Legendary Biker Pies tougher than a Twinkie!

Whilst on the road one must always be prepared for any eventuality such as a break down stranding you in the middle of the desert with no pie!  Why what would you eat then?  What if you met another stranded biker and you had no pie to offer them?

Well we discovered Hardee's fried apple pies in Cross City, Fl. and became convinced that they are the ultimate biker food. Heat, cold, living inside a leather vest, nothing could destroy them as they made their way cross country and back home to Florida. Yes mi amigos, they put Twinkies to shame.

We missed taking pics of them in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas for two reasons,

1. We forgot they were in our vest, and

2. Why would we?



They wanted to go for a ride on Pikes Peak so we said well lets ride.

Alas, the guy and the booth said, we are closing the road due to winds.
Which we understood, because the 50mph winds with 70mph gusts
blew us off the cycle.  The Pies survived.

Here the pies and Biker Chihuahuas visit Garden of the Gods. Note the dog leash sticking straight out. That is from wind.
We would have took another pic, But we dropped a dog.






Here we are at four corners. It too is closed. Is there a  message here.

Could it be biker pie discrimination? I didn't see any construction.
Unfortunately neither did the pies. But they were there!








We took the pies to the grand Canyon too.  No we are not dumping in the canyon.  We dropped our pies.








Wonder where them pies went. Oh look, pretty rocks








Oh there they are. Hmmmm however will we get them. That's a big hole.  







Well as you can see, they survived the canyon.  Hmmmm, did we find the dog? Oh, apparently so.

Because here we all are at  San Diego Bay






Where a wedding was taking place and the pies wanted to give their blessing









Note, nobody from the wedding is giving the pies blessing. In fact this was the last wedding pic we were able to take.  This because we became involved in a long discussion with the wedding people about pies.

They did not seem to appreciate the miraculous nature of pies able to withstand a cross country trip. Nope, not at all






So the pies went to Coronado beach










Which has all kinds of rules about what you can and can not do at a California Beach. The life guard did not understand that the pies were not in need of saving.  Silly lifeguard.








So the pies went to a party where they discovered this toilet.
 Well oh my gracious they had never seen such a toilet.  It was remote controlled with automatic seat lifter and warmer and two squirty thingys that hits two specific areas at speeds of mist to hold on, damn it's freaking fire hose.  hmmmm, wonder what those specific areas might be?

I highly recommend the fire hose option.



Oh No.... Don't flush MR. Biker Pie!







And so off to Mexico the pies went. But the pies did not cross the border.  Oh no, too many people advised against it.

Beside we have crossed here before. It wasn't a good place to cross then
either.







Especially when you read that little part about no ammo.  See my lady once accidentally did that.  Not a good thing.  Ever fill up a Mexican toilet with ammo and try and flush?

So we really didn't want to chance it with pies.







See this picture. Taking this picture for some reason really offended the border agents.  The American ones? The Mexican ones could care less.

The American ones wanted to see our passports?  Passports? For what? We never crossed the border.  But ah they said, we couldn't see you, so we don't know if you crossed our not.  Besides, we want to know why you were taking pictures of the "port".  Wait a second, didn't you say you couldn't see us??????????



Which of course we understood as you can see how crowded it is.

But rather than further upsetting Mr. Border man and risk having the Biker Pies thrown in an "American Prison" for being mistaken as some sort of ammunition we decided it would be best to head north!

5000+ miles later the Biker Pies returned to their native Florida.  It is our considered opinion that these pies can whip any Twinkies ass any time.  In fact we eat them today were it not for the bond we established on the ride.  Nope instead a box is, as we type, being crafted as a resting place for them in our little shop/dungeon/tatt place/sanctuary where they will reside forever giving testimony to the genius of American gastronomical innovation.Add to Technorati Favorites

"Born To RIde Magazine" falling prey to the bullying tactics of ABATE of FLorida

On 6-2-10 we published the following

Biker mag Born to Ride Threatened by ABATE of Florida President/lobbyist

Where Born to Ride Magazine (a self described Biker Magazine) was being threatened by ABATE of Florida's president, James D. Reichenbach with a lawsuit, boycott and harassment of the magazines advertisers.

This in response to Born To Rides regular contributor, Biker Rogues questions in print regarding certain irregularities that have been posted on this site as well as others.

Now being a Biker Magazine one would think that,

A. They would stand by their writer as long as he was telling the truth.

B. That in good biker tradition they would not allow themselves to be bullied and/or intimidated by an organization that makes up less than one percent of Florida motorcyclist and has a history of elaborating on the truth to put it mildly.

One might even hope that in the interest of  looking out for the welfare of their readers who are affected by the actions of an organization that pays a lobbyist, tries to make law affecting Florida motorcyclists, seeks out state money and then runs around the state attempting to bully, threaten and silence any who disagree with them, that the magazine might come off some dollars to help provide a full scale journalistic investigation into this organization that claims the state of Florida as their "territory".

Thats what one would hope anyway. That is not what one would get though. This is how Born to Ride magazine responds to intimidation.

From: Ron Galletti [mailto:RGalletti@borntoride.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 12:20 AM

I’d like to get back on track with you in the mag and on our site,,,,ABATE came down hard on me and was going to sue us/ or Doc was we can talk about it, but I don’t want to bash him in press. Doc held them off from doing it and I did talk to him,,,,,,,,They were going to boycott BTR and call all of our advertisers and things are tough these days,I didn’t need that stress at the time

RG BTR

So what we have is an organization that presents itself as a MRO, Motorcycle Rights Organization, that would use any means available to it to stifle the free speech of any who would speak against it. And a "Biker" magazine that knuckles under!

We have had our own run ins with Mr. Reichenbach who has threatened us also, with  more than a lawsuit.  In response we have not backed down but instead invited them to point out where we have been in error and we would print it.

Could not "Born To Ride" offer ABATE of Florida a forum by which they could tell their story and then let the truth win out?

Apparently not.  They may be more concerned with advertising revenue than that what really goes on in the "Biker world."

To suppress the truth or to ask one of their writers to cease printing it jeopardizes the integrity of the magazine as a whole.  

Are we know to thumb through the pages of "Born to Ride" wondering what is real and what isn't.  Wondering how much of what is in the magazine has been paid for by "special interest."

It is bad enough that we can no longer trust the mainstream media. Now we can no longer trust those who "claim" to represent us.  Which puts them in the same class as the mainstream media, our elected representatives and even lower than the "fluff rags" that make no pretense at having any value other than being picture books of pretty motorcycles, pretty ladies and pretty tattoo's. 

After all, feed the "bikers" the same old pablum and they will be happy!  Never mind distinguishing yourself as a real "VOICE".  No, instead play it safe. Do not upset the advertisers, or subscribers, or any who might complain even if it means suppression of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression and most of all the "Independence" all Bikers claim to treasure!

After all we would not want any Biker voice to sacrifice profit for principle would we?

What do have here "Born to Ride", just another in a long line of opportunist trying to make a buck of the "Biker Culture."

Maybe "Born to Ride" might wish to consider changing the name of their rag. You know, to something like, "Born to Run" or maybe, "Born to Profit".

How many times will we, the people these people capitalize of off, allow ourselves to continue being the victims of charlatans and shills who give in to the smurf thugs?

BULLSHIT!!!Add to Technorati Favorites

The Supreme Court will hear Westboro Baptist church wackos vs. the father of a fallen soldier

The first mission I rode on with the Patriot Guard Riders was one in which the Westboro Baptist Church protesters were expected to be present at a funeral.  That was before former Governor Bush issued an order restricting protests at military funerals.

The PGR did not stop riding missions as a result of this order. In fact the missions were expanded from just attending funerals to attending send offs and welcome homes.  Not out of concern that the protester might show, as there activities in Florida have been severely curtailed.  But out of respect and hopefully in response to lessons learned from the Vietnam War whose veterans came home to little, if any, display of respect or gratitude which have since learned only aggravated any feelings of isolation and alienation developed as a result of serving in "the War" that almost tore this country apart.

Since riding with the PGR the any disgust I may feel towards the Westboro Baptist Church protesters is equally shared with that I may have with various citizens, politicians, local bureaucrats and certain police officials who have not yet learned the lessons of Vietnam.  Who do not understand that honoring the soldier who comes home alive is as important as honoring the soldier who was not so fortunate.

The Following was sent by a Vietnam Veteran:

Efforts Grow to Stop GI Funeral Protests

June 02, 2010

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in support of a father who sued anti-gay protesters over their demonstration at the 2006 funeral of his son, a Marine killed in Iraq.

Only Virginia and Maine declined to sign the brief by the Kansas attorney general.

Albert Snyder sued over protests by Rev. Fred W. Phelps and his Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church at his son's funeral in Maryland. The church pickets funerals because they believe war deaths are punishment for U.S. tolerance of homosexuality.

 

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment.

In the brief filed Tuesday, the states argued they have a compelling interest in protecting the sanctity of funerals.  But that is not how Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sees it. According to a report today in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Cuccinelli's office announced it will not join with the other states and the District on behalf of Snyder.

"The attorney general's office deplores the absolutely vile and despicable acts of Fred Phelps and his followers," the paper quoted Cuccinelli's spokesman, Brian Gottstein, as saying in the statement. "We also greatly sympathize with the Snyder family and all families who have experienced the hatefulness of these people."

But Cuccinelli is chose not to join the legal brief "because the case could set a precedent that could severely curtail certain valid exercises of free speech," the statement said.

Military.com contributed to this report
 Also addressed in many articles found here.

However, this case is not as cut and dried as it may appear at first glance. Despite the number of politicians and celebrities who have aligned themselves with Mr. Synder, many we suspect for public relations purposes, many constitutional scholars are of the opinion that the Supreme Court will rule against Mr. Synder.

Initially the case provided the Supreme Court with an opportunity to distinguish between

Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress through precedent applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter

This question would answer questions that went unanswered  in the,

1988 case of Hustler vs. Falwell. The high court ruled the Rev. Jerry Falwell, a televangelist and public figure, could not prevail in an infliction of emotional distress action against Hustler magazine, which parodied Falwell and implied he'd had sex with his mother.

It's possible the high court has taken on Snyder to resolve an issue left open in Hustler: Whether the First Amendment protects at-issue speech in intentional infliction of emotional distress cases where the plaintiff is not a public figure.

and

A private figure much more easily can prove a speech-related injury than can a public figure; Phelps's picketing may be found not to be protected by the First Amendment. 

Developments have arisen however wherein Mr. Snyder himself may have contradicted himself jeopardizing his own case.  Two questions that may be addressed by the court are:

-- Whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly clauses, and

-- Whether an individual attending a family member's funeral constitutes a "captive audience" entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

Mr. Snyder himself stated that:

he didn't know of the Westboro Church members' picketing while he was at his son's funeral. 

This would indicate that he was not a "captive audience" subjected to the protests. Then in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" he stated:

he had known a few days before the funeral of a letter the Phelps's group sent to media and law enforcement outlining its picketing plans.

"We had a SWAT team, a Winnebago set up as a command center, and state, county and sheriff's police" at the ready, Snyder said. He said the picketers were approximately 30 feet from the entrance to the church and the family went through a service entrance to avoid them.

What's the reason for the factual discrepancy?

The Supreme Court articulated its three issues when the facts -- which the appellate court said were undisputed -- provided Snyder knew nothing of the picketing until after the funeral. Snyder's statements Thursday could throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings.
The Supreme Court could remand the case to the trial court in light of the disclosure.

Source:
 

We need to remember that: 

In 1977, the National Socialist Party of America (a Neo-Nazi group) planned a march in Skokie Illinois, the home of many Jewish Holocaust survivors. The Supreme Court upheld this act of speech, as distasteful and ignorant as it was, to be a rightful exercise of free speech and assembly under the First Amendment. Source Find Law

And ask ourselves how will the Supreme Court reconcile this ruling with the case under consideration.

Also:

The AP quotes experts as wondering which way this conservative Court will rule. Jonathan M. Turley, a George Washington University law professor believes the Court will rule in favor of the church. "Once you get down to trying to draw the line between privacy and free speech, it becomes clear that a ruling against Westboro could create the danger of a slippery slope for future courts," he told the AP.
source: Find Law 

So this write anyway, finds  himself in the uncomfortable position of trying to reconcile gut feeling and emotion with objective reasoning. Which for this writer can be, at times difficult. It is these times that send me back in history to consult with men much wiser than I.

Justice Hugo L. Black, quotes about Speech:  

The very reason for the First Amendment is to make the people of this country free to think, speak, write and worship as they wish, not as the Government commands

Justice Hugo L. Black, quotes about Speech:  

Without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts, or whereases, freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they express, or the words they speak or write.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis, quotes about Speech: 

The constitutional right of free speech has been declared to be the same in peace and war. In peace, too, men may differ widely as to what loyalty to our country demands, and an intolerant majority, swayed by passion or by fear, may be prone in the future, as it has been in the past, to stamp as disloyal opinions with which it disagrees.

Justice William J. Brennan, quotes about Speech:

All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance – unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion, have the full protection of the guarantees [of the First Amendment].

Justice William J. Brennan, quotes about Speech: 

If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

Noam Chomsky, quotes about Speech:

If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.

Justice William O. Douglas, quotes about Speech: 

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

Justice William O. Douglas, quotes about Speech:

The framers of the constitution knew human nature as well as we do. They too had lived in dangerous days; they too knew the suffocating influence of orthodoxy and standardized thought. They weighed the compulsions for restrained speech and thought against the abuses of liberty. They chose liberty.

William O. Douglas, quotes about Speech: 

The First and Fourteenth Amendments say that Congress and the States shall make “no law” which abridges freedom of speech or of the press. In order to sanction a system of censorship I would have to say that “no law” does not mean what it says, that “no law” is qualified to mean “some” laws. I cannot take this step.

Benjamin Franklin, quotes about Speech: 

In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.

Let any man speak his piece, for it this I may differentiate between friend and enemy-rc

One problem I do see is that all to often we ask the government to stay out of our lives, while at the same time ask them to validate what we do or do not think and legislate those who may disagree with us.   I personally am more afraid of allowing the government to dictate what may or may not be said than of some wacko's who by there very existence prove they are just that, wackos.

We can take comfort in no matter how this case is settled at the federal level it does not affect the state rulings. But then, the state rulings shall become vulnerable.Add to Technorati Favorites