SivaGanesha

Yes, the position of the planets CAN have a very significant effect on human affairs. And there is a very simple explanation for that. A large number of people believe in astrology and therefore behave differently in response to certain configurations of the planets than others. For example, if a large number of investors in a given stock expect the stock to drop for astrological reasons, then the stock WILL drop because many of the investors believing in astrology will sell. Skeptics who laugh at astrology may have science on their side but if they own the same stock they, too, will be rewarded for their ignorance of astrology by having their stock, too, drop in value--but unlike the astrologers it will come as a surprise to the skeptics and they won't know what hit them. As to whether astrology has an original basis in verifiable scientific fact independent of the fact that many people believe in it, I'm not sure. I do know that I've spent a lot of time around people who believe in it. Even if it has value, these people tend to be obsessed with it, and astrology and similar pursuits can become an all-consuming passion. I don't want astrology to be my passion. I've come to realize more and more recently that skydiving is my true passion and, if I ever want to make a significant number of jumps, I'm going to have to spend time around skydivers, not astrologers. BTW astrologers tend to be very obsessed with Mercury retrograde periods. These are the periods three times a year when the apparent motion of Mercury (of course Mercury's real orbit never changes) is in the opposite to normal direction. Astrologers generally are rather paranoid about these periods and believe that things tend to go wrong during these periods. If they can, people believing in astrology will batten down the hatches and go into hibernation during Mercury retrograde periods to avoid taking any risk. Again, it is good to know about these things, even if you don't believe in astrology, because a significant number of people do, and I believe it does have an effect on human behavior for that reason. Mercury is retrograde right now. And Mercury was retrograde when I had my one and only malfunction--but I'm sure that was purely coincidental. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

A great day for sure! Not only did you jump out of a plane but you also managed to hit two of the basic food groups. Hope you made it three basic food groups by buying everyone a case of beer afterward

I just checked the Elections Canada website. It was confusing at first. I entered my last Canadian address to register to vote, and it seems there is currently a byelection in progress in my old electoral district, so I was redirected to the different (and more stringent) requirements for byelections. However the following appears to be the general form for use for general elections when there is no byelection: Elections Canada The form requires one to sign the following statement: "I intend to return to Canada for the purpose of resuming residence. My probable date of return is..." and then you need to provide the month/year. Are you sure you weren't asked to sign something like this? It is odd if the constitution doesn't require this but it seems pretty definite what they want you to sign. I think at one point in the past the form may have required signing something different but I'm sure I looked into this in 2006 and the form was the same or essentially the same as it is now. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I'm from Canada. This is the last US presidential election in which I won't be able to vote. I will be a US citizen by the time of the 2012 presidential election--perhaps even by the 2010 midterm election if I'm lucky. So I'm looking at this election with a bit more of a sense of personal stake in the process than with past American elections, because I will be voting when the winner is up for re-election. In my view the most important thing about this election is that the strong tradition of democracy in the US--sorely tested in 2000 and perhaps in 2004--be restored. I think this is far more important than who wins. We need a president who comes into office on Jan 20, 2009 with a strong mandate--something Bush has never had. That, more than anything, is what will restore faith in America worldwide. It appears--barring something completely unforeseen--that the new president will one of three people: Clinton, McCain, or Obama. I'm not going to say which of these three I prefer, although I do have a personal preference. But I will say that there is a certain undefined--but very real--presidential "aura" that presidential candidates who are serious candidates acquire at a certain point in the race. All three major candidates, IMHO, have that presidential aura. (Bush, on the other hand, has never had that "presidential aura" despite being president for seven years.) That is why I am quite optimistic about the future of America and think the naysayers are wrong about America's alleged imminent demise. As for Canada, I'm still legally a Canadian citizen, but to vote in a Canadian election, I'd need to sign a statement saying I eventually plan to return to Canada--something I don't feel comfortable doing as an intending US citizen. I will say, though, that I'm a little surprised that Canada--supposedly more liberal and progressive than the US--has four white men as the leaders of the only parties with seats in the House of Commons. The US has proven to be more progressive in giving people of other demographics a serious chance at the presidency--and that is a bit surprising given the role Canada likes to play internationally. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Here's how I would react if I were on a jury trying a father going after the rapist of his daughter: If the father killed the rapist of his daughter in a fit of rage, then I, too, would be sympathetic and vote to acquit. HOWEVER, if the father, in his rage and not thinking straight, ended up, by mistake, killing not the rapist but an innocent person--then I would have no hesitation whatsoever about voting to convict the father. In fact, I might even vote for the death penalty for the father in such circumstances--and I'm not generally not that big a fan of the death penalty. It would not matter one iota that the father's desire for revenge was understandable--the understandable desire of an innocent bystander not to be killed would far outweigh my sympathy for the father in such a case. So if you're an enraged father who kills and I'm on the jury, you better be absolutely sure you get the right guy. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I guess you left because you saw how much better the civil liberties were back home in Canada? I mean, it wouldn't be that you actually wanted to stay in the USA but had to leave when your visa expired? Blue skies, SivaGanesha aka CanuckInUSAWithGreenCard "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I didn't and it's not 11:38 yet. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I don't know if this has been posted on here before or not but this story--especially the part about the Outlaw DZ--reminds me a lot of Groundhog Day: The Great Dropzone in the Sky "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

'bout as much scientific evidence as there is for any other religious dogma. The one thing about reincarnation--even though I do believe in it--is that unlike other religious dogmas, which cannot possibly ever be proven one way or the other, one can conceive of scientific evidence being discovered to prove reincarnation. I mean, if people have clear cut memories of events that took place in past lives that they cannot possibly have had any way to access in this life--but which others can verify in some way--that would be pretty strong evidence. That said, the Internet makes it easier and easier to gain detailed information about the past for a greater and greater segment of the world's population. Thus if someone who has lived their whole life in a remote corner of Paraguay comes forward with detailed information about their past life in Kansas, it would be hard to know that they didn't just Google a page about the past in Kansas. I still think, though, it is easier to find anecdotal evidence in favor of reincarnation. Unlike most religious dogma--which seems to concern either the unknown future or the distant, unverifiable, past--reincarnation concerns the relatively recent, verifiable, past. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I believe in reincarnation but I'm not the biggest fan of the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama is trying to do two jobs--free Tibet from the Communist Chinese, and serve as the world leader of Buddhism. The problem is that both jobs are full time jobs. By trying to play two different roles, he isn't doing either role especially well IMHO. The Dalai Lama should look to the example set by the late Pope John Paul II. John Paul led the RC church but he had the wisdom to leave freeing Poland from the Communists--another fulltime job--for the most part to Lech Walesa. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

1000? I heard it was 300... "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

If it happens I'll be there. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Well, the original question was whether skydiving was more 'fringe' back in the 70's. Definitely skydiving had rules, regulations, and licenses back in the 70's. It's been a LONG time--ie more than 30, probably more than 40, years--since skydiving has been a completely frontier activity totally without rules. Were the rules broken more frequently in the 70's? Or are they broken more frequently now? I don't know. Skydiving isn't 'fringe' in the sense of being a criminal or terrorist activity. But it is certainly very much still fringe from the standpoint of what most people do on their weekends. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

IMO skydiving still is a 'fringe' activity. It is not a mainstream activity...your average suburban soccer mom is, well, a soccer mom, not a skydiving mom. It has become somewhat mainstream to do a single, solitary tandem jump just to say you've 'been there, done that' but once you get past that--this is still far, far from a mainstream activity. Whuffos still outnumber skydivers about 10,000 to 1 in the general population. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

When I was called for jury duty in California recently, the selection panel consisted of 65 prospective jurors for the trial. Each attorney was allowed 10 pre-emptive challenges. Each attorney could also ask the judge to excuse people for cause, and the judge actually seemed quite generous about granting these requests. And the judge excused some people on his own initiative without either attorney challenging them. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

There are some pretty serious holy rollers in Canada I must say. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Hmmm...doesn't the theory of evolution teach us that only those who successfully reproduce are able to pass their genes on to the next generation? By that logic, shouldn't the genes for becoming a Roman Catholic priest have died out long ago? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Is the 'whiny PM' under discussion Chretien, Martin, or Harper? If you are referring to Chretien, then I understand, but it also surprises me that Harper has not started to play hardball when it comes to illegal immigration. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I'm sorry...I don't understand this post. Would you be willing to explain it? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

NumbersUSA would disagree with this perspective. They would say that when you allow someone to immigrate legally, it increases illegal immigration because all of their extended family then immigrates illegally in the hope that eventually they will be granted legal status because they have a US citizen family member. It is similar to the "anchor baby" situation--illegal immigrant parents hope that if they have one US citizen child, through birth in the US, the parents and older siblings will then have a foot in the door and be allowed to stay. NumbersUSA seeks to completely eliminate illegal immigration and to reduce legal immigration by about 80%. However, their focus right now seems to be mainly on the illegal side of the equation, so even if someone disagreed with their views on legal immigration, they would likely find NumbersUSA a strong ally when it comes to illegal immigration. By signing up for NumbersUSA, no one is compelled to send specific faxes with which they disagree. Someone can sign up for NumbersUSA and use it as a disciplined way to fax Congress (and others) about illegal immigration, while--if they choose--ignoring their point of view on legal immigration. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

This underscores why this is a very difficult issue to address. There are only specific limited circumstances in which you can ask specific people their status in the country and compel them to give a truthful answer. If someone is working as an independent contractor--as opposed to as an employee--they do not have to file an I-9 form and there is no way for a DZO--or anyone else--to legally determine their status. If someone does fill in an I-9 form and gives fraudulent--but apparently valid--info, there may also be very little a DZO can do about it. This problem cannot be solved by DZO's or any other small business owners. It can only be solved with a change in legal and legislative climate such that government at all levels--local, state, and federal--are empowered to enforce existing law. As I noted in another post, NumbersUSA (www.numbersusa.com) is doing a very good job of lobbying for real change in this area. Enforcing immigration law is the job of Congress and the administration--expecting a DZO (or any other small business owner with better things to do) to do the job of Congress seems a little unfair to me. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Actually, there is already an organization, NumbersUSA, that helps people in lobbying Congress to restrict immigration, especially illegal immigration: http://www.numbersusa.com You can provide them with your profile--where you live, what your party affiliation is, etc--and they provide regular opportunities for you to fax Congress (at their expense) or call Congress (at your expense) when there is an importan immigration issue being debated. They provide the initial wording of all faxes but you can rewrite all such faxes in your own words as much or as little as you want. NumbersUSA was critical in defeating the various Congressional attempts at amnesty for illegal immigrants earlier this year. I believe they have about 500,000 members and whenever Congress tries to support amnesty, the members show Congress their wrath with an avalanche of faxes. There are other similar organizations but IMHO NumbersUSA is the best organized and the most disciplined. They are quite clearheaded in mapping out political strategies that are likely to work as opposed to just getting angry. Right now, they are actively promoting a new piece of legislation, the SAVE Act, which would substantially strengthen workplace enforcement without granting any kind of amnesty. NumbersUSA believes the SAVE Act has a chance to pass in the Democratic-controlled Congress because it was originally introduced by a Democrat. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I just found two websites on this subject: 1. A Canadian website that says 'two months'. 2. An American website that says 'three months'. Since we all know Canadians are a little cheap (that's why I don't live there anymore), I'm going to go with 'three months'. Hey, either she's worth it or she's not. If she's worth it, spending three months is nothing--effortless. And if she's not worth it, why waste a dime on her? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Well you addressed the question of faithless electors from the major parties in a two-party election. I'm talking about a three-party election where no candidate polls a majority. We've certain had strong 3d party candidates from time to time in our history: Perot, Wallace, Thurmond, etc. We've been fortunate that no such candidate has yet split the EC forcing the race into the House. But given that we seem to produce strong 3d party candidates with some regularity, I think it is only a matter of time before the scenario I describe happens. So imagine this scenario: no candidate polls a majority. The 3d party electors know that if the race goes into the House, their candidate cannot possibly win, because the House consists only of members from the two main parties. Would the 3d party electors, knowing that they have the power to pick the winner from the two major parties, remain loyal to their candidate, knowing that in doing so they would give up what power they have? We've never had that situation so it is uncharted territory. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Most of the comments on this thread have addressed the question as to whether the way of assigning EC votes to states (1 EC vote per House rep plus 2 votes for the 2 Senators) is fair. But another aspect to the EC is that the members of the EC are not just anonymous numbers--they are human beings who usually, but not always, do what they are expected to do. Once in awhile we get a "faithless elector" in the EC who votes differently from expected. I don't think this has ever actually affected the result of a presidential election--at least not in recent times--but it certainly could. I wonder if people think that is a good thing. Let us say a strong 3d party candidate emerged who won a few states and prevented an electoral majority. With the polarization of the EC in recent elections into red states and blue states, it might only take a few states won by a 3d party candidate to block an EC majority by either the Dems or the Reps. In such a case, there would probably be a lot of backroom negotiations to try to get the EC members from the 3d party to back one of the two major parties to prevent (or ensure) the race from being sent to the House. This would place the future of the country in the hands of some very anonymous EC members. Is that a good thing? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014