Big Steps, Little Feet

Benjamin and Hannah love to listen to Mary Rice Hopkins (also see Amazon).  Hannah calls the DVD "Grandma's House" because that's one of the songs.  But the song Hannah really likes to dance to is "Big Steps, Little Feet."  Benjamin likes the music but dancing, not so much.

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Happy Reformation Day!

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

New RAID Array

This week I got the family desktop configured to use a RAID array (mirrored) for primary storage. So now it's booting, mirrored, and I feel better knowing the data is safe. The array is built from two Seagate Barracuda SATA 7200.10 and I have a backup drive offline, waiting in its static bag in case one fails. They are 250 GB each to match the original size in order to avoid any mirroring issues and because they were inexpensive.

After setting it up, I did a disk verify on both the old and new volumes to see which one was faster. The old volume could be verified in about 10 minutes. The new one took almost 2 minutes. So I'm very happy with that boost.

I didn't need any special software to do this. All I used were the utilities and features supplied in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. I've seen several approaches, some more risky than others. Some suggest third party software to accomplish what Leopard can already do. So I recommend the following procedure:

1. Install the new drive.
   
2. Boot and begin in the Disk Utility to erase the new drive, calling it "New Macintosh HD".
• Quit Disk Utility and issue a terminal command:
• diskutil enableRAID mirror /Volumes/New\ Macintosh\ HD
3. Reopen the Disk Utility, click on the new drive, and use the Restore option to copy the boot disk onto "New Macintosh HD".
• You will need to pay attention because the new drive has two entries in the list of volumes; slice name and RAID group name. You want to ignore the slice.
• In the Restore tab of the new drive, drag the old volume to the first field and the new volume to the second field. This will cause the first field to become "/" and the second field to become "New Macintosh HD" with an icon.
4. When the copy is complete, selected "New Macintosh HD" as the boot disk in System Preferences and reboot.
5. Now verify the old drive to make sure there were no errors. I recommend doing this after booting on the new drive because the verify can now be more thorough due to the fact that the system didn't boot to it. If it's all clear, proceed. If not, you're on your own. You probably just need to do a repair and this procedure start over. Make sure you boot back to the old drive after the repair.
   
6. Shut down and remove the old drive and replace it with another identical drive.
• Replacing it is optional, but the old drive is now a backup of the system. In my case, I wanted both drives to be identical for performance reasons.
  
• Boot into the one-disk (degraded) RAID group and use the Disk Utility to drag the new disk into the RAID group. This erased the new disk and start the mirror "repair". This may take many hours to complete.
• You need to pay attention because the dialog window in the Disk Utility can be behind the main Disk Utility window. If you lose it, click Window, then Disk Utility Progress. If it stops, close the Disk Utility and open it up again. If you get bored, open the Activity Monitor and watch the Disk Activity or go have a beer (preferably both).

This is only one of many possible solutions. Using this as the most basic solution is great because it guards against failure and is very low maintenance once it's set up and it doesn't cost as much. Apple's Time Machine is still my favorite solution, but it's pretty expensive to do it right.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

BarackObamaTest.com

I took a test on BarackObamaTest.com and it appears that I DISAGREED with the Barack Obama position on 41 of the 48 test questions (whew).  This means I disagree with the Obama position 85% of the time.  But I have a few problems with some of the questions:

• Q: Proponents of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge inAlaska point out that drilling could cover an area that covers 2,000 ofthe total 19 million acres that make up ANWR. Should the U.S. begindrilling in ANWR even if we won't realize the potential benefit forseveral more years?
• I answered "Yes" because they didn't have an option for, "Showme where the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to regulatedrilling (or any other area of the free market)."
• Q: "How do you feel about increased drilling for oil and natural gasoffshore in U.S. waters? Do you favor or oppose increased offshoredrilling?"
• I answered "Favor" because they didn't have an option for, "Show mewhere the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to regulatedrilling (or any other area of the free market)."
• Q: Please consider the two statements below and choose which one agree with:
  
• A. There needs to be new and tougher gun control laws to help in the fight against gun crime.
  
• B. There are enough laws on the books, what is needed is better enforcement of current gun control laws.
• I answered "B" because they didn't have an option for, "Let's repeal some or all of the 20,000 laws on the books!"
• Furthermore, B. isn't really that good.  If we were thinkingstrategically, and I could only choose A and B, answer A would be better becauseadding many many more laws means all laws are harder to enforce, bogging down the whole process, but I realize that's really just stupid. 

  

• Q: Should someone who is not a U.S. citizen, being held under suspicion of terrorism, be afforded Constitutional rights?
• I answered "No" because they didn't have an option for, "There is no such thing as a Constitutional right, so stop using that stupid phrase.  The Constitution is designed to restrain government and does not grant rights to individuals.  Obviously, by flipping it around, government is now able to abuse the restrictions clearly set forth therein.  We even got people tricked into thinking we should amend State and the US Constitutions to restrict the definition of marriage, which is stupid because these documents restrict government, not individuals."
• Q: Should the U.S. negotiate with Iran without preconditions?
• I answered, "Yes" because they didn't have an option for, "'Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none," as Thomas Jefferson recommended.  I realize this is one of the few times where my answer agrees with Obama.  This is probably the only thing Jefferson and Obama agree on, although I think Obama is lying.
  
• Q: If American deaths in Iraq are greatly reduced and stability hasreturned to the Iraqi government, should American troops withdraw in 18months, or should they withdraw gradually over a longer timeframe?
• I answered, "Withdraw in 18 months" because they didn't have an option for "Leave now like the Iraqi people want."
  
• The entire "Social Values" section is something the Federal Government should leave to the people to decide on their own or leave to the several states and has little or no bearing on picking a president, from the standpoint of signing legalization or setting administrative policy.
• For instance, Q: Should America's laws be written following Judeo-Christian values orshould America be an entirely secular society, devoid of any decisionsbased upon Judeo-Christian moral values?
• I answered, "Judeo-Christian" even though I don't believe "Judeo" should even be in there (show me even one "Judeo" founding father) and because there wasn't an option for, "The more religiously informed the law, the more local the law should be, such that federal should be the least religiously informed while states can be perhaps more religiously informed, followed by municipalities and small localities being the most religiously informed, followed by local church government which is only religiously informed."

Overall, this test made me sick.  The real purpose is to sell some book (not that there's anything wrong with that).  Even the question of the "leftness" or "rightness" of the Supreme Court was difficult for me to take a position due to the incomplete nature of the answers offered.  There's more than just "left" and "right."  There's "up" and "down."  It seems like the only to the federal government is to subsidize it orban it when in reality, there should be a "take no position" option.

I recommend the following test to understand what I mean about "up/down" in addition to "left/right": World's Smallest Pollitical Quiz

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Proposition 8

Well here we are.  It's the mob rule, also known as "democracy."  Over here in California, we have a proposition on the ballot to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  But there's a circus to go along with the proposition:

A man wearing a "No on 8" button was beaten witha "Yes on 8" lawn sign in Torrance this week in what policecharacterized as a possible hate crime.

Source: Proposition 8 may have been at center of Torrance assault

The police might have classified it as a possible hate crime, I classify it as plain old stupidity on both sides.  The paper reporting this story is a local rag called "The Daily Breeze."  I don't know the political slant of this paper because I don't read it very much.  But the overall circus is a lot bigger than the story makes it out.  This video was shot by me yesterday (October 28th, 2008) on the corner of Hawthorne & Artesia in Redondo Beach, CA.  I think it speaks for itself:





I believe marriage is defined by the culture.  The culture is defined by the people who live in that culture.  Democracy really doesn't have much of a role in changing marriage when the culture has already spoken.  The culture has taken marriage and destroyed it.  The idea that we should now vote on it is absurd.  Marriage has been attacked again and again by the very people who want to define it as between a man and a woman.  Even changing the California Constitution will not change the divorce rate.  This circus will certainly not convince people either way.

I originally planned to vote against this proposition, but now I abstain all together from casting a position on it.  I originally signed the petition to get it on this ballot, but now I decline from endorsing either position.

I define marriage as between a man and a woman.  But marriage has gone millennium without help from the state.  If we truly value marriage, let's uphold marriage as sacred.  Protect marriage by protecting your marriage.  And stop the circus.

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Tax/Lend Insanity

Albert Einstein probably said:
 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 
First, I'd like to introduce the underpants gnomes:

As these banks and institutions are reinforced and supported withtaxpayer funds, they must meet their responsibility to lend, andsupport the American people and the U.S. economy.  It is in a strengthened institution's best financial interest toincrease lending once it has received government funding.

- Source: White House tells banks to stop hoarding money

Got that?  Here are the steps:

1. Government "supports" banks by taking $2,000 from every man, woman, and child in America.
2. Government urges banks to increase lending to "support" every man, woman, and child in America by lending the money they just taxed back to them.
3. Profit!!

Here's an analogy from the underpants gnomes when they only planned corporations and before they figured out what step 2 was:



By the time they figured out step 2, the underpants gnomes had moved on to planning governments instead of just planning corporations.

Somehow, we can tax and lend ourselves to prosperity.  Does anyone else still think this is a good idea?  I'd really like to know!

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Welcome, enjoy your gift

Behold what came to my inbox today after previously opting out of their mailings:

Anthony,
http://apps.fishbowl.com/a/redrobin/profile/default.asp?eml=redrobin@martin-studio.com to give us the scoop." usemap="#11d44adce5f13788_11d446c5b0697771_Map" border="0" width="525" height="135">
	Hurry, this offer expires 11/11/2008.

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Federal Indoctrination vs. State's Rights

This is a picture I snapped with my mobile after attending a meeting at my son's school.  I am totally against the public indoctrination centers, but my son Benjamin goes to this school for reasons I don't really want to get into at the moment.

Anyway, this is part of a drawing hung outside the school in plastic to protect it from the weather.  It was just part of a larger drawing which was one of many on the chain-link-fence facing the street.

You can see a person at a podium who appears to be the president ("go presidant (sic)") saying, "I want to [ban] drugs from the whole country."  Further down, someone is responding to the president saying, "I like that law."  That last quote bubble got cut off from when I took the picture.

I know this is one tiny corner example and it doesn't in any way represent the entire school system, but then again it does.  I didn't really assess the whole display, but it looked like everything was centered around the Red Ribbon Week indoctrination program.  Torrance, the city I live in and the city this school is located, is aligned with the federal drug laws.  In 2006, Torrance City Council passed a resolution to ban the sale of medical marijuana.  I think this photo is a perfect window into the priorities and views the Torrance Unified School District favors.  The State of California does not believe the president has the power to control these substances, but Torrance Unified believes and teaches a different role of government to our young children.

Drugs are bad, umkay?  But teaching children that the president has the power to override state's rights with an executive order is bad too, umkay?

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

B.Y.O.K. - and the K is on us! Ha, just kidding!

Let's just say I'm not impressed.  I got this offer after filling out a customer satisfaction survey for Red Robin.  I know this offer was directly tied to the survey because I gave them a specific e-mail address for the survey and that's the address the offer came to.

We go to Red Robin all the time.  Tonight, we went because we wanted to get the kids out of the house.  We narrowed the choices down to two places, so we really did pick Red Robin because we had a coupon.  That's how this works.

Well, the manager's assistant came by and let us know they didn't recognize the offer so they weren't going to honor it.  I don't blame them for being cautious and I don't like making a big stink over a matter of $5.  If anything, the survey company (Empathica?) messed up for not informing the store of the offer, but it makes the whole outfit look silly.

It appears they didn't charge us for the kids' drinks.  Anyway, just be aware if you get an e-mail offer like this.  Maybe just call ahead or better yet, forward it to the restaurant's manager, if you know his or her e-mail address.

Hi Anthony Martin, Kids and adults always have a great time at Red Robin. Yummy kids' menu that kids love? Check. Crayons and activities? Check. Fun things to look at? Check. Delicious food for everyone? Check. Balloons to go? Check. Great deal with this offer? Check. See you soon, Robin Macdonnell Restaurant Manager

You are receiving this message because you indicated you would like to receive promotional material from Red Robin. If you recieved this message in error, we apologize.You can unsubscribe from receiving any further correspondence by clicking here. Red Robin welcomes your comments and concerns.Please use the following address when contacting us via standard postal service:Red Robin Gourmet Burgers 6312 S. Fiddlers Green Cir., #200NGreenwood Village, CO 80111.You can also email or call Guest Relations for dining experience specific feedback:Phone: 303-846-5440Fax: 866-445-1419Email: relations@redrobin.com Please do not reply directly to this email. © 2008 Red Robin International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Explaining stuff to my wife.

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Ant Senses Tingling (Election)

Just so you know, my ant-senses are tingling.  From the various sources I'm reading, it appears to me we'll have the worse election in terms of malfunction and accusations of disenfranchisement EVAR.  I don't remember the 2004 election being so bad because, frankly, neither candidate were as worshiped as Obama.

I would just like to recommend watching this video for some additional perspective.  If there's one piece of advise to take away from this video, it's this.  If you are presented with a choice between a voting machine and casting a paper ballot, take the paper ballot.

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

I think Hannah is starting to realize "Someday" is not a day of the week.

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Evidence of Rights

All rights derive from property.  In other words, I receive my rightsthrough the ownership of property.  One must own property in order tohave rights.  This is true with life, liberty, and private property.

Now understand, as a believer in God, I believe God is the originatorof all rights.  But I just said property is how rights are made manifest. Is that a contradiction?  We'll get into that.

The Father does not manifest as a physical entity, meaning God the Father isnot a man with a body and physical form.  God is spirit and as such,cannot interact with sinful man.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

See: John 4:24

Also understand, I believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.  Unlike the Father, the Son does have physical attributes.  That mayseem like a contradiction if you don't understand the Trinity.  Buteven the most well studied Christians have trouble understanding theTrinity.  I'll get into that in another article.

I believe God transmits our individual rights through ownership of individual property.  God originates rights and makes them physically manifest through property.

That means we have a right to life because we own our own life.  Thephysical evidence of our right to life is that our heart is beating. That's pretty much all it takes to make this claim.

Here's the shocking part.  One need not believe in God to believe all rights derive from property.  I believe Christians, Atheists, New Age Believers, etc. can stipulate that all rights derive from property without having to stipulate to the nature of God.

There are those who regard God as an analogy like "Mother Nature."   If someone believes God is an analogy, does that mean they believe their rights are also an analogy?  If rights derive from property and property is real, rights are real.  Someone who believes God is an analogy may have trouble convincing themselves that there is an originator of rights, but we can at least all agree the rights exist because we can all see the property.

So there's no excuse to deprive someone of their life, liberty, and private property if we all stipulate that rights derive from property.  Christians have no right to treat an Atheist poorly just because the Atheist lacks certain beliefs.  The Atheist has a right to life regardless of their belief in God because they have a beating heart.

It just so happens that the Christian belief can explain the origination of rights from God through property.  I believe the Atheist has a philosophical liability to account for.  But I don't think laws need to account for this philosophical liability.  And the New Age Believer thinks he/she is God and his/her property is God, but it doesn't impact the actual existence of rights.

So if believers and non-believers can agree to stipulate to property rights, both should be satisfied with the laws and governance upon them.  If we agree that it's against the law to beat people up and steal their stuff because it violates property rights, we are able to agree to a civil society.

Atheists don't forfeit their rights just because they can't explain the ontological origin of their rights.  There are many things that people take as given that they can't readily explain.

On the other hand, one might say that Christians forfeit their own right to life by becoming a follower of Jesus.

What?know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is inyou, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?  For ye are boughtwith a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit,which are God's.

See: I Corinthians 6:19-20

The arrangement defined in I Corinthians 6:19-20 does not extend toanyone else.  It is only between the believer and God.  It is true that many believers hold to this, but it does not mean the believers are owned in joint with one another.  I reflects therealization that the individual believer comes from God and belongs to God.  Onecannot aggress against person merely because either or both partiesvoluntarily submit to God.

In that regard, it is a personal journey.  Personal journeys appeal toindividualism.  But individualism can lead to the "Lone Ranger"effect which is a common result of Christianity in America.  Real spiritual growth happens in the called out assembly, where believersinteract with other believers.

Believers can impress their understanding of scripture on one another.  But one believer cannot forcefully impress aparticular view on another believer's heart.  And since believers cannot, they have no standingwith non-believers either.

It doesn't mean that the understanding of scripture is subjective.  It just means one person's belief cannot be inferred upon others by force.  It is this use of force that contributes to the totalitarian society, even when they're based on Christian values.

There is an excellent video about this subject.  But it tends to offend Christians.  It does this because it doesn't start with God.  We should approach this video knowing that all truth is God's truth.  This video happens to start with "property rights" even though the Christian philosophy starts at an earlier point.  Don't let that distract you from the truth.

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Bear market takes a breather, ministry responds

It's interesting how much of an impact the economic crisis is having. Every sermon by the pastors at my church mention it. It's such a widespread problem, it's adversely impacting ministries quite heavily.

Many people look from their own context and see little or no direct impact from the crisis. They see the stores are full of food and the department stores stocked. But where the margins are razor thin, like in the case of ministry, the impact is quite profound.

 

 

Bear market takes a breather as ministry responds

via Mission Network News on 10/14/08

International (MNN) -- Next, the global bear market appears to be taking a breather after a week of savagery. Attempts to bolster banking systems led some of the recovery, but the damage will continue to be felt in developing nations. Jonathan Shibley with Global Advance says their job just got a little more challenging. "Statistics say when there's a market crash and a severe recession in the Western world, that translates into less money, less giving into the developing world; a lot of missions organizations are going to have to deal with this. All the more reason to go in and to really raise up godly entrepreneurs." Marketplace Missions Seminars help business leaders understand their role in the marketplace: to share the Gospel and make disciples. "I think we just need to pray for God's men and women around the worl--including, obviously, our own country--who are called into the marketplac. [Pray] for courage, for strength, and that God will just give us all the grace to walk through these days knowing that He is ultimately in control."

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Calvin and Jobs

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Taxing Our Way To Prosperity

Winston Churchill said:

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

That's all any stimulus package or bailout program really is.  They are all funded by taxpayers and they are all futile.  So you extract the money from the future generation and you benefit the current generation.  How is that moral?  Is it because they are people who do not exist yet?  Where is the outrage, you thieves?!

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Tom McClintock for Congress

I just got this e-mail today. I am thrilled that Ron Paul is backing Tom McClintock for Congress. Karen and I voted for McClintock when he ran for governor here in California. He is currently a State Senator in the 19th district. I think loaning him to the House of Representatives would be a wise decision.

The current incumbent, John Doolittle announced his retirement in early 2008, so in the congressional election, Brown again won the Democratic nomination while State Senator Tom McClintock won the Republican primary, defeating former Congressman Doug Ose (who represented the nearby 3rd District from 1999 to 2005), Suzanne Jones, and Theodore Terbolizard. Former state senator Rico Oller was initially making plans to run, but pulled out after McClintock announced in order to prevent splitting the conservative vote in the primary.

Here's what Ron Paul had to say:

Dear Friend:

You know that I don't mince words and I don't back down in fighting a federal government that has far exceeded the confines of our Constitution. I could use some help in the House, and that¹s why I'm asking you to support my friend Tom McClintock.

You may remember when he stood up to the liberal Republican establishment in California and took on Arnold Schwarzenegger during the recall election in 2003. This guy will stand and fight, and we need him in the Congress. Tom has said that he expects our federal government to protect our borders and to preserve our individual freedoms as Americans. And beyond that, he wants it out of our pockets, away from our families and out of our faces. That¹s my kind of candidate.

He's facing the Daily Kos and DCCC fundraising machine, and he'll need our financial help on his side.

Will you help Tom with your generous online contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even the legal maximum of $2,300? You can also send your donation directly to Tom at: McClintock for Congress, 1029 K Street Ste 44, Sacramento CA 95814.

You have stood with me as I campaigned for the Presidency to return our federal government to its proper role. Will you help me bring a reliable ally to Congress?

Many thanks for all you have done.

In Liberty,



Ron Paul

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

If you are tired / of countless bits / log right off / and call it quits / Burma-Shave

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Lightening In 2006

This is a movie made of 7 separate stills shot on July 22nd, 2006 during a lightening storm.  The view is out our apartment window looking in a south-western direction.  The camera had a little trouble figuring out what to focus on (it's just a point-and-shoot).  I had it set to long exposure so that's why the street lights are flaring out.

Click here to download:

2006-07-22 Lightning.m4v (147 KB)

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Hannah's After Action Report (Pumpkin Patch)

Here is Hannah's after action report about her trip to the pumpkin patch.

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

Hannah and Meredeen at the Pumpkin Patch

It's the last year this pumpkin patch will set up shop at this spot, so hopefully they'll fine another good spot.  They were very crowded today.  Hannah and her friend Meredeen got to ride the horseies:



The last picture is Hannah picking out daddy's pumpkin.  Benjamin was at school this time, he'll get to go next time.  He loves animals.  And he seemed pretty interested in the pumpkins Hannah picked out.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)

The Fraud of Global Warming

This is an excellent presentation by Dr. Floy Lilley to homeschool parents and students, on September 23rd 2008, at the Mises Institute (audio embedded below).  Lew Rockwell also hosted an article by Lilley called "Fraud of Global Warming."  I couldn't find the audio between the Dee Norris and the young student Lilley refers to, but the transcript can be found on the What's Up With That web site.

If you pace yourself, you can go through the images below while listening to the 17 minute presentation.  They are in order, somewhat.  Some of the images show the opposite position to give perspective to the argument.  It's amazing to see how much propaganda there is.  I think the science is in.  Human caused global warming is a myth.

The Fraud Of Global Warming by Floy Lilley  
Download now or listen on posterous

3_HS08_Lilley.mp3 (3998 KB)

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Personally, I believe government should drop the pretext.  They want to tax life processes, so they came up with a plausible theory to back up their idea.  Well, somewhat plausible.  Plausible to the layman, anyway.  Does that mean industry is off the hook?  No, but it the answer to pollution is not to use hysteria, lies, and deception.

Instead, the answer to pollution is to enforce private property rights.  If my neighbor is polluting my air and/or water, they should answer for it.  The government's role is to offer to protect property rights and offer arbitration services.  If I don't like how the government is fulfilling its role in this regard, I should be able to fire them and hire someone else.

I should not expect my unaffected neighbors to pay for protection and arbitration between me and my polluting neighbor.

Here are various videos on the subject of global warming:

 

Posted by email from Anthony Martin's Weblog (posterous)