Monday, November 06, 2006
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Part deux:The walls almost finished and then finished



Okay, I have never attempted anything like this before. Every rock, stone, piece of broken concrete, Etc. Was dug up in the backyard. excepting a few which were found in other different areas and some first attempts of capstones, that did not come out right, but they fit perfect on the one wall. Some rebar and cut up angle iron from bed frames was used, (found). so the only purchase was the cement. the cap stones were made from one sixty pound bag of cement each, poured into an form of wood I salvaged from work. I wanted to get a drystack look, but it isnt. That being said the river rock wall is quite sturdy I assure you. what do you think of the finished product? Oh, and another thing. just so you know, finishing this project is a big deal to me personally. (like as if anyone really cares... I know). next project attempt is the dividing "fence" to enclose the area and give it some privacy. Stay tuned
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Mama Moonbat: "Occupied New Orleans"
" I don't care if a human being is black, brown, white, yellow or pink. I don't care if a human being is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or pagan. I don't care what flag a person salutes: if a human being is hungry, then it is up to another human being to feed him/her. George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power. The only way America will become more secure is if we have a new administration that cares about Americans even if they don't fall into the top two percent of the wealthiest."
excerpts from a letter by , Cindy Sheehan .
Although conservatives are routinely painted as simpletons unable to appreciate the complex "nuances" that surround every politcal issue, I've come to understand that our "intellectually sophisticated" friends on the Left are the true children in current political debate.
Leftists like to think they have the moral high ground when they spout slogans like, "War Is Not The Answer." Conservatives know such bumper sticker philosophizing to be meaningless babble. There are often worse consequences than war, so war has no inherent moral characteristic as just "good" or "bad." It all depends on what the alternatives are. In the '40's, the prospect of a worldwide Nazi empire was deemed by most Americans to be worse than war. Wasn't that war "the answer?" Isn't it a perfect example of non-nuanced, black and white thinking to make such categorical assertions about war?
The Left believes that all geopolitical conflict is founded in a misunderstanding of some kind. If only we're "nice" enough and show our enemies that we mean them no harm, then the misunderstanding will be cleared up and we can all live together in harmony. This was the childish impulse that animated the nuclear freeze movement in the '80's that Ronald Reagan so brilliantly ignored. Remember the films in school showing Neville Chamberlain's return to london waving his Freshly Signed Munich Agreement? While Churchill looked on with disdain and was Opposed?
Its echoes are heard today in the words of those on the Left who think that the West's various offenses have caused the Islamists to attack us. If ony we can show the muslim fanatics that we mean no offense to their faith and have no designs on their territory, they will beat their Kalashnikovs into plowshares and return to pray quietly in their mosques. If only Israel will abandon the West Bank and Gaza, thus showing that it means no harm to the Palestinians, Hamas and Islamic Jihad will disband and a happy peace will reign. Is it just stubborn simplemindedness that prevents the Left from intuiting that we and our enemies actually understand each other quite well, and it is our respective knowledge of the other's values and goals that makes us enemies?
On the domestic side, one standard Leftist response to the fact that there are poor people is to simply force businesses to pay their workers more. Problem solved! Conservatives know that by imposing a minimum wage, the government is forcing the most vulnerable workers -- those with few skills -- to raise the "asking price" for their labor to a point that their prospective productivity can't justify. By imposing a minimum wage, the benevolent government has just ensured that the low-skilled worker has priced himself out of the labor market. But Lefties hold on to the idea that forcing businesses to pay higher wages will at some point eliminate poverty. Who's simple-minded here?
It is Conservatives who understand that subsidizing bad behavior encourages more of it and taxing productive behavior causes less of it. Yet the answer of the Left to a pathological subculture of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent homes is always to take more money from productive people in order to increase the subsidies for this type of unproductive, antisocial behavior. The success of this approach can be seen in the catastrophic changes that the Great Society has brought to the underclass in America since its implementation in the early '60's.
And now we have Cindy Sheehan, wielding her "absolute moral authority" to tell us that hungry people are always the responsibility of others to feed. Thank you Cindy, but why don't you return to your candlelight vigil and leave the big thinking to the grownups.
Now,
Check out whom cindy sheehan is hanging out with.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011697.php
read the entire text of cindys letter
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=503
excerpts from a letter by , Cindy Sheehan .
Although conservatives are routinely painted as simpletons unable to appreciate the complex "nuances" that surround every politcal issue, I've come to understand that our "intellectually sophisticated" friends on the Left are the true children in current political debate.
Leftists like to think they have the moral high ground when they spout slogans like, "War Is Not The Answer." Conservatives know such bumper sticker philosophizing to be meaningless babble. There are often worse consequences than war, so war has no inherent moral characteristic as just "good" or "bad." It all depends on what the alternatives are. In the '40's, the prospect of a worldwide Nazi empire was deemed by most Americans to be worse than war. Wasn't that war "the answer?" Isn't it a perfect example of non-nuanced, black and white thinking to make such categorical assertions about war?
The Left believes that all geopolitical conflict is founded in a misunderstanding of some kind. If only we're "nice" enough and show our enemies that we mean them no harm, then the misunderstanding will be cleared up and we can all live together in harmony. This was the childish impulse that animated the nuclear freeze movement in the '80's that Ronald Reagan so brilliantly ignored. Remember the films in school showing Neville Chamberlain's return to london waving his Freshly Signed Munich Agreement? While Churchill looked on with disdain and was Opposed?
Its echoes are heard today in the words of those on the Left who think that the West's various offenses have caused the Islamists to attack us. If ony we can show the muslim fanatics that we mean no offense to their faith and have no designs on their territory, they will beat their Kalashnikovs into plowshares and return to pray quietly in their mosques. If only Israel will abandon the West Bank and Gaza, thus showing that it means no harm to the Palestinians, Hamas and Islamic Jihad will disband and a happy peace will reign. Is it just stubborn simplemindedness that prevents the Left from intuiting that we and our enemies actually understand each other quite well, and it is our respective knowledge of the other's values and goals that makes us enemies?
On the domestic side, one standard Leftist response to the fact that there are poor people is to simply force businesses to pay their workers more. Problem solved! Conservatives know that by imposing a minimum wage, the government is forcing the most vulnerable workers -- those with few skills -- to raise the "asking price" for their labor to a point that their prospective productivity can't justify. By imposing a minimum wage, the benevolent government has just ensured that the low-skilled worker has priced himself out of the labor market. But Lefties hold on to the idea that forcing businesses to pay higher wages will at some point eliminate poverty. Who's simple-minded here?
It is Conservatives who understand that subsidizing bad behavior encourages more of it and taxing productive behavior causes less of it. Yet the answer of the Left to a pathological subculture of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent homes is always to take more money from productive people in order to increase the subsidies for this type of unproductive, antisocial behavior. The success of this approach can be seen in the catastrophic changes that the Great Society has brought to the underclass in America since its implementation in the early '60's.
And now we have Cindy Sheehan, wielding her "absolute moral authority" to tell us that hungry people are always the responsibility of others to feed. Thank you Cindy, but why don't you return to your candlelight vigil and leave the big thinking to the grownups.
Now,
Check out whom cindy sheehan is hanging out with.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011697.php
read the entire text of cindys letter
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=503
Friday, July 01, 2005
I don't like tea it gives me a headache, Lets Drink COFFEE!!!!
I love having those packets of coffee they give you in hotel rooms, You know its supposed to be four cups and you put it in the coffee maker in your sound proof suite and it taste's watered down. So you put in the Non-dairy creamer to spice it up. Yeah, well I like to save them. and put the special Farmer brothers Cup-o-flavor in one cup... damn fine cup-o-joe but what do I know? I drink tea!









