AdD

Sweet avalanch. That was a seriously awesome clip. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

Now that is a stunt! Suckit Tony Hawk! lol Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

When your country is running twin deficits of epic proportions, every billion counts, or maybe it doesn't. Fiscal responsibility isn't part of the Rep. platform these days. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

Dude, when you allow your chosen role to supersede the moral and ethical judgements you ought to be making as a human being, you have become exactly what the military and business world needs, another f*ckin drone. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

NYT: Bush's $28 billion giveaway to oil companies by Jerome a Paris RELATED NEWS: Other energy - Mar 21... Other energy - Mar 23... George W. Bush and Peak Oil: Beyond Incompetence... Other energy - Mar 24... The oil is going, the oil is going!... At a time when all oil producing countries are increasing their tax take to capture some of the increased value of the oil production (even the UK has recently increased the main tax rate from 40 to 50%), the Bush administration is busy doing the opposite. Recent executive decisions, and smart use by oil companies in lawsuits of ambiguous wording of the applicable laws, threaten to leave up to two thirds of Gulf of Mexico gas production paying no taxes, at a loss to taxpayers of $28 billion, according to the New York Times. Let me summarise the main points of that fairly long and complex article. - in 1995, the Clinton administration gave its support to a new programme exempting from royalty payments (usually, 12%) new offshore drilling for oil or gas in deep water, up to a given volume. - One mistake was made - that of not capping the hydrocarbon price for which such incentive was available (but at least the Clinton administration had the partial excuse that oil prices were then low and not expected to go up). - A deceptive evaluation of the cost of that measure was made, as it counted only the first 5 years of exemption in the cost, when fields usually take that long, if not longer to be developed. The cost of the exemption was thus counted as almost zero instead of its real cost over the years. That's the Clinton legacy. The cost of that is not assessed by the NYT, but they mention that it applies to one sixth of Gulf of Mexico production, which would mean, in the current environment, about 100m$/year. But we now move on to the Bush years: - in early 2001 (not wasting any time), new incentives were provided for shallow water producers (i.e. something easier to do). Gale Horton did put a threshhold limit, but it was then seen as an extremely high prices (5$/mbtu limit, compared to the 2-3$/mbtu wholesale price then prevalent in the North American market). And in 2004, when gas prices had increased, the threshhold level was also increased, to an extravagant 9.34$/mbtu; - in 2003, the oil industry successfully sued the administration about an interpretation of the law: the volume limit was deemed to apply per lease, and not per hydrocarbon field. Knowing that you typically have 3 leases per field, that decision immediately tripled the cost in lost royalties. Now the Bush administration cannot be blamed for the poorly worded 1995 law, but it then did nothing to change it; - the most recent Energy Bill, passed last summer, extended and confirmed all the royalty exemptions, and added a few other sweeteners. And now, some oil companies are trying to get rid of some of the caps on royalty relief that still exist on the rest of the offshore oil&gas production (the article is not clear on what these caps are, I'll try to investagate further). That would allow up to two thirds of oil&gas production in the Gulf of Mexico to be tax exempt... And yet production is down, shortages loom, and prices have skyrocketed. And we all know where oil profits are. I don't buy accusations of price gouging, but this is waaay far more effective for the oil companies, and much more discreet. Hey, it's only a couple of months of War in Iraq, so it's not that much. http://www.energybulletin.net/14394.html Nice, that's going to look good on Big Oil's bottom line Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

Ron Paul is the smartest man in Texas. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

HE LANDED ON HIS HEAD! OMG that is f'in scary as hell. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

That's a good point. If you're in to make a buck experienced jumpers are a pain. Some people won't come out and admit it, it'd be better to just come out with it so people don't spend the day getting bumped and jerked around. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

I remember reading that there were some high radiation readings from parts of Baghdad, couldn't say where. I don't think I'd want that stuff in my breakfast cereal. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

So someone took the wings off the plane before it hit I guess? Where is the damage where the wings and engines should have been. The photo of the entry point on the site you linked to shows no visible damage where the wings should have hit the building. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

dude that was a sweet key! Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

Actually it was to create public support for an illegal war in the Middle East whose purpose was to secure petroleum resouces for US consumption in an era when access to cheap oil is increasing uncertain due to the peaking of conventional world oil production in the early 21st century. Wait a minute, I bet you thought there was plenty of oil left! Well that is not the case, in fact we have know for over 50 years that oil production would peak sometime around 2000-2010. Check out: http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/the-peak.html The US economy can't grow without cheap oil, and the monetary system is based on constant growth, so it is therefore logical for the Bush administration to do whatever is necessary to maintain access to cheap oil, policy which America has embraced since the Carter Doctrine was announced. Your government is controlled by corporate interests at the moment, so candidates who refuse to comply with this initiative will be silenced until America's oil addiction is a thing of the past. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

These pics are insane, soo many cranes and skyscrapers at once... http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=101057 Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

2 inch, thin... i don't know the material's exact name, seat belt type stuff Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

Backtrackin at 7000ft in Eloy last week I looked down to see my chest strap flapping excessively, in the next two seconds it shook loose of the elastic band holding it and completely came out of the metal holder and trailed behind me. Wouldnt have believe this was possible with a properly routed strap but the angle of the relative wind during the back track allowed the strap in and out of the metal thingy to flap and work itself out without causing the tension of only pulling out to lock the strap holder. The band had been rather worn and loose in the first place which was the start of the problem. I grabbed my right main lift web with my left hand and deployed around 4k . I guess I should have done it up but I was nervous about letting go of the harness so I did a few 360's so the jump wasn't totally wasted. This was a pretty funky experience. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

"Well we're winnin the war on drugs ya we're winnin the war on drugs. Praise the lord and pass the bong we're winnin the war on drugs. You hide em in your closet, grow em off the bud. Put your hands against the car we're winning the war on drugs" "If these things are illegal, then God made a mistake" - Wammo Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

There must be some jumpable objects in a in the fjords of Newfoundland. Anybody know if they've been done? Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

Bah, what are the SAR-Tech's for if not to rescue people who need rescuing! You guys rule in my book, 442 Rock On! Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

The majority of everybody are complete idiots. No need to bring racism into it. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

Anyone driving to Eloy from Phoenix on the 26th of February? I would appreciate a ride, there's a jump ticket in it for ya! Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

Yep, Avian Flu and other viral diseases will be a good excuse for them to install furnaces. Seriously people, if you think this is benign wake up and smell the bullshit! Why not buy more respirators for hospitals with this money? there's a prophet on a mountain and he's making up dinner With long division and writing crop Anybody can feel like a winner When it's served up piping hot But the people aren't looking for a handout They're America's working corps Can this be what they voted for? Let them eat war [x2] That's how to ration the poor Let them eat war [x2] There's an urgent need to feed Declining pride From the force to the union shops The war economy is making new jobs But the people who benefit most Are breaking bread with their benevolent hosts Who never stole from the rich to give to the poor All they ever gave to them was a war And a foreign enemy to deplore Let them eat war [x2] That's how to ration the poor Let them eat war [x2] There's an urgent need to feed Declining pride We've got to kill 'em and eat 'em Before they reach for their checks Squeeze some blue collars Let them bleed from their necks Seize a few dollars from the people who sweat Cause it's freedom or death and they won't question it At a job site the boss is god like Conditioned workhorses park at a stoplight Seasoned vets with their feet in nets A stones throw away from a rock fight But not tonight, feed ‘em death Here comes another ration (feed them death) Cause they're the finest in the nation (feed them death) When there's nothing left to feed them When it's freedom or it's death Let them eat war [x2] That's how to ration the poor Let them eat war [x2] There's an urgent need to feed - Bad Religion Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2062/Whistleblowers_Stomach_Churning_Story_Reveals_Halliburton_Cesspool I'm all over these guys today I guess. If this is what they serve to the troops what will be on tap in the detention centers I wonder? Here is another one! http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_2124259.shtml Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps News Analysis/Commentary, Peter Dale Scott, New America Media, Jan 31, 2006 Editor's Note: A little-known $385 million contract for Halliburton subsidiary KBR to build detention facilities for "an emergency influx of immigrants" is another step down the Bush administration's road toward martial law, the writer says. BERKELEY, Calif.--A Halliburton subsidiary has just received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide "temporary detention and processing capabilities." The contract -- announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR -- calls for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when. To date, some newspapers have worried that open-ended provisions in the contract could lead to cost overruns, such as have occurred with KBR in Iraq. A Homeland Security spokesperson has responded that this is a "contingency contract" and that conceivably no centers might be built. But almost no paper so far has discussed the possibility that detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law. For those who follow covert government operations abroad and at home, the contract evoked ominous memories of Oliver North's controversial Rex-84 "readiness exercise" in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary "refugees," in the context of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States. North's activities raised civil liberties concerns in both Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist. "Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters," says Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. military's account of its activities in Vietnam. "They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo." Plans for detention facilities or camps have a long history, going back to fears in the 1970s of a national uprising by black militants. As Alonzo Chardy reported in the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987, an executive order for continuity of government (COG) had been drafted in 1982 by FEMA head Louis Giuffrida. The order called for "suspension of the Constitution" and "declaration of martial law." The martial law portions of the plan were outlined in a memo by Giuffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff. In 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 188, one of a series of directives that authorized continued planning for COG by a private parallel government. Two books, James Mann's "Rise of the Vulcans" and James Bamford's "A Pretext for War," have revealed that in the 1980s this parallel structure, operating outside normal government channels, included the then-head of G. D. Searle and Co., Donald Rumsfeld, and then-Congressman from Wyoming Dick Cheney. After 9/11, new martial law plans began to surface similar to those of FEMA in the 1980s. In January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a proposal for deploying troops on American streets. One month later John Brinkerhoff, the author of the 1982 FEMA memo, published an article arguing for the legality of using U.S. troops for purposes of domestic security. Then in April 2002, Defense Dept. officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-NORTHCOM) for the continental United States. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called this "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946." The NORTHCOM commander, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced, is responsible for "homeland defense and also serves as head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).... He will command U.S. forces that operate within the United States in support of civil authorities. The command will provide civil support not only in response to attacks, but for natural disasters." John Brinkerhoff later commented on PBS that, "The United States itself is now for the first time since the War of 1812 a theater of war. That means that we should apply, in my view, the same kind of command structure in the United States that we apply in other theaters of war." Then in response to Hurricane Katrina in Sept. 2005, according to the Washington Post, White House senior adviser Karl Rove told the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, that she should explore legal options to impose martial law "or as close as we can get." The White House tried vigorously, but ultimately failed, to compel Gov. Blanco to yield control of the state National Guard. Also in September, NORTHCOM conducted its highly classified Granite Shadow exercise in Washington. As William Arkin reported in the Washington Post, "Granite Shadow is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military's extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control." It is clear that the Bush administration is thinking seriously about martial law. Many critics have alleged that FEMA's spectacular failure to respond to Katrina followed from a deliberate White House policy: of paring back FEMA, and instead strengthening the military for responses to disasters. A multimillion program for detention facilities will greatly increase NORTHCOM's ability to respond to any domestic disorders. Scott is author of "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003). He is completing a book on "The Road to 9/11." Visit his Web site . http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77 Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

For anyone interested in why it is almost inevitable that we will see this kind of price spike in the coming years visit www.energybulletin.net ... then go buy base gear Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream

How many of them would you like to release? Well, maybe you guys could start with giving them trials. I mean, it was good enough for old Timothy McVeigh... Ironically these were McVeigh's only words at his trial. "If the Court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, 'Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.' "That's all I have. What the judge he quoted said was: "Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face." Here is an article from the press at the time: Timothy McVeigh, August 14, 1997 — just prior to being officially sentenced to death For weeks, now, I had been conjecturing, along with nearly everyone else in the country, what words would come forth on Timothy McVeigh's day of sentencing. He had declared that he would make a statement — his first since he was accused of bombing the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 — and the word had spread, as had the anticipation. Many had expected a confession, remorse or denial of complicity. Very few, if any, expected so much acumen to come from McVeigh and just 47 words. To fully understand the depth of McVeigh's statement, it might be best to understand exactly what the Olmstead case was about. "Olmstead was the leading conspirator and the general manager of [a] business" (Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438) which employed "not less than 50 persons," including executives, salesmen, deliverymen, dispatchers and an attorney. The business was "unlawfully possessing, transporting and importing intoxicating liquors,.." The crime, then, was a violation of the statutes enacted under authority of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution (Prohibition) which was ratified in 1919. The general argument of the court was that although postal mail, once sealed, was prohibited from intrusion by government officers seeking evidence, a telephone line was not, and, although Washington state law made it a misdemeanor to tap a phone, the evidence obtained thereby was admissible. The court, in its opinion, also made clear that the government need not be ethical in its acquiring of evidence. Brandeis, in his dissenting opinion, stated that "Tapping of one man's telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone line of every other person whom he may call, or who may call him." He continued, [a]s a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping." Although the comparison of any evidence gathering in the McVeigh case is inconsequential to the whole, the seizure of the papers in McVeigh's car, his home, the homes of his friends and relatives, and the intimidation of his sister and the Fortiers falls well within the domain of what was once prohibited under the Constitution — but which has become an everyday occurrence under the federal government's agenda. I'm not so sure that this was all that Timothy McVeigh had to say when he uttered those few words — much to the chagrin of many. The implications of wrongdoing by government, and usurpation of authority not granted by the Constitution through the process of judicial review is much broader in its ramifications than this case, by itself, demonstrates. Brandeis does discuss other aspects of the Constitution which have changed by their nature do to the nature of change in the society, especially from a technological point of view. How, for example, could the Founders have protected the right to communicate (theirs was limited to post and courier) over telephone lines when electricity hadn't been discovered. How, too, could they address the right to communicate freely on the Internet when just a few years ago the concept of this medium of communication was beyond the comprehension of most people. Brandeis states, with regard to the Supreme Court's review of actions of the Congress, that "this court has repeatedly sustained the exercise of power by Congress, under various clauses of [the Constitution], over objects of which the fathers could not have dreamed." "Protection against such invasion of 'the sanctities of a man's home and the privacies of life' was provided for in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by specific language." He continues, "ut 'time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes.' Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what was whispered in the closet." In appraising the consequences of the government's overzealous tendencies to secure convictions, Brandeis discussed the actions of the government officials, and the government, itself. "When these unlawful acts [wire tapping in violation of Washington state laws] were committed they were crimes only of the officers individually. The government was innocent, in legal contemplation; for no federal official is authorized to commit a crime on its behalf. When the government, having full knowledge, sought through the Department of Justice, to avail itself of the fruits of these acts in order to accomplish its own ends, it assumed moral responsibility for the officers' crimes… and if this court should permit the government, by means of its officers' crimes, to effect its purpose of punishing the defendants, there would seem to be present the elements of ratification [of the crime committed by government officials, individually]. If so, the government itself would become a lawbreaker." Brandeis' entire concluding paragraph is probably warranted. What McVeigh left out speaks volumes. From the record: "Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face." The act of anarchy that McVeigh committed was an act induced by observation of the governments violation of numerous aspects of the Constitution. In Texas, for example, §9.31 (C) of the Texas Penal Code states: "The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: "(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and "(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. There can be little doubt, regardless of your perception of what occurred in Waco, that the BATF and the FBI did create a situation in which the retaliatory action by the Davidians was fully justified, at least under Texas law. Other events in our recent history can lead us to conclude that the governments efforts at crime control have only generated a scenario where the government may commit crimes, with impunity, and convict others who have not committed a crime of the mere act of possibly contemplating a crime. A very far cry from what Brandeis spoke to some seventy years ago. Some will suggest that I am attempting to justify McVeigh's deeds. On the contrary, I have only attempted to explain them. Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream