The Republican Response...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeSLVnAQSYo&feature=featured

SOU, Tums & the Hour of the Wolf

I don't know where to start. It's 3 AM and I can't sleep. The State of the Union speech rolling through my head, stomach is churning...sigh.

"Change hasn't come fast enough..." It's been plenty fast for me thanks...

I thought is was interesting when he stated that we were "past the storm" of the economic crisis which would have been worse had it not been for the decisive actions he and congress took to save us from a certain second economic depression.  Things were looking up: the worst is over, employers are starting to hire again, Americans are feeling hopeful...yet over the next year "a million people will lose their insurance coverage". How? Well...the people loosing insurance coverage are people who loosing their jobs. That was the basis earlier in the year for the statement that 14 thousand people a month lose their insurance coverage. Conclusion: more jobs will be lost over the next year driving unemployment up past 11%. Of course a Jobs Bill will fix all that.

I thought is was very revealing when he stated he was issuing an executive order to bypass congress because they couldn't pass a piece of legislation he wants. I guess it's good to be king.

Exactly what are the tax "incentives" for companies to move overseas? When he talked about eliminating the tax incentives, I don't think he's referring to some part of the tax code that provides incentives to move jobs and facilities overseas. I think this really means creating new penalties for companies that are moving jobs and facilities overseas and using the tax system to enforce it. But I'm not tax expert...:)

I'm curious to know where these 25 tax cuts were made.. I guess I need to watch Less FOX news and more MSNBC to get the real story...LOL

PEBO just doesn't get it: Republicans don't block legislation he wants "just be cause they can" It's because their constituents want them to. We disagree with his (and the progressive) view of more government taking a role in peoples lives. Reagan was right when he said:

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

I'm convinced more than ever that we need to do all we can to support, promote, fund, and vote ALL of these guys out of the whole system (from city councils to congress) and replace them with fresh people who:

• believe in less government in our lives
  
• don't know how the current system (read corrupt) works but do know how government should work.
• understand the constitution and the balance of power concept
• believe in capitalism and the free market system that has worked well for us over the last 200 years.
• doesn't "know better" than we do.
• will restore a working 3 branch system of government with checks and balances.
  

Interesting Health Care Statistics

Posting from an email

Very interesting.

Article from the "Investor's Business Daily.."  It provides some very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S.            65%

England       46%

Canada        42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S.            93%

England       15%

Canada        43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S.            90%

England       15%

Canada        43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S.            77%

England       40%

Canada        43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S.            71

England       14

Canada        18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S.            12%

England       2%

Canada        6%

I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada .

Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."  WELL, SHIP HIS ASS TO CANADA OR ENGLAND !   (with a one way ticket)

Gun Bans now...Butter Knife Bans later...

Here is another politician that need to be shown the door out of government service. Thanks, and don't let the door hit you on the way out: According to an article in the Seattle Times, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle (state senate) who is sponsoring gun ban legislation in Washington State. Fortunately, Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn is fighting Kline's gun ban legislation and seems to be winning.
Some notable quotes from the article:

• "We're trying to protect the police, we're trying to protect the youth and this is one step to prevent gun violence," [Ralph] Fascitelli said. I'm sure *this* law will protect these people considering the existing laws weren't able to.
• Owners of weapons affected by the bill would be able to keep them if they allow the local sheriff's department to inspect and make sure they are stored "safely and securely." The weapons can still be used at firing ranges.nothing like giving up your rights against illegal search without a warrant. How will law enforcement be able to tell the difference from "legal" banned guns and the "illegal" banned guns? I guess they will just need to keep a list of names and serial numbers...

 Why is it that fools focus on the equipment used in the crime instead of the criminal? If that's the case then these cases are going to lead to a "butter knife ban":

• http://www.kptv.com/news/15874196/detail.html
• http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-08-04/news/shooting_1_butter-knife-depression-man-friends
• Of course it's nice to see the schools are taking action against these dangerous weapons: http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=54832
• I hear using a butter knife in the commission of a crime is pretty serious too: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/jun/29/us-odd-butter-kniferobbery-062909/

If you think this is nuts...just take a look at what's happening in Great Britain.

Rights vs. Privileges

We accept the idea that we need permits without even thinking about it. To drive a car, you need a license. To have a business, you need a business license. To carry a firearm you need a permit. The list goes on and on. On one hand, it seems to make sense that a permit or some kind of license should be required for certain things. After all, if your going to drive a piece of heavy equipment around, you should demonstrate you know what your doing right? To drive a car, it seems reasonable to expect a person to demonstrate they know some commonly established rules of conduct to follow when driving a car. Of course, that's the idea behind the Concealed Carry Permit requirement most states impose on residence that want to have their emergency equipment ready and close by in the event they get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. So why do some people get all fired up when it comes to the idea of requiring a permit to own or carry a firearm?
 
In my view it's reasonable to require someone to meet a certain standard in order to carry a firearm. Personally, I like the idea of most people having the right and capability to defend themselves as well as others (potentially) if and when things go bad. But I also think it's a good idea for those same people to demonstrate a reasonable level of competency when it comes to handling something that, if misused through ignorance or incompetence can maim or kill another (think car, gun, forklift, airplane, etc.).  On the same token, I think the standard of compliance, duration of certification, and general acceptance of the certification that someone has demonstrated the "right stuff" when it comes to a particular permit should be equal to other forms of accepted certification. That was a little confusing so let me clarify what I mean:

When I obtained my drivers' license, I had to demonstrate my knowledge of the traffic laws, rules of the road, and how to drive safely, Once in my life for sure. I took the driver's test when I turned 16 and got my license. Since then it's been a pretty much automatic renewal, with no re-testing of my knowledge, even though some traffic laws have changed. I am a safe driver as demonstrated by my record so it's reasonable to renew my license every 10 or so years (I think). Now no matter what state I travel to, my driver's license is accepted as proof that I know what I'm doing and can "legally" operate a vehicle in that state.

Now we get to Concealed Carry Permits. Why in the world are these treated the same way as a drivers' license? Somehow a gun is considered more dangerous than a car. Clearly the statistics show otherwise. It's true that car's are not designed to kill people, but in many cases they are the weapon of choice for some nut jobs who are hell bent on racking up a body count for some whacked out reason. Just imagine with me for a moment, if CCW's were treated like a drivers license is:


When I obtained my CCW, I  had to demonstrate my knowledge of the proper firearms handling, laws for when I can and cannot carry, and when it's legal to use my firearm for sport, hunting, practice and self defense, Once in my life for sure. I took the CCW test, had a federal background check to make sure I was a Good Guy (TM)  and got my license. Since then it's been a pretty much automatic renewal, with no re-testing of my knowledge, even though some traffic laws have changed. I am a safe firearms owner as demonstrated by my record so it's reasonable to renew my license every 10 or so years (I think). Now no matter what state I travel to, my CCW is accepted as proof that I know what I'm doing and can "legally" carry a gun in that state.


So what's different between a driver's license and a license to carry a firearm? Well...the constitution doesn't guarantee my right to drive, but it does guarantee my right to own a firearm. Maybe not carry it, but certainty to own it.

Now imagine for a moment if you had to have a permit to say something. Clearly the first amendment allows us "freedom of speech" and we don't need a permit to exercise that right...or do we? Clearly a threat spoken about certain people is considered a felony. Hate speech is against the law...but what is it exactly? Yelling "fire" in a movie theater is illegal..unless there's really a fire.

At what point will you need a permit to exercise other rights like "the right to remain silent" or "the right of protection against illegal search and seizure" or even "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Something to think about...

Looks like people are starting to recoginze the obvious...

Crime rates are falling. Politicians and Law enforcement (some of them) seem perplexed as to why. Of course many of us know why: Obama is leading the way to lower crime, murder and violence. How is that possible you ask? Well, as I said: it's obvious:

Since BHO was elected, firearms and ammunition sales are through the roof . Permit applications for concealed carry permits are swamping state workers who are scrambling to try and keep up with the wave of applications. People are afraid the administration will push for a new gun ban and tighter gun controls so the react like anyone would: they run out and buy the thing they think won't be available soon. In this case guns. Now I'm sure BHO, the Brady camp and other gun grabber groups (GGG's) are freaking out. Several bills have been introduced in the house and senate to expand and protect gun rights as well as apply more limits. Most have been hidden behind the health care debate, bail outs, and other "high profile" legislative activities.

All the while something interesting has happened and now people are starting to notice: crime rates are dropping. A recent article in the Washington Post spells it out: Increased gun ownership is directly resulting in a reduction in murder rates. At least there's a correlation here but as we know, correlation doesn't mean causation. In other words, it doesn't mean that the increase in polar bear populations is a direct result of a decrease in chia-pet sales. But when it comes to more guns = less crime, I have to think there's a pretty good chance there is a strong correlation. I see more and more stories in the daily new stories in the local paper with titles like: "Home owner defends his family against home invaders...". Clearly people who are equipped (and trained) to defend themselves are demonstrating that self defense works much better than relying on someone else (the police) to do it.

So, as much as it hurts to say, I must say "Thank you Mr. President: Your being in office has helped to reduce crime."

A simple trowel for the ultra light backpacker.

A while ago I was trying to find a replacement for my back packing trowel. My old orange plastic one had broken and I was into the ultra-light packing gear. I saw all kinds of titanium trowels and plans on how to make one. As i was reading some instructions on how to form a sheet of titanium around a pipe to shape a trowel, the idea flashed in my head: Why not just cut a piece of PVC pipe into the shape of a trowel. Thus the PVC pack trowel below was born. Simple, cheaper than the dirt it scoops, I made a couple of these pretty quickly with the bandsaw and some old 2in PVC pipe. I hand drew the shape on a piece of paper (1/2 the profile) folded it over to make the mirror image and then cut it out. Tape the paper to the pipe, outline it with a sharpie and cut out the shape on the saw. All in all it took about 15 min to make. Works great too.

PVC pack trowel