This is a fast, fun bike with a riding position and general character reminiscent of something a London messenger might ride. It has been optimized for dashing around cities and blasts through the countryside. Viewed like that—rather than a bike for someone who isn't quite ready to commit to a superbike—the Ninja's appeal becomes very clear. If more people bought motorcycles with their brains rather than their hearts, Kawasaki would sell plenty of these.
I also think it's a great bike. It's a sport bike for people who are more realistic about how they use their sport bikes. Unfortunately, its gas mileage was pretty lack-luster, especially for a sport-touring bike. Supposedly, Kawasaki fixed that problem with a taller 6th gear. I suppose we'll see.
You can click on the image to make it bigger, if you can't read the words. In case you've never read it, the actual text of the 2nd Amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Makes a big difference, doesn't it? Why are text book authors and editors - and by extension, public school administrators and teachers - lying to kids about what is in the constitution?
I don't know. But we're the crazy one's for home schooling - right?
Recently, I watched Piers Morgan's interview with Emily Miller. During the interview, Ms Miller cited Gary Kleck's study that concluded that Americans use guns to defend themselves from criminals 2.5 million times per year.
Morgan replied that he doesn't believe the figure because "you never see them on the news". Ms Miller, rightly, responded that media "Liberals" like Morgan suppress news stories about ordinary people using their guns to defend themselves from criminals. As Ms Miller points out, it's because of this suppression that most Americans don't know that their fellow Americans use guns to defend themselves far more often than criminals use guns to commit crimes.
Fortunately, local news outlets are far more likely to cover DGUs than national media. Even more fortunately, in the internet age we can access this local coverage from anywhere. Morgan and his ilk are un-educate-able. They're willfully ignorant. They've reached a conclusion, and no amount of facts will convince them otherwise.
But not everyone follows Morgan's example. Some people actually look at facts align their beliefs with them. So, I thought I'd start compiling some of the DGUs I see online for those who are willing to look at the facts.
Let's start with Kari Bird.
Kari Bird, a mother of three and a law school student, was returning to her home in Indianapolis, Indiana around 11:30 p.m. last Wednesday when a group of young men approached her, pulled out a gun, and demanded the keys to her vehicle.
The victim told police he had just rented a couple of movies from the Redbox outside the restaurant when he was forced out of his car and pushed on the ground by two men. Police said the men were apparently going after the victim’s car. The carjacking victim pulled out a gun and shot both men. One died at the scene while the other one ran away wounded. Police said a third suspect drove away in the getaway car.
In another one from Houston, a homeowner defended his family from a naked home invader.
In another one from Texas, a pregnant woman who used to be anti-gun defended herself from two drugged-up home invaders with a gun her husband insisted she learn to use.
I was against him buying a gun maybe 7-8 months ago, but I told him, ‘I don’t know if I told you, thank you for doing that’ because it changed the situation completely
Why, yes. Yes, it did. A gun is the only tool that gives an ordinary person - even an untrained one - the power to turn the tables on bigger, stronger, even more numerous assailants.
Police are searching for a man who was armed with a machete when he tried to rob a pharmacy last week but was stopped when the owner pulled out a gun. Police say when the man raised the machete, the shop owner pulled a .45 Glock pistol and the suspect took off.
Like the vast majority of DGU's, this one ended with zero shots fired, which is one reason they don't get reported. It doesn't bleed, so it doesn't lead.
An armed man entered the store and pointed a gun at Jon Alexander. But the clerk, a 30-year veteran of the military, quickly pushed the robber’s gun away and drew his own — placing the gun at the robber’s mouth. The would-be robber held his gun at his side and quickly backed out of the store.
Obviously, we can't know what would've happened to each of these people if they'd been disarmed as "Liberals" desire. We can be reasonably certain, however, that at least some of them would be dead, some grievously injured.
The question is this: who knows better if an individual facing a dangerous criminal should defend him/herself and his/her family with a gun - the individual facing the criminal, or some distant "Liberal" politician or pundit safe behind an armed security detail?
Guns are the most effective self defense tools available to the ordinary person today. Those who wish to disarm ordinary people, would deprive ordinary people of the most effective tool with which to defend themselves and their families, thereby violating their right to defend themselves and their families.
Recently, two articles stood out to me because of their diametrically opposed views on the same subject. I'll start with the one with which I disagree.
For models, the former boxer Michael Olajide Jr. is the heavyweight of trainers — the go-to guy for girls who have to get runway-ready in a hurry. For this fashion week, he trained some 15 models needing to “sleekify,” as he called it, to squeeze into sample sizes. (Most common problem: the hips.)
Oh, hell. Here we go.
Mr. Olajide, 49, a highly ranked middleweight boxer until an injury left him legally blind in the right eye and ended his career, has been attracting the fashion crowd since his days teaching at Equinox and Chelsea Piers in the 1990s.
Eventually, the 6-foot, 165-pound Mr. Olajide ended up training the supermodels Iman and Linda Evangelista.
Wait... "6-foot, 165-pound"? Seriously?
What about the clients?
Mr. Olajide acknowledged that the weight can come back on quickly once the workout (and preshow diets) stop.
“Like boxers, they have a performance weight and an everyday weight,” he said of models. With each season, it can get harder to snap back to sample size. “It becomes: Will they allow themselves mentally to go to that level of discomfort? How hungry are they?”
Good question. Just how hungry are they?
The British model Nyasha Matonhodze, 18, started working out at Mr. Olajide’s gym at her agency’s recommendation. “As models, we know that we have to be, some would say, ridiculously thin,” she said. “It’s not exactly a woman’s shape, but it is high fashion.”
So, they realize they're so skinny that they no longer have "a woman's shape", but they keep doing it anyway. Does this sound remotely healthy to anyone? And why are women using women who no longer look like women to sell women's clothes to women?
Exercises that trim mere mortals can be career-maiming for catwalkers. Push-ups are out — developing the chest is bad news
God forbid a woman be strong enough to lift herself off the floor!
— as are squats and lunges, which make the derrière too round to fit into the clothes. (Lingerie models are allowed lunges because they are allowed curves, he said.)
Right; because a flat butt and a rectangular figure are ideal for a woman.
Ab exercises also are rationed. “When they really burn the fat you’ll see a six-pack, which is not usually the goal,” Mr. Olajide said. “You want flat, but if you’re too cut, defined and hard, that can be counterproductive. We want long, willowy, wispy, flowing.”
In other words, weak.
Caitlin Holleran, 16, who in October wore a fitted floor-length chiffon dress on the Yves Saint Laurent runway in Paris, had to shrink her hips back down by two inches this season to match the measurement (34 inches) listed on her modeling card. Among other things, the type of power vinyasa yoga she’d been doing was building too much muscle, she said, adding bulk.
Are you freaking kidding me? 36-inch hips are too big? Yoga "was building too much muscle" and "adding bulk"? And this girl is only 16!
Contrast that with the following irreverently, hilariously titled article.
I recently had a 15-year-old girl come to me for personal training to get her back in
shape before cheerleading started up again in the fall. Having done cheerleading and knowing just how many issues teenage girls can have with their bodies, weight and over-exercising, I’ll admit I was a little worried about what I might be dealing with.
That girl, however, completely blew me away before our first session was even over. Right off the bat she came across happy, confident and comfortable in her body, and it was clear as soon as I’d put her through some basic exercises that she was pretty capable. In the middle of the session, while I was showing her some technique for her pushups, she just looked at me and said:
"OMG you have an amazing ass — you look so strong!"
What? A girl doing push-ups? Oh, the horror!
This definitely made me laugh, but the message/mentality behind what she said made my entire weekend. For those of you who don’t know me, yes I do have a big butt, and while my legs are by no means huge by CrossFit standards, they’re definitely not small either.
If Yoga builds too much muscle and adds bulk, then "manly" movements, such as push-ups, rope climbs and squats, will obviously turn a girl into the she-hulk - right?
Uh... no, actually. Not really. Back to the story.
For me it took finding CrossFit to finally let go of the “Skinny is Sexy” mentality, and I’m glad that I did; but I’m even more glad that a young girl who has never done CrossFit (or even heard of it) already considers strength way more important and attractive than being a size zero.
Awesome!
I went through high school convinced I needed to be skinny, and it wasn’t until my 20s — when I was introduced to CrossFit and weightlifting — that I realized the fact that my natural body type will always be strong (not petite) and began to accept that. Suddenly I was in a world where where the focus was NOT on “burning calories,” “losing weight,” or “being a size zero.” Instead I discovered that performance trumped appearance;training was something you did to get stronger/faster/better; and you ate to fuel your body
Doesn't training "to get stronger/faster/better" and eating "to fuel your body" sound healthier than a woman starving herself until she - by her own admission - no longer resembles a woman?
Here's the question I really need to ask all you ladies out there, though, because I can't answer it myself. Why do women insist on torturing themselves like this? I don't mean the models. They've clearly made a cost/benefit analysis. They believe the money, fame and adulation they (will potentially) receive are worth the sacrifices they make.
Julie Foucher demonstrates the overhead squat.
What I mean is; why do ordinary women insist on torturing themselves by giving the fashion industry the financial incentive to use women who've starved themselves into no longer looking like women to sell them clothes? Why do ordinary women want to look like them? As the NYT article makes clear, not even the models themselves can look that way for long.
And don't even try to blame it on us men, ladies! Heterosexual men do not dominate the fashion
industry. Women and homosexual men dominate the industry.
Face it, ladies, you are doing this to yourselves - and each other.
My question is; why? What's the point? What do you get out of it - other than eating disorders, a perpetual sense of failure and abject misery?
I don't get it ladies. I just don't. Maybe one of you can enlighten me.
Remember when it was unconstitutional for a president to send troops to war without congressional approval?
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. ~ Sen Barack Obama (D, Il) 2007
Remember when principled members of congress called for the impeachment of a president who might consider military strikes against a foreign country without congressional approval?
“The president has… no…. Constitutional… authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Biden declared, loud and clear. ”And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House, obviously, has to do that. But I would lead an effort to impeach him.” ~ Sen Joe Biden (D, De) 2007
On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me.” He added that under Assad “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.” This is the man who might be our next secretary of state.
Remember when Assad was Secretary of State, John Kerry's, "dear friend"?
Staffers describe their collective cringe when, after a motorcycle ride with Bashar al-Assad, he
returned to Washington referring to Bashar as “my dear friend.”
If none of this fills you with confidence, given the current state of affairs, fear not, everything's different now. But that sets up a whole other set of problems with consistency, doesn't it?
Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point... For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters... His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. First, the U.S. president can attack a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress (unlike the Iraq war when George W. Bush obtained authorization from both houses of Congress). Even if Obama gets a no vote, he said that he reserves the right to strike.
He does? How does that square with his statement from 2007? It doesn't, that's how. Now, shut up, you racist!
“Where the stakes are the highest, in the war on terror, we cannot possibly succeed without extraordinary international cooperation. Effective international police actions require the highest degree of intelligence sharing, planning and collaborative enforcement.” (2004)
So far no European or Arab nation has offered military support for our planned effort against Syria.
On the need to obtain UN approval before attacking another country
“You know, if the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, do we have the coalition to make it work, and, you know, those are considerations that we have to take into account.” (2013)
After misleading the UN in obtaining no-fly-zones for Libya (and then bombing troops on the ground), Obama is not even approaching the UN for a resolution to bomb this time around.
On the idea that armed intervention is ever a good option
“I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” (2008)
The mindset in Iraq was to stop a genocidal dictator like Saddam Hussein who had gassed his own people — apparently the present mission is to stop the genocidal dictator Bashar Assad, who has gassed his own people.
On the folly of starting a wrong war to ensure a president’s sinking credibility
“It’s time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right.” (2008) [Talk about false choices. It's entirely possible to be both weak and wrong. ~ O.S.] “That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.” (2002)
Most believe that we are going to war mostly to restore Obama’s credibility after he issued an ill-advised red line to Syria that he thought would never be crossed — a war, in other words, predicated on “politics.”
On the dangers of not defining a mission or a methodology
“I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.” (2002) [As opposed to arming Al-Qaeda, like we did in Libya. ~ O.S.]
“When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.” (2004)
So far we have not articulated the purpose of attacking Syria, the methods of intervention, or the desired outcome of the war — at a time of deep administration cuts to defense, soon to be made worse by sequestration.
On not intervening in the civil wars and internal affairs of Arab nations
“The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else’s civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.” (2007).
Syria is currently in “somebody else’s” civil war in which the Assad dictatorship, Hezbollah militias, and Iranian volunteers are battling al-Qaeda affiliates, the Free Syrian Army, and various unknown coalitions of Assad opponents.
There may have been a time, early in the Syrian civil war, when we could have armed rebel groups that sought to establish responsible governance in Syria. Even if that was ever true - and that's a big if - that time is long past. Today, the Syrian civil war boils down to a fight between Iran and Al-Qaeda. Regardless who we back, we back an enemy.
