Leaderboard

It might have been you who posted about the loathsome man who was called in the kill all of the rats in a city -- how no matter how loathsome he was, the rats were a worse problem. Of course, that was an analogy for Trump. Personally, I think that Trump is the loathsome man who will encourage worse pests than the rats that he was originally "hired" to kill. So I'll vote for whoever has the best chance of keeping him out of the presidency. No, Biden was never my first choice. But Trump is my last. I'd rather have RFK Jr than him. But barring someone dropping dead (if only!), the race is between Biden and Trump, so I'm voting for one of them. Biden hasn't done a bad job. He's by no means perfect, but with a Congress who's happy to hurt the country as long as it also hurts Biden's chances of being re-elected, I'm not sure what he could accomplish. Wendy P.

Good for you, a PBS show. Jonathon Haidt gave a TED talk in 2008 that sounded smart and ended with the claim that enlightened liberals could by means of moral humility find common ground with conservatives. Well, that didn't age well. He was talking some light lifting with understanding Bush conservatives, of course, not MAGA. I did like this prescient slide he posted at the beginning of his talk though:

In case anyone is interested in watching tonight...

As usual, the gun enthusiasts completely ignore the experience of the rest of the western world with respect to gun laws. Even in the USA, murder rates are lower in states with stricter gun laws. In Chicago, after the handgun ban was in place, murder rates declined through the '90s and '00s. After Heller and Macdonald the murder rate went right back up again to pre-ban levels. So claiming that gun laws don't work is just another falsehood perpetuated by the right.

I’m listening.

The Questionable Efficacy of the D.B. Cooper Likenesses: A Sketchy Basis for Identification At the heart of the enduring intrigue and continued investigation are the sketches—images of the suspect as recounted by eyewitnesses. However, these sketches, while iconic, should be viewed with a considerable degree of scepticism. The assertion that someone might be a person of interest based on a resemblance to a sketch is, upon scrutiny, deeply problematic. Here's the rationale: First and foremost, the existence of two markedly different sketches underscores the inherent unreliability and subjectivity inherent in their production. Composite sketches are derived from human memory, which is notably unreliable and prone to alteration—especially when under duress. Witnesses of the hijacking experienced considerable stress, and it stands to reason that their recollections of Cooper's visage were compromised by this. The sketches amplify this issue by presenting conflicting interpretations of Cooper's features. If we find ourselves unable to reconcile the disparities between two likenesses intended to represent the same individual, how can we possibly rely on them as definitive means of identification? It is also crucial to remember that these are drawings, not photographs. Artists can only capture so much from verbal accounts, and their individual style, coupled with the influence of suggestive questioning, can greatly impact the final depiction. A sketch can only offer a resemblance, not an exact replication. It cannot encapsulate the subtleties of a person's face with the accuracy of a photograph. Consequently, the idea that an individual could be conclusively linked to a crime based on a sketch likeness is fundamentally unsound. Consider the described features of 'Cooper'—a protruding lower lip, a narrow face, middle-aged. These characteristics are not distinctive identifiers; rather, they are fairly commonplace and could apply to an extensive number of men from that time period. Venturing into a crowd in search of these features, one would likely encounter multiple men fitting the description. It's akin to searching for a specific needle in a haystack, except the haystack is as vast as a nation, and the needle may not even resemble the preconceived image. The passage of time and the inevitability of physical transformation further erode the reliability of the sketches. As years pass, people age, their features alter, weights fluctuate, and hairstyles evolve. The sketches represent a moment in time, one that rapidly diminishes in relevance as the years accumulate. It's conceivable that even Cooper himself, if viewing the sketches in the present day, might fail to recognise the man in the drawing as his former self. Finally, the psychological element must be considered. The yearning for resolution in a mystery as captivating as Cooper's can result in confirmation bias—the tendency to perceive what one wishes to perceive in a sketch while discounting inconsistencies. Consequently, numerous individuals have been unduly scrutinised based on these sketches, their lives disrupted by an unsubstantiated association with a notorious crime. Although the D.B. Cooper sketches are emblematic components of this enigmatic narrative, their utility as instruments for identification is highly dubious. They are not photographs but interpretations filtered through the flawed apparatus of human recollection and perception. To propose that someone might be a person of interest because they bear a resemblance to these sketches is to indulge in speculative guesswork. The true identity of D.B. Cooper remains as elusive as the man himself, and it is doubtful that these sketches will ever lead us to a conclusive answer. Instead, what they offer is a canvas for our collective imaginations—a visage to assign to a faceless tale, but ultimately, we should recognise them for what they are—artefacts of ambiguity, not incriminating evidence.

Absolutely. Which is exactly why all of the petty, niggling attacks made directly or indirectly against Biden, Harris or the effects of any of the current policies being attributed to them by some posters here are not simple, benign disagreements but instead, in my view, are at their very core anti-American acts. This is the information age, as if any one should need to be reminded, and every little degrading thing someone posts even on an obscure site like SC adds to the hurt. Claiming otherwise is like claiming that all you added to the hamburger was the pickle so it didn't contribute to the making. Our righties can believe that all the way to the gun range but if Trump gets re-elected we're all gonna get the pickle.

Indeed, he is quite literally bringing his own rats. We are currently up to 13 close Trump associates found guilty of crimes ranging from perjury to witness tampering to conspiring against the United States with a Russian agent. Ironic considering he campaigns on "draining the swamp." The justice system is doing its best to drain the swamp Trump brought with him; we don't need to make the swamp any larger.

Only you would say that.

Curtis, you're profile lists you as jumping at AZ, with two jumps. It would be irresponsible for someone on the Internet to guide you on a purchase at this time. There are great Instructors and Riggers at the DZ there. Please ask them to give you some guidance on what you should be jumping this early. We don't know your skillset. My advice to new jumpers has always been - Finish your A License and then let's sit down and talk about gear choices. And, we would begin with your reserve size first and build a rig around that.

Hi Curtis, I've been around skydiving for a while. It is very easy for a Newbie to be 'taken' by someone wanting to unload their old gear. Talk to as many people as you can. Do NOT buy on price only. Take your time & don't be in a hurry. Jerry Baumchen PS) Lots of folks on this website will answer almost any question[s] you might have.