bill2

I just saw the new Warren Miller ski film here in the east bay in CA on Saturday. Great film, lots of incredible ski and snowboard scenes. But the highlight of the film was a brief (20 - 30 seconds) of a some guy flying a Birdman suit in Switzerland. The film shows him maybe 30 - 40 feet off the ground flying over some mountain ridge. After flying over that, he pulls and lands in the snow. At that point, Warren Miller, narrating the film, says if you didn't believe that see it again. and he shows it once more. Go see the film. Check out showings at WarrenMiller.com.

you should add one more: Whenever politicians start talking about how "it's for the children", count your spoons, or you won't have any left.

makes you wonder about your wife/gf....doesn't it? _______________________________ yup, I'm going to ask her tonight.

For those of you who read the essay about the pussification of the western male and got rather irate about it, here's a response from the author's wife. her website is: http://www.mrsdutoit.com/pmach/weblog.php _________________________ Let's Roll My favorite ad hominem attack about Kim’s rant (The Pussification of the Western Male) has been that he must have gotten permission from me to write the rant, or something like that--that he must have issues with women. Basically, that’s a PC friendly way of accusing him of being pussy whipped. He’s attacked for using female derivations of words as insults, but the insults are derivations themselves. Ummmmm. HELLO??!? In another twist of irony, the Femi-Nazis have gone nuts and attacked us by making fun of our last name—by pronouncing it “Do Twat.” Ummmmm. That’s a female body part you’re using as a disparaging remark. Kettle, Pot. Pot, Kettle. Here's a clue for the invective and hyperbole challenged: An argument addresses the facts and conclusions presented. Attacking the messenger is not an argument. If you wish to debate points in the rant Kim wrote, then present counter evidence. Name calling is not an argument. It's childish. Kim and I have both written about these issues in the past. I wrote about them here and here with a follow up here. Kim’s rant was directed to his readers (mostly men). Here's a summation of Kim's points (the majority of the rant were supporting or contributory facts): Women's influence on the body politic has led to an increase in Nanny-State type intrusive legislation such as gun control, laws against children playing with games or toys which are scary, limitations on adult behaviors viewed as unhealthy or non PC (smoking bans, etc.). Real Men, i.e., men of character, responsibility, etc., (and lovers of liberty) can reverse this trend by rejecting it. To clarify one of the points that seems to have been missed about the television and cultural references Kim includes, despite that fact that it was prefaced with this sentence, “I'm going to illustrate this by talking about TV, because TV is a reliable barometer of our culture”: In other words, TV is a reflection of the society and we can learn a little bit about what is acceptable and tolerable by looking at the media. Television (and the media, popular culture, in general) is similar to the brake light warning system in your car. Some people interpreted Kim’s focus to be about getting the media to alter their message. That’s backwards. The goal is not to alter the media. That would be the equivalent of smashing the brake light. The rational response is to attempt to warn and educate the society, i.e. fixing the brakes, and change the image that television is reflecting. Then the warning light will go out on its own. Another observation Kim made was that stereotypical homosexuals are acceptable and laudable, but responsible (not stereotypically Narcissist) gay men, men of principle and character (i.e. Real Men), are not politically correct, because they act too much like straight men. Gay men that act like women=good. Gay men that act like men=bad. Again, this repeats the point that typically female behaviors are socially acceptable and men who demonstrate these behaviors are acceptable, those who do not, are not, unless it is women who demonstrate these behaviors (then it is good). It has become culturally acceptable to bash masculine men (with terms to that effect, such as “macho,” “machismo,” and “cowboy”) as well as any of the behaviors classified as stereotypically male such as collecting power tools, shooting sports, drag racing, etc. By classifying them in this way, it becomes socially acceptable to delegitimize them with laws and regulations. (Examples of this have also appeared as ad hominem attacks including “Neanderthal,” “cave man,” “knuckle dragging.” Even the term “Real Men” has invoked an avalanche of criticism, equating anything male with some implied type of Barbarianism. The assumptions expressed are that civilized behaviors are things that are stereotypically female. The moment we attach a male connotation to a behavior, there is supposed to be this understanding that they become backwards, uncivilized, and loutish. Anything which uniquely describes behaviors viewed as masculine have been used as ridicule and are further examples of the irony of the personal attacks. The personal attacks against me, for example, are voiced with insults which insinuate that I must “behave like a man” or am the one who “wears the pants in the family.”) It has become socially acceptable for women to bash their husbands and boyfriends in public, and to “fix” them, as if they were broken, or raw material for something better. Hence the Queer Eye references in Kim’s original post, where men are encouraged to become clean and tidy to appeal to a woman, rather than advising him to seek the company of a woman who is herself unclean and untidy and more compatible. These attacks have also appeared as criticism—If I defend Kim or in anyway support what he has written, I must be a doormat, unable to speak for myself or incapable of having opinions of my own. If I do not support him and didn’t take action to stop him from publishing that rant, then I must be meek and stifled. Either way, the insinuations are that Kim is somehow my responsibility, as if he is a pet, either to fix or to keep locked up. The last area that seems to have been completely misunderstood were the references to gang type behavior and college rapes. From the comments expressed, it appears it was interpreted that Kim somehow condoned rape, was expressing that women are to blame for being raped, or that men were reacting (by raping women) to something women were doing to them. This couldn’t be further from the mark (often these sections were quoted out of context). The point here was that men used to handle this type of behavior themselves, before it got to the level of date rape. A young man understood that he had more to fear from his father (and other men) than the law. Now both the father (if he’s in the picture at all) and the law have become impotent. Young males used to be kept “in line” by the presence of stronger men. Not all men needed this threat, of course, but some did, and men took it upon themselves to remove men (who didn’t get with the program) from the gene pool. Young men were taught how to channel their natural aggressiveness and assertiveness into proper and appropriate avenues (unlike now where they are told that these feelings and reactions are bad and they should suppress them, leaving them without methods of dealing with these emotions when they leave their Mother’s nests). Rules of conduct were strictly enforced. Punishment was swift for stepping out of line, even for small infractions. The increase in these types of behaviors is common when strong male role models and mentors are no longer in the picture, or young men are raised exclusively by women, who wish to raise their young men to behave like young women. (These types of behaviors are common amongst animal populations that have been stripped of adult males. For additional research and reading in this area, refer to “Bull Elephant” studies.) And finally, the term “Real Man” caused quite an avalanche. The term can mean whatever you think it means, but it is probably a reasonable expectation, when reading someone else’s work, to try to understand their use of the term, and what it means to them. The rant was quite specific about this, despite all the “knucke dragging” and “cave man” insults I’ve seen. I’ll finish with some quotes from the rant which might have illuminated Kim’s definition of the term: There was a time when men put their signatures to a document, knowing full well that this single act would result in their execution if captured, and in the forfeiture of their property to the State. Their wives and children would be turned out by the soldiers, and their farms and businesses most probably given to someone who didn't sign the document. There was a time when men went to their certain death, with expressions like “You all can go to hell. I'm going to Texas.” (Davy Crockett, to the House of Representatives, before going to the Alamo.) There was a time when men went to war, sometimes against their own families, so that other men could be free. And there was a time when men went to war because we recognized evil when we saw it, and knew that it had to be stamped out. I want our government to be more like Dad -- kind, helpful, but not afraid to punish us when we fuck up, instead of helping us excuse our actions. I want our government of real men to start rolling back the Nanny State, in all its horrible manifestations of over-protectiveness, intrusiveness and “Mommy Knows Best What's Good For You” regulations. In other words, gentlemen--kind and generous men who accept the risks and consequences of their actions and … In every sense of the word. We know what the word “is” means.

Why is it that so many women in the news seem to have topless pictures taken at some point in their past?

Back in 1991, SEAL Team 6 practiced high speed exits to see what exit speeds were possible. Their findings were anything over 220 is extremely dangerous. As far as what would be the fastest speeds? I personally have jumped at 280 mph. I know a teammate that jumped at 320. These speeds would be the absolute max exit speed I feel you could do. I can attest that it is extremely painful. ____________________ What kind of planes were you jumping out of? If the SEALS found 220 mph dangerous, why did you jump out at 280 mph?

As I know some skydivers who were unable to exit from a CASA after it stalled - with the door open, their rigs on, and them in position for exit - I very much doubt that such an exit would be possible. _______________________________ What prevented them from getting out of the CASA? did they survive?

Anything over 175 tends to hammer you. I have friend who separated his shoulder during a high-speed CASA exit. 400-500 mph would be painful and damaging. _______________---- What exactly hurt him? Just the force of the wind at that speed? I have never jumped anything like that, but it seems that as long as you didn't hit anything, and exited ok, you would be fine.

Thanks for bringing the essay to the masses here, Bill. __________________ You're welcome. I figured it would provoke a lot of heated discussion. I don't agree with everything but some of it makes sense, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

I doubt many experienced skydivers would try a high-speed hop-n-pop out of a jet, since most skydivers know it would probably shred the canopy and cause quite a bit of injury, but many, many skydivers would pay very good money to jump a jet DB Cooper style followed by a freefall and normal deployment. And they have at places like the World Freefall Convention and hopefully will again as soon as the Perris Jet is up and running. ____________________________________ but essentially, you're saying you could jump out of a jet at 400 - 500 mph and survive, as long as you waited for your speed to slow down before pulling.

I am trying out a few more classes, but I think it's safe to say that I will not take a class which teaches me "attacker" moves. Unless someone (a certain greenie which I will not name) tries to steal my beer, I don't see myself attacking anyone. _________________________________ Nothing wrong with learning "attacker" moves. Defending and attacking are simply two sides of the same coin. A block used to defend yourself can also be used to strike someone. Also, by learning attacker moves you can strike someone who is going to attack you but has not yet began to do so. Also, what if a friend is being jumped by a mugger? Will you wait until you are attacked in turn? Learn to both attack and defend. learning to attack means you better understand how to defend against attackers. Oh, and don't be confused about the "gentle"nature of Akido. The classes can be quite tough physically.

I'm just curious as to how fast is too fast for jumping out of a plane. If you jumped out of an airliner going 400 mph, would be you hurt instantly or if you had enough altitude to gradually slow down and then pull, would you be ok?

On the author, you bet ya. On bill2, not directly, but with posts like that, he sure could pass for a big hairy troll..... Remster Muff 914 ____________________________ Well, thanks to all of you for not passing judgement on me. and no Remster, I'm not a troll. I read this essay a couple of days ago, and noticed that it was being mentioned on several other websites. I do think that is over the top in several places, but in a couple of others it is right on. The increasing use of Ritalin in schools these days for little boys is simply unjustified; I had 2 nephews on it simply because they could not sit quietly in grade school. Well that's common to most little boys and I don't think they should be penalized for that, at the very least they should not be drugged every day. Also, in the show Home Improvement and so many commercials, the man is always seen as completely hopeless and stupid. I cook as well as my wife, and so do many male friends of mine. I do most of the laundry in our house, and don't screw up the clothes. Men are not idiots that have to have our lives sorted out by women just so we can survive. I realize that many shows depict women as idiots also; I don't agree with that either. Too many shows/commercials run off of stereotypes, and that is wrong. I wasn't trolling here, just putting something out for discussion. Like many other political/social discussions on this forum, there are different aspects to consider, not just one correct perspective.

Below is an essay that has been making the internet rounds in the past 2 days since it has been written. It's from the site below, by Kim Du Toit, a transplanted South African living in TX. ___________________________________ http://www.kimdutoit.com/index.htm The Pussification Of The Western Male We have become a nation of women. It wasn't always this way, of course. There was a time when men put their signatures to a document, knowing full well that this single act would result in their execution if captured, and in the forfeiture of their property to the State. Their wives and children would be turned out by the soldiers, and their farms and businesses most probably given to someone who didn't sign the document. There was a time when men went to their certain death, with expressions like "You all can go to hell. I'm going to Texas." (Davy Crockett, to the House of Representatives, before going to the Alamo.) There was a time when men went to war, sometimes against their own families, so that other men could be free. And there was a time when men went to war because we recognized evil when we saw it, and knew that it had to be stamped out. There was even a time when a President of the United States threatened to punch a man in the face and kick him in the balls, because the man had the temerity to say bad things about the President's daughter's singing. We're not like that anymore. Now, little boys in grade school are suspended for playing cowboys and Indians, cops and crooks, and all the other familiar variations of "good guy vs. bad guy" that helped them learn, at an early age, what it was like to have decent men hunt you down, because you were a lawbreaker. Now, men are taught that violence is bad -- that when a thief breaks into your house, or threatens you in the street, that the proper way to deal with this is to "give him what he wants", instead of taking a horsewhip to the rascal or shooting him dead where he stands. Now, men's fashion includes not a man dressed in a three-piece suit, but a tight sweater worn by a man with breasts. Now, warning labels are indelibly etched into gun barrels, as though men have somehow forgotten that guns are dangerous things. Now, men are given Ritalin as little boys, so that their natural aggressiveness, curiosity and restlessness can be controlled, instead of nurtured and directed. And finally, our President, who happens to have been a qualified fighter pilot, lands on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit, and is immediately dismissed with words like "swaggering", "macho" and the favorite epithet of Euro girly-men, "cowboy". Of course he was bound to get that reaction -- and most especially from the Press in Europe, because the process of male pussification Over There is almost complete. How did we get to this? In the first instance, what we have to understand is that America is first and foremost, a culture dominated by one figure: Mother. It wasn't always so: there was a time when it was Father who ruled the home, worked at his job, and voted. But in the twentieth century, women became more and more involved in the body politic, and in industry, and in the media -- and mostly, this has not been a good thing. When women got the vote, it was inevitable that government was going to become more powerful, more intrusive, and more "protective" (ie. more coddling), because women are hard-wired to treasure security more than uncertainty and danger. It was therefore inevitable that their feminine influence on politics was going to emphasize (lowercase "s") social security. I am aware of the fury that this statement is going to arouse, and I don't care a fig. What I care about is the fact that since the beginning of the twentieth century, there has been a concerted campaign to denigrate men, to reduce them to figures of fun, and to render them impotent, figuratively speaking. I'm going to illustrate this by talking about TV, because TV is a reliable barometer of our culture. In the 1950s, the TV Dad was seen as the lovable goofball -- perhaps the beginning of the trend -- BUT he was still the one who brought home the bacon, and was the main source of discipline (think of the line: "Wait until your father gets home!"). From that, we went to this: the Cheerios TV ad. Now, for those who haven't seen this piece of shit, I'm going to go over it, from memory, because it epitomizes everything I hate about the campaign to pussify men. The scene opens at the morning breakfast table, where the two kids are sitting with Dad at the table, while Mom prepares stuff on the kitchen counter. The dialogue goes something like this: Little girl (note, not little boy): Daddy, why do we eat Cheerios? Dad: Because they contain fiber, and all sorts of stuff that's good for the heart. I eat it now, because of that. LG: Did you always eat stuff that was bad for your heart, Daddy? Dad (humorously): I did, until I met your mother. Mother (not humorously): Daddy did a lot of stupid things before he met your mother. Now, every time I see that TV ad, I have to be restrained from shooting the TV with a .45 Colt. If you want a microcosm of how men have become less than men, this is the perfect example. What Dad should have replied to Mommy's little dig: Yes, Sally, that's true: I did do a lot of stupid things before I met your mother. I even slept with your Aunt Ruth a few times, before I met your mother. That's what I would have said, anyway, if my wife had ever attempted to castrate me in front of the kids like that. But that's not what men do, of course. What this guy is going to do is smile ruefully, finish his cereal, and then go and fuck his secretary, who doesn't try to cut his balls off on a daily basis. Then, when the affair is discovered, people are going to rally around the castrating bitch called his wife, and call him all sorts of names. He'll lose custody of his kids, and they will be brought up by our ultimate modern-day figure of sympathy: The Single Mom. You know what? Some women deserve to be single moms. When I first started this website, I think my primary aim was to blow off steam at the stupidity of our society. Because I have fairly set views on what constitutes right and wrong, I have no difficulty in calling Bill Clinton, for example, a fucking liar and hypocrite. But most of all, I do this website because I love being a man. Amongst other things, I talk about guns, self-defense, politics, beautiful women, sports, warfare, hunting, and power tools -- all the things that being a man entails. All this stuff gives me pleasure. And it doesn't take much to see when all the things I love are being threatened: for instance, when Tim Allen's excellent comedy routine on being a man is reduced to a fucking sitcom called Home Improvement. The show should have been called Man Improvement, because that's what every single plotline entailed: turning a man into a "better" person, instead of just leaving him alone to work on restoring the vintage sports car in his garage. I stopped watching the show after about four episodes. ("The Man Show" was better, at least for the first season -- men leering at chicks, men fucking around with ridiculous games like "pin the bra on the boobies", men having beer-drinking competitions, and women on trampolines. Excellent stuff, only not strong enough. I don't watch it anymore, either, because it's plain that the idea has been subverted by girly-men, and turned into a parody of itself.) Finally, we come to the TV show which to my mind epitomizes everything bad about what we have become: Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Playing on the homo Bravo Channel, this piece of excrement has taken over the popular culture by storm (and so far, the only counter has been the wonderful South Park episode which took it apart for the bullshit it is). I'm sorry, but the premise of the show nauseates me. A bunch of homosexuals trying to "improve" ordinary men into something "better" (ie. more acceptable to women): changing the guy's clothes, his home decor, his music -- for fuck's sake, what kind of girly-man would allow these simpering butt-bandits to change his life around? Yes, the men are, by and large, slobs. Big fucking deal. Last time I looked, that's normal. Men are slobs, and that only changes when women try to civilize them by marriage. That's the natural order of things. You know the definition of homosexual men we used in Chicago? "Men with small dogs who own very tidy apartments." Real men, on the other hand, have big fucking mean-ass dogs: Rhodesian ridgebacks, bull terriers and Rottweilers, or else working dogs like pointers or retrievers which go hunting with them and slobber all over the furniture. Women own lapdogs. Which is why women are trying to get dog-fighting and cock-fighting banned -- they'd ban boxing too, if they could -- because it's "mean and cruel". No shit, Shirley. Hell, I don't like the idea of fighting dogs, either, but I don't have a problem with men who do. Dogs and cocks fight. So do men. No wonder we have an affinity for it. My website has become fairly popular with men, and in the beginning, this really surprised me, because I didn't think I was doing anything special. That's not what I think now. I must have had well over five thousand men write to me to say stuff like "Yes! I agree! I was so angry when I read about [insert atrocity of choice], but I though I was the only one." No, you're not alone, my friend, and nor am I. Out there, there is a huge number of men who are sick of it. We're sick of being made figures of fun and ridicule; we're sick of having girly-men like journalists, advertising agency execs and movie stars decide on "what is a man"; we're sick of women treating us like children, and we're really fucking sick of girly-men politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails. When Annika Sorenstam was allowed to play in that tournament on the men's PGA tour, all the men should have refused to play -- Vijay Singh was the only one with balls to stand up for a principle, and he was absolutely excoriated for being a "chauvinist". Bullshit. He wasn't a chauvinist, he was being a man. All the rest of the players -- Woods, Mickleson, the lot -- are girls by comparison. And, needless to say, Vijay isn't an American, nor a European, which is probably why he still has a pair hanging between his legs, and they're not hanging on the wall as his wife's trophy. Fuck this, I'm sick of it. I don't see why I should put up with this bullshit any longer -- hell, I don't see why any man should put up with this bullshit any longer. I don't see why men should have become feminized, accept that we allowed it to happen -- and you know why we let it happen? Because it's goddamned easier to do so. Unfortunately, we've allowed it to go too far, and our maleness has become too pussified for words. At this point, I could have gone two ways: the first would be to say, "...and I don't know if we'll get it back. The process has become too entrenched, the cultural zeitgeist of men as girls has become part of the social fabric, and there's not much we can do about it." But I'm not going to do that. To quote John Belushi (who was, incidentally, a real man and not a fucking woman): "Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" Well, I'm not going to quit. Fuck that. One of the characteristics of the non-pussified man (and this should strike fear into the hearts of women and girly-men everywhere) is that he never quits just because the odds seem overwhelming. Omaha Beach, guys. I want a real man as President -- not Al Gore, who had to hire a consultant to show him how to be an Alpha male, and french-kiss his wife on live TV to "prove" to the world that he was a man, when we all knew that real men don't have to do that shit. And I want the Real Man President to surround himself with other Real Men, like Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, and yes, Rice (who is more of a Real Man than those asswipes Colin Powell and Norman Mineta). I want our government to be more like Dad -- kind, helpful, but not afraid to punish us when we fuck up, instead of helping us excuse our actions. I want our government of real men to start rolling back the Nanny State, in all its horrible manifestations of over-protectiveness, intrusiveness and "Mommy Knows Best What's Good For You" regulations. I want our culture to become more male -- not the satirical kind of male, like The Man Show, or the cartoonish figures of Stallone, Van Damme or Schwartzenegger. (Note to the Hollywood execs: We absolutely fucking loathe chick movies about feelings and relationships and all that feminine jive. We want more John Waynes, Robert Mitchums, Bruce Willises, and Clint Eastwoods. Never mind that it's simplistic -- we like simple, we are simple, we are men -- our lives are uncomplicated, and we like it that way. We Were Soldiers was a great movie, and you know why? Because you could have cut out all the female parts, and it still would have been a great movie, because it was about Real Men. Try cutting out all the female parts in a Woody Allen movie -- you'd end up with the opening and closing credits.) I want our literature to become more male, less female. Men shouldn't buy "self-help" books unless the subject matter is car maintenance, golf swing improvement or how to disassemble a fucking Browning BAR. We don't improve ourselves, we improve our stuff. And finally, I want men everywhere to going back to being Real Men. To open doors for women, to drive fast cars, to smoke cigars after a meal, to get drunk occasionally and, in the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the last of the Real Men: "to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth." In every sense of the word. We know what the word "is" means. Because that's all that being a Real Man involves. You don't have to become a fucking cartoon male, either: I'm not going back to stoning women for adultery like those Muslim assholes do, nor am I suggesting we support that perversion of being a Real Man, gangsta rap artists (those fucking pussies -- they wouldn't last thirty seconds against a couple of genuine tough guys that I know). Speaking of rap music, do you want to know why more White boys buy that crap than Black boys do? You know why rape is such a problem on college campuses? Why binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen? It's a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a purpose. Because only the strong men propagate. And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because powerful men still attract women. Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator's uniform. Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful pussy available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle. Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could fuck 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too. And he won't. Because Rummy's been married to the same woman for fifty years, and he wouldn't toss that away for a quickie. He's a Real Man. No wonder the Euros hate and fear him. We'd better get more like him, we'd better become more like him, because if we don't, men will become a footnote to history.

this web site makes fun of Harley riders and Harleys, mainly the poseurs. some people like it and some hate it. http://www.goingfaster.com/angst/

I'm in So Cal or else I'd go. ________________________________ This show travels around the country, and will be in LA or Anaheim in the next 6 weeks or so. I think you can see the schedule if you search under International Motorcycle Show & Exposition.

Going to see the new CBR1000 !! It looks like a really nice bike the latest Cycle World magazine. ______________________ yeah, lots of hot sport bikes that are scary fast. and not that expensive.

Yeah...that's how I feel about cars. Used to race autocross. Could care less how it looked, just cared about performance. I'm the opposite with bikes, though. I get caught up in the Harley legend. The sound of screaming eagle pipes makes my heart race more than going fast does. ________________________________ Try a Honda Valkyrie. The latest model is the Rune, but at $26000 it's way too expensive. Honda made the stock Valkyrie, with the 1500 cc goldwing motor, starting in the early '90s. Much more powerful than the Harley's, and handle way better. Cruiser magazine named it cruiser of the decade for the '90s, and when Motorcycle Consumer News did a review of several touring cruisers, they named the Valkyrie the best by a long shot. Unfortunately, Honda stopped making that model last December but there are still great deals on used ones out there. Rumor has it that Honda will start making them again soon with the 1800 cc new Goldwing motor.

If you ride, you might be interested in the International Motorcycle Show at the fairgrounds in San Mateo, off of Hwy 92. Every manufacturer will be there, plus lots of after market stuff. even demo rides if you have a bike license and helmet. It's this Friday/Sat/Sun. Below is the link. http://sfo.motorcycleshows.com/imssfo/V40/index.cvn

My next bike I hope These things are the ultimate crusiers. _____________________ Get a BMW R1150GS (dual sport). best all around bike you can get. but not for beginners. I've taken mine on track days, running errands, 1 and 2 week vacations with camping gear. It'll run 2 up no problem, is very reliable, and you can go off road with them (but not quite like a dirt bike though - too heavy)

I agree. The media has developed a distinct tilt to the right. _______________ The only rightward tilt is at Fox, the Internet, and on radio. In terms of newspapers and TV, it's generally to the left: anti-gun, anti-religious, anti-Iraq war, and many times simply anti-American. The internet, especially is the changing things since you can now access many more sources of information than just the major media outlets such as CNN/ NY Times/ABC/NBC/CBS. and those major media types don't like it. The whole Jason Blair thing would not have happened the way it did if not for the internet. same goes for gun control and Prof. Bullieles (spelling) and the bullshit book he wrote "The Arming of America" (title could be wrong).

Or you could use the ponds at the golf course. The walks not quite as long. _______________ Sebastian is in FL right? won't the alligators get you?

Fremont, Ca (east bay in No Cal) has the highest concentrations of natives of Afghanistan in the US. Why I don't know.

But it's still fun to watch the movie. and the jump itself and the scenary where they jumped is beautiful. Did you ever see "Spy Hard" with Leslie Nielsen, spoofing spy movies. It shows him in a parachure rig, under canopy, pouring himself a brandy into a large brandy snifter. Just a great scene.

I noticed you jump at Byron, which is in the bay area here in CA. The home of political correctness. Most people in the bay area don't like guns. I imagine that elsewhere in the country it's quite different. There seem to be a number of gun owners on this forum