esantoro

What size needle are you using?. Sounds like a 26 This should be normal. You have a little bit of contact between the needle and hook in the downward path. Without this bit of contact, you'd risk missing stitches due to a loop not being properly formed. If you bit in a smaller needle, you'll see less contact. There is a spacing ring that forms part of thickness with calipers. I've seen the race. This spacing ring dictates how close the needle will be to the hook. If you ever have that spacing ring out, measure its thickness. I've seen rings from different distributors to be 3.48mm, 3.51mm, and 3.65mm. Everything should be normal, even ideal, but call Steve to double check and tell us what you find out. ed

I believe that machine is the same as my Yamata, which I found next to useless without the monster wheel. For belts and chaps you will need the MW. I doubt the needle will penetrate 6 oz of leather without the MW. Other than that it's a nice little machine. I don't think you made a bad decision. i just wanted to stress the need for the MW. My yamata was $300. The wonderful case and MW from sailrite were an additional $230. At $530 you're getting close to a Neel's Model 5 (maybe $600 used), which is a nice machine, though it has lower feed only. With the MW, however, you'll be able to do belts and chaps very nicely. Without the MW, wallets should be doable. How much was a Rex. First time I had heard of this company. Eventually, you will need two or three machines anyway, so it's good you have this little portable, as it can be quite handy. ed

I don't think you will like that machine without the monster wheel from sailrite. ed

I'm also enjoying the conversation and the opportunity to go looking for research and perspective. All this in between, serial reinstalls of xp. ed

I know I'm going to catch flak for this, and, no, I probably don't actually believe it, but I like the way it sounds, and the way it proffers a certain truth: America is neither a democracy nor a representative republic. It is a representative oligarchy.

We need some voting on this one. HAve the last thirty years been conservative or liberal rule. Numbers of dems and reps in congress doesn't have anything to do with this. The actual policies that got passed is what matters. Reagan cried for smaller government but that is not necessarily what he wanted. He cried for it because he knew many Americans would go for it. They would fall for the rhetoric. What he wanted was big government for the benefit of big business, with the reasoning that big business will create jobs and prosperity, and the government would not have to spend money for social programs. There's no proof that this has worked. Germany seems to have a better model of some kind of cooperation between private business and government. ed

That keychain was just for fun. I liked the shape of the dog key chain you put up and I'm always looking for things to do with scrap leather. Now, I'm interested in looking for other silhouettes: cat, elephant, etc. ed

The new administration, which is decidedly the most liberal we've seen since FDR, has been in office for four months. Conservative rule, including Clinton democrats (more centrist than left), had been in office for the nearly 30 previous years. Too soon to call. To soon to call. But I am loving my flex shaft rotary tool. Thank you for the suggestion. ed

Here's some interesting research that argues persuasively against what I've been arguing: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-...ow-are-we-doing It should be noted that the above article is from a journal of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank started in 1943. So in the blue trunks standing 5'10" and weighing 182 lbs we have the liberal agenda. In the opposing corner, wearing red trunks standing 5'8" and weighing 275 lbs we have the conservative agenda. Gentlemen, let's have a fair fight. No hitting below the belt, and no calling each other's mothers any pejorative names. Ding. Ding. ed

I liked that Model 5 a lot, as it really did stitch 69 to 415 without a second thought, but it also wasn't getting much use next to my Model 6 (441), and what I was using the Model 5 for could easily be down with a portable machine that is easily stored away when not in use. ed

I'm not crazy about the students at Harvard, but the university does have some good minds. Elizabeth Warren comes to mind. The research by Warren and the two academics in this article can be supported by other academics. I found another source that states that for the minimum wage to be at a level similar to what it was in 1960, it would have to be around $8.25 today in 2009. Question: If the minimum wage was pegged to a certain level in 1960, should it have maintained that level till today or even improved? We know that corporations have made enormous increases in profits -- something in the range of 250 percent -- but 80 percent of Americans are making maybe $300 to $600 more in INFLATION ADJUSTED dollars annually than they were in 1970. Corporations depend on workers to do the work, shouldn't those workers at all levels have improved their financial situation, if the corporation has been increasing profits? My main concern is not that people who are not making much money should be given a hand out. My main concern is that the economic game of the last thirty years has been skewered and that 80 percent of Americans are being taken for a ride. If home prices have been artificially boosted 300 percent (see the you tube lecture with Elizabeth Warren), nearly anyone who bought a home in the last 10 years has been taken to some extent, especially if the housing market for the next 20 years ends up being more realistically valued. Furthermore, I see that one of the economic strategies of the financial ruling class is to make middle class Americans feel that they have nothing in common with those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder -- divide and conquer. I certainly could be wrong, but please show me another breakdown of reality that explains what has been going on in America for the past 30 years. If you argue that the government has been redistributing wealth for the past thirty years and not encouraging innovation, I don't think you can point to any credible research that supports this. We have to move beyond opinions and point to the research. My claim about the straight dollar amount of the minimum wage not increasing was motivated by opinion, but, semantics aside, the research does bear out that the actual value of that minimum wage in inflation-adjusted dollars has declined. It seems that the consensus is in disagreement with my earlier claim that 80 percent of Americans are less well off than they were in 1970. Question: If Americans today are paying 50 percent more of their income for housing alone, would you agree that this alone accounts for a declining standard of living, as it translates into less financial security? I believe that Elizabeth Warren's lecture contains very sound research (linked to in a previous post). Usually people point to multiple computers, televisions, big screen televisions, ipods, etc., in the home as evidence of increased standard of living. Prices for these and similar consumer electronics have dropped drastically in comparison to their 1970 counterparts, but the flip side is that housing costs have jumped enormously in comparison. I'm leaning toward the perspective that there has been a bit of "bait-and-switch" going on in the American economy since 1970. ed

I was wrong about the straight dollar amount, but not the amount adjusted for inflation. One dollar in 1960 does not mean the same thing as a dollar today. One was able to buy a house in 1960 for less than $25,000. Humble apologies for my oversight, but I was more right than wrong. Between 1960 and 2001, the minimum wage value, adjusted for inflation, declined. "For Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist, and William Julius Wilson, a sociologist at Harvard, ghetto neighborhoods reinforce poverty and contribute to it. But dismantling ghettos and integrating neighborhoods, a hugely complicated endeavor, has not been high on the agenda of any administration in 20 years. Nor has the minimum wage. Adjusted for inflation, it has declined from more than $6 an hour in the 1960's to $5.25 today [2001]." Next month, the adjusted minimum wage will be on par with the economy in 1997. ed

Call up Campbell Bosworth and ask. I believe the have the dark brown matte plus in stock. I'm not sure if they have black in stock. ed

Thanks for all the help. I had to do a fresh install of XP. Am currently running unprotected. Avast is installed but seems to be freezing my comp. I believe I need to upgrade to SP2. I also like fresh installs of XP, but is there a way to do it without having to reinstall all your other programs, which is my current state? Thanks again for the help. ed

i have antimalware software installed but it is not enough. i need antivirus software. any recommendations? Kaspersky is a no go. killed comp two times in a row. Computer is barely working as.....i.....t..y..p..e.... thanks for the help ed

Nice looking machine. It's similar to the toro 400p. Anyone know how much heavier the 4000p is than the 4000R? I have a very similar stand with my Model 6, which is similar to the toro 4000R, and all is fine with the stand. I have my drill press where you have your rotary punch, but I have it there just because the space was appropriate. ed

The wonderful folks at Fiebing send me some samples of finishes I had never tried. Harness dressing was my main interest. They sent me one small bottle of dressing with a black tint and one that goes on colorless but is an opaque dark brown. I thought the colorless Fiebing harness dressijng was a milky white, which is the way it looks in Weaver's catalog. I have wondered for a long time the purpose of harness dressing. It appears to be perhaps a sturdier bag kote, but that is my initial impression with the sample I just received. Any thoughts on this? Ed

Thanks for the picture. LCI does not do retail. Here's my dog key chain, with Campbell Bosworth's MAtte plusin dark brown. The plus line from CB is a good product to have in your lineup. I would say that it is the most rubberized of all the edge finishes I've come across. I did three coats on the dog. I had to cut out the dog with an exacto knife, and I didn't do a great job on sanding and burnishing the edges. Anyone know if Weaver or anyone else can do a mallet cutting die of such an outline? I know they can do various shapes. I've also included other photos with the matte plus, photos which show a better job of burnishing prior to the application of the matte plus. I'm always looking for small projects to use up scraps. Certain animal silhouettes that have a bold sturdiness to them are a great idea: certain breeds of dogs and cats, maybe just the head, horses, elephants. By the way, the plus version of this edge finish should be your only consideration. ed

The surveys are international surveys. I'm sure whatever office they came out of was not in the U.S. But by that criterion we also can't accept any survey coming out of the U.S. either. For the record, I would argue that many of the international surveys take a more holistic view of a country's pros and cons. The happiest country, supposedly, is Denmark, but then one Danish journalist challenged that with the statistic that Denmark has the second highest suicide rate in Europe. The U.S.'s reputation has been in decline around the world, but these countries are also seeing greater employment opportunity at home, or at least were a year or so ago. Even Eastern Europeans who went to England for work are returning home for better employment opportunities. I guess that's the same with Chinese expatriates as well. My own little theory is that economic prosperity of the last 20 or so years was built on a house of cards. But as long as everyone was deluded they rode the artificial tide and felt financial growth. For the next 20 or so years we are forced to deal with real economics and values, which is good. But I wonder how well other countries will turn out having to deal with an America that has to play by authentic numbers. Let's say The U.S. hits full economic recovery by the end of 2010, Europe could take an additional five, as its infrastructure isn't as flexible as the U.S.'s I was going to post some info about national debt, but was surprised to find out that compared to a handful of other countries, the U.S. has a credit tab of 60% of its GNP. Italy and some African countries have debt over 100 percent of GNP. These were 2007 figures. At one time, Americans were encouraged to learn Russian because it was thought that that's where the growth was going to be. Didn't happen. Then they said Japanese. Didn't happen. Now they say Chinese. Maybe this also won't happen. Yes, it is a representative republic, but "democracy" has become shorthand for that. The U.S. is a military powerhouse hands down. A commercial/consuming powerhouse, too. The highest standard of living? No. The healthiest? No. The happiest? No. The most unwittingly propagandized? Yes. If military power is the only criterion to be a powerhouse, then you are correct. But Americans pay for that military power with very little in return. And that military power for the past eight years has been more of a burden than a benefit. http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/global-t...stein-eagle.htm When you add in factors other than military power, the U.S. rarely if ever ranks in the top 7 countries. http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html For six years I lived in and traveled around Eastern Europe, that place that was once behind the iron curtain, and met many people who love their home country and would never think of immigrating to America. If America comes up, it is as a place to make money and then return home. America is seen as a financial clearing house, which is not very flattering. None of this is to say I don't appreciate my country. But America and Americans need a serious reality check. The last thirty years have been a delusional ride that was charged to credit. The one nice thing about America is that it used to be open to honest self-examination. The U.S. has less social mobility than most other developed countries. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0428-01.htm These things should be part of the national discussion, not ignored as if they do not exist. Britain did the same thing, ignore its shortcomings as it was losing its position as the world's most powerful country throughout the first half of the twentieth century. The U.S. by default and two World Wars became the dominant country after World War II but was already beginning to lose that position in the 1970s. Now there is talk of China being the most powerful. Holding on to the mantle of the most powerful nation for 25 years after it had landed in your lap is no great feat. You'd think the U.S. would have been able to hold that position for at least a century.

Yes, it is a representative republic, but "democracy" has become shorthand for that. The U.S. is a military powerhouse hands down. A commercial/consuming powerhouse, too. The highest standard of living? No. The healthiest? No. The happiest? No. The most unwittingly propagandized? Yes. If military power is the only criterion to be a powerhouse, then you are correct. But Americans pay for that military power with very little in return. And that military power for the past eight years has been more of a burden than a benefit. http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/global-t...stein-eagle.htm When you add in factors other than military power, the U.S. rarely if ever ranks in the top 7 countries. http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html For six years I lived in and traveled around Eastern Europe, that place that was once behind the iron curtain, and met many people who love their home country and would never think of immigrating to America. If America comes up, it is as a place to make money and then return home. America is seen as a financial clearing house, which is not very flattering. None of this is to say I don't appreciate my country. But America and Americans need a serious reality check. The last thirty years have been a delusional ride that was charged to credit. The one nice thing about America is that it used to be open to honest self-examination. The U.S. has less social mobility than most other developed countries. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0428-01.htm These things should be part of the national discussion, not ignored as if they do not exist. Britain did the same thing, ignore its shortcomings as it was losing its position as the world's most powerful country throughout the first half of the twentieth century. The U.S. by default and two World Wars became the dominant country after World War II but was already beginning to lose that position in the 1970s. Now there is talk of China being the most powerful. Holding on to the mantle of the most powerful nation for 25 years after it had landed in your lap is no great feat. You'd think the U.S. would have been able to hold that position for at least a century.

I certainly think there is a place for social democracy and believe that many other countries do a fairly good job with this. I do think that conservative and liberal arguments go too far in their own ideologies. Here's an article that seems to bridge some middle ground, though perhaps I like it because it blames unchecked conservative free-market ideology of the past thirty years for the necessary corrections that appear to be underway, necessary corrections that are being pejoratively labeled as "socialist." And it's free market ideology that has brought us to this point, not government. If the government has been involved, it has been to the extent that it has been taken over by free market ideology, an ideology that is anything but for the free market but rather for corporate markets. Where would we be in 20 years if such policies were allowed to continue growing more influential? Free marketers should know that Adam Smith greatly disagreed with the pseudo free market thinking of the past 30 or 40 years. Our founding fathers and Lincoln would also be appalled, as corporatocracy is another name for aristocratic control. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/eleven-re...my?pagenumber=2 Now I need you to defend this statement. How did America begin with socialism? It was private trading businesses from day one. In fact, it first tried to enslave Native-Americans to do the work, and by 1619 started using the transatlantic slave trade. This was coupled with indentured servitude, which is still with us today in curious ways. If you intend to go only as far back as 1776, where's the socialism. America embraced some socialist policies from 1933 to 1965, but it is not today a socialist country. For those who are calling America a socialist country, it is not, not by a long shot. Just ask anyone from a country that truly does merge socialism with democracy. But what I really want to know is how America started with socialism?

Now I need you to defend this statement. How did America begin with socialism? It was private trading businesses from day one. In fact, it first tried to enslave Native-Americans to do the work, and by 1619 started using the transatlantic slave trade. This was coupled with indentured servitude, which is still with us today in curious ways. If you intend to go only as far back as 1776, where's the socialism. America embraced some socialist policies from 1933 to 1965, but it is not today a socialist country. For those who are calling America a socialist country, it is not, not by a long shot. Just ask anyone from a country that truly does merge socialism with democracy. But what I really want to know is how America started with socialism?

The racism I'm speaking of is much subtler. Affirmative Action was a smoke screen that was used to divert attention from changing economic factors, or it forced the hand to shift economic factors. I'm arguing that these economic shifts were largely influenced by big business manipulating government the last 40 years. Big business has more to do with allowing illegal immigration than the government has. They need the cheap labor. They play both sides of the coin on this to great dramatic affect. Question: Would this country run better with less government control and free reign of business? Where is the proof? Exxon? Enron? WorldCom? Adelphia? Arthur Andersen? Global Crossing? IMClone? TYCO? Are Americans better off today than 30 or forty years ago? Here's just for the past 8 years: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications...you-better-off/ Here's looking farther back:

Yes, you do deserve those profits. And you also deserve to deduct your expenses from your taxable income. Do you also deserve a 9% reduction in taxes for being a manufacturer, if the government is offering such a reduction? (note: I know there is this 9% reduction out there and I know you need to have at least one employee. I'm not sure on any of the other particulars, just read about this while doing my taxes back in April.) This doesn't really apply to small businesses, but how many large corporations do it all on their own without any government assistance. Why else do they contribute to politicians' campaign funds. They are getting a 5 percent return or better, much better, on those contributions. They are not doing business on their own, as most small businesses are. Just for the record, I think you do deserve the 9% reduction if the government is offering. My only point is that many people talk about individual responsibility and individual profits, yet it seems that many of the corporations and wealthy entrepreneurs who hold this same line are sucking at the tit of corporate welfare.