Zumbo

I just spent an evening describing the reasons why I have No Confidence in the efficacy of the National Rifle Association in representing your RKBA rights.

You may not agree with me, and that's okay.

But this was curiously timed to coincide with a new Kerfluffle unintentially ( I suspect ) initiated by Jim Zumbo.

Zumbo, it appears, is a professional writer and has contributed articles to both Outdoor Life and Reminton, Inc.

Word is, he mentioned in a sparse pair of sentences (actually, 3 sentences) that he sees no use for semi-automatic rifles in hunting. No, that's a little too faint. What he actually said (in regards to " AR and AK rifles" was:

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles.

I have never read Zumbo before ... he appeals to a different readership ... so I yield to Michael Bane's article on the subject. The link quotes Zumbo's entire article.

Here is a man (Zumbo) who has spent years speaking to the American Sportsman. Shooters of all ilk and discipline. He writes 38 little words, and suddenly he is Anethema.

His blog is gone. His relationship with Remington is gone. His friends call for an immediate retraction, and even though he instantly apologizes for, and explains his statement ... it isn't enough.

His friends are gone.

There are those among the Shooting Community who actually believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to ALL firarms, no matter how ugly or how apparently inappropriate to the use to which they are putl

(And no matter how awkward the sentence construction of those who would write about it!)

Also, there are those among the Shooting Community who actually 'get it'. Those who believe that there is a "legitimate role" for even ugly semi-automatic rifles -- even as hunting tools, go figure!

The 2nd amendment is my primary concern in all of my writings. But perhaps it's timely to mention the 1st Amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see it?

"Congress" made no law "abridging the freedom of speech"; yet, popular acclaim applied its own right to disparage an unpopoular statement. (In truth, I rather suspect that "Congress" would embace Zumbo's statement, if only to put one more brick in the wall betwen Private Citizens and the 2nd Amendment.)

Zumbo has lost his means of livelihood, his Iron rice bowl, yet it is not a result of governmental action. Instead, it is the result of popular opinion.

Or, if you prefer, it is the result of 2nd Amendment Activism.

Perhaps the NRA will pay attention, and discontinue their tendency to defend the 2nd Amendment (weakly!) in terms of hunting, and even more ephemeral concepts.

Perhaps they will defend the 2nd amendment in terms applicable to the original intent of the Constitutional Authors.

It's an Individual Right, and the looks of the Firearm in question are not a significant factor.

The Liberal NRA

Last week, in a moment of banter with my co-workers (most of them confirmed Blue-Staters) who know that my hobby is IPSC competition, I commented that "No, I'm not a member of the NRA. They're too liberal."

Big laugh. They thought I was joking.

I wasn't. Here's why.

The First reason why I think the NRA is too liberal:


Charlton Heston.


Oh yes, I've been a member of the NRA; often, and frequently. For years I was on their mailing list (still am) and they would send me appeals to join. I did. They sent me magazines that didn't give me much more information than I would get at other places, except for "The Armed Citizen". I consider that their greatest contribution to RKBA issues, but it wasn't enough. Sometime in the mid-1990's I declared "enough". Having joined, and quit, three times I finally just ignored their offers.

Then in 1997 they elected Charlton Heston President of the NRA. I thought "Wow! This is great. They finally have a spokesman I know and respect." I remember all of the "I Am The NRA" ads featuring Heston with a broke-breech double-barrel shotgun over his shoulder, and I just knew that he was the iconic figure who could make sense out of the confusion.


My love affair with Charlton Heston lasted until his first public interview as the representative of the NRA, on May 6, 1997. In a San Francisco Radio Interview during the morning drive-time slot, he uttered the fatal words:

"AK-47's are inappropriate for private ownership, of course."

(Thanks to Dean Spier at The Gun Zone)

I was devastated. "Of course."

Why?'

Up until this very moment, I thought that the NRA stood for the Second Amendment. I thought they understood that it had nothing to do with hunting, or even competition. I thought they understood that it had to do with the right of a private citizen to protection against aggression, whether by a mugger or a State. As a constitutional amendment, and only 2nd among 10 of the Bill of Rights, it was the provision which insured all other rights "when everything else fails".

Most important, I thought it was the entire reason for being of the NRA. It was our protection against losing our protection. It wasn't about the type of arms we deemed necesary to protect our rights. It was objective and the NRA protection of this right applied to all firearms.

(I wish I could find a video, or at least an audio, copy of that interview. I doubt a video exists, but I know I listened to an audio file on the Internet over and again to make sure I heard it right. I did, but after ten years they no longer are available.)

Sure, Heston went on to give many memorable speeches (see here and here), and I loved him as a man, and a performer, and I loved everything he said "after". But I always remembered that when he spoke extemporaneously ... he revealed a soft center. He believed in civilian firarms ownership. But only for 'some' firearms.

He always thought it was about duck hunting, and trap shooting.


Second reason why I think the NRA is too liberal:


Wayne LaPierre.

If there ever was a member of the NRA BOD who impressed me, it isn't him. I know I should be grateful for his contributions for the cause of citizen firearms ownership, but I have to say this is not my idea of a champion for 2nd Amendment Rights.

Surely the NRA can find a stronger voice, a more convincing advocate than this.

As evidence, I offer the "Great UK Gun Rights Debate". This is a debate between Wayne LaPierre and "international gun ban proponent Rebecca Peters."

(Hat Tip to Phil at Soft Green Glow, via Say Uncle.)

While I encourage you to go to both websites in recognition of their contribution, and for their general contribution to The Cause, l've provide the link to YouTube videos of debate segments directly.

There are only four brief segments of the debate offered here, but I have to say that LaPierre's defense (and he is always on the defense) is so weak and ineffectual that even I have to say that Peters outscored him on every point of contention.

Why?

Because LaPierre insisted on discussing HER point of "legitimate firearms role" without once referring to either personal defense or the basic reason for the 2nd Amendment ... the ultimate protection of all other civil rights by a tyranical government. As long as he avoids this issue in debate, he will not present a reasonable argument against the concept that guns are only means of hunting and competition. That is to say, "sporting usage" (which the BATF had arbitrarily decided does NOT include IPSC competition.)

LaPierre can't even win a debate in his home country. How does he hope to win a debate in Socialist Nanny-state England, or Australia (home of Rebecca Peters, who presents her home-country record as evidence that "gun control works" regardless of the fact that both England and Australia have seen soaring rates of Violence committed with guns against unarmed citizens since they instituted their own "gun control" laws.)

For example, Peters presents the argument that "there is no justification for semi-automatic rifles to be owned by ... members of the civilian population." She offers this in the context of hunting, and goes on to cite the Australian Professional Hunters' Association, whom she quotes as having said: "Anyone who needed a semi-automatic to kill animals was a 'City Boy', who shouldn't be out there with a gun in the first place!"

She goes on to say: "Yes, we believe that semi-automatic weapons and shotguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands; and not only that, HANDGUNS have no legitimate role in civilian hands!"

What is LaPierre's counter?

"We're just finally getting to the point. I mean, the fact is that Miss Peters ... and her UN crowd believe that EVERY firearm has no legitimate use. Not just semi-autos, but pump-action shotgun(s), any rifle that can shoot over 100 yards ... hunters know that's every rifle out there. Handguns, they don't believe handguns have any legitimate use. The truth is, there's no legitimate role for a firearm. Isn't that your real opinion, Miss Peters?"

Peters replies:

"No. We recognize that hunting, for example, plays an important role in many cultures. You do not need a semi-automatic firearm, you do not need a handgun, to kill a deer. To go hunting. We recognize that target shooting is also a sport in many countries. One of the concerns that was raised with the reform of the gun laws in Australia was that this would affect our Olympic performance. [snip] You can be a sporting nation without semi-automatic rifles or handguns."

[blink]

The fact is, LaPierre allowed the debate to be conducted entirely by his opponent. He never brought up his own point, beyond "we're not going to let you do that", although he never bothered to say how the NRA could prevail over a well-funded NGO drive against civilian possession of firearms, when he couldn't even prevail over a bright and personable young lady in open debate.

I do not have access to either a video or audio clip, nor the transcript of the entire debate. And while the YouTube video purports to be provided by an "NRA" proponent, it's entirely possible that the linked segments are hosted by an anti-gun faction which deliberately presented only those (edited) clips which shows Peters in the best, and/or LaPierre in the worst light.

Still ....

If this is the NRA, is this is the best defense we can present against the world-wide attempt of socialist nations and agenda-driven NGO onsloughts on the 2nd amendment, then we would do as well to present NO defense and save our (your) membership fees and spend them instead on 4" plastic tubing, super-glue, duct tape and dessicant.

That's right, my friend. If you expect the NRA to defend your right to Keep and Bear Arms, you may as well get started early in the effort to pack up your firearms and bury them in the garden for your grandchildren (optimistically speaking) to dig up in the next century.

No doubt about it. If Wayne LaPierre is your first, best line of defense against gun-grabbers, you might as well give up now and use what remains of your self-reliance to hide your guns against the predations of the inevitable licensing, then registration, then confiscatory measures which will be imposed upon you and your children.

Prove to me that I'm wrong.

Please.

IPSC Certification

Do you remember last week's Blog article which depicted a New Shooter who earned a Match Disqualification because he lost track of the 180 Degree rule?


Yeah, that was Les.

Well, he showed up at the next Section match and shot for certification ... clean and safely.
We filmed his performance at the last stage, and recorded the excitement of his squad when they realized he had sataisfied the requirements of the training.

Everyone in the squad was aware of what was at stake, and we were all pleased that he completed his training sccessfully.

This isn't an exciting video .. unless you are inordinately pleased that a New Shoter has proved that he can meet the stringent requirements of this sport.

Dean Speir, Formerly Famous Gun Writer

Last August 17 (2006) I wrote an article about The Glock KaBOOM!

I borrowed extensively, at least in terms of encouragement that my opinion was 'right' and anyone who disagreed with me was 'not right' (my favorite form of fantasy, excepting those fantasies which end up with washing out my lingerie) from a fella named Dean Speir, author of The Gun Zone.

Get the spelling right, he cares about the accuracy of his name speling.

Several days after I published the KaBOOM! Article, I received an email from Dean.

I found his comments to be flattering and informational. We swapped spit (via email only!) for a week or two, and one day I mentioned that I enjoyed his stories about things IPSC and casually asked if I could post them on this blog.

One thing failed to lead to another, we quit corresponding ... mostly because we had just about exhausted the topic of the connections between Leigh Bracket and John Wayne movies ... and we both moved on to other things.

Within the past two weeks, two things occurred to draw my attention back to the original article and to Dean's comments.

First, Dean reread his old emails and sent me his permission to post his email.

Second, a reader identified as "CW" commented on the article, and in the process graciously offered corrections about the various Glock models and their associated calibers.

Reading back on the KaBoom! article, I found that CW's criticisms were accurate, so I scurried about the internet to find a source of Glock technical data. In the process I learned the www.glock.com had been a primary link to some of my technical points but has since been deleted from the Internet ... I needed to fix some of the "404 - Not Found" links.

After fixing those links, the incorrect references to Glock caliber-related models, and various other links, I discovered that I had providently posted Dean's comments on a draft-mode (ie: "not posted") webpage.

Serendipity is A Beautiful Thing, so just to make sure that you don't miss anything I'm going to link here to the original KaBOOM! article, as well as to Dean's comments.

And in case you haven't yet discovered the link on the sidebar, I'll include The Gun Zone link. I'm sure you'll find as many pleasant hours reading about, among other things, the perfidy of the Gun Zine culture. (Translation: Gun Magazine, such as Guns & Ammo)

If you're a blogger, and you decide to link to this article ... for Gawd's Sake, Be Sure To Spell The Name Right! I changed the text on my original article and managed to change "Speirs" to "Speir" and re-publish.

Jerys teh Geeks

So many Useful Idiots, So Little Time ...

Gilbert and Sullivan, in "Pirates of Penzance", suggest that "A Policeman's Lot Is Not A Happy One".

I submit that "A Gunblogger's Lot Is Not A Happy One", either.

In support of that thesis, I give you H.R. 1022 - To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and other purposes."

And while I was writing about "Bad Boys in the Outhouse" and other significant IPSC-related stuff, our Congress was hard at work retaking another first step toward taking YOUR legal firearms (when you bought 'em) away from you ... using a legal tactic which was empirically determined to have absolutely NO effect in "reducing gun violence".

Since I don't have a television and don't read newspapers regularly, and since I don't even usually read the internet news in the Friday-through-Sunday period because I'm focused on preparing for, competing in, or whining about IPSC matches I completely missed the new news that the Democ-Rats have resurrected this most infamous of egregious encroachments on the Second Amendment.

In fact, if I hadn't formed the habit of reading Gun Bloggers on Sunday Evenings, I still wouldn't know about the February 13, 2007, attempt of Rep. Carolyn McCarthey (D-NY ... duh!) to demonize what can only be characterized as 'ugly rifles and carbines'.

(Hat Tips too numerous to mention, but just for starters include Michael Bane, LawDog, and Jim Shepherd of The Shooting Wire.)

Here's a short memory course:

• Remember how in 1994 the Democ-Rats established an Assault Weapons Ban, and the Republicans introduced a Sunset Clause stating that, essentially, "We'll try it, but if after 5 years it doesn't do any good, we'll drop it?
• Remember how after 5 years it was proven to have absolutely no value in the sense of having reduced crime?
• Remember how it was dropped like a big brown turd in a Cloistery punchbowl?
• Remember how, when the Democ-Rats ascended to power in the 2006 elections, they promised that they would work for concensus?
• Well, they lied ...
• ... and it's back.

Let's talk about what this bill proposes:

• A long list of specific rifle and shotgun makes & models would be banned, with a 10 year prison term imposed for their possession (including, for example, the M1 carbine)
  
• ten-round magazine (detachable or otherwise) capacity limitations
• banned semi-automatic rifle with the ability to accept a detachable magazine with features including a folding or telescoping stock; a threaded barrel; a pistol grip; a forward grip; barrel shroud
• A semi-automatic pistol with the ability to accept a detached magazine, and has a second pistol grip; a threaded barrel (so much for compensators); the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip; a fixed magazine of more than 10 rounds
• A shotgun with a revolving cylinder
• A conversion kit
• A semi-automatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use or a firearm based on the design of such a firearem, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.

Further restrictions impose a penalty for transfer of such firearms except through a licensed firearms dealer, including a 'high-capacity magazine" during the sale of an "Assault Weapon", in importation of a "high-capacity magazine".

And there is no sunset clause.

------------

Essentially, all of the bad parts of the original 1994 AWB have been re-proposed, even though the original law has been proven to have had NO EFFECT ON "GUN VIOLENCE" or any other measure of felicitous effect on public disorder. This is not a test; they really mean it this time, and there are no trappings of supposing to have a beneficial effect on public order. The bill is simply a "you can't do this because I say you can't do this, and what I say goes because I say so, dammit!" law.

A gunbloggers lot is not a happy one, because if we didn't bring this to your attention almost immediately, it implies that we're not paying attetention to the priorities of our readership.

Well, I'm not really a gunblogger. I'm a USPSA Competition blogger, and all I want is to be allowed to go to a Practical Pistol match on at least 3 weekends a month and have a good time.

In other words: I'm not causing any problems and neither are my friends, so leave us the heck alone and I'll leave you alone.

Unfortunately, those dimwits in Washington with their newly acquired majority are going power-mad, and this is just an early entry into their heady presumption of authority. The only surprise is that this re-enactment of a bad idea, ill-conceived and poorly executed, arrives so early in their power-curve.

I don't really expect it to pass, but the mere fact that it is number two on their agenda (coming right after the "Get Out Of Vietnam Iraq NOW" movement) is indicitive of their cockey confidence. They really believe that they can make sweeping changes in the culture of their Country, just because they are in the CatBird seat.

As in the 1975 C.W. McCall novelty song, "Convoy", the Democ-Rats are "in the Rocking Chair" and in their rebellion they can do whatever they want because there are too many rebels for the Smokies of civil rights to fight all of them. The Democ-Rats are counting on the weakness of their Republican opponents; the Conservatives can't win all of their fights, so they will pick the fights they can win. Hopefully (for the Dems), this is not a fight worth the effort as the Republican try desperately to regain a small modicum of their previous influence. They will figure that the Republicans are too weak, too frightened, and all too aware that they must husband whatever influence they retain to 'waste' it on what must appear to them to be a niche issue.

We have to help our representative realize that the RKBA issues were central in the 2004 Presidential election, and our determination were based on our core values, not on the personalities of the candidates.

Speaking objectively, the Dems may have chosen a win-able issue, however inadvertently. A small infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights may be the perfect issue to get a toe in the door of Republic self-assertion.

If you don't write to, or phone your representative TODAY with the message that this bill is completely unacceptable to a significant and vocal portion of their constituency, you don't have a dog in this hunt and you haven't established the fact that you care about your civil rights.

And when they come to take your firearms away, when they throw you in jail because you have 14-round magazines, there will be nobody left to speak for you.

I'm writing my congressman tonight with that message. You may think your voice won't be heard. But if you don't speak up, my voice alone won't be enough to protect your rights.

Bad Boys in the Outhouse

Here's an interesting and controversial IPSC stage for you, from the February 10, 2007, ARPC Club Match.

The shooter starts out sitting in an outhouse. Literally. (See the video) Gun is placed on a barrel three feet in front of the outhouse door.

Right at the outhouse door is a foot trap: a ground-mounted device which initiates a moving target when you step on it. Plastic barrels on both sides of the foot trap direct the competitor right over it.

The thing is, when the foot trap is tripped, it starts a bobber mechanism which waves a no-shoot target in front of two (maybe 3) of the 10 IPSC shoot targets downrange. The thing is, this no-shoot is suppose to be waving into your sight picture while you're trying to shoot.

Why would you want that?

You wouldn't. And it presents some interesting Range Officer quandries, in that if you put a hole in the bobbing no-shoot you shouldn't be awarded the score for the hit on the backing shoot target.

The trouble is, obviously, that it's really difficult to determine which 'hit' went thru the notatively impermeable no-shoot target.

The competitors didn't want to deal with the shooting problem.

The Range Officers didn't want to deal with the scoring problem.

So when someone pointed out that the published stage procedures didn't REQUIRE that the no-shoot bobber target be activated at any specific time, it seemed like a self-resolving problem.

Just ... step over the foot trap and move on. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain who wrote at the bottom of the Stage Procedures:

INTENT: ACTIVATE THE MOVING TARGET BEFORE SHOOTING

The word 'Intent' is sort of a feel-good weasel word in this context. At least this is the opinion passed on from the "Bad Boys" squad which preceded us on this stage. They didn't activate the bobber, so we didn't either.

We figured, the MD's options were:

1. throw out the stage
2. make everybody who shot it without activating the bobber reshoot
3. ignore it.

It was a long rainy day, we didn't think the MD wanted to drag it out any longer.

Other than that one little technical failure-to-communicate thingie, it was too interesting a stage to arbitrarily throw out.

Ultimately, the MD chose to ignore it. I'm sure it irritated the few people who actually activated the bobber and had to contend with the irritating white flash in front of their targets. Well, they had as much opportunity as every one else at the match to make strategic decisions about how they chose to shoot the stage.

So what do YOU think?

Were those who activated the bobber no-shoot on the side of the angels?

Or were those who stepped over it justified in assuming that it was a 'logic trap' inserted by the stage designer to test our ability to fit the stage procedures into the context of the existing rules?

You be the judge.

I hope someone uses the phrase "GAMER" in the discussion. No, not The Hobo Brasser or Whitefish. We already know that they're Bad Boys.




(You can view all videos from this match here, or you can download the original 13MB vidoe of this stage here.)

Global Warming Deniers

(Note: Non-IPSC content.)

Have you been following the Global Warming controversy? Are you in the "Ho-Hum" stage yet? If so, you might be a Global Warming Denier.

Okay, I'm one of 'Them'.

I'm not sure whether I'm of the "there is no Global Warming" school of thought, or "Global Warming is merely a natural cyclic event" school, or the "Global Warming may or may not be a fact, but it has nothing to do with the Greenhouse Effect as affected by Human Actions" school.

All I can say is, when this became a matter of ideology, when science was overwhelmed by Politically Correct speech, when the Main Stream Media decided that there was no controversy here, and most important when the Weather Channel announced that weather persons on TV who failed to enthusiastically embrace Right Thinking should lose their accreditation ... I opted out.

Well, I didn't completely opt out. I decided that if these useful idiots embraced the concept of Global Warming Is Real, And It's All Your Fault!, then I rejected it.

I've resisted writing about this for several weeks, but I read a lot of articles about it and (sneaky bastard that I am) I saved the links.

Heh heh heh.

The single event that caused me to decide that the Global Warming Freaks (hereafter GWF) wer just wrong, wrong, wrong was when I read Michael Crichten's 2004 novel "State Of Fear". While I don't necessarily consider Crichten a Climatologist, an atmospheric physicist or a scientists of any kind, his citatations were credible and his reasoning persuasive.

Besides, it was a good read, even though Crighten is not without his detractors.

That set me up for Mark Steyn's article in Jewish World Review: "Don't ruin economy over tiny temp rise", which featured Steyn's typical charm and wit. It convinced me that it was time to unleash the power of all the articles I've saved.

Have you read the Steyn article yet? Go ahead, read it. We'll wait for you to catch up.

Done? Okay, let us continue.

Going back to 2 feb, 2007, the United Nations "International Panel on Climate Change" released its "Climate Change 2007" report. Summary: we're in deep doo-doo, and it's all your fault.

The Center for Science and Public Policy replied: "The Panic Is Officially Over". Which is a nice, British-style way of saying "you people are SO full of it, your eyes are brown".

Fortunately, the Contra Costa (California) Times had already weighed into the discussion by announcing that "Global warming is nothing but a paper tiger".

Oregon's Governor, The Egregioius Ted, fires an OSU professor from the purely symbolic title of "climatoligist" because his scientific opinion doesn't meet Ted's preconceptions about climatology.

Why fire him?

"His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies."

Whoa! Guess what? It's no longer a matter of scientific theory, it's Politics!

And in my home (red) state. Who could have predicted THIS?

In the meantime, Al Gore (failed politician, failed climatologist, failed progenitor of The Internet, failed anything-he-has-ever-tried) accused President Bush of paying money to scientists in an effort to encourage them to become Global Warming Deniers.

Finally, and most interesting, the Czech president Vaclav Klaus on February 9, 2007, explained his views on the IPCC panel.

This was high-lighted on The Drudge Report (the link is transitory) . Read the entire interview here.

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say..

Range Equipment Failure

Got a new one for you.

A "clamshell-type" target (hitting the steel plate pops up an IPSC target) fails to activate the object target on a 'good hit'.

Major power cartridges take it down easily, but Minor power cartridges can't make the reactive target function.

What do you do?

Here's some background.

The stage features "Classic" targets (eg: "Turtle", "Stop-Sign", "Amoeba" etc.) design targets.'

It's a rainy day, so targets are replaced frequently.

By the time THIS squad reaches the stage, the targets have been replaced at least twice.

The hitch is, the previous competitors aren't accustomed to shooting this target type so instead of ripping the 2nd (replacement) target off before replacing it, the previous squad just ... stapled another target over it.

Did I mention it was a rainy day? I thought so. The cardboard is fairly well saturated, so there's a lot of weight counterbalancing the initiating steel plate. This changes the dynamics of the target array.

As a consequence, the last squad (of six) to engage this stage learned the hard way that a counterbalanced target array is subject to the changing dynamics of one, two, THREE targets stacked up on the counterbalance.

Worse, the shooters don't always know how to handle it when the increased weight causes the reactive target array to fail.

This video demonstrates how important it is for the competitors (never mind the RO) to know the rules of competition.

If you hit the initiator plate fairly with a minor-caliber round, it should fall. If it doesn't, the fault may not be yours even if the Major-caliber rounds don't seem to have any problems.

Uh ... another point?

Don't shoot Minor.

Email from The Hobo Brasser

We've all got friends like him.

You know the guy (His name might be Larry D., or "Big Dawg".) He's the one who sends you all the funny emails that are making the rounds. The stuff that is part of the Internet culture, which you would NEVER proliferate by sending to on to your own circle of friends ... mostly because he's already sent it on to them, or received it from one of them. But you dutifully open the email, and laugh like crazy, and never NEVER tell anyone how much you enjoyed the not-so-subtle social/political points they illustrate.

I keep thinking I ought to resent this intrusion on my privacy ... the arbitrary take-over of my personal 'bandwidth'. But then I realize I don't know why I should object, because I enjoy reading them and I'm glad I have friends who think of me when they find something 'special'.

As I said, I never pass them on.

Until today.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the usual content of this website, but today I'm going to impose my silly sense of humor on you all even though I don't know your email address.

This is Silly Email Gone Mad, Geek Style.

You may not agree with the politics here.

Deal with it.


First offering: "Let's Say I Break Into Your House"

Let's say I break into your house

A lady wrote the best letter in the editorials in ages!!! It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.

Her point:

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house.
Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors.
I've done all the things you don't like to do.
I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:

You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family. (my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself.

I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.

And what a deal it is for me!!!


I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.



Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America .if you agree, pass it on (in English). Share it if you see the value of it.


If not blow it off......... along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things.

Next: Passenger

If you're on a plane and....you are sitting next to someone who irritates you (and let's be honest, we've all been there)...

1. Quietly and calmly open up your laptop case.
2. Remove your laptop.
3. Boot it.
4. Make sure the guy who won't leave you alone can see the screen.
5. Open this message
6. Close your eyes and tilt your head up to the sky.

7. Then hit this link : HERE

USPSA Presidential Elections: Candidate Forums

Dave Thomas, Executive Director of USPSA (United States Practical Shooting Association), recently announced to Presidential and Area Director Candidates that he has directed WebMaster Rob Boudrie to establish an online Forum for each Candidate at http://www.uspsa.org/forums/. He'll soon "... be posting a notice on the front and member pages announcing that this election specific option is now operative."

(Actually, as of this date the notice has already been posted.)

He has encouraged each candidate to visit these forums regularly as he "would expect that there will be messages directed" to each Candidate.

The general public announcement of these forums is available at http://www.uspsa.org/

If you are interested in the next leadership of USPSA, and you would like to learn more about the people running for office, please take advantage of this opportunity to quiz the candidates.

USPSA Records A Fourth Consecutive Year of Sustained Growth

(USPSA Press Release as reported by The Shooting Wire, subscription information here.)

Sedro-Woolley, Washington - After four years of sustained growth, the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) just posted another all-time membership record, the latest in a string of records dating back to June 2005. The numbers aren't very interesting; instead, it's the trend. After years of flat memberships, USPSA has grown, continues to grow, and now continues at a historic high. All this is happening in an unusual competitive environment, where USPSA and its competing organizations are increasingly working together. USPSA's magazine Front Sight featured their arch-rival's president on the cover, lauding his early contributions to the sport. Richard Heinie's Single Stack Classic became the USPSA "Single Stack" nationals last year, and shooters from all the organizations are increasingly moving among the various sports, enjoying them as opportunities arise.


Why the growth in USPSA?


Changes in 2001, and again in 2005 opened USPSA to shooters using simpler equipment - most notably the advent of Production Division. Brand-level competition in Production has become especially intense, with Glock, CZ, Sig, and others vying for titles around the United States.

Last year USPSA launched a provisional "1911 Single Stack" division, joining forces with Richard Heinie to put on a USPSA "1911 Single Stack Nationals." (The second annual happens April 26-28). Heinie's "Single Stack Classic" has a strong history, but last year's match under the USPSA banner became the biggest "Classic" ever held. Here again, brand-level competition has become intense, with Springfield holding a strong lead against competitors Kimber, Dan Wesson, Smith & Wesson, and others.

Symbiosis in Practical Pistol?

Warmer relations between the various Practical Pistol organizations has helped USPSA's growth. After some early hostility, those relationships have matured into a fulfillment of Rodney King's infamous statement "can't we all just get along?" At USPSA, we're seeing significant numbers of "crossover shooters" joining the sport from other organizations - without leaving their "native" sport behind. They shoot USPSA one weekend, then return to Steel Challenge, IDPA, GSSF, or SASS the next. Seasoned USPSA competitors are doing the same thing in reverse, donning "concealment garments" or cowboy duds to play the same game under a different set of rules. While the various organizations still compete for sponsors and "name" shooters on specific weekends, the lowering of social and technical barriers has encouraged cross-fertilization and net growth. USPSA's six divisions provide ways for most any defensive handgun owner to participate, regardless of equipment type. Go to http://www.uspsa.org/ for additional information.

Media Contact:
Dave Thomas, Executive Director
(360) 855-2245 (360) 708-6828
dave@uspsa.org

Playing With Fire: ARPC 200702 - IPSC Videos etc

A new shooter helps us to remember how EASY it is to DQ (Match Disqualification for violation of the Safety Rules) at a Club Match.

Match results here.
------------

On Saturday, February 10, 2007, 78 competitors gathered in the overcast morning to compete in a means-nothing local club match and take their chances of shooting in the rain.

We were not disappointed.

The weather held at cloudy-but-dry and about 50 degrees temperature until around10:30am, and then the rain started.

Nobody went home.

This was an astonishing turnout for this time of year. A year ago, 60 shooters was about as many as were likely to show up for a Points Match. This match was a definite "Means Nothing" match. No honors, no Points toward winning a slot to the 2007 Nationals (the next points match is at Dundee on the usual Fourth Saturday match) and no reason to show up.

Except ... it has been a long yucky winter, and we have been hungry for some IPSC shooting.

One more thing. Due to the aggressive marketting efforts of ARPC Executive Office Mac McCarter, there were 15 ... FIFTEEN ... New Shooters trying for their finish their Columbia Cascade Section IPSC Certification. They went through the training, now they have to finish one match without a safety violation to acquire their Certification Card which allows them to compete in USPSA matches in this section without being identified as a New Shooter.

The certification course is rigorous, of course, and includes both an extended lesson in the IPSC/USPSA rule book and some practical range work to insure that each applicant understands the practical rules of IPSC competition as well as special safety rules and practices, as well as the protocol and ethics of the sport.

Usually, this is a cheerful chance to meet new people with similar views and values. Unfortunately, it is also and always a challenge to meet the standards of gunhandling expertise which are not commonly enforced in a 'open range' environment.

Since there were 78 people at the match, and 15 of them new shooters, the inexperienced pariticpants were distributed among the SIX squads. Our squad had 3 new shooters, and we were glad to get them.

We love to see new people joining The Sport, and usually we have no problems helping them to assimilate the techniques needed to safely negotiate even the toughest stage.

Unfortunately, as we become aclimated to competitive shooting, we tend to forget that we're Playing With Fire.

We failed to adequately coach at least one of our new friends, with the sad result that he broke one of the primary safety rules ... keeping the muzzle downrange.

This was a personal failure which came home to me when the muzzle of his pistol swung lazily across the crown of my head during a reload. I was perhaps understandably disconcerted, and we were both unhappy with the situation and (he at least) with the resulting Match DQ.

The video of this event is included here, which is a 12MB compression of 44MB of video. For a much more compressed (and consequently less detail is viewable) version of the film, watch this:

Portland Barbie

If Barbie lived in your hood, would she look like this?



That's the question asked by the St. Louis Post Dispatch here.

There's a meme going around the Internet, asking what Barbie versions would look like if she were to be strategically prepositioned around urban areas ... such as Saint Louis, Mo.



Someone has taken a lot of trouble to convert this to the Portland, Oregon area. Thanks to SWMBO, I have received a copy of the Oregon version and converted it to my closest Urban location. Readers who live in Oregon may enjoy this.

The original document which I received is available as a MSWORD document here.

Your Oregon website version of this internet phenomenon is available at Geek Musing here.

PETA Resolution

I do realize that most of you don't subscribe to The Outdoor Wire.

I encourage you to subscribe.

In the meantime, here's the wrap-up from Jim Shepherd, who has been following the trial of PETA members, who picked up unwanted 'pets' from animal shelters, transported them a few blocks, then injectected the animals with lethal substances (for which they have no license to possess, let alone use) and tossed the bodies into Dipsy Dumpsters behind the nearest Piggly Wiggly store:

PETA Trial Ends

PETA employees Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook were found innocent of the majority of charges brought against them for animal cruelty and obtaining property by false pretenses. Rather than facing criminal charges for picking up animals from an animal shelter and veterinarian's office and killing them, rather than taking them for possible adoptions, Judge Cy Grant reorganized the charges prior to sending them to the jury, dropping most of the felony charges and consolidating several charges into a single one.

If convicted of the criminal charges, the PETA employees, who had admitted picking up animals and killing them only moments after having told veterinarian office employees they were going to find them new homes, could have faced jail time. Instead, they have been found guilty of littering, receiving suspended 10-day jail sentences, 12 months' probation, 50 hours of community service, $1,000 fines and nearly $3,000 of restitution.

Their "death van" was confiscated by the town of Anhoskie, North Carolina.

The facts of the case made it completely obvious the pair had, in fact, committed all the offenses of which they had been accused.

The Piggly-Wiggly dumpster containing pets that had been picked up only hours before around Ahoskie were identified by the veterinarian and shelter workers who had handed them over to Hinkle and Cook.

The forensic evidence showing the animals had been killed by lethal injection of chemicals found in their so-called "death van" was never called into question.

Adria Hinkle testified under oath that they had, in fact picked up the animals, injected them with drugs, bagged them, and tossed them into the dumpster. She also testified that "maybe" they hadn't been forthcoming with the fact they had no intention of putting the animals out for adoption, it was "possible" they might have been misleading, and perhaps it was a "mistake" to toss the animals into the dumpster (an action she admitted having done previously).

So why were they found innocent?

Through what might be best called "smoke-and-mirrors" of their defense team.

After all, their lawyers argued, there had to be "malice" involved in felony animal cruelty charges. The pair of defendants had no malice, they argued, they were simply doing the "most compassionate thing possible" for animals no one wanted, sparing them lives of loneliness and confinement (hope my kids don't read about this when I get older).

Further, the animals themselves had no intrinsic value, so there were really no demonstrable damages in the case. For an organization that says it would oppose medical experimentation on laboratory animals - even if it meant not finding a cure for AIDS - to argue that the animals in question had no value should make your blood boil.

PETA raises hundreds of millions of dollars annually - allegedly fighting to defend the rights of animals - all animals. But their convenient manner of disposing of animals given to them by animal caregivers shows the total lie upon which their so-called pro-animal organization is founded.

PETA kills thousands of animals every year - and will continue to kill them for years to come. They purchased walk-in freezers for their Virginia headquarters to store animal carcasses and have paid thousands of dollars to an animal cremation service to dispose of them later. But they are acting out of "compassion" not indifference.

They dress up in outrageous costumes - or demonstrate in the buff - to draw attention to their animal rights movements - and collect funds from people stupid enough to believe they're serious about their so-called work.

They terrorize children with books which characterize parents who serve meat as mass murderers; they have drawn no distinction between meat processors and the Nazis who murdered millions of people in World War II, and they have no compunction about giving money to environmental terrorists.

When Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook were arrested and charged with felony animal cruelty more than 15 months ago, we had hoped this trial, if nothing else, would shed some light on the PETA organization.

It accomplished exactly that.

Hinkle and Cook will not be going to jail for killing animals given to them with the belief they were going to be placed in adoptive homes.

While it might look like a big win for PETA, it's really not.

This trial has forced PETA to admit that it does not rescue animals, it kills them.

The defense used by their attorneys to avoid felony animal cruelty charges was that these animals had no intrinsic value. That should make everyone writing a check to PETA for the "ethical treatment of animals" think twice - and maybe stop sending checks to an organization that isn't protecting animals - at least not when it's an expense or an inconvenience for PETA.

If that's a win, I can only wish PETA many more courtroom successes.

--Jim Shepherd

Note that you can subscribe to The Outdoor Wire here.

Sundie Funnies

Michael Bane
Michael Bane has finally got his Downrange.TV website pumped up enough to show some Actual Content. I expect this website to become a frequent site-of-interest for those of us who consider Guns not only a tool, but a means of spending a weekend at the range with friends. Among other features he has a forum set up (I've registered and actually posted. I didn't have anything particularly interesting to say, but I got to see my name in print.)

Superbowl
Did you watch the SuperBowl this weekend? I didn't. I don't like spectator sports, but perhaps I'm just weird. If you're among the thirty-plus million American Spectators (I can make up statistics with the best of 'em) who only watch it for the commercials, I'm reliably informed by Kim Kommando that this is where you can view the commercials online. Note that you may be enjoined to load some software to enable 'full-screen videos'. Great, if you like commercials ... which might very well be the Best Part Of Television.

Family
Frequent Readers may recall that last October I took a week hiatus to visit my son, Ben, in Utah. Ben is the father of Jake the Untouchable, uncle of The Alleged Jack and Samantha the Nailer. I'm happy to report that Ben, his wife and son in tow, has moved back to the Left Coast in search of a new career. Now living in Northern California, according to last reports (I spoke to him on the phone last night) he intended to drive to Oregon on this day to visit family. It's a six-and-a-half hour trip, so I asked him to phone me when he reached the home of his maternal grandmother so I would know it when it was a reasonable time to visit them. He originally cited an 8pm arrival time, then 10pm, then 1am. Since it's now after 11pm, I'm guessing that he won't be calling me for a couple of hours. I think I must have lost my mind when I asked him to call me on arrival. I forgot whose son (mine) I was talking to.

Blogging may be interrupted tomorrow as I will be out-of-town visiting family, and happy I am to be doing so.

Chris Muir and Day By Day Cartoons
Word is that DBD will be out-of-town toward the end of this month



and



(Click on the images to see the full strips.)

Looks like we'll be spending some time at the DBD and SigArms websites in a few weeks.

Flash Drives
SWMBO was doing some market research (read: thumbing through the ad inserts of the Sunday Papers) this morning, and ran full-tilt into the Staples ads.

She's aware that I've been looking for memory stick (thumb drive, flash drive, whatever) and noted that a 2GB Microsoft Flash Drive was available for about $30. I've been looking for a hi-cap memory stick for some months, and I've been disgruntled that I couldn't find bargains much better than the 1GB SanDisk drive I bought 18 months ago for ca. $90.

Today she found a 2GB stick for $30. After mail-in rebate for $30.

An inch lower down in the newspaper ad, she found a 4GB stick (from MS) for $55, after a $75 "instant rebate".

Yah, sure, we trundled right down to the local Staples store and I shelled out $55 for a 4GB flash drive. I already have a 1GB drive (I know, I already mentioned it) which I use for transferring data between work and home puters, and whatever other purpose seems convenient ... such as instant backup of my work data.

The reason I wanted a new drive was to save all of my URL's, ID's and passwords. I figure there's less exposure to hackers if I cut&paste these private data items instead of typing them, in case someone has a keyboard memory software hack on my PC. Besides, I don't have to write passwords in my day-planner, right?

Chances are I'll transfer my password files to the 1GB memory stick, and keep the 4GB stick for backups. Whatever technique I finally choose, I'm happy with the transportable extended memory options which are available to me now for a very low price.

Remember when there were limited (eg: Zip Drive) options in transportable memory?

Remember when RAM memory was rule-of-thumb priced at $100 per MB?

Four GB is roughly equivalent to ... what, 4,000 MB? I just bought 4,000 MB of memory for $55 ... a resource which (if available "back then" would have cost me ... a lot of money.

I recall buying a 460KB hard drive, twelve years ago, for about three times as much money.

Two months ago, I bought a 2MB Sandisk memory chip for my HP camera for about $60 in a special marketting drive. This was, at the time, touted as "Top Of The Line".

I do love the computer industry. If you can't find the deal you want, at the price you want .... just wait a couple of months until the market catches up with your expectations.
.




.

Bob the Nailer

Thanks to my friend Whitefish, I have been informed that the magnificent novels of Stephen Hunter are now to be introduced in the Cinematic versions.

The first novel to be so celebrated (no word on whether others will be created on film) is "Point of Impact", ... arguably the first book of the series .... renamed "Shooter".

Catchy title, ain't it?


Actually, this is "based on" Point of Impact, so don't expect that the book you know and love is the movie you will see. (Amazon dot com shows their NEW version of the book cover, shown at the right, which is dramatically different from the original, shown at left.)


The image for the movie shows that the re-release of the book is a marketing attempt to relate the book with the movie, which suggests that the movie will 'closely follow' the book. If it doesn't I'm gonna be pissed because (a) it means I'll have to rewrite this article, and (b) I'm gonna be REALLY pissed because I very much enjoyed the book!

The film stars Mark Wahlberg, which surprised me at first because I had always envisioned Bob Lee Swagger (AKA Bob The Nailer) as an older man. A man with more experience written in his face. But I'm looking at the trailer at the Internet website for the movie, and I'm thinking ... well, okay. Maybe. Let's reserve judgement until we get to look at the movie, even though the man whose face came to mind the first time I read the book is Tommy Lee Jones. Hell, he was even born in the same year as Bob.

In Theaters March 16, 2007.
Side comment here: "300", the tale of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae (a la Frank Miller's Gothic/Graphic style), will appear in theaters on March 9, 2007. Good thing they're opening a week apart.

The Swagger series (Bob, and his father Earl) is one of those series which I reread EVERY year. The only cinder in the stew is Havana, and I'm not worried about that blip in the creative process because it's only one of eight books and every author is entitled to a swing-and-a-miss now and then.

Now, I know what you're thinking. You're looking at your bookshelf (just as I'm looking at mine) and HEY! There's only seven Bob the Nailer books up there.

Here's the really good news:

Amazon lists another Bob the Nailer book, The 47th Samurai, scheduled for publication on September 11, 2007!

A note about author Stephen Hunter (not to detract from your excitement at the news that A BOB THE NAILER MOVIE HAS BEEN COMPLETED!): if you're not familiar with him, he is a film reviewer. You can catch his reviews at RottonTomatos.com, which I assure you are as well-written as his books. (Note: his original reviews are for The Washington Post, which is a Liberal paper but I read it now and then because it is Mr. Hunter's 'Day Job' and you have to respect him for earning an honest living.)

Just as I don't like some of his books, I don't agree with some of his film reviews. Still, he's such an accomplished writer even his film reviews are worth reading on their own merit.

I wonder if he'll review "Shooter".

Geek Thoughts

• I saw a flock of Oregon Ducks fly overhead today. How did I know they were Oregon ducks?

1. It's February.
2. They were flying EAST for the Winter!

• What's the difference between "Ecology" and "The Environment"? The Environment is the Stage. Ecology is the Play.

• This is my 10th year as Jerry the Geek. I created that nom de plume in 1997 when I began contributing to The Unofficial IPSC List. At first people asked me why I chose that particular nickname for myself. I spent a lot of time explaining that it was a take-off on "Jimmy the Greek", the (now notorious) Las Vegas Odds-maker. I explained that I'm a computer programmer ... a Geek ... and it seemed like an obvious nickname. People quit asking, eventually, apparently just accepting that I chose a name which is less obnoxious than that which others might choose for me. Since then I have pondered, and today I realize that I miss the obvious, TRUE answer:

"The Great One"
was already taken.

Area Denial

Last week, in "Gotcha Coming and Going", I mentioned that the military has developed a new vehicle mounted microwave transmitter to be used for crowd control. It's an interesting concept. It 'projects' microwave radiation with the effect, when directed at people, of causing their skin to heat up causing a burning sensation. They claim it has no harmful effects, it only distracts folks from whatever purpose they had in mind before the thingie was turned on them.

I'm a little dubious about the effects on very soft tissue such as eyes, but there's now a video available on YouTube showing the reaction of test subjects. One lady reporter Squeaked! and danced out of the path of the radiation. Nobody, including a platoon of Army volunteers, seemed to be otherwise harmed. Some even smiled in chagrin at their dancing avoidance of the radiation.

Here is the promotional video, where it's referred to as an "Active Denial System" (ADS). It has a range of 500 yards.

The explanation is clear, and it seems a reasonable non-lethal system with immediate applicability in places such as military urban perimeters in Iraq.

I'll warn you about the text accompanying the video. It was originally written by someone with an apparent case of the jaws against both the military and the current administration, but now I see that the text has been changed.

However, the comments are interesting. Here's the one I saw:

This weapon is still able to kill or torture ppl. Its a lie to tell its non-lethal. I saw other video and documentory on this new technologie weapon, it burn the skin without burning the material around. They did the tests on innoncent ppl in Irak, wich they are burned seriously (many are dead).

Ignore the limited English writing ability of the author (perhaps English is a second language -- I'm not being critical as I have not second-language skills at ALL!)

The charges made here are interesting. I haven't visited any of the other videos co-listed, so I can't comment on the validity of the assertions. I may say that almost anything can be mis-applied to caused effects for which it was not originally designed and I can't say I would be surprised to learn that this device would be deliberately mis-applied with destructive intent.

However, I'm dubious about the report of people dying in Iraqi testing. I've done a quick search of major news outlets (including among others The Guardian, the LA Times and the NY Times, AP, Reuters, USA Today) and I'm sure that a story like this would at least be as prominently displayed as the one about the Florida woman who claims to have found a razor blade in her Egg McMuffin.

UPDATE (The Next Morning):
I've done more reading on the so-called ADS.

Here's a bunch of people at BUZZFEED talking about this system which, we learn, isn't actually scheduled for deployment until 2010. And here's a PDF which explains it's not a MICROwave projector (my error, excuse the blunder, pay no attention ...) but a MILLIMETER Wave projector. It even explains the difference. With pictures.

Finally, the BBC weighs in with the vague 'feeling' that there must be something dibolical about the entire concept. Why? "Such a weapon also has the potential to cause panic and deadly stampedes." Even the Guardian (okay, ALWAYS the Guardian) has a negative impression to share: "According to papers released under freedom of information requests, mishaps during trials have caused blistering at least six times and one second degree burn when the beam was fired on too high a setting. According to the US military, the risk of injury is less than 0.1%."

Oh, well that wouldn't be good. Better throw the thing away, somebody might get hurt.

Frankly, I'm a little off-put by the whole thing.

No no no, I don't mean the ADC or the confusing terminology. I mean this early-morning blogging. I'm accustomed to doing all of my writing in the evening, even late late at night. Here it is 7am and I'm sitting at my computer waiting for the coffee to finish perking.

I've heard that people who write these weBLOG journals (surely not a serious attempt at communicating, just a diary that we leave unlocked for the whole world to read ... as if I could ever get that kind of traffic!) are to be referred to as Pajama Pundits because we spend all of our time online and never even have to get dressed all day. Sounds like my kind of job, I wish. Instead, judging from my mail, I stay up late so YOU can read exciting new (or exciting warmed-over for the next day) stuff like this while you sit around in your pajamas sipping coffee.

So what does that make you? Bathrobe Browsers?

Blogger Mania

Sidebar Links:
I've received a sidebar icon from Cowboy Blob, which I'll install shortly. No complaints yet about the cheesy icons I cobbled together. Either the owners of those blobs blogs weren't concerned, don't have something better to offer, or haven't read Cogito Ergo Geek for a few days. Could it be?

I'll install Cowboy's icon later, when I have time to spend working on my Template. It looks a lot better than the one I tried to make. That should come as no surprise, as Cowboy's pretty good at building these gizmos.

New Blogger:
LawDog tried the New Blogger ... an updated version of the software which is used to run this and thousands of other websites in the Blogging Community. (I love that phrase, almost as much as I admire the word "Buttocks".) He reported that it came as a surprise to him. A comment on his post noted that other blogs had reported problems, such as a slow load of Comments.

Syd at Front Sight, Press emailed asking me to change the URL for his blog to a 'mirror site' he created for his press releases because "When Blogger did the "upgrade" it got so messed up that I put up my own on my snubby site because I couldn't post anything on the blogger site. I am still posting the news on the blogger site, but that's all."

I loaded Internet Explorer 7 when it was (another surprise) sent to me as a MS Update. I prefer NetScape as a browser because it has more of the Foxfire-type features I like, such as tab so you can have multiple websites open in one window. Since IE7 has added this 'new' feature, I decided to accept the update. The installation wasn't as error-free as I had been lead to believe. Just 'RESTARTING' my pc didn't make it work. In fact, when my system came back up nothing worked ... not even the clock on the tool bar. I couldn't even warm-boot the computer (either with Alt_Ctl_Del or by pushing the START button). Instead, I had to turn off the box with the power switch on my surge suppressor, turn it back on, THEN push the START button.

I took the formal tour, noted that there wasn't a lot of really exciting new features (other than the TABs, which seemed to be clumsily done) and then tried to blog in IE7.

First surprise: when I copied the URL for the web-address where I edit posts from my NetScape browser to IE7, it couldn't find it! Then I fiddled with it for a while until I got to the Dashboard (the central control area where ALL of your blogs are listed), and when I tried to open Cogito Ergo Geek it wouldn't allow me to do anything because I didn't have a Google account!

I know that Blogger is a free Google product, and I'm grateful for it of course, but now they're starting to put some controls in that don't provide any advantage to me. There's a reason that I don't already have a Google account (same reason why I use the clunky Comcast email system instead of GMail ... sheer ornery cussedness!) and I resented this attempt to force me into their corporate mold.

Worse, as I navigated through their list of options trying to 'sign on', I discovered that unless you were VERY careful you would end up allowing them to change your blog to the New Blogger. Essentially, it's an Opt Out situation.

Now, the 'Old' Blogger isn't perfect but I'm familiar with it and, finally, it has become relatively stable. Having been an Application Programmer for almost 25 years, I am reflexively dubious about new software releases. For example, (I installed IE7 only because I was fairly certain I could un-install it using Norton GoBack, if the XP recovery machine wouldn't work.

Judging from the horror stories I've been hearing, New Blogger is only "officially" out of Beta Testing. In fact, this stage might be considered what I've come to refer to as Gamma Testing. That is, the software vendor found enough innocent optimists to get beat up by the Beta Version to get the very worst of the real-world bugs worked out (or they developed "Work-Arounds" for the bugs which were too deeply intrenched in the system architecture for a quick fix), and now they needed a larger universe of dupes testers to give it a thorough workout so they could discover the problems created by struggling to make it work under a wide variety of browser/operating system combinations.

In the programming buz, we call these people Pioneers. If you'll recall your American History, these are the people who moved into a new territory not knowing the dangers and ended up with arrows sticking out of their backs.

No, I'm not going to convert Cogito Ergo Geek to New Blogger until they drag me kicking and screaming into the 21st century. I deal with buggy software every day at the office. I see no reason to spend my otherwise enjoyable evenings trying to figure out why their software doesn't work as advertised.

New Blogger is to Blogger as New Coke was to Coca Cola. I still drink Classic Coke (and so does the rest of the Coca Cola Drinking Community ... there's that word again.) And I'll continue to use Classic Blogger as long as the 'other' option remains an option.

BTW, don't get me started on the word "Classic"; it brings up memories of ranting for years against the IPSC Classic Target. I guess I'll have to say I use the "Metric" Blogger.

BTW, I'm writing this in the morning instead of the evening. Yes, I'm still working on my first cup of coffee. Apparently it isn't kicking in yet.

Template Changes: Links

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

America Overreacting

David A. Bell wrote an opinion piece in the egregious LA Times on January 28, 2007.

In it, he postulated that America's response to the 9/11 attack constitutes an "overreaction".

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).

If I understand this correctly, Bell presumes that a World Power should not react as strongly as possible to an attack on home soil because they/we have too much military might to responsibly use it ALL in reaction to a casualty list which is 'too low' to justify the effort.

They don't "threaten the existance of the United States", so presumably something less than going to war is called for. He suggests that the threat is less than total extinction, but curiously fails to present his definition of a more appropriate reaction.

(What should America do? Kill 3,006 terrorists and then, suddenly, stop? This isn't any kind of resolution. It trivializes the Attack on America to nothing more important than a game.)

In justification, he points out that the casualty list (including non-combatants and combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan) amounts to "... roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents."

In all fairness, and with due respect to Professor Bell's position at Johns Hopkins University, I can only conclude that he is full of crap.

In this world, there is allowing your country to be considered a Paper Tiger, a soft target ... and there is a determination to never allow aggression against your country to go unpunished.

I support the "No Paper Tiger Zone" (with a red circle around it, and a bold diagonal slash) position.

The following is a comment I submitted to a Randon Nuclear Strikes post titled "Next Time, Kill More Of Us, Please!" (H/T also to John Donovan's post in Castle of ARGGHHH!)

Apologies for this non-IPSC post. (Full disclosure: opinion, supported largely by 'facts' from MSM and Internet Reference sources.) I'm trying to minimize the sociopolitical stuff, honestly. Sometimes, though, the Force is with me.

We hear a lot of complaints against the War in Iraq, not so many against the War in Afghanistan. I wonder why that is?

Nobody from Iraq or Afghanistan is accused of directly participating in the 9/11 attack on America (although Afghanistan is reliably said to be, or have been, the place where Bin Laden lives; the assumption is that warring in Afghanistan may someday result in the death or capture of Bin Laden.)

Still, some people insist that America has no legitimate reason to wage war in, at least, Irag.

They don't understand, and at least this one dimwit doesn't understand why America always "overreacts" to aggression.

The reason is that America, having an open society (nearly unique in the world, even today) can't defend itself against internal attack by keeping potential enemies outside its borders.

Well, can't or won't -- the reason doesn't matter, the result is the same.

The only viable alternative is to establish worldwide confidence in the sure and certain "overreaction" of Americans against ANY assault.

It doesn't matter if we attack the folks who attack us. We'll attack the country which sent the assailants, or the country which trained or otherwise supported them. If no better target is available, we'll attack somebody "like" the folks who attacked us.

This is retalliation, not revenge.

It's a pre-emptive move to insure that the world knows we will punish SOMEONE related to the attackers. If those "someones" fear reprisals, and know that they are a possible target, they may find it in their own self-interest to discourage any individuals or groups who might otherwise have mounted an attack on America.

There's another part of this:

While we're fighting Terrorists in Iraq, they aren't attacking American soil. Instead, terrorists and potential terrorists are lured to the killing ground in Iraq where their targets aren't innocent American civilians but armed and equiped and fully trained combatants.

Isn't it better to establish a beach-head in the Middle east to draw out these wanna-be terrorists, than to provide no better target than the American civilian population?

You bet your ass.

(Comment added to original post: Sure, as soon as America suffers another terrorist attack on home soil, we will read that "Bush's Plan Is Not Working!" from the Liberals and the MSM ... but I repeat myself. Five years of freedom from bombs in the subway and Anthrax in the mail will probably be seen as nothing more than a statistical glitch, apropos of absolutely nothing. Certainly not as the result of a resolute president inflicting an unpopular war on a left-leaning population of Ostriches.)

If we leave Iraq, we'll be seen as nothing more than a Paper Tiger, just as we have been considered after out non-reaction to terrorist attacks since the truck-bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut back in the '80s. Include in this litany of passivity the non-reaction to the slaughter of American troops in Somalia in 1993 ("Blackhawk Down"), bombing of the Khobar Towers in '96, the 1998 bombing of embassies in Africa, and the suicide bombing attack on the Cole in 2000.

As long as America would not react, its enemies continued to attack.

Oh, sure, there was the odd Tomahawk Missile attack which had no more result than the destruction of an aspirin factory in '98. That frightened nobody, and apparently served no better purpose than to distract the American publich from the Lewinsky affair. That was politics, not 'reaction'. Can you say "wag the dog?", children? I think you can.

"No Reaction" is an admission of a failure of will to defend our country.

"Ineffective Reaction" only invites contempt.

The only effective reaction is an over-reaction.

Hillary ... sings?

This video from YouTube just goes to show that:

1. I'm better looking than Hillary (Check the Profile Picture .. I'm the one with the beard)
2. I can sing better, too!

Well, can't everybody? At least most of us know all the words.