it also automatically enforces itself that way.

Hi folks, One of my favorite programs, FRONTLINE, is doing a story on Michael Flynn tonite: FRONTLINE | PBS | Official Site | Documentary Series Jerry Baumchen

I see. Well as I have been told, in a nutshell, back in the good old days a lot of Dutch skydivers were getting hurt under then-modern canopies. IIRC that was around the time the original Sabre came out. The Dutch authorities took note and told our national association to regulate ourselves - or they would. So, since we don't sue as easily as the US, we got 'rules' instead of 'recommendations'. The association, however, does not have the power of the law.

^This. The Trumpettes hate 'Big Pharma' as an excuse not to get the vaccine. They still want their Viagra, Oxies and all the stuff that keeps them alive. They also hate "Big Tech" because FB & Twitter don't allow them to have 'free speech', which is a euphemism for 'spreading lies and hatred'. Banks? Oil Companies? Car Companies? Those all got bailed out and the Trump fans just cheered (they weren't "Trump Fans" at the time of the bailouts, but they were the ones who became them). z The divisions and animosity goes back before Trump. He just saw it and exploited it. Remember McConnell on Obama? "We will do anything we can to oppose Obama, even if it hurts the country". (that may not be the exact quote, I did a quick search and came up empty) And, while it wasn't a truly representative sample, Politifact found that Rs lied twice as much as Ds, and Ds told the truth twice as much as Rs (there's a difference between lying and telling the truth for ad claims). https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-more-164943

By "nanny state" I mean where the local association has been given the power of the law. In nanny states you must belong to and abide by the association's rules or the government will not allow you to operate a DZ. Both Canada and the USA do not give that kind of power to either CSPA or USPA. If either of those organizations had that sort of power that the BPA for instance has, they would certainly have tighter rules and paid bureaucrats to enforce then. Meaning Big Brother would "nanny" you.

Hi Ken, IMO your references to 'nanny states' is a low blow. One could just as easily use the term for the USA because USPA actually does have BSR's. People in other countries see things differently than how the people in the USA see things. They are not wrong, they are different. I mean, who eats with a fork in their left hand? Jerry Baumchen

Good question. It literally goes back to the French Revolution, when the fairly authoritarian president (who represented the king) presided over the Assembly. Those loyal to the King, and those who preferred to maintain the older religious monarcy, sat on the right (they were literally "at his right hand") and the revolutionaries sat on the left to stay among like-minded members. A deputy of the Assembly described it this way: "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp." Thus the general divisions - the right supporting traditional authoritarian rule, slavery, religion and conservative social values, and the left representing "liberté, égalité, fraternité" - were established literally by where they sat in the Assembly. In the late 1800s the left took the name "republicans" since they favored a republic over a monarchy. This tradition took hold in the US as well, and during the Civil War, the republicans were what we think of now as democrats - the city people who opposed racial divisions, favored immigrant protections, supported organized labor and wanted to spend federal money on infrastructure (namely, a rail project to connect the East and West.) The democrats were the country folk who relied on slavery for their livelihood, and supported it for economic reasons. In the early 1900's, as unscrupulous carpetbaggers flooded the American South and needed to "fly a flag" they pretty much had to choose republicanism, since they had won the war. As they established their empires they adopted the racial divisions, religious fervor, states-right stance and respect for authority that made it easy to govern and control a racially-divided South without interference from DC. Democrats, meanwhile, started to support labor in bigger cities in order to court their vote. By the 1950's the two parties had completely reversed ideologies, and the new "republican right" in the US took on the causes of segregation, state's rights over federal rights, opposition to organized labor and respect for authority. That has continued to this day. So you have three axes: Republican vs democrat. This changes the most frequently as both parties adopt wedge issues to appeal to centrists. As an example, gun rights are an individual right, and as such are supported by "pure" liberals. But the republican party has adopted it and made it part of their core beliefs. Left vs. right. This is a combination of political party and philosophy and is becoming sort of outdated, since it doesn't describe anything unique. And it describes political positions that change with time. Conservative vs liberal. This is a philosophical axis that determines things like "should traditional tools and methods be maintained in the face of progress?" and "should individual rights trump government rights?" Nowadays we have three de facto parties - democrats, republicans and trumpies. Many republicans try to apply a litmus test to all their candidates; you have to support Trump to be a republican. But since he maintains so many stances that are opposite those of the republican party, there are more and more never-Trumper republicans out there who support the more traditional party values.

Clearly, this is not the place for reasoned analysis--and nor is pretty much any other place online, but is everyone really satisfied with their diatribes of "my side is right", "your side stinks..." or rather: you are "woke" commies (has there ever even been such a thing??) or racist fascists? Anyone interested in trying to figure out what's actually going on? Regarding inflation: I'd say it's completely valid to argue either side of "is Biden or the current government doing a good job reacting to the current economic situation?" Personally, I don't see neither genius, nor abject failure--but the real, scary truth for most people must clearly be that the all powerful president of the United States simply does not have much power to do anything about this. Here is a chart of current inflation rates, by country: The US is pretty much smack dab in the middle--doing a little better than the EU on average (again, in my opinion the most reasonable point of comparison). Who is most "successful?" China! So...we want to be more like them??? As for gas prices: Same applies here: They are up everywhere, but comparing them is even more pointless without a whole lot of additional information. I really wonder if most people are actually aware of the fact that these things generally don't mean sh..t in regards to which side is right, and just use it as cannon fodder anyway, because actually understanding stuff and looking for solutions is difficult and boring--or if most people actually think that this stuff proves their point...just like they write it. (seems hard to believe, to me) Another case in point: Ukraine: It's true that an invasion by a mentally ill dictator (Putin) cannot be tolerated and must be responded to in the strongest terms. It also seems to be true that the russian government is highly corrupt. Yet, if you just look back a little into historic articles--let's say in the New York Times--the same was true for Ukraine, and no: It wasn't just when the pro-russian leaders were in power...and yes: There were a series of articles about neo-nazi groups in the Ukraine, and their reach and almost popularity. These articles stopped right after Russia's invasion, because they don't fit the currently convenient narrative. These groups also seem to be very much involved in the resistance against Russia now. So: It's complicated, a complete mess, and never an easy story to be used to prove that MY SIDE IS RIGHT and YOU OTHER FOLKS ARE CRAZY AND EVIL. But, boy, is that a boring piece of information...