Big Bear

took the camera to big bear mtn for some photos....not the best subjects! ;-)




Some video, none came out with the usual suspects but I still find this one helarious. MAKE SURE YOU CLICK THE WATCH IN HD BUTTON FOR FULL 1080P RESOLUTION

It's Here!

The new Canon 5DMK2 is here, and boy, is it all that I ever dreamed of!

Peep the Full Frame Goodness...

Also taken with the 16-35mm wide lens, Santa dropped that off with the camera! :-)

Tree

dP

Sono Time!

dP

Zen MX

Cannot Wait Any Longer!

Went Racing Today

No pictures to show the action, but a bike with no rider hit me while jumping a double in the back section of LACR (Day in the Dirt), and I went flying off the track.

I luckily hit a nice soft berm of sand, and bounced right back up. The funny thing is the bike with no rider was now against a fence 20 yards away off the track, and the rider was under it!

I'm not going to lie, it was scary and the second biggest get off to date. Maybe its time to back down the racing to trusted events, this was kind of amatuer hour today.

Gonna need a new muffler. And number plate. And bars. And....

It's Official!

Spandex Sunrise

Taken on my morning road loop around PV

Cooking Club

My girlfriends and I have tried out various ideas for getting the group together for "girls night". First there was book club, but that failed after a few months because very few people were actually reading the books. Next came supper club, which fell apart when we all moved away from the westside. Recently, a few of the girls came up with a great plan: Cooking Club! Since we all love to eat, and we all love to cook, it's the perfect excuse for everyone to get together once a month. The hostess picks the theme, and then we all bring things that match the theme (this month was Thanksgiving :). Everyone brings copies of their recipes to share, and then we all leave with new ideas of things to make!

These aren't the greatest photos, but I thought that the Cooking Club was a great idea and wanted to share it with everyone!

Mel even made us all fancy binders to keep our recipes in.


Let's eat!

Mini Reunion

I thought you could all use a break from Doug's political posts for something fun... babies! We had a mini college reunion this weekend with three of my roommates from UCSB. Courtney flew down for Redding, and we met up with Kelly and Laurel, who is now a mom to 5 month old Joel and Hailey. They're absolutely adorable!

FactCheck.com & Impartiality

Factcheck And Brady Campaign Share Same Sugar Daddy

MORE NEWS

9/23/2008 -

Impartial? Independent? NO!
FactCheck and Brady Campaign in Bed with Annenberg Foundation

FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician's claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called "FactCheckers" use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA's research of vote records and review of legislative language.

There's another possible explanation behind FactCheck's positions. Just last year, FactCheck's primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for "efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry." Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005. (source)

Regardless of the cause, it's clear that while FactCheck swoons over a politician's rhetoric, NRA prefers to look at the more mundane details - like how that politician voted on a bill and what kind of impact that legislation had or may have had on law-abiding gun owners.

FactCheck claims that NRA advertisements "distort" Barack Obama's anti-gun positions, but FactCheck's own sources prove otherwise. In fact, even Obama's campaign has refused to deny his most extreme positions.

FactCheck also dismisses NRA's statements as "contrary to what [Obama] has said throughout his campaign." But as FactCheck says, "believing something doesn't make it so." And unless FactCheck is an arm of the Obama campaign, isn't it their job to find out if Obama is telling the truth?

FactCheck claim: "Obama is proposing no ...ban" on use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.

As FactCheck notes, the bill was provoked by a case where a Wilmette, Ill. homeowner shot an intruder in self-defense in his home; the homeowner's handgun was banned by a town ordinance. (After the U.S. Supreme Court found Washington, D.C.'s similar ban unconstitutional, Wilmette repealed the ordinance to avoid litigation.)

The legislation was very plainly worded, but as limited as its protection was, Obama voted against it in committee and on the floor:

It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another ...when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.

Even aside from SB 2165, Obama's support for a total handgun ban (see below) would be a crippling blow to defense in the home, since (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed) handguns are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008)).

FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."

Federal law currently bans bullets as "armor piercing" based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ' 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the "minimum" level of body armor, regardless of the bullets' construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).

Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they "may be used in a handgun."

The "minimum" level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.

Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would "support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons." (source) The rifles banned as "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester - the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles.

It's true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America," said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.)

Isn't it FactCheck's job to be skeptical of politicians' claims, especially when the plain language says otherwise?

FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.

FactCheck itself cites Obama's 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, "No." Instead, as FactCheck notes, he "avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer" by saying a ban on handguns "is not politically practicable," then stated his support for other restrictions.

The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more "politically practicable."

FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.

What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.

FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported."

This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different?

And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)

-NRA-

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

Vader

Best Website In a Long Time

Click around and Enjoy!

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

Broc Obama

BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.*
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day
and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw
them a curve.

Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20.

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end
up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would
be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%)
savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings)
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings)
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings

I only got a dollar out of the $20, 'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!

That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.*

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine satdown and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.*
Professor of Economics, **University** of **Georgia*

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

And that's what will happen if Obama get's in.

Fire Jump

So I did this awhile back....



And then Sammy, my friends' son in the 1st grade, drew this and brought it home to papa JJ one day.


Its not a coincidence...Sammy was there watching me do the jump!

David & Felicia's Engagement Party

Felicia's boss threw her and David an awesome engagement party this weekend. We had so much fun!

The usual suspects - my best girlfriends :). It was so great to see everyone.
Amy and I are Felicia's maids of honor in her wedding next year - can't wait!
Doug had a strange obsession with the "unicycle" art in the backyard.

He also brought Felicia and David a lovely engagement gift - a kiddie cop toy kit. Felicia decided to model it for all of us.
The happy couple. I LOVE David's expression in this one!
Ummm, yeah. I really can't explain what is going on here...

Kevin & Whit

Quote of the Day

In my 5th grade Language Arts class, during our discussion about the story that we've been reading this week...

Student: "Mrs. Perry, Mrs. Perry!" (waving frantically)

Me: "Yes?"

Student: "I just wanted to let everyone know that I think I ate too many plums for breakfast today and I have REALLY bad gas." (simultaneously holding his stomach with one hand and pinching his nose with his other)

Me: "Have you ever heard of giving someone 'too much information?' "

Student: "Oh..."

Wow. Welcome to the wonderful world of 10 year old boys!

He's Getting My Vote

Island Run '08

AP and I went up to Seattle for the weekend.  The main reason was for my dad, Greg, and I to fire up the vintage iron and roll out to Vashon Island to take part in the Vashon Isle TT.  This little event has been going on now for 26 years, and is kind of a secret society of vintage bikes as no publicity about the event is let known to the general public.   You have to subscirbe to some obscure British vintage magazine or know a friend who knows a friend, kinda deal. 

Anyways, luckily my dad's subscribes to some, if not all of the obscure vintage motorcycle magazines, and we knew when to go.  Oh yeah, we also got to spend time with the new additon, Greg adn Erin's daughter Quincy. :-)

Getting set up for the ride.

Oh, and I have invented a new cardio routine.  You wake up early, put all your leathers on, and then proceed to try and get 3 out of the 5 bikes available started and ready to roll.  Some of the activities include push starting down hills, then going back up the hill, to jumping up and down to get them start (calisthenics!)

The Ferry ride over...

Our own Burger joint to eat at, they had a table waiting for us if you can believe it!

ATK lives on!

Some really cool bikes were parked downtown on main street throughout the day...

But last of course, some wake board action shots from Saturday morning...

Chris Carruthers, the man, the myth...

....the legend

Toe-side front side

And of course, me...

And my wake jumping ability.  Its been 5 years people!

I am all that is man!!

Fun times.  September in Seattle is my favorite!