JDBoston

A hero is someone who puts the welfare of others above their own personal comfort and safety. There are degrees of this, of course, so in order to narrow the definition I would say they need to risk physical harm, public ridicule, poverty or something similarly serious. Personally, I don't think it matters whether they sought out the situation, or simply found themselves in it and stayed. Joe

Too tame and mainstream, huh? Well, we obviously need to get down to a more appropriate level then. What kind of level would interest you? Swinging? S&M? Bestiality? Joe

No, extremism is a very relative definition. Basically, it just means a minority, as opposed to majority, position. Outspoken advocates of democracy would probably be branded "extremists" in a Communist or Islamic state. Joe

Sure, you're still drunk. The hangover and memory loss will probably come in 24-48 hours or so. Joe

But what if the government said that all dissent from the party line is illegal? Where does that leave the patriots? (not the Patriots, we all know they won the Super Bowl) Joe

Good point. But then you should also apply this to people who sit around and cheerlead for everything the government does as opposed to criticizing it, still without taking any action or making any sacrifice. It's much easier to cheerlead than it is to criticize, since usually cheerleaders have more company and support. In this case, a real patriot would be someone who actively contributes, either for or against the government, based on ideals they identify as "American," or "Canadian," or whatever... right? Assuming, of course, that they aren't hiding behind the word patriot to justify blowing up children, like Tim McVeigh. That's one exception I would make. It can be a pretty tricky word sometimes. Joe

Guess I should have stated it more clearly: what does patriotism mean if you're an American? Joe

Has anyone ordered from this guy? Is he legit? How's the quality? I know most of skydiving's a cottage industry anyway, but it never hurts to check... I think they look really cool. Joe

I've got a good one for everybody. Define what patriotism means. Does it mean supporting "American" ideals as expressed in the founding documents of the country? Does it mean supporting whatever the current democratically-elected leaders are doing? Interested to hear people's interpretations.... my personal interpretation is that it means supporting American ideals of freedom of speech, the press, and so on, NOT necessarily supporting the political structure or leaders. But then again, I probably have a different conception of what the "American" ideals mean than the founding fathers did. For instance, I think they should apply to women and black people too... hmmm..... so maybe these "ideals" can change over time... Joe

Come on man, who cares if it's fake as long as it's believable. That's one area where I will let people blur the line between fact and reality. If I can get an appealing mental picture of her, I don't much care whether it's accurate. Joe

Let me see if I can try to distill some of the debate here: I think there's nothing wrong with leaders allowing their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, to influence the decisions they make in their capacity as leaders. As human beings, they cannot help but do this. Where I draw the line is when they refer to an external, fixed body of belief as their guide (a specific religion or religious work) in the decisions they make as a leader. That does two things: 1) it gives them a means of deflecting blame & criticism and stifling debate (even if they choose not to use it in this way, this is what it can evolve into), and 2) it allows them to put the force of this external, recognized belief system behind any morally questionable actions they end up taking, because these external belief systems can usually be twisted around and interpreted to serve all kinds of different ends. Hopefully that contributes something to the whole debate. In the meantime, I would also be interested in further information on Faith Hill, such as links to dirty photos on the Net. Thanks, Joe

Who says she has a carpet?

That's a fair point, but I think that politicians do have a responsibility to take the reality of how humans are put together into account. Such as on the topic of sex education. I think it's totally immoral to deny high quality sex education to our kids for any reason whatsoever. The more kids know about how sex works, the less likely they are to get into trouble with it. Abstinence will never be a majority solution. Hell, it doesn't even work for priests!!!! When people start hitting puberty, they're gonna start trying to get off. That's called reality, and I think a lot of conservative, religious-minded folk ignore it, at the price of STD's and numerous other nice consequences of the deafening silence where good sex ed should be. All that said, you're right, there isn't an equation for everything. But responsible politicians will make use of as much factual data as they can in order to make decisions that will WORK in real life. Joe

Really? I did not read your original post that way. By "a higher standard of proof," I mean dispassionate, scientific analysis, not the Bible or a similar text. For instance, I would contend that people of various Christian sects who refuse medical care and (like in a recent case in Boston) feed their baby only honey (or something like that, I can't remember exactly what it was) because "God told them to" are 100% morally culpable for the physical harm they are causing, due to their conscious decision to ignore the realities of how human beings work. Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from... this should shape up into another fun debate... Joe

Not so. Fact is what can be proven right or wrong through its interaction with reality. Gravity is not a personal belief. Neither is the fact that human babies need physical touching to grow and survive. If someone believes otherwise, and puts this belief into practice, the difference between fact and personal belief will become abundantly clear. People often claim factual status for things that do not deserve it. This is fine for one person, but if you're making decisions that affect other humans, then you have a moral responsibility to apply a higher standard of proof than "because I believe it to be so, it is." Joe

James, I can kind of see your point, but what I would say is this: People who let religious beliefs guide ALL of their actions, and cannot compromise, or be swayed by unexpected facts into changing what they previously believed, should NOT be in positions of great responsibility. Bush can put on the simple front all he wants, if that helps the American people trust his judgment and believe, however erroneously, that he has principles and always sticks to them. Trust in a leader is important. But when it comes down to it, he has a very real, very messy, and very complicated job to do, and faith will not help him do it properly. Joe

Talk about a slippery slope... whoa... if we start mixing religion and policy-making, then either we give all religions a say, including crap like Scientology which we have tolerantly classified as a religion, and which has a LOT of money to spend on lobbying... Or we privilege Christianity. For historical comparison, does anyone know of any sizeable country that was ever run by a government with an explicit connection to a specific religion, without creating divisiveness, intolerance, and violent repression? I'd be interested to hear of any. It's just flat out dangerous to govern people according to a system that they can't argue with or question, whether that's organized religion or the Communist Manifesto. You cater to the human instinct for groupspeak and aggression towards outsiders. The reason secular democracy works is because we as citizens can debate things, question the rules, and change our collective minds. It also gives everyone the opportunity to be a citizen, regardless of culture or creed. Not saying Bush is trying to put the Church in charge, I just think this is an interesting discussion to have. Joe

I think that's a pretty f'in cool idea. As far as the economics: without knowing anything about the technology and how scalable that kind of an operation is, I would say require a minimum order of $100 or something similar. The people who are likely to be the biggest pain in your ass are the cheapskates that will dick around with you for $5 off on their 1 tape they want converted. Also, the fewer relationships you have to manage, the better. And everyone pays in advance, of course. Stretch delivery as long as you can without pissing people off - 1 month at least. Since I was in venture capital for a while, and work in a small company now, I'd be happy to offer other business plan thoughts if you want any. Not that I know everything but maybe I'll be able to dig up a few useful nuggets. Good luck in any case if you decide to go through with it. Joe

I don't know what you're talking about, Lisa. Boston kicks ass, while California is full of flaky people, forest fires, mudslides, earthquakes, race riots, and the like, none of which we have in Boston. Well, maybe we have some flakes in Cambridge, but that's about it. Side note - I went to Jumptown for the first time this weekend and got a very good vibe from it. Unfortunately I arrived simultaneously with the rain on Saturday and didn't have the time to go back on Sunday when the weather was nicer. But I met a bunch of people and they were all really cool and I'll definitely be there next weekend if it's decent weather. What finally got me to drive out there in the first place (though I had been planning to for some time) was doing a little comparison shopping on currency jumps. Even though they only charge about 1/2 of what other New England DZ's do... I didn't realize currency jumps were this expensive everywhere! I better hurry up and get those B and C licenses so I can go a little longer between jumps without getting held up for this crap again. Or maybe go down to Raeford where it sounds like this is the kind of thing an instructor would just do for slot plus beer, right Chuck? Joe

I have to ask: do you commonly let people pack your shit? Sorry, I couldn't resist... hope people get that one... Joe

There's a pretty big difference between national/regional stereotypes and racial/ethnic ones. Ask a few friends who aren't white, I'm sure they can explain it to you. Joe

Have you guys seen this? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/04/18/MN109646.DTL I can't believe a big company would be this stupid. But hey, I guess no one has a monopoly on stupidity. Maybe their next shirt can have minstrels in blackface or something. Or Mexicans working in lettuce fields. Joe

I'm gonna live forever.

Just got my rig - woohoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - which is red & gold w/some red & gold tie-dye parts too (mudflaps, design on the back, cutaway pad). My main is 3 shades of blue but I got it used. I don't know that it really matches the rig. Whatever. Don't have a suit yet, but when I get one it'll likely be some kind of neutral color that's doesn't get hot or dirty too easily and doesn't clash with my other shit. Anyway, them's my colors. Joe

Dave, was that "witty but really offensive" thing you were too classy to say the following, by any chance? Q: When does a Cub Scout become a Boy Scout? A: When he eats his first Brownie. Hahaha. Anyway, thin mints are OK, but those O-shaped caramel & chocolate Girl Scout cookies with the coconut flakes on the outside are DA BOMB. Joe