winsor

This time it really is different. The US of A has been saying "charge it" on the international market for the last 40-plus years. We had peak oil here around 1976, and are now at about 4.7 million BPD - though we use about 20 million BPD. We have become a "service economy," wherein the only way to keep from being sued out of existence is not to make anything in particular. A $30,000 airplane (inflation adjusted) lists for $270,000 after you add in all the liability insurance - from any company who is still willing to make one. Thus, whenever the ball drops and the dollar reverts to its inherent net value (zero, since most of them are electronic; the Reichsmark at least had the value of paper that could be used for tinder), we will have a few interesting side effects. To get a picture of what is in store for us, draw a dotted line around the US and match imports with exports on a value basis. Food will become dear. The fuel necessary to keep tractors, combines, trucks and what have you will become rare and pricey. Also, the fertilizer and insecticides that result in out bountiful harvest are largely petroleum-derived. Getting clothing will become problematic. What percentage of underwear, shoes and what not is still manufactured here? With what resources will we resurrect the clothing manufacturing industry? Fueling up the Hummer to get to work will be a bit of an issue. Going from 20 million to 4.7 million barrels a day does not mean there will be around a quarter as many cars on the road - there will be close to none. The 4.7 million BPD we produce is easily accounted for by uses that have much higher priority than privately owned vehicles. The recipe put forth by John Maynard Keynes for financial recovery is analogous to spin recovery in an aircraft. In the early days of flight spins were regarded as unrecoverable, and thus fatal. The story has it that a French pilot, after getting in a spin, decided he would go out in style and pointed the nose down, thus recovering. What we are doing with the economy is akin to trying to get out of a spin by pointing the nose earthward and firewalling it - at pattern altitude. So, in a sense, the only thing different this time will be scale. Germany in the '20s, Yugoslavia in the '90s, Zimbabwe now, and the collapse of the Zloty and the Forint will all be upstaged by the "correction" in the US economy. The "interesting times" of the old Chinese curse are pretty much upon us. BSBD, Winsor

Life is a stochastic process - God is dice.

Over the ground, no. In relation to the plane you just jumped out of, yes, the throw will be the same. Isn't ground seperation the overall goal? Nope. You can have people landing in the same spot all day long without any of them occupying the same column of air ever. OTOH, you can have all sorts of different landing points where someone cutting away would hit the lower person's canopy, or an inadvertant deployment would put the lower jumper into the upper. The whole idea is to keep groups apart in the air, but to bring them to the same spot on the earth (the DZ, the pea pit or whatever). Blue skies, Winsor

This is a start. It's over a decade old, but the physics haven't changed much in the interim. Blue skies, Winsor

The bumper sticker summed it up nicely. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." I scored 100% on the test.

...um...the next one... we will never be united. You political nuts are worse than religious zealots. Not by a long shot. Political delusion constitutes a disease of denial, but religious zealotry is nothing short of psychosis. It may well be demonstrable nonsense when someone says "Vote for Farfoon! He will fix everything! A vote against Farfoon is a vote for badness!," but that is a balanced, reasonable standpoint in comparision to the core tenets of any popular Universal Religion. Most "believers" don't give it an awful lot of thought - which is fine, given that thinking is not their long suit. Those who delve into the nitty-gritty of a particular religion with total credulity have gone beyond suspension of disbelief. The old saw that neurotics build castles in the clouds and psychotics live in them applies nicely. There is, of course, the crowd for whom politics=religion, and they are singularly virulent. In this category I include both right-wing whackos and left-wing whackos; I have known all too many people for whom Marxism/Communism/Socialism had all the endearing qualities of devout religious conviction. The Greek saying that "the dose makes the poison" applies in general, but falls apart when dealing with fundamental poisons, whose presence has a negative effect starting with the first molecule. Politics is more like a generalized toxin, and religion is a fundamental toxin. BSBD, Winsor

Hey, don't make fun of BHO. He's my hero. I want to be just like him when I grow up.

It is hard to construct a valid metric by which to measure "badness." Roosevelt, hailed as the savior who brought us out of the Depression, was actually responsible for policies that prolonged and exacerbated it. Truman did such things as welsh on agreements made with Ho Chi Minh, who fought along side us during WWII, and left the Japanese to "administer" Indochina until the French could enlist enough SS alumni into the Legion to take over. Eisenhower allowed the dismantling of the passenger rail system in this country and was all for the development of the highway system that has us dependent on automobiles, and fuel that we do not have, to sustain both our way of life and our lives in general. JFK was taken to heaven and sainted before he could be judged by history as a truly mediocre chief executive. Johnson was a brilliant smoke-filled-room politician, who was singularly ill-suited to occupying the Oval Office. Nixon was so dislikeable that it is difficult to accept his areas of competence. Even when he was good to his word, it felt like he was lying. Ford provided the comic relief we needed after Nixon, and was an awful lot better than he seemed. Many of his most controversial decisions were surprisingly well considered. Carter was and is a very nice guy. He was crippled by a level of naivete rarely seen outside of Sunday School. Reagan was great at delegating, but he sucked at arithmetic. "The President" was the best role he ever played. GHWB was well-described as a "weenie," and every attempt at connecting with the populus was a true groaner. He did show a surprising level of competence on the world stage. Clinton was/is a slut. He will do ANYTHING for adulation. GWB is an embarrassment. I found him so painful to hear that what I know came mostly from the Cliffs Notes version. Obama is a nice little fella. He is possessed of no uncertain political genius, and he is under the impression that his genius extends beyond politics. It does not. Arithmetic is not his long suit, either. The presidents we elect show that this country is a wellspring of mediocrity. We will not consider a candidate that will not lie to us, and then we get mad at them when it turns out that they were telling us the lies we wanted to hear. Who was the worst president? Hard to tell - the competition for the honor is fierce. BSBD, Winsor

BTW: Remember that Christianity is just Judaism for Windows... More like "Judaism according to Pagans."

What rig do you have and did you have to have it custom made to fit canopies of such radically different sizes? I am a newbie but most I am familiar with assume somewhat similar sizing. I have a number of off-the-shelf Racer Elites set up with reserves significantly larger than mains. You need only ensure that you have a container which will accommodate your reserve and you are in business. Cross-braces take up more room than their nominal size would indicate, and I have never had any trouble keeping the main secure. I have seen people use space-fillers in the main pack tray to keep the looks in order, but making everything work together is easy with or without correcting for volume. Blue skies, Winsor

Reserve for sure. Landing a 99 cross-brace while unconscious might preclude ever regaining consciousness. The main ia a bad idea. The reserve, OTOH, is a 218 7-cell that would likely result in survival - if not landing without further injury. The reserve is (or at least should be) sized and packed for emergencies. When you only have one shot, yank silver. BSBD, Winsor

Nice locale, but it's in New Hampshire.

Okay, there I have to agree. I do not mind someone disliking me so long as they can see fit to leave me alone, since I am generally willing to return the favor. All too often enmity is well earned. I have been to DZs where the culture clash with the GA crowd or local population was worked mercilessly, and I fully understand why the locals came down on the DZ when the opportunity presented itself. Achieving some kind of peaceful coexistance can be difficult, and it is all the more difficult in light of the kind of veiled contempt that comes with "tolerance." You do not need a mutual admiration society to have a good working relationship, and a bit of respect goes a long way. Sometimes strong fences make good neighbors, and the lake in Massachusetts with the long name comes to mind. For those who never lived in Mass, Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg was named in Algonquin as "we fish on our side, you fish on your side, and nobody fishes in the middle" IIRC. My Algonquin is kind of rusty. BSBD, Winsor

I think that is in keeping with the forced nature of your position. You do not accept the treatment of the dog, but your hands are tied. Thus, though you find it unacceptable, you tolerate it. This gets back to what I don't like about the idea of "tolerance." The basic idea is "you suck, but it is not worth conflict about it." I find the sanctimony inherent in someone "tolerating" me to be distasteful. I would rather have them simply say "you suck," and mean it than to say that they are such a big person that they can even put up with the likes of me. "Tolerance" is offensive. BSBD, Winsor

I'm sure there's a "Mission Accomplished!" banner lying around someplace that they could use. THAT was funny - I don't care how much you suck Obama's dick! Ewww, that's icky. I hope you meant that in a rhetorical sense, and am not implying that I would willingly associate with whatever category our Chief Executive is. I will admit to being madly in love with one guy in particular, and hug and kiss him lots. He is 104 days old today, and I adore him. BSBD, Winsor

I'm sure there's a "Mission Accomplished!" banner lying around someplace that they could use.

worldview Literally it is, I guess, but it is not entirely interchangeable. Close enough.

Acceptance is voluntary, tolerance is forced. I accept a friend, but I only tolerate someone whose presence comes with a job or other activity, and whose company I would not ever actively seek. I do not use tobacco, alcohol or drugs. So long as someone does not presume to drink before offering me a ride, blow smoke in my face or spike my drink, I am generally indifferent. There is a lot that I can accept, so long as it does not cause me harm. I accept people whose Weltanschauung (I am not sure what it is in English) differs from mine, but tolerate only to the extent that I must those who see fit to prosletyze and seek my conversion. The difference between acceptance and tolerance is a matter of what one personally finds toxic. The Irish saying puts it well: "with every man there is a line - know where it is, and never cross it." BSBD, Winsor

Look, you guys are being harsh. It is rather easy to establish that quite a few mice are fully her intellectual equal.

Penile cancer is not a big killer. According to Lance Armstrong, however, testicular cancer is a real problem. Thus, "Sluts for Nuts" might work. BSBD, Winsor

lox ? That would be kippers.

I would much rather have someone reject me for cause than to "tolerate" me. I find the sanctimony inherent in tolerance to be repellent. "You and I know that my way is the true way, and that you fundamentally suck, but I am noble enough to tolerate you." You do not tolerate chocolate cake, gentle breezes or adulation from the masses. You tolerate bad weather, vile farts and really nasty people. To say that you tolerate something implies that there is an undesirable quality to it. If a politician is white, black, male, female, straight or gay, I really could not care less. "Gee, that was a really bad piece of legislation, but he's a white guy who attends the correct house of worship, is married and has kids so it's okay." Thus, I accept peoples differing preferences where it does not affect me, and reject them when they impose upon my rights, but I do not tolerate them one way or another. If you don't accept me, fine. However, I do not want your "tolerance" under any circumstances. BSBD, Winsor

My objection to Christine O'Donnel is that she appears to be an idiot. The particular brand of drivel she spouts, whether evangelical or satanic, is less of a concern than the fact that anything she espouses becomes suspect by virtue of its association with her. "Witchcraft" as known to European types is typically a label applied by Rome in days of yore to discredit any competition. "Wiccan," from which the English term "witch" apparently derives, is more benign by a long shot than the religion marketed by the Vatican. Reference to witchcraft and sorcery in Torah is similarly focused on opposing dilution of franchise. The "Church of Satan," as marketed by Anton Szandor LaVey, is a singularly innocuous organization. Its appeal appears to be to people who need to prove to themselves that they are not REALLY sheep, by doing something they see as being Wild and Crazy. Yawn. In any event, my dismay with the candidate from Delaware is because she impressed me as a dolt. I am not all that interested in hearing her out, since I do not place a premium on stupidity. BSBD, Winsor

A "Natural Life" sentence of around two weeks sounds about right.

So France is full of Bigots now? Yeah, but they are in the process of being deported.