Credit Card Fraud

Well, that was fun.

I just got off the phone with my Credit Card provider.

My credit card has been canceled.

I didn't know about this when I phoned them ... apparently it was just a matter of fortunate timing that I went online tonight to check my account balance and last statement, and I was nonplussed when I couldn't sign onto my online account.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Earlier tonight I had successfully signed on to the website of the supporting lending institution, but that didn't give me access to my credit card account. Then I attempted to sign onto the URL specifically for credit card information, and it wouldn't accept my logon/password and clicked on "PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING SECURITY QUESTIONS". Which I did, with responses which were appropriate and accurate.

I found myself staring at the Brown Screen of Death:

Unable to identify you in our records
[error message RIO16]

The website would not accept the logonid and password which it had accepted only minutes before.

That left me with no choice but to read the 24-hour help hotline phone number on the back of my credit card.
Note: this number is in teeny tiny font, and if your eyesight is no better than mine I recommend that you get a magnifying glass and read it now, and write it in bigger font size where you won't lose it.

Eventually I was privileged to speak to a Customer Service Representative (CSR), a charming lady from India who speaks very very fast. I'm sure you've spoken to her before, or a close relative of hers, when accessing Customer Service facilities for other on-line services. I know I have, and it has always been difficult to understand them. When I asked her to slow down and enunciate carefully, the conversation was extended several more minutes. But I did understand every word she said.

This is when I learned that my account had been locked. Cancelled. Disconnected. Frozen. Sent to Coventry.

No longer valid.

On the phone, I was required to answer a LOT of "Security Questions", including my current phone number. (They had my OLD phone number, from 3 years ago, which explains why they were unable to contact me before locking the account. Curiously, I had checked my phone number just before they locked me out, and it was correct. Go figure.) They also confirmed my billing address, receipt of hard-copy bills (not happening, will now be corrected), SSN, card number, security code, etc.

The story was that "several accounts have been locked" because they had received charges from payees which were suspected of hacking. Or, to put it more plainly, ID Theft.

Mine was one of them.

The first thing they did was to lock my account.

After they were satisfied that I was who I claimed to be, the musically voiced young lady proceeded to read me the most recent charges:

DBODPOCOLC, July 22, $8.08.

No, I don't recognize that charge.

V KAREFE FON IND, July 22, $1.01
No, that's not familiar either.

MUSIC DOWNLOADS, July 10, $9.95
Okay, yeah. I downloaded an MP3 album from Amazon earlier this month. That one's mine.

Having established that the hatchet-job occurred yesterday (July 22), they asked me to destroy my old credit card and assured me that the bogus charges would be deleted from my bill.

In the meantime, they will be sending me a new credit card, with a new account number, and when I received it I should notify my legitimate online accounts.

Since my card was set to expire almost immediately, I asked about the expiration date. When the 'new old card' expires, they'll send me another new card, with another new account number and a longer expiration date.

That's going to be fun, too. I think I'll just not be buying anything soon if I have to pay by credit card.

There are probably several lessons to be learned from this experience.

• monitor your credit accounts frequently, and carefully
• if you can't access an on-line account on-line, phone your credit card provider immediately
• be assertive when talking to a CSR
• keep track of credit transactions you have made, so if a bogus one appears on your bill you'll know whether it's legitimate
• know how to contact your credit card provider in the not-that-unlikely event that you can't contact them on-line, if that's your usual mode of dialogue
• Don't be, as Elmer Fudd says, "vewwy quiet" ... you are not hunting rabbits, you're hunting wolves and you need help immediately
• Finally, and this is a personal situation, if your online purchase is denied by your credit card provide, this should be a big red warning light. It was for me, and I quit ordering from that 'questionable' vendor. But it still caught me by surprise, because they waited for a month and a week before they sold my credit card.

By the way, it's indicative of something-or-other that the first charge was for $1.01, and the second was for $8.08. The bad guys obviously started small, probably on the premise that if I saw the charges I would ignore them because it wasn't very expensive ... yet.

There's not doubt in my mind that they charges would have been very big, very soon, once they became comfortable with the assurance that I wasn't going to report them to my credit card provider.

I suspect that's what broke their back. They probably hurt a lot of credit card holders very bad, and were reported by their victims. That certainly saved me, because my credit card provider was alert and pro-active. Right now, I don't mind a bit that my credit card account was frozen. I suffered nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

Oh, and if YOU get a call from your credit card provider informing you that your card has been locked, and asking you to verify your Security Information ... don't do it. Instead, hang up and then call the number (in teensy tiny print) on back of your credit card. At least you will know who you're talking to.

Check your six, speaking financially.

It's a jungle out there.

Mo Dowd and the Grey Lady

Call me racist, call me a Political Radical of "The Opposite Party" ... but then, I repeat myself.

At least, these two terms are the interchangeable according to New York Times and the Queen of the NYT columnists, Maureen Dowd (when speaking of Conservatives).

Okay, that's what they are ... what am I?

From the American Spectator, here is a 3-page satirical opinion column on the hypocritical racist attitudes and practices & unspoken policies of Mo and the NYT.

You may not find it as funny as I did.

Evian "Dancing Babies" (Roller Babies)

Yes, there's a new Viral Video in town, and it's called "Dancing Babies".

For those of us who remember "Chackaboom Babies", this is Version 2.0 in the genre.

A commercial for Evian water includes some humongous CGI (we presume) work to show infants -- not even in the Toddler Stage --- roller-skating with skills which are not available to almost any of us. (Probably none of "us".)

This is not relevant to any subject you might expect at this blog, but personally I find the concept ... charming.

Enjoy. This is definitely one of the "Things I Like".


(Commentary available here.)

Safe Direction

For those of you poor, benighted creatures who don't already subscribe to The Shooting Wire (click here to subscribe to the thrice-weekly newsletter), you don't enjoy the pleasure of reading Jim Shepherd's excellent Feature columns.

I feel it is my not-so-reluctant duty, from time to time, to acquaint you with a few of the excellent items the redoubtable Mr. Shepherd provides.

Today he wrote about a gun-related product which I had never before contemplated. It was such a profound revelation to me that I felt obliged to share it with you.

The "Ballistic Containment System" from Safe Direction LLC. allows the shooting individual to safely unload, reload, clear or otherwise handle a firearm without fear of an "Accidental Discharge" causing injury or damage in any environment.

As nearly as I can discern, this is a patch of Ballistic Nylon plied with some other non-specific materials designed to trap a bullet ... in the Pistol version, up to .45acp.

This 'patch' can be included in several configurations, including in a range bag, so that the gun-bearing individual may safely unload and, in the unlikely event of an "Accidental Discharge", the bullet will be trapped in the material.

Note that the instructions for the "Academy Pad" (shown above, available for $165 .. free shipping!) include the reminder that the barrel of the pistol must be placed on top of the logo, while applying 'gentle pressure'.

I've never seen one of these accessories, I have no idea how well they work, but it seems to me that they might have some special utility on a USPSA range.

One of the problems with USPSA competition (and probably IPSC competition as well, if there are any other regions in IPSC which allow Concealed Carry) is that one who 'carries' must divest oneself of a loaded weapon before entering the host range. USPSA/IPSC ranges are traditionally "Cold Ranges", meaning that the carrying of a loaded firearms on the range is strictly forbidden.
I know, that sounds odd considering the nature of the sport, but remembering that safety is the number one priority, it is not an unreasonable consideration.

In USPSA, ranges are enjoined to provide a safety area at the entrance to the range where carry guns can be safely unloaded and stowed. We don't see that very often (actually ... never, in my experience), there is much detail in rule 2.5 of the 2008 USPSA rule book:

2.5 Unloading/Loading Station
2.5.1 If it is possible that some competitors arriving at a range where a USPSA match is being held may be in possession of a loaded firearm on their person (e.g. law enforcement officers, persons duly authorized to carry a loaded firearm, etc.), match organizers should provide an Unloading/Loading Station to enable such competitors to safely unload their firearms prior to entering the range, and to safely load their firearms again on departure from the range. The Unloading/Loading Station should be conveniently located outside the entrance to the range (or outside the portion of the range allocated to the USPSA match), it should be clearly sign-marked and it must include a suitable impact zone.
2.5.2 Where no Unloading/Loading station is provided, a competitor who arrives at a match in possession of a loaded firearm and proceeds immediately to a match official for the express purpose of safely unloading the firearm shall not be subject to disqualification per the provisions of Rule 10.5.13.

Rather than have a water-filled or sand-filled barrel to expedite safe unloading, it may be possible to use one of these "Safe Direction" pads at the Unloading/Reloading stations.

2009 CCS Sectional

Here's something that we will really like.

The Columbia Cascade Section (Area 1) of USPSA held their Sectional Tournament last weekend. SWMBO and I were there for a couple of hours to see our friends off-range, and to watch them shoot on-range.

Here's a vignette of the action.

Bay 11 hosted two stages: first, "Smokin 2" which featured the Texas Star (with only 4 plates, to allow for maximum rounds per position and also made the Star target array ... which made it much easier to set up for the next shooter); and "A Little Fuzzy".

This last stage requires some explanation.

The orange "Snow Fence" soft-cover played heck with Open Shooters. When your sighting deice is a red dot, it tends to get lost in the haze. The only way to overcome this limitation is to turn your red-dot sight all the way up, to maximum intensity.

And yes, if you forget to turn your dot-sight on, you are totally scr3w3d!~


The two stages were intended to be engaged "Back to Back", so after completing 'Smokin 2' Jan turned off her electronic sight.

Much to her embarrassment, instead of waiting for the previous shooter to reshoot she was cycled as the next shooter. She had bagged her pistol, after turning off the dot-sight. When she was ushered up to the firing line instead of the reshoot, she forgot to turn on her sight,.

This may not have been a problem except for the unusual circumstances. She recovered quickly and expediently, turned the c-more sight rheostat up to Maximum Gain (eventually), and look good on video.
Her husband, Mark, didn't face such embarrassing limitations. He beat her on the stage, but if Jan hadn't been distracted, he may have taken 2nd best within their competitive Division.

(NB: I posted this video to YouTube, but I don't doubt that they silenced it because the musical accompaniment was 'non-standard'. No problem, below you can see the full video with all the music.)



By the way,it's worth noting here that the stage designs were of a quality which surpasses the run-of-the-mill "Club Match" stage designs. I understand that it's difficult for one man to conjure up Stage Designs for monthly matches AND create even more challenging stages for a Major Match. But Match Director Mac M. met and exceeded all expectations.

Thanks for a very good match, Mac, and those Happy Few who also provided stage designs for this Sectional Match.

Match Results may be found here.

NPR Opinions

There is a dichotomy in my blogger-self which, every night, prevents me from writing anything at all.

I have things to say about USPSA competition, and I want to write about them.

I also have things to say about the Political climate in the 2009 America, and I write about them too.

While I think I ought to write about USPSA, and other shooting interests, I am so taken by the outre' events we witness today that I convince myself that writing about the things I like may be less 'important' than the things I don't like.

Tonite I'm going to break the deadlock. Here, I'll write "Don't Like". Then I'll edit some videos and write about the things I "Do Like". That should resolve the quandry, and the Top Story will appear first in the column.

What I Don't Like:
I don't like National Public Radio -- NPR.

Why? Because they're a bunch of extreme liberal patsies who tout the most extreme messages, and unthinkingly assume it's Mainstream Thought because Hey, We're Liberal! They think that because they and their friends agree, it's The American Way.

Here is one example, from a July 17, 2009 article on NPR.ORG titled "Foreign Policy: Born in the USA" by Joshua Keating.:

The weirdly persistent belief held by many Americans that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States has been back in the news lately thanks to Major Stefan Cook, the "birther" soldier who was granted conscientious objector status because he refused to fight for a president he believes is illegitimate. There's also a bill gathering some support in the House that would change election law to require candidates to prove their citizenship.

The birther phenomenon is predictable form of paranoia given the president's unusually exotic (for a president, anyway) background. But isn't the larger scandal that the anachronistic natural-born citizenship requirement in Article II of the constitution still even exists?

So, according to this article, people who ask "Where's The Birth Certificate?" are:

"Weirdly Persistant" (sub-normal and fanatic); "birther" -- cultists; exhibiting a "predictable form of paranoia" mental deranged, incapable of original mentation; and "anachronistic" living in the past ... out of pace with 'modern thought'.

Without parsing every loaded phrase, let's look at the concepts presented in the rest of the article.

Let's imagine that Barack Obama had been born in Indonesia or Kenya or anywhere else for that matter, and hadn't become a citizen until moving to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Is there one good reason why that would make him less fit to be president?

Let's imagine that Osama moved to Miami and was naturalized. Would that make him fit to be president?

Put another way, is there one good reason why foreign-born governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm can't legally run for president but Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin can?

Well, it's in the Constitution. But you don't care much about that, do you?

Naturalized citizens like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Madeline Albright have been allowed into the highest positions in the U.S. national security establishment without anyone questioning their loyalty. Why shouldn't voters be allowed to decide whether a foreign-born candidate is American enough to be president? New York voters didn't mind the fact that Hillary Clinton had never lived in the state before running for its senate seat.

We're still wondering how Kissinger, Brzezinski and Albright reached such high public offices. The simple answer is that they were never elected; and the reasons they were not elected is because they knew that they were un-electable. They are a bunch of maroons. Not "morons" ... no question that they were bright. They were just ... un-electable.

As for Hillary, I have no idea why people in New York thought that she would be a good person to represent her in the Senate, except that New Yorkers are sometimes quite emotional and much taken to the glamor of personalities with a well-known name. (For my friends in NY, I apologize if that last statement seems judgemental. Still, you DID allow Hillary to represent you in the Senate. I rest my case.)

Finally, I return to one single sentence:

But isn't the larger scandal that the anachronistic natural-born citizenship requirement in Article II of the constitution still even exists?

Well, yes. And no.

If you don't like the constitution, then change it. There are procedures embedded in the Constitution which allow the American People to change it. It's called "Amendments". We have instituted quite a few of them; some we have attempted to implement (such as the Equal Rights Amendment) have been rejected because the constituent states have refused to ratify it.

Why has nobody attempted to amend this constitutional requirement?

My best guess is, the citizens of this country do not want to change it.

Any questions?

Sotomayor Ducks Questions About Gun Rights

Sotomayor Ducks Questions About Gun Rights - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor refused on Wednesday to elaborate on her views about firearms regulations and the Second Amendment, saying she would "make no prejudgments" about future firearms-related cases.

President Obama's first nominee to the high court did say that she believed Americans do not currently enjoy a fundamental right to bear arms, which echoes her two previous rulings on the topic as an appeals court judge.

I commented previously about Sotomayor's candidacy to SCOTUS, and I admit it was not supportive. In that article, I also focused on her responses to questions about her support for the Second Amendment as acknowledging an 'individual right', and perhaps suggested that her support was tepid at best, reminiscence of a Cracker asserting that "some of my best friends are N ... uh ... Black People".

Today, the news reports describe her absolute inability (or unwillingness) to comment on the Second Amendment as an Individual Right.

Because Sotomayor has not clarified her position on gun rights, and has declined repeated invitations to do so during this week's Senate hearing, advocacy groups have turned to her written opinions and the president's own record on firearm regulation. (This parallels the abortion question: While Sotomayor parried those questions on Wednesday, the White House had previously reassured liberal groups that she would be a staunch pro-choice vote on the court.)

I have nobly managed not to address her decision on the RICCI case, and in truth I'm not willing to initiate a barrage attack on Sotomeyer's candidacy. I don't like the Ricci decision, I don't agree with it, but here ... it is a digression.

What most concerns me is that a candidate for the Supreme Court of The United States, one who has previously and historicallyl based her decisions on "precedence", is unwilling or unable to cite "precedence" as recent as the past calendar year.

Speaking openly, I don't feel much inclined to argue that a SCOTUS candidate who offers "I don't know, it depends on the case" is ipso facto unqualified for acceptance. Our last two SCOTUS nominees, those who somehow made it past the Senate Selection Committee, often felt obliged to respond in much the same way.

Consider this:

Existing Supreme Court decisions indicate the Second Amendment only limits "the actions the federal government could take with respect to the possession of firearms" and can't be used to strike down broad state laws, Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

This is all well and good (it says here), but this is not a nebulous issue which decision must be finessed by reading between the lines, such as Roe v Wade.

This is an issue which has been very carefully defined by the recent Heller decision, and for a SCOTUS candidate who professes to take into account 'precedents', one wonders why an interpretation of the law, for which precedents exist, has so much trouble answering simple questions.

To illustrate, read the transcript at the end of the article which offers a dialogue between Sotomayor and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK):

COBURN: Do I have a right to personal self-defense?

SOTOMAYOR: I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one.

SOTOMAYOR: Generally, as I understand, most criminal law statutes are passed by states. And I'm also trying to think if there's any federal law that includes a self-defense provision or not. I just can't...

COBURN: But do you have an opinion, or can you give me your opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?

SOTOMAYOR: I -- as I said, I don't know.

COBURN: I'm talking about your...

SOTOMAYOR: I don't know if that legal question has been ever presented.

COBURN: I wasn't asking about the legal question. I'm asking about your personal opinion.

SOTOMAYOR: But that is sort of an abstract question with no particular meaning to me outside of...

COBURN: Well, I think that's what American people want to hear, Your Honor, is they want to know. Do they have a right to personal self-defense?...

Those are the kind of things people would like for us to answer and would like to know, not how you would rule or what you're going to rule, but -- and specifically what you think about, but just yes or no. Do we have that right?

SOTOMAYOR: I know it's difficult to deal with someone as a -- like a judge who's so sort of -- whose thinking is so cornered by law.

[Ed: emphasis added.]

There is more detail available in the original article, and you may be justified in thinking I have
"cherry-picked" the quotations. So go read the whole thing, and maybe it will help you to make up your own mind about Sotomayor's candidacy for the Supreme Court of The United States.

Personally, I don't have much faith in a SCOTUS candidate who professes to be "cornered by the law".

I never thought that Supreme Court judges could be 'cornored by the law'. I always though that they interpreted the law. If they feel 'cornored by the law', are they really the best candidates for the job?

PNW U.S. Steel Match

I heard from Section Coordinator (and perhaps our next Area 1 USPSA Director) Chuck Anderson today.

There's a 'regional' (my term) match coming up, you probably don't want to miss it.

Here's the pertinent information:

The US Steel Shoot NW Regional is July 25-26. Applications are up on
the website at www.ussteelshoot.com

The bad news is we are light on entries. I've heard from several folks
that said they are coming but not many applications have shown up.

The good news is we have a huge prize table for the few that do show
up. We're well over $15,000.00 with more sponsors confirming every day.

If you're planning to show up and register on match day, please email
me so we can plan for the provided lunch.

Thanks,
Chuck Anderson
Chuck at andersontactical dot com

(The webpage for AndersonTactical is still under construction. I can't be very critical, my jerrythegeek website is similary under construction, although I haven't started building it yet.)

I checked the Columbia Cascade Sectional/Current Events website, and although I find a reference to the match, there is no link yet available. If you are interested in attending the July 25-26 match, watch here or watch at the Columbia Cascade Sectional "Current Events" website.

As of this date, I haven't been able to find more information. However, I can say that the Speed Steel events at the Tri-County Gun Club is usually wild and wooly. You may not be able to beat Max Michelle, but the prize table is often quite generous.

And with Chuck involved, you can take it to the bank that there WILL be a humongous prize table, at least as impressive as stated on Chuck's email.

This match is listed on the TCGC Calendar for July, 2009.
x

some of my Best Friends are ....

Sotomayor pushes back on GOP’s bias claim - White House- msnbc.com

Judge Sonya Sodomayor today reputed Conservative attacks on her appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States by testifying that:

"Like, you, I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans," she said. "In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA and I have friends who hunt," she said, adding she would have an open mind.”

Is this the same as asserting that ?"Some of my best friends are (minority group of your choice here)"

Yes, it is.

This is very much like William Jefferson Clinton who, when asked if he had ever smoked Pot, replied: "Yes, but I didn't inhale".

To be absolutely clear on this point, consider the disingenuous response that:
"Yes, but I didn't swallow".

Dear Justice-wanna-be Sotomayor, from your words we know what you are. All we are doing now is dickering over your price.

If that makes you feel petty, than good! You begin to appreciate that you have exposed yourself as a Cigar Smoker.

Americans don't typically appreciate Cigar Smokers. You smoke, but you don't inhale. You foul your environment gratuitously, and don't even experience real satisfaction from the exercise.

And you expect us to vet you to one of the most powerful offices in America?

Thank you for your ingenuity, but ... no. We don't think you are the best person for the job. We would prefer someone who is entirely candid about who and what she is, what her political bias may bring to The Bench, and then we can make up our own minds about how qualified you are for the office.

From where we stand, your qualifications are ... not much. You have already made up your mind about how you will rule on several key judicial issues which you may be called upon to address (Abortion, 2nd Amendment, and Racial Discrimination.)

When called before a congress which has not already established a clear majority as a Liberal congress, you wouldn't make it past the front door.

Yes, you may likely be voted into office for life. That doesn't mean that the majority of American people accept your racial and liberally biased vies of "what's right for America".

And Sonya, remember that most of us don't think only W.A.S.P.s can be racists.

This ability to appoint Liberal Judges to the Supreme Court is only one of the reasons why many Americans were reluctant to vote for Obama.

And now you, personally, have proved that our concerns about Obama were justified.

Welcome to Florida. Watch your six!

Woman shot in bathroom stall

Florida, one of the first states in the nation to pass "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry laws, reports a Negligent Discharge incident ... in the lady's room of a Tampa hotel.

TAMPA - A Tampa woman is recovering from a gunshot wound she received while using the bathroom at local hotel. Police say Thursday morning, 53-year-old Janifer Bliss was attending a women's health conference at the Clarion Hotel and Conference Center on Fowler Avenue in Tampa.

She was inside a bathroom stall, when a bullet came from the next stall and hit her in the leg.

There she was, innocently attending to her 'personal business', when a shot rings out and she collapses in a pool of blood.

(No word whether she had completed her 'personal business'.)

The woman in the next stall had just completed the 'drop trousers' portion of her personal business when the pistol she was carrying in an open holster (read: unsecured by strap, etc.) dropped out, hit the floor, and zinged Ms. Bliss a good one in the near hind limb.

Ambulances, policemen, janitors ... oh my!

Getting shot in the leg isn't something to make light of, but the circumstances are admittedly bizarre.

The pistol-packing mama was a concealed carry license holder, and the District Attorney's office is determining whether charges will be filed.

Which is a lesson to us all, at least those who do carry.

Do secure your firearm. CCW licensees are carefully vetted by the authorities, and are rarely charged with firearms-related felonies. Still, there is a disturbing tendency to carry 'sloppily'.

(I recall an Oregon man last year who had a .45acp in the pocket of his jacket, which hit the floor when he slung his jacket over a restaurant chair resulting in loud, rude noises and considerable upset to the other patrons. He's cooking his own breakfasts at home now.)

Videos of people advocating bans on firearms

Tonight we have two videos for your enjoyment.

First, from Australia, in response to the State's Director of Prosecution's call for a total gun ban in South Australia ("Enough is Enough"); an interview with Samantha Lee of the National Coalition for Gun Control.


Quotes:

"After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Howard Government and the states and territories banned all semi-automatic long arms. But they did not extend that ban to semi-automatic hand-guns. Now we've seen some great benefits from the ban of semi-automatic long arms. We've seen a reduction in firearms deaths in Australia, and hospitalizations and suicides. So we'd like to see that ban extended to semi-automatic handguns."

(Interviewer: "Just how feasible is it for a total ban?")
S.Lee: "Well what we would like to see is the total ban of semi-automatic weapons."

S.Lee: "We'd like to take it by stages, and if we can get rid of the most powerful weapons, which are the semi-automatic weapons, we'd be very happy with that."

[Geek: Yes, you would be 'very happy with that' ... for now. It's disingenuous, which is the same thing as a bald-faced lie, to imply that your only target is to ban semi-automatic firearms in the same breath in which you admit that your goal is to 'take it by stages'. You must hold law-abiding firearms owners in extreme contempt to be so obvious in your lies.]

(Interviewer: "So what are the 'semi-automatics', everybody talks about a 'semi-automatic' -- I just have no idea".)
S.Lee: "Well, Semi-automatic means that it just flows so very quickly, so you puta magazine chamber into the firearm, and you press the trigger once, and it propels a number of bullets in a number of minutes. ..."

[Geek: this is an obvious attempt to confuse the listener/reader when you lump semi-automatic weapons in the same definition as full-automatic weapons. Ms. Lee obviously holds the listener/reader in the same contempt as she does legal firearms owners. Who could fall for this lie?]

(Interviewer: "As opposed to just one bullet at a time".)
S.Lee: "That's right. Now sporting shooters will argue that they need semi-automatics to do their sport. Now, that's not true. .... Now what we would like to see is ban all semi-automatic handguns, and what that means is that sporting shooters can have single-shot firearms to do their sport.

(Interviewer: "When you see ... the Olympics, those aren't semi-automatics, are they?")
S.Lee: "They don't need semi-automatics for Olympic or commonwealth (?) game shooting. Now when you think about sporting shooting, it's about hitting a target. It's not about how powerful you hit the target, so it's about your precision in hitting the target."

Geek: DVC obviously means nothing to a spokesman who doesn't understand the people or the sports she dismisses so casually.]

==========================================

The second interview is much more simplistic ... and perhaps not quite such a subtle (read: "Misleading") statement on Gun Control on an MSNBC "Hardball" interview of NRO's Deroy Murdock by Chris Mathews.

In response to the Mathews' question, "Do you think we should have a Concealed Gun law in New York", Murdock says "Yes, I think that would probably be helpful. There are people who do conceal guns here, and to the degree that people think criminals may be retaliated on I think that that helps keep the place safe."


where Mathews asserts:

"I think they should check people on sidewalks like they do people on airplanes, and why Americans think an airplane should be safer than an American sidewalk is crazy to me. ... I want to see people disarmed. I want people disarmed in our major cities. How's that for a plan? I don't think we should all be armed, and I don't think more firearms is the answer. I think that it's wacky to say that the solution to armed robbery and killing in our streets is to put more arms in the streets. ..."

Houston, we have lock and load

In 2008, Mexico asked American officials for help in the effort to deny armament to Mexican drug gangs.

In Houston, ATF agents are responding with alacrity:

In front of a run-down shack in north Houston, federal agents step from a government sedan into 102-degree heat and face a critical question: How can the woman living here buy four high-end handguns in one day?

The house is worth $35,000. A screen dangles by a wall-unit air conditioner. Porch swing slats are smashed, the smattering of grass is flattened by cars and burned yellow by sun.

“I’ll do the talking on this one,” agent Tim Sloan, of South Carolina, told partner Brian Tumiel, of New York.

Success on the front lines of a government blitz on gunrunners supplying Mexican drug cartels with Houston weaponry hinges on logging heavy miles and knocking on countless doors. Dozens of agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — sent here from around the country — are needed to follow what ATF acting director Kenneth Melson described as a “massive number of investigative leads.”

In Texas, ATF are kicking down doors and taking names, not because they think that American Citizens are purchasing illegal guns, though.

Their concern is that American are buying guns for the express purchase of reselling them in Mexico.


Given that the Mexican Drug Lords are living the life of feudal rulers in Mexico, a life-style which is supported by sales of illegal drugs in America, we need to wonder whether the Mexican Government is reciprocating by cutting down on drug shipments across the Rio Grande to America.

Are elements of the Mexican Government placing a high priority on stopping the shipments of illegal drugs into America?

No?

Why not?

The Second Amendment as a Viable "Right"

Much has been made, by "Gun Nuts" of the value of the Second Amendment as a viable statement in reference to the "right of self defense".

This position has been largely "poo-pooed" by "Gun Control Advocates. Their position seems to be that, in this age of civility, there is no reason why an honest citizen should need to possess a firearm for personal defense. After all, isn't that what the police are for?

No. the police have the mandate to solve crimes, not to prevent them. This is legal writ, and has served time and again to protect Law Enforcement Officers (and their departments) from civil suits from the families of victims who have notified LEO organizations that they considered themselves potential victims, and have not subsequently received dedicated protection from clearly identified potential assailants.

Sometimes we require a concrete example of the consequences of LEO failure to protect victims, and also of the consequences of disallowing individuals the right to arm themselves for self-defense .... even though they have been informed that blatant threats have been identified.

A case in point is a situation in Ciuddad LaBaron, Mexico, as described in this Houston Chronicle article from July 7, 2009.

Essentially, a religious community in Mexico, populated by "Dual Citizenship" families (Mexico/America) has historically been threatened by drug gangs mostly because they protested to the Mexican Government that local drug gangs were predating people in their area.

Benjamin LeBaron and other village leaders had led hundreds of people in May to Chihuahua City to demand government action in the abduction of Eric LeBaron, Benjamin’s 16-year-old brother. The kidnappers were demanding $1 million in ransom, but the LeBaron community had decided to instead pressure for the boys’s release, which occurred in mid-May.

“We’re fighting as a community,” Brent LeBaron said. “Standing up against extortionists and kidnappers. But we have never done anything against the drug lords. We stay away from the drug war because we know it’s a battle that we can’t win.”

A placard left with the bodies said the killings were in retribution for the June arrests by federal forces of 25 men in a distant village accused of running narcotics.

In America, we are allowed to protect ourselves by self-armament. The "Castle Law" is a visible confirmation of the Second Amendment.

But in Mexico, it is illegal to arm yourself to protect yourself, your neighbors and your family. Because citizens cannot own guns, only outlaws own guns -- which lends credence to the old 2nd Amendment slogan which is so denigrated by "gun-control advocates".

Here is the money-quote from the CRON article from Brent LaBaron, the cousin of one of the victims:

“We don’t know what to do,” he said. “We can’t bear arms. We have no way of legally protecting ourselves.”

While the liberals of America criticize Second Amendment Supporters, they (the Liberals) are protected by a Law Enforcement system which, although flawed, is superior to the Mexican example. American Liberals glorify the concept that honest individual citizens are incompetent and subject to random insanity. They suggest that nobody is personally competent to possess a firearm without yielding to the overwhelming temptation to use that firearm
"inappropriately".

That is patently bullshit. These gun-fearing wussies (to borrow from Kim de Tuit) are so fearful of their inability to resist their own primal impulse to chaos, they are unable to understand that sane people populate the world with them. Sane people don't want to run wild; they just want to be left alone.

It is entirely possible that a peaceful community, such as Ciudad LaBaron, would be able to defend itself if permitted to do so by the national government of Mexico.

Instead?

Two dead, hundreds intimidated, and a God-fearing community becomes a "Last Man Standing" hostage to drug-runners and other outlaws.

Problem: a rural community terrorized.
Solution: The Second Amendment

SWMBO news - July 8, 2008

Last weekend (Independence Day) Sandie and I went to San Diego to visit my two children and their 7 children. We really enjoyed the opportunity to see how much the grandchildren have grown.

But there was a more vital element to our visit.

On Thursday, June July2, SWMBO received communications from the Genotype program at Boston Mass., suggesting that if she wanted to enroll in the program she could show up at U.C. Irvine (California) on Tuesday June July7, for interviews and to complete some forms. This is the necessary first step step toward enrolling in the program.

I immediately called my daughter, Jenn, in San Diego. I asked if she would be able to help SWMBO get from San Diego to Irvine (about 90 miles) on Tuesday. "No Problem, I can take the afternoon off) she replied.


(She had already found us a motel in San Diego who was willing to give us a 'deal' on a 3-day stay; we simply had to convert the reservation to a six-day stay.)

Yesterday, Tuesday, SWMBO and Jenn drove to Irvine and completed the initial interview process.

Then they went to Disneyland. What's the use of living, if you can't enjoy life?

I felt terrible about not being able to stay with SWMBO in San Diego, but I absolutely had to go to work for the 3 days when she would be in California. Jenn and I did whatever we could to make sure that she was comfortable staying in a motel for an extra 3 days, and providing for her own transportation.

When she returned to Corvallis this evening, after taking a shuttle-bus from the Portland International Airport (PDX), SWMBO was exuberant. She related that the program has already successfully treated a Lung Cancer patient with the same symptoms (including resistance to the benefits of Tarvastin Tarceva), and they are so far willing to accept SWMBO as a program participant.

As I have already stated, this is the epitome of HOPE.

HOPE that she will be judged a viable candidate for the program after she goes to Mass. Gen. for a biopsy.

HOPE that the program will find a genotype profile which matches a previous successful treatment patient.

HOPE that the treatment will result in a complete eradication of the cancer cells in her lungs, as happened with the previous patient.

There are, of course, no guarantees. But there is a chance, albiet a small chance, that the treatment will cure her of lung cancer.

It's too early to be too optimistic. That doesn't stop us from feeling optimistic.

Keep those prayers coming, folks. They really work.

I'm still impressed that Granddaughter Samantha refers to me (in conversations to SWMBO) as "Your Boyfriend".

I suppose I should be upset that I became the less-important member of this relationship, but I'm not.

As long as this world contains such perceptive five-year-old children as Samantha, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish.

Miracles are still possible.

Web Hosting with VODA

Last night I signed up for a new web-hosting service. Unlimited bandwidth, unlimited storage, domain-name registration, unlimited email accounts under my own domain name, and of course I can build web-pages in my domain.

I doubt I'll soon find a need for all the services they sold me (at not that high a cost), but one thing is certain: I will finally have a place where I can put files on the internet for download by others.

You may have noticed last week that I have become ultimately disgusted with YouTube's policy of removing the sound track of videos if the videos include music which is not on their 'approved' list. (Their 'approved list' is elevator music, not appropriate to the kind of videos I like to build.)

Resisting the impulse to editorialize about how I use the music that I bought, overlaying the sounds of gunfire and range commands, I have been driven to this by the litigious efforts of the Music Industry.

This is a move forward, though, not a passive-aggressive attempt to complain about The Way Things Are.

I like to shoot, I like to make and share videos of people shooting. Within the next week I'll begin uploading scored videos of people shooting, and readers will be able to both see the videos in small format, and then download the full-size video for their own personal collections.

It will take a while before I get all the pieces together, and learn how to use the new software, but today I have more options than I had yesterday.

I think that is A Good Thing.

Independence Day -- After the Fact

Last weekend SWMBO and I flew to San Diego to spend the holiday with my kids.

This is the first time, ever, that both children (Jenn and Ben), their spouses, and their children (all seven of them) have ever presented themselves in the same room at the same time, in my presence.

It was a madhouse!

But I enjoyed it anyway.

From time to time someone would put an infant in my arms and then stand back while someone photographed the event. Bad Idea. I am not photogenic. But I liked the kids, and generally ignored the photographers. Good idea. I provided the camera for most of these "Photo Opportunities", so I deleted them

Just to prove that I actually have infant grandchildren, I'll include some of the pictures here,.

This is Adrian ...

... and this is Logan.



Okay, so it's the same picture. Doesn't matter. They're twins, nobody can tell them apart anyway. It's like: "if you've seen one, you've seen them all."


Anyway, we not only enjoyed the Twins, but we enjoyed the rest of the family as well.

Interesting side-story: while I was in San Diego, grand-daughter Samantha referred to me as "Grandfather Jerry".

Sandie had to stay behind when I left, because she had an appointment at U.C. Irvie on Tuesday. After I left, samantha (in conversations with SWMBO), referred to me as "Your Boyfriend". I guess the grandfather thing is transitory, but Boyfriends are forever.

I'll never understand the mind-set of pre-adolescent females, but it's probably good that she understands the relationshiop.

Dundee Crap Shoot

It's not easy to write about Tim's performance on Stage 6 of the June, 2009 Dundee Points Match.

He did everything right, and it looks good on video (youtube link here). He moved quickly from one shooting position to the next, even though the stage was deliberately designed to tempt the shooter to be hesitant during movement. He was accurate from each shooting position, showing no signs of being out-of-breath or otherwise impaired by his rapid movement between one side of the bay and the other.

Looking good, Tim!

Note that there were no attempts to add music to the video. Just as well, they would have silenced it anyway, the maroons can't avoid the suits presented by music producers.

All Crossed Up

This is the story of five shooters who shot stage 5 ("All Crossed Up") at the June, 2009 Points Match at Dundee Oregon.

The stage itself was another sperm donation from Evil Bill.

Who else could include Classic "Amoeba Targets", Pepper Poppers, U.S. Poppers, small plates that "Pop Up" a shoot target, nearly as many penalty targets as shoot targets, arrays which could only be seen, let alone engaged, from the very furthest (real word, I looked it up) corner of the legal shooting box, fault lines and vision barriers and barrels, oh my!

All of that effort for Evil Bill to construct his demonic playground.

It's enough to say that the stage, while not exactly a 'memory stage', was enough to make strong men weep, women to batter their men, horses bolt in terror, and small children to have nightmares which will doubtless be passed via genetically damaged DNA unto the seventh generation.

In a word: I liked it.

Starting with an unloaded pistol lying flat ("no props!") on the table, fingers interlaced on top of your beanie, grab the gun and run ... loading the first mag as you go. Some of us managed this more gracefully than others, but when you got to the corner of the railroad-track shooting box, you were permitted to shoot a small plate and two Amoeba targets at the far, downrange opposite corner of the range. This distance was, by actual measurement, approximately 1.5 kilometers away. Or, far enough that the blurry fat front sight on my STI Edge covered the plate entirely. Note to self: if you can't see the plate, you can't hit it. The bullet is still rising, so aim LOW for goodness sake!

After a flurry of shooting and making up misses, screaming like a banshee "I Am So F***ED" (actual fact, you'll see it but you won't hear it in the video), and dodging no-shoots as if you were stepping carefully over an open sewer, you arrive at the other side of the bay to discover that you had another teensy tiny plate to knock down before you are allowed to engage the final Amoeba Target.

The Texas Star was hard, but I mean this Mother of Demons was HARD!

But maybe it was just me. I did actually see my front sight a couple of times. I ignored it, it ignored me. I and my Front Sight have a dysfunctional relationship, and it showed.

Getting back to the Five Shooters, this is who and what you will see in the video:

• The Hobo Brasser, with his new 'shorty' open gun which shoots as flat as a carpenter's level. I never liked that man.
• The Geek, shooting the Iron-Sight EDGE in 10mm, experiencing the first ever SQUIB and dropping 5 penalties for one FTE and 4 mikes when it was shown that there were lights on but Nobody Home.
• Dave, doing his best to Make The Geek Look Good with his jam-o-matic singlestack. You may miss the caption in the video, but he ended up with one ... ONE! ... bullet left when he finished this, the last stage in the match for the squad.
• Adam, also shooting Open, with the gun that wouldn't quit and acting like it was just another (Ho Hum) 28 round stage. Again, you'll have to watch the video closer than I did (another guy I never liked ... no problems, what's the fun in that?) but I'm not sure that he even bothered to reload. Okay, he probably did. Once.
• Ken, the new shooter who safely completed his first ever USPSA match. The guy is cold steel, man. Even though he temporarily lost count of his targets, he managed to turn and kill the last diagonal plate-and-popup with the grace of a Princess and the finesse of a bull-dozer. He liked it. He's good. He's hooked. Two Thumbs Up for a newly minted IPSC fanatic.

Enough talk. Let's play. The 5 minute video (link) has some slow spots, but it's got a good beat and I can dance to it. (damned lie!) I'll give it an 85, Dick. (Doors, "Roadhouse Blues", seemed appropriate. Choreography counts more than spelling or good penmanship.)
[Don't bother watching it. YouTube has completely deleted the audio track, including the stage sounds. Instead, scroll down and watch the video embedded by Blogspot. I only left it in here because somebody might want to see a large-format version of the video -- with crappy music dubbed in.]

UPDATE:
YouTube has been emasculated. It won't allow inclusion of an audio track which has not been 'pre-approved'. Most of these tracks (including those labeled "rock") are Elevator Music. Ptfffff! on them.

Okay, I'll include the video with the least-wimpy audio track I could find, something named ... hell, I don't know. Who cares?

Now that you've seen it in big format with wuss music, I'll embed the original (small format ... sorry) version with The Doors doing "Roadhouse Blues".






[This takes forever to upload ... I sincerely hope it downloads faster.]

Anybody actually shown in this video, email me and I'll send you the original (16MB, 5'20")l version, with music to match the action.

What a bunch of maroons. YouTube, you have lost your kewl and I am outta your teensy weensy world for future serious action videos.

Can You Count?

Despite my best intentions to edit and post all 19 of the videos I filmed at last weekend's match at Dundee, I have only been able to compile two of them in one video.

"Can You Count?" (CM 06-03 USPSA Classifier) is a 20-round stage which challenges the participant to draw, shoot and reload quickly. It also requires that the shooter can break the habit of shooting each target only two times -- sometimes, this is the more difficult challenge, because you know we get into a rut.

It's not very exciting to watch this stage, until someone screws it up. That's the signal for your friends to tease you mercilessly ... if they have already shot the stage successfully.

But when you don't perform to your own expectations, and it's because your gun isn't running right, jocularity is not the most welcome response from the Peanut Gallery. (youtube link here)


One thing about this classifier: the stage procedures are flawed.

It's not fatally flawed, it just doesn't make it clear about the penalties for failing to follow the written procedure.

Here's the situation we encountered (not involving the two gentlemen shown in the video).
The course procedures read:

On signal, from Box A only:
String 1: Engage T1 with five rounds only. Perform a
mandatory reload and engage T2 with five rounds
only.
String 2: Engage T3 with five rounds only. Perform a
mandatory reload and engage T4 with five rounds
only.
Targets within a string may be engaged in any
order without penalty

One of the squad members got a couple of shots into T2 before he remembered that he was suppose to reload. So he reloaded, and completed the rest of the stage without error.

I was keeping score, and the Range Officer asked me what the penalty should be.

"One procedural, for not reloading when he was suppose to" I replied.

Some of the folks in the squad took issue with that call. I reminded them that there was no advantage gained, so only one procedural penalty ... for not strictly abiding by the written stage procedure ... was justifiable.

In return, they quoted the sub-text in the stage procedures:

Failure to perform reload is per-shotfired [sic]
penalty.

"Yes", I agreed, "... there is a significant advantage gained if NO reload occurs, especially in a stage with a total elapsed time of something like 10 seconds. But the shooter DID reload. He just didn't reload when he should have. He should only be penalized for not strictly following the stage procedure. The per-shot penalty is invoked ONLY if he didn't reload -- which he did."

However, I suggested that they (the dissenting squad members) take the question to the Match Director. In the absence of a Range Master, in a club match the M.D. gets to make these difficult decisions.

They returned from their discussion with the M.D. with the word that it was officially ruled that "per-shot" penalties would be applied.

I didn't agree, and I counseled the 'offending' competitor that he had the right to request arbitration. I said that I would speak on his behalf. He didn't think it was that big a deal, and quietly accepted the additional penalty points.

I don't know if this issue has been addressed by John Amidon, or if a 'ruling' has been published in this kind of situation.

But it kind of ticks me off, you know? I have the strong suspicion that clubs interpret the rules differently.

Not that it makes a big difference; in this kind of quick-and-dirty stage, if you get even one penalty point it pretty much takes you out of the running for a good stage score.

Still, it was a relatively new shooter, and I don't like it when the "Wheels of Justice" grind so exceedingly fine.

Have any of you bumped up against this stage, this vaguely worded procedure?

I would be interested in any comments which discuss the subject. Obviously, I think I'm right. It doesn't make any difference at all to the match, at this late date. But I am ... dissappointed ... at what I perceive to be an injustice.

This is what I do to relax. The competition shooting, I mean. I don't like to argue about the rules, so it makes me turn surly when the rules seem unfairly applied.

Okay, so I do enjoy a lively debate.

Anybody out there think that the "Per-Shot Penalty" should have been applied here?

SWMBO Update

Ten days ago I mentioned that SWMBO is looking into a revolutionary new Cancer Treatment program from Massachusetts General Hospital which uses genotyping to "personalize" treatment to each patient.

Tonite she called me to say that her local Oncologist had contacted the program administrators and asked about the possibility that she could enter the program.

Their response (within 24 hours) was that the program was not available to the Pacific Northwest (I understand that to mean that the treatment was not being offered to doctors in that region of the U.S.), but if she was willing to travel to Boston they would test her to see whether she would be eligible for the program.

They also said that if she was accepted, she would have to remain available in the Boston vacinity for two or three months, and wondered if she was willing to accept that condition as well.

SWMBO said "YES!" to every question. Her Oncologist will be forwarding that information to Boston tomorrow, and now we are settling down to wait for further developments.

Although her cancer is atypical in that it has not responded to the usual treatments --
we don't know if they will accept her for testing;
we don't know if the tests will show that she is a viable candidate for the treatment;
we don't know if the treatment will prove to be successful in moving her from the category of "cancer patient" to "cancer survivor" .....

we are both wildly excited about the possibility that she can still beat this.

Please keep those prayers coming, friends. It's cause for hope.

Glock KaBOOM!

I don't want to give the impression that Glock pistols are intrinsically unsafe, or that the reason why they occasionally blow up [KaBOOM!] has anything to do with the design.

Still, I so wish to provide you with as much information when they Glocks DO blow up.

Here's an example of what the Glock Barrel looks like when it blows up.
(Actually, I expect to show several aspects of a "Blown-Up Glock".)


Here is one example of a Glock Barrel after a "Ka-BOOM!" moment.

The accompanying photos don't shot the entire mechanical disintegration, but they are very clear about the consequences.

The owner of the Glock (Fish) was careful to stipulate that three gunsmiths, including a Glock Armorer. found no evidence of a Squib.

Similarly, they found no evidence that the round was "Double-Charged".

So why did the Glock blow up?

Damned if I know.

Fish notes that not only was the barrell effectively distroyed, but so was the trigger group. (He sent this off to a Name Brand Glock gunsmith, and two other Gunsmiths, and the consensus was that the Trigger Group could not be repaired.)

Perhaps we have become too good at doing nothing?

Interesting video presented by Xavier this weekend.

"Thomas Paine" presumes to lecture us on our failure to protest recent Federal infringements on our Civil Rights.


The man is obnoxious, and demanding.

Still, I'm not entirely convinced that he is wrong.

What do you think?

USPSA Area 1 Election Reminder

The following is the full text of an email from USPSA, sent to (assumedly) all USPSA members in Area 1. I further assume that this is akin to a "press release", so I feel no compunction about quoting it in full.

If you're a USPSA member residing in Area 1 (Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming and Alaska) take note of this announcement.

[Also, rumor has it, Bishop Practical Shooting League in California, although the Area 1 link is "Broken".]
[According to the Area 1 website, as of January 1, 2009, Colorado has transferred to Area 2]

Please think carefully about your representation on the USPSA Board of Directors, and do make the best choice you can.

USPSA Election Reminder for Area 1 Residents

Dear Area 1 Residents:

As you know Bruce Gary is stepping down as Area 1 Director effective December 31, 2009. Two candidates have submitted nominating petitions and election ballots will be mailed by August 1st. As stipulated by the USPSA bylaws (Article 6.5), those ballots must be marked and received by the accounting firm by September 15th to be counted.

The bylaws further stipulate (Article 6.3) that only current USPSA members (resident within Area 1) with an original membership date prior to May 1 of the year of the election shall be eligible to vote.

Every election cycle the office staff is contacted by members wondering why they haven't received their ballot when all their friends have received theirs. Almost without exception ballots weren't sent because on July 1st their membership was expired. They may have renewed on July 2nd, but that is too late for ballot eligibility.­

Please check to be certain that your membership is current by the end of June. Please allow ample time for your renewal to be sent. If you renew online do it at least five days before the end of the month. Sometimes the internet does strange things with digital messages and we may not receive it as instantaneously as advertised.­­

The bottom line is that it is your responsibility to insure your eligibility to vote. Our responsibility is to follow the procedure established via the bylaws. We will do our best to meet that charge.­

Thanks you for your interest in USPSA.

Regards,

Dave Thomas
USPSA Executive Director

At this time, Jerry the Geek and Cogito Ergo Geek announce support for the candidacy of Chuck Anderson, current Section Coordinator of the Columbia Cascade Section.

Ted Nugent on the Second Amendment

He's weird.

No, I don't have any comments on this video. Although, as "Big Geek Daddy" says:

I wish ted would stop holding back and tell us how he REALLY feels.

(H/T: The Hobo Brasser)

2009 Crazy Croc Match is ON!

The 2009 Crazy Croc match is on! It is scheduled for Sept 5 & 6, 2009, at The Dundee Practical shooters club in Dundee OR.

Info and the application can be found at www.teamcroc.com

(H/T: The Hobo Brasser)

[NB: More information later, as time permits]

Message from SWMBO

I recently received this (uncredited) email from SWMBO. I don't think she wrote it, but I don't doubt that it almost perfectly matches her life philosophy.

For those of you who see me at matches and ask "How's SWMBO?", this is the primary answer. In the implied context, it speaks of growing old. In the larger context, it speaks of a heart which accepts life's travails.

I would never trade my amazing friends, my wonderful life, my loving family for less gray hair or a flatter belly. As I've aged, I've become kinder to myself, and less critical of myself. I've become my own friend. I don't chide myself for eating that extra cookie, or for not making my bed, or for buying that silly cement gecko that I didn't need, but looks so avante garde on my patio. I am entitled to a treat, to be messy, to be extravagant.

I have seen too many dear friends leave this world too soon; before they understood the great freedom that comes with aging.

Whose business is it if I choose to read or play on the computer until 4 AM and sleep until noon? I will dance with myself to those wonderful tunes of the 60 &70's, and if I, at the same time, wish to weep over a lost love ... I will.

I will walk the beach in a swim suit that is stretched over a bulging body, and will dive into the waves with abandon if I choose to, despite the pitying glances from the jet set.

They, too, will get old.

I know I am sometimes forgetful.

But there again, some of life is just as well forgotten. And I eventually remember the important things.

Sure, over the years my heart has been broken. How can your heart not break when you lose a loved one, or when a child suffers, or even when somebody's beloved pet gets hit by a car? But broken hearts are what give us strength and understanding and compassion. A heart never broken is pristine and sterile and will never know the joy of being imperfect.

I am so blessed to have lived long enough to have my hair turning gray, and to have my youthful laughs be forever etched into deep grooves on my face.

So many have never laughed, and so many have died before their hair could turn silver.

As you get older, it is easier to be positive. You care less about what other people think. I don't question myself anymore...

I've even earned the right to be wrong.

So, to answer your question, I like being old. It has set me free. I like the person I have become.. I am not going to live forever, but while I am still here, I will not waste time lamenting what could have been, or worrying about what will be.. And I shall eat dessert every single day(if I feel like it).

In the short term, SWMBO has once again gone to The Cabin In The Woods this weekend, this time with her sister Jo. For her, this is a place of peace. A place where she fed BBQ to friends, seeds to the birds and chipmunks, and read quietly on the sun-lit porch for hours at a time.

In the more immediate present, her last CT delivered disquieting news. The cancer, only last month residing slightly, has again begun to grow. He oncologist was scheduled to go to a symposium in Portland yesterday, where he will present her 'case' in hopes that other oncologists can suggest new regimens of treatment; as mentioned here before, the chemotherapy proved to be more powerful than her body can tolerate.

She personally remains more positive. She sent me this link to a television news article titled:

"Revolutionary New Surgery May Help Cancer Patients
The most ambitious effort yet in personalized cancer care is taking place at Massachusetts General in Boston."

This reportage is backed up by this article from the McClatchy article on "Gene-based Personal Medicine"

Her oncologist has promised to see if she can get her into this program. It will "require travel", and perhaps temporary residence for some months in Boston so that she can (if accepted) receive the full treatment with frequent evaluations of her progress.

This is the most encouraging news we have received lately, and for those of you who have been praying for SWMBO ... thank you. Your intercetion helps as much as anything the doctors can do, and contributes a positive force which helps us to keep the faith.

Match Prep

I have it from a reliable source that there are significant 'needs' which must be met before attending a match:

• Have a gun
• Have equipment (belt, holsters, mag carriers, magazines)
• Have ammunition

I've been just a little bit short of the third equipment requirement during recent match-days, so at the encouragement of The Hobo Brasser (who just wants SWMBO news, and to squad with someone he can beat) I set myself down to load ammunition for next weekend's Dundee match.

I figured 200 rounds should do me. I ran short of primers at the end ... not because I can't buy any, but because I rationed myself to 200 primers and I dropped two on the floor and one into the gaping "discarded primers" well in the cast-aluminum base of my Lee Turret Press. (I wasn't about to unbolt the press from the bench just to dig out one primer. By this time next month, I may rethink my position. It will still be there.)

I had loaded the first 100, was ready to powder-charge and bullet-seat the next 50, and was saving the last 50 (*47, counting the 3 lost primers) for Part II of my reloading session.

Figuring it was time for a break, I built myself a cold-cuts, crackers & dip lunch and sat down with a cold Weinhard's Ale while I watched the last half of the Donnie Brasco DVD I had bought at the Used Books store on Friday, after work.

I had never seen the movie, but I always admired the work of both Johnny Depp and Al Pacino, and the first half (perhaps two-thirds) of the movie was riveting as I watched these actors develop their characters with skill, precision and poignancy.

Just as I was slicing into the Bavarian Ham, I found myself watching Johnny Depp (Joe/Donnie) industriously using a bone-saw the hack the left foot of a fresh-slaughtered WiseGuy Corpse.

I paused, the video, carefully wrapped up the meat and cheese and put the lid on top of the cream-chease and garlic dep. Then I went up stairs and started working on my computer. Put on Henry Mancini's "Greatest Hits" album.

Maybe later tonight I'll finish my reloading; maybe tomorrow.

Whenever it happens, it will be a bit longer before I finish watching the movie. And I won't watch it while I'm eating lunch.

I've never been a friend of gore .. or Al Gore, or Gore Vidal.

They all make me lose my appetite, and make me want to wrap my head in duct tape.

Funny, I don't LOOK Jewish

My mom always has advice for me. Well, she's 91 and with that much life-experience she ought to know what she's talking about, right?

And my sister, Omgod, she disapproves of nearly everything about the way I live my life. And she's not afraid to tell me about it.

Both of these two ladies, bless them, consider guilt to be the most effective means to civilize the errant male. Ask my father, and my brother-in-law!

So when I saw this video, I thought about how very, very happy I am that I do NOT have GPS * in my car.

*GPS = Geographic Philippine System. And no, the driver doesn't look anything like me. (Although she does have a lot more patience than I.)

[H/T: YOUTUBE & HAPPYSLIP]

Primers = Bottleneck

I've been writing about the crisis in reloading component availability, recently, about as much as I've written about any other subject.

The reason for this is: I may not like the politics of President O, and I may easily find fault in the Socialistic Cultural trend of The Brits, but the single most immediate problem facing Competitive Shooters today is the increasing inability to expect reloading components to be readily available.

Prices have risen during the past 18 months, faster than any period in my 25-year (+) participation in Practical Shooting competition. And those of us who spend much of our "disposable income" and often some income which would ordinarily be expended on "essentials", are usually willing to pay a fair market price ... or even an exorbitant market price ... just to ensure our attendance at the next match.

Unfortunately, reloading components are not now readily available at any price.

I suspect that I am not atypical in having sufficient bullets, cases and powder to maintain a basic stock of loaded ammunition. Sure, I would have to cut back to two instead of three matches a month, but that's bearable.

The availability of most components (again: powder, bullets & brass) is fairly generous. Lots of alternative sources, and while the cost & availability of brass for 10mm and .38 super is perhaps not as varied as for 9mm, .45acp and even the forty short-and-wimpy, at least that reloading component is usable. That is to say, you can spend some time after shooting a stage and pick up many of the expended cartridge cases.

You can use a wide variety of bullet weights, designs and dimensions; there must be at least a dozen different powders by as many manufacturers who provide a gunpowder which is at least marginally usable ... if not optimal ... for whatever caliber you or I choose to reload.

But primers seem to be another situation entirely.

How hard can it be?

I can load .38 super with ANY small primer, although I would prefer the small rifle primer because it is said to be less likely to puncture and/or leak under high pressures.

And I can use either rifle or pistol Large Primers for .45acp and 10mm.

What's the problem?

NSH: Not Stocked Here.

Why are primers so hard to find for pistols & rifles, when we still see shotgun primers almost everywhere we look?

It may be because there are not as many people competing for the available stores. True, Military and Police purchasers need to build some stock of shotgun ammunition, but certainly less than, say, two percent. (Yes, I needed to bend over to grab this statistic out ofr thin air.)

Pistol ammunition is more commonly expended in military and LEO arms, as is rifle ammunition. They are more extensively reloaded by civilian users, too. Consequently, the proportional supply of primers for shotguns is less burdoned by demand.

The results we are all well aware is that primers which will fit in pistol or rifle cartridges are in much greater damand than shotgun reloading components, including primers.

Is this due to "hoarding"? Perhaps. Michael Bane links to a commentary which seems to summarize the reason why the demand far outpaces the supply in his recent article "Primer Shortages To Continue".

To summarize:

1. primers are needed to fill an increasing need for LEO, Military and public ammunition;
2. the increased demand of loaded ammunition is evinced also by private citizens who reacted to shortage of components, and the fewer primers are perceived as being available, the higher the demand.

This is exacerbated by the concerns that the Obama Administration will eventually impose draconian controls on the availability of ammunition, and reloading components, in a Liberal attempt to restrict the effective availability of firearms to private citizens.

Realistic? Maybe not, you say. So far, however, even if this is not part of the Obama agenda, it seems to be working out that way.

The Gun Grabbers policy has ever been:

• Nobody ever NEEDS a gun;
• Even if you do NEED a gun, you don't need more than one;
• And if you NEED a gun, for hunting or even [gasp!] for self defense, how much ammunition would you need? Surely one, perhaps two, cartridges should be sufficient to either get your deer or save your ass.

Well, they may not publically put it so baldly, but read between the lines and that is the best interpretation you can put on what they say.

Bullshit! See it; know it!

Last week (June 7) I wrote about the rumor that American Fire-Fighter Team Chiefs were being fired (let go, demoted, bypassed ... you choose the expression) because they had spanish-only speaking team members and they, the Supervisors, could not communicate with them in their native language.

Titled "What we have here ... is a failure, to communicate!" I made the points that:

• The issue was not current, but several years old;
• The original article was biased in being written by a reporter who failed to check the facts with multiple sources;
• And the primary source was a 'crew chief' who was demoted not because of inadequate language skills, but because of being unqualified for the position.
• Multiple other sources supported the statements of the Oregon Department of Forestry, in the person of spokesman Rod Nichols.
• No other sources were available which supported the charges in the original Portland Television Channel KATU article.

My sources were easily found on the Internet, and consisted primarily of the legitimate spokesmen for the Oregon Department of Forestry, Rod Nichols, and sources quoting Mr. Nichols.

Since that time, I found a comment from Mr. Nichols. (I invite you to go to the cited link and read his comments, where he very clearly describes the difficulty in defending ones self or ones employer against unsubstantiated rumor.)

The thing is, as I mentioned before, the MainStream Medis -- despite it's protestations that it is a more legitimate news-source because its published articles are subject to "multiple layers of checks and balances".

In this case, we see that this supposed oversight protection of Truth and Reality does not necessarily exist. Even the most junior reporter in a local news-gathering environment is often not subject to even the most cursory review and confirmation process befoe being broadcast.

And we, in our trust and naivete, are inclined to accept their published stories as fact without the most elementary attempt to determine the veracity of their assertions.

________________________


The steps I took to confirm or disavow the 'facts' presented in the original story ... and in the resulting Fox news broadcast video ... are not beyond anyone who is sufficiently Internet-savvy to access and read the story. I simply plugged in the basic story key-words to GOOGLE, and pushed the SEND button. I was presented with a plethora of hits and it was up to me to find those which were no more than second-echelon sources. (First echelon is the Story; second echelon is the "Story about the Story", or either rebuttals or conformations of the information contained in the original story.)

It's not more difficult than referring to WWW.DICTIONARY.COM to determine if the word you use is the correct word for the meaning you intended. It should be the basic minimum of background checking for anyone who desires to forward what seems to be controversial statement.
_______________________

The purpose of this article is to encourage everyone who reads it to check the facts before you forward that tittilating YouTube video to your friends and family.

The folks who write to me have often sent me Urban Legend warnings about computer Urban Legends ("Forward this email to all of your friends, and Microsoft will pay you money for each person who receives it") which cause you to proliferate lies to your friends and family; and "nuisance viruses" ("The Oregon Forestry Department is firing Fire Crew Chiefs Because They Don't Speak Spanish").

Because the basic premise is not true, the only effect is the proliferation of junk mail and often some people become upset because they honestly believe that the cited situation ... either positive or negative, is true.

In fact, a minimum amount of research will completely dispell your belief in the concept. But instead of investing that time and effort to research the Legend, the proposition is proliferated to many other people.

Often the perceptions of the general public causes damage to well-intentioned publics works, such as the Oregon Department of Forestry.

If nothing else, it not only upsets the recipients of these Viral emails, but it encourages them to write to the appropriate agency to speak out against a situation which does not, in fact, exist.

My advise to you is that if you receive an email which claims to represent a great Public Wrong, research it yourself before you forward it to your unsuspecting friends and family.

One of my primary sources to determine the veracity of a rumor is Snopes.

In this case, no results were found in SNOPES.COM, so it is obvious that SNOPES is not the only reliable source to confirm or dispute a rumor.

However a simple search on "oregon forestry spanish" to GOOGLE returns sufficient hits (302,000) to satisfy the moste determined searcher.
_________________________

So, before you sent that email to your friends, I encourage you to do your own preliminary research. This may not be sufficient for you to definitively determine that an assertion is or is not true; however, it may help you determine whether a question is absolutely true, or that it is sufficientl controversial for you to forward the question to other folks.

After all, their research skills may not be any better than yours, but they may be more determined to get to the bottom of the question. And if they provide evidence that the assertion which you have proclaimed is not reasonable, won't you feel silly to have forwarded it to everybody you know?

And well you should!