mspart

Why should he? He's already #2 at 86kg. Or do you think he should be #1 at 92kg? He didn't go through the WTT tourney to get to Final X so no is the answer. He needed to make that decision some time ago. mspart

HI Ban, I was wondering why you didn't post in the Zoo. It has been awhile. To catch you up, my wife's preschool had their graduation. The event was huge. I smoked 3 pork butts and the BBQ was excellent. Oh and Gilman, Yianni, and Burroughs lost their spot on the world team. It was quite the upset show. The keyboardist in my band in college still records and has a pretty cool song he wrote. It is really good. I think I can make it a little better with some of my own guitar stylings so I will be looking to do that soon. Well there you go. mspart

True, you can grab legs in GR. Just don't let the ref see you. That's a funny story DJT. There are many that faced Karelin that rolled over for the pin or otherwise prevented getting launched. He was scary. mspart

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/features/national-prevalence-adhd-and-treatment.html CDC scientists found that, as of 2016, 6.1 million children aged 2-17 years living in the U.S. had been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which is similar to previous estimates. Researchers also found that children living in rural areas were more likely to have been diagnosed with ADHD and less likely to receive behavioral treatment in the past year compared with children living in urban or suburban areas. Among all children 2-17 years of age with ADHD, researchers also found: 6 out of 10 (62%) were taking medication for their ADHD, and represent 1 out of 20 of all U.S. children; Just under half (47%) received any behavioral treatment for their ADHD in the past year. Among the youngest children (2-5 years of age), the number increased to over half (60%); Nearly two-thirds (64%) also had another mental, emotional, or behavioral disorder, such as conduct disorder, anxiety, depression, autism, and Tourette syndrome. It seems to be a thing. mspart

I'm not sure what you do about poor parenting on a national level. I don't know the distinguishing characteristics between nations. But here is one I think about. There has been an increase in student cheating over the past few decades. It has happened since time immemorial. But parents used to teach their kids that it was better to be honest than to lie. And it is better not to cheat because you are only cheating yourself and others. I'm sure many parents still teach this, but I'm also sure many don't. I'm guessing this is just as prevalent in UK, Australia and Canada. It does come back to parents instilling good ethics in their children while young and not letting them get away with breaking this. Else they learn it is a bunch of hokum. Who want's a doctor treating them that cheated through school? Or an Engineer who designs bridges and airplanes and buildings? But it seems that is the direction. If this is not stopped in the home, it will not stop. But to get parents, on a national level to do this would be very difficult. I do remember the ad campaign with the Indian crying due to trash in the water and roadways. It was actually a very effective campaign and we had a cleaner world in general from littering. Now I see crap all over the roads. Why? Could it be because parents are not teaching about littering? Could be. I'm not so sure poor parenting drives shootings. Most people instinctively know killing people is a No No. No matter what parents do, there will always be those that are bad people because they want to be bad. And lately, it seems the shootings are coming from mentally unstable people and parents can only do so much with that these days except drug them. And when the kid decides to go off the drugs, the parents don't have a say because the kid is 18 or more. Or perhaps the drugs are causing aberrant behavior. But in general, I think the more parents instill good ethics into their children, the less likely they will go killing people. How to do that on a national level is the question. mspart

I look at Yahoo Financial everyday and saw this and thought it was interesting: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bud-light-only-itself-blame-164336807.html Bud Light only has itself to blame for sales plunge after caving to ‘extremist bullies,’ argues main LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD Anheuser-Busch can only blame itself for the ongoing boycott of Bud Light after caving to “extremist bullies,” according to the main U.S. advocacy group for LGBTQ people. Following consumer retaliation against Bud Light for hiring a transgender influencer to promote in April what its former marketing boss called an increasingly “fratty” and “out of touch” brand, group management kowtowed to the pressure, leaving them vulnerable and without support from either side. “I think we need to reframe this,” Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of GLAAD, told CNBC on Thursday when asked about the backlash. “Companies that did back down to bullies actually saw this escalate.” Had the brewer only stood its ground—like many other companies supporting Pride Month—the LGBTQ community and its allies would have come to its aid and prevented the precipitous drop in demand that saw Bud Light lose the title of America’s favorite beer last month. Asked whether she felt Bud Light’s 27% plunge in sales came as a direct result of caving to the criticism, Ellis replied: “It’s absolutely from them backing down.” In fact, she went so far as to say her community joined in the pile-on and may even be the actual driving force behind Bud Light’s troubles. People don’t want to support a brand that won’t support them when the going gets tough, Ellis argued. “LGBTQ bars have stopped serving it. [Anheuser-Busch] didn’t stand with us,” she said. “I think they’re taking credit—the extremists—for the drop in sales, when I think it’s actually the other way around.” I'm thinking that this is giving too much credit but perhaps they are right. Anyway, an interesting alternate take on the situation. Also interesting is that Yahoo is saying AB/InBev stock is a buy right now because it is so low. JRoss - you may have a winner here!! mspart

Here's hoping RBY and the rest qualify their weights for the Olys. mspart

You are stuck on that aren't you? I used that as an example of how law abiding citizens can all of the sudden not be law abiding citizens. The conversation was talking about law abiding gun toting citizens. They can quickly be made non law abiding citizens. That is the point Bob. I don't know why you cannot make that connection. Not sure why I have to spell it out again for you since you didn't even read my original post which clearly stated this. Yet you have an opinion on what I wrote that you didn't bother to read. That's just plain silly. Why don't you read the post instead of making up stuff about things you haven't even read. Please rather than just complain and tell me what I'm concerned about, go at them one by one rather than being general. That might be more informative and useful rather than discussing something you admit you know nothing of because you didn't even bother to read it. That would be preferable to a bunch of general "you are only concerned about whataboutisms". Don't you think? Whatabout you read a post before condemning it? Whatabout being informed before you go spouting off on something you didn't even bother to read? Whatabout staying on topic when you complain about someone else for straying off topic? Yes, I'm concerned about a lot of whataboutisms. mspart

Why are you bringing in other topics Bob. What's your point? mspart

Excellent. So I don't have to worry about what I write because you just tune out. You have your opinion on what I wrote but I can tell you your assumption is wrong. But you missed my explanation about it because you didn't read it. Interesting way to gain information. Read until you don't want to read anymore and make up an assumption about the meaning of what you did not read. mspart

I figured you would want an explanation. You did after all, ask what legislation is being proposed. So I answered that one, must have missed the other. Yes. What we have now is regulation. But don't for a minute believe there aren't those that want to disarm or allow only peashooters. mspart

I think you are smart enough that you will see eventually that it was an example of changing a law so that those that were law abiding are not now law abiding. Just by changing a definition. Especially because that is what I said it was. But keep your blinders on and don't read too much into anything or try to get the meaning of what is being said. It is a time honored tradition. mspart

WR, I don't know of a federal effort to restrict guns. Our state of WA just outlawed new purchases of "assault " weapons. This essentially includes any semi-automatic weapon, pistol or rifle. There are other states doing the same. But if the D's in Congress had the chance and didn't have to worry about getting re-elected, I have no doubt they would be coming after the weapons as well. I don't think we need automatic weapons and a bump stock or similar that turns a semi auto into an automatic weapon, that should be out of bounds. It has been decided that automatic weapons are illegal for use despite the 2nd amendment. Bombs, mortars, mines, howitzers, large guns are also illegal though we have the 2nd amendment. I am not opposed to those. Just like I am not opposed to libel laws, or "shouting fire" in a theater laws that restrict my free speech. That is a bastardization of what the Founders meant by free speech. But still, I don't have an issue with those because they can hurt people. One can say guns hurt people too, but I can counter not without someone doing the hurting. And those should be dealt with swiftly and harshly. As I mentioned earlier, we have lots of gun laws, possession laws, and use in crime laws that are not enforced now. That would be a start maybe, start prosecuting harshly those that use guns in crimes rather than throwing the gun aspect of it out. mspart

I suppose there is a point here. You are law abiding until there is a law made against what you do. Then if you keep doing it, you are not law abiding. A law against stealing presents a law abiding person no issue. But if stealing is somehow redefined to make it what it is not currently (and we have a number of examples of this in the political spectrum right now), then that law abiding person might not be law abiding. For instance, here in WA, your child says he/she is trans. You say no you are not, you are going through a phase etc. If they run away and somehow the state gets their hands on them, WA will not tell the parents where the child is. The child will go to a "foster" home that is not under the foster system. Then the child will be given the treatments they are seeking for. This used to be only a result of serious abuse, either mental or physical. Now this opinion regarding trans is categorized as abuse. And the state has made kidnapping a minor child legal for the state to do in this case. This just became law, and there is a referendum trying to get signatures to put this on the ballot to reject it, but if not, then the parents are no longer acting legally if they do this or hold this opinion and are being forced to accept trans ideology and assist their minor child in transitioning or lose their child. This was not the case 1 month ago, but now is based on the law that just passed the legislature and signed by the governor. Kind of a different example, but one that is happening right here right now. mspart

You can be prosecuted if a thief comes into your house and steals your gun and then uses it in another crime. So the same would apply to the two examples given above. Around these parts, the first offense to be thrown out is the gun charge. Yes, all the liberals want to limit guns and to make laws that punish people for using them in a crime. And then the liberals refuse to prosecute rendering the law useless. But defend yourself with a gun and they are all over you trying to get you shut down and in prison. mspart

I have only smoked pork butt once, three at the same time, but did not marinating or anything. Your idea sounds good. mspart

Here are some thoughts on arms: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790 “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785 “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 “I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778 “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 “To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788 “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 “…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783 “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775 “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789 “For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787 “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 mspart

Here you go Plasi. mspart

Well, then he is thinking next year will be his year!! Good for him, and best of luck to him. I don't think it ever matters the when, there are always hammers out there ready to pound on you. You just have to be the bigger hammer. mspart

I am no Guru on smoking meat, let's get that out of the way first. I will fill the wood box with apple wood chips. I will then line the water tray with foil and fill with water. Then I will place thawed pork butts on the racks of the smoker. Then I will turn on the propane and get the temp up to 225-230F. It will usually stay there and this slowly cooks the meat but is enough to get the chips started smoking. This time I will get the meat to about 150F internal and then wrap in foil. This reduces the crust on the pork as I understand it. New process for me. I did not do this on the previous pork butts I smoked but the crust was fairly thick. My wife and I both like the edges pretty crisp so I think we will do this. Cook until 205 internal temp and remove, and let sit for an hour. Pretty simple. We will give the pork a rub before cooking. Also, at the 150 mark, you can wrap and pull out the pork and put in an oven to finish the cooking. By then the chips have smoked their all and have no more to give. But the internal of the smoker is pretty smoky too so I will probably leave it in the smoker until done. I'm no cook and don't put a lot of thought into how to make this better like "Gee I should cut up apples and add to the top" or other enhancements. This works and I am very happy with my previous results. I looked up this method on the interwebs and the google. mspart

We had homeless folks in Seattle throwing things off of bridges and damaging cars. It was not good. Those with damaged cars were lucky it was not worse. mspart

Well, that was very nice of them. I will be smoking a pork butt this weekend, maybe two. mspart

Agreed. mspart

Ha ha!! OK, we can set a boundary. Coolidge died a few years before I was born. And I am speaking in terms of geological time!!!! mspart

Oh you're nothing but a baby!! Oops, just aged myself. mspart