A good friend just asked me a question:
"I just have one question all of us need to ponder before we vote next November. Why do we have 40% more national debt now than we had 3 years ago?"
Does anyone have an answer?
13 December 2011
03 December 2011
So I bought myself a motorcycle... or two..
So I bought myself a motorcycle. 19 May 2011
I have not had a motorcycle in about 30 years. Then my neighbor comes up with an old 1971 Harley Sportster Ironhead. It needed a little work (or so I thought) and the price was about right so I took the plunge. I immediately found myself way into deep water. Nothing there that I couldn't handle, but a lot more work than I anticipated. I bought the thing to ride not to make a career of, so I figured if I was going to be able to ride in 2011 I needed to find a motorcycle I could ride.
Enter Phyllis! Phyllis joined my life via a craigslist ad. She looked good in print, and even better in person. A couple conversations with the owner convinced me I needed to go down and look at this bike. A phone call to my good friend Mike (who amazingly enough is usually willing to participate in my wild schemes) got me a ride down to see this motorcycle. It was everything I wanted and more. A very well cared for 1987 Harley Sportster. The price was fair and the only negotiation or concern was as to getting the bike licensed. I paid the man, took the title and headed for a vehicle licensing office. Everything went without a hitch and I owned a motorcycle.
All of this is actual threat actually a prelude to the real story.
The next morning is a BEAUTIFUL MORNING! Another quick run down 405 and I am ready to take possession of my new toy. Now for a little bit of reviewing the story. Remember I said that I hadn't owned a motorcycle in 30 years? Well that means I also had ridden a motorcycle in 30 years. I suppose it wouldn't have been particularly difficult except that this motorcycle had "forward controls". I had never ridden a motorcycle went forward controls. True, riding a motorcycle is a lot like swimming; once you know how you never really forget. HOWEVER:... You do get out of practice. My lack of familiarity with this particular bike, lack of experience riding with forward controls and allowing my skill set to get extremely rusty over 30 years made for an exhausting ride home.
I LOVE THIS MOTORCYCLE!!!
I need to make that clear, because the ride home was more than exhausting, It Was Nerve-Racking! Three blocks away from where I picked motorcycle up, the shift linkage fell apart. Luckily there was a tire shop across the street, so I limped over to the tire shop and rented a crescent wrench from the guy and reassembled my motorcycle. The freeway was about the only option for riding home. It probably would have been a good idea to bring a trailer and haul it home. There were a lot of things about road conditions that had either change or I had forgotten. Add to that, the straight pipes on the motorcycle were actually real shiny flamethrowers. The man I purchased the motorcycle from was a mechanic, but he worked on diesel electric locomotives. Arriving home after filling the tank at the local Chevron station, I calculated a whopping 20 miles to the gallon. Not exactly why I purchased the motorcycle. But I was home and in one piece! Whew.
Next chapter, making it work.
I have not had a motorcycle in about 30 years. Then my neighbor comes up with an old 1971 Harley Sportster Ironhead. It needed a little work (or so I thought) and the price was about right so I took the plunge. I immediately found myself way into deep water. Nothing there that I couldn't handle, but a lot more work than I anticipated. I bought the thing to ride not to make a career of, so I figured if I was going to be able to ride in 2011 I needed to find a motorcycle I could ride.
Enter Phyllis! Phyllis joined my life via a craigslist ad. She looked good in print, and even better in person. A couple conversations with the owner convinced me I needed to go down and look at this bike. A phone call to my good friend Mike (who amazingly enough is usually willing to participate in my wild schemes) got me a ride down to see this motorcycle. It was everything I wanted and more. A very well cared for 1987 Harley Sportster. The price was fair and the only negotiation or concern was as to getting the bike licensed. I paid the man, took the title and headed for a vehicle licensing office. Everything went without a hitch and I owned a motorcycle.
All of this is actual threat actually a prelude to the real story.
The next morning is a BEAUTIFUL MORNING! Another quick run down 405 and I am ready to take possession of my new toy. Now for a little bit of reviewing the story. Remember I said that I hadn't owned a motorcycle in 30 years? Well that means I also had ridden a motorcycle in 30 years. I suppose it wouldn't have been particularly difficult except that this motorcycle had "forward controls". I had never ridden a motorcycle went forward controls. True, riding a motorcycle is a lot like swimming; once you know how you never really forget. HOWEVER:... You do get out of practice. My lack of familiarity with this particular bike, lack of experience riding with forward controls and allowing my skill set to get extremely rusty over 30 years made for an exhausting ride home.
I LOVE THIS MOTORCYCLE!!!
I need to make that clear, because the ride home was more than exhausting, It Was Nerve-Racking! Three blocks away from where I picked motorcycle up, the shift linkage fell apart. Luckily there was a tire shop across the street, so I limped over to the tire shop and rented a crescent wrench from the guy and reassembled my motorcycle. The freeway was about the only option for riding home. It probably would have been a good idea to bring a trailer and haul it home. There were a lot of things about road conditions that had either change or I had forgotten. Add to that, the straight pipes on the motorcycle were actually real shiny flamethrowers. The man I purchased the motorcycle from was a mechanic, but he worked on diesel electric locomotives. Arriving home after filling the tank at the local Chevron station, I calculated a whopping 20 miles to the gallon. Not exactly why I purchased the motorcycle. But I was home and in one piece! Whew.
Next chapter, making it work.
11 January 2011
A GREAT LOGICAL GUN ARGUMENT
I have not posted this before and I'll probably do it again any time someone starts talking gun control. This is an email I received. It is not my work but I agree with the writer.
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Thank You
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Thank You
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
