It’s being reported that the Dems have claimed victory. The Republican has been ahead for a month, suddenly the Dems are ahead by eight votes and they are calling for the Republicans concession. Where was their concession last month? or am I not supposed to ask this sort of thing?

A hat tip to horsecrazy12987 and MadOgre for this story.

In Washington State it’s legal to openly carry a handgun, or is it? Jason found out that while it’s legal, it might not be a good idea.

It’s officers like that that give Police Officers in general a bad name. Read what Jason has to say, because as Ogre said, this could have been one of us. While I had a Concealed Carry Permit while living in Washington, these officers weren’t interested in the law. Somebody pissed them off, and they took it out on Jason. These guys need their hand slapped for thinking that a badge gives them the right to push people around. Or better yet, take the badge and gun away and let them join the rest of us out here on the civilian side of the street. Good luck and God Bless to Jason, and Merry Christmas to everyone.

The Attorney General has released a memorandum opinion that the Second Amendment an individual right. How obvious can that be. I’ve never understood how people can think differently. The Bill of Rights as a whole defines our rights clearly.

The government has only those rights specifically given it, the people have all rights not specifically excluded by the Bill of Rights. The people are a clearly defined group in the document. A well regulated militia is a specific phrase with a very specific historical definition, not just a bad description of the National Guard. If you read it, it’s clear, unless you have already made up your mind and read so as to fit into your predefined mindset.

Some pretty large words from a wandering artist, but this subject annoys me.

I started a forum discussion on this at Your Backyard Forum, but the subject still is on my mind.

Yahoo has a story about a conspiracy theorist offering $100,000 if somebody can prove that the World Trade Center was brought down by terrorists in planes and not explosive planted in the buildings.

The guy has already spent $3,000,000 of his own money (30% of his worth) on this subject. This is so far beyond my level of paranoia that its scary. My level of paranoia is scary in its own right, but this is nuts. I don’t entirely understand what he thinks happened, but it looks like he thinks explosives were used in conjunction with the planes. Explosives planted in the buildings, not on the planes.

I’ve seen a lot of science and mathematics thrown around on this subject, trying to explain why the buildings couldn’t have fallen without something other than a plane strike, but none of it sits right with me. They all talk about how the fuel couldn’t have gotten hot enough, how the building would have absorbed a significant amount of energy. From my unscientific point of view, it sure seems like the building couldn’t have absorbed heat fast enough to not been overwhelmed. From my obviously less than scholarly look at it, the fire was instantaneous, not a rapidly increasing fire that would have had heat absorbed by the admittedly massive building. In order to start the cascade effect that brought them down, only a small area in each building would have had to be overwhelmed.

I have also recently read, exactly where escapes me, that the coating that should have helped insulate the supports from the heat was shattered by the impact, exposing more structure to the heat than otherwise would have happened.

It’s time for me to let this rest. I think it might be time for Jimmy Walter to let it rest too.

I’ve been immersed in html code and java script for a month, I think my brain has turned to mush. I’m starting to see html in my sleep. Normal dreams and then text scrolling by. I need more sleep.

Should we change the constitution to allow non-native born citizens to be President? Absolutely not. This question was brought to my attention some time ago on Your American Backyard Forum. I had noticed when the stories started hitting the news, but I thought that interest would quickly fade. When I saw the survey and associated posting it brought it to my attention again. I don’t understand the draw. Sure he’s famous, but this is the President we’re talking about. Do you really want a President who is a citizen in good standing of another country? The news today (USA Today) is saying Schwarzenegger has maintained his Austrian citizenship. Ignore for the moment that in order to become a US citizen you must renounce all other citizenship (unless it’s Israel). How could someone really think having a foreign citizen as President would be a good thing.

How can you expect someone to represent our country to their utmost, when their allegiance is divided. If Arnold’s allegiance isn’t divided, why doesn’t he renounce? The law being pushed in congress would allow people to run for President after 20 years as President. How about we make it 20 after they renounce citizenship to all foreign countries? Since most of the people supporting this bill seem to be pushing for Arnold, I’d think this suggestion would fall flat. Or Arnold would suddenly remember renouncing his citizenship to Austria in 1983, despite all evidence to the contrary.

People who hand over power to somebody based on fame deserve what they get.

The Ukraine Parliament voted successfully to throw out the election and the government elect. It at least seems to be a good sign that the shooting doesn’t seem to have started yet. When this all started I thought it was going to turn bad, and fast. It still might, but it looks like at least some of the people are trying to work through the system. We can hope.

Ukraine, good luck, God bless.