Oh yes, we've progressed as a civilization. We now have laws which forbid us to hate each other.
More specifically ... we haven't quite got to the "Thought Crimes" as described in Orwellian literature.
Or have we?
Case In Point England, March 10, 2010: a five year old child (or here a ten-year-old boy, depending on the source and the incident) may/will be "reported", and an entry is made in his semi-permanent academic record because he called a school-mate a "gay boy" in the schoolyard.
The scale of the effort to stop children using homophobic or racist language was revealed after the parents of a ten-year-old primary school pupil in Somerset, Peter Drury, were told that his name would be put on a register and his behaviour monitored while he remained at school.
The boy was reported after he called a friend 'gay boy'. His parents fear the record of homophobic bullying will count against him throughout his school career and even into adulthood.
... blogged at turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com that the three judges of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals should be “killed” for upholding a Chicago handgun ban in June.
“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions,” the 47-year-old blogger wrote.
He also posted addresses, photos, maps and other identifying information about Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer.
American Muslims are banned from helping U.S. soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and other "Muslim lands," according to a shocking fatwa, or religious decree, recently issued by American-based Islamic jurists.
One of the most respected Islamic law authorities in America has decreed it is "not permissible" for even Muslims who are citizens of America to send food or other aid to American troops serving in those Muslim countries.
The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, or AMJA, ruled it is a "sin" to help the U.S. military in its multi-front war on terror.
These are only three examples of "Hate Crimes" in the world today.
A child -- even those hardly past toddler stage, and placed in school supposedly to help him learn social skills -- uses a socially unacceptable epithet in reference to a schoolmate, and must live with the consequences of that momentary laps for the rest of his academic life.
A blogger not only excoriates members of the American Judiciary System for their legal decisions; not only encourages others to kill them; but even includes their photo, address, and personal information.
And an "Islamic Jurist" (speaking under the umbrella of a national society of Islamic Jurists) states that ANY support of American Troops fighting overseas -- even to include " the sending of food ..." -- is a sin.
Which of these three incidents are legitimately "Hate Crimes"?
In America, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects public expression of personal opinion, no matter how hateful or how heinous, no matter how distasteful or how outrageous. The principle is that those expressions which are most unpopular (or even those which are most 'politically incorrect') are specifically protected.
But if a little boy uses an epithet in England, is he protected? Apparently not.
And if an American Blogger encourages others to kill judges, is he protected? Perhaps not.
And if an American Muslim Jurist declares it a sin to support American troops overseas, is he protected?
Damn right!
What can we conclude from these examples?
I don't know the answer.. The main stream media, and our governments, swing so rapidly from left to right that I have no idea how to interpret the information provided.
Am I the only one who can't keep up with the difference between Right and Wrong?
The subject was a demonstration at Blackwater where Todd Jarrett fired 1000 rounds as fast as he could through a brand new Para .45acp (using hardball ammo, mixed 8-round and ten-round magazines reloaded by his assistants).
The upshot (sorry) of the exercise was that (a) the gun endured shooting an entire case of ammunition without a malfunction, and (b) ten minutes later, when it concluded, the pistol was literally too hot to handle.
['Official' time was 10 minutes, 44 seconds. Lots of delay when the people reloading the magazines couldn't keep up with the demand.]
I've just discovered that the whole thing is available on You Tube, so it seems appropriate to provide the videos here.
Note that toward the end, because the pistol was so overheated (and perhaps the shooter was overheated' as well) "normal mode of shooting" was victim of the exercise. Jarrett completed the test only by using his 'strong hand' to hold the pistol, and used the trigger-finger of his left hand the 'fan' the trigger.
If it needs to be said, this is NOT something that we want to do. Only the consumate professionalism of this World Champion shooter kept the test on-track without violating any safety rules.
Note for you at home: even the most experienced shooter can, in time, become so distracted by extraneous circumstances that he forgets to pay attention to the business of shooting. Under normal circumstances, when we 'mere mortals' allow ourselves to be distracted by the perceived need to carry on a conversation, the result can be that gun control is rendered secondary to the distraction.
This is NOT A Good Thing.
You may want to write that down.
In the immortal words of Colonel Jeff Cooper: "Thus Endeth The Lesson".
Let me make this perfectly clear, if it isn't already:
When I teach new Practical Pistol shooters, I make it a point that a stage starting the shooter "Facing Up-range" means: Turn, then draw.
That's a common error, and an entirely unsafe situation, in Practical Shooting. I have seen Grand Masters violate this elementary safety rule, even after decades of experience.
Here, we see a shooter who turns to move out of the second shooting position, and his body faces uprange. He is (as is proper) "Match Disqualified".
Even though his pistol is pointed up in the air at the time.
Rule of thumb: if your pistol is out of the holster, and you face up-range, you WILL be DQ'd.
Don't do this at home, and for sure don't do this at a match.
After work, I had made a shopping trip to the grocery store, already worn out from a full day of programming on The Job, and perhaps not as situationally aware as I should have been.
When I got to Chez SWMBO, I saw that the Guest Parking Spot was already occupied by SWMBO's neighbor, who had bought ANOTHER car (his 3rd, as nearly as I could tell.)
It was "Trash Day"; I had to move the trash can from the curbside back to the patio, and I was reluctant to park in my alternative behind-her-car location just in front of the carport, because I would have had to drag the trash can around my car to the patio entrance.
So I stopped a bit short of the patio gate, racked the steering-column mounted gear selector to "PARK", opened the door and bailed out to move the trash can to it's normal place on the patio.
Suddenly I had a vertigo moment; it seemed as if the world was moving and I was standing still.
But that was wrong. I was standing in one place. The car was moving.
And I was not 'standing'. I had been swept off my feet. I was hanging onto the door, one hand on the front seat, trying desperately not to lose my grip on the moving platform.
I immediately perceived that I had NOT move the shift lever to "PARK". Instead, I had not moved it past REVERSE.
The truck (a Ford Explorer ... "Big Ol' Truck!") was slowly rolling backwards, sweeping (dragging!) my body backwards by the open car door. I was shuffling my feet to keep up with the moving truck; but this was obviously a temporary expedient which I could not maintain for more than another few seconds until I lost my balance and fell under the front wheel.
A moment of panic; a moment of realization; and another moment of realization that if I lost my tentative grip on the door the truck would drop me on the ground and the front wheel would roll over various non-expendable portions of my anatomy.
In an uncharacteristic instant of clarity, I realized that my only option was to stop the movement of the truck.
Unable to reach the brake (or perhaps it didn't occur to me to push the brake pedal with my hand), I threw my right hand up and over the steering wheel, fortunately grabbing the gear-shift lever and bumping it UP to the "PARK" position.
The transmission ground for a second, and then kicked up into PARK.
Giving a profound sigh of relief, I regained my feet and stood on wobbly legs.
Then I went back to "normal" mode. Closed the door, moved the trash can back to the patio, and painfully (I had scraped my knee somehow) moved the truck forward to finally park behind SWMBO's car, which was under the carport.
---
When I went inside, I recounted my brush with death (or maiming) to SWMBO, who was properly horrified.
She has since moved her car to the GUEST parking sport, leaving the carport available to me.
Sure it's only reasonable. She rarely is able to drive, and I park in her apartment lot six nights a week.
But I am disappointed that my lack of Situational Awareness had caused her to inconvenience herself in the rare moments when she has need to drive her car.
On the other hand, I'm incredibly thankful that I don't have to search for a parking spot at Chez SWMBO any more.
It's not just a convenience; for a worn out old Geek, it is an acknowledgment that I'm getting too old for this sh*t.
My friend Walt (Demonstrator on last week's "Introduction to USPSA" class) enters here with a "Guest" post about Phishing:
To all my friends. DO NOT respond to an e-mail from Bank of America.
Their e-mail address is officesecurity85@bankofamerica.com [The address is deliberately rendered "non-link" for your safety. jB]
Mine said that they were having problems with my ON-LINE ACCOUNT. I have not had an account with BofA for over 40 years.
If you open anything in the e-mail, who knows what you will let into your computer.
I called BofA and was told that I had received a fraudulent e-mail. It DID NOT come from BofA. They are well aware of the problem and HOPEFULLY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Be safe, Walt
There is nothing new about this, but it serves as both a reminder that The Bad Guys are still out there, and also they're still trying to (a) get your personal information; or (b) dump a virus on your computer; or (c) all of the above.
Thank you, Walt, for keeping us aware.
And for all of us --- be careful out there.
Be aware of the links that show up, and remember that banks and other financial (and governmental) institutions almost NEVER send you an email except in response to an email which you have sent to them.
If in doubt, contact your institution by phone or, if its someone with you have an established relationship, go to their home website (do NOT click on links you find in the email!) and follow up on their "Help" or "Support" link.
And always, ALWAYS report an apparently 'bogus' email ... again, by going to their official website. Most have a link specifically designed to "report suspicious email" or similar wording.
Last Saturday, friend Walt wandered down to ARPC to act as "Demonstrator" at the monthly Introduction to USPSA class which I teach for the club.
Walt regularly assists "Iron Fred" at the Tri-County Gun Club "certification course". The purpose of that course of instruction is the same as the ARPC course: to introduce new would-be competitors to the rules, regulations and SAFETY PRIORITIES involved in USPSA competition.
He had asked me last month how I could teach the course in three hours, when at TCGC it requires an eight-hour day to perform the same function. So I invited him to come down and watch the March class so he could witness first-hand how the the class was conducted.
Sometimes Demonstrators volunteer; sometimes they are drafted!
Incidentally, the Demonstrator's function is part of the three-step Theory of Training:
Describe to the students the exercise which they will perform;
Show them what to do;
Let the students perform the exercise.
Walt was doing the 2nd step. And he threw in a lot of unexpected frills, such as multiple failure-to-feed situations which allowed him to demonstrate the "Slap/Rack/Bang" drill.
I still don't know how he managed to get his 1911-style single-stack pistol in .38 Super to jam so consistently! Nice job, Walt.
But I digress.
At the end of the day, Walt and I took a few minutes so he could brief me on his conclusions.
He said that the difference was not so much the course syllabus, format, or style. It was in the experience level of the students who attended the classes.
As soon as he said that, I immediately understood exactly what he was saying. I had the same problem when I first began to instruct the course.
For those first few months, I found that the class was repeatedly and consistently slowed down because so many of the students demonstrated only primitive, if any, understanding of safe gun-handling. Some showed up with brand new pistols which they may not even have fired. (I've already told the story about the student who didn't realize that his brand new 1911 had a safety!)
Still others were suffering from 'beginning shooter' issues: They didn't know how to hold their pistol, they tended to be easily distracted from the serious business of firing a deadly weapon, or they were afraid of recoil of even of the firearm itself.
I had discussed this issue with Club Competition Director Mike McCarter, and we came to the agreement that he would 'filter' the class list. He would insure that they were already trained in Basic Firearms Safety -- either by virtue of having taken the class which is offered at ARPC, or by their own level of personal experience -- before they were allowed to take this "advanced" class.
Apparently TCGC does not perform this function, so the lead instructor (Iron Fred) and his assistants (Walt, and others) never knew what level of expertise they could expect from their students.
A second difference between the two courses is that the TCGC spends the morning (3 to 4 hours) going over the USPSA rule book, and after lunch they adjourn to the shooting bays for another 3 to 4 hours in the Live Fire Exercise.
At ARPC, students are directed to download a manual (written by Mike McCarter) explaining the basics of USPSA competition, covering briefly the safety rules, the practices and the principals of Practical Pistol competition. They complete a simple 20-question test and are required to bring the completed test to the class. That test is the basis for the hour of 'classroom' instruction. The entire class works their way through the test as I re-ask the 20 questions and require some class member to answer the question verbally. Then we take one to 5 minutes to discuss why the question is on the test, define the terms, and branch out to related subjects ... which allows us to both structure the class, and answer questions which may or may not have occurred to the individual student. This process takes only a single hour, most days, although it may extend to an extra half-hour if there are many questions. (This has the unfortunate effect of cutting into the two-hour time allocated for the Live Fire Exercise; I generally offer to stay for an extra half-hour if any students seem to be struggling, or are interested in expanding on the exercises we have taken.)
I'm satisfied that the 3 hour course is both feasible and adequate, if the students are sufficiently familiar and competent with their firearms and the principles and practice of safe gun-handling.
Walt has told me that he will be writing up a report, or a review, of his observations and experience last week, and he will send me a copy to read and comment on before he submits it to TCGC. I do not expect that I will ask him to change the report; I know Walt and I can't imagine him turning in a report which is not factual, accurate, complete and fair. But I'm still anxious to read the report if only to see what his evaluation is going to look like after he has had some time to consider his impression.
-----------
You ask: "Hey, is that it? We expected you to talk about Glocks here, and you haven't mentioned them in the entire article! What gives?"
Right.
After the class was finished, Walt trotted out his new pistol and invited/encouraged me to try it out.
Walt has just bought a .50 caliber Glock! Not just any Glock, but one of those with a short barrel and a silver-colored slide. (Silver Plastic? Or paint?)
Walt knows full well that I am no fan of the Glock; it has been a running joke for over a decade how little love I have for the Glock Pistol. Given sufficient encouragement, I will grudgingly admit to some of the positive aspects of the Glock.
These usually are in the general vein of "That is one UGLY gun!" Or, "how many rounds can you get between "Ka-BOOM! events?"
But in the spirit of good will, and in full appreciation for Walt's contribution to the class, I agreed to shoot a magazine full .... which turned out to be six rounds. (Walt wasn't saying how many rounds the magazine would hold, I assume 9 rounds. See the specifications at the bottom of this article.)
The first thing I noticed was that the trigger was really quite good. I didn't like the 'creep' of the trigger, but it was quite crisp and I assume that with practice one would become quite comfortable with such a long trigger pull.
The second thing was the excellence of the sights. Very crisp, easy to see (they had the little light-green dots on front and rear sights, which helped a LOT; I assume they are night sights). Every shot went right in the center of the A-zone, with no "flyers" at all.
The third thing was that the grip angle was not as 'foreign' feeling to my 1911-spoiled hands. I don't know that it was because it has changed from earlier models I have fired, or I'm mellowing with age.
The fourth thing was that the construction was really rugged! This is a whole hunk of oughta-be metal, even though I know it's mostly polymer, and the grip filled my large hands we enough that I was confident I control the recoil.
The fifth was that the recoil was not as bad as I expected. A little explanation of terms: the actual "felt recoil" ... the gun pushing back against my grip ... was entirely comfortable. I had wondered if the .50 caliber bullet would see excessively punishing, but it was very soft. On the other hand, what I would normally call "muzzle flip" was similar to that which I have experienced when shooting my .41 magnum Ruger Blackhawk Revolver. The Blackhawk , of course, has a single-action configuration which expects that you will soften perceived recoil by allowing the momentum to translate to vertical movement as the slick stocks allow the rotational energy to be ignored. That requires that the shooter re-acquire his grip on the pistol for each succeeding shot, of course.
The Glock didn't slip in my hands, but I had no sensation of the pistol trying to 'twist'. It was very comfortable .... but there was no way I was going to get good split times and still keep the sights on the A-zone. Comparing it to a full-power 10mm load in my STI Edge ... the two are actually quite similar. That Glock ROCKS! ... literally.
Not suitable for USPSA or IDPA or Speed Steel competition? No, not really. But it wasn't as bad as one might have expected from the "Fifty Caliber" designation. Still, it isn't a bruiser, and as long as one avoids anticipation of recoil it's not a bad shooter.
The sixth, and final thing I noticed about Walt's 50 Glock was ... that ever-to-be-cursed trigger safety!
Every shot ... I repeat, every shot ... I took with this pistol hurt. How? That sucker bites; hard.
Somehow, on the recoil (not before the shot) that trigger safety managed to pinch just enough of the skin on my trigger finger between the trigger and the safety. Yes, the recoil is not bad. But I can see how repeated shooting (such as the 150 - 200 rounds fired in a typical USPSA match) would constitute a form of aversion training. That is, one would learn through experience to expect the uncomfortable sensation of being pinch with every shot, and eventually the anticipation of that "punishment" would cause the shooter to react as badly (eg: the "flinch" phenomenon) as fear of recoil.
Arguably, this particular Glock may be an exception. I've fired (often reluctantly) several Glocks and, while I don't care for the ergonomics, I've never been pinched by the trigger safety. I don't know if the trigger assembly has been fitted incorrectly, or it is a design flaw. Also, in full disclosure, I have been suffering from eczema on my fingers for the past two years, and it may be that my skin is just a little thinner than it should be (although the eczema never directly affected the tips of my fingers). Which is to say, I just may be too sensitive; this may not happen to other shooters.
Overall rating, this is just about the nicest shooting, and easiest to shoot, of the half-dozen or so Glocks I have fired, including the 10mm Glock shooting full-power loads, the 9mm, and the .40 S&W. Taking in consideration, of course, that the power factor is significantly higher. Other than the safety, I liked the safety, I liked the sights, and I even almost liked the way it handles.
I just wish I had the foresight to take a picture of the pistol. Maybe Walt will be able to furnish me with one. Depends on how long he keeps it, I guess.
Here in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, we have something like a half-dozen clubs and shooting ranges where you can go on almost any weekend of the month to shoot a Practical Pistol match.
One of the most innovative has been Douglas Ridge Rifle Club.
At DRRC, a small group of experienced IPSC/USPSA competitors decided to try something new: instead of joining in the list of clubs who provide monthly matches for other 'experienced competitors', why not establish a venue for "new shooters" to try the IPSC/USPSA competitive format?
If the shooters didn't like it, at least they knew WHY they didn't like it.
And if they discovered that they liked IPSC/USPSA competition, then they already had sufficient experience (and training) to segue neatly into the regular match schedules provided by other clubs?
It was a bold concept, but unfortunately -- like many other innovative concepts -- it was dependent upon the energy and efforts of a single "key man".
And almost inevitably, when the Key Man found that the effort required to continue the program could not be turned over to a successor, the concept foundered, withered, and eventually died.
Here is the letter announcing the death knell of A Good Idea, from that Key Man .... Paul:
6 years ago I started with an idea that we should provide new shooters with an opportunity to try our shooting game in a setting more relaxed and with less pressure than a regular sanctioned match. New shooters could bring minimal gear and test the game and their gear and see if they wanted to follow on with our fun style of shooting. At the match they would receive shooting training and help following all the safety rules that we live by. In the last 6 years we have started and trained a lot of new shooters. Many have moved onto the sanctioned matches and are doing very well, others decided that the game wasn't for them but they had the opportunity to test the waters and not be out a lot and not be intimidated by large crowds of 70 or more shooters.
Phase 1 of my dream has worked and worked well. Phase 2 was a little more difficult as our section is always needing match directors. Phase 2 was to bring in a few shooters who wanted to step up to the match director level and help our section out. They could train on matches at DRRC, I would help them with what little I knew and they could gain confidence and skill in a small relaxed setting. When the candidate was ready they could step up and be a MD at Dundee and be watched and helped by Bill Marrs and myself along with Mike McCarter and given a chance to learn the MD duties and still be helped along the way. This would be a great learning experience, as opposed to being thrown into the fire style, and would help the section tremendously as we are always looking for help.
This is where my idea stopped. I asked for interested people to train for the MD position and nothing happened. Not finding help there I started asking for help in running these matches as I was hoping this was a growing project and I wanted to be able to get out and do a few outings with my family and friends.
After over a year of no response I decided that it was time for me to part and if nobody wanted to take over the project would have to die out. Sat will be our last match at DRRC until someone decides to resurrect it. It's been a good run, we have trained more new shooters than any club around and the new shooters have experienced beginning stages and have shot some stages that are way over their heads in difficulty. We have also designed stages that we have been able to shoot in the down pours of winter rains by pulling them in and shooting them from under a tent top cover. I can remember a few of those matches would have had everyone walk off at other clubs but we shot them dry.
Most of the time our crowd has been in the 15-20 shooter ranger, just right for new shooters but a few have been in the 30+ range which was a pretty good load for our range. Had we been able to build bays a few years ago as was my dream we would now have been a sanctioned club putting on a great show every month.
That was not to be, times change for some, some of us grow and move on, other groups stall and stagnate. That's life. We were able to put on a match of 6 stages on a flat field with no bays and pull it off. Our stages came close to matching club shoots with shooting bays so I was never embarrassed by our matches, they could stand on their own.
This Sat we'll have a stage or some stages, I'm not sure which or what at this time. My first idea was to put all the targets and props out on the field and everyone would shoot all their ammo together at the same time. Everyone would end with the same time and same score..... All winners on the last match. I had a dream and we got there.
See you Sat and I hope there are enough early birds to do the set up.
It's important to acknowledge that a six year effort is a laudable contribution. Nobody can fault him for losing heart when he has worked so hard. It's not his fault that the anticipated turn-over didn't happen.
And this is nothing new; in fact, it's almost axiomatic that a successful club is defined by the ability (and willingness!) of other club members to take over a successful program and continue it, to the mutual benefit of both the club and future participants who follow in the footsteps of the hundreds of folks who appreciated the unique opportunity afforded them.
It's also important to acknowledge that Paul has put at least as much time into the evolution of a 'standard' USPSA club, when he joined with a cadre of members to continue a successful USPSA/IPSC program at Dundee.
I don't blame him for eventually deciding that his life is too busy to continue bearing the burdens of more than one program. If I had the courage to attempt such an innovative program, I'm sure I would have bailed out the first year.
I am reluctant to label this "IPSC Burnout", but it's almost inevitable. We have see it so many times.
The common scenario is: A visionary person has an original idea, makes it work, and when he turns around to turn it over to his successor ... nobody steps up to accept the mantle of Leader.
We in the Columbia Cascade Section of USPSA have been exceedingly fortunate that we have so many dedicated and energetic people that we can 'usually' expect to find some other masochistic person to pick up the torch and run with it.
But when there is nobody there, the result is that the Key Man runs out of energy and the program dies, no matter how valuable the program may be.
This is the point at which the author (in this case, me) should offer a simple, yet effective, solution.
I don't have one.
There is a finite pool of energetic entrepreneurial people in any group, and like most people I am not willing to assume the responsibility ... and, yes, the burden ... of running an IPSC/USPSA program.
The Good Lord knows that I'm not personally willing to accept the responsibility to run such a program. It's a game for me, and about all I want to do is play The Game. I'm not the man that Paul is, and few of us are.
We all have a life to live, and we mostly don't have the urge, the energy, or the strong sense of responsibility needed to run such a program.
So ... we are all too much like those voyeurs who slow down when they see an accident of the freeway; we watch something of value turn into twisted shards of no value; we shake our heads and we say:
I received my copy of ISniper by Stephen Hunter on Friday, and I finished it on Sunday.
Why the delay in finishing the book?
No good reason, I just stopped to eat and sleep from time to time.
But here's some advice: If you want to understand all of the nuances (especially in the penultimate chapter 55), it is imperative that you listen to Marty Robbins' "Gunfighter Ballads". Especially cut#1 "Big Iron" (lyrics also available here).
I'm just saying, if you are a devotee of "Bob the Nailer", you won't be disappointed. But the Marty Robbins lyrics server to enhance the experience.
Oh, and Single Action Society members receive their just homage, as have reloaders, hunters, ex-military, IPSC and bench-rest shooters in previous Hunter books.
It's a good read. Buy it and read it. Encourage Stephen Hunter to write the next (and possibly last) BTN ... next year.
He has already sold the book. Now he must write it!
Are the individual states "pushing" for "looser" gun laws? Have the 2008 - 2009 fears of American Citizens that a new President Obama would bring back the Assault Weapons Ban and close the "Gunshow Loophole" been proven to be entirely without foundation?
Have I under-estimated the Obama Agenda?
Those are the general impressions one might get from reading this New York Times article dated February 24, 2010.
On the other time, the "The Times" article (it was republishede on the MSNBC Internet website) did a not-bad job of showing at least part of the two sides of the issue.
The fine folks at Handgun Control, Inc.The Brady Campaign to End Handgun Violence are extremely disappointed that Obama failed to meet their own private political agenda. The "fears" cited in the first paragraph are the goals of The Brady Bunch.
They are confused; they did not get the kind of leadership that they had hoped for from Obama.
Hah! Stand in line, Brady Bunch. You're just another "Obama Disappointed" group.
So after I wrote the "Bad Blogger" apology, I went to the doctor to see what my problem was that I was thinking I was having a heart attack.
No problem, it was some kind of acid indigestion thing, which Doctor Sean (I never thought I would have a doctor named Sean; I always though in terms of Ben Casey ... or Hawkeye Pearce) tells me is the most common thing that causes prolonged upper-chest pain.
Heart attacks and that sort of circulatory system-caused thing are typified by short, acute pain. If it lasts for more than a little while, it's probably a problem with your digestive system.
Now I'm taking an over-the-counter medication for stomach acidity. Darn, if I'm going to give up my nightly dose of Jamison's, it ought to be for a better reason than a tummy-ache.
But just to make sure, I'm scheduled for a Cardiac Stress test on Friday afternoon. I have to walk for 20-30 minutes on a treadmill, while I'm hooked up to an EKG. (They gave me a static EKG on Tuesday afternoon ... nothing to see here folks, move on.)
It's probably a good thing to have a regular doctor, but I'm concerned that I've seen my doctor since I've had a doctor more than I've seen a doctor in all the decades when I didn't have a doctor.
That didn't make a lot of sense to you, did it? But it did to me. Probably, that's why I got a doctor named "Sean", instead of "Marcus Welby".
Father forgive me, for it has been 20 days since I have posted to my blog.
Okay, it wasn't all my fault. Besides being distracted by the situation of SWMBO, and my own medical and dental issues, I have not actually had a lot to say for a while.
I did instruct another class in "Introduction to USPSA" on February 6. I had six students, four or five helpers, and a couple of folks who just wandered into the shooting bay and hung around to watch the show. That was a good experience for me, and I hope a similarly good experience for everyone else present.
The next weekend (February 13, Saturday) I actually showed up at the match to compete. I did not do well .... I'm still having problems with my Open Gun as well as with my Dillon XL650 which does not index the shell-plate sufficiently to align with the primer feeder, so I'm loading for the 10mm edge with iron sights and I do not see iron sights well. But I ended up in the mediocre middle. Still, 3 of the six students from the prior week-end class appeared, and two of the squadded with me. I was impressed by their ability, and was proud to award Certification Certificates to two of them. (The third, Greg C., left before the Award Ceremony. Greg, if you are listening, I owe you a card. You deserve it for shooting safely through the entire match. That's better than one long-time shooter did; everybody DQs sooner or later. Match results here.
FWIW, I ended up 29 of 64 shooters, 25th of 21 Limited, and Last of 9 B-Limited shooters.
That's not as traumatic as it should be, I think, because I very much enjoyed my time on the range. From the first stage on, I realized that I was "Shooting for Fun" (an euphemism for "Can't Hit Shit") so for the rest of the day I just relaxed and enjoyed it.
And I had plenty of time to talk with the new shooters in my squad, and carefully avoid providing them with unsolicited advice. The new shooters did fine, they were careful and SAFE, and they had a good time.
SWMBO and I are still experiencing medical problems. Hers are infinitely more serious than mine. The difference is that I can still demonstrated my fading expertise on the range ... she cannot. We both still like to compete, but only I am able to demonstrate my incompetence in public. I miss her company at matches. I still manage to spend most evenings with her, if only to enjoy her company as we watch Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy. She still beats me in yelling out the correct answers, so she is still A Winner.
Tomorrow I turn 65. I am reliably informed that I must register for Medicare, even though I am still working (most days) and still have private medical insurance through my employer.
They tell me that Medicare is "broken", and that I am about to suffer the disappearance of Medicare benefits as the Post War Baby Boomers mature. It doesn't matter much to me. The older I get, the more time I spend in doctors' offices. The more they do for me, the more my health declines. I suspect that there is a cause-and-effect relationship there, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Tonite I experienced two episodes of severe muscular stress in my arms, shoulders and back. I wondered for a while, each time, if this was a precursor of Heart Disease. I wondered if I should seek medical help; then I thought --- why should I? The doctors haven't helped anyone that I know, so far?
1. If you are not legally permitted to purchase a firearm for your own use, you are not allowed to be any part of purchasing a firearm for someone else. In the best case, you and your "other person" can present yourselves to a dealer and you BOTH fill out the forms. Regardless of who actually pays for the firearm, or who accepts delivery of the firearm, you are both performing a legal action. 2. If you are not legally permitted to purchase a firearm for your own use, and you approach a "non FFL owner of a private collection" (not a "dealer? Not required to hold a Federal Firearms License) and the owner has any reason to suspect that you are not permitted to purchase a firearm ... that owner is not permitted to sell you a firearm.
Sales by "private collectors" are often, even 'usually', permitted at firearms shows. Non-dealers (who do not have a FFL) have less stringent Federal control over those to whom they may sale a firearm. This allows you to, for example, sell a pistol to your brother-in-law. Yes, even if your brother-in-law is an idiot. But if you suspect that the purchaser is not legally permitted to purchase or own a firearms, it is a violation of federal law for you to complete that transaction.
Is your brother-in-law-the-idiot legally entitled to purchase and own a firearm? Yes, you (as a "private collector") can probably complete the transaction legally. I do not know this, but this is my understanding. Don't go to court and present this purely private opinion as your defense; I am not a lawyer nor do I portray one on television.
What we're talking about here is nothing more than the use of common sense in firearms transactions, plus a determination to NOT place anyone at risk.
Depending on where you live, and certain characteristics of the firearm involved, you may not legally transfer a firearm to a convicted felon, a maniac, or a minor (YMMV). But you probably wouldn't want to do this, would you?
The "ownership" (or transfer to) a Minor is often covered by the legal fiction that you as the parent of the minor will allow the minor to use the firearm, but you still own it and are responsible for insuring that the minor uses it in a safe manner within a legal context. Again, YMMV.
But within the context of the situations described above ("Straw Purchases"), the legal transfer of firearms between individuals is subtly different for "private collectors" and "FFL Dealers".
The so-called Gun Show Loophole generally refers to the permission for "private collectors" (or "private individuals") to transfer firearms between themselves without the necessity of performing background checks. That is, if the owner is not a licensed dealer, he is not necessrily obliged to perform a background check through NCIS on a prospective purchaser.
In reality, the sponsors of gunshows now-days usually are inclined to require background checks on ALL purchasers when the transaction is conducted on the premises.
On the other hand, if you put an ad in the newspapers offering to sell a firearm, and someone responds positively to the offer ... while you are not obligated to require a background check (which is difficult under the current NCIS system) on the purchaser, you are STILL required to refuse to sell a firearm to anyone who you suspect the be not a legal purchaser. Again felon, maniac, minor, etc.
Still ... it may often happen that a private person who appears at a gun show with a gun to sell or trade, and who does not rent a table at the show, is approached by another private person who evinces an interest. If they remove themselves from the premises, from the control and authority of the gunshow sponsors, that transaction may be legal as long as the seller believes that the purchaser is legally permitted to purchase and own a firearm.
Depending on the outcome of HR 2324, and depending upon the circumstances (that is, if the sale begins or ends on the premises of a Gun Show),that permission may or may not apply to the transaction.
But it is probably still legal within the confines of your own home.
West Virginia state Sen. Jeffrey Kessler says he would throw NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's investigators in jail, if they continue trying to 'sting' WV firearms retailers.
During the past few years, Bloomberg has spent considerable time, effort and (presumably) NY City funds sending 'agents' to Southern states attempting to entice firearm dealers to bend, break or mutilate Federal Firearm Laws by selling guns to 'buyers' who are not legally permitted to purchase firearms from a Federally licensed Firearms Dealer.
One of the more common tactics is for two agents to enter a gun store, and one agent who is presumably a legal purchaser buys a gun for the benefit of the other agent ... who is, in turn, NOT a legal purchaser. This is called "Straw Purchasing".
If the dealer completes the sale, the NYC agents notify local ATF agents with the sole intent of identifying the FFL dealer as one who has violated federal laws.
Other 'stings' may be even more subtle.
Bloomberg claims that most illegal firearms confiscated in NYC (a city with firearms laws so stringent that it is almost impossible for a law-abiding citizen to buy a gun) have been tracked to dealers in Southern States.
Bloomberg has gone to war with these states with his sting operations.
The FFL Dealers in these states have taken exception to the efforts of this out-of-state municipal politician deliberately establishing questionable situations to which they must respond .. and with good reason.
In Smyrna, Georgia (home of GLOCK, USA), for example, one dealer has reacted strongly in a response to Blomberg's predations on his business, asserting "Blomberg Went Too Far". A 2007 NY Times article stated "Jay Wallace, who owns Adventure Outdoors, one of the major gun distributors in the area and a defendant in one of the city’s lawsuits, is countersuing Mr. Bloomberg, alleging fraud, slander and libel. A well-known resident who has operated the business here for 31 years, Mr. Wallace has drummed up support with an online fund-raising campaign, a summertime rally that drew hundreds, and celebrity representation by a lawyer who is a former congressman, Bob Barr."
The dispute has its roots in what has become a prominent theme in Mr. Bloomberg’s second term: stemming the flow of illegal firearms into New York, mostly from other states.
In a sting operation, the city sent teams of private investigators, usually a man and a woman, to five states. Posing as gun buyers, they went to stores whose guns had been linked to more than 500 crimes in New York City from 1994 to 2001.
Bloomberg administration officials said the investigators caught 27 dealerships allowing so-called straw purchases, in which one person submits to the required federal background check for a gun that is clearly to be used by someone else.
The Bloomberg administration sued those dealerships, seeking monetary damages and the power to oversee future transactions through the special master. Of those sued, 15 have agreed to the city’s terms, while the remaining 12 are fighting in Federal District Court in Brooklyn. They include stores owned by Mr. Wallace and a South Carolina dealer who has also countersued Mr. Bloomberg. Yet another South Carolina dealer has filed a countersuit, said Eric Proshansky, of the New York City Law Department.
John Feinblatt, the (New York City) criminal justice coordinator, accused Wallace of having "... had a long history of suspect sales, that it had been cited by a gun safety group and in past federal prosecutions and that it was under scrutiny by the A.T.F."
Mr. Wallace’s lawyers defended their clients’ record, saying that A.T.F. officials he had worked with were planning to provide depositions attesting that he had had no trouble with the agency.
For now, as Mr. Wallace’s case winds through the courts, people who know him are expressing shock and dismay at Mr. Bloomberg’s actions.
“He’s on a witch hunt,” said Tom Wisdom, a Honda dealer and a customer at Adventure Outdoors. “He’s trying to make political hay. If he wants to straighten out something, straighten out his home problems. They’ve got some of the most restrictive laws in the United States, and they’re not working.”
(emphasis added)
Now, WV State Senator has responded publically to the charges and counter-charges between states: Senator Kessler ...
... wants to ban the type of undercover stings that Bloomberg has used to showcase illegal gun sales in other states - and throw the mayor's investigators in jail if necessary.
"It's for us to handle within our own borders," said state Sen. Jeffrey Kessler, who is running for governor in 2012. "We jealously guard our gun rights, and we're vocal advocates for the Second Amendment."
Bloomberg has defended the stings as necessary to keep out-of-state guns from ending up on New York streets and in the hands of criminals.
He has put the videos on YouTube and mailed copies to Congress. A spokesman refused to say whether more are in progress.
Kessler's bill would ban those stings, making a felon out of anyone who "persuades, encourages or entices" a gun dealer to make an illegal sale.
Michael recently featured an interview with author Stephen Hunter, announcing a new Bob Lee Swagger novel, titled "I, Sniper" (due for release on December 29, 2009 at the time of the interview, but now available from Amazon.com).
And in case you have to ask: yes, I have already ordered the book.
The link at the top of the page will allow access to a 9 minute interview of Hunter by Bane, and it tells a lot about the characters and a little bit about the plot.
It also provides a perspective on the love/hate relationship between an author and the 'chore' of writing.
One aspect of Hunter's novels which many readers especially appreciate is his tendency to create characters which are parodies (or more affectionate versions) of actual historical characters.
In this new Bob Lee book, according to the interview, we are promised versions of "... Joan Flanders,... Jack Strong and Mitzi Reilly...". If I understand the allusions correctly, these would be Jane Fonda, Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn, respectively.
Plus one other "comedian" whose alter-identity I have not yet discerned.
All four are fated to fall victim of the sniper/killer, who is probably not Bob Lee.
As Hunter says in the interview: "I'll leave my politics out of it ... but there's a thing in Hollywood; "if you give the people what they want, they'll stand in line to see it."
(He later says: "I kind of like that part!")
As Hunter says, he's trying to reach the degree of reader appeal which readers found in "Point of Impact" (a NY Times Best Seller) But every time he writes a new Bob Book, his readers say: "It's okay, but it's no 'Point of Impact'"
Hunter responds: "All right, I know, I get it already!
I don't want to spoil your enjoyment of the interview, so go here and watch the entire 9 minute interview.
And get ready for the NEXT Bob Book, tentatively titled "Dead Zero".
...
While you're waiting, DRTV also features a short video of Hunter actually shooting.
Women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida are known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery. The lethal explosives – usually PETN (pentaerythritol Tetrabitrate) – are inserted during the operation inside the plastic shapes. The breast is then sewn up.
Similar surgery has been performed on male suicide bombers. In their cases, the explosives are inserted in the appendix area or in a buttock. Both are parts of the body that diabetics use to inject themselves with their prescribed drugs
[snip]
"Properly inserted the implant would be virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanningmachines. You would need to subject a suspect to a sophisticated X-ray. Given that the explosive would be inserted in a sealed plastic sachet, and would be a small amount, would make it all the more impossible to spot it with the usual body scanner."
Explosive experts at Britain's Porton Down biological and chemical warfare research center told MI5 that a sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN when activated would blow "a considerable hole" in an airline's skin which would guarantee it would crash.
This ... sounds ominous. And serious. No, really!
Okay, so maybe not.
I've been wondering about "The Shoe Bomber" and "The Jock-Strap Bomber", and even "The Liquid Explosive Bombers". How can a tiny amount of explosives detonated within the passenger compartment of an airplane "guarantee it would crash"?
Sure, I can see it if the explosion occurred in an area where it would disrupt avionics or control runs (cables to ailerons? Do they work by cables in the 767?) or some other method caused the pilot to lose control of the airplane. And I understand how a hole in the skin may cause a huge rip, and passengers may be sucked out of the plane at 30,000 feet altitude.
But blowing "... a considerable hole in an airline's skin ... would guarantee it to crash"?
I'm not convinced of the inevitability of the disaster, and here's why.
On 28 April 1988, a Boeing 737-200, operated by Aloha Airlines experienced an explosive depressurisation and structural failure at FL 240. Approximately 5.5 metres (or 18 feet) of cabin covering and structure was detached from the aircraft during flight. As result of the depressurisation, a member of the cabin crew was fatally injured. The flight crew performed an emergency descent, landing at Kahului Airport on the Island of Maui, Hawaii.
Here's a picture depicting the extend of aircraft skin which was found to be missing when the plane landed (safely!)
As you can see, about 1/3 of the overhead skin of the passenger compartment was ripped off. But was the plane "guaranteed to crash"?
Apparently, the guarantee was null and void. The full story of Aloha Airlines Flight 243 can be read here.
And yes, people were injured. One stewardess was killed.
At least one study suggests that a 'small hole' in the skin (16 inches?) caused an overpressure within the passenger compartment, sucking the stewardess against the skin. The impact of her skull against the skin caused the much greater rupture, which exaggerated the damage and caused many more injuries among the passengers.
The New York Times has a less technical, more human-event oriented story about the blowout at 24,000 feet. Officials originally suspected sabotage (yes, even 13 years before the 911 disaster which awakened the world to the threat of terrorism).
United Airlines Flight 811 experienced a cargo door failure in flight on Friday, February 24, 1989, after its last stopover at Honolulu International Airport, Hawaii. The resulting decompression blew out several rows of seats, killing 9 passengers. United Airlines Flight 811, a Boeing 747-122 (registration number N4713U), took off from Honolulu International Airport bound for Auckland, New Zealand with 3 flight crew, 15 flight attendants, and 337 passengers ...
This plane, too, managed to land safely despite the dreadful damage to the plane and the tragic loss of nine passengers.
As recently as July 2009, a passenger plane lost a significant amount of 'skin', in a hole above a passenger sheet. Again, structural damage caused by corrosion.
The point is that a hole in the skin in a plane, or the sudden and dramatic loss of hull integrity even extending to the loss of a cargo door (a hole much bigger than 16") may cause injury and death to individual passengers, but need not necessarily cause the plan to crash.
We keep hearing these melodramatic stories about terrorists who plan to bring down airplanes by blowing a hole in the skin of the plane, or even blow a hole in the floor of the passenger compartment, and our shocked reaction should be (we are told) to assume that this will bring down an airplane.
Not to downplay the threat of suicidal terrorists, but it ain't necessarily so. Sudden and rapid decompression of the passenger compartment, even to the extend that 1/3 of the overhead being ripped from an airplane, does not inevitably cause the pilots to lose control or the airplane to lose its ability to fly.
We're getting hammered so often by threats to passenger airplanes that we begin to see the threat of major disasters every week. We need to step away from the rhetoric and take a critical look at the sensational news reports.
After all, last year in Texas a single man with a pistol and an ideology killed more people than all three of these "airplane disasters" put together. And the 'experts' are still trying to find the root cause of that disaster.
And now we're to be frightened about Boob Bombs? Exploding tits?
U.S. President Barack Obama bows to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio at ... - Yahoo! News Photos On a January 28, 2010, trip to Tampa, Florida, President Obama met several local notables, including Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio. Apparently he was as impressed by Ms Iorio as he was with the Empress Michiko & Emperor Akihito last November (*see "Obama Bows Part II") and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia six months earlier ... because he brought out his patented Obama-Bow.
You may be forgiven for expecting that Obama would have learned his lesson after the nation-wide outrage about his incessant submissiveness to Foreign Leaders. Perhaps he did. Maybe he figured he wouldn't mind so much if he just bowed to American Leaders. You know, like the Mayor of Tampa
On the other hand, perhaps Obama wasn't being submissive to Iorio. Maybe, just maybe, he was apologizing for his recent decisions to cut future funding to NASA ... especially the budget item which would have extended the Space Shuttle project which is scheduled to terminate in 2011, and to cancel the Moon Program launched by G.W. Bush in 2004.
According to the St. Petersburg Times (Feb. 01, 2010), the close of the shuttle program will cost some NASA 7,000 jobs. This has ... disappointed some Florida Leaders.
"The president's proposal lacks a bold vision for space exploration and begs for the type of leadership that he has described as critical for inspiring innovation for the 21st century," said Rep. Suzanne Komas,D-New Smyrna Beach.
We beg for leadership, while Obama begs forgiveness?
How's that "Hopey - Changey" thing working for you today, America?
A recent flurry of activity on The Unofficial IPSC List (mail group) was started today when Mark H.* sent the following message:
With the low cost of the priority mail shipment, I've started getting bullets shipped by USPS. As a result, I've gotten to talk to the manager of the local post office twice, as well as 2 local postal inspectors.
Has anyone else gotten the opportunity to chat with their postal inspectors over this?
I didn't understand what the original post was talking about until I found the follow-up response from Bruce G.*
I haven't had to talk with a postal inspector.
I have received a notice that my packages were "undeliverable", and had to go to the USPS distribution center to pick them up. Interestingly, I *asked* to have a chat with the manager about that and the next time, my local carrier actually did manage to deliver them.
So at least two USPSA members, in separate states, have had United States Postal Service local deliveries refused by the delivery trucks.
Further elucidation was offered by Ira W.*:
I guess "if it fits, it ships" is not actually the truth... Perhaps there is some fine print we are missing.
Yes I have had to go to the local post office. The last time the postal worker was dragging the boxes across the floor until she gave up and asked me to come back and get them! I don't think this is normal but I obliged!!! They did offer me a hand truck!
Keith L.* offers some commentary:
I have received bullets from at least two, if not three, different manufacturers by USPS flat-rate shipments. ALL were delivered directly to my house; NONE required any chats with USPS employees. Nor should they.
IF the packages are competently shipped, they are at or under the weight restrictions. There is nothing flammable, liquid, explosive or otherwise prohibited; meaning there is NO reason for any interaction w/the USPS other than it DELIVERING it and you taking the carton off your steps and into your house.
There is NO reason to discuss the contents w/the USPS. Period.
Doing so invites the attention - and thus the INTERVENTION - of the AG's office when some officious intermeddler babbles about "bullets through the mail." There are already damn few suppliers that still ship to this appalling excuse for a state. Are you TRYING to eliminate them?
If not, don't discuss your business with those who have NO reason to be involved in it. NO good will come of it.
The upshot of it is that, where the USPS (no relation, obviously, to USPSA) is concerned -- sometimes they will, sometimes they won't.
There isn't sufficient traffic on this topic, yet, to draw any less-general conclusions.
I've also received bullet shipments via USPS, and the first time it happened I was very much surprised. I live on a cul de sac in a small liberal college town (but I repeat myself) and our mail deliveries go to a standing mail-box station on the entrance to the street. There are two large 'parcel' bins, plus sufficient individual letter boxes for each address. When a parcel arrives and is found to be too large to stuff in the 'letter' box, it is placed in one of the parcel bins and the key to that bin left by the carrier in the letter box.
Both of my bullet shipments were left on my front porch, which I consider to be entirely safe because the standard shipment of bulk bullets weights 80 pounds. (For 115 grain bullets, that's 4,000 rounds; for 200 grain bullets, that's 2,250 rounds IIRC.)
I'm guessing that the carriers to the addresses which were "undeliverable" make their rounds with a shoulder-strapped mail sack, or perhaps by one of those 3-wheeled 'baby carriage' push-carts. That would make it a huge imposition on the individual carrier, to add another 80 pounds to deliver to one address on those routes.
My own carrier makes his rounds in a USPS truck ... one of those enclosed vehicles which look like a modified golf cart. There's a minimum of lifting involved in heavy-parcel deliveries to my address, since the mail truck can roll to within 10 feet of my front door. (It's probably as easy to drop it at my door as to lift it up to one of the street-corner parcel bins, especially since the box would have to be lifted UP to put it into a bin.)
So my conclusion is that USPS isn't biased against delivering bulk bullets to a street address if it is serviced by a carrier in a truck. But in more urban surroundings, it seems not unreasonable that the postmaster might make a local policy requiring the addressee to pick it up at the post office.
They're not anti-gun; they're just anti-hernia.
[delete some inapplicable babble about shipping combustible/explosive reloading components ... sorry, I digressed]
_________________________________ UPDATE:from Bruce G.
Nope, my carrier drives a "real" postal truck, with a roll-up door in the back, so that wasn't the issue. I think the actual *effort* involved was the issue - he usually doesn't have to do anything but lean out of his window to put things into street-side cluster boxes, so actually getting *out* of his truck seemed to be central to the matter (notably, I chased him down on one occasion when he left a card saying the package was undeliverable. Turned out he didn't even have the box in his truck - he had apparently decided it was "undeliverable" at the distribution center, and left it there...)
And, flat-rate boxes are good for anything that fits, up to a [published] limit of 70 pounds. http://www.usps.com/shipping/prioritymail.htm
Response: Note that the link Bruce cites is for priority mail, so a bulk delivery of bullets weighing X-pounds may not be treated the same as a lighter package. Still, I'm willing to concede that my hypothetical 'conclusion' may not be universally applicable ... which does not obviate the suggestion that local postmasters may be authorized to make deliverability decision based on guidelines, rather than policy established by the Post Master General.
I'm not trying to start an argument here. And I'm not presenting myself as an apologist for the USPS. I'm only saying that I can understand why a carrier may not be required to deliver 65, 70, 80 pound packages to a street address.
Incidentally, I have just looked at the Montana Gold ordering website to determine their weights for "case lots" of bullets.
.40 cal @200 grain includes 2250 bullets, weighing about 65 pounds. .45 cal @230 grain includes 2000 bullets, weighing about 66 pounds.
So taking Montana Gold as an Industry Standard, a case of bullets seems to be keeping within the 70 pound limit for USPS Priority Shipping.
[delete a lot of inapplicable babble about shipping rates ... sorry, I digressed]
Anybody here work for USPS, and can they provide information about the definition of "undeliverable" mail? ___________________________ *NOTE: correspondent names are truncated out of consideration for their privacy.
The decision by a two-member Board of Prison Terms panel came after the 26th parole hearing for Davis, Department of Corrections spokeswoman Terry Thornton said.
It was just the first step in a parole process that also requires approval by the governor and other parole board members. The process could take five more months.
The 67-year-old Davis has been in prison since 1972 after being convicted in the murders of musician Gary Hinman and stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea.
Attorney Michael Beckman, who represented Davis at the hearing, said Davis acknowledged for the first time that he shared responsibility for what happened, even though he killed no one himself.
"He said, "I was as responsible as everyone there,"' Beckman said.
If parole is granted, Davis is subject to re-incarceration until the next time he actually kills "no one himself".
In Florida, the body of Abraham Shakespeare ... a British subject who won $30million in the Florida Lottery ... was found under recently poured concrete slabs at the home of a friend of a friend. (See also here)
I know there's a perfect punch-line here, but I just don't have the nerve to indulge myself.
I received the accompanying text and link from my sister, Annie. It seems a bit obscure to me, and I didn't find it quite as emotionally compelling as she (Annie) or the audience did. But it was a nicely done evolutionary application of an unusual medium in the graphic arts.
Putting aside the hyperbole, I offer the text and the link for your consideration. (I've also embedded the video at the end of the article). Video takes 8-1/2 minutes to run.
Don't miss this amazing Video Clip. First read it properly. This video shows the winner of "Ukraine's Got Talent", Kseniya Simonova, 24, drawing a series of pictures on an illuminated sand table showing how ordinary people were affected by the German invasion during World War II. Her talent, which admittedly is a different one, is mesmeric to watch.
The images, projected onto a large screen, moved many in the audience to tears and she won the top prize of about $130,000.00
She begins by creating a scene showing a couple sitting holding hands on a bench under a starry sky, but then warplanes appear and the happy scene is obliterated. It is replaced by a woman's face crying, but then a baby arrives and the woman smiles again. Once again war returns and Miss Simonova throws the sand into chaos from which a young woman's face appears. She quickly becomes an old widow, her face wrinkled and sad, before the image turns into a monument to an Unknown Soldier. This outdoor scene becomes framed by a window as if the viewer is looking out on the monument from within a house. In the final scene, a mother and child appear inside and a man standing outside, with his hands pressed against the glass, saying goodbye. The Great Patriotic War, as it is called in Ukraine, resulted in one in four of the population being killed with eight to 11 million deaths out of a population of 42 million.
Kseniya Simonova says: "I find it difficult enough to create art using paper and pencils or paintbrushes, but using sand and fingers is beyond me. The art, especially when the war is used as the subject matter, even brings some audience members to tears. And there's surely no bigger compliment."
Please take time out to see this amazing piece of art. Click on the link below:
Last week in my "Life is But A Dream" article I went into excruciating detail about how I came to have a broken tooth, what my options were, and how long I waited to achieve final resolution to my physical problem.
In a nutshell: on December 6 the crown fell off of a tooth which had had a Root Canal several years ago, and when I finally got into my Dentist he decided that there was not enough tooth left to put a new crown of (it was broken off at the gumline).
He recommended that I go to an Oral Surgeon to have the roots removed, as there was insufficient tooth showing for an ordinary dentist to pull them using standard techniques.
In the meantime, since I had been remiss in my normal twice-yearly maintenance trips to the dentist, he found some gum problems and several cavities which needed to be filled before Oral Surgery.
He, the dentist, said that he wanted my mouth to be "as hygienic and sterile as possible" before sending me to the surgeon.
My suspicion was that right at the end of the calendar year, he wanted me to use up as much of my dental-plan as possible during the 2009 billing year, and put the actual surgery on the 2010 billing year.
Which they did.
I finally got an appointment with an oral surgeon in Albany ... 15 miles away from my home town of Corvallis ... for a consultation. When I went to meet the surgeon he told me that his plan was basically to just 'pull the tooth' because he thought there was enough enamel between the two roots for him to grasp. He also warned me that in case of complications, he may have to make an incision in the enamel to get to the roots. (The tooth was a Cuspid, the last of the two-root teeth before the Bicuspid. I think.)
The point I wanted to emphasize to the Surgeon was two-part:
I was extremely apprehensive about the operation because I had a very bad experience the last time a dentist pulled a tooth; he had tgo break it into pieces by twisting it with pliers, before he could pull the individual roots;
When I feel sudden excruciating pain in my mouth, my instinctive response was not to cry out or cringe, but instead I bite down on the hand that hurt me. And I bite really hard!
We discussed full anesthesia, Nitrous Oxide, and a strong Local Anesthetic as approaches for the operation. After some discussion, we decided on the local after application of 'anti-anxiety' medication (Halcion).
The problem was, I would have to take the drug an hour before the scheduled operation, and I had to have someone to drive me home and care for me for the following 24 hours.
It was only the night before the operation that Sandie convinced me that she didn't need to take pain killers in the night or early morning, and she would be able to safely drive us to Albany, wait during my operation, and then get us back home safely.
Which is how it worked out.
In the actual event, I took the Halcion at 9:20 in Corvallis, and by the time we got to the Doctor's office at 10am I was pretty groggy. I don't remember much about the actual operation ... just a few random thoughts and snippets. For example, I remember the surgeon grunting with effort while he was trying to pull the tooth, and I was wondring whether this might not be a bad sign. But then I decided I didn't much care.
I do recall that I had to be escourted out of the office, supported at the desk whilc the receptionists recited the cautions and gave Sandie some paperwork. It think I had to sign some of it.
I slept almost ALL of the way back to Corvallis, slept on the couch while pretending to read a book, and slept 12 hours that night.
When I woke up the next day, I took, a couple of doses of pain killers and ate a lot of soft foods. Other than that, and not feeling like doing anything physical such as going for a walk, my day was completely free of stress and pain.
By Sunday, I was ready to go back to work. That is, I was ready until I tried to get to sleep on Sunday Night/Monday Morning.
While I was busily recovering from my adventurous Friday with the Oral Surgeon, I was taking some fairly powerful pain killers. I needed them at first, but after 24 hours I was actually getting along quite well without them.
In fact, I was feeling so good that by Saturday night I was confident that just one pain killer at 11pm would last me through the night.
But I couldn't get to sleep. It seemed to be one of those nights when just a minor ache ... you know, like a little back ache or leg ache ... was enough to keep you from relaxing.
So about 2am I got up to go to the bath room (false alarm) and take one Ibuprofen. Then I went back to bed and actually slept for an hour or so. I had this ugly nightmare about a traveling circus/safari, a mean elephant and his mahout with a really bad attitude. When I woke up about a quarter of three, it was wish some feeling of relief that I escaped from the subliminal angst ... only to discover that I had more problems.
The beating I had dreamed I was taking from the mahout turned out to be a very bad ache in my side, and an even more painful lower-back pain on the same (right) side.
I tried to fix it by taking a pain pill, but even though I took it with food I was overwhelmed by nausea and I discovered the Joy of Emesis. Nope, I'm not going to escape this one.
Sandie woke up and asked if she could help. I couldn't think of anything she could do. I tried lying flat with a heating pad, but the pain was still too much to bear.
Finally about 6:30 I decided there was something physically wrong, it was not merely some weird side-effect of the medication, so Sandie took me to the emergency room at the hospital.
While the nurse was preparing me for the Doctor's examination (especially, which she was inserting a needle in my arm so I could accept multiple injections of anti-nausea and anti-pain drugs) she asked a running litany of questions about my medical history. Finally she asked "Have you have been diagnosed with Kidney Stones?"
"No", I replied. And I heard her say under her breath: "Well, you have one now."
Two hours, two doctors, another nurse and a CT-scan technician later they had reached a consensus. Yes, I have a 4mm Kidney stone trying to work its way south. Apparently it had escaped the kidney and was now forcing its way painfully down the urethra.
No telling how long it will take for it to force its way out of my body, but I'm not looking forward to it.
For now, I am taking 7 different medicines several times a day, including both anti-nausea and anti-pain medications, Penicillin, and some stuff that's suppose to relax the "inner organs".
The good news is that the anti-pain drugs are working VERY well. The bad news is that I'm pretty well out of it, because I'm unable to concentrate. If not for the spell-checker, for example, this text would be unintelligible. (And know, I wouldn't know how to spell "unintelligible" without help.)
Anyway, I thought it was of interest that I no sooner get past one medical event than I find myself in the middle of another one. I'm convinced that one has actually precipitated the next. Perhaps a conspiracy within the Medical Community?
Remember: just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean they are not out to get me.
