All of this brings me to my current topic, 10 years later, it almost seems like another life…. after College with a wife and full time job, I thought it would be a good idea to get a couple of mountain bikes for me and the missus. Since I had such an good experience with my first real bike, there was no other option in my mind then for me to get another Specialized bike. However, living with limited means, just staring my first real full time job the year before, I could not afford an M2 “Team” bike, or even a Stumpjumper, but I could get the next best thing, a 1995 Specialized Rockhopper FS A1 Comp.

I have had many miles in the saddle of this bike. I was still riding it 16 years later, without any complaints, it has been that good, I loved it!

Unfortunately, a few weeks ago after a 12 mile ride, I noticed 2 cracks in the head tube while I was wiping it down!

I was pretty bummed to say the least. I searched frantically online to see if there was a way to repair it, all I could find was that it could not be repaired, that it was to difficult to re-weld an aluminium frame and have it be safe to ride. However, I came across a few bike forums that had posts mentioning that Specialized had a lifetime warranty on their frames. So, I did some digging and found my original owner’s manual, and sure enough, it said that the frame had a lifetime warranty. I was more than a little sceptical that Specialized would warranty such an old frame.

I called the nearest Specialized dealer to me, and told them about what happened. They said to bring the bike in and they would take a look at it. When I brought it in, they took a quick look at the cracks and said that it was definitely a warranty issue. They said it would take a couple of weeks for Specialized to make a decision after they received all of the information from the shop. I called a couple of weeks later to check on Specialized’s answer, to my surprise, the shop had already received a replacement frame. However, to my initial disappointment, I was informed that the replacement frame was a Hardrock Pro. I must have sounded disappointed by the news, because the folks at the bike shop assured me that the replacement frame was as good as my old frame, but I remained skeptical and disappointed, as my recollection of the Hardrock is that it was/is at the bottom of Specialized’s line up. My disappointment quickly subsided though, when I saw the bike the following week.

It looks a bit retro! It’s made from Specialized’s A1 aluminium, the same as my old Rockhopper frame, and it’s a quarter pound lighter. I needed a new front derailleur due to cable routing changes on the new frame, and I had the shop tune it up, including a new chain and cables. Overall it was just $180 for the shop to perform the swap with the extra work thrown in. I guess after 16 years, bike technology has certainly improved, after several rides on my “new” bike, I can say that the new frame is as good or even better than the old one. I could have stayed hung up on the fact that it is not a Rockhopper, but I can honestly say that I am very happy with this bike.

Specialized has done right by me.

Thanks!

I brought it into the house to ask my grandfather about it. While we were talking I slowly came to the realization that my grandfather was rather fond of this fan, it had only been relegated to the shed because it was not safe to have around children, or pets. He told my the blades were brass, which I found hard to believe as they certainly did not look like brass to me. He went on, as some folks do, about how they don’t make things like they used to, and how much better this was than a modern fan. I questioned him on this, since the fan certainly did not look “better” than the nice shiny plastic fan they had in their house. He insisted it was better, and to make his point he declared, without having touched the fan for at least 10 years, that it still worked! As a typical fifteen year old, I responded, “No Way!”. He proceeded to plug the fan in and turn it on, to my amazement it started up with out hesitation. I sounded like a small airplane, and my grandfather was quick to remind me not to get anywhere near it, as it could “take your finger off”.

A couple of years later my grandfather passed away, and my family moved to accompany my grandmother. I asked my grandmother if I could clean up the old fan in the shed and she gave me permission to. I dove head long into the task. I took the fan apart, and as typical for a headstrong, impatient and foolish fifteen year old, I managed to break the gearbox and the head wires. I was pretty upset about it, but my dad helped me repair the gearbox using epoxy, it was agreed that it would be ok if the fan didn’t work, since it was “dangerous to fingers”. I cleaned up the metal as best I could, or rather as much as I was patient enough for. I painted the fan black and polished the brass. I looked good, it just didn’t work any more, and it served as a “knick-knack” for the next 23 years.

A couple of months ago, I pulled down the old knick-knack from its high cupboard perch in the kitchen to dust it off. While I was cleaning it, for some reason I decided now was time to fix it, and to refinish it correctly. I started by stripping the fan down completely, even removing the motor from it’s housing so I could fix the head wires on the motor. My impatience during my my first attempt to refinish the fan was evident by simply looking at the parts, the rust had not been completely removed and it left many areas with a rough finish through the paint. I had also attempted to reassemble the fan before the paint had fully cured which left many handling blemishes. This time, I stripped all of the paint off the parts by soaking the parts in lacquer thinner. There was still quite a bit of rust on the parts, more than I remember leaving there the first time. I did not want to lose any more metal, sanding was out of the question, so I soaked all of the parts in a rust removing solution, this removed all of the rust and left the remaining metal intact. The old epoxy I used on the gearbox was still holding strong, and I filled any visible cracks with new epoxy. I filled what pitting was on the metal with epoxy and refinished all the metal parts in Hunter Green enamel paint. The brass was polished and clear coated to prevent any further corrosion. New fabric covered electrical cord replaced the old, new grease was added to the gearbox, and new 3-in-1 motor oil was added to the oil cups. After 2 months of work, the fan looks great, and now it runs great as well, no longer a candidate for the dump……….

Front Left..

Back Right..

Front..

Closeup..

Front Right Running..

Front Left Running..

Video Running, Stationary..

Video Running, Oscillating..

But sadly, no more!

I purchased Modern Warfare 2 with the expectation that I would get the same great value for my money that I had with all of the previous games. It turns out that many changes had been made to the game that for my family destroys the value, and fun, we had come to expect in the franchise.

The inclusion of Steam was the first offense, no longer could I play with my sons and daughter, battling against each other for bragging rights without spending 4 times what it cost before. Unable to justify the now $240 cost, our private “wars” have to end with World at War. Infinity Ward’s quest to extract a kings ransom from my family to enjoy this game has left a very bitter taste, one I will not swallow.

But even more egregious, and frankly infuriating, is Infinity Ward’s decision to drop the ability to have multiple single player profiles available in Modern Warfare 2. This flagrant ploy (there is no other word to describe it) to force us to purchase multiple copies of the game to play the single player campaign is unforgivable.

Infinity Ward has diluted this value of the game to a point that I will NEVER purchase another game from the company. The value of the previous games in the franchise lured me in, but I was conned. This game has little value to my family, my son has played it, the rest of us wanted to….. but I will not submit to the extortion Infinity Ward demands.

In a symposium published by the Fordham Law Review, Professor Harcourt and other have written very poorly sourced and argued paper criticizing the NRA and others. Their treatment of the topic borders on an attempt at revisionist history. Dr. Halbrook’s response is a powerful and compelling rebuttal to their claims.

He starts be recounting a “poignant” sob story, as if there is any other kind, about someone getting shot. It follows with Mr. Fericks, as the hero, suing the big bad gun company who made the firearm involved in the crime. Mr. Fericks must have realized that suing the actually party who committed the crime would not get his client or himself any money, and instead went after an uninvolved third party who had deeper pockets. He claims his “legal theory was simple”, that guns are “ultrahazardous” and the manufacturer was an “enabling element in most violent crime in the U.S.”. Of course this is an extreme extension of enabling theory in Tort law, typically the enabler (the gun maker) would have to be guilty of negligence, which seems to have been absent in the case that Mr. Fericks brought, considering the case was dismissed in a summary judgment.

He continues with the old anti-gun line that “the S&W .38 Special was the handgun of choice among criminals”, like I haven’t heard that one before. Well, the .38 also happens to be one of the most popular handguns ever made; in fact it is the only handgun that has been continuously produced since 1899. According to this report it also tops the list of handguns stolen by a margin of 2 to 1 over the next highest on the list. Hardly S&W’s fault. As one can see, Mr. Fericks’ un-sourced “statistic” is meaningless.

Next he goes on to complain that President Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, as it shields law abiding gun manufactures from the kind of frivolous lawsuit that Mr. Fericks filed against S&W. A self serving complaint if I have ever heard one. He cites the litany of our sins, unsafe cars, tobacco, etc. and states “we will eventually come to grips with the catastrophic costs of handguns”. Well I am sorry Mr. Fericks, but I remain unimpressed. Dramatic phrases are not persuasive any more, you have to back up your claims with facts, and if you are only looking at the costs in your analysis you are not seeing the whole picture.

Finally he states that there are parts of the Constitution he does respect, the forth and fifth amendments apparently. But he seems to imply that the phrase “the people” used in the forth and fifth amendments somehow magically mean something else when used in the second. I recommend that Mr. Fericks needs to spend some time learning his history, and read what the founding fathers said in other documents of the time period relating to the second amendment. He needs to understand what was meant by those words, as perplexing as they must seem to Mr. Fericks. For anyone with intellectual honesty will admit, after some time in the documents, that the second amendment means what it says about a right of the people. And it is Mr. Fericks’ collective-militia muddling argument that does not stand up to scrutiny in the end.

However, there is hope for Mr. Fericks on some level. He seems to realize the futility of banning guns, as evidenced by his recognition of the disaster of prohibition in the 1920’s. If that is the case, I recommend that our writer take a look across the pond to England, and see what a mess they have made for themselves when they banned handguns. They have left their law abiding subjects utterly defenseless against an increasing criminal element seizing on their newfound advantage. I am sorry Mr. Fericks, but I do not want what they are dealing with here, perhaps you could practice law over there, instead of importing their mess to us.

We get treated to the typical sob story; “a drunken Scotsman banging on someone’s door at 3a.m. and gets shot, how awful”. Well, I am sure that for every British ex-pat who gets himself shot 10 years ago for doing something stupid here in the US; we can point to a Tony Martin or some other unfortunate British Subject being subjected to the perverted legal system that now exists in the UK.

He attempts to belittle the NRA for “having no more than four Million members”. I’m sorry, but what other advocacy group has that many voluntary members. As an example; NOW only has around 550,000 members, and abortion is as contentious an issue, if not more so, then gun control.

The author then proceeds to read the mind of conservatives with several pontifications of what conservatives believe. Since the author does not appear to lump himself in with this “conservative” label, exactly how does he know what they believe. In addition to the “mind reading” we are treated to the typical stereotyping of what constitutes a gun owner, angry, paranoid, white, and male, give me a break. Maybe the author needs to spend some time actually doing research before writing, and visit a few sites like the Pink Pistols, The Second Amendment Sisters, Women Against Gun Control, or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Please, spare us, the stereotypes are so 1970.

Our intrepid writer fails to mention the large and vocal Libertarian support for gun rights. Many of whom feel the NRA does not go far enough, and is guilty of complacency concerning many existing gun-control laws. Most are far from conservative. The author also feels the need to point out that the gun rights supporters he has talked with, meet the above stereotypes and are “impervious to rational argument”. Well from what I have read I am still waiting to see some rational arguments. And since we are on the subject, the writer needs open up to some rationality and come out of the cave he has apparently been living in, and take a good look at the skyrocketing crime rate in England, which he claims to know nothing about.

The author then delves into the past by dismissing the thought that an armed resistance to the Nazi’s could have done anything. Well, that the subjects of most European countries did not own arms was not a condition only for the subjects of those nations, but of the nations themselves. Most counties in Europe did not have the means to fight off the Nazi’s at the state level, and more importantly did not seem to have the will to fight until it was too late, does the name Neville Chamberlain ring a bell. And this lack of will is probably the main reason most Europeans are so perplexed by our gun ownership.

The author continues by misrepresenting the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act by implying that it granted some special treatment to the firearms manufactures. In fact the act only prohibits manufactures from being held liable when a third party uses a firearm illegally. I see that as common sense; however the writer seems to be in the same group of people who keep claiming that it means more than it says, that it gives immunity from product defects, or illegal distribution, which it does not.

Finally while “many Americans” do not own guns, 40% of the households in the US do. And since we are talking numbers, where are the links to all of author’s sources. Hmmm……

Oh and if Jarek Garlinski thinks Americans are suspicious of the UN when it comes to Guns, well we have good reason…..

”

Reading this article, it appears that the New England news rooms are all singing from the same song sheet. That the NICS system is not restrictive enough for their tastes, they want state permits, registration, and the like for all of New England. As it has been demonstrated before, the availability of guns is not the issue. But the media will continue to repeat their misleading statistics, and write the same articles over and over again to try and make this false notion stick in people’s mind as true. It is always easier for them not to think critically, and blame an inanimate object for societies ills. It seems too difficult for the media to address and tackle the real problems in Boston’s society, they take the less difficult road and blame the rest of New England for Boston’s trouble. Sad.

It starts with a not so intelligent title “Live free and die”, this lame attempt at wit falls flat on it’s face. I guess according to Mr. Bailey, if we do not live under the strict control of the state we will all die, news to me. Next, Mr. Bailey opens by pointing out that you could buy a “lovely” grenade launcher “tax-free” in a New Hampshire gun show. I guess it isn’t enough for him to make snide remarks on what is for sale, absent government intervention. He must also point out that low and behold, the crazy government in New Hampshire doesn’t even tax the sale. It seems almost too much for our friend to handle, guns AND no taxes, pshaw on New Hampshire for allowing it’s citizens that much freedom.

In just the second paragraph we come to what I will euphemistically call the first of Mr. Bailey’s “embellishments”….

“…spotted a Bushmaster, similar to the rifle he carried in two tours of duty in Afghanistan. And he found an AK-47, the same gun the enemy carried. There were military sniper rifles and an M-16-type ”machine pistol” capable of firing off 100 rounds before reloading…”

Mr. Bailey should not mislead his readers, the “AK-47” at the show is not the same kind of gun that the Taliban carried, that’s just not honest reporting. If he doesn’t know that there is a difference between the two, I guess he is just negligent in his duties as a reporter. He also attempts to guide his reader to the notion that machine guns are for sale, with phrases like ”machine pistol”, which of course is inaccurate at best or just plain lying at worse. He follows that up with the crack about it being

“a gun only an angry high school student could love”.

Since Mr. Bailey can see no use for the pistol it must have no legitimate purpose and is only made for, and used by the “Columbine” crowd. I’m sorry, but I must have missed the part about Mr. Bailey’s being an expert in firearms technology, and of his prowess in psychology. Oh wait, maybe it’s because he’s not. So….. why is this “news story” not in the opinion section again?

Taking a break from his “embellishments” he returns to simple hostility as he describes a .38 revolver as

“a trashy little thing popular with thugs in cities like Boston.”

Well I hate to break it to Mr. Bailey, but a .38 is also popular among women who use them as their carry pistol to protect themselves from said thugs. Of course that’s not something most women get the opportunity to do in Boston, as the politicians there don’t trust their law abiding citizens with the tools to protect themselves.

I must say, I’m amused that it took Mr. Bailey longer to buy a refrigerator at Sears than it does to fill out an NICS form. I’m not sure that would be something Mr. Bailey should boast about. Did he have to try more that one credit card? Or maybe he tried to pay with a personal check? Whatever, I guess the fact that every state is tied into the NICS system, and can rapidly tell the seller if a buyer is disqualified from purchasing a gun or not, is not restrictive enough for Mr. Bailey.

Then it’s back to “embellishments”.

“And he could sell his new .38 down the street, too, no questions asked.”

I’m afraid that is not entirely accurate, for the gentlemen described would become a criminal if he were to do that. Buying a gun with the intention of selling it is illegal, it’s called engaging in business as a gun dealer without a license, which is a federal felony.

Finally we get to the real issue in this poor excuse for a “news story”.

“Massachusetts has the toughest gun laws in the nation, but the streets of Boston haven’t felt this dangerous in years. Increasingly, say police, guns are coming from Northern New England, where the gun laws are weaker.”

So according to unnamed police, weak gun laws in Northern New England are to blame for crime in Boston. I guess that the unnamed police officers and Mr. Bailey missed the recent report showing the safest and most dangerous cities in the US.

It is interesting to note that in Michigan you have some of the safest, and some of the most dangerous cities in the country, all with the same set of gun laws. It would seem obvious to most people, that being the case, the availability of firearms is NOT the main cause of crime in a city.

Mr. Bailey now decides to return to “embellishments” in a big way, he states:

“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives found that gun shows rank second, after corrupt firearms distributors, in the number of illegally trafficked guns that turn up in its investigations, according to a 2000 report”.

He tries to makes one think that crime guns come from gun shows and dealers. Unfortunately for Mr. Bailey that is not the case. The guns that the ATF “investigates” are not always used in crimes, and to suggest so as Mr. Bailey does is dishonest. The ATF has come out with a disclamer on reports that state this fact, but I suppose that Mr. Bailey can’t be bothered with facts. The truth is, guns from gun shows account for less that 2% of all guns used in crime as this DOJ report shows. I wonder why Mr. Bailey has no links to his source material for his “news story”.

As far as his reference to the guns used in Columbine, Mr. Bailey conveniently leaves out the fact that the guns were purchased by a straw buyer and given to the killers, an illegal act.

Then Mr. Bailey stoops to new lows of public discourse.

“Dramatically reducing the flow of illegal guns would be a relatively straightforward matter if it were not for the lunatic gun lobby and its political enablers.”

Did he really have to resort to an ad hominem attack?

I have to admit it makes one wonder who is the lunatic?
The one who argues using facts, and provides source material to support their arguments,
or….
the one who does not use facts, provides no source material, and tries to disguise an opinion piece as a “news story” in the business section.

The last bit of his opinion piece is just more unsupported statistics that I will not bother with now. Once someone resorts to calling names they have already lost the argument, Mr. Bailey has no honor, and I have better things to do.

“Rifles and shotguns are not inherently evil, they just make it much easier to kill by removing the need for personal contact and considered reflection. Similarly, the great monotheistic religions all preach love while offering justification for actions without appeal to the concerns of the individual or rationality.

The comparison may seem like a stretch, but from where I sit, in the western foothills of North Carolina, the constitutional right to bear arms has achieved a status not unlike a tenet of one of the major monotheistic religions. And just as those who embrace gun culture must take some degree of responsibility for the body counts that accompany the prevalence of weapons in civil society, so must the faithful address the dangers that follow dogma.”

While he implicitly tries to link the two issues, he states gun owners must be responsible for gun deaths, and that the faithful must “address the dangers that follow dogma”. He denies that he is attacking religious faith directly. However, he wants religious people to look at their faith, well…… skeptically, as mythic texts. I guess he just doesn’t understand the whole concept of what faith is all about.

“I’m not suggesting that all Muslims should apologize for last month’s bombings in London or the events of Sept. 11, 2001, in New York and Washington. Neither should all Christians assume a share of the blame from the horrors of the Crusades and the Inquisition. What I would like to see, however, is a more skeptical approach by all peoples of faith to the role of scriptures in their lives, an approach that emphasizes the mythic and figurative value of the texts.”

I get the impression for Mr. Hrynyshyn considers the two issues to be very much alike, despite his suggestion that he does not. I doubt he would object to a requirement for people of faith to register that affiliation with the government, so the government could track the “extremists” more easily. Much like Canadian firearms registry, the very thing Mr. Hrynyshyn is advocating for in the US in this piece, though he never talks of it directly.

What follows next is the same lack of reasoning one sees when someone who fears gun ownership tries to “interpret” the second amendment. I do however, have to give Mr. Hrynyshyn some credit. He uses an analogy I have not seen before, while still wrong in his conclusion, it is interesting nonetheless. He tries to insinuate that the gun rights supporters like the NRA and others only read and quote the operative clause of the amendment, akin in religious comparisons, to taking a verse of scripture out of context. While this is patently false, the NRA and most other gun rights groups almost always quotes the whole second amendment, it was a novel attempt to discredit the operative clause of the amendment.

“The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the one that guarantees the right to bear arms, is no less explicit about the need to regulate that right. It begins with “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” There it is, the introductory clause of the right to bear arms calls for serious regulation. Clear and simple. And yet, at least four million Americans object so strongly to the notion of gun control that they pay dues each year to the NRA.

The problem is that the bigger pictures are anything but clear. The Qu’ran also calls on Muslims to “make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah…” The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution concludes with “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Members of al-Qaeda ignore the Qu’ran’s call for compassion; the website of the far-right group Independent Americans ignores the historical context in which their Constitution was drafted and quotes only the second half of the second amendment.”

So lets talk about the historical context in which our Constitution was drafted, a topic that Mr. Hrynyshyn apparently knows nothing about, but feels qualified to comment on.

“There it is, the introductory clause of the right to bear arms calls for serious regulation. Clear and simple.”

I almost fell of my chair reading that! It has to be one of the most stunningly ignorant statements I think I have ever read reguarding the preamble to the second. If Mr. Hrynyshyn had bothered to do the most remedial study on the subject, he would know that in colonial times the phrase “well regulated” meant “well working”, it had absolutely nothing to do with regulating arms. In fact, the founding fathers did not want arms regulated, that is why the operative clause says “shall not be infringed”.

Mr. Hrynyshyn is guilty of the same thing he accuses gun rights supporters of, and takes the first “verse” of the second out of context, in both time and meaning.