JDBoston

Kreg, My condolences on the loss of your father. I can only imagine what it must be like, and only hope it will get easier over time, though I'm sure he'll always be on your mind. Beers whenever I'm down in LA again - Joe

It doesn't make me more or less likely to do a BASE jump, it just gives me more data to make smart decisions with once I get to the point of deciding BASE is something I want to get into. The more info & (qualified) points of view, the better and safer for everyone. The decision to get into this stuff is a pretty hefty one and I'm probably going to base it (no pun intended) on a lot of factors that have nothing to do with what I read on the Web. Such as: my own skills, my temperament, my family/relationship situation, my feelings watching other people do it, ground crewing, etc. That's my $0.02. Joe

I think the proper term for this is a suicide... but I suppose we should wait for the authorities to weigh in. Joe

One idea I've been toying with for some time next year is getting myself an old beat-up RV and spending some time on the road. Like 3-6 months plus, at least. I saw some pretty cheap Class A's out there and I like the idea of having a decent amount of living space if I'm gonna do it. My basic plan would be to hit a bunch of drop zones and try to spend at least a week or two parked someplace between the longer drives. What I want to figure out is how much of a pain in the ass that's likely to be, in several respects. One: I'm no repair guy, yet. How much am I going to have to learn to keep the thing running and in good shape? Is there substantially more day-to-day maintenance than a car? Also: how often do you really need to hook RVs up? Every night? If I end up having to pay $20 every night to hook it up, I almost might as well just stay in roach motels and drive my regular car. I assume if I get one with a generator that makes it less necessary to hook up every night, right? Also, do I need to get a different class of driver's license for something that's 20-30' long? Just some basic introductory questions... Thanks, Joe

This is how I keep MY cats in line. http://www.bonsaikitten.com Joe

I think we have a winner. Joe

Ah, where's Spectre230 when we need him? Or her, or whatever it was... Joe

All depends on how much money you have to spend. For the best variety of people, prices, scenes, and cuisines, stay below 25th Street or so. There's a mind-boggling array of shit to do down there, all North of the Wall Street area of course, which is normally dead after about 5:01 PM. I could point you to a couple resources for finding interesting shit if you have anything particular in mind - PM me if you want. Midtown up to the mid-60's is touristy and ugly and congested and mainly sucks, although there are scattered attractions you may be interested in like Lincoln Center, the Empire State Building, Madison Square Garden, Central Park, etc. Above the sixties it's largely residential on both sides of the park, but with an OK assortment of stores and nightlife. Joe

On those subjects, we are in violent agreement. Where due process is possible (in the US), only VERY extreme circumstances should ever get in its way. And freedom of political speech, debate, and dissent is practically the main founding tenet of our country. Without it, we might as well move to China, or Iraq. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of people in the US who don't really understand that. Like Ari Fleischer, for example. Joe

Besides, in Canada you'd need local help and expertise in order to deal with the vast amounts of snow, funny talkers, hockey, and how to transport things with sled dogs. Correct? Joe

A college degree used to be viewed as a meal ticket since not everyone had one, but now there are so many colleges popping up everywhere that it really doesn't mean too much in and of itself. For instance, at the state college my parents taught at, a lot of the students have little interest in anything remotely thought-related, and just think that a gentleman's C and a diploma will land them a job. I wonder if they're surprised when they end up waiting on tables of construction workers who make five times as much money as they do. There are also numerous people in sales professions of various flavors making assloads of money without a 4-year degree. So, like other people on this thread, I wouldn't use that as the barometer for a financially successful life. What I DO have a big problem with, though, is parents splurging on boats and cars and nice clothes and going out to eat and stuff, and failing to save money for their kids' education. I saw a lot of that growing up and frankly it makes me sick. Don't have kids if you're not willing to put their needs and future ahead of your own. Joe

Let me pose another question: assume some group of people began a campaign of suicide bombings within the US. Would any of you be comfortable looking a room full of cops with families in the eye and telling them that if they encountered someone they knew to be a member of this organization, they should walk up to them and take them into custody like any other criminal? My guess is that we'd end up treating them like we'd treat some raving, drooling psycho with a gun - surround them, get the civilians out of the area, call in snipers, and more likely than not, end up shooting them if they didn't disarm/surrender. And if we made a mistake once in a while, people would protest and hopefully the cops would start looking for a higher standard of proof. But the highest priority would always be to protect the lives of innocent, non-combatant civilians. When you're dealing with people who don't even value their own life, let alone yours, I think the rules do need to be a little different. Opinions? Joe

Derek Walcott

Far enough is in a country where a regular capture, extradition, and trial are not prohibitively complicated. For instance, even though England is far away, I don't think it would be appropriate for us to bomb people there. It's not just geographic distance. And it's not necessarily cultural distance either - we have better relations with the Saudis, for example, and probably would have a better chance of getting custody of someone there than in Yemen. In any case, terrorism of this variety isn't nearly the same as a run of the mill criminal case anyway. You're talking about people who've been known hijack planes and bomb civilians to gain the release of imprisoned comrades. If we have to err on one side or the other, I'd say err on the side of shooting first when we know we've got the right guy. As to who: it's always the government that makes these decisions, and in a democracy they make them based on what they think the voters will tolerate/support. If the government is incompetent and starts shooting the wrong people, then we just have to trust that people will be able to get the truth out about it and enough people will find it unacceptable that the government decides it needs to change its policies. Joe

Also, to step back outside and reframe this thing for a minute, we're sort of mixing apples and oranges in this thread. We started off talking about what we thought of the incident in Yemen, which was basically a military operation and not a reflection of government "policy" towards its citizens or towards human rights in general. OK, so one of the guys was a US citizen. He was also hanging with a very bad guy in an area of the world where court justice doesn't work very well. It's a shame, but it's not cause for the rest of us to worry much. When we get into sustained and deliberate government actions within the country, it's actually an entirely different subject matter IMHO. In my own posts, I was thinking mainly in terms of external, military-type actions like the car bombing, and not in terms of "let's say we know some guy in the US is a big drug dealer, should we just shoot him instead of arresting him?" I really do think they're separate debates because the logistics and decision-making processes in each case are so different. Just to be clear... hopefully... Joe

I think every situation's unique, and that's why you need loud, open, public debate from people on both sides of any issue to keep governments honest. I think an organized campaign of repression and violence against a specific group of people, whether they're your own citizens or not, is pretty obviously an amoral and repugnant thing. I'm not familiar enough with South African history to know whether the government tried to rationalize it any kind of logical way or if they just refused to debate it. I think you're right that apartheid is one point on the "expediency" spectrum, but I do think it's possible to come up with a pretty universal definition of what's NEVER acceptable and what MAY be acceptable from a human rights standpoint. For example: hostile or repressive actions against groups whose membership is determined by birth, not choice, are clearly wrong. Hostile actions against groups who have not declared hostile intent towards you or your government (which is only even possible to the extent that they are guided by one leader or one set of principles) are wrong. Hostile actions INCLUDE enacting laws or condoning practices that forbid people from pursuing the relationships, jobs, and leisure activities that they want, among other things. What's distasteful from a human rights standpoint but a venal, not a cardinal sin, as it were: things like what happened in Yemen. Whose interests would have been served by handling it differently? The interest of any innocent parties in that car (and it's unlikely that any of them were innocent). Whose would have been harmed? The interests of millions of people trying to live in peace despite the best efforts of scumbags like the one we blew up. He wasn't a drug dealer on a corner or a store owner. He was an influential member of an organization that's publicly declared and demonstrated its intent to kill thousands of completely innocent people. A rather unique case. As to the who: a difficult question. "People" in my usage meant the citizens of a country on whose behalf the government claims to be acting. But as to who draws the line: it's self selecting. Anyone who gives a shit and lives in a country where they can speak up is part of the committee on that one. Not a perfectly complete answer, but hopefully clears up my position a little bit? Joe

Personally I tend to separate principle from reality when it comes to forming my opinion of what a government should and shouldn't do. The way I see it, our government needs to preserve the APPEARANCE of acting according to principle, so it can preserve its legitimacy with the people, but in practical terms, if it doesn't allow itself to bend the rules once in a while it won't be able to govern effectively. That's not to say it should be completely lawless and take a "by-any-means-necessary" attitude, but there is a middle ground. I think what happened in Yemen is a good example of this. Means: Undoubtedly questionable, if you're operating on an entirely philosophical plane. Ends: Beneficial. Joe

I would most emphatically not support anything like this. But I also don't think it's analogous to (or a logical extension of) what happened in Yemen, which seems to be what you're suggesting. Forgive me if I'm jumping to conclusions. In the US we have a friendly populace, and an extensive (and usually trustworthy) domestic security apparatus (police, SWAT, FBI, etc.). We have neither of these in Yemen. Canada is a friendly nation. I don't know how apprehensions of US fugitives are typically handled by Canada, but I would imagine they're fairly cooperative. Evidence and witnesses gathered in either Canada or the US would tend to be appropriate and admissible for US courts, thus ensuring that due process could be provided to people we detained. However, in a place like Yemen, I would think it's not as practical for us to physically detain and remove people without risking many of our own personnel's lives in the process. Witnesses and physical evidence are likewise difficult to obtain and would be difficult to integrate into our judicial system. And what's the other option? Yemen's court system? I've only read a little bit on it, but what I've read suggests that it wouldn't exactly be the best place to try important criminal cases. Thus, on the basis of these assumptions, I support actions in Yemen that I would not support closer to home. Joe

The whole point of having an army or other security apparatus is so you can take action with it against a perceived threat. We do have to depend heavily on our government to determine what constitutes a perceived threat, but it's just not logical to expect due process to be applied everywhere, all the time. Due process is a luxury, and it is ridiculous to expect that it can really occur where witnesses, evidence, and so on are spread across multiple countries of varying friendliness to us. Thus the application of deadly force when the crime merits it and when the evidence, whatever it is, is deemed "good enough" by our government. I'm not a right-winger by any means, and I employ the "slippery slope" argument with respect to civil rights and John Ashcroft on many occasions, but only when the circumstances actually warrant it. IMHO, these circumstances do NOT. I won't ramble on restating others' posts in this thread, but the free world is clearly better off without the guy we smoked, and smoking him was a better option than risking more lives trying to capture and try him. I know - IF we trust our government. But sometimes you just gotta take things on faith. If we blew up a city, that's one thing, and outrage would be the appropriate response. But it wasn't a city. It was a few guys in a car. And I haven't heard ANYONE stand up yet and say that the guy we targeted wasn't who our government says he was. As for the US citizen, too f'ing bad. Maybe he was a good, legit guy, and maybe not. It's a complicated world, and unpleasant decisions, and unpleasant actions, are unfortunately very necessary in order for us to continue to have the leisure of sitting around typing messages on computers. There are quite a number of people out there who have stated and demonstrated their intention not to give us due process. Why do we owe it to them? I can tell you who deserves due process and who does not. People who take hostages and cause deaths in order to win the release of imprisoned friends and comrades do NOT deserve due process. People who intentionally and openly target noncombatant civilians with violence, with the intent of causing fear, chaos, and more fighting (not as a DEFENSIVE measure aimed at ending an ongoing and costly armed conflict), do NOT deserve due process. And everyone else does. I have a very active imagination, but I just can't see a clear line from this sort of thing to the rights of regular American citizens being endangered. Joe

My reaction is pretty much "who cares." They identified someone in the car who really needed killing, they could reasonably assume that the guys with him weren't Mother Teresa or the Pope, and they acted. I doubt they had the luxury of positively ID'ing everyone else in the car and finding out their life histories. If it was on our soil, they could (and should) have done so, but let's face it, these guys unfortunately don't travel around so openly once they come to visit us. The term "collateral damage" is often abused, and used to apply to some pretty atrocious things, but in this case I think it's perfectly acceptable, assuming of course that the Al Quaeda guy they're talking about really was in the car to begin with. It's too bad if those other guys were normal citizens, but I think the end justifies the means in this case. And I don't think what happened at Kent State, if that's what you're referring to, is AT ALL analogous to a planned assassination of a guy who's a high-ranking member of a foreign organization that has violently and successfully attacked our citizens on numerous occasions. Just my $0.02. Always good to debate this stuff though. Joe

The cigarette thing sounds like a good idea, but only if there's no grass, trees, shrubbery, buildings, dumpsters, etc. within hundreds of feet. Otherwise, it could give new meaning to "burning a site." Joe

He was willing to have sex with you, you mean? Couldn't resist. Joe

Same here. I have a vague interest for now, so I'll learn what I can, watch what I can, and reevaluate when I have 300-500 jumps. Then, if I'm still interested, I'll start focusing more on practicing BASE-specific stuff in my skydives, and start thinking about an FJC after another couple hundred jumps. I've got nothing down personally on people who start jumping objects a lot earlier than that, and maybe a lot of them have a lot of skills that I don't. That's great. But I can't shake the feeling that they're really living on borrowed time for at least their first 50-100 BASE jumps, hoping that they don't encounter any exceptionally hairy situations where more experience would help (off-heading or slow openings, mals, odd winds, etc.), and that's just not a position I'm going to put myself in right now. Joe

This is starting to remind me very strongly of a wing loading debate. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who are precocious and naturally skilled and whatever, and that's absolutely fine, and maybe they'll never have a serious accident, but if you're an outlier on the safety curve and you know it, then you should expect a little backlash when you bring it up. That isn't because people are assholes and want to make you feel bad or put you down, or protect their superiority, it's because they want to prevent something unpleasant from happening to you, and when people want their remarks noticed they spice them up a bit. I consider it a favor when people give a shit about my safety. At 100 jumps, you have maybe 10 minutes of canopy control experience between 100' and the ground. 10 MINUTES. Probably a similar amount of experience with canopy openings. How many activities do you know of where death is the possible or even likely result of a relatively minor screwup, yet 10 minutes of experience is enough to make you feel safe upping the ante? Regarding this specific thread, I personally didn't think the comments were too offensive, and I thought the reaction to them was unwarranted. That's my $0.02. Of course, everyone is free to disagree, and I'm sure some do. Anyway, wishing blue skies and safe landings to everyone, regardless of the path they choose... Joe

Good job, Stan! I was actually thinking about coming out there on Sunday, but decided I was way too hungover and it was cold also. Too bad, I guess I missed the excitement. Anyway, glad you're OK and here's hoping it's a long time 'til the next one! Joe