The constitution protects the rights of ... who?

Okay, consider this a High-School Civics Test.

No wait! It's a Supreme Court challenge of the most basic precepts of the Constitution of the United States!

Is there any difference between the two questions? Should there be?

The first .. the Civics test... wonders what we are teaching our new citizens today.

The second .. the SCOTUS .. wonders what we will be teaching our new citizens "tomorrow".

And who are our "new citizens"? Does this include only the children of today's citizens, or does it include naturalized citizens? Resident Aliens? Temporary (but legal) migrant workers? Illegal aliens?

Who is granted (acknowledged?) protections under the Constitution of the United States of America?

Let's look at the First Amendment:

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

This enumeration of "our" rights; acknowledges freedom of religion, freedom of speech and of the press, freedom to gather ("in protest?") and to petition.

Who is here granted the right to worship as he or she pleases? Is it only natural born citizens? Natives or Naturalized? Immigrants, visitors, interlopers?

Who has the RIGHT to march with a La Raza flag and sign on our nation's streets?

Who would deny ANYONE that right, in America?

How about the Fifth Amendment?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Who is protected against Double Jeopardy? Who protected from being impelled to bear witness against himself? Who may be imprisoned without a trial, or be deprived of his home?

For that matter, in regarding the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Who is protected, constitutionally, against unwarranted search and seizure?


In America today there are many definitions of "The People", and it is so confusing that you and I are sometimes not only not certain who constitutes "The People", but we have no clear guidance, especially in the Constitution, to define what this body of people may be.

Sure, we have amendments to ascertain and define that much of the 14th Amendment was composed to address this question:

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This may be a clear and definitive description of those people whose rights under the Constitution may be applied: namely "citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside".

That last part may be confusing to you, though. It is to me.

Should we assume that the only persons resident in the United States who are "citizens" enjoy the Constitutional Rights here defined?

For example, if a person is not a Citizen (either natural born, or naturalized),. may he publish a newspaper, meet with his neighbors to discuss Important Issues, freely practice his chosen religion, and be free from warrantless search?

Or do those who do not have the right to define themselves as "Citizens" not also have the right to enjoy constitutional guarantees?

I draw your attention to the Second Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Do "all men" find themselves under the protection of the Constitution, regardless of their legal status? We have generally accepted that certain classes of men .. felons, the insane, children who are too young to exercise the judgment which comes from maturity and experience .. may not be either entitled or competent to enjoy certain rights, at least until their individual situation changes.

But if "all men" is no more limiting than that "all men" be sane, mature and responsible people, and if these rights are ordained by God and not by The State .. .then do all Amendments of the Bill of Rights apply equally? Isn't this the basis of our American Society.

(Note that the 13'th, 14'th, 15'th and 19'th Amendments include more classes of people who have the right to vote ... does this define "citizen"? Is it the sole criteria of :people who are (citizens / legally resident . otherwise not legal, but resident) in the United States who are granted the "God given" right to liberty ... by The State?)

We who demand an all-encompassing "Individual Right" according to the Second Amendment have been vocal for decades in demanding that right be applied "universally", because it is a "God-given Right" and not 'granted' by the state.

But now we find ourselves having to deal with the question: what of a person who is a legal resident is not a "Citizen". Does the Second Amendment apply to him as well and as thoroughly and as definitively as it applies to "us"? We who may have born in this great country? Those whose most enduring monument is the Stature of Liberty, which enduring motto includes the phrase: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

How high do we lift that lamp; how many are TRULY welcome through that golden door?

Many of us are disrespectful of the American Civil Liberties Union, because it has presented and argued against issues which we intuitively believe should stand without need for defense. We believe that our definition/interpretation of the Constitution is obvious.

But is it?

Those of us in that assumptive group also believe that the Constitution is a rigid uncomprimising traditional, uncontroversial body of law, and those who disagree with our interpretation should, if they are sincere in their controversial beliefs, be willing to mount a movement to change the Constitution, rather than to "re-interpret" it to meet the "Interpretation De Jour".

Now we are met with an issue which challenges our most sacred beliefs, and to our astonishment we discover that there are multiple interpretations which may not both be true in accordance with our individual belief systems.

ACLU Sues to Protect Immigrant's Gun Rights From Change in South Dakota Law - FoxNews.com

We are here challenged to decide whether the constitution as written may be interpreted to deny Constitutional rights to (legal) residents who are not Citizens.

That is, specifically, the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That statement is obviously NOT worded to include issues of citizenship, or membership in any definitive body: The "Collective Rights" folks, who we have opposed for so long and have attempted to define it as supporting a governmentally sponsored, say that it has nothing at all to do with the citizenship of the individual, as long as that individual is a member of the "army:". We, however, have rejected that interpretation, and made it clear that it is an INDIVIDUAL right irrespective of support from the State.

(But are we really that sure about this point?)

And .. what individuals may legitimately lay claim to this right?

The egregious Dred Scott decision, made by the Supreme Court of the United States, includes may arguments (and they of the SCOTUS were then honorable men) discussing how and why Negros would not and should not be counted as 'citizens'; not the least of which is that they were NOT entered into the country as 'immigrant's, willingly, but that they were universally brought into the country as "property".

Also, and this is the most frequently quoted portion of the judgementl we should consider it a 'telling' reflection of the bias of the SCOTUS at that time (although we are assured that the current SCOTUS has no comparable bias or 'hidden agenda': (quoted directly from FINDLAW):

The legislation of the States therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior and subject condition of that race at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long afterwards, throughout the thirteen States by which that instrument was framed; and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these States, to suppose that they regarded at that time, as fellow-citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigmatized; whom, as we are bound, out of respect to the State sovereignties, to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigmatize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection of the liberties and rights of their citizens. It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure to them rights, and privileges, and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union, which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [60 U.S. 393, 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

So we are given directly from history the most awful ruling of SCOTUS , based entirely on race and the dubious but well defined principle of "involuntary servitude" which is deemed not to qualify a human being for consideration under the Bill of Rights because .... come ON guys! .. the dude didn't want to be here in the first place, so why should we give him the same consideration which is naturally ceded to those folks who WANTED to be here?

(This argument, given the time in history, carefully avoids the question of "involuntary servitude" which may or may not characterize the ancestors of not a few men who were arguing the case .. and judging it.)

I ask you once again.
Upon what basis would you deny a person, who is resident within the geographic boundaries of the United States of America, the right to the full protection under law of the Constitution of the United States of America? Any clause, any amendment, any nuance?

If Dred Scott was denied Constitutional Protection because he was not a "voluntary immigrant", then what of the rights of those who are today "voluntary immigrants"?

Bell's Palsy

Here's the good news: I didn't have a stroke or even a "TIA".

The bad news? You can't tell by looking at me, because I look just as weirdly lop-sided as someone who has suffered a stroke.

According to the Mayo Clinic, it "... occurs when the nerve that controls facial muscles on one side of your face becomes swollen or inflamed. As a result of Bell's palsy, your face feels stiff. Half your face appears to droop, your smile is one-sided, and your eye resists closing. "

Well, that is a fair description of it. and WebMD has even more information:

The nerve damage may also affect your sense of taste and how you make tears and saliva. This condition comes on suddenly, often overnight, and usually gets better on its own within a few weeks.

Bell's palsy is not the result of a stroke or a transient ischemic attack (TIA). While stroke and TIA can cause facial paralysis, there is no link between Bell's palsy and either of these conditions. Palsy simply means weakness or paralysis.

The cause of Bell's palsy is not clear. Most cases are thought to be caused by the herpes virus that causes cold sores.

I had trouble sleeping Monday night, because I had a stiff neck. The neck muscle on the left side, behind my ear, hurt to distraction. I tried a couple of aspirin and still didn't get much sleep.

Wednesday I was halfway through the day when I noticed that my lips felt numb. That evening I realized that I could feel it when I touched my lips, but they just felt ... weird. It was just like after you've been to the dentist and later the Novocain wears off ... you can't quite get the feeling that you can control your mouth.

This morning I was getting ready for work and realized that I couldn't control my left eye. My eyes were watering and I tried to squeeze my eyes shut. My left eye wouldn't squeeze. With experimentation, I found I could close both eyes normally, as if I were sleeping. But I couldn't wink my left eye; which was strange, because I've always been able to wink with each eye independently.

So I looked in the mirror and sure enough, the left side of my mouth drooped, the lips looked somehow thinner on that side than the right side. When I open my mouth, it's a great teardrop shape rather than round. So much for me singing the Hallelujah Chorus. Or whistling "Dixie".

I called my doctor and described my symptoms to my doctor; the left side of my face feels numb, and I don't have any motor controls on that side, and there's a pain on my left side behind my ear.

I didn't tell them I thought I might have had a stroke. This is fear fighting with denial. It has always worked well with me.

They cleared some time for me in the schedule, and I went in to see the doctor this afternoon.

When the nurse came in to get me out of the waiting room, she mentioned as she walked me into the Treatment room: "Well, looks like you have a good case of "Bell's Palsy".

Huh?

Turns out it's better than having a stroke, because they can treat this. Just take a few pills a day for a couple of weeks, and it will go away.

So it's all fix-able, but there are only 3 problems:

1. Sense of taste is all messed up; nothing tastes good, except for very strong flavored foods. I'll be eating sausage, garlic, and sour-cream-and-onion potato chips for a while.
2. My manly visage is twisted horribly (?) out of shape, ruining my regular features. You may think this is no great loss, but at this moment there are hundreds of young virgins weeping.
3. The eyelid, according to the doctor, may not close while I'm sleeping. This causes the cornea to dry out, possibly causing permanent damage to the cornea. I have to use eyedrops regularly, and at night I have to tape my eyelid shut and then tape a gauze patch over it. Fortunately, I found a black eyepatch so I can still look handsome even in my sleep.

Dead Zero

I walked out to the mailbox this morning, and it was just like Christmas. I found Stephen Hunter's new "Bob the Nailer" book Dead Zero in the familiar plain brown cardboard wrapper, and settled in with a cup of coffee to read it.

I have deliberately not read any pre-publishing notes, or the end-wrapper notes on the book jacket. So I don't have any idea what the book's about. And so, I have no preconceptions.

Kind of kewl, right? I've read all the other Hunter books after a humungous amount of press releases (except for the first one I read ... "Point of Impact" ... which was a serendipitous event and made me believe in tooth fairies and Leprecauns), so I've almost always started reading Hunter books with a certain amount of preconception.

Not this time.

I don't even know if "Bob the Nailer" is mentioned in the book, let alone know the general plot. Which in a way is a blessing, after the disappointments of some of Hunter's books such as "Havana" and "The 47'th Samurai".

So I just spent a few minutes on the couch with Stephen Hunter, and if you'll try to resist the temptation to read anything sexual into the statement, I'm really turned on.

No matter what the rest of the book looks like, just judging from the first ten pages, "Dead Zero" reads like the very best of the W.E.B. Griffin books .. on steroids.

Watch this space.

No blogging until I've finished the book. Then MAYBE I'll have the energy left to confirm or deny my original impression.

BTW .... Hobo Brasser, you one-book-out-of-the-series book lender; buy your own copy. You don't want to wait until the snow melts in Oregon before you borrow my copy.

Note on Sidebar Changes

When I recently reported on the new format and database for the USPSA website, I neglected to change this website to accomodate the changes.

I have had a "search for your USPSA Classifier Scores" widget on my sidebar. I have deleted it, as it no longer functions.

If I find a replacement widget, I'll install it at some future date.

Cleaning Compensators

Everyone who owns an Open pistol knows that the most difficult part of cleaning it is to clean out the caked gunpowder residue in the Compensator ports. This stuff achieves the consistency of concrete within seconds, and it builds up with every shot taken. By the time one has completed a match, there is at least an hour's worth of effort to clean it out with knife, screwdriver, dental pick, and/or whatever your favorite tool may be.

Over the years SWMBO and I have attempted to make the effort more ... well, effortless ... by soaking the compensator in various solvents. Hoppes #9 seems to be the best solvent found so far, but that is only by virtue of imbuing the room with the wonderfully manly aroma of the solution; we havent' found that it aids significantly in actually softening the residue, or making it easier to remove.

The best solvent seems to be old-fashioned "elbow grease". Cursing may help, but that depends on the individual character .. or lack of it.

I noticed several years ago that there are various electrolytic systems on the market which promise to make it much easier to remove metal fouling (lead, copper) from the grooves in a barrel. They usually involve submersing the barrel in a special liquid and inserting an electrode or two into it, and then running electricity through the whole arrangement. I haven't tried that, since my primary concern is to remove gunpowder residue, which I suspect has no chemical properties which will lend itself to electrolysis.

But I may be wrong.

So my question to you is: does anyone know of any process other than the extravagant (and time-consuming) application of elbow grease to clean the powder residue from compensators?

I don't mind admitting my ignorance, so please don't spare my feelings when you reply: "Hey, Geek, where have you been? The XYZ Company has been marketing the MacDonald's Magical Powder Residue machine for years; it's inexpensive, it works overnight, and every body else is already using it!"

Oh dear, I DO hope such a wonderful solution (excuse the pun) is available.

New Year Prognostications, Part I: Air Security

Every year about this time, we read predictions from wise people about what the next twelve months will bring. (And sometimes, people even follow up the following January to report on how well their prognostications were fullfilled .. or not.)

I've got a couple of ideas about what the next year may look like, but I haven't thought them all through; that is, I haven't extended them to their logical absurdity. So I'll start out with one (which may be #10), and for now I'll merely present that one:

#10: TSA and Airplane Safety: By the end of 2010, people will no longer be permitted the same laxity in air travel as they have before. Everyone will be required to strip before entering the plane, and will spend the entire flight (no matter the distance) entirely nude. That especially applies to international flights bound for American ports. Rather than sitting in chairs ... eww, nasty with naked people! ... they will be strapped to hand-trucks ala Hannibal Lecter in "Silence of the Lambs" and will be "parked" in a standing-up position with their hand-trucks locked to tie-downs on the floor of the passenger cabin. For sanitary purposes, the floors will be bare metal, not carpeted, and will feature drains in the floor. This will make it easier to route the water when the cabin attendents perform their single remaining responsibility ... hosing down the floor on an hourly basis, since no passengers will be allowed to exit their "security module" for potty breaks.

The exquisite beauty of this scheme is that it eliminates completely the need for intrusive scanning and body search.


(I would appreciate some help here. Anyone who has questions about what the year 2011 will bring is invited to submit suggestions in the COMMENTS area. Or perhaps you have your own predictions on your favorite topic?)

Reading

For the last couple of weeks I've been doing a lot of reading, mainly focusing on a couple of new authors.

Greg Iles:
Iles writes in the mystery/adventure mode, most stories are centered in his home state of Mississippi and many in the exotic (oldest city on the Mississippi river? in America?) of Natches. It is a measure of his writing skill that I now wish to visit Natches almost as much as I wish to visit Charlotte, and Savannah.

Iles has a 'core' cast of characters who he often includes in apparently "otherwise unrelated" stories. At the same time, he manages to make each book unique and always entertaining.

It's interesting to look at the back-cover pictures of the authors. In the case of Iles, based purely on his photographs, I wouldn't be surprised to have him walk up to me on the mean streets of Corvallis, Oregon and beg me for loose change; although I would be even more likely to see him camped on the concrete doorsteps of the local "Curves" building between the beltline feeder street and the newest Safeway store, with his mangy cur mutt and his cardboard sign declaring him a Vietnam Veteran willing to work for food .. in hopes of a handout from the lady of the house through the passenger-side window (rolled down only a couple of inches). He is THAT weird looking!

I think that the very best, most innovative writers are probably weird looking. Distinguished looking best-selling authors such as James Patterson and John Sandford tend to write according to a strict formula, and early in their career take on a coterie of 'co-authors'; "apprentices" who perhaps do all the work under nominal guidance from their best-seller "master". (Okay, that last part probably applies more to Patterson than to Sandford.)

Andrew Klaven:
I first "met" Andrew Klaven as a supporting member of the PJTV universe. There he "plays" a befuddled man striving mightily but with little success as an apologist for the Obama Administration. Last Christmas (2009) he read a 5-part Ghost Story, not all of which I was able to read before PJTV changed their membership policy, and I was (and still am) unwilling to spend as little as $5/month to subscribe to the "premium" and archived articles.

But when I was searching for Greg Iles books last month, I noticed that on the bookshelf section to the right of the "I-books", there was a section of "K-books" and Andrew Klaven's name caught my eye. I bought one of his books ("Shotgun Alley") and after I had read all of the Iles books that I bought last week, I then read the Klaven book.


This week when I went to the book store, I bought the two remaining unread Iles books ... and a half-dozen of the Klaven books.

It was only after I read Klaven's 1995 book "True Crime" .. which was made into a major motion picture starring Clint Eastwood ... that I realized that I had bought not only the original book, I had also bought the version which came after the release of the motion picture.

Well, I was in a Feeding Frenzy and I didn't realize my duplicated effort until I sorted them all out. Anyone want an almost-new, almost-unread of "True Crime"? I can get it for you wholesale.

Klaven as a writer is not much like Iles. In the first place, his cover-jacket photo is much more "normal". In fact, it's hard to reconcile his 1995 photo with his 2010 appearance on the Internet videos. He originally had some close-cropped hair, and a close-cropped beard. Today on PJTV, he is entirely smooth shaven on both pate and chin. The only clues are the shape of the nose, the chin, and the eyes. But his website makes it clear that not only is he both presenter and author, but he is still writing mystery/adventure stories.

I find that oddly comforting.

He is also unlike Iles in that he has a strict formula (in the books which I have so far read; I admit that I have not read enough to discern a departure from the formula) in his creations. The Klaven book I'm currently reading, "The Occult", seems to be different in the first hour of reading from his previous books ... but then, he has a mini-series which he seems to return to occasional, and I haven't read enough of his work to discern the common characteristics of his authorship. I'm hoping that his formula applies mainly to his mini-series; or if not that, then the organization by chapters reflects his publisher more than it does his personal style.

By this time next week, I may be sufficiently familiar with his work to provide a more definitive characterization. I'm holding the last Greg Iles book as "desert" after I wrap up the current collection of Klaven. Who knows? Maybe by the time I finish I may consider Klaven to be the desert, and Iles the entree'.

Summary:
I initially started reading Iles because my so-called friend, the egregious Hobo Brasser (who regularly swaps books with me) included in his latest return "The Turning Angel" by Iles. As is usually the case .. he did the same thing to me by including one copy of Vince Flynn in 2009, and so far it has cost me over $50 $100 to find, buy and read all of Flynn's other "Mitch Rapp" novels. He did the same thing to me in 2007 with Lee Childs' "Reacher" novels.

I have most of the Iles novels, and perhaps half of the Klaven novels (published to date).

You can be sure that I will provide The Hobo Brasser with a couple of Iles books ... those with repeating characters and an obviously incomplete story .. and a similar selection of Klaven novels as well. It is my most fervent hope that I cause my so-called "friend" a similar economic hardship, if only to make a point.

Besides, that, I'll do it because I'm essentially a vindictive S.O.B.
And because I can.

Officers and Ungentle Men

Spurred by a comment in a Michael Bane blog, I was tempted last week to read "Principles of Personal Defense", by the late Col. Jeff Cooper. When I ordered the book from Amazon.com, I noticed that "People who read this book often also read" the seminal work on Handgun Combat "No Second Place Winner" by William Henry Jordan ... Bill Jordan, as most of us probably know him.

The Cooper book (paperback pamphlet, 79 pages) cost $8.88; the Jordan book (hardbound book, 115 pages) cost $15.95. With $4.98 in shipping charges, it was significantly more economical to order them both together. And I've always wanted to read the Jordan book.

I ordered them just before Christmas; they were delivered on Friday.

Today I spent 2 hours and read them both. They had very little in common; Cooper was talking about Principles, and nothing at all about tactics, techniques, or equipment. Jordan, on the other hand, spent most of his time on the latter and little on the former. It occurs to me that they were two complimentary works, while noting that much of what Jordan had to say was dated by technological changes in firearms, ammunition and auxiliary equipment. Is it fair to say that Jordan's writing is "timeless", but Cooper's is "even more timeless"?

Principles of Personal Defense:

Colonel Jeff Cooper spent some quality time in the military (hence the "Colonel" designation), and later went on to found and run one of the Premier combat training ranges in the world. Thunder Ranch* Gunsite Academy established the Gold Standard of firearms training, and it is not by accident that he is sometimes referred to as "The Guru"

The book .. again, actually more of a "pamphlet" than a book, is organized to present his Seven Principles of Personal Defense.

1. Alertness
2. Decisiveness
3. Aggressiveness
4. Speed
5. Coolness
6. Ruthlessness
7. Surprise

The list of Principles underscores that he wrote in terms of "Personal Defense", not for the service officer (either military or Law Enforcement). This concept has to do with one man finding himself in a situation where he must defend himself against an aggressor. It's especially noteworthy that Principle 6: "Ruthlessness", is absolutely not 'appropriate' to a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). LEO's may well find themselves in a situation where Ruthlessness is needed, but it is decidedly not appropriate for a Public Servant to openly cultivate that quality. The common motto "To Protect, And To Serve" is not served by ruthless men.

On the other hand, it may be an unspoken necessary quality in men whose career choice is expected to lead him into confrontational situations on a frequent basis.

Here is part of what Cooper has to say on the subject:

"Anyone who willfully and maliciously attacks another without sufficient cause deserves no consideration. ... The attacker must be stopped --- at once, and completely. [Y]our first concern is to stay alive. Let your attacker worry about his life. Don't hold back. Strike no more after he is incapable of further action, but see that he is stopped. The law forbids you to take revenge, but it permits you to prevent. ... Take no chances. Put him out."

[Emphasis in the original text]

It is obvious in both this, and his other writings (especially including both Volumes 1 and 2 of "The Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip", where he refers to aggressors as "Goblins") that Cooper has no respect for the right of those predators to enjoy continued existence at a body temperature above room temperature.

Cooper's purpose here is clearly to encourage the reader to do whatever is necessary to avoid thermodynamic equilibrium.

No Second Place Winner:

Bill Jordan enjoyed decades of experience as a U.S. Border Patrol Officer on our Southern Border. Not to put too fine a point on it, in his own words, he spent the most productive years of his life as a federal officer charged with regulating predations of, as he unashamedly (and politically incorrectly) identified as "Pistoleros, Narcotrafficantos, and wetbacks". Many of his 'normal' engagements began in the dark of night, along the Mexican Border, with the Border Patrol announcement: "Manos Arriba! Federales!" (Hand Up! Federal Officers!)

He might as well have said "Let the Dance Begin!", for that is the not uncommon outcome of this introduction.

From that point on, the miscreants responded in either of two ways: either surrender and return to the Happy Mexican Ways, or a shootout in the dark, with the only light the muzzle flash of their guns. (Which, according to Jordan, was often the only indicator of who was armed. He mentioned that they made fine aiming points.)

Yes, there are a few War Stories there; most of them were identified as primarily being a way to pad the page-count of the book and make it 'entertaining', as suggested by his agent.

Most of the book, however (and in contrast to the Cooper book), was preoccupied by a discussion of weapons, equipment, tactics and other "technical stuff".

Just in passing:

• If you want to practice with your revolver without spending too much money, it's a good idea to make 'wax bullets' -- he provides detailed instructions on how to roll your own;
• Revolvers are a better combat handgun than automatics ("Yes I know ..." that they're actually Semi-Automatic Pistols) because he's an LEO and is obliged to use Factory Ammunition. The .45 ACP is probably the best of the bunch, but FMJ ammo is not very effective and semi-wadcutters are not reliably fed into autos.
• The best stopping round available in revolvers is the .357 Magnum
• The VERY best stopping round in revolvers is the .41 magnum, and within ten years (the book was published in 1965) there will probably be enough manufacturers of .41 Magnum pistols that they will replace the .357 for police departments across the country
• Equipment: best holster leaves the trigger exposed, is hip-mounted, and includes a metal 'shank' in the suspension of the holster so it can present the revolver vertical, grip away from the body, and it can be bent and/or twisted so that when you draw the gun you get "a fistful of gun", rather than "a fistful of everything"
• "Practical Pistol Competition" is better than no "high pressure at all" training, but its emphasis is on competition, not on survival in a combat situation
• The 'grip' on a double-action pistol which is best used for "long range" shooting (over 25 yards) includes having the left thumb over the right wrist; this allows the shooter to easily re-cock the hammer for single-action shooting; otherwise, the left thumb should be overlapped by the right thumb
• Most pistol (read: "revolver" in this as in most discussions) grips are not what we might call "ergonomic"; they either don't fit the hand, or they fit the hand 'wrong' as they don't accept the weight of the pistol on the 2nd finger of the right hand, and they tend to force the hand down toward the butt of the pistol. (This is just wrong in so many ways, when you may have to take multiple shots.)

Techniques of the draw; the trigger pull; the sight picture (necessary only at distances in excess of 25 yards, when shooting at a human target); point-shooting as an essential element of fast-draw combat shooting ... these elements and more are covered by Jordan and one cannot fault his expertise as he has demonstrably excelled in all of these areas.

Equipment requirements of the pistol, the sights (when used), the grip, the ammunition, the holster; training, practice -- all of these elements and more are covered by Jordan in this, the recognized most authoritarian work on Combat Shooting.

And rightly so.

Some of Jordan's prognostications do not take place. He predicted that the .41 magnum cartridge would replace the .357 magnum; that didn't happen. In fact, the FBI tried to introduce the 10mm (.40 magnum?) and found that it wasn't acceptable to agents any more than the .41 magnum was accepted by police forces.

Why? Because the average agent or LEO wasn't willing to "man up" to the increased perceived recoil of either cartridge.

Actually, I don't much blame them. They were accustomed to either 9mm or .38 Special cartridges, and compared to that the 1omm and .41 Magnum were bears .. hard to get use to, and the recoil included some pretty intimidating muzzle-flip, compared to the cartridges they (the agents and the LEOs) had grown accustomed to.

NOTE: Long after Jordan's book was published, Smith & Wesson came out with pistols chambered in the .40S&W (Smith and Wesson, although I tend to refer to them as "Slow and Wimpy" ... because it offends people, and because I can) which was actually a fairly acceptable compromise between the .38/9mm and .41m/10mm. It took a while to get accustomed to the (slight) difference in perceived recoil, but it wasn't intimidating. Read: scarey. And lots of pistol manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon and provided (semi-automatic) pistols in that caliber. Smith&Wesson, Colt, and even foreign interlopers such as Glock and Sig Sauer.

Sure, there was a period of KaBOOMS! type experiences with pistols in that caliber, until (a) the manufacturers decided that merely using 9mm-built pistols in the new caliber wasn't enough .. they needed to consider using .45acp-built pistols because the new cartridge was closer to the .45acp than to the 9mm; and (b) they needed to use fully-supported chambered barrels to managed the increased pressures; and specifically IPSC competitors needed to avoid using the really-really fast gunpowders, and to load the cartridge with a LONG over-all length, because seating the bullet too deep into the .40S&W case tended to create really monstrous over-pressures on a cartridge that wasn't really built for that kind of pressure.

But those learning-curve experiences, and the technological changes which were the result, happened LONG after Bill Jordan put his two cents worth of (very usable) advice into 115 pages of surprisingly well-written and exceedingly readable lore.

Yes, some of what Jordan wrote has been obviated by technological advances which he couldn't possibly have foreseen. And much of what he wrote in 1965 may have been obviated, but that doesn't mean that what he said wasn't universally legitimate, reasonable and (generally speaking) very good advice.

Anyone who picks up a revolver today with the expectation of using his advice in either a combat or a competitive application will find that, except for the unexpected technological innovations which he could not have anticipated (such as various effective ammunition for, and changes in the design of the 1911 pistol), every word in his books is golden.

Just pure 24 caret gold. And I don't care if I am a 1911 bigot. Reading Bill Jordan gives you the pure pleasure of sharing the thoughts of a man who really knows what the hell he's talking about, and speaks intelligibly and entertainingly.

* Thanks to Guy for correcting my error. Cooper did indeed establish Gunsite Academy, not Thunder Ranch.

Anniversary

Cogito Ergo Geek quietly celebrated the end of its seventh year of production on December 15, 2010. With a mere 315,000 hits to date, nobody can claim that this is one of the most popular websites on the internet ... after all, it was considered a slow week by the estimable Kim du Toit when he didn't meet or exceed that level of readership, and on occasion he met that number in a single day.

On the other hand, I'm holding down a full time job and for the past couple of years I've been spending most of my off-work hours with SWMBO, so I consider my blogging time vs "having a life" time to be appropriately proportioned.

I haven't been blogging much at all for the past six months, but starting this week I expect to be spending a great deal more time typing on this keyboard.

(I say "this keyboard", but that's merely an expression. Last week I spilled an entire glass of ice water on my hi-tech WiFi keyboard, and after two days of drying out it still typed nonsense syllables. Many of you might exclaim in surprise that I noticed the difference, but that's probably due less to my spelling and composition skills than your low-brow expectations. I've replaced my keyboard with an older hard-wired version, and I miss my WiFi conveniences; on the other hand, this keyboard was used for such a short time before being replaced, the white letters on the black keys are not worn away. Better spelling is one expected consequence.)

Even when I was plagued by low productivity, I noticed that I was still registering at least a couple of hundred 'hits' per day. On my best days, such as when I was running a series like "Encoded Ammunition" and "Microstamping Ammunition", or when I was reporting daily on Major Matches such as the "Dundee Annual Croc Match" I often approached 700 - 800 hits per day.

The low-traffic days have been my most rewarding. I'm aware that those days were defined by the "Usual Suspects". These are often folks who know me personally or have corresponded with me and habitually check in for a few seconds just to see if I've posted anything new. My apologies for frequent "disappointments" should be in order, but knowing that I tend to over-write, I suspect that days when I had nothing to say (or no initiative to write it) may have been greeted with a modicum of relief on your part.

This may not be one of those days.


Thank you all for your patronage, for your support during good times and bad, for your continued readership, and especial thanks to Regular Readers such as "Antipoda" ... Bob, you have GOT to get a life!

We now return you to our Regularly Scheduled Programming.

Lunar Eclipse

December 21, 2010 -- Total Lunar Eclipse of the Moon!

I missed it. Did you?

Here's a second chance, a video using time-lapse photography. Don't have to go outside in the snow, and you don't have to stand around waiting for something to happen.

No, don't thank me. It's all part of the service.

Winter Solstice Lunar Eclipse from William Castleman on Vimeo.

Court stunned by 'mutiny' from jury pool over marijuana case -

Court stunned by 'mutiny' from jury pool over marijuana case -:

"Attorneys in Montana had to work out a plea agreement after potential jurors revolted in a pot case and made it clear that they would not convict someone for possessing a tiny amount of marijuana, The Missoulian newspaper reports.

As the jury pool was being polled in Missoula last week, most of the 27 potential panelists, one after the other, said they would not convict for possession of a 16th of an ounce of pot.

One juror even wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, the newspaper reports, quoting Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

'I thought, 'Geez, I don't know if we can seat a jury,'' District Judge Dusty Deschamps, who called a recess, said after polling the potential jurors."

The case in point ("Cornell") reflects the opinion of a jury which, if it had found the defendant guilty of possessing a small amount of marijuana, would have been obliged to sentence the defendant to a greater penalty than they felt reasonable, given the facts as they were presented.

I have not mentioned Jury Nullification here before, but I agree with David Friedman. (The Beacon, December 23, 2010: "Jurors' Moral Duty".) Sometimes the law is much more harsh than it should reasonably be in the opinion of the jury; this is the opportunity, the right, and perhaps the obligation of jury members to correct the moral inequity of egregious laws.

The United States Government is organized so that the three branches of government ... executive, legislative and judicial ... act as checks and balances on each other.

But this nation is predicated on the rights of the individual, and sometimes people just seem to "fall through the cracks" of laws which are passed, courts which impose excessive sentences for minor offenses, and an executive who is unlikely to rectify a perceived wrong.

Yes, when the system works the result might be that the executive over-rules judges who apply the strict rule of law to situations which may lead to excessively punitive sentences. A good recent example of this might be when New Jersey Governor Chris Christie commuted the sentence of a man who was sentenced to 7 years for having guns ... legally obtained in Colorado ... for having unloaded firearms in the trunk of his car.

The jury in that specific case had asked the judge for clarification of fine points of the state laws, but since the judge declined to respond they felt obliged to find the defendant guilty as charged, which resulted in a 7-year prison sentence for defendant Brian Aitken. The jury, believed that the sentence was excessive but felt that they lacked the power to ignore the implied direction from the judge and find him not guilty .. which was obviously their preferred judgment.


The case originally cited ("Cornell") would have imprisoned a defendant who possessed a small amount of marijuana to a similarly long period of incarceration. Rather than to drag the Executive Branch (governor, in this case) into the discussion, the jury merely refused to find the defendant guilty ... primarily because the sentence would have been excessive under the given circumstances, in their opinion.

The controversy, as defined in the Beacon article, was whether (a) the jury had a responsibility to follow the Judge's implied direction, and allow the Executive Branch (governor) to decide whether to intervene; or (b) follow their own individual moral guidance and decline to render a decision which would have led to an unrealistic (but lawful) punishment.

In this single specific case, they decided that the law was inappropriately harsh under the specific circumstances, and so they found the defendant "Not Guilty" .. even though they thought he might have broken the law.

In the Friedman opinion, he suggests that free men have not only a right, but an obligation to "nullify" application of a law, when it leads to misjustice. On the other hand, federal Judge Alex Kozinksi disagrees. He thinks that:

...juries do not have a right to disregard the law. In fact, juries are sworn to apply the law. If they can’t do that or won’t do that–and you would not want to be before a jury that is lawless. … It’s an abomination. It’s a crime. It should not be allowed to happen. The juries should be told in no uncertain terms that if they can’t apply the law as instructed by the judge, they ought to get off.

This situation is quit similar to the Olofson case, in which the defendant lent an AR-15 rifle to a friend, the rifle chain-fired multiple bursts on a single pull of the trigger, and the BATF successfully prosecuted defendant Olofson for transferring a fully automatic weapon ... even though the BATF technician testified that the full-auto burst was only replicable under certain narrowly defined circumstances.

What looked like a "full auto" offense to the BATF may have looked like a "malfunction" to people who are fully cognizant of the technical aspects. The jury was not conversant with the technical points, so Mr. Olofson was also sentenced to prison.

A better informed jury, the members having been aware of the concept of "Jury Nullification", might have decided to apply a more lenient sentence -- especially considering that the prosecutor and the judge conspired to provide narrow definitions and instructions to the jury.

If the reports are to believed the Defendant (Olofson) had no intent to create a full-auto weapon ... and if he had, it would have been the height of folly to then loan the rifle to
an acquaintance. [His representation in court may not have been as effective as it could have been, either.]

The jury in the Aitkens case might also ruled differently, if they were less intimidated by the judge's instructions .. or in that case, lack of instruction.

But now, in the "Cornell" case, we see a clear precedent that a jury might successfully interfere with the smooth flow of "justice" when they believe that Justice is not served by either an excessively harsh interpretation of the law, or by judicial instructions.

Might we all perhaps discover that our duty as jurors is to decide on the side of Justice, rather than "justice"?

David Friedman:

I don’t think I have a moral obligation to abide by the law when the law is wrong. I may have a moral obligation to violate it, but this could be a very long argument.

(Video of the full discussion, hosted by the Independent Institute", is available at The Beacon Magazine here. It's presented in 5 parts, and you may be forgiven by skipping the first part. In fact, the entire discussion is pedantic, boring, and seems a forum for the individual speakers to pimp their own books as much as to examine legal controversy. Part 5 has the dialogue ... and lasts for 37 minutes.)

Local Hero: Iain Harrison (Top Shot again)

Top Shot Winner Iain Harrison Reveals Hollywood Insider Secrets
Daily Bulletin

Once more from accurateshooter.com ...

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

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

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

See the detailed interview here.

DOT Plans New Ammo Shipping Regulations � Daily Bulletin

DOT Plans New Ammo Shipping Regulations � Daily Bulletin

Also from Accurateshooter.com ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just saying .....

Nil Carborundum Illigitimi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some children were not thrilled with the trade.

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

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

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

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

Way to go, Malik. Nil Carborundum Illigitimi.

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

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

Revolver KaBOOM!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go, read the whole thing.

Christmas Eve

It's 11:20pm on Christmas Eve.

You have only 40 shopping minutes until Christmas.

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

Merry Christmas from Geekistan

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, Kevin.


---

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

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

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

Consider this a juicy dessert following a meaty main course.

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

Singing Soprano

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brooklyn:


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


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

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

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

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

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

No Arms Gunslinger - Loads With His Feet!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christmas in Geekistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Haven't I?

Bummer, Dude. Flying is SO counter-intuitive!

Bankers are Crooks

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You

Shauntelle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New USPSA look "On Line"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brotherhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you all. From me, and from Sandie.

..

Sandie Memorial

I talked to Sandie's Sister today ... the one who shares Power of Attorney with me, as we work to resolve all of the mundane issues related to Sandies estate, will, and wishes.

Sandie has told her sister that there will be no funeral, no memorial service, no "Remembrance Ceremony" or "Celebration of Life".

I'm not certain that this is the best possible decision, but it is not mine to make.

Those who remain behind -- friends and relatives of the deceased -- have been assured that funerals are for the friends and family, so they can find "closure". And perhaps it also serves the purpose of allowing people to eulogize a loved one, but that's just a guess.

Nobody knows what Sandie was thinking when she made this decision, but I have an idea about that.

Last Christmas ... December 26, 2009, I attended a memorial service for Sherry Orpwood, a friend and a member of the local IPSC community. Sherrie had been fighting cancer for a year, with various ups and down, and finally lost her long fight. Sherrie had been very helpful when Sandie was first diagnosed with Cancer, and gave Sandie suggestions on how to deal with the various road-bumps of chemotherapy (which we later discovered can not be made any easier ... it's all bad.)

When I went to the service, I discovered that it was all too immediate, and too personal for me to handle. Her husband (Loren, whose name I suspect I consistently manage to misspell) was working to handle his emotions but it was all too raw for him.

As the service continued, I found myself becoming increasingly emotional. At the end of the service, I bolted out of the church, into my car, and spent ten minutes in a supermarket parking lot just trying to find an emotional level which would allow me to drive safely.

When I got back home, I told Sandie how traumatic I found the service. She said nothing at the time, but I suspect this is part of the reason why she decided against a public ceremony. She is still trying to protect "other people", regardless of the cost to herself.

She has always been the most unselfish person I have ever known.

---

In the aftermath of my attempt find and notify every person whose life has impinged upon Sandie's life (and she, upon theirs), I have been comforted by the outpouring of dozens upon dozens of letters of regret from those who not only knew her personally, but who knew OF her. She has been the subject of prayers for the past 29 months, and I know that they have helped both her and me.

One of my best memories of Sandie may have been the time a couple of years ago, at an IPSC match at Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, when Sandie was RO'ing a stage at a club match.

Most of us were chatting with each other inside the covered bay when Sandie realized that nobody was "working the stage" after the shooter completed his run.

Her response was to face the squad and shout: "Hey, you guys! Get off your ass and get out here and tape these targets!"

Just in case anyone wonders why I called her "She Who Must Be Obeyed".

Not just everybody gets to be a Legend.

Sandie

I'm sorry that I have to use a stinking blog to say this.

Sandie Fae Smith died this morning about 6am. She was at home, her sister was there helping to take care of her.

Her passing was not unexpected, but I honestly thought ... well, not this soon.

She was diagnosed with lung cancer on July 7, 2008. Her doctor only gave her six months to live. She visited her doctor last July, just to throw it in his face that she stretched that six months into two years, and she wasn't quitting yet.

I do not want anyone to think that she went gently into that good night. She went kicking and screaming all the way, though perhaps in the last couple of weeks not quite so loudly. The spirit and the flesh, you know how it goes.

She made so many friends while we were going to pistol matches, and this is the only way I know that I can reach most of them. It's undignified, I know, but this is part of where the legend of SWMBO was born, so perhaps it's fitting, after all, that this is where it ends.

For those of our friends who live nearby, I'll publish here the details of funeral arrangements whenever they are made.

But to tell you the truth, I don't know how I'm going to get through it. Or through this day, for that matter. I'm a mess now, I'll be a mess then. Somehow, though, I'll be there to say my final goodbye to the finest person I have ever been privileged to love, and whose love I never deserved.

Thanksgiving

Yesterday, SWMBO and I spent a quiet day together at her home.

Her oldest sister (of four), Vivian, was in town, visiting the second-oldest sister, Bonnie. Vivian had visited SWMBO on Wednesday, and knowing that I like her sisters we intended to invite her to visit again on Turkey Day.

Unfortunately, SWMBO had a very uncomfortable Thanksgiving Day, and so we decided not to invite visitors. In fact, when SWMBO's son called, I asked him to keep the conversation short. She doesn't have much strength left, and would prefer that her friends and family not learn first-hand how debilitated she is this week.

It made me think about those things for which I am grateful.

Last year at this time, SWMBO was in the hospital because the chemotherapy which she was then enduring was hurting her more than helping here. The same situation occurred at Christmas, when she finally decided that she would never again suffer through another round of chemotherapy. She would rather allow the tumor to run its course, and take whatever good days were available to her.

She had originally been diagnosed as having only six months to live. It has been an incredible 29 months so far, and we have been blessed with with all of this time for our love to mature beyond our expectations.

We have an entire coffee table full of medications which have been prescribed, and then left behind when they ceased to be effective in making her more comfortable. FED-EX comes by weekly with new prescriptions ... few are refills, most are new, and she takes pills for nausea, anxiety, pain (ALWAYS with pain) and a variety of maladies which are usually a side-effect of the other medication. She and her many caretakers work together to insure that the medications are taken on schedule. Sometimes the medications must be taken in the middle of the night, which means that a caretaker must always be with her -- not only to insure that the medications are taken, but also to give her such comfort as she needs from moment to moment.

Still, once in a while the old Sandie comes out. Her sense of humor abides, her keen attention to detail insures that we fallible family members will not give her the wrong medication at the wrong time, and she is ever willing to reassure us of her love.

I'm going to stop focusing on Sandie so much, because we are aware that her friends and loved ones are often distraught when I write about her suffering.

Instead, please accept that she is in charge of her own personal care. We .. friends, family, and the Benton County Hospice Center ... understand that she is still the boss, and we give her what she decides she needs. It's not always easy for her, given the powerful medications she takes several times a day. Still, SHE prevails.

And her friends and family are still there for her, even given that she needs personal attention 24 hours a day, every day.

As for me, I treasure every moment I am privileged to be with her. She is more focused on her care than she would prefer, I know, but under the most difficult circumstances one can imagine, she remains ...

She! Who Must Be Obeyed

I thank God that I am privileged to be a part of such a magnificent personality

SWMBO

Sandie is in a bad way.

She's not strong physically, but she's as strong and as brave as she can be.

Her family is helping me take care of here. I still have to work, so they take care of her during the day and I'm there at nights. Her youngest sister has been spending weekends with her, so I have some time 'off' then. And I appreciate it. I need some time "away", if only so I can regain my strength for the next day.

Sandie doesn't get any days off.

She can't walk unaided. She always feels crappy. The best thing she knows is, however bad she feels, it's the best day of the week.

It's not fair, but it is ... what it is. That's all any of us has, but it's not fair.

She's too good a person, and she doesn't deserve this.

I'll try to keep our friends informed, but I've already re-written this because you don't need to know all the details.

It's just bad. I wish I could be more positive.

Lest THEY forget ...

Veteran's Day, November 11, 2010

Lest WE forget