freeflydrew

go to http://www.ewido.net and run a free scan... they are super good (much better than trend micro)

Don't you have a house to move into or something?

Here's one of Thereza and Hunter

Born today! (7/14/07) -Hunter-

I think that Bush is one of the most optimistic people I have ever encountered... not too realistic, but plenty optimistic. :-) I loved his bit about the impact on Pig farmers if we use corn for energy.

how about iDVD? it's free and already on your mac.

Considering that he hardly speaks english, perhaps what he meant was they don't use those helmets with top mounted cameras? or that he designs tha helmets for side mounted cameras... the custom sidebox is part of what makes the RAWA such a great helmet. IF he makes the helmet for use with a side mounted video and top mounted stills, why not look for a helmet that is designed differently, or use this one the way it was designed?

i bet if you searched for your answer it would be very easy to find it... it might as well be a sticky http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=forum_11&search_string=learn+head+down&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=&sb=score&mh=25

2.28 (92 xaos 27)

That would have been a great opportunity to send a private message :-)

I think that the point that you just made is pretty out there... You're saying that the US is so safe that a terrorist couldn't pull off a bombing, poisoning, or hijacking on US soil, so they choose to fight in Iraq instead? And this explains the high level of insurgency in Iraq? Maybe the level of insurgency in Iraq has to do with the fact that we're occupying a country, and involving ourselves in what is essentially a civil war with escalating tension and violence? That we're building military bases in a country that we invaded based on false pretenses and have no plans to leave? Or maybe it has to do with an underlying hatred towards America and it's allies based on 50 years of American Foreign Policy in the Region? I have a tough time taking what this no-name, low level member of a terrorist organization, has confessed, through interrogation, as the truth... I think that your sense of US security is unrealistic.

a couple threads down...

Another problem with Abu Faraj al-Libbi's confession is that it doesn't make sense. Qaeda knows as well as anyone that Iraq, where the U.S. military could knock down your door at any moment, would be one of the worst places in the world from which to launch or plan a terrorist attack on the United States. The Administration knows that America is much more vulnerable in Europe. A Qaeda terrorist with a European passport can come into this country under the visa waiver program, virtually without scrutiny. I think your question was answered on the next line...

From http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1624993,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner More Bad Intelligence on Iran and Iraq Thursday, May. 24, 2007 By ROBERT BAER This week the White House made a big show of declassifying intelligence alleging that in 2005 al-Qaeda considered using Iraq as a base to launch terrorist attacks on the United States. The White House didn't bother to mask the reason for the disclosure — to put pressure on the Democrats to stop trying to impose a date for a withdrawal from Iraq. Meanwhile, ABC News reported that the White House recently ordered the CIA to destabilize the Iranian regime. Both cases show how the Administration is still trying to manipulate intelligence to further its strategic goals. ABC says that Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams is behind the covert action against Iran, which reportedly stems from a "nonlethal presidential finding" signed by Bush to launch a plan that "includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions." But the CIA has consistently told this White House it can't do anything about the mullahs in Tehran short of strangling the country economically, in particular cutting off finished fuel products. That could take years, which is too long for the Bush Administration. (Both the White House and CIA refused to comment to ABC about the report.) It's no surprise that Abrams would be behind this. But of all people he should know better. Abrams was a key player in the Iran-contra fiasco, which was rooted in lousy intelligence. In case you have forgotten, a handful of confidence men convinced the Reagan NSC, along with Abrams, that they were talking to moderate Iranians, who, properly nurtured, would supposedly change the character of the Iranian regime. It was a lie; the NSC was dealing with the most radical, hostile faction in Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the same group holding our hostages in Lebanon. Once again, neo-cons are urging the U.S. to take advantage of Iraq's long border with Iran and finally do something about the Iranian regime. I even got a call not long after the invasion from a neo-con asking if I wanted to go to Iraq to handle the Mujahideen-e-Khlaq, an Iranian dissident group on the State Department's terrorist list. The mission was supposedly to collect intelligence on Iranian nuclear facilities. (I declined, and I don't know where it went from there.) And I still keep hearing rumblings that Elliot Abrams is pressuring our Arab allies and Pakistan to fund and arm Jundallah, a fundamentalist Sunni Iranian Ballouch group, to attack the Iranian government — in other words, an off-the-books covert action. But neither the MEK nor Jundallah has the wherewithal to change the regime in Tehran. As for the intelligence on al-Qaeda and Iraq, it's even flimsier. The captured Qaeda member who provided it, Abu Faraj al-Libbi, may have been tortured, either by Pakistan, by the CIA or at Guantanamo. Even if we accept the White House's euphemism for torture — "enhanced interrogation" techniques — what Libbi has to say about Qaeda can't be trusted, let alone drive U.S. policy. Never mind that no one can decide what exact role Libbi played in Qaeda, or whether he was even in a position to know bin Laden's plans. He was never on the FBI Most Wanted list (as most Qaeda leaders on whom we have sufficient evidence are). Abu Faraj al-Libbi isn't even his real name (al-Libbi means "the Libyan" in Arabic). Abu Faraj al-Libbi is often confused with Ibn Shaykh al-Libbi, who was captured shortly after 9/11 and reportedly recanted his confession about Saddam having a pre-9/11 connection to al-Qaeda, saying it was coerced. Abu Faraj was also initially confused with Anas al-Liby, who was supposedly involved in the 1998 East Africa bombings and is on the Most Wanted list. Confused? Well, that's just the way the White House likes it. Another problem with Abu Faraj al-Libbi's confession is that it doesn't make sense. Qaeda knows as well as anyone that Iraq, where the U.S. military could knock down your door at any moment, would be one of the worst places in the world from which to launch or plan a terrorist attack on the United States. The Administration knows that America is much more vulnerable in Europe. A Qaeda terrorist with a European passport can come into this country under the visa waiver program, virtually without scrutiny. If the Bush Administration continues to feed the American people the same dog's breakfast of bad intelligence, we'll be in Iraq until Bush leaves office. And while we're at it, just maybe in a war with Iran. Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East and Time.com's intelligence columnist, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down

from: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17764.htm How Will They Destroy Ron Paul? By Mike Whitney “Whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism”. Rep. Ron Paul “On Patriotism” 05/24/07 "ICH" -- -- How will the media destroy Ron Paul? We all know the drill by now. Whenever a politician with character and principles throws his hat in the ring the media descends on him like feral hounds on a pork chop. It’ll be no different with Paul. The only difference is that we should all be aware of what’s really going on. Did you see the Republican debates? Paul won hands-down. He stood out in a crowd of colorless toadies and became an overnight sensation on the internet. In fact, an ABC survey showed that Paul won the first debate with an 85% majority; while C-SPAN showed him at 70%. Maybe the stats are just a fluke of internet voting, but it’s sure made the boys in the boardrooms nervous. You see, it doesn’t matter if Paul wins or not. What matters is that he is delivering a message that is damaging to America’s biggest powerbrokers---and they don’t like it. They would rather he just shut up and go away. They’ve heard enough about the Military Commissions Act, and martial law, and the fraudulent war on terror. They’ve put a lot of energy into the new American police state and they aren’t about to let some “no account” libertarian destroy all their hard work. Right now, the right wing think tanks are probably buzzing like a hornets nest. They have their work cut out for them. The sleeves are rolled up, the ash trays are full, and America’s best propagandists are working out the details for a full-blown assault on Ron Paul. They want to take him down now, before he can cause any more trouble. My guess is that they will use a similar strategy to what they used on John Kerry, that is---keep it simple---attack on 3 fronts and repeat the charges from every soapbox in America. In Kerry’s case, the mantra was as follows: 1. Kerry “flip-flops” 2 He’s a Massachusetts liberal. 3 He faked his war injuries to look like a hero. The effectiveness of this strategy depends on how often the charges are repeated and from how many outlets. The media will have to devise a saturation-campaign similar to the full-blown attack on Howard Dean in the 2004 Democratic primary. The infamous “Dean Scream” appeared over 900 times in the major media in the first 72 hours. Technicians isolated Dean’s holler from the background noise of a crowded convention hall, which made him look like he was emotionally unstable. It worked like a charm. Dean’s star sunk overnight and the country was “spared” the prospect of an antiwar candidate. Isn’t that what media is for---to obliterate the enemies of the corporate chieftains who enrich themselves through foreign wars? My guess is that, sometime in the next 2 weeks, we’ll see a big push by to derail the Paul campaign. Already Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and FOX News have taken a few swipes at him, but they proved they are not up to the task. Its time to wheel out the heavy artillery and pound Paul into rubble. But what is Paul saying that makes him such a threat to the corporate powerbrokers? Is it just because he stands out in a crowd of plaster-hair phonies--or is it because his campaign is focused on the traditional American values of liberty and non-intervention rather than demagoguery and torture? This is how Paul summarized 9-11 and our misguided war in Iraq: “They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? Would we be objecting? Or this: “I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.” The rest of the Republican candidates support the “official narrative” that Iraq is just a battleground in a larger war against Islamic fanaticism---the prevailing myth which is fueled by the media and assures decades of conflict. Clearly, the bankers, neocons and weapons manufacturers are not sympathetic to Paul’s analysis nor do they want to pollute the public air-waves with his common sense alternatives. Here’s what Paul has to say about the maneuverings of the Federal Reserve, the secretive cabal that controls our money: “Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress-- while benefiting the special interests that influence government. Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people-- just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.” Do you really think that the board-members of the privately-owned Central Bank want the American people to know about the extortionist racket they’ve been running for the last 90 years in contravention of the US Constitution? And, what do you think they’ll do to stop further embarrassing exposure? Paul’s demand that we abolish the Federal Reserve is no different than his ideological ancestor Thomas Jefferson, who said: “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of our currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing of power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” Isn’t that what is happening right now? Doesn’t the Fed inflate one massive equity bubble after the other so that working class people are lured in by low-interest rates and then lose their shirts when the bubble collapses? This is how the banking elites shift wealth from one class to another. It’s an old scam, but it never fails. Paul is right. Free people cannot control their own destiny unless they control their own currency. The Federal Reserve must be abolished. And, as Paul says, “The sooner the better”. He’s also right about deficits when he says: The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch – Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference – that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars”. The men who own the media don’t want this type of populism on the air-waves. After all, they love deficits. The trade deficits provide cheap capital for the stock market while the budget deficit borrows money from future generations for lavish tax cuts for Bush’s wealthy buddies. No wonder they hate Paul! Most of all, Paul is reviled for his defense of liberty and his rejection of Bush’s sweeping changes to the Constitution. He’s been an outspoken critic of the Military Commissions Act, which permits torture and arbitrary detention of American citizens or foreign nationals on the orders of the executive. He has also condemned warrantless wiretaps, presidential signings, extraordinary rendition, the Real ID Act, and the Orwellian-sounding "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act'' which allows Bush to declare martial law at his own discretion. Ron Paul is a friend of personal freedom which makes him the de facto enemy of the White House brown-shirts. He has watched as our country has continued to slide towards military dictatorship. He has put himself on the firing-line to defend our way of life. His candidacy is an act of patriotism which is why the Bush Throng will try to destroy him. In a recent speech on the floor of the House Paul said: “Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty”. Thanks for that, Mr. Paul. And, good luck.

For those who prefer not to read... from youtube:http://youtube.com/watch?v=xKITUOl0NBc For those who prefer to read from http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17727.htm ..."Well," he said, "I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy –no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them." He was then asked if 9-11 changed anything. He responded that US foreign policy was a "major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East –I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. " And then out of the blue, he was asked whether we invited the attacks. "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time –have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary." Then the very archetype of the State Enforcer popped up to shout him down. "That's really an extraordinary statement," said Rudy Giuliani. "That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." Now, this is interesting because it is obvious that Ron never said that we invited the attacks. This was a lie. He said the US foreign policy was a "contributing factor" in why they attacked us, a fact which only a fool or a liar could deny. Guiliani then went on to say that he has never "heard that before" –a statement that testifies to the extent of the blackout on this question. Ron Paul was invited to respond, and concluded as follows: "I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were –if other foreign countries were doing that to us?" Wow, he broke the great taboo in American political life! Why this should be a taboo at all is unclear, but there it is. But now that it is finally out in the open, this shocking theory that the terrorists were not merely freedom-hating madmen but perhaps had some actual motive for their crime, let's think a bit more about it. It is a normal part of human experience that if you occupy, meddle, bully, and coerce, people who are affected by it all are going to get angry. You don't have to be Muslim to get the point. The problem is that most of the American people simply have no idea what has been happening in the last ten years. Most Americans think that America the country is much like their own neighborhood: peaceful, happy, hard working, law abiding. So when you tell people that the US is actually something completely different, they are shocked....

Thanks Jeremy!

what does fwiw stand for?

my opinion is that it does make a difference, even for individual flights...

I'm kind of assuming same pricing and power... I would probably drive further for the bigger tunnel, unless there was free coaching or a special event at one vs another...

Just wondering if you would travel (drive or fly) longer to fly in a 14ft tunnel vs 12ft? Let's assume, same power, same pricing... (I wish the poll could be a little more flexible!) Please feel free to elaborate.

I wish it would open! any chance of it being posted as an mov, m4v, avi?

adobe just released the prices for all the intel versions of the adobe suite... it's a little pricey

I also use Smugmug and am very, very happy with their quality! If you decide to sign up with them, this coupon code (F2i20pNGrkvlc) will save you $5 right off the bat. -drew

They should have said pussy