I never knew this, but apparently Trijicon has been doing this. What makes me laugh is the fact the article writers (and ABC) describe the Bible verses as some kind of Bible Code (I'm sorry, "Secret JESUS Bible codes").
I like Trijicon, and I hope they stick to their guns if this gets all lawyer type nasty. If they choose to take the verses off , so they can keep their $660mil gov contract, I'd understand from the business side, but I'd take personal offense. Why put it on there in the first place if you don't intend to make a stand?
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
Permits
Today I had to pull a permit to move a meter for an entrance sign. The meter supplies 3 circuits, 2 for lights that shine up on the sign, and one for a convenience outlet. In order to accomplish this I first had to find out if the job fell in jurisdiction of Cobb County, or the City of Marietta (It was Cobb County).
Then I arrive at the Cobby County permit office, and have to wait until they're ready for me (which they make it seem like I'm hassling them of course). They then need my business licence, electrical license and a form filled out with the job information. After I hand the nice lady (she was actually pretty nice) all the info she tells me I need a 10,000 code compliance bond (which costs me $50) which I need to purchase at a insurance company. I have to climb back into my truck and head over to the nearest insurance company which happened to be State Farm.
I head into the office and inform the lady there that I need the compliance bond and she nods her head, and with a smirk asks me to sit down. She ask if this is for a big job (it was if she was used to guys like me coming in for little projects), which I reply no. She chuckles, and we talk about how stupid (basically) it is to have to do this for such a little job. She quickly fills out the paperwork and off I go back to the permit office. I wait in line again, and then get the same lady I saw first . She inputs most of the info, and then tells me I need to get the o.k. from some guy across the room since this is technically a commercial job (the sign is for a nursing home).
So, off I go to desk across the room, and find that no one is around. I ring the bell (as the sign requests) and wait a few minutes, until a nice man (everyone I dealt with was basically kind, just slow), asks me what I need. I tell him, and he walks off with my paper into a cubicle. He comes back with his initials on my paper, and I head back to the original permit lady.
The lady takes the paper, and asks for $30. After she takes my money (rather the customers money), she hands me the receipt and I'm finally finished with probably one of the easier experiences with getting permits.
So now you know why contractors don't like dealing with the government.
Then I arrive at the Cobby County permit office, and have to wait until they're ready for me (which they make it seem like I'm hassling them of course). They then need my business licence, electrical license and a form filled out with the job information. After I hand the nice lady (she was actually pretty nice) all the info she tells me I need a 10,000 code compliance bond (which costs me $50) which I need to purchase at a insurance company. I have to climb back into my truck and head over to the nearest insurance company which happened to be State Farm.
I head into the office and inform the lady there that I need the compliance bond and she nods her head, and with a smirk asks me to sit down. She ask if this is for a big job (it was if she was used to guys like me coming in for little projects), which I reply no. She chuckles, and we talk about how stupid (basically) it is to have to do this for such a little job. She quickly fills out the paperwork and off I go back to the permit office. I wait in line again, and then get the same lady I saw first . She inputs most of the info, and then tells me I need to get the o.k. from some guy across the room since this is technically a commercial job (the sign is for a nursing home).
So, off I go to desk across the room, and find that no one is around. I ring the bell (as the sign requests) and wait a few minutes, until a nice man (everyone I dealt with was basically kind, just slow), asks me what I need. I tell him, and he walks off with my paper into a cubicle. He comes back with his initials on my paper, and I head back to the original permit lady.
The lady takes the paper, and asks for $30. After she takes my money (rather the customers money), she hands me the receipt and I'm finally finished with probably one of the easier experiences with getting permits.
So now you know why contractors don't like dealing with the government.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Break Is Over
I've been away for quite some time due to a bad hard drive. I've only been able to get online via safe mode, so I haven't felt comfortable blogging. I'm kicking myself for not learning more about computers. I've also been quite busy with work the last few months which is rare for someone in the construction field. I'm just going to ride the wave as long as it takes me.
The NY 23 race really caught my eye mostly due to the fact that a "3rd party" particapant was thought to have a real fighting chance. Having majored in Political Science in college, I knew that it is extremly rare for a 3rd party candaiate to be successful in anything more than mucking up the other two candaidates. However, this time, this guy, was looking seriously set for the upset. But alas, he lost, or so we've been led to believe. It seems that as the votes are coming in, he's only 3000 away instead of the 5000 last week. AND, they haven't counted the 10,000 or so absentee ballots yet.
What really gets me angry is that State Board of Elections made it seem as if there wasn't a chance for him (Hoffman) to win so he gave his concession (which any good conservative will do when it appears over, instead of acting like a child and asking how dare the peons not vote for me). They've sort of appologized saying it was a bit hectic and the call screeners read some counts wrong back to the headquarters ,but maybe it had something to do with Pelosi and the health care bill. 220-215, means that the bill passed by a 3 vote margin. So, if only three more people had voted nay it would have failed. The one lone Republican that voted yes, only did so when the vote was 218 for, so it is probable he might have voted nay if he knew his vote tipped the scale. Knowing that it had won, he voted yes. But what if Hoffman realy is victorios? That's one more vote nay, then perhaps Cao (lone repub) may have voted nay, now we have two. The third vote may not have came but would have made this a heck of alot closer. I imagine that if Hoffman does pull it off you may hear a lot of republicans looking for a re-vote. The moral of the story is never count yourself out, until the count is completely out.
The NY 23 race really caught my eye mostly due to the fact that a "3rd party" particapant was thought to have a real fighting chance. Having majored in Political Science in college, I knew that it is extremly rare for a 3rd party candaiate to be successful in anything more than mucking up the other two candaidates. However, this time, this guy, was looking seriously set for the upset. But alas, he lost, or so we've been led to believe. It seems that as the votes are coming in, he's only 3000 away instead of the 5000 last week. AND, they haven't counted the 10,000 or so absentee ballots yet.
What really gets me angry is that State Board of Elections made it seem as if there wasn't a chance for him (Hoffman) to win so he gave his concession (which any good conservative will do when it appears over, instead of acting like a child and asking how dare the peons not vote for me). They've sort of appologized saying it was a bit hectic and the call screeners read some counts wrong back to the headquarters ,but maybe it had something to do with Pelosi and the health care bill. 220-215, means that the bill passed by a 3 vote margin. So, if only three more people had voted nay it would have failed. The one lone Republican that voted yes, only did so when the vote was 218 for, so it is probable he might have voted nay if he knew his vote tipped the scale. Knowing that it had won, he voted yes. But what if Hoffman realy is victorios? That's one more vote nay, then perhaps Cao (lone repub) may have voted nay, now we have two. The third vote may not have came but would have made this a heck of alot closer. I imagine that if Hoffman does pull it off you may hear a lot of republicans looking for a re-vote. The moral of the story is never count yourself out, until the count is completely out.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Religious Based Laws
This story has been gnawing at my mind since I first read it. Most of my friends would say I'm "religious" and follow the Bible mostly to a T. And most would say I'm a good example of a red blooded American as well, who believes whole-heartedly in the wisdom of the founding fathers. This story is a perfect example in why the forefathers wanted religion to be woven into our laws, but with wisdom sprinkled in as well.
99.9% of our laws our founded in Biblical teachings, and I would argue we are better for it. The founders believed that our liberty was given by God therefore could only be taken away by God (not man). This also applies to the laws found in the Bible. Men should take heed when adding and taking away from God's Law. They should be certain the intent of the principal that was broken, and the proper punishment for the crime. In other words, is this really a crime against God, and if so, what is the punishment. The laws were written so that the people would know how to honor God, not man, to do HIS will, not mans'.
The law this woman broke, Article 152, seeks to curtail provocative clothing by way of threat of punishment. I understand that for men, it is much easier to function in the work place, church, sporting events, if women would dress appropriately, but does this warrant 40 lashes? Men may say this is a great law, but with any law it could back fire. What if a particular man fit a "little too well" in a pair of jeans, couldn't he be dressing risque as well?
While I wish for a more religious government, these laws tend to push religion out of government for good. Notice that this women is very defiant in her beliefs, and that her husband is dead. Never underestimate someone with nothing to lose. Her fight, and others like it, will/may cause the populous to think all religious based laws are wrong. So, instead of beating back one or two abuses, they'll scrap the whole lot.
I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I do have a maxim I try to abide by: In this particular situation, am I trying to honor God, or man. Or in other words, is this liberty he has granted me, being used to further his will or mine.
99.9% of our laws our founded in Biblical teachings, and I would argue we are better for it. The founders believed that our liberty was given by God therefore could only be taken away by God (not man). This also applies to the laws found in the Bible. Men should take heed when adding and taking away from God's Law. They should be certain the intent of the principal that was broken, and the proper punishment for the crime. In other words, is this really a crime against God, and if so, what is the punishment. The laws were written so that the people would know how to honor God, not man, to do HIS will, not mans'.
The law this woman broke, Article 152, seeks to curtail provocative clothing by way of threat of punishment. I understand that for men, it is much easier to function in the work place, church, sporting events, if women would dress appropriately, but does this warrant 40 lashes? Men may say this is a great law, but with any law it could back fire. What if a particular man fit a "little too well" in a pair of jeans, couldn't he be dressing risque as well?
While I wish for a more religious government, these laws tend to push religion out of government for good. Notice that this women is very defiant in her beliefs, and that her husband is dead. Never underestimate someone with nothing to lose. Her fight, and others like it, will/may cause the populous to think all religious based laws are wrong. So, instead of beating back one or two abuses, they'll scrap the whole lot.
I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I do have a maxim I try to abide by: In this particular situation, am I trying to honor God, or man. Or in other words, is this liberty he has granted me, being used to further his will or mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
