Local Hero: Iain Harrison (Top Shot again)

Top Shot Winner Iain Harrison Reveals Hollywood Insider Secrets
Daily Bulletin

Once more from accurateshooter.com ...

Iain Harrison (2010 Top Shoot Champion) is quoted in an interview about the competition, and provides an "insider" viewpoint on the making of the Top Shot "survivor" series.

Iain is a Local Shooter, and I've enjoyed squadding with him from time to time ... even if I can't always spell his name correctly.

The man has a slightly manic sense of humor, and I enjoyed his interview. You may enjoy it, also.

See the detailed interview here.

Stumble It!

DOT Plans New Ammo Shipping Regulations � Daily Bulletin

DOT Plans New Ammo Shipping Regulations � Daily Bulletin

Also from Accurateshooter.com ...

Remember shipping your ammunition to the host hotel at a 'far away' match? You always shipped it marked "ORM-D", right? That's how I always shipped it.

Because the U.S. is striving mightily under the Current Administration (aka "Obama-Mania") to synchronize all aspects of American practices to conform to European Practices. That is to say, International Specifications.

But the United Nations doesn't have an "ORM-D" designation for shipping ammunition without the need to add a "Hazardous Materials" (Haz-Mat) fee. So the plan is to assign a new designation -- "LQ" -- the same permissions as as "ORM-D", and begin shipping ammunition under that tag.

It seems simple enough; we just change the labeling on ammunition shipped in the United Sates from ORM-D to LQ, and continue with our lives with no other changes.

The only problem here is that we thus given up our ORM-D designation, and we have little or no control over any arbitrary redefinition of the "LQ" shipping label. If the United Nations decides, even unilaterally, to change the definition of that label, it is entirely possible that we may be obliged, under the terms of a "treaty" (look it up ... it has the power of law and is NOT subject to constitutional obligations under international law) to follow their definition of "LQ" labeling.

That means that American citizens, or citizens of any treaty nation, are legally obliged to follow the UN definition. We have no recourse. Neither the Executive, nor the Legislative, nor the Judicial branch of the American government may change the law to suit our individual national laws. We are obliged to conform to what has become an International Law.

Ship ammunition without paying a Hazardous Material fee? Not our choice, not any more, not ever again.

Do you remember how much the Hazardous Material fee is for, say, shipping Primers? You'll have to pay it. No use writing to your congressman then, because he has absolutely no choice but to comply.

Curiously, in the United States of America, lone primers are subject to the hazmat fee; loaded ammunition is not. Do you want to see that changed?

Neither do I. You might want to talk to your congressman about that today; tomorrow may be too late.

Just saying .....

Stumble It!

Nil Carborundum Illigitimi

Providence program destroys children’s toy guns - The Boston Globe: "’Tis the season for joy, peace, and grinding up plastic, orange-tipped AK-47s.

For seven years, Providence municipal and law enforcement officials have organized the event around Christmastime as a way to raise awareness of the dangers of playing with guns, real or fake. The event is a mix of the macabre and the playful, a children’s version of the gun buyback program in which adults trade firearms for gift certificates.

Yesterday, younger children ran through a rubber obstacle course while officials told the older children the story of a 14-year-old boy who police nearly shot after they confused his air pistol with a real gun.

In exchange for their toy guns, all the children received wrapped presents that were indisputably not violent — dolls, stuffed animals, and board games like checkers."

This entire store is based on a single, if complex, premise: "Guns Are Bad!"

Diane Levin, professor of education at Wheelock College, said police and parents coming together to destroy toy guns sends a powerful message to children.

But adults should follow up with children to explain the complexities of weapons and violence so they can more efficiently counter the seductive image of guns in movies and video games.

“It’s one piece of what needs to happen around this issue,’’ said Levin, coauthor of “The War Play Dilemma.’’ “There is also this side of [children] trying to understand why are there guns there, and why do people use them? When kids are getting all kinds of other messages about guns, it’s a more complicated issue than just having one day about how guns are bad.’’ [emphasis added by editor]

Even though the author (and the interviewed participants) take the long way around the barn to present their thesis, it still ends up with the same unsupported and unsupportable premise: "Guns Are Bad!".

Interestingly, if the article is true to the message and rationale of the 'project', there is no clear explanation of WHY "Guns Are Bad!" In fact, we don't here have even so much as a clue as to HOW "Guns Are Bad!"

It's difficult to determine whether the article was edited for length by a copy-editor who just didn't have the space to include the explanation, or whether the reporter failed to record it, or even if the sponsors of the project failed to explain it. All we know is that "Guns Are Bad!", and apparently we either (a) know intuitively that "Guns Are Bad!", or (b) we are easily swayed by the argument that if these people put so much effort into taking toy guns off the mean streets of Providence, R.I., they must be right if only because they are so darn sincere!

"Gun Buy-Back" schemes are nothing new. For years, these schemes have been the premier way for gang members to dispose of their 9's after using them in a drive-by. They don't even have to file off the serial numbers ... the local police are happy to chop up the guns if only to get them off the streets.

But these are not real guns; they're toys. They are not lethal weapons, they are only icons.

Maybe that's the Liberal Message .. which is to say, the Message is the Massage, a la Marshall Mcluhan. These ... people ... are feeding their children a message which will shape their perceptions for the rest of their young lives.

It's all propaganda, it's a Skinnerism ... behavior modification by learned response to stimulus. When these children achieve adulthood, they will remember only that "Guns Are Bad!"; they won't think about why or how they are bad, only that their mommies told them so, and they won't have to think for themselves.

These nice people who took away their toys are powerful authority figures, and the children, in adulthood, will have been programmed to a very specific thought pattern.

Except, perhaps, for one little boy, named Malik, who had his own ideas:

Some children were not thrilled with the trade.

Malik Hall, a round-eyed second-grader, looked apprehensive as he stood in line with his favorite toy, a thick, blue gun with plastic sword underneath the muzzle. The 8-year-old was furious when his mother, Amanda, told him he would have to give it up. Yesterday morning, he tried to hide it under his pillow, she said.

“I’m worried,’’ she said. “He might cry.’’

But when it was his turn, Malik strode dry-eyed and with quiet dignity to the Bash-O-Matic and fed it the gun. When his mother approached, he said nothing.

“You don’t want to talk to me?’’ Hall asked. He looked at her stonily and left to retrieve his gift.

Way to go, Malik. Nil Carborundum Illigitimi.

PS: oh, by the way. Looking at the photograph which accompanied the article ... a small boy feeding his plastic gun into the "Bash-O-Matic", I wondered how a concerned parent could all their child to push a plastic toy into a mangle. Perhaps they are so concerned about the possible influence of The Evil Gun, they pay no attention to the possiblilty of a child losing a finger ... or a hand ... to the evils of the "Bash-O-Matic".

In the timeless words of Bugs Bunny: "What a bunch of Maroons!"

Stumble It!

Revolver KaBOOM!

How to Shear Your Scandium .44 Mag Revolver in Half � Daily Bulletin

I discovered today (via a link from The Michael Bane Blog) a website named "AccurateShooter.com"

Never mind the direct link, I found on the sidebar some excellent mini-articles submitted by members. One of these discussed the use of ultra-light revolvers, which are created with an alloy of Scandium and Aluminum, and at least in the case of the S&W 329 are chambered in the very powerful .44 Magnum Pistol cartridge.

I've fired a Model 29, which was constructed of all steel. It was very heavy, and the perceived recoil was, too me, excessive. But then, I'm a wuss.

No need for much commentary from me. The result was that the revolver was shredded like yesterday's newspaper on a rainy Pacific North-Wet day, and nobody seems to know exactly why factory ammunition should have caused that KaBOOM! ... which must have been very impressive to the owner (who apparently decided he had no further need for a .44 Magnum Scandium revolver).

There are links in the article which will lead the curious reader to more information.

For years I have maintained that three of the primary uses for a Revolver are:

1. a doorstop
2. a bud vase
3. a paperweight

This particular revolver seems to currently be unusable as a bud vase. Its ability to hold liquids have been ... compromised.

Go, read the whole thing.

Stumble It!

Christmas Eve

It's 11:20pm on Christmas Eve.

You have only 40 shopping minutes until Christmas.

If you haven't started your Christmas shopping yet ... welcome to the Hair-Shirt Club for Men!

Merry Christmas from Geekistan

Stumble It!

The Smallest Minority: Well, We've Flipped James Kelly's Rock Over . . .

The Smallest Minority: Well, We've Flipped James Kelly's Rock Over . . .


Kevin Baker at "The Smallest Minority" has posted (on Monday, December 20, 2010) another brilliant überpost on the Second Amendment.

Posited as a definitive statement of the superiority of "facts" vs "studies", Kevin lends credence to his ongoing battle against those who assume that by citing the opinions of people who agree with them, they can prove the basic fallacy of the Second Amendment.

That fallacy is, of course, "Fewer Guns, Less Crime". Anyone who has ever been mugged recognizes this fallacy intuitively; people who have been arrested, of course, tend to argue vociferously in its favor.

One of the most telling collections of historical fact is found near the end of Kevin's article, where he links in the phrase: "Arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety." This is an article by Stephen Holbrook (Second Amendment & Guns Rights attorney; filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court re: MACDONALD; see here, and here [1999 Emerson case?; name spelled alternately "Halbook"], and here, et al) . It's worth reading that singular document, of course, but I encourage you to read the entire original blog article (see the link at the top of the page).

It is because of the determined research behind EVERY article Kevin writes that I encourage you to "read the whole thing", of course.

And this is also the reason why nearly every time I link to Kevin's writing (even though I too-often refer to him as "Kevin Bacon" ... not true!) I usually include the admonishment:

"Kevin is a much better writer than, I am; if you must choose between reading "The Smallest Minority" or "Cogito Ergo Geek", I strongly encourage you to read Kevin's offerings."

My work is infrequently offered, minor key, and desultory. Kevin is consistent, better researched, and much more readable ... although we both tend to over-write.

On the other hand, I'm grateful to Kevin because he not only writes articles which I delight in reading, but he makes important points in a much more convincing manner.

Besides that, he says the things I wish I had said, in a style which I wish I could at least emulate; and he saves me a lot of time, because I don't have to invest as much effort and research to present it.

Thanks again, Kevin.


---

INCIDENTALLY ...
.. if you liked the above, but wonder about the philosophical basis for Kevin's position statement, then I draw your attention to his (Saturday, December 18, 2010) überpost "This I Believe". As usual, I stand in awe in joining you by wishing I had said that.

There may be minor doctrinal issues with which you may take exception. If so, I wish you would say so in the COMMENTS section (or better, in Kevin's COMMENTS section ... although he, like me, suffers from the slings and arrows of outrageous ECHO commenting software so it may be lost forever). However, in my first reading I find little or nothing to contest.

Although, of course, I would probably not have said it half so well.

Consider this a juicy dessert following a meaty main course.

All we need now is a dessert wine. On the other hand, I have always found them to be too sweet, so perhaps that may not be to your taste either.

Stumble It!

Singing Soprano

During the past couple of weeks, I'm been spending a lot of time at home, rather than at work.

I spent a bunch of bucks at the used books store (nothing new here) on Books and DVDS.

One of the series of DVDs I have purchased lately was the HBO "Sopranos" series. I bought the Season One collection last week, because it was new to me. I don't have my television connected to Cable, only to DVD/VHS players. So I have never seen any of the series, but I have heard a lot about it via the Internet. Out of curiosity, I bought Season One of "The Sopranos" and I was surprised at the production values, and the quality of the scripts ... not to mention the quality of the acting.

Yes, much of the script and the dialogue was uncomfortable to me. The dialogue reminded me of my tenure in the US Army, where the "F-Word" served as both a verb, a noun, an adjective and an adverb. (In rare, but notable instances, it even served as a gerund ... please do not ask me for examples; we were soldiers then, and young.)

The HBO series purported to depict the lifestyle of a "Mafia Family" in New Jersey. I know nothing about either the Mafia, or New Jersey (except that N.J. is the only state, other than Oregon, which requires that the customer cannot pump his own gasoline at service stations ... and to my mind, that is a boon not granted by other states), but the episodes are a fascinating introspection of a family distraught by both a dysfunctional culture and situational madness in the individual

Still, the scripts ... by a variety of writers and not of consistent quality ... are generally better than I had expected.

And the actors are generally so accomplished that they can take a mediocre script and make it look good.

Bottom line: however much I admired the performances of almost ALL of the actors, the best performances are provided not by the star, James Gandolfini, but by one of the side-characters; Lorraine Bracco ... who played the Psychiatrist, Dr. Jennifer Melfi.

Brooklyn:


Certainly, Bracco is versatile actor, who plays here a Psychiatrist and yet in a current Television Series (Rizzolli and Isles) she portrays a dysfunctional and overweight mother of one of the main characters. But she may be typical of the versatile actors who are able to lend personality and verisimilitude to almost any role. I admit that I have had a crush on Bracco ever since her 1988 role as the character "Brooklyn" (Dr. Rae Crane) against Sean Connery in "Medicine Man".


It's a rare event when a co-star can steal scenes from Connery, but Bracco managed to do it, time and again, against a background of a ho-hum script.

I think Connery must have been just a little bit in love with Bracco, to permit her such liberties And I admit that I have been too, since I first saw her in that role. (However, I have also been a little bit in love with Bracco in that move. SWMBO knew it but she never resented it.
After all, I am also in love with Linda Hunt. But who can object to an appreciation of a woman who won an academy award for her portrayal of a man?

Okay, so I like Linda Hunt because her character was a man in "A Year of Living Dangerously", and Lorraine Bracco for her character as a purported professional dingbat in "Medicine Man" ... but her character in "Sopranos" was brilliant, seminal, and central to the underlying theme of the series.

In fact, her character of "Doctor Melfi" was at least as central as Gandelfini's was as "Anthony Soprano".

I realize that I'm "running long" here. The point is that there are brilliant moments of both acting and screenwriting in the series. I'm surprised at how much I am enjoying the series. I've bought Season 1, 2, 5 and 6. The used bookstore had season 4, but it was too badly damaged by the previous owner ... so I'll be searching Amazon dot com for seasons 4 and 3. The cost is about $16 each, and considering that I have two nights of enjoyment for each season, the expense is easily worth the price.

Stumble It!

No Arms Gunslinger - Loads With His Feet!

Just when I was feeling low-down because of my problems, I receive via email this stirring testimonial about the courage and audacity of people who daily deal with problems which make mine see much less discouraging by comparison.

Here's an amazing video of a man who has no arms, but loads, manages and shoots a 1911 with his feet.

H/T to G-man for this video. Dialogue during the video suggests that it "will be on YOUTUBE tomorrow", but I couldn't find it (although I did find a plethora of videos about people who accomplished seemingly impossible tasks without arms).

I have no background for this story at all. Perhaps you can find more information about it than I can, and if you do I hope you will include links on the comments.

This man is more accomplished with his feet than I am with hands. Well, those of you who have seen me shoot can attest to that.

Just when I was feeling low-down because of my problems, I receive via email this stirring testimonial about the courage and audacity of people who daily deal with problems which make mine see much less discouraging by comparison.

Stumble It!

Christmas in Geekistan

My son has invited me to spend Christmas with his family in San Diego.

I am, of course, thrilled by the prospect. Not only would I be able to spend time with my son and his family, but my daughter and HER family live in the same town: San Diego.

I love San Diego, and if it was not located in Southern California it would not be the same, nor would I love it so.

That it is the home of both my Son and my Daughter, and their respective families, is obviously a bonus to me. Their spouses are both Good People, and their children (my grandchildren) are a joy. All seven of them!

But you know what? I think it's too soon after my loss of Sandie. I feel like a wimp to say so, but I feel like a wimp to enjoy the love of my family so soon. Yes, I realize that is counter-intuitive.

So I'm not sure what I'm going to do during Christmas. On the one hand, I'm pretty sure I would rather just bag the entire "Ho Ho Ho!" season. On the other hand, I realize I need to reconnect with my family, if only to get me out of this truly grungy mood.

On the third hand, I have neither the strength nor the energy to endure the event. I would much rather spend my time alone in my home reading books and watching reruns of television shows. What I mean to say is: I would REALLY rather do 'nothing'.

There was probably a point to be made here, but I'm not sure what it might have been.

PS: I have decided to go back to work tomorrow. I don't want to, but somehow I have managed to become entirely bored by spending weeks at a time at home, with absolutely nothing to do.

---

Hey, I think I have just made a decision based on the relative values of "time at home doing nothing" versus "time in San Diego with my family".

Haven't I?

Bummer, Dude. Flying is SO counter-intuitive!

Stumble It!

Bankers are Crooks

I recently received the following notice in a personal email, sent to me from the bank which holds both my checking and savings account:

Good afternoon Jerry, First I wanted to thank you for banking with US Bank and noticed upon review of your accounts that your checking account is currently unprotected.

I wanted to take this time to let you know that you are pre-qualified for what is called a Reserve Line of credit with us. that is a line of credit that attatches to your checking account so in the event that if by some chance the checking accoutn were to go overdrawn it would take the money from your line of credit and transfer it to your checking so that you dont get any overdraft chatges or possiblly have any items returned.

It does not cost you anything to have this protection it just sits there if you dont [sic] use it. If in the line of credit does advance it will transfer money in $50.00 increments and there is a $10.00 transfer fee which is much less then the cost of one overdraft fee. I see no reason why everyone who qualifies for this product should not have one just for peace of mind of knowing its there if there ever was a mistake.

Please let me know if you are interested in moving forward with this, as your pre-qualification will not last forever, it will expire on 12/13/10.

Thank You

Shauntelle

First, overdraft fees were $17, last time I had to pay one. This was charged every day, until the overdraft was relieved.

However, this new plan would not charge an overdraft fee; instead, it would take $50 from my "Line of Credit", and charge me a $10 fee for doing so.

But they do not say that they will be only one $10 fee; I assume they mean to charge me $10 for EACH $50 transfer from my savings.

So if I write a check for $1000 for my rent, and I have no money left in my account, they will deduct $1000 from my savings account, and charge me a $10 fee for each of the $50 increments needed to make up this payment .. which is 20 $50 increments ... for a total of $200.

Further, there is nothing to suggest that this $1,000 plus $200 would be the end of the 'fees'. It is possible, but not addressed in the announcement, that this "line of credit" plus fee would not be imposed every business day until I have replaced the $1,000 in my savings account.

No, that is not explicitly cited in the email I received. On the other hand, there is nothing mentioned in the email to suggest that this would NOT happen. Even though the prospect seems outrageous, the email does nothing to relieve our minds about it; if they do not specifically say they will NOT charge recurring fees every day until an (undefined) condition is not met, who is to say that the bank will not require this sort of outrageous funds-renewal?

Nothing. They can do anythiung they want, because it is a "Fee", not "Interest".

Recent changes in Federal banking laws have (supposedly) tightened up on the interest that banks can charge depositors. But you know as well as I do that banks ... and businesses .. will refuse to eat money-making schemes which are newly outlawed by Federal regulations.

Congress, and the Senate, will do whatever it takes to make it appear as if they have the best interests of the Common Citizen as their primary interest. In truth, they just want to look good so they can get reelected.

Business will also make a similar attempt to appear as if they have their customers' best interest at heart. In truth, they just want to make a profit and keep their customers while doing so. If Federal regulations tighten up on their profit margin in one area, they will merely adjust their business practices to make more money in another area.

And this is what's happening in America today: Government is attempting to impose controls on private business; private business is responding by finding new ways to maximize their profits. It's up to the individual customer to look out for themselves, and be aware of all the ways that "legitimate business" may find to screw them.

It is left as an exercise to the student to compare and contrast Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism. Here's a hint: in Communism, the individual has little choice of where to live and how to earn money but the Government will determine the distribution of resources; in Socialism, the individual can do what he wishes, where he wishes, but the Government will determine the distribution of resources; in Captialism, you can live where you want and work in any industry you want, as long as you can find and hold a job.

Stumble It!

New USPSA look "On Line"

In the last issue of "The Front Sight Magazine" ( the house vehicle for USPSA), Executive Officer Dave notes that the website has a new look.

New is the correct word. There are several new features, not the least of which includes to ability to enter as a personal logon, and no more "member area".

I've only just ventured into the 'invent your logon' concept. In fact, I've tried to create a logon ID ... but I have so many logons and "helpful" software installed, I can see my logon but I have no idea what my password may be. And there is no indication of how to get help from USPSA.

They will certainly get past these petty problem, and with Rob B. spearheading the effort (along with others such as the now-skinny Bruce G.) I'm confident that USPSA will be able to find and defuse all the annoying little characteristics of a new website design.

Either that, or I haven't paid enough attention to the details, and that's always the first place to go when I'm trying to accustom myself to a new webpage design.

Still, even though I'm kinda cranky and very old, I'm betting that USPSA's new webpage design will prove to be a great improvement over the old "frame" design.

My best advice is for you to go there and see how it works for you. And if / when you find the obvioius helpful hints that I miss, I do hope you will pass them on to this easily confused self-named Geek.

Stumble It!

Brotherhood

I have received so many, many words of sympathy here. It is impossible to thank you all personally for the comfort you offer, although I would want to do so. And those of you who live in this area, I will hopefully be able to tell you personally how much your loving concern has meant to me ... not only this week, but during the two and a half grueling years when you were almost all the support I had.

No, that's not fair, entirely. My family and Sandie's family (who are now my family, too) have been as helpful as anyone fighting such a desperate, but ultimately hopeless battle, could ever expect.

It's amazing to me that not only our family and close personal friends should rally at this wretched hour, but also people who I not only don't know personally, and also many whose names I have never known before. People who have never known me or Sandie except remotely through the wretched internet.

Oh, I know I'm saying all of this badly. I'm still a mess, though I will be better ... later. Soon, but later. So forgive me if I am even less erudite than usual. You know all of this is too overwhelming and I am too weak to stand it by myself, so please accept this as my own personal version of the MacDonald Clan's "Group Hug" ( which, given their years of support, I suppose I will someday be forced to endure finally; because you know, I owe you all but I can only directly repay a few).

Yes, that was a run-on sentence. So sue me.

Still, in all of this horrid, horrible darkness, I would like to single out one special comment, and this from a total stranger. Please bear with me, I'll run out of tissues soon and I can get back to Having A Life.

This is a note I found on my comments page, from an exceedingly kind man who knows exactly where I am because he is ... maybe ... just emerging from that dark place:

Jerry,

We have never met, but I have read your blog for some time. I have enjoyed your humor and wit. Most of all I have enjoyed your videos and have watched them perhaps hoping to gain some insight to help my pathetic shooting. About three years ago my wife developed ALS and I lost her about 6 months ago. I hope you might find it comforting to know that reading about Sandie and her illness and bravery in the face of that illness, as well as your love and caring for her, helped give me the strength to be the caregiver for my wife. I heard the expression "sorry for your loss" so much that it almost became trite. But at this time I don't know what else to say except that I am, truely, sorry for your loss.

This is a man who knows exactly what I and my extended family are going through. He had the compassion to understand, the courage to speak beyond his own grief, and the humanity to so perfectly express himself that we can only imagine, if not understand completely, the soul-depth of his recent loss.

I'm not there; I'm not man enough, or human enough, to drag myself out of the pit of dispair. Not quite yet.

But this kind man has given me such a huge boost, I know I will never be able to thank him sufficiently.

I am awed, to realize that there are such people in this world. Perhaps there is hope for us, after all.

Now I think there may be hope for me, and a tomorrow that I can anticipate in hopes that there are good things to be found there, beyond merely praying for an end to the hurt and the loss

This will be the very last time I will weep in public. I promise. You have all been very patient with me, but now I've had an example -- a standard of courage -- which I cam only try to emulate. It's something worth trying for. Besides, if I couldn't pull myself together, Sandie wouldn't like it.

Thank you all. From me, and from Sandie.

..

Stumble It!