4fterthoughts

Finally - The JAK head has arrived!

noreply@blogger.com (Matt) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:40:00 +0000

I mentioned in my new drum set post that I was planning to create a custom drum head to commemorate my mom. Well, its finished!

Its an Inked by Evans head and sounds better than I expected... it is punchy and promotes lower tones. I'm very happy with how everything has turned out.

Recipe sharing

noreply@blogger.com (jb) — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 05:02:00 +0000

Anybody like biscotti? Click the photo for an easy recipe we swiped from a cranberry package. Too good, we can't stop eating them. THREE batches this weekend, one last weekend...

BRMM Alumni Night - Sept 10th

noreply@blogger.com (Matt) — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:47:00 +0000

That's right, there is going to be an alumni night for the BRMM Sept 10th. I'm planning on attending and playing with my nephew. I thought I'd share the date with y'all, but I doubt any of you will be in town.

I'll post some pics and video of the event. Let me know if you, by some random chance, will be in town.

Home Depot censors

noreply@blogger.com (jb) — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:59:00 +0000

Just got frustrated with Home Depot (online) again. If you ever buy anything from them online, do NOT trust their product reviews. I have had every negative review of mine rejected, simply for being negative. They claim that I'm off topic, but you better believe I worded it carefully to meet their terms of use...

Back from the (formerly) USSR...don't know how lucky you are...

noreply@blogger.com (jb) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:40:00 +0000

We made it back from Russia just fine. Slowly getting the digital photos sorted through; film ones were developed within the first few days back (and slide film, at that!). Definitely more educational as a tourist guided by a local, than as a businessman being shown only the good things.

My New Drum Set! Yamaha Oak Custom

noreply@blogger.com (Matt) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:09:00 +0000

I've finally got my hands on a new drum set after all these years.... It was a long time coming, but a loving wife, a friendly neighbor and a load of cash made it happen.

My initial desire was to purchase a used set to keep costs down, but I couldn't find a set that fit what I was looking for. After a lot of research and sampling various brands of drum sets at the nearby drum stores, I decided that Yamaha made some high quality drum sets that sounded nice and had a reasonable price tag. There were plenty of great reviews from people who've owned multiple drum sets and rated Yamaha near the top of their list. The Oak Custom set that Yamaha offers is a high quality set that had all of the technology of their professional drum sets, but costs less.

Steph and I found one at a nearby Guitar Center. It was a floor model so I was able to try it out and both Steph and I really liked the sound of it. It was the first set I felt good about in a month so I was pretty excited. We got a quote from Guitar center and decided to shop around some more.

I was pleased to find that Huber & Breese, the shop Shannon and I purchased the Premier Drum Set from back around 2000, had both a Yamaha Birch Custom and Oak Custom. Tom, the salesman at the store, was great and very enthusiastic about drums and had a lot of great information to share about the different drum sets in the store. The Oak Custom was still the drum set of choice so we got down to business and started running the numbers on all of the equipment I planned to purchase.... needless to say it was pretty high. Tom commented that I had an amazing wife who'd let me spend all this money :-) ,which is true, but the money had been set aside for a while for this specific purchase.

Long store short, we cut a deal and happily walked away with a 5 piece Oak Custom Drum Set, a Mapex black panther velvetone 14 x 5.5 Walnut & Maple snare, stands (cymbal, snare, hi=hat), drum throne and an Aquarian Base Drum head (a bartering lesson learned from Hoser). The tom sizes are 10 x 8, 12 x 9, 14 x 12, 16 x 16 (16 inch tom is on order) and a base drum of 22 x 17. I got a great deal on a cymbal pack of Sabian XS20 cymbals (14, 16, 18 inch crashes, 20 ride, 14 hi-hats & 10 inch splash) online and then found a brand new set of DW 7000 double base drum pedals for dirt cheap on craigslist. I don't want to forget about the drum mutes (basically pads) for the sake of my wife and Dennis our awesome neighbor.

The name of the drum set is JAK, which are my mother's initials. She provided the bulk of the money for this purchase and I would have loved to play the set for her. I plan to get a custom Evans base drum head created to showcase the name of the set with a cool design.

Here is a video of the kit taken by my camcorder, which doesn't capture the drum sounds all that great, but at least you can get an idea of how the set sounds.

Dead Fly Pics - Funny Stuff

noreply@blogger.com (Matt) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:39:00 +0000

This guy had some time on his hands... link

That's called a "budget cut"?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 23 May 2009 15:48:00 +0000

There are much more pressing issues having to do with the Obama presidency, but this video was so effective that i felt compelled to post it. It deals with having perspective on the federal budget, and how the cuts Obama announced relate to it.

Take a moment to think about how we get treated by politicians.

Have the police EVER helped you?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 14 May 2009 04:04:00 +0000

I can't think of an instance where I was grateful for a police officer's "service."
I have, however been harassed on multiple occasions, but never as bad as this (border patrol/police)

I'm not sure either side was in the right, but the first video surely inclines me to agree with the pastor.

Why the Meltdown Should Have Surprised No One

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:29:00 +0000

Listen to Peter Schiff's presentation to a Mises Institute conference for an hour of clarity; it's both educational and entertaining.

On the economy...

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:38:00 +0000

I'll break the silence. :-)
Spring break starts now, so I have a chance to post.

So I think this guy is just using his opinions on the economy as an attention-grabber. After 7:00, he takes an odd shift in topic toward biotech and robots. Regardless, when I heard the first part, I was impressed.

I highly recommend you watch the first 7 minutes. Here's the link and it's embedded below.

You might also notice that the blog is wider now. It looks nice on my widescreen, high-res monitor, but if it's a pain for you, let me know and I'll switch it back.

Jello bot 2

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:34:00 +0000

Remember the little drummer bot posted before?
I think I found its cousin.

(4 min, but gets less interesting as it goes on. So feel free to stop when you've seen enough)

Peter Schiff was right, right, right.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:16:00 +0000

Seemingly everyone else was wrong, wrong, wrong.

They just laughed at him, even mocked him. Who's laughing now?

Despite appearances, Peter Schiff is no clairvoyant- he was only applying the principles of the Austrian school of economic thought. In one interview, he said,

I was introduced to the Austrian school early on by my father. According to my dad saying Austrian economics makes as much sense as saying Chinese physics. Austrian economics is economics, period!

Although the Austrian school isn't reknown, it has been around for some time. Austrians like Schiff predicted the Great Depression, for example. Friedrich Hayek wrote in the February 1929 edition of the Austrian Institute of Economic Research Report, "the boom will collapse within the next few months." The stock market crashed in October, but we can forgive him for being a few months eager. Much like Schiff, Hayek saw serious imbalances and knew that the "Roaring Twenties", made possible by the loose monetary policies of the Fed, were simply unsustainable.

This is surprising to many, because we are told that economists failed to predict the crash. Well, many did fail to see it- Keynes, for example. And yet it is Keynes' policies we largely adhere to today- not those of the dissenting Austrian school who are repeatedly proven correct in their assessments.

Unfortunately, that's bad news for everyone. Without the correct diagnosis, there is little chance for an effective remedy.

Make it stop!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:35:00 +0000

In case you missed the three joint press conferences, here's a recap:

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

On Ballots, Parties, Debates

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:45:00 +0000

i received my sample ballot in the mail last week, and it led me to make some observations.

First, Tennessee voters may be surprised to find eight candidates for President of the United States on their ballot. Aside from the Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin tickets, it appears six mysterious independents are running. Except they're not all independents, and it's no mistake that they're not well known.

Let me revise and expand on the "independents":

To be listed on this ballot, (or more accurately, to get the electors for your ticket on the ballot - we're not actually voting for candidates but for a slate of electors), these candidates gathered 2500 signatures of registered voters. Had they been one of the two state-recognized parties, they would have been automatically included. In Tennessee, as in many states, lawsuits have been filed against what are considered prohibitive rules regarding party recognition, or ballot access in general. Practically speaking, this means that while the two major party candidates are out campaigning, everyone else is running around trying to be included in the first place.

Tonight^[1], there will be a third-party debate on C-SPAN. i attended one such debate at Vanderbilt, the day prior to Nashville's so-called "Town Hall Debate" featuring Obama and McCain. The differences are striking- and if you watch the debate tonight, you can see if my observations still hold true. First, at the third party debate, there was a wide range of ideas and philosophies. What else would you expect at an event including the Socialist Party, the US Pacifist Party, and even the Boston Tea Party? i found it refreshing. Similarly refreshing was the utter lack of "he said, she said, but i said it first" which dominates the major parties' joint debates. The scope of discussion and tone of debate were much more interesting and altogether more useful.

Why are the joint major party debates so limited? Well, it starts with the sponsor- a group called the Commission on Presidential Debates, which wrestled the debates from the non-partisan League of Women Voters in the 1980s.

Here are some complaints i have regarding the Commission. First, it is a brainchild of both major parties- the two parties that defend the status quo. It was founded and is co-chaired by the former chairs of the RNC and DNC. The board consists of politically connected Republicans and Democrats, as well as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. A former board member of Fannie Mae, for example, is on this board. It's funded by corporations.

i won't go on about this because someone else already has- i urge you to investigate for yourself. NPR Commentator Connie Rice did, in 2004, and found herself presenting a scathing review called the Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates. Walter Cronkite declared Commission-sponsored debates an "unconscionable fraud."

What are the consequences of the limited exposure of third parties, and their exclusion from debates? i'll explain this anecdotally. Some candidates at the third party debate in Nashville couldn't be more dissimilar in ideologies- they made Obama and McCain look like two shades of the same color. Yet even with the wide range in philosophy, the entire 6-person forum were in outspoken agreement on some key issues, like ending our interventionist, perhaps imperialist foreign policy, and fighting against corporatism (not to be confused with capitalism). Neither Obama, McCain, nor the moderators give these ideas any mention. Where some would have you believe Obama and McCain are polar opposites, it's really a matter of scope.

Ron Paul made an announcement at the Nation Press Club^[2] on September 10th, where he encourages Americans to choose their favorite third party candidate over the two leading candidates:

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

The four additional candidates with enough ballot access to theoretically carry the electoral college all signed on to support a platorm of Foreign Policy, Privacy, Fiscal Policy, and Monetary Policy - three candidates who are very different from one another, but in unison hold key positions that are in opposition to the two major candidates! This should show us how far the charade has gone.

Our two leading candidates are in joint disagreement with Americans on the bailout, international adventurism, and privacy issues, while there are several candidates available who are of the real majority, and might perhaps even win if they had any comparable exposure. A Zogby poll indicated that 55% of likely voters favor the inclusion of Bob Barr in the debates. Since the two parties control the debates (while hardly anyone notices) this didn't happen. Do you see what's happening?

i urge you to find a list of candidates on your ballot for each office, and honestly consider them all. Consider stepping out of the two-party charade of false choice and cast an informed, principled vote for someone who might actually represent you well. Cast off the politics of fear-mongering by actually voting for someone (there is no vote against option on the ballot). Choose the candidate who you think will best serve as president, and vote for him or her.

Update 1 Oct 20
i mischaracterized the Oct 19th debate as a "third party" debate. The debate, which has been rescheduled for Oct 23rd, is open to all 6 candidates with ballot access sufficient to win the electoral college.

Update 2 Oct 20
Here are some better links to videos of the conference: parts 1, 2, 3 (McKinney), 4 (Baldwin), 5 (Nader). Original link.

Thoughts on the Bailout Act

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:56:00 +0000

Here are some hilights of the text of a draft of the bailout plan, as of the 21st. (They're now calling it a "Rescue Plan")

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.
The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Wait a second... "at any one time"? Suddenly the $700 billion plan sounds a lot like the $Infinity plan. Please someone shed some light on this troubling wording. And what's so special about the $700 billion figure? According to Forbes, a Treasury spokesperson sayd "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

"Non-reviewable... by any court of law of any administrative agency"? In other words, Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, can bail out whomever he wants to bail out with however much he wants to bail them out, no objections or oversight allowed. It's remeniscent of former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney and the no-bid contracts of the Iraq War.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.
Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

This is the great irony of the situation: who better to bail out insolvent companies than the biggest debtor of all? Our current national debt is about $9.8 trillion, with the current limit being $10.6 trillion (which was recently raised to that level during the Freddie/Fannie debacle). Now we are going to put the limit at well over $11 trillion. Just 8 years ago, our national debt was half that amount. This is out of control.

This is Wile E Coyote Government.

Congressman Paul, who predicted this whole mess (remember, just two months ago, Fed Chair Bernanke told us the economy, and housing market, were doing pretty well) offers his reservations.

Then come the scare tactics. If we don’t give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary “the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet.” Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline.

Without really getting into it, consider the bailouts like this: your friend is an addict to heroine. Your friend isn't looking so well, and they're getting quite shaky. You give them another hit. This accomplishes two things: 1) they get their fix and are relatively stabilized, and 2) their entire body is that much closer to completely shutting down. The other option (which isn't getting much traction in the press), is to take your friend to rehab. This accomplishes the antithesis: 1) it's gonna hurt a little in the short term, 2) but not nearly as much in the long run. This option looks like this, according to a recent email from Congressman Paul:

1.) End the Bailouts - Congress must revoke the Federal Reserve's authority to bail out failed businesses at your expense.

2.) Cut Taxes and Curb Regulation - If we really want to stimulate businesses and revive the market, we need to cut corporate and capital gains taxes, spurring investors to come back to the market and making it easier to attract new workers and clients. It is also time to end failed legislation like Sarbanes-Oxley, which has crippled capital markets, diminished our competitiveness, and greatly harmed small businesses.

3.) Reduce Spending - We must freeze all non-entitlement spending by the federal government at current levels and eliminate wasteful spending both domestically and in our trillion-dollar overseas budget. Our debt has to come down, and it won't until we start living within our means.

4.) Reform the Monetary System - If we are to have long-term economic progress, we must end the system of printing money out of thin air. The current laws limiting the circulation of gold and silver-backed currency must be overturned. We can no longer base our money on the empty promises of bureaucrats that it is sound.

Unfortunately, even though public support for the bailouts is devastatingly low (about as low as Congressional approval ratings) it is likely a version of the bailout plan will nevertheless be passed. The conditions that brought the crisis about will go on. The crash of the dollar looms closer.

Jon Stewart makes a sly comparison of Bush's recent appeal for support of this plan, and his appeal for support in 2003 for war with Iraq. i would add the PATRIOT Act to that shortlist. Haven't we heard this before? Doomsday scenarios if we don't fall in line, giving the executive branch unprecedented power? We should resist the fearmongering.

What would it look like, to follow Paul's advise? What would the ramifications mean? Less credit, sure. Your cat won't be receiving any more pre-approvals for credit cards in the mail. As a nation, we'd have to live within our means.

If you're interested in learning more about this crisis and the events that led up to it, see The Bailout Reader on mises.org.

Please contact your representatives, and check out http://nocashfortrash.org/.

Sign this petition

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:06:00 +0000

We have this TV frequency spectrum opening up in 4 months. What better way to use some of it than to provide better WIFI access?

Some Title

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:02:00 +0000

Too lazy to come up with my own content, I'm posting a short video of Matt Damon on Sarah Palin. If there's any role model we should be listening to, wouldn't it be Jason Bourne?

Never talk to the police

noreply@blogger.com (jb) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:08:00 +0000

Part 1

Part 2

video editing will get a whole lot cooler soon

noreply@blogger.com (jb) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:17:00 +0000

Using Photographs to Enhance Videos of a Static Scene from pro on Vimeo.

noreply@blogger.com (jb) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 05:32:00 +0000

Shannon said something a few posts back about "Where's Jason??"

The last ten weeks I was on a 60 hour work schedule. Pretty draining and thankless.

Now, here I am.

I went hiking for the third (only the third!) time this year today. I felt like exploring my preferred ski area. The ski area is actually on the far side of Mt Shuksan. (I don't know for sure, but I think that's Indian for big-ass-mountain)

Broken Oaths

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:25:00 +0000

i just read an editorial by Mickey Edwards posted on June 16 at The Huffington Post called "A True Litmus Test For Reelection". i about jumped out of my seat. Listen to what Mickey says about Congressmen's oath:

It is important to note what it is they are swearing to "support and defend." Not the President. Not a political party. It is also important to note against whom they are vowing to protect the Constitution: its -- that is, the Constitution's -- enemies, no matter whether they live in caves in Afghanistan or in mansions on Pennsylvania Avenue.

i eagerly searched this blog, thinking i had written something similar, because fidelity to the Constitution has become my litmus test for re-electing government officials. Unfortunately, i hadn't posted on that, but rather had used in a couple emails to friends. Here's a bit from a June 6 email to my grandmother:

Here is the oath a President takes upon entering office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

i do not trust McCain nor Obama to do fulfill that oath. Why? Because they have already broken the oath taken as Senators: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (So help me God.)"

Had that been the litmus test for at least those who consider themselves constitutional, conservative Republicans, Ron Paul would have been the Presidential nominee.

Pop quiz- what is the oath taken by Supreme Court Justices? By servicemen? See a pattern here? What are they sworn to protect? What are they not sworn to protect?

Quote: Herman Göring

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:54:00 +0000

i thought it might be interesting to post a quote and get your reactions. If there's interest, i might do this periodically.

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Nuremberg Diary (Gustave Gilbert, 1947)

Recker is crazy

noreply@blogger.com (jb) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 04:29:00 +0000

Jerome ran with the bulls in Spain.

What has become of our Constitutional Republic?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:19:00 +0000

i just read an article called The Real Purpose of the Consitution (you may have to skip an advertisement page). Here are some hilights:

Thomas Jefferson once wrote that “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” That issue is one that appears to have been settled, as we are no longer a nation in which the will of the people is upheld by those chosen to represent them.

It's sad that we have to stretch our imagination to consider what this government might look like:

Thomas Jefferson described the function of government when he said, “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned — this is the sum of good government.”

i'm not a fan of Hamilton- he's like the precursor to the neocons, although he would pale in comparison to today's power-grabbers. But even he was able to predict the day when, due to our corruption and disregard for the rule of law, the Constitution "will bind no longer."

Yet didn’t even Hamilton once say, ” Ah, this is the constitution,” he said. “Now, mark my words. So long as we are a young and virtuous people, this instrument will bind us together in mutual interests, mutual welfare, and mutual happiness. But when we become old and corrupt, it will bind no longer.”

We have to face it- if you read the Constitution, read some writings by the men who wrote it; you'll discover that our government today is basically illegal. The Legislative Branch passes illegal laws, and illegally delegates powers to other bodies without authority. The Executive Branch now sets policy, chooses whether or not to enforce laws created by the Legislature, includes departments who, unelected, pass rules that are binding by law, and otherwise desregards Constitutional limits. Then we have a Judicial Branch that does little at all to challenge these issues at all.

Read the Declaration of Independence. i think there's an argument that if that generation of patriots were alive today, we might have another revolution on our hands.