likearock

Even more than Southpark, Team America: World Police has got to be in contention. Come on, their characterization of Kim Jong-Il was dead on.

Short term yes, long term no. Extremism has been an on-again off-again thing in Islam, historically. The Kharijites for instance make the Wahabis look like kindergarteners. So what are you saying, that extremism is on-again off-again, but right now it's at an ebb? That's not too reassuring.

You mean like where Hastert's STAFF was notified that Foley was sending innapropriate emails? You sit there and tell me with a straight face you think Hastert was kept in the dark about Foley all this time. These guys, hardly representatives of the left-wing conspiracy, think he knew or at the very least he should have known. One of the great things conservatives always had going for themselves was there insistence that responsibility should be taken, not shifted. Making the staff into the scapegoat here can only hurt the Republican position.

I think in the end, we'll find individuals on both sides protected Foley. And specifically for political reasons - though different reasons. You know I keep hearing that rumor but as far as I've seen, there hasn't been a single allegation that a specific Democrat had foreknowledge of what Foley was doing. That in contrast to quite a number of specific allegations on the Republican side.

That is my point. But the left defended Clinton, and the right is not defending Foley. Whether they defended him or not, it's a hell of a lot worse that the Republicans protected Foley when they had an inkling of what he was doing.

Man, when you have to dig back 23 years to try to draw a shaky parallel, the desperation is showing. Twenty three years ago, the party in question hadn't annointed themselves the Guardians of Virtue that the Republicans do now. That's what makes the story so compelling now when it wasn't then. But even going with a comparison, we still have: STUDDS: Had a relationship with ONE page. FOLEY: Contacted and harrassed MULTIPLE pages and it got so bad that some of them complained about it. According to several accounts, Foley's proclivities were common knowledge among the active pages themselves.

It obvious that YOU can't see the blatant hypocrisy between the Dem's treatment of Studds and their treatment of Foley. Apparently, you can't see the blatant hypocrisy of the chairman of the House Caucus of Missing and Exploited Children trolling underage pages on the Internet. No matter how you spin it, Studds did not set himself up as an arbiter of virtue the way Foley did. Better go check some other sources (someplace OTHER than DU, that is) - Foley didn't contact these people until they were OUT of the page program and of consenting age... No, he simply didn't hook up with them till then. He definitely harassed them while they were in the program, which is why Hastert is in such hot water. Again, you're missing the point. Studds was never the Annointed Protector of Youth that Foley set himself up to be. You just can't top that on the hypocrisy meter.

It obvious that YOU can't see the blatant hypocrisy between the Dem's treatment of Studds and their treatment of Foley. Apparently, you can't see the blatant hypocrisy of the chairman of the House Caucus of Missing and Exploited Children trolling underage pages on the Internet. No matter how you spin it, Studds did not set himself up as an arbiter of virtue the way Foley did.

Didn't he used to play bass for Question Mark and the Mysterians?

I do understand that many, many people are able to function without consulting a God. By asking these questions, I am trying to learn from people who are here now and can give me feedback. Nothing wrong with that. But I'm still curious as to why someone who is obviously a person of deep faith would choose "sartre" as their DZ.com username.

Interesting to me that someone who calls themselves sartre would not understand how it is possible to answer questions and make difficult decisions without a belief in God. Perhaps you should study the life of your namesake? Much of his life and work concerned just that question.

I agree that Baghdad will become a Shiite stronghold, but seriously doubt that the US can maintain a presence there for domestic political reasons. Look for Iraq, at least in the Shiite areas, to become more and more like Iran each year. Good work, Bush!

Ooo! Upgrade! t If there were a DZ.com prize for the highest /postsize ratio, you totally get it for that.

Pretty soon, a a lot sooner than you think, the radical imams in Iran will have those nuclear bombs as well. But getting back to the Pat Robertson analogy, when he said that about killing Chavez, the response among fellow Christians was loud and clear in condemning him. Even Fox News made sure those condemnations were registered. Take a look at http://www.aljazeera.com and see how many condemnations you can find of the Muslim violence in response to being called violent. You can't even find a mention of the poor nun who was killed in Somalia. It's shameful.

However, a great many of those Muslims are up in arms over the Pope's words and very few are saying anything about the actions of burning churches, killing nuns, etc.

Now there I think you've gone too far. True, there is a substantial minority within Islam who have turned it into a death cult. However, I believe the majority does consider it a religion of peace. Unfortunately, they too often tend to be a silent majority.

This is the Danish cartoons all over again. First, the Pope quotes someone else from long ago who suggests that Islam may have a connection with violence. Then the Muslim world goes into a frenzy and starts burning down churches thus confirming that such a connection is alive and kicking. The thing that gets me is the total ignorance of the irony in these situations. Here's the insincerity of it. If the Islamic world were really so adamant about people who would associate their religion with violence, they would have this scale of demonstrations when suicide bombers blow themselves up and kill innocent people. They should take to the streets when Zawahiri speaks of killing Westerners in the name of jihad. They don't. Apparently, they're more upset with the acknowledgement that their religion is connected with violence than the reality of it.

Does "gay pride" also fit into the order to 'abandon the train of thought'? Yes. What?? Aren't there gay black people?

if FAA gets involved the only person that'll really get penalized is the one that's already telling you what's right - the pilot. So you're saying that the pilot tells them to keep the door closed but they don't do it? If the skydivers aren't listening to the pilot, there's a lot more things wrong than just door open

Thanks Sparky. That is indeed a very informative, well thought out post. I took away two things from this passage. First, that a highly knowledgeable and experienced pilot thinks that keeping the door closed on takeoff is critical in the event that an engine goes out. Second, that there is still a considerable amount of resistance from skydivers in sticking to the simple rule of door closed till 1000 feet. From divnswoop: I'd rather not get the FAA involved as well unless it's necessary. I'm hoping that this incident will put the fear of God in skydivers across the world so that they will religiously see that the door is closed on takeoff. Much the same way as when the Perris crash forced skydivers to be more conscientious about seatbelts. However, in the event this shit keeps occurring, I'd rather have a regulation that can penalize those who ignore good common sense.

That's definitely an issue. However, if it's perceived as the only issue, you might find when there is a light load (as was the case in Missouri), DZs may start to bend the rules on really hot days. Why not keep the door open if everyone is strapped in a good distance away?

Everyone who's flown an Otter in hot weather knows and appreciates the fact that it is certified to fly with the door open. However, at most places, the door is closed just before takeoff and not re-opened before reaching 1000 feet. I've been told that the primary reason for this is, in the even of an engine out on takeoff, you don't further destabilize the aircraft by having the door open. Clearly, stability during takeoff when you have less room to maneuver is more critical than once you've achieved some altitude. However, not being a DHC-6 pilot myself, I'd like to know if what I've been told holds any weight with those people who actually fly the Otters. In particular, I wonder if there are any pilots who have actually experienced engine out with the door open. If it turns out that an open door does make engine out on takeoff less manageable, the USPA should lobby to have a FAR established that mandates having the door closed from takeoff to 1000 feet. I realize that this is a hot issue right now with the recent crash in Missouri. It's been reported, but not absolutely established, that their Otter took off with the door fully opened. Nobody wants to help the lawyers that are suing a DZ. However, if this information can help prevent further incidents like this, what is more important in the overall scale of things?

What sexual assault? The autopsy report revealed characteristics consistent with a sexual assault, possibly with an object.

However, Congress could impeach him for it if they were so inclined. That's part of checks and balances also. I'm speaking theoretically because obviously a Republican Congress won't do that and even a Democratic Congress might have serious reservations given the backlash during the Clinton debacle. An interesting question is whether they could use the threat of impeachment in order to force him to disclose the extent of the unwarranted surveillance.

The problem there is the ransom note..... he was too young to write it to the degree it was. Not a problem if you assume the father or mother helped to cover up. However, he was pretty young to have inflicted all the damage he caused, and would be unlikely to have added a sexual assault.