Now for something different.

While we were out shopping for Christmas, we left the outlet mall in Edinburgh and went to the fantastic  antique mall down the street.  There, I saw this little stool and wanted it, but sadly it was almost Christmas, and there was nothing in my budget for me to spend on myself.

That's ok, because the one there was larger than I wanted, I really liked the leg layout and the lines spoke to me, but I wanted something for under my desk to rest my feet on.  (Please note the chapstick is there to provide scaling).

So I cut my 1X10X6  from Lowe's into three parts, the two legs, and the top.

then I cut out the design on the legs that I wanted and cut (not very squarely) my setbacks for the rails. Then I cleaned up the mess with a chisel a bit.

Being of firm redneck extraction, if one nail will do, two would be better.

Top glued and nailed onto the rails, not the legs.  My belief being that this will help prevent splitting due to seasonal movement.  I was thinking of putting a center rail in to help keep the legs square and support the top, but the original didn't have one.

Man of the Year?

The New Yorker is reporting that Time Magazine is planning to announce their man of the year award this Wednesday.  Curiously I agree with the New Yorker's assessment of who the winner deserves to be, our friend Mr Edward Snowden.   In fact the Guardian actually already voted Mr Snowden their Man of the Year.  The only reason the President hasn't been impeached for his many crimes are the actions of the willing press, and his adoring party controlling the senate.

Now someday, someone, will actually read this and say "Crane, you are cracked, Snowden released no evidence of the President actually violating the law!  This is all his underlings and the bureaucracy taking control and reaching out gain more power!"  To a point you may be right, but the president has certainly played the ignorance card.  If he was a CEO of a corporation he would have been called to Congress to explain what was going on.  If it continued, he would be held responsible.  However, in the highest office of the land it's clear that isn't going to happen. This president is responsible for nothing, knows nothing, and tries to look good while he is doing it.  This president is the essence of the modern media president, given to you by those that have lots of time and attention to pay to the media.  All style and no substance, all expectation and no delivery, all talk and no game.

A friend of mine on Facebook made a comment that I thought was rather telling.  ADK said

Seriously, 12 months ago, if you told people that the government was intrusive, overbearing, had hijacked the internet, and was using drones and satellites to spy on Americans, they would have said "you're nuts."If you'd told them that the government had used the revenue service to suppress political dissent furthering the theft of a presidential election, and had illegally stolen that information to use against political adversaries, they would have said "you're nuts."

If you'd told them that the government would circumvent the first and fourth amendments, and accuse journalists of terrorism and weapons charges to invade their houses with military teams to seize material information about government sources that blew the whistle on corruption, they would have said "you're nuts."
Now, if you aren't pissed off about it, you really are nuts.

If you'd told them that the government would circumvent the first and fourth amendments, and accuse journalists of terrorism and weapons charges to invade their houses with military teams to seize material information about government sources that blew the whistle on corruption, they would have said "you're nuts."Now, if you aren't pissed off about it, you really are nuts.

At this point, if you aren't pissed off with this government and the way things are going you are nuts!

This president is terrible, the country continues to suffer and the modern press does nothing to illustrate what is going on.  If there was no other proof of the myth of the objective press, this is it!

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/12/no-contest-edward-snowden-is-person-of-the-year.html

Lesson's Learned

When one's wife complains about "slaving away in the kitchen". Bringing her heels and a roll of duct tape is apparently unappreciated.

Bigot

It seems that the left has a new word of the month now, and that word my friends is "bigot". From their usage, I think they have decided to redefine the word to mean "someone that believes something negative about a group of people we like, and refuses to change their minds even though I (we) really really really want them to like, support, and give money to them."


However, that isn't what the word means. The word is defined as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." by Free Dictionary dot com. There is a difference.


In fact, this post was written because of the continual LGBT drumbeat against Chik Fil A, a fine company who's food I enjoy, but am not affiliated with. Dan Cathy (like his father before him) makes no bones about his belief system, but abides by the law of the land. I can find no articles saying someone was fired for his sexual orientation, I can't find any cause celebre of anyone that wasn't welcomed into their restaurants, yet the drumbeat continues.


One thing that is certain, the left continues to be bigoted and intolerant of those that don't believe the way they want them to, and work to cause their demise, and once again prove their basic ineffectiveness.

To my friends that want to restrict the arms that can Americans can own,

I am hardly the man with an awe inspiring collection of guns. I have some new ones and I have some old ones. I have some “western” type guns, I have some military type guns, some real military guns, I even have some historic guns. What I infer from those on the left is that I just have guns, evil bad guns that exist only for killing. I do have killing guns, a 22 that I have used on snakes and squirrels, and a couple of deer rifles that have taken deer. I have never shot at a human, never fantasized about shooting people, or making bombs. I have shot human silhouettes targets, but that's pretty common, and in fact required in my state's CCW permitting process.

Let me explain to you what fruits your works have borne.

With the last assault weapons ban, the one you just tried to slide through the senate, and have passed in many states you have caused many people like me to “stock up”. I know several people that have gone from a couple of guns to “quite a few”. I know men that went from 3 or 4 standard capacity magazines to hundreds over the last few years. One fellow I know now has 30,000 rounds of ammo for his rifles, and magazines to keep them in. Don't think that outlawing them will stop them from existing, weapons packed in cosmoline before WW2 are still looking good today.

The public liberals, not just those in office but those in the public, have further poisoned the well. Their continual cry's that we are crazy and that “Obama doesn't want your guns” has been proven false. Their continual assault and ridicule around our fears and concerns have done nothing but further polarize the populace, turning gun owner against the gun fearer. Ensuring that we “know” that liberals aren't to be trusted, that they lie and conceal their intentions and will stop at nothing to have this nation changed to a system that mirrors their fantasies and damn the consequences.

The gun owner today “knows” that you are out to get him, and frankly the conditions are set for more and more incidents to happen. More guns are in hands today than ever before, and not just in the hands of the enthusiast as before, but in hands that probably not accustomed to handling weapons. More are going to be available on the used market, and lots of magazines are out there. Instead of setting conditions that will reduce gun violence by the mentally ill, you have set up conditions where the very thing you say you wanted to prevent will flourish.

Congratulations.

1996 I did something I had never done before I “community organized” for concealed carry. I print out flyers, I talked it up, and I preached it like I have never preached before. I remember I was taking classes at a local college, one of my favorite teachers was an unabashed liberal (like many professors), and she was disgusted with me for my attitude and that “blood would run in the streets”. Contrary to her belief, and typical liberal thought process, blood hasn't run in the streets, there were no Wild West Shootouts that apparently exist in liberal minds.

Crime instead has dropped to the point that nationally it's lower than in 1963. 1963, 6 years before my birth. Kennedy was President, TAB soda was launched, and the M-16 was first introduced into combat in Vietnam. It always appears to be that liberals still live in 1963. They still remember the problems in Birmingham, race riots and that George Wallace is still the Governor of Alabama. They exist in a world that needs public policy for racial equality, they exist in a world where woman's lib is new and exciting, and that labor unions and their mafia components are the power base of the left.

Get with the world today. People should be responsible for their own actions, will actions like the Boston marathon bombings and ricin letters exist today and in the future? Probably, but something that I find very scary is that these actions are mostly fomented from those on the left. The press is always willing to blame radical right wingers, the SPLC likes to blame the “right wing hate groups” but that isn't whats happening. Lets go through the list of who does what next time.

Roll Call of Shame

The following nominally Republican  senators violated their oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution".  There is never a time where it is acceptable to debate the freedom's that are given to all Americans.  

Please take a moment to let them know how little you respect their stands.

New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte


Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss


Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn


Maine Sen. Susan Collins


Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake


Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson


Arizona Sen. John McCain


Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker


North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr


North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven


Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk


South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham


Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander


Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker


Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey


Nevada Sen. Dean Heller

He said it better than me

Today I have been trying to write a post "Why I support gun rights, and why gun banners are wrong".

I have flailed and flailed at it.

See what this guy wrote.

Thanks.

My thought for the day.

People like black and white rules and behavioral limits.

(Stands on Soapbox)

Just recently I came across a work situation where my leader (henceforth called Gold leader) was voraciously supporting dollar limits for our work.  This is regardless of the benefits that case studies showed were realized when we enabled team members to make decisions without artificial dollar limits, and enabled tools that would allow the team members to make data driven decisions.

In a world where Freedom is the goal of every right thinking person, setting up artificial limits that don’t result in improved outcomes, but do result in wasted work cycles and greater elapsed time is contra indicated.   Gold Leader’s desire to have fixed dollar limits appears to come from a desire to have a black and white rule to decide what to allow and what to not allow.  For those of you tied into black and white rules.

You are an idiot. 

Do we have to have rules in the workplace?  If you must, but will you at least consider the best outcome of the work, what data can be included to make a better decision, and at least eliminate the wasted time?  Trusting your people to do the right thing is good. If you have people that can’t or won’t do the right thing, get rid of them.  If you can’t get rid of them, find something silly for them to do that won’t affect operations. If you can’t marginalize them, don’t punish the rest for their inability to comply with the workplace norms. 

(steps off soapbox)

Today I caught myself doing something I said I wouldn't do.  I told someone that I wouldn't give them my blog address because it was too reactionary.  Reactionary means someone that holds opinions that favor a return to a previous state.  I'm not sure that's what I mean, and as an INTP, I like to say what I mean.  What I really meant was that my posts and generally world view isn't of the sort that makes good press in today's corporate world.  I have to get over that concern, because that's really what it is, I am concerned that I won't be as well respected if certain views of mine are exposed.

Strange isn't it?

First post on new computer.

The Police Loophole - Or in a Rational World.

One of the things that annoyed me about the last AWB, was that police were excused from abiding from restrictions based on their "police" status.  They would get a letter from their command staff, and then would go buy NEW magazines and weapons us poor "civilians" weren't allowed to buy new.

I know that someone (perhaps not the pitiful few that read my scribble) would say that Mr Police Officer needs such things to perform his duties and that we should be willing allow them to have the tools they need to perform their duties, even if Joe American can't.

 Lets really think that through.

I like to think that I am pro-police.  They have a tough job to do, and they volunteer to do it. Police officers aren't the military as much as we hear they aren't civilians.  From what I see of the military, the average patrolman is paid more than the average infantryman.  In fact a Google search turned out an average income of $34K a year for Kentucky.  From another search, I was turning over incomes in the $40K range in the same state.  In my county it appears to be around $43K.  That's the same as an E-7 with 8 years of total years of service.  Of course they don't have the benefits either of the Military, no PX, no Govt medical care etc.

Do you think that means there is a difference between the military and Joe Policeman?

Lets look at it from this angle.  Even if police should be treated as Not-Civilians, they should abide by those restrictions.  Our military issues weapons to the soldiers they send out to do their work.  My understanding is they check them in and out of an arms room as required. The military owns those weapons, and not the infantryman.  This isn't the way my county handles things, around here the officer buys the weapons, magazines and other equipment.  The PD issues ammunition and provides training only.

I think that's another difference.

If a policeman violates the law is he tried in the state or federal court system, or is he tried in a military court (Assuming he is punished at all)?  Can he be sent to prison for failing to follow orders of his superiors or is he fired and has to find another job?

I think that has to be a big difference..

I'd love to read a real lawyer (not a ambulance chaser, not an environmental attorney, and not a freakin leftist, but a constitutional attorney, maybe a JAG officer?) explain to me what is a civilian and what isn't according to current military and constitutional law.

 So lets go back to my main though today.  What makes the weapons Frankenstein and Poli-lousy want to ban so dangerous? It seems to be based on appearances.  In modern America appearance matters more than reality.

Lets give the banners the benefit of the doubt.

If these weapons are so dangerous, then should the PD not require them to be checked into an arsenal at the end of the duty day?  They could take out the standard capacity 15rd Glock magazines and insert a Civilian Safe 10 rd magazine?  i mean it's only to protect the children. Why do police need pistol grips or flash hiders?  If police need those features, and they are so bad,  then shouldn't check in the weapon at the end of the day if only to protect their own families?

If the police require weapons that have evil features, or high capacity magazines then do we not all need them?   How about we talk about that in our next edition of The Crane Files?

Just Don't Know What to Say?

Doesn't it seem like the President and his party have the devil's own luck?

While the country has it's eyes on the man hunt there is a study  reporting that yes the DEMOCRATS and their policies brought the economy to the brink of collapse, after the repeated warnings of the Republicans.  I feel like I am in the woods screaming like a maniac about how this whole thing turned from being the fault of the liberal left and their insane "Poor people need to buy houses too" policies (among others) resulted in the collapse of the housing market.

Will you see this on CBS, CNN, or PBS?  Don't hold your flipping breath.

Why is the AWB not likely to happen a second time?

In 1994 Congress passed the assault ban, it was a set of political wish making that could only get through congress with a ten year sunset provision added.  We said then that it wouldn't have any effect on crime, but according to the press and the liberals, it would end crime as we knew it.  Once again, we were right and they were wrong.  Almost predictable isn't it?

In the days of the 103rd congress,  the political landscape was similar and different from today.  In 1994, we had a liberal charismatic first term president that had gun control and health care as his big agenda items.  In 2013, we have a charismatic liberal second term president that had gun control and health care as his big ticket items.

103rd congress was Democratically controlled in the senate by a ratio of 57/43 and the house 258/176.  The bill still took quite some time to get passed, and was signed into law with much fanfare in the liberal ranks.  However, the president was in trouble, after using up his political capital the mid-term elections turned that around, and the senate was Republican 53/47 and the house 230/204.   He even referred to his mis-calculation that allowed the Republicans to control congress in his State of the Union speech the following year.  

Clinton focused on gun control first, figuring that he would have time to get both through congress.  He used up his political capital in this fight, and lost control of both houses of congress, and in many ways the American people.  Sure he won reelection, but only after turning hard to the right, which solidified the hold of Republicans on congress which lasted for many years, until at some point the electorate couldn't tell the difference between the two parties.

This time, the current president put his emphasis on Health Care reform, and managed to get it (barely) through a congress that his party controlled completely.  The genius of the difference is that the American people see that he gave them something.  They still don't understand the cost of the program, what it means to their lives, or the cost it will have on themselves or their children.  The press hasn't done their job to investigate the bill and continues to hide the costs.  Even so, Obama mentioned the shellacking his party took in the first midterms.

I don't think that the House will pass such a bill, the Republicans might not have any spine, they might not have any self respect, and for gods sake they don't act conservative, but one thing they do understand is self interest.  If they don't know anything else, they know that passing a new awb will result in one thing.  The death of the modern Republican party.  If they manage to pass the ban, people like me will not only bolt the party, we will form another party (Libertarian or other) that will be a direct threat to the Republicans maintaining any federal office.

High Tech Weapons

So I had a discussion where "High Tech Killing" machines was brought up.  Let me recap what I did say, and what I should have said.

The AR15 isn't a high tech killing machine.  The AR15 is America's rifle.  It was first designed in the late 1950's and bought by Colt in 1959, the same year as the Edsel's appearance on the market.  Turns out I was wrong, the Edsel appeared on the market in '57.  Still neither are high tech.  Original rifles came out with 20rd magazines, and that was the way they were officially issued in Vietnam in 1963. In 1974 the military went to 30rd Magazines.  I was born in '69, my sister in '73, neither of us are high tech either.  (As I mentioned before, 10 round magazines are crippled magazines, 20 and 30 rounds are standard, not high capacity).

There have been nearly 8 million of the rifles manufactured worldwide, and President Obama is apparently responsible for selling another 1 millon of them over the last couple of year. In fact I guessed that the AR pattern rifle had sold 1 million units a year for the last year.  The ATF numbers are here.  Unfortunately I guessed higher than what my quick analysis of ATF's numbers reveal.  I am sure I am missing some manufacturers.

Bushmaster        38,075
Colt                   16,419
Stag Arms          34,211
Noveske              1,437
Daniel Def            6.911
Wilson                    315
Patriot ord              783
Armalite            12, 253
Lewis MT            4,998
Rock River         33,871
doublestar             1,620
Smith & Wes.   156,705
DPMS                38,411
Sig Arms             31,025
PSA                    18,163
Aero Precis         39,565

Total                  423,762

Total RIFLES produced 2011   2,318,088

or roughly 4/23 (17%), I guessed 25%

So ~17% of the total produced were AR-15 type rifles (according to my quick search through the data) and they are hardly cheap weapons.


Important note:    Rumor is that Magpul is 1,000,000 units back ordered.

Important note:    There is little or no 223 ammo to be found.

Reasonable inference:  People aren't about to give up their rifles?

So what do you think about a ban or confiscation?  I don't think a confiscation will happen, a ban can't get through congress.  That leaves executive orders, and even if he has the balls, he doesn't have the laws to make that stick.

I have been writing this on and off for awhile.  It was on another site previously and I had about given up writing.  Can you throw me some love?  Leave me a note, tell me what you think.

Shot Heard Round the World.

If you read the same places I do, we are all hearing about the pending "Death of the Republic", that the President will work around congress, and will exercise his will through executive orders, that he can't get through congress.

I do think that if the House Republicans allow a gun ban to come to a vote in the house without first ensuring there is no way it will pass, they deserve to be abandoned and a new party formed without their presence being tolerated.

1)  He will misuse the 14th Amendment and sign Executive Orders to "do something" about the Debt Limit Crisis of 2013.  The democrats are all talking about how a phrase in the 14th Amendment gives the President the "duty" to do what he wants to do anyway, raise the debt limit.  A reading of the amendment does mean that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned."  But I guess they never looked at the final section of the amendment.   SECTION 5.  The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Oh snap Mr Obama!!



2) He will sign Executive Orders that will outlaw certain firearms, and require the American People to turn in their now illegal firearms.

You know, I could see the president misusing his powers in this way, but I also think that the Supremes would certainly take a dim view of this and would very quickly do something to stop this abuse of power.  Certainly confiscation would be prevented by the 5th amendment, considering the current cost of an AR-15, the compensation of those weapons would probably cause a new debt crisis pretty damn quickly.

Sipsey Street is reminding us all what happens to tyrants and to their willing accomplices.   Please remember that the real meaning of the second amendment is to prevent tyranny from get a firm hold on this nation.  Unlike any other nation on earth, we have a duty, and responsibility here. Personally I would urge calm and letting the process work its way.  The last thing we need is for a new revolution spark to kindle into a fire.  No one will win such an explosion, and if you think that the people won't stand up.  I think you fail to understand.

One more thing, today we learned that David Gregory won't be charged for possession of a high capacity magazine in a city where they are banned.  If this was you or I, we would have been taken to jail.  So much for Justice being blind in Washington DC!

The Fiscal Cliff, Starting the New Year the Liberal Way.

It doesn't only happen when liberals win, but when the democrats lose or come to a draw the liberals still treat it as a win for the democrats.

Lets look at the fiscal cliff deal.

NPR  says that the answer is "yes" the President won and lost the fiscal cliff deal.  Frankly, I think he lost most of the deal.  Sure he got his rate hike on the highest wage earners, but the republicans managed to keep it above the level the President was asking for, and I think that keeping the rate changes above $400K in income will most likely limit the damage to the small businesses that make this country tick.  The republicans also can state that the President's deal raised taxes on the middle class.  Frankly I think a cut to Social Security taxes is hari kari, but both parties agreed to that in previous years, trading an increase in payroll taxes against a reduction in SS payroll taxes.

For example the President ran on raising taxes on incomes over $250K, which they believed would raise $800 B in new taxes.  What was passed was a bill rising rates on family income over $450k, which they believe would bring in $600 B in new income.  So that $200K gap is only planned to reduce planned net income to the government by $200B.  please compare those numbers $250K to $800B, and $450K to $600B.  Make a couple story problems out of it, maybe play math teacher...  Let me know what you think, but I think you will find an interesting relationship between the two income levels and the resulting income to the government.  

Lets also correct a language issue.  A tax cut doesn't "cost" the government anything.  It might reduce income, but that isn't a cost, that is a reduction of income.  If you "thought" you were getting a 10% raise this year, but only got 5% the IRS isn't going to let you claim a 5% income loss.  Any other way of looking at this is intellectual dishonesty.

It is also basic to the current operating theory that the size of government should grow every year.  In the business world we would spend time and money to determine better, cheaper, more efficient way to do the same work.

Then again Fox News  also likes to point out that the bill that was actually passed was so full of the kind Pork that would make a butcher jealous.  I am proud for the house for not passing the disaster aid for New York until the pork was stripped out.

Now I would really like to see someone hold the administrations (all administrations) feet to the fire on reducing expenditures.  We can not continue indefinitely without  line up our expenses with our income.  I can't do it at my house, my state can't do it, and the federal government can't continue to do it.  Sooner or later all bills come due...

I wish I understood why congress wants to be everything to everyone, and even thinks this is sustainable.  Sure I know the cynical answer is to buy votes, and that might well be true, but I would like to think that even nut jobs like Alan Grayson could understand the fed gov's spending problems.

The most disappointing thing to me is that we are still seeing the press playing free and lose with their coverage.  I remember Cronkite when I was a small child on the news, now I can go back and appreciate his coverage of Vietnam, while I do think its Un-American to not support our troops, at least I can appreciate the will to do it, and then doing it,  and don't forget that Johnson was a democrat.  Johnson was the author of the "Great Society" that at least I think was the push down the slide to socialism we have been on for some time.