Michele

Um, not really, Wolfie. Sorry.... 1. Did President Bush declare Victory in Iraq on May 1? ~No, the speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln was on May 1, 2003. While he did say that major combat operations were concluded, at no point did he declare victory...transcript here. In pertinent part: Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. 2. Have more casualties been sustained after President Bush declared victory than there were before, and at a significantly higher rate? As President Bush did not declare victory, I am not sure your question is answerable as it stands. However, I do know what you mean. Let's look at this rationally, analytically, and use correct timing (and sadly, only available that I could find is US troops...nothing personal to our brethren who fight beside us daily all over the world): Mar. 20 ~ April 30: KIA:115 KIA(83%) Accident: 23(17%) ~~Total: 138 (11 days + 30 days = 41 days total time) May 1 ~ October 25: KIA:107 (52%) Accident:98 (48%) ~~Total: 205 (147 days total) Since that's a hard comparison, the data was also broken down into a "daily rate"... Mar 20 ~ April 30: KIA: 2.74 Accident: .55 Daily: 3.29 May 1~ October 25: KIA: .60 Accident: .55 Daily: 1.15 Now, one might argue that because of the difference in time, one is extrapolating badly, but if the claim is that more have been killed post May 1 v. prior, and a higher rate, that simply isn't true. (all data was taken from this site. (The article is well worth the read, BTW, but I was just using it for the number breakdown). I obtained only KIA, and not those who were injured (rather high), medically evac'd (which includes pregnancies/gynological issues, dental issues, and phychiatric evac's...) and suicides are also not included. (I'm going for apples to apples, you know?) 3. Does this suggest that in fact the war did not end on May 1? There was no declaration of victory made on May 1, and thus one cannot conclude that something "ended" when if fact it had not been declared. The question is unanswerable. 4. If President Bush thereby jumped the gun on announcing victory, is it safe to infer that he did not have an exit plan? As he has yet to announce victory, I do believe the question is moot. I will agree, however, that there may not have been the appropriate planning in place to satisfy all people of everything, but I have yet to be able to satisfy everyone about everything on anything I do. The plans are proceeding apace, and I look forward to the day we can safely turn over power to the local Iraqi government, and gradually decrease our assistence. That will truly be a wonderful day, for all involved. And now I shall shut up.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Yes, I do agree with you to a point. When Clinton signed that law, it was interesting to note how it got skewed...by all parties. Irrespective of "window dressing", I think it's rather sad that so many people don't understand the genisis of things like this, or the Mujahadin funding back with Carter, and lay the blame on the wrong folk. Perhaps the comments should be "if it was a wrong campaign, then let's change it..." but to state unequivocally that so-and-so was responsible for thus-and-such without understanding the origins, and indeed the temperament of the world during the initial stages of the plan saddens me. It's party rhetoric, depending upon who's party it is, and it changes. The only real way to understand where we are, and how we got here is to research the origins of an issue, and understand the world's politics at that time...and then trace it through to present day. The book is so much hogwash, written by a fired, unsuccessful employee, and simply a deliberate attempt to assault Bush during an election year...no other reason for it now. Oh well... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Sigh... ~~~~ http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm "...105th Congress dealt with Iraq's threat to international order. In that mid-term election year, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)...." ~~~~~ http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/16/981216-wh2.htm The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. ~~~~~ And finally, a brief comparison between Clinton and Bush... Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." (see link above) George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region." (State of The Union address, 2003) Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. . . . Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. . . . Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection." (Statement contained in whole at above link, 12/16/1998) Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves." (State of the Union, 2003) Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (December 16, 1998) Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured." (ditto) Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. . . . But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so." (ditto) Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed, the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military." (ditto) I didn't research too much more than the above, but as far as I can tell, Iraqi regime change was initiated in 1998, Clinton signed it into law on 10/31/98...and yet Bush is lambasted by a disgruntled, fired employee, who has an axe to grind, and it makes news because he wrote a book...this is NOT news, this has been policy for a long time... Interesting comparison, at least to me.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

that should be... 3. MY A LICENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I remember when you were concerned because you rode the plane down. I told you then - it's all right, you're going to be fine....

Me tooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! 'Twas wonderful. I am talking to the Dr. again tomorrow, so I may not be able to get into the air again for a bit....so it was without a doubt very special, even if I did learn that RW is a contact sport...... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

you said... At what point did I ever say "recently"? All I said was "interesting". I took this as it was being reported from the top of the hour news on MSNBC. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

0:2:0 Two great jumps, one with Bill Cole tagging along in spirit. Beautiful weather, and I wish my body had cooperated better, or I'd've had more jumps to post...one landing down to one knee, and the other perfect on my toes. Absolutely wonderful... How'd your weekend go (ahem...Ms. Nightingale??? "A"-hem...) Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

I stand corrected...but I had thought it was a news conference, or publicity event, or something. I knew they were in England...but thought it was something other than during a concert as a comment between songs. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Per MSNBC top of the hour news... "Suspicious weapons" - "Perhaps as many as 200 shells were found by Danish troops buried in the banks of the Tigris river (N of Basrah). 4 preliminary tests have been concluded, all show blistering agent. Weapons experts are on the way to determine the contents..." Interesting. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Adding to what was already stated, the DC's were at a news conference, and spoke their mind, rather than write a song, produce a video, and air their perspective that way. There is a long history of song writers expressing their political views, Dylan comes to mind immediately, and that is a very different thing in perception of the public (either conservative or liberal) then the DC's statement to the press. Adding to that, The Eagles have released a wonderful song ("Hole in the World", IIRC)...and Henley is notoriously liberal. I love the Eagles' talent, and really love the new song - although one could say it's a liberal bent. One could even argue that in the songwriting, they reach a larger audience than if they "spoke out" ala the DC's. Lastly, I would venture to say that "Incubus" is likely not widely listened to by conservative Republicans. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

I had noticed that last night, too. I wonder what the numbers will show if 100 people respond...or 200. I'd suspect not much change, based on the original numbers, but one never knows. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Lany, I don't think that's necessarily true. I've been very open with things in my world, and have found some really intense friendships and help - practical and ephemeral - when I need it. So I don't think it's "too deep" for people her. I've read your post three times. I am utterly unclear as to what you are asking, or what you are seeking. Are you looking for those who may have been abused? To what extent? Why? Are you looking for some support getting through some tough times? What is it you are asking for? If you can clarify that, you may be one step closer to getting it. I really don't know *how* to answer your thread. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Terry, I really am not looking to lay blame. I was just sitting there, waiting for a friend, and the thought occurred to me...do people who pack their own have more mals, or do people who use packers have more? More of a curiousity as to how it breaks down numerically, rather than "why" the mal occurred. I think one of my favorite sayings is something to the effect of "you take a bunch of fabric, lots of line, and throw them into the wind while you're traveling 120 mph. And you wonder why sometimes it doesn't work!!!" I guess I am just wondering how it falls out, is all. Again, not looking to point the finger nor blame anyone for anything. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

I know it's not terribly scientific, but I'm curious as to what the numbers show. Elaborate if you want. This is not about blame...not about that at all. I'm just looking for an overall numbers view... I know that cutaways can happen because of many things, like body position, etc., but for this poll, I guess I am just looking for gross numbers and nothing precise. I'll go first... Cutaway. I did not pack the canopy. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

I agree. But I also think saying something along the lines of if you're unable to do a pull-up, you are arbitrarily dismissed from tandem jumps is patently ridiculous and is similar to saying "I don't jump with blond people because their hair is too fine, and gets up my nose...." So, in your opinion, only in special circumstances should someone be allowed to go on a tandem when they can't do a pull up? Phree, I gotta say. I graduated a police academy some 10 years ago. For the life of me - the literal life of me - I could NOT do a pull up. I could haul a guy who outwieghed me by 80+ pounds (lift him and carry him), wrestle and win (cuff) a 6'2" DI with a bastardly attitude (he bit me during crit. scenarios...), fly over a 6 foot brick wall, run miles in good time. I did 120 full sit-ups (not crunchies) in 120 seconds, and did more than 40 pushups - one footed, btw - and could never ever manage even one damned pull-up. Even when they told me I'd fail the entire academy, I couldn't do one. (And that was just to see if panic would help. Sadly, I still just hung there, halfway up. I still graduated top of my class, thank you very much...). That's why I have an issue. Arbitrary comments like "or a pull up" will limit someone like me, if I chose to believe it was important. It is important, perhaps, but not a reason to exclude someone from doing a tandem. Make it a real reason. Not some arbitrary aspect from someone's opinion that really has NOTHING to do with safety. And I maintain that with the amount of people who do tandems who are 90, amputees, blind, unable to move, and/or victim to another unfortunate circumstance - and they are just fine - then it is arbitrary at best to include a pull up or walking stairs as "definitive parameter". Unless someone can actually demonstrate that being able to do a pull up is vital to me or the tandem master's safety, I will continue to encourage absolutely everyone I know - EVERYONE - to experience the immenseness that is the sky and the amazing joy inherent in flying your body therein, coupled with the feelings of total personal empowerment which comes from facing - and walking through - their fears and personal challenges - irrespective of a presidental physical fitness medal or ability to do a chin-up. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Phree, at no point did I say that someone shouldn't take if there is a danger of overloading. As a matter of fact, I mentioned that in the post you're responding to. But base it on more than an ability to do a pull-up, please...that's all. Further...there's this really cool guy I know. He can't walk up stairs, and he can't do a pull up. His name is Rebel, and his tandem changed his life. Remember him, Phree? Here's a far better link. The vid is included....Rebel with A Dream So, Ron, or CoconutMonkey, tell me again. Pull ups are important? Walking up the stairs is important for a tandem??? No, making it into the sky is important... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

I was a student, and frankly, just about the same shape (round) then as I am now. I didn't comment about the stairs...I commented about the pull-up which was one of the parameters (using an "or", not "and") set out in the post I questioned. Pull-ups are not exactly the best parameters of someone's physical shape. The issue I brought up was about pull-ups. Stair climbing, I will agree, but only to a point. I probably could not run a mile in 8 minutes, nor 9, nor 10. I could walk one in 10 minutes. Even during my most fit time, I could NOT do a pull up, and the way my body works, I go to hyperventilation within 30 seconds of strenuous running or rapid stair climbing. That is how my body works...been tested, all is well. (My body adjusts to hyperventilation, but never goes to oxygen deprivation or other issues along those lines.). Emtional shape CANNOT be assessed from physical appearance, with the possible exception of being wasted or high. You have no idea what my emotional stamina/capability would be by looking at me...nor I you. I've seen beautifully scultped hardbodies not handle simple stress at all...let alone the stuff which comes along with jumping from a plane. Reasonable physical shape is different from person to person. As a black belt, I was "overweight". No issues - still one of the best fighters in my tourny classes. Unless there is a fat pincher thingy, eyeballing will not help. Unless you have a stress test, you will not know if someone who gets winded walking up the stairs is in fact winded, or like me. That is your right. Thankfully, my JM's had a different, more generous thought, and were willing to work with me to teach me how to skydive. SPORT it is...and I love it. Actually, skydiving has, more than pretty much anything else in recent years, made me more aware of how out of shape I am...seeing all the hardbodies running around can get depressing. Look, I'm not debating the right for people to pick and choose who they take. It's their life, they get to make the call. But I think - perhaps, hope - that if someone really short decided that I was too tall to safely take, he wouldn't make that decision because of my weight... As a "voluptuous" woman, I have serious curves. I would hope that someone would do more than look at me before they make the decision to not take me just because the boobs are big, the bottom is big, and everything in between is not just bones. To you, I would be overweight. To my JMs, I was no issue. They taught me, taught me well, and I've remained safe and hopefully will continue to do so. Thank God I had the JM's I did and not a pull-up master. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Sorry.... I guess I've been endangering myself and everyone around me needlessly for years. Really sorry about that. Gosh, I am. I can't do a pull up, and am chubby. I guess I should sell my gear and get out of the sport. I mean, because I can't do a pull up, I may a danger to all. WTF is that???????????????? I am more flexible than 90% of people, physically fit or not. I am as strong, if not stronger, than the average woman (just ask Sinker - 230 pounds, and I lifted him up. Easy-pie.). And, I am as air-aware as the average 80 jump wonder, if not more so. Can I flare the 210? Sure. Can I front riser it? Well, not really. But that's all right - I don't want to, anyway. Can I rear riser it? Absolutely. Can I pick up a guy and carry him? Yes.... So explain, please, how I am a danger because I can't do a pull up. I am serious. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Very well done, Beth! Glad I could contribute - not sure how much I did, though - LOL, I'm no barrister nor legal eagle...I really liked the question from LawRocket - who supplied the Knights/armies? As for the vote of confidence, see? Thursday, it's done. Badabing! And you were worried that you'd be stuck for the whole weekend. HAH! What's that song "I'll get by with a little help from my friends..."

That's an important part of the story, though. Three white girls, as opposed to three black, three indian, asian, ?? I'll bet it's also the way the descriptors are on the police information sheet...descriptions are needed, and the race aspect is important. The info sheet asks for white, black, hispanic, asian, et cetera. Also, the man was described as "white", too, and you didn't get bothered about that. I don't see a thing wrong with letting people know who to look for....and their race is part of how to identify them. The story, however, is the upsetting part. Not the race descriptors. Those three babies are in serious danger if they are still alive. It's a horrendous situation, with absolutely no chance of a "good" outcome...people are dead already. The best we can hope for is that the girls are left alive, but that isn't too likely. The license plate is 730YFV, Georgia plates. Armed, very dangerous. Damn. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Happy Birthday, Seth. I was trying to think of something funny to say, but my wit has fled the building. I wonder if it's the topic? It is also Elvis Presley's birthday, so you share a day with a sweaty fat man who sings, anyway. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

I'm straight commission, and the only thing I can think of which annoys me about someone I work with is her laugh. She has the MOST annoying laugh. Piercing, shrill, and headache instigating. Other than that, if someone annoys me, it's a brief moment, and easily dealt with...I tell 'em to go away. They usually do. BWDave, here's what I'd do if I were in your situation, and really wanted to do something about it. You really can do damange with the info you have on her. Document her calls - you sit next to her...easy to do. Document her internet stuff...ditto Take one week's worth of documented information to your boss. Lay it out for him/her. Say something like "dunno if you knew, but she is using your equipment (computer, TS line, et cetera) to advertise herself on the internet for sexual purposes. I am not sure if she's getting paid, but prostitution is illegal, and this is creating a horrendous work environment for me. I'm not sure what you can do, however, so I will start checking with the police and the labor board to see what your options are." Note the whole conversation in writing, and CC your boss's boss. Include the original documentation. Trust me, this will really shake folks up, and shit will get done. At the very least, she will now be monitored for illegal activity while at work (prostitution), and she will be a total bitch to you. Document this, as well, because now you have "whistle blower" status (documented), and if you can demonstrate her actions are directly related to you doing something about your horrid work conditions, then you are protected. At the most, she will get fired. The negative is that you might get fired. But if you've demonstrated you were making a legit complaint, then you can sue them for firing you without cause, in retaliation, and with animus not based on work performance. Good luck, and I really wish you the best. It's got to be really rotten going to work... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Vinny didn't look like that at dinner tonight, although he did confess an affinity to tequila. LOL, no, tonight we had one single glass of sangria...and a wonderful Italian dinner, and great conversation. But I would NOT have recognized him from that photo... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Very interesting viewing. Thanks for sharing that! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Derek, can I still pm you and ask you really stupid questions? Miss ya, and wish you'd reconsider at least the moderating stuff. You've a wise wise head on your shoulders, and I have so much to learn... Hugs to you, and hug Kelli for me! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~