Life In KC - Blogs

Dental Implants - Cosmetic or functional?

dentalimplants — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:04:41 GMT

Facelift, implants, botox, chin tuck are some of cosmetic surgery options available to people to improve their appearance. Why do people go for these procedures? While facelifts and nose jobs are mainly cosmetic dental implants are not. They restore the function of lost tooth and help people lead normal lives.

Facelift is a purely cosmetic procedure that allows people to correct any facial imperfections. This rarely has any functional use like tooth implants. People look at the Hollywood crowd and want that perfect body and face. Result? Facelifts are good business for the plastic surgeon.

Dental implant surgery involves implanting a screw into the bone of the jaw where the tooth is missing. The surgery might take less than an hour to complete if you are going for just one implant. If you require multiple implants then the time taken for the surgery will be obviously longer.

Surgery is always a risky business. You need anesthetics before surgery and painkillers after it is over to manage pain. Dental implants surgery is a small procedure but still you need to be under medication. If you are allergic to certain drugs or sick or have an infection then let the dentist know so he can modify it for you.

Dental implants serve both functional and cosmetic purposes. Hence they are a welcome addtion to your mouth

What I like about Fridays

J-Hawk — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:45:22 GMT

Coming to the end of another week and I just realized how much I am truly thankful for in my life. Friday is when this usually comes to a head for me as I count down the minutes before I can leave the job I am fortunate to have and race home. (There's a point to this entry I promise).

In just one week I anticipate rushing home, grabbing the family, heading up to the Home opener at the High School Football field, eating 3 or 4 too many BBQ Sandwhiches (supporting the THS boosters) while sitting among friends and watching kids I have coached or grew up around. The face I don't know will be far more rare than the face I do. Over the remainder of the weekend, I'll make the rounds to the extended family, work hard on the home we have made for ourselves, watch aggregious amounts of football, and likely have at least 10 separate wrestling matches with the kids. I'll talk politics, sports, etc with my wife nearly non-stop while traveling to the store or an event (amazing how much fun even going to the dump can be when with your best friend). Of course, trips to the dump with your wife can lead to A LOT of things ;) (who said it had to start in the kitchen?!?!)

I might get a call from a friend in need of some help. . . or someone who needs me to fill in on a team. . . go shooting with, or have my kid's games to attend. I might have a school event to attend or a science project to help out with. . . I'll definitely have a J-Hawk game to listen to or plan a visit from friends for. If nothing else, I might just hop in the truck and drive south to a little town (if you can call it that) where my Grandfather is buried.. . . or I might _______ (fill in the blank).

All of those things and countless others bring me joy. I genuinely love God and Country and have been blessed beyond measure. Yet with all of this the smile on my face must struggle to fight back the furrowed brow of concern that continually assails me. The furrowed brow of an economy that continues to shrivel at a rate only superceded by my diminishing freedoms. I fight to contain the anger as the values, the opportunities, the hope, and the lifestyle I so cherish and long to give to my children appears to be vaporizing before me.

In short, I want my Fridays (weekends) back. I want the plight of the 2009 Chieftains in the Kaw Valley League to be one of my chief concerns again.. . . not whether or not America will continue to exist in even a shadow of it's former self. Though glad to make it through yet another week, I ail with the thought that this life I have built and been given seems under attack by elites who wish for me to "tolerate" their intrusion and cow-tow to their mandates.

I need to round out these thoughts and will likely edit this later, but felt compelled to write as I returned to work from a lovely lunch date with my best friend . . . .

Chris' Reaction to Professor Gates

Christopher — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:42:35 GMT

The election of Barack Obama should have ended this nonsense and I am absolutely sick of it.

Here's the memo that the president apparently did not get. Are you ready?

The vast majority of us under 40 have no idea what racism is. We bought in to the "color blind" society goal, we accept it, we don't judge people on the color of their skin, and we live our days without ever thinking about the race or creed of our neighbors.

With Sgt. Crowley, we do indeed have a "teachable moment". But it ain't one for white folks, it's a teachable moment for Professor Gates and President Obama. Sgt. Crowley represents the absolute best our country has to offer. He is an outstanding policeman who had done visibly brave things, including saving the life of a black NBA star by using mouth to mouth resuscitation. This man even teaches THE class on racial profiling at his Police Academy. He exhibited the pinnacle of patience and professionalism in the incident with the professor and, guess what?

Officer Crowley was judged by the color of his skin.

Yep, he was presumed guilty simply because he is white and a cop.

The Professor and the President are the racists in this story, not whitey.

Those are tough words, huh? They sure are and I do not write them without some reservations.

Now, let�s do a little �what if�-ing. What if the Professor taught at, oh, say, UCLA? What if it was LAPD instead of Cambridge PD? That�s right, people would have died. President Obama�s statement would have been viewed as license to riot.

Hopefully this �teachable moment� really is a teachable moment. A whole lot of this country has turned the corner on the race issue and we live our lives in peace and harmony with anyone we meet. As a devout Christian, I simply cannot be racist. The Apostle Paul wrote that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. The barriers of race are gone. People are being judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Our country elected Barack Hussein Obama, a mixed race man with a Muslim name, to be the President of the United States, the highest office on planet earth. Let�s move on.

originally in the forum here http://discuss.lifeinkc.com/showthre...=8611#post8611

Gun Safety

Christopher — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:16:57 GMT

With all of the new gun owners out there, the radical increase in CCW permits (CCH in KS - they can't be trusted with knives), and the media's penchant for running any accidental shooting story over and over, I felt like starting a thread on basic gun safety and my personal opinions on how to be a safe gun owner.

First up, if you have children, you need to get the movie Eddie Eagle from the NRA and show it to your kids often. Mine love it and have memorized it. Information on that can be found here: http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/. It is also a good idea to try to get your schools to show this video to kids as well.

Next is how to safely store your weapons. Mind you, it is politically incorrect to refer to firearms as weapons, but they are nonetheless. Referring to them as weapons is a simple reminder that they are to be treated with respect. But, I digress. Many will tell you to store you guns unloaded, locked up, and with the ammunition in a separate place. This is a great idea for most of your guns but notice I said most. As a family in CA found out back in 2001, storing your guns like this makes them incredibly useless if you should need them to, say, stop someone with a pitchfork from killing your siblings. Link here for the gory and sad details.

The weapons and ammunition that have been flying off of the shelves since the last election are mostly of a type that would indicate people are arming themselves for self-protection. This is a great thing and a huge testimony to American self-reliance. However, if you have done this, you need to spend a few more bucks and store your weapon in a manner that allow you quick access and nobody else. There are a bunch of cool products out there to facilitate this. Below are a few that are similar to what I use. The pics are from http://www.buyasafe.com, a site that I have bought from in the past.

First up, long guns. That's rifles or shotguns in normal parlance. These are not generally that good for self-defense at home as they are unwieldy and, well, long. Most folks who have long guns do for hunting or sport and they don't come out all that often. I have a small safe for my long guns and they are all stored unloaded. My safe can hold up to 10 guns and it cost me just over $200. It is so cheap because it is not fire rated, but only for security. The one in the picture here retails for just under $700.

For storing a pistol or two somewhere in your house, especially for defense, a small safe is a good match. Most of these run less than $200 (unles you want a fire rating) and you can even find them in a home improvement store. If you carry concealed or have a gun in the home for self defense, you NEED something like this to prevent kids from getting hold of a loaded weapon as well as to prevent a bad guy from using your own gun on you. It is also a good idea to have a small safe in your house to store important documents and valuables.

If you are on a budget but still need a pistol for self defense, there are very economical options. One is the Life Jacket which retails for about $20.00 and is not very useful to keep someone from stealing your gun, but it will prevent anyone from using it who does not have a key:

http://www.defensedevices.com/lifejacket-gun-locks.html

Here in the state of Missouri, it is legal for anyone over the age of 23 to carry a concealed weapon in their car without any training or a CCW permit. This is a very handy law, but if you are going to do this, you need to do it safely. Keep in mind that most cars can be stolen in less than 20 seconds, so while it is legal to simply hide a gun under the seat of your car, that gun and car can be stolen very easily. Putting a handy little lock box in your car that can open quickly is a good way to keep your gun nearby and accessible yet a bit more secure than just having it in the glove box. The box below is on sale right now for $99.

If you have the notion of keeping a gun in your car or even transporting one, having a box like this is a good idea - especially if you have kids.

All of these products, however, are absolutely no substitute for education and discipline. Owning a firearm is a huge responsibility, especially if you own defensive weapons. Some states even have laws that can make the gun owner liable if their gun is stoled or misused by a third party. Using common sense as well as teaching your children to respect firearms is also of paramount importance. If you are a new firearm owner, are considering becoming a firearm owner, or are an old salty dog who knows things like what effect greater twist rates have on slugs as they travel through the air, remember that safety is the most important aspect of owning a gun.

Be on the Lookout for Motorcycles

Christopher — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:07:32 GMT

Can you imagine a stealth fighter pilot cussing out a commercial airline pilot for not seeing him?

My friends and I used to roller blade in CA. We were always aware that we could get creamed around the next corner. It was not the fault of the rest of traffic that we were on roller blades.

My dad and I used to ride bicycles for distance. It was not unusual for us to go 40 or 50 miles in the NV desert in a day and we even rode in a couple multiple-sclerosis marathons. Both of our bikes had rear-view mirrors on them. We knew were were taking a chance.

If you ride a motorcycle just remember - most people are oblivious of you. Lots of people drive distracted and irresponsibly. They aren't going to change. People are supposed to drive safely and look our for others. People are also only supposed to drive 70 on I-70, too.

A Note on Health Care Reform

Christopher — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:06:31 GMT

After talking to my doctor and reading ARM's posts, I'm softening a little on the reform front. Mind you, I am not open to anything like what the socialist/fascists want to do, but there is obviously a problem in a certain segment of the populous. The emergency rooms are being abused by people who are not paying their bills (and have no intention to) and these folks who aren't paying for the services rendered are even suing the hospitals.

Rush was going off recently on how Ceci Connoly's piece making health insurance mandatory like car insurance wasn't analogous. His point was that the mandatory part of car insurance, the liability portion, was in place to protect people you may hurt - not yourself. I think Rush was wrong on that one. Obviously people without health insurance are indeed hurting the rest of us. They are driving up the cost of health care and insurance for those who can afford it and they are ruining our emergency rooms.

I think the solution should be that a catastrophic insurance plan (something with a high deductible and low monthly premium) really should be mandatory. I think if you show up at an ER without any coverage, you need to submit to a credit check and means testing. If that credit check comes back showing that you could have bought insurance and you didn't, then perhaps wage garnishment for repayment of your hospital bill is in order. If it comes back that you really could not afford it, then maybe the gubmint could subsidize or something - but preferably on the state level not federal. If it comes back that you aren't supposed to be in the country at all, then the home country gets billed for the charges and the patient gets deported.

Maybe I am off track here, but while my own health care is covered pretty well, I am starting to see real problems in "the system".

originally in the forum here http://discuss.lifeinkc.com/showpost...&postcount=263

Crap and Tax

J-Hawk — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:25:10 GMT

Rather than drop a bomb on the forum, I thought I would rant in the relative seclusion of my blog for the first time. The more and more I read about the pending Cap and Trade bill, the more frustrated I become. Below is a list of bullets from an article I read on National Review that detail some of the provisions within the bill (numbered comments are from the article).

1. The big doozy: Eighty-five percent of the carbon permits will not be sold at auction � they will be given away to utility companies, petroleum interests, refineries, and a coterie of politically connected businesses. If you�re wondering why Big Business supports cap-and-trade, that�s why. Free money for business, but higher energy prices for you.

Higher prices aside, this LEGISLATES CORRUPTION!!!! The more I read and hear about this plan, the more of a power grab it becomes. It is a deadly combination of bribe (buying allegiance) and welfare (developing more dependence, thereby perpetual support).

2. To the extent that the allowances actually generate government revenue, that money is going to be used for fraud-inviting projects of dubious environmental or economic value.

Example: Some allowance money will be used to �build capacity to reduce deforestation in developing countries experiencing deforestation, including preparing developing countries to participate in international markets for international offset credits for reduced emissions from deforestation.� What are the chances of that being abused?

This is scary to me on a couple of fronts:
- It gives eco-terrorists an official �job� and a heavy club to swing along with substantial funding
- Given Obama just selected a well known Global Government crony to be his legal council, legislation like this just greases the skids to merge our government with others.

3. In addition to the permits, the bill also allows for the creation of �offsets� � the medieval-style indulgences of the carbon-footprint world. In fact, nearly all of Waxman-Markey�s carbon-reduction targets can be met with offsets alone through 2050, meaning decades before any actual reduction of greenhouse gases is required. That means huge new expenses for small businesses and consumers in return for basically zero environmental improvement. And how does one earn an offset to sell? Get a farm and cash in through such methods as, and we quote, �improved manure management,� �reduced tillage/no-tillage,� or �afforestation of marginal farmlands.� Translation: Plant some trees around the house and claim some extra credits on the land the government may already be paying you not to farm. And do a better job of handling your B.S. � but you�ll never do as good a job on that one as the authors of Waxman-Markey.

Wonder if I�ll get some credits for planting 14 fruit trees in my backyard? I�m also thinking of stuffing a cork in the rears of my dog and cats and see what that nets me.

4. Rural electrical cooperatives are demanding that the offsets be awarded in proportion to historic emissions, and they probably will prevail. This means that high-polluting generators, such as the coal-fired plants typical of electric co-ops� members, will be rewarded because they pollute more, while cleaner producers, such as those using nuclear and hydroelectric power, will be penalized.

This one defies reason to me and proves that the bill has NOTHING to do with the environment, but EVERYTHING to do with political agenda and government control! Lying is nothing new to politics, but this is some of the most brazen and overarching garbage to EVER be written into law!

5. The farm lobby will be rewarded for practices that do little or nothing to reduce greenhouse gases. One such practice is �no till� planting, in which farmers forgo plowing and plant seeds directly into the soil. Two peer-reviewed scientific papers suggest that no-till either does nothing to decrease carbon dioxide or actually increases the level of greenhouse-gas emissions by upping emissions of nitrous oxide � a much more powerful greenhouse gas. Now it�s not clear that no-till will reduce greenhouse gases, but the practice does make weed-control more difficult, meaning that it supports the market for herbicides such as Monsanto�s RoundUp. Guess who�s spending millions lobbying for no-till?

Beyond the effect it will have on producers of fertilizer, if you couple this with the plans for Ethanol (and it�s exclusion from being subject to environmental testing - has to be tested at least five years before being brought to Congress), you will see a huge surge in food product prices (remember how the corn shortage affected the economy?). This one will DWARF last years jump and have a horrific effect on food exports to poor/impoverished countries. Aren�t liberals supposed to be the compassionate ones? Do they care that they will force MANY Americans into foreclosures? Do they care about the empty bellies this will cause in foreign countries? Do they care what this will do to those on a fixed income? Unbelievable!

6. Waxman-Markey provides an excuse for trade protectionism. The bill will give the Obama administration broad new powers to enact tariffs on imports from jurisdictions that have not had the poor sense to enact similar legislation, meaning that it invites both politically driven trade protectionism and retaliatory measures from abroad in the service of an empty green dream.

Brilliant! This is bound to enhance our international relationships and promote free trade! Where is Kornut when I need him to explain to me why it�s so important to buy American at any cost?!?! Do you think that maybe . . . just maybe these other countries might make their money up elsewhere or retaliate? Of course, there�s nothing to worry about. . . the Obama Crime Syndicate will control it. Instead of reversing course and saying, �Wow, what we are doing will SEVERELY undercut domestic companies that employ thousands. . . let�s stop and think this through,� this administration intends to �fix� this and �level the playing field� by trying to tax other countries! RICH! I�m sure China will kowtow to this!

7. Naturally, Big Labor gets its piece of the pie, too. Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete � and ensuring that these �investments� pay out inflated union wages. And it�s not just the big research-and-development contracts, since Waxman-Markey forces union-wage rules all the way down to the plumbing-repair and light-bulb-changing level.

Ahhh, my favorite subject. . . unions! Couple this provision with the health care bill that makes Unions EXEMPT from health care taxes and you will have a purging of the economy. You will see any non-union company at a SEVERE competitive disadvantage, while Union membership will skyrocket. This promotes the �entitlement� state and grows their numbers (votes). Astonishing. . . . jaw drop astonishing.

8. Community-organizing gangs � i.e., ACORN � will be eligible to receive billions in funding as the bill �authorizes the Secretary [of Energy] to make grants to community development organizations to provide financing to businesses and projects that improve energy efficiency.� Think federally subsidized consultants paid $55 an hour to tell businesses to turn down their AC in the summer.

9. Waxman-Markey will create yet another raft of government dependents, but of a different sort � bureaucrats. The bill creates: a new United States Global Change Research Program, a National Climate Change Adaptation Program, a National Climate Service, Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Strategy office at the White House, and an International Climate Change Adaptation Program at the State Department.

Awesome! A verifiable smorgasbord of new government agencies. . . we all know how �efficient� these are!

However, if you have made it this far, take heart and be cheered by the words of Nancy Pelosi. When advising congressmen to back this bill, she said they should not worry about the words of the bill they had not read, but think about four others: �jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.�

Ahhh to be led by the elite!

Lobbying Congress on Health Care

Christopher — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:55:02 GMT

Below is a letter I sent to my Senators and Congressman regarding health care reform.

Dear Senator,

With the speed and urgency which the government has been moving lately in regard to finances, I felt the need to share my experiences and insights of our present health care system from the point of view of somebody who makes his living in this industry.

I work for an instrument manufacturer (who shall remain nameless). My job is to install and maintain high tech in-vitro diagnostic instrumentation at customer�s facilities.
I won�t name my employer since I am not in any way, shape, or form representing them in this letter. I am only representing myself and my perspective on the system as a whole. From my vantage, I get to see many different hospitals, clinics, and physician office laboratories (POL�s) on a daily basis.

Last week, I installed a new instrument at a brand new hospital in central Kansas. The word in the lab was that a group of doctors got together to make a new hospital so that they could better serve their patients with up to date instrumentation and techniques. This was done with purely private investment. At least a hundred jobs created, millions spent on capital equipment purchases, and a new facility built so that patient�s needs could be better met while making a justified profit.

When was the last time a new hospital was built in a rural area of a country with socialized medicine? When was the last time any measures were taken to increase the services to patients in a country with socialized medicine?

Please take great care as the Congress and the President attempt to make changes to our health care system. Please be aware of how many of us make our living with the present system. This is no small number. There are likely ten thousand people who do what I do for a living in the U.S.A. If you add regulatory compliance jobs, insurance positions, administration, physicians, nursing, pharmaceutical, and laboratory professionals together, you will find that tens of millions of people are employed by our present system. Anything that the federal government does to upset this apple cart will absolutely ruin our country and, in fact, suppress medical advancements for the entire free world. The United States� health care system is constantly demonized and bemoaned, but without our pseudo-private system, the financial incentive for innovation will be seriously attenuated.

In my industry, where many products are made overseas, accessing the U.S. market generally makes or breaks a manufacturer. Selling in our country can elevate a manufacturer�s status and allow them access to other countries who essentially piggy-back our FDA (why have your own if you can mooch off the US?) My employer spends millions of dollars and countless man (and woman) hours complying with present regulatory requirements as well as getting FDA approval for new products. Companies take on these expenses because of the opportunity to recoup these costs and then turn a profit. I fear that if the opportunity to make their investments back disappears, then many, many companies will simply not attempt to enter this market. It is very important to note that no other country puts nearly the hurdles in the path of medical device manufacturers as ours. This is one of the reasons that prescription drugs are so much cheaper in Canada � they do not have an FDA like ours, so drugs going up there don�t carry the same overhead as the same drugs sold down here.

While it is politically expedient to bemoan our medical system, it is the best that the planet has to offer. We have millions of dedicated people in our country doing noble work in this industry and being justly compensated. The high level of care that we provide to the public is indeed costly, but most of the country can indeed bear this cost through the various insurance plans offered by our employers as well as purchased individually. Please, I beg of you, while trying to help the 10% or so who may not be getting adequate care, do not ruin it for the 90% who are. Lastly, by all means, please do not do anything that will put any more jobs at risk in the country at least until the dust settles from the recent and ongoing financial disasters.

With Best Regards,
Chris

Am I the only conservative who isn�t upset about Obama�s speech in Egypt?

Christopher — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:31:53 GMT

So for weeks we on the right have been trying to get the folks who voted for Obama to see that they have been played. My conservative friends and I have been posting stories on Obama�s hypocrisy, flip-flops and truth-stretches at a really alarming rate.

But today is different. Today it seems like everyone right of center is completely up in arms about Obama making a speech to the Islamic world from Egypt. Well, everyone but me.

I�m not bothered about the speech primarily because Obama told us he was going to do this if he got elected. It was almost a mantra with Obama, over and over saying he was going to start a dialogue with our adversaries by "reaching out to them". In fact, this may very well be the first time in recent memory where a politician said he was going to �reach out� to people and actually did it!

I�m a little perturbed at the content of his speech, but, again, we really shouldn�t be surprised at the content because�. it�s the same content from his campaign! Obama campaigned on fundamentally changing America. His wife said that once Barack was nominated, she could finally be proud of her country. Well, folks, that meant up until the point that Barack was nominated, she was ashamed of her country! Now Barack gets to go and apologize for all of our past sins. Michelle must just be beaming with pride for her country now. Personally, I�m hoping he gets out of the confessional, knocks it off with the speeches, and maybe spends some time reading. Reading legislation that is � hopefully before he signs any more.

I do agree with the conservative intelligencia on one point. It is really, really annoying that during the campaign Barack just had a silly middle name that we weren't allowed to speak lest we be branded racist and his dad was an agnostic, but now that he has been elected it is hip to have Islamic roots and experiences. (We�ve come too faaaaar is now bouncing around in my head).

However, if he can get a majority of the Muslims to soften up on America, if his trip over there can lessen some tension at the negotiating tables, if his addiction to bringing up the past sins of America can somehow turn the hearts of those people to want to stop killing us, then, well, he will have accomplished precisely nothing.

They all live in dictatorships. It doesn�t matter if the people living over there like us or not, the guys running those countries, you know the ones with the guns, just see a weak leader they can treat like one of their wives. So, what's there to get all worked up about?

The New CAFE Standards

Christopher — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:23:47 GMT

There's a whole lot of chatter about Obama's new decree on CAFE standards today and rightly so. I wonder why the old CAFE standards came from Congress and Obama just gets to decree his? Oh, well, so much for the Constitution.

I'm curious about fuel standards because of simple personal experience. My dad had a 1987 Buick Skylark that we all fit into for normal trips to church and whatnot. It had a 2.5L 4cylinder engine, 4 doors, made about 30 mpg's (but my dad drives really, really slow), and got the job done. Granted, we had a full blown gasoline powered motor home for long trips that made about 10 mpg's downhill in a hurricane, but the point is that if that car did that well in 1987, why do we need the President to tell us to get a little better today? Oh, and by the way, this car was no slouch. I got a speeding ticket in that Skylark doing 94 in a 55. It wasn't a sports car by any stretch, but it sure got the job done.

I remember the Dodge Intrepid I had back in 2000. It had a 2.7L V6 that made 200 horse power and still maintained 27 mpg's on the highway. This car was huge - 5 six footers could ride in it with all their luggage. I had tools and parts packed into the trunk of mine all the time and drove it 80K miles in about 3 years. It was a great car. But today, merely 9 years later, 27 mpg's in a full sized car is rare. What the heck happened there?

I've had a lot of trucks as well. I had a 1995 Chevy 1500 extended cab 2 wheel drive that made 225 horsepower and about 15 mpg's. Today, we have a 2005 Suburban that makes 325 horsepower and 15 in town and 17 on the highway. It seems to me that we could afford to give up some of the hp's if the efficiency could be improved. 30 mpg's, though, I don't think is possible with a Suburban. Maybe with a diesel. I guess we'll see.

The one thing nobody is bringing up with these new efficiency standards is that the cost of fuel is going to skyrocket. When you make less of a product, the cost of that product has to increase. With forecasts of using less fuel, the oil refiners will certainly not be in the market to invest in new infrastructure. This is really unfortunate since new technology would probably make it more efficient to refine gasoline. Also, we need to remember that our roads are paid for using fuel tax and that tax is per gallon. If we have a huge surge in efficiency, then it will starve the feds and states of tax revenue, which they will recoup by increasing the tax on fuel. So, don't think for a minute that this fuel efficiency is going to put one thin dime back into your pocket. You're going to pay more for the car and more for the fuel. This is the reality of our European friends to this day.

A dramatic increase in the cost of fuel is going to make life much more expensive. It will cost more to move goods and services, more to mow your grass, more to have contractors come out to your house, heck, everything in our giant country has transportation costs built in.

Oh well. I guess we need to enjoy today while we can. Take a long drive with your kids on vacation. Go see the mountains or the desert or the woods. It may very well be impossible tomorrow.

They Can't Turn off the Hate

Christopher — Fri, 15 May 2009 03:13:24 GMT

Below is the theme song for the left in America:

I remember last year asking the lefties that would constantly want to bash Bush what the heck they were going to do after the 2008 election. All these guys wanted to do, day in and day out, was talk about WMD, how they felt Bush was a dictator and a liar and blah, blah, blah.

My response was, "well, he's going to be gone soon. What then?" No reply, just more Bush bashing!

I figured, and maybe even opined, that the left had created a monster. They used fear and hate so effectively that I did not think they were going to be able to turn it off come 2009.

I was right. I bet many other came to the same conclusion back then are are doing so now, too.

Too bad it was all based on lies, huh? The more they lied, the more the media gave them a pass, the bigger and more grandiose the lies became,and the more spun up the hate-filled leftie base got. I remember John served in Vietnam Kerry waxing eloquent about how Bush lied to get us into war from the debate podium back in 2004 and watching Bush just get furious knowing that he could not rebut Kerry's lies because Kerry was lying about classified stuff. Have any of the leftie politicians ever come clean and told their attack dogs that the intelligence was pretty convincing - that Bush didn't lie? Uh, no, not yet.

Murtha threw his fellow Marines under the bus and declared them war criminals before charges had even been filed and the left ran with it. Now that most, if not all, of those guys have been proven innocent, did Murtha get any just comeuppance? Not really. Did anyone go tell the leftie haters that they got that one wrong? Nope.

Now that the left has the tri-fecta of power, their base is ready for some blood. "Bush and Cheney have to be tried as the war criminals they are!", cries the moonbat left-wing activist. But wait, nobody is being tried for anything. Hmmm, how could that be? Obama releases memos that show torture, but he isn't advocating trying the Bush-criminals? Why not? First Obama wants to release 2000 photos of jihadis being interrogated, then he changes his mind? "Is this the guy we voted for?" asks the moonbat.

Guess what? It's because they were lying to you, lefties. They knew about the torture all along. Obama let the memos fly thinking it was time for some pay-back, maybe time to throw a bone to his hate-filled supporters, and it back fired. Poor President O never stopped to think that his own folks might be implicit in the so-called "torture".

The problem is, the hate machine is still ready for blood. As I write this, Dr. Mark Lamont Hill is spun way up over the betrayal. Obama isn't going to release the "torture" pictures and Dr. Hill is flaming mad. What a sucker!

Yet still, they need to be satiated. Somebody must pay. When you get a mob riled up looking for a lynching, somebody is going to get lynched. In fine fashion, like he has done so many times before, somebody has to be tossed under the bus. Gee, I wonder if Pelosi is going to be enough to stop that bus?

The first 100 days, yep we got change...

Christopher — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:53:21 GMT

We tried to tell them.

Obama was not going to end the Iraq War at any point in his campaign. The rub on Bush was that it was discovered he planned on "dealing with" Saddam Hussein prior to being elected. You see, this is how it works. Often times, we use the phrase "If I were president, I would _______". Well, you'd think that if someone wins the Democrat nomination and is wildly popular would have had that thought a time or two. Since he was planning on ending the Iraq war, you'd think he and his advisers would have planned something to end the war. The war goes on.

Obama was going to close the terrorist detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I'm pretty sure he said this alot in the campaign. He's president now and he announced, in that dramatic preacher-like voice of his, that he is going to study closing Gitmo... over a period of a year. Uh, why couldn't your people have been studying it for the last year?

Obama was going to end the intelligence gathering operations that the ACLU types are all a twitter about. Well, now that he's in charge, he's not going to do that at all! In fact, he has embraced the Bush admin. programs!

Obama promised that all legislation would be available to the public for 5 days prior to being voted on. Instead, he has rammed through giant spending bills replete with tons of pork, before ANYONE - including Congress - read it! Here's a piece on that at CNN.com.

Obama said he would end earmarks. The first spending bill he signed after taking office had, wait for it, thousands of earmarks in it.

So, what has Obama been working on when he wasn't campaigning? What was his crew focusing on as the days ticked off towards inauguration? It certainly wasn't brushing up on his etiquette for meeting monarchy (unless you count the King of Saudi Arabia). It certainly wasn't studying up on the political happenings in our allies countries' - since he sent a letter to former French President Jaques Chirac looking forward to working with him for the next four years. And it certainly wasn't spent researching cool stuff to gift to visiting dignitaries.

What it looks like to me is that these guys were feverishly working on ways to screw veterans and conservatives. Yep, one of the first things the Obama administration tried to do was to make private insurers cover veterans' battle wounds. Please understand how these things are supposed to work. First someone proposes and idea, then you have a meeting of the principals, a team to draft a proposal gets named, that team does research, then drafts a proposal and presents it to cabinet people and it ultimately makes it to the President who decides to enact the idea or return it for revision. Assuming that Obama, who lacks any substantial management experience, has employed some sort of organizational management for his White House, I imagine at least 20 people had to have been involved in the creation of the idea to have private insurers pay for battle wounds.

And none of them called the American Legion. I can't imagine that they spoke to anyone with any military knowledge at all, let alone historical perspective. It is simply inconceivable to me that people who have such a dearth of knowledge of how the military works and how America regards its heroes have made it to the highest and most powerful positions on earth.

Oh, but that's not where it ends. This week, a document created by the Department of Homeland Security was leaked to the press, which can be found here. This is a summary of a larger document and was only intended for law enforcement officials and not for the public. This document basically makes anyone who has ever had a conservative thought out to be a terrorist, but one specific things jumps out at me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHS

(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities
could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Yep, I can fill in the blank now. Obama has been planning on screwing veterans. The fact that these people even have these thoughts about their nation's heroes is bizarre, that they feel comfortable enough about these thoughts to express them to each other is disturbing, and that these thoughts can make it into a briefing regarding homeland security is despicable.

Yep, we tried to tell them.

Def Leppard Rocks !!!

Mary — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:39:03 GMT

They are coming this summer and I already got my tickets, I am so psyched about seeing them again. The last time I saw them was in the early 90's and they were the best concert I have ever gone to. The only bummer is that I have to wait until July 21st to see them.

Later Peeps :)

Obama, Holder, Mexico, and a Gun Ban

Christopher — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:08:45 GMT

I posted a thread on LifeInKC.com on 2/26/09 about how Obama intends to re-instate the so-called �assault weapon ban� that was in effect until W allowed it to expire. In the article, Eric Holder, Obama�s AG, cited the violence in Mexico as a chief reason for us to give up our guns here at home. Since reading that article, I have been steamed. Seriously, Holder�s angle is so incredibly wrong on so many levels that I may need a new keyboard before this rant is done.

Usually I try to moderate my bluntness, but this time I am going to relish in it:

Mexico is not our problem

To quote Hillary Clinton, I am �sick and tired� of the United States bending over backwards to assist that third world country to our south. We have done everything possible to try to elevate the quality of life in Mexico including ignoring our own international border, overlooking millions of illegal immigrants working, residing, and sending money they earn here back to Mexico on a regular basis, and even exporting our own jobs via NAFTA to that country while they continue their downward spiral. The way we treated Mexico and illegal immigrants from that region was mostly a problem with justice, ethics, and a nuisance back when things were working well up here and unemployment was low. Now that our economy has fallen to pieces, we really need to cut back on the foreign aid and start focusing on helping ourselves.

The next problem I have with Holder�s insane idea that due to violence on the other side of one of our international borders we need to further curtail the rights of law-abiding citizens is that what happens in Mexico would �stay in Mexico� had THE GOVERNMENT BUILT THE FENCE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BUILD 3 YEARS AGO. Good, grief, I am so upset now that I may have to take a break. For a guy who is so opposed to torture, what Eric Holder is doing to his �logic� should be a crime. Let�s follow the bouncing ball back a bit. There is violence in Mexico along our southern border. It is spilling over into our country. It can only spill over into our country because our federal government refuses to secure the border. So, because the federal government won�t secure our southern border, we need to give up our rights to own/possess the very weapons that we need to defend ourselves from the violent criminals who are invading our country crossing the border we won�t secure. What???

Next up is Holder�s notion that �guns from the US are spilling over into Mexico� and these are the guns that are being used against the Mexican Federales. First off, the bad-guys on the other side of the border are using fully automatic rifles. I�m afraid that for a lawyer, nay, for the chief lawyer in the United States, Eric Holder isn�t really that up on his firearms laws. Fully automatic rifles have not been readily available to US citizens for over 50 years. And those that are available are mandated to have been manufactured a really long time ago, they cost as much as a car, and the citizens that get to possess them have to jump through ridiculous regulations and routine certifications to keep it. So, if someone was foolish enough to sell one of the citizen owned few full-auto rifles in the US to a drug cartel member, they would be in a heap of trouble when that rifle turned up missing and if the rifle was found in Mexico, it would be a cinch to trace it back to its original owner here at home.

Oh, but wait, there�s more. There is a class of US citizen that can freely obtain and possess newly manufactured fully automatic firearms with minimal background work and regulation. Those people are called Law Enforcement Officers. You see, Law Enforcement Officers, or LEO�s, who are employed by the federal government, are exempt from just about all firearms laws in the country. And the dirty little secret here is that these are the guys who keep losing their fully automatic weapons. So, if there are fully automatic rifles �pouring� into our southern neighbor�s country, they would most likely be traced right the heck back to some US federal law enforcement agency. Don�t believe me? Do some research and get back to me. So, if Eric Holder wants to ban the guns that are causing all the devastation in the border areas of Mexico, he needs to go to the source and confiscate the guns that are already under his control!

The next problem with Holder�s notion that �guns from the US are spilling over into Mexico� is that HAD THE US GOVERNMENT SECURED THE BORDER 3 YEARS AGO LIKE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO, nobody could get a gun across the border. Really, the �duh� factor here is immense.

What is particularly disturbing to me, and I apologize if I am repeating myself, is that Eric Holder wants to take away the very weapons that we need to defend ourselves from the murderous criminals who are invading our nation. The feds refuse to deploy forces to the border to control it, they refuse to build the fence to keep bad people out, and they want us to give up our ability to defend ourselves from said invaders. I guess this is �change we can believe in�.

My, how the last decade has sucked....

Christopher — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:23:51 GMT

After sleeping on President Obama's address last night, I have come to the conclusion that he really thinks the last 10 years have been horrible. He must have referenced "changing from the failures of the last decade" at least three times, and his overall tone in regards to the past seems to indicate that times have been really, really bad for the last 10 or so years. So, this morning, I started making a list of the good things that have happened in the last 10 years, just off the top of my head:

Technology - we've gone from dial up modems to 30 MB home connections and full wireless 3G broadband in all major metropolitan areas in the last 10 years. Remember that annoying AOL dialer and the "you've got mail" voice? Yep, that seems like the stone age to me. Remember analog cell phones that cost 80 cents/minute to roam outside of your home area? Seems like a hundred years ago, huh? Remember when Windows 98 needed a Pentium III processor to run? Now, I'm typing this on an Intel Mac with an OS that nobody could even dream of back then.

Cars - while the car manufactures get accused of sitting on their hands, in reality they have made some serious strides in the last 10 years. I remember my 1995 2 wheel drive Chevy pickup with a 5.7L engine that made 225 and got 16 mpg on the highway. Now, our family has a 2005 Suburban 4X with a 5.3L engine that makes 325hp and gets 17 mpg on the highway. Back in the mid-90's, you had to have a Camaro or a Mustang if you wanted some cheap speed, nowadays a modern Nisan Maxima will outperform one of those older muscle cars while seating 4 people and their luggage comfortably and getting over 25 mpg's.

Defense - Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations hit us at will in the 90's and we punked out - every time. Then, they attacked us in 2001 and what happened? Yep, we went on offense. Sure, it didn't go as well as it could have, but can anyone honestly tell me that they feel safer with President Obama in charge than they did with President Bush? Honestly?

Prosperity - the last 10 years saw some incredible prosperity. Granted, it all went to pot in the last 6 months, but the comfort of the average American household has gone up dramatically. I remember talking to some Bush-haters in rural KS about a year ago who were complaining about the cost of health care. I asked them if they had cable or satellite TV. They did. I asked them if they had cell phones. The did. I asked if their cars were over 5 years old. They weren't. Etc., etc. The bottom line is that things were really good for the last 10 years and unfortunately, most folks aren't going to realize it until it's gone.

Valor - the last 7 years especially have shown us the character of our men and women in uniform. They have performed incredible tasks without always having enough people and/or resources at their disposal. They have endured multiple deployments of over a year each. They have gone into combat not being able to distinguish the good guys from the bad and have come out victorious. They've come home, many of them permanently disabled and emotionally troubled, and they have not complained. They did not protest the "unlawful war". They did not go before Congress and sell out their brothers and sisters nor did they throw their medals over the gates of the White House. These men and women identified the danger that most Americans did not and they acted with a poise' and composure that one could only hope to emulate.

Can you remember anything I've left out? And maybe someone could remind our President that 10 years ago, he was a lowly Community Organizer/ IL State Senator who had to work for a living.