Monday, December 17, 2012

" some gun control, less media coverage"

David Brooks calls for some gun control, less media coverage in wake of Sandy Hook shooting 


The mass-shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which left 20 children and six adults dead, is an important opportunity to reconsider the role of both the media and gun control policy, New York Times columnist David Brooks argued on Friday.

Brooks, speaking on PBS’s “NewsHour,” suggested that people with certain mental health conditions should be denied access to guns, before urging the media not to inadvertently glorify the suspected shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza.

“I think it would be helpful in the media if we did not publicize these people, especially if they have committed suicide,” he said. “Don’t put them on the cover of magazines. Don’t put their faces on TV. Don’t release their names. I somehow think that would diminish some of the perverse heroism of them.”
(David Brooks is a political and cultural commentator who writes for The New York Times. He worked as an editorial writer and film reviewer for the Washington Times; a reporter and later op-ed editor .)

As awkward as I feel agreeing with a Columnist for the New York Times, I can't help aggreeing with Mr. Brooks, at least in part.

Well .. let me see:  Disallowing firearms ownership to people with "certain mental health conditions"?   Gee, the last time I bought a firearm, I had to answer "NO" to the question about "Are You A Loony?"  (nb: not a direct quote .. but that was the crux of the question.)  Apparently the Federal government already has that "Gun Nut Loophole" firmly covered.

The part about not publicizing the PERSON?  Yeah, I can support that.  Brooks argues that is important "...especially if they have committed suicide".   That's okay; God forbid we should embarrass them in public, but since they're already dead ... oh, wait.  The don't care.  Hmmm .. I guess I don't really understand the distinction.

I think am pretty sure that Brooks is suggesting that we shouldn't "glorify" the madmen.  In my mind, that concept is A Good Idea whether they commit suicide or not.  But how about if they are killed by a crazed saloon killer while being transferred from their jail cell ... is that okay?  That's what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald ... and so far (knock on wood) that hasn't led to the further assassination of American presidents; I think (let me do the math: 2012 minus 1963...) 49 years of "No Wanna-Be's" suggests that it's okay to publish the assassin's name if he's killed by a crazed saloon killer.

So .. I guess he's saying that if they're gone, we ought to just fagettaboutit.  If they're still alive, of course we'll have the media reporting on their  capture, trial, sentence, yadda yadda yadda.  (Sorry; all I know about how New Yorkers talk is what I read in The Times.)   So if we try to keep their names out of the papers, it would constitute an infringement on The First Amendment.  Not on the madman's rights but the Fourth Estate.

Perhaps I'm not totally sold on the DETAILS, but I'm pretty sure I agree on one thing:

... we're never going to 'understand' these Evil Doers.  Maybe it doesn't require that we 'understand' them.  So why do we need to know more about them except that some asshole shot up some good people?

Maybe there are other assholes out there, who see the media frenzy and think:
 "Hey, I'm a worthless asshole; but if I go shoot up some good people then people will get to know my name and I'll be famous.  People will remember my name!  Gee, it worked for Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark David Chapman and ... well, who knows?  And if I blow off my freakin' head when I'm done, people will know that at heart I'm really a Sensitive guy!   But I sure don't want to get shot by some cop like Charles Whitman was done in at the Texas Tower in '66.   On the other hand, that guy who shot up Luby's Restaurant in Texas and then (you guessed it) shot himself in the head?  Almost nobody remembers his name, 'cause it was only mentioned once and then quickly forgotten."
So okay, I think it's a good idea; let's all agree to forget these worthless assholes immediately.  Deny them the fruits of their madness, as intangible and illogical as they may seem.  Let's wipe their names off the face of the earth, and insure that they will achieve none of the goals of which they dreamed.  It's the least we can do, and perhaps it's the most we can do.  Nothing will be sufficient, of course, to express our contempt for their acts.

 Nothing

We won't forget the people they killed. 

But we will know one thing for sure.  We'll know that they died for NOTHING! 

To my mind, that's the most shameful, the most ignominious, the most insulting end of all.   To die for NOTHING!   If I'm murdered, I don't want the asshole to say "nothing personal".  At least, I would want to know that I'm dying for some reason which is more important than the pitiful self-aggrandizement of some loony-bin asshole. 

I hate it that all of those children, and their heroic teachers and principle, died at Sandy Hook.  But that they died for nothing?  That's the most despicable act of all.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Another massacre ... in Connecticut

Elementary school massacre: 20 children among 28 killed in Connecticut slaughter - U.S. News: A teacher's son, clad in black and carrying two 9mm pistols, rampaged through a Connecticut elementary school Friday, killing 20 small children and six adults, a tragedy President Barack Obama said had broken the hearts of America.
Damn, I am getting so freaking TIRED of this!

I don't know about you, but I feel like a tether-ball being bounced back and forth on what seems to be a daily basis.

When I wrote about the most recent Mall shooting, in Oregon, I found it easy to blame that part of the American Culture which wants to ban all guns and let the Government take care of us.   But guns are still also a part of that culture, and nothing will stop a madman (I've decided to let the "Sick Fuck" nomenclature be a term which you will automatically translate the word "madman" to mean) who will steal a gun or two or three.

And of course merely making guns illegal, and confiscating all private firearms, will not stop this.  Australia and England have thoroughly proven that THIS is not a workable solution.  Even the nullification of the Second Amendment would stop this kind of senseless slaughter.

No more workable are all of the restrictions which America has tried to impose ... most notoriously in the 10-year 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" which "sunsetted" because it had proved that restricting access had no demonstrable effect on "gun violence" except to make it harder for sane, honest citizens to defend themselves.

Once again, we're reduced to trivia and tears: trivia, because you can't legislate effectively against violence especially by 'restricting' the means to impose the violence;  tears, because when even the most well-intended governmental restrictions don't work we weep from both grief and frustration.

Because we cannot even defend our children.

I was a child during the Truman and Eisenhower years, and I recall as a ten-year-old being worried about some kind of nameless threat.  I worried that someone would try to hurt me; in retrospect, I think it was because my fourth-grade teacher Mr. Gorman had teased us with imaginary tells of the "Sherwood Slaughterer" who would creep though our bedroom windows and night and steal us away, never to be seen again ... alive.

Then I reasoned:  "I'm only a little boy.  Why would anyone want to hurt me?  And I found comfort in  that pre-pubescent syllogism.

Now I realize that my fears were not entirely irrational.  Oh, perhaps they weren't so immediate during the mid-1950's, but today I wonder that all of our children are at risk from the day they are born.

Suddenly we're back to the Thirty Years War.   During that dark period of the 17h century, no man, woman or child was safe against the predation of English, French, Spanish, German .. all of the (essentially "mercenary") ... armies which roamed across the face of Europe; the populace was the source of food, supplies, and 'entertainment' by the all-but-leaderless armies whose commanders worried only about defeating their enemies and feeding their armies.  They had little or no concern for 'protecting the people'.

Today, our governments are all about "The People" .. but they still cannot provide the internal security against this new breed of 'mercenaries'.  We have our own 'predators', but we call them 'madmen'.  (see definition, above).

Here is a Sixty-Minutes look at the .. event:

Perhaps one 'answer' ... or at least part of the answer ...may be found here.

Or another viewpoint here.


What is the source of these 'madmen'?  Are they all psychotic?  We would like to think they are.  I know that *_I_*  prefer to think of them as such.  Who else would slaughter innocents with such apparent gay abandon?  And they almost invariably climax their attacks with self-immolation (usually with the now-classic "self-administered gunshot to the head).  It's almost as if they believe, somehow, that their willingness to take their own life will be understood as their own personal acknowledgment that they know they did something unforgivably wrong, and they are willing to take responsibility for their actions.  So, that makes everything okay, right?

 I don't really think so.

In Dante's "Inferno", he describes nine circles of hell.  Essentially, each circle is reserved for violators of one of the Seven Deadly Sins.   It seems to me that these madmen are candidates for at least five of the nine circles, and I personally hope that they serve subsequent, rather than concurrent terms in HELL for the evil which they do.

We can just forget about our concerns for their mental states.   There is more than hormonal imbalances involved here.  These people are not just sick.  They are evil.  Some of our religions advise us to hate the sin, and forgive the sinners.

This particular bunch of sinners are exceedingly hard to forgive.   It's easy for us to take this approach, if our religion advocates that philosophy.   Even for those who make it almost impossible for us to forgive then;  after all,  if they were truly evil, would they then suicide when they realized that they had done the evil?

I am not that religious.   These attacks, however, make it much more attractive for me to to believe in Heaven, for if there is a Heaven, there must also be a Hell.

I very much hope there must be a Hell.  And tonite, Satan must be feasting and doing the Macarena because his new Best Boy is roasting.  Appropriately named ... Adam.

Hopefully, for all of eternity.

Bon Appetite, Satan.

Friday, December 14, 2012

"How To Shoot" .... Part Deux

Okay, so a little while ago I posted an article on "How To Shoot".  The lesson was:  "Practice".

Here's how it all comes together when you have the talent, you have the equipment, you've developed the skills, and you PRACTICE!

x

So .. folks, I don't know what to tell you that I haven't already said.  Except maybe .. BEWARE NORM THE UNGRATEFUL!

And by the way,  look out for his youngest son, Justin the Avenger.
My only hope is to see Justin kick some Old Man Butt real soon now.  But I notice that Norm hasn't had the nerve to bring Justin to an ARPC match yet.  Maybe he's just hoping to put off the day.

Norms older son, Zac, has already shown that he can push the limits.   I kinda think Zac has discovered girls; don't see him on the range much any more.  Now it's Justin's turn.


Learn to shoot.  Teach your spouse and your kids to shoot.

It's a family sport.

Y'all come on down now, y'hear?

Thursday, December 13, 2012

SCAM!

I recently received the (below) post from a person who identifies herself as "Leela Kidwell"..

My name is Leela Kidwell,i am 69 years old and was diagnosed with cancer 2 years ago.I will be going for an operation later today and i wish to give you access to my will. I WILL/DONATE the sum of (Twenty Four Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) to you for you to use for the good work of the Lord and for charity as well. Contact my lawyer with this email:  barristergilbertfirm@yahoo.cn<mailto:barristergilbertfirm@yahoo.cn>  his name is Gilbert MacEntee Esq. Tell him that i have willed the sum of $24,500,000 to you by quoting my personal reference number Gil/Lee/678/4567/sfti/uk and i have also notified him that i have Willed that amount to you.

Remain Blessed. Please contact my Lawyer directly with the email above do not contact me.
Leela Kidwell.


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
As eager as I am to receive twenty four million dollars from a total stranger, I have to admit that I am slightly ... dubious .. about the veracity of the information provided.  In fact, I have the strangest feeling that the sender is not being entirely honest!

Why am I so dubious?

Because I'm not a total idiot!

Oh .. and by the way?  That little disclaimer at the bottom of the email (attached by my Internet Provider) does NOT mean that it's not a scam; it only means that there is no bogus software being delivered.  No, my dears, this is just a 'social scam', which means it preys on trusting benign souls who are inclined to think the best of anyone who cares to contact them.

It doesn't really mean "Hey!  This Is Safe!!!"

If you, or your friends or family, receive this kind of solicitation (I'm sure there's a "hidden agenda" in here somewhere), please heed this counsel:

Laugh, rejoice in her ascendency to A Higher Level, and delete it without comment.

These jokers are just trying to get YOUR money; they have absolutely no intention of giving you THEIR money.

What a bunch of maroons!

Massacre In The Mall ... Oregon!

Gunman opens fire in Portland mall; 3 dead | General Headlines | Comcast:

PORTLAND, Ore. — A masked gunman wearing camouflage opened fire Tuesday in a busy Portland mall, leaving the gunman and two others dead and forcing the mall's Santa Claus and hundreds of Christmas shoppers and employees to flee or hide among store displays.

Austin Patty, 20, who works at Macy's, said he saw a man in a white mask carrying a rifle and wearing a bulletproof vest. He heard the gunman say, "I am the shooter," as if announcing himself. A series of rapid-fire shots in short succession followed as Christmas music played. Patty said he ducked to the ground and then ran.

His Macy's co-worker, Pam Moore, told The Associated Press the gunman was short, with dark hair. Witnesses said he started firing his military-style weapon just outside Macy's in the food court of Clackamas Town Center.

Brance Wilson, the mall Santa, said he heard gunshots and dove for the floor. By the time he looked up, seconds later, everyone around him had cleared out. Merchandise was scattered in some stores as he made his way to the door.

"Santa will be back," Wilson said. "It's not going to keep Santa away from the mall."

Jacob Roberts (26) entered a food court and started blazing away with a stolen AR15.   Killed two people, wounded a young woman, then shot himself in the head.  (See also the OREGONLIVE profile, where his age was given as '22', not '26'..)

The Chicago Tribune has a video:

(temporarily deleted because it's really obnoxious December 23, 2012)

The Clackamas Town Center is just a little bit smug because they recently performed some training for exactly this scenario.   Their solution?  Run, and hide.  There was apparently no effort to explore the possibility of an aggressive defense.

The Media is working hard on the "WHY?" issue.  His 'mother' (actually his aunt ... his mother died of Hodgkins Disease when he was 2 years old) said he wanted to be a Marine, but he had broken his foot when he was seventeen an after that " ... he just changed ...".  Apparently, he was REALLY disappointed that he didn't qualify to be a member of the Marines, so he decided to be a sick fuck instead.

The latest bit of Media Blarney (because I'm too polite to say "BULLSHIT!" online) is that he may have been influenced by a video game;  the scenario is reminiscent of "Grand Theft Auto".  That is where the "player" dons a white hockey mask and attacks the customers of a mall food court with a rifle.

Please.

The answer to the question:  "WHY?" is ...   because he could.

We don't have to do any research.  It has been 20 years since I've been to the Clackamas Town Center Mall, but I will guarantee you that at all the entrances there is a notice to the effect that "This Is A Gun-Free Zone".

(sigh)

You can buy 'em the books, but that don't mean they're gonna learn nuttin'.   Remember ... this (Portland, Oregon)  is the geopolitical center of a state which (among others) voted overwhelmingly to re-elect Barack Obama to a second term.

[Okay, "WE" re-elected the man who in a single term built a national debt of fourteen TRILLION dollars.    {update: it's now $16.3 trillion dollars, an increase of  $5.7 trillion since 2008.}  My understanding (I got this from the Internet, so it must be true), is this is more money than actually exists in the world today.   If we can believe that this is not a 'problem', then it probably seems reasonable that re-electing this economic genius would be a reasonable thing to do.   He'll fix it ... we HOPE!   In the meantime, mister, can I bother you for a little spare CHANGE?   The point is ... gee, our national consciousness has changed from one of individual freedom and responsibility to dependence on our 'rulers' and confidence that 'someone else' will take care of us.   Read Alexis de Tocqueville]

No, no, I'm not saying that the state and people of Oregon "deserved" this.  Nobody deserves to be subjected to the predations of madmen.   (It's just that Oregon is a "Liberal" state, and Liberals tend to expect "The Nanny State" to take care of them; generally speaking, they have no concept of the need to provide for their own well-being.)

The fatal victims, Steve Forsythe and Cindy Ann Yuille, and the wounded 15-year-young woman Kristina ("... just trying to catch a train ... ") Shevchenko deserve more attention.  But they aren't going to get it because the world is more focused on "guns are bad" and "guns kill people" rather than acknowledging that "people deserve to exercise the right to defend themselves and protect others, without being seen as 'paranoid' if they choose to exercise their rights".

We won't list 'the madman' as a victim.  He chose his path.  The victims .. did not.

What I AM saying is that ... well, you already know what I'm going to say.
  • "Gun Free Zones" are the moral equivalent of "Please Shoot Me .. You KNOW I'm Not Going To Fight Back!" Zones.
  • If the madman had thought that the Christmas Shopping Mob at the Clackamas Town Center mall included a lot of people who were armed .. he would have gone somewhere else to act out his sick fantasy.
  • Go look at The Hobo Brasser's blog for December 7; his comments are something that we should live by, and they are directly applicable to THIS situation.
  • People who carry concealed weapons in public do so for the same reason as other responsible people wear their seat belts while driving or riding in a car.  They don't HOPE for a disaster; they merely wish to be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best.
  • And the iconic best quote of all?  "When an emergency occurs and a defense is needed in a matter of seconds, the police are only minutes away.
Yeah, that last one is so obvious that it's almost trite.  Still, I noticed that among all of the quotes being published by the MSM, not ONE person said: "I had my gun with me, even though the signs said it was forbidden;  I'm glad I did, because I shot that sick fuck before he had a chance to hurt anyone else."

Apparently, none of the potential victims at the mall came forward to say that he (or she) was armed, although he/she may not have been in the vicinity of the shooter during the time unarmed people were being shot murdered,

On the other hand, comments from readers of various articles included:

"Whether it is an accident while cleaning a gun, a loaded gun left out where a child finds it, or a stolen gun from family or others, guns kill people." 

Well, somebody had to say it.  We all have a talent for being trite.

Trite?  I'll give you trite.

The massacre stopped when the madman shot himself in the head.  Our question is: why didn't he START with that action?  Even if he chose to go to the mall to do it, and even though it would have been 'traumatic' for people to watch him blow his own damned head off ... it would have been a LOT less traumatic for the people who were actually shot before he chose to take his own life.

Here's a video dated 12/12/12 (is the date significant?) .. before much information was available:


I've talked about this before .. actually several times.

But I'll say it again.

This kid was a sick f*ck and I'm glad his dead.
I only wish he had followed Kipling's advice to "The Young British Soldier":

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Real American Sick F*cks .. do that FIRST.

Please.

"How To Shoot"

Last month (and I haven't been doing a lot of posting lately, so my apologies for letting mold grow on this blog) I wrote an article entitled "Error Analysis and Correction".   The gist of it was that I found a diagram which helped analyze shooting problems based on shot placement, and I thought I might use it in future teaching situations.

This article received a surprising amount of feedback (okay, six comments; that's a lot for me!) and it occurred to me that the amount of interest warranted some expansion.

Many of the comments appropriately addressed shooting skills;  some people have them, some don't.  But almost everyone can learn to shoot well, to some degree.   In competition, we pit people with 'skill' against people with 'talent';  people with experience against people with determination; and people with "dedication" against people with "interest".

Obviously, the people with talent and dedication and experience are going to  beat the rest of us.  We ..." the rest of us" (among whom I obviously count myself) can only measure ourselves against our own group, and hope that the "Good Shooters" will occasionally muck up a stage here and there, so we can look better than we really are.

Our only hope here is that we work harder.  Put this in the category of "Determination", if you will, because frankly, competitive shooting is like any other kind of competition.  If you don't work at it, you will never rise above the "Mediocre Middle"

The folks who commented included a couple of folks who are new to The Sport, and I thought that they were the people who demonstrated the kind of determination which will give them room to grow competitively.


STEVE:

First, Steve asked:

After taking the intro to USPSA safety training class, where can I get additional training to develop a higher level of competency? 

Steve, the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club (ARPC) offers classes in "Basic Handgun:", and I think that's a good place for everyone to start.  Anyone who wants to enter competitive shooting should have those skills and, if he/she does not, that should be the first stop on the road.  Unfortunately, in an effort to encourage new shooters, ARPC doesn't have the mechanism in place to require and confirm a basic degree of shooting skills before new shooters are accepted into the "Introduction to USPSA" class.  During the class, we try to include as much instruction in basic skills as possible, but ultimately as long as students don't seem "unsafe" and do seem to have basic gun-handling skills,  we're going to allow you to enter into competition regardless of your shooting skills.

There are professionals who offer instruction on "How To Shoot", and there are sports (such as "Bullseye Shooting" which rely on accuracy to such a degree that the competitor must improve, or he will ultimately be discouraged.

You know this, and what I just said isn't very helpful.  I can suggest people who will coach you to improve your accuracy, but the best teacher is always experience.  And both private training and experience include a relatively large investment in time and money.

Having said that, here is my personal offer;  I will gladly spend some range time giving you such instruction in shooting skills as I can, limited to "I'm not going to spend my life on this" so that you can improve your shooting.  This will cost you time (weekends are fine, I know you're a working man) and money (ammunition isn't cheap, and you will have to do a LOT of shooting!), and you have to show up at every class.   You already have my personal email address and my phone number;  contact me, and we'll work out a schedule of classes at ARPC.

It's up to you; the offer is on the table.


RANDY:


Randy offered this observation:
Ok I read this several weeks ago and have been thinking about it off and on. First thought was I hope he was not talking about me as the last match it took me 18 rounds to knock down 6 steel target. (I was hitting them but to low, but that is another story.) But it does bring me to my comment. I can hit a 2in traget (sic) 9 out of 10 times at 30 feet. However when I get in a match I have trouble (sometimes) hitting the broad side of a barn. So not all shooting issues are technique some of them are appllying (sic) the technique during a match.

Before I took the intro to USPSA I had completed a NRA class that covered safety and how to shoot. I think everyone should be reauired (sic) to go through something like that.

Randy is absolutely correct.  Shooting Skills should be among the early goal to achieve before entering into a competitive venue.  Unfortunately, not everyone is as prepared to acknowledge that skills are leaned incrementally.

We would VERY much like to have the time to go through all of this during the class, but we just don't have the time.  We can teach you how to shoot safely, and according to the rules.

We can't teach you much about how to be competitive, nor how to combine accuracy and speed (well, that's pretty much the basis of 'competitive', isn't it?)
 

OKAY:  THESE ARE THE BASICS

Here, the steps are:
  1. learn to handle a firearm safely
  2. learn to shoot a firearm accurately
  3. learn to shoot with confidence
  4. learn the rules of competition
  5. learn to shoot a firearm safely, confidently and accurately within the (time-restricted) limits of competition.
This sequence is subject to some sub-topics.  For example, "gun handling" is not mentioned.  It's imperative that the "New Shooter" is completely familiar with his firearm, including "Stoppage Drills"  (what do you do when your gun jams), how to draw from the holster, how to engage the first target quickly and accurately, etc.  You need to be comfortable and confident that you know where all the 'controls' are;  how to reload quickly and smoothly.

There are other concerns, and the emphasis is always SAFETY .. but competence in handling your firearm is a broad subject and one which not everyone is as comfortable with as he may think before he begins to shoot competitively.

In the Introduction to USPSA classes, we teach: (1) safety; (2) range commands; (3) rules of competition.  Everything else is thrown in as time allows, but we don't pretend to be able to teach EVERYTHING in the very limited time available. We have no choice but to throw the shooter into the deep water, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.  Often, new shooters are "busted" during their very first match because they become so fixated on being competitive that they forget the rules of safety.

So, how are new shooters to learn to shoot accurately, quickly?

There's a very very old joke, about a man who is visiting New York City for the very first time.  He approaches a stranger and asks:  "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?"   The answer is:  "Practice, Practice Practice!"

That's the same answer for Competitive Shooting.  If you would shoot well, you must practice.

Practice gun drills at home.

Practice dry firing, daily .. or nightly, as the case may be. 
Safety considerations: make sure your gun is empty, remove ALL ammunition from the room, point your gun in a 'safe direction' (a brick wall .. any other impenetrable barrier just in case you screwed up that first step), and learn to SQUEEZE the trigger.  Perfectly done, you should be able to balance a coin on the slide and drop the hammer without losing the coin.  ALWAYS have a 'target', such as a spot on the wall (light switch?) as an aiming point so you can see if the muzzle wobbles when you squeeze the trigger.

Practice reloads.
Empty gun, empty magazines.  Dry fire, then grab an EMPTY magazine from your magazine pouch and insert it smoothly into the magazine well.  Squeeze the trigger as in dry firing (always use one exercise to reenforce another) and then reload again.  Use your full equipment belt with magazine carriers and empty magazines in each magazine carrier, so you build the 'muscle memory' which allows to always catch the next magazine on your belt.  If you're shooting Single Stack, and use 10-round magazines .. mix them up so you load a short (7-round or 8-round magazine) one time, and a 10-round magazine the next.  It shouldn't matter which you draw ... the reload should be as quick and as consistent no matter which you are reloading, although the ergonomics are slightly different for the different magazine lengths.

Practice the draw
The draw should always be the same; quick, smooth, effortless ... you shouldn't need to think about it.  The gun clears the holster, raises toward the target (always have an aiming point in every exercise because the goal is to get on the target and break a clean first shot) and if your pistol is single-action you ALWAYS drop the safety after the gun clears the holster and before your sights align on the target.  Of course, your finger is OFF the trigger until you are prepared to engage the target .. even if your sights are not yet quite aligned with the A-zone.

________________________________________________________________

We don't usually teach these things in the "Introduction to USPSA" class.

As any experienced competitive shooter will cheerfully tell you .. after you have gone though the introductory course, you don't know squat.  All you really know is how to act when the RO gives you a Range Command, and  .. oh, by the way?   You know how to screw up.  And how to avoid it.  And why it is considered a "No No" to, for example, keep your finger on the trigger when moving, loading, unloading, clearing a jam. (the very most common way to Screw Up) or to "Break the 180" (the second most common way to Screw Up).

But let's back of from the Safety issue, because we already know about this stuff, don't we?  This article is intended to speak to the New Shooter who already GETS that, but wants to learn how to shoot.

Practice, Practice, Practice. 

Practice until you don't want to shoot anymore.

Which is, incidentally a good indicator that you're not going to learn any more from practicing. 

There are two schools of though about 'over-training'.
  • when you're tired of shooting; quit
  • when you're tired of training, train for exactly the same number of rounds you used until you got tired, because THIS is where you really can learn something
For myself, I generally set a limit;  shoot 200 rounds (more or less), and then go home and think about what you've learned.

But before you quit, do something 'fun'.   Set up the "El Presidente" stage and shoot it for time.

In a word ...

"Practice, Practice, Practice ...."








Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Now Everyone Can be a Sniper (if this works)

Now Everyone Can be a Sniper (if this works)


I'm still not sure, after viewing this video several times, exactly what the advantages may be of this expensive innovation. My best guess, it eliminated the 'trigger pull' problems involved in precision shooting. Specifically, when you pull the trigger to make the shot, the equipment places the shot where you put the dot -- assuming that you have the 'dot' within the lens of the scope. Do you just wave the rifle around until you happen to cover the dot, and then the rifle fires? Is this just for people who don't have the skill to shoot accurately?

What if the target is moving?    I can't imagine that the 'dot' will track a moving target?

In the words of Arte Johnson:  "Verrrrrry Interesting .. but stupid!"

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Error Analysis and Correction

Error Analysis and Correction One of the things that I 'frequently' encounter when I'm conducting "Introduction to USPSA" classes is that ... well, frankly, not everyone who shows up for the class is a good pistol shooter. Not that this is a MAJOR problem; most folks interested in competitive shooting have (in my experience) been shooting the same pistol for several years. They're aware of their idiosyncrasies, and they're constantly working to correct the things they do which are 'not helpful'.

Still, it's a problem which occurs 'frequently'. Specifically: a student seems to be doing everything right, but all of his hits are to the left. Or left/low. Or to the right, or .. well, you know. When your misses are consistently grouped in the same not-in-the-A-zone place, it's a sure sign that you've picked up some bad habits. Either that, or nobody has told you how to cultivate "good habits" in pistol shooting. Usually, the problems lie in one (or more) of three areas:
  1.  Grip
  2. Finger-on-the-trigger placement
  3. Jerking the Trigger (or anticipating recoil)
I've always been aware that there are charts available for those who would learn; these charts divide a target into a 360-degree image, based on quadrant.  If your hits (or misses!) are consistently in the 270 degree quadrant, for example, and if you're a right handed shooter, it suggests that your trigger finger is not sufficiently 'into' (on) the trigger .. so you're pushing your pistol to the left.  Conversely, if the hits are consistently in the 90 degree quadrant, you're probably PULLING your pistol to the right.

Simple, isn't it?

When I see a shooter hitting to the left, I can just recommend that he make sure that the fullness of the first-joint finger-pad of his trigger finger be centered on the trigger, and that he make a conscious effort to pull the trigger toward his dominant eye.

In point of fact, if he is hitting to the RIGHT: the advice is the same.  The only difference is, he's either "PUSHING" or "PULLING" his shots, because of trigger-finger placement.  He needs to find the sweet-spot, and then make a habit of always using the same finger placement.

Easy, huh?

But what if he is consistently hitting high, or low?  I'm thinking it's his Grip, but I'm not always sure exactly what advice to offer!

In an ideal world, I wouldn't have to worry about correcting these minor technical thingies. Everyone I meet should be a crack shot, and all I would have to do is to make sure he knows the rules of competition and understand how targets are scored.  Right?

Wrong!

The original 'deal' with my agreement to teach this class, was that every student who couldn't demonstrate proficiency with a handgun (in both accuracy and safe gun-handling) would be required to attend and pass a course in "Basic Handgun".  This is a course which is offered by my home club, the Albany Rifle and Pistolc Club (ARPC).  My mentor was going to interview every candidate for the class,  and 'new shooters' would be "Strongly Encouraged" to take the Basic class.

It didn't work out that way .. and yes, I'm aware (for long-time/frequent readers of this blog), I've mentioned this before.

In the actual event, everyone who thinks this is a good way to learn to shoot a pistol, shows up here, first.  They sign up for the monthly class the week before .. or the night before ... and I never know what I'm getting.  I don't know what they do or do not know about shooting a pistol, or whether they can shoot out the eye of a Franklin Dime at 20 paces OR they don't know whether their pistol has a safety.  (Yes, this has actually happened.)

It would be very nice if the people who sign up to learn how to shoot a pistol COMPETITIVELY can be expected to know how to shoot a pistol COMPETENTLY.  Or even, just SAFELY.

Yes, I am venting.  Sorry .. I'll try to be less critical in the future.  Maybe next week, eh?

Well, it's obvious  that I find myself spending more time teaching basic gun-handling skills, and accuracy skills, than safety and competitive skills .. and I'm sometimes frustrated.  I'm thinking it would be great if I could glance at a target and tell a student: "you're jerking the trigger", or "You have the trigger finger too deep on the trigger" or " .... not deep enough", or whatever.

Lucky me, I found a place which provides a diagram, showing exactly which 'errors' result in shot-displacement based on where the bullet hits .. which suggests how to correct the errors.


... actually, this is for a right-handed shooter.  (The left-handed shooter problems are the mirror image.)  And the 'finger not on the trigger correctly" zone is for a shooter who has his finger not-deep-enough on the trigger; he's pushing the shot.  If he has his finger too deep on the trigger, he's pulling the shot and the hits are in the 90 degree arc, rather than the 270 degree arc (pushing the shot).  For those of you who are perhaps more experienced, you already know that.  Sorry if I appear too pedantic at times, but that's just me.

So .. it appears that I need to develop another visual aid, which incorporates the information available here.  I don't mind, of course; it's just that I already have visual aids which summarize the "Seven Deadly Sins of IPSC" and  "IPSC Range Commands" and "Scoring Zones" and "Power Factor Calculation".  There comes a point where the visual aids become a distraction, rather than a helpful mnemomic.


Doesn't matter, really.  I'll make a duplicate of the chart, and it's up to the student to learn from it.

And yes, I will accept the challenge of teaching my students to not only shoot competitively, but to shoot accurately.


The only problem is, I have only one hour to teach the "classroom" issues, and two hours to teach the "Live Fire Exercise".  Instead of being a three-hour course, it should be at least four .. probably five .. hours of instruction.  When I took my certification course in 1983, that's what it was then.



Maybe I should change the structure of the class?  I don't know.

What do YOU think?

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Happy Birthday to the U.S. Marines!

Today ... November 10, 2012 ... is the 237th birthday of the United States Marines The Marines' Hymn

(I almost missed it!)

Congratulations, Marines! For longer than the United States has BEEN a country, you have helped keep our country strong. We salute the brave men and women who have done so much, sacrificed their numbers greatly, and for so long have held your banners high.


Even though it may be presumptuous for a mere dog-soldier to say ...

Semper Fidelis!


In a personal note: I was attending a USPSA match today and one of the people I was talking to looked up and observed that the host club had not hoisted the colors. He commented, and I agreed, that the oversight was not appropriate to the occasion. But then, the match director wasn't quite old enough, nor experienced enough, to have an appreciation for the date.

And as I looked around, I noticed that the speaker was wearing a cap which denoted he was an ex-Navy Submariner. And I remembered that someone in the sign-up line had noticed (and commented to his daughter, who was also at the match) that the belt buckle I was wearing was a replica of the Combat Infantryman's Badge.

Perhaps we don't always perform the MAJOR observations which our serving and past members of the military deserve. Still, there are enough people around who notice, and comment, and in at least this small way we recognize the contributions of our Citizen Soldiers (and Gyrenes, Dogs, Squids, etc.)

Incidentally, one of the stills in the video is the iconic image of the Marines raising the American flag on Mount Suribachi during the conquest of Iwo Jima   ("Garlic Island"). This was in celebration of their conquest over incredible resistant of the embedded Japanese forces. It is an important day for me; it was the day I was born.)

Thursday, November 08, 2012

Hell in a Handbasket

We've done it to ourselves.

Remember the Richard Pryor movie, "Brewster's Millions"?  This guy was the heir to $300 dollars, but he had to prove that he knew how to handle money.  The test was, he had to spend 30 million dollars in 30 days, but at the end of that time he had to have spent it ALL and have no tangible assets to show for it.

Our Hero managed to do it, but his most successful 'waste of money' was to sponsor a political campaign.  The crux of his campaign was to espouse the slogan:  "Vote for 'None Of The Above'!"
The result of that vote would have cancelled out one vote each for ALL of the candidates; it was a vote against all of them! The candidate who had the largest number of resulting votes "FOR" would win ... if any of them had any votes FOR them.  If nobody was left ... screw it, maybe we don't even need that office any more.

We could have used that ballot option this week.  As I have said here before: "IF God had intended us to vote, he would have given us Candidates".

Maybe we don't need a President any more.

Nobody really liked "Der Mitt", but those of us who were Conservative were forced to vote for him, if only because the only legal alternative was "Mister Fourteen Trillion Dollars" ... the greatest raid on the American Economy in the history of the United States.


Nothing really new here.

We've had "Zero-Sum" candidates before.  In fact, we've had a LOT of them.  Some of them were more obviously of 'presidential timber' than others ... most were not at all.

Let's take a capsule look at the options we've been forced to endure.  Because I was born during WWII ("The Really Big One!"), and it's My blog, I think that's a good place to start.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (DEMOCRAT) 1933-1945

Twelve years.  TWELVE YEARS?  Conservatives (Capitalists) called him "That Man" and "A Traitor To His Class".  In a strong and decisive attempt to recover his country from The Great Depression, he instituted many social programs devised to improve the economy.  Call it "Social Reform", call it "Socialism", he set the stage for generations to come.  He also orchestrated international  coordination to beat the Nazi's and "The Yellow Peril".  Dust Bowl, "Grapes Of Wrath", etc.  He had a lot on his agenda, and I personally didn't like many of his social reforms ... but the man was a leader.  He knew what he had to do and he done it.  Also, we began to think that perhaps a Three-Term President was just a little too much.

Harry S. Truman  (Democrat) 1945-1953

As Frank's VP, Harry took over from Frank, when Frank died.  Decided to nuke the Japs. Saved hundreds of thousands of American troops, who were facing the invasion of Japan against an entrenched army and a nation prepared to fight to the last Geisha. No Shit, Man, This Really Happened.  Was elected for a "Second Term".   The man had a foul mouth, and he relieved General Douglas McArthur (one of the few Five Star Generals) when Mac decided he was The American Geisha and could do no wrong.  No apologies to "Dugout Doug"; the U.S. Military Commander IS the President.  Set better precedents than Frank; one of which was identifying the Soviet Union as a threat to American .. and world-wide .. security.

Dwight David Eisenhower (Republican) 1953-1961

"I Like Ike!"  Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) and Commander of the European Theater of Operations (ETO), Ike was the first military man to command his country for a long time.  Well, U.S. Grant showed him how not to do it. Ike got a little cozy with his lady driver in London, but he still kicked ass when it came to D-Day.   After election, he was uncomfortable when the Soviets successfully launched a satellite in orbit first.  Joke of the day:  "Why can't Ike ride his horse after dark?  Because he doesn't have a Saddle-Light!"  (I guess you had to be there.)  Mamma was a Quaker .. Ike didn't take to it.  As President, he made Jimmy Stewart a star when he instigated the Strategic Air Command;  don't want no Russian bombers attacking America over the Great Circle Route.   See:  "Doctor Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb".    Initiated the Interstate Highway System as an alternative landing system for returning American bombers.   Did a little this and that for Civil rights, including the end of segregation of Southern Schools.  See Governer Orval Faubus.  Established the Social Security System (how's THAT working out?)   Korea and Lebanon also were battlegrounds during his administration.  See also the US Incident,  and a bit of attention to an incidental country called "Viet Nam".

John F. Kennedy (Democrat) 1961-1963)

First Roman Catholic President .. and believe me, that WAS an issue!  Bay of Pigs,  Vietnam, "Ich Bin Ein Berliner", Marlyn Monroe, Jackie.  Youngest person to be elected president to date.  Rich, powerful family.    Civil Rights.  "Ask not what your country can do for you; rather, ask what you can do for your country:.  Charismatic, popular, with almost everybody except for the nut on the fourth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Repository.  Caroline and Jon Boy, Ari and Jackie.  The man was a movie star.  He was also assassinated ... A Dynasty nipped in the bud.   Did I mention the Bay of Pigs and the CIA?  Bobby as Attorney General?   "Military Advisers" in Vietnam?  Starlets in the Oval Office?

Lyndon Baines Johnson (Democrat) 1963 - 1969)

Kennedy's VP, he took over for Kennedy (after his death) as Truman had after FDR's Death.  But he was neither as competent nor as colorful as Truman ... nor, for that matter, as successful.  Well, he did share the singular trait of having a dirty mouth.  But Truman could still kiss Bess with that mouth; I'm not sure that anybody could kiss Lady Bird ... you know, the alcohol breath and all.  At least Lady Bird cleaned up junk yards across America, and went to Rehab.  Johnson's personal problems?  FUBAR.

Accelerated the War in Viet Nam (Thanks, Lyndon ... You Drafted My Ass!  Where were YOU when the green tracers were coming into the lager?) Initiated "The Great Society"  ... great!   As if FDR didn't do enough to encourage Socialism.    Along with his coterie of "Whiz Kids", he micro-managed the VN War right into the ground.  The first president to be a non-diagnosed victim of  Traumatic Stress Syndrome,  rather than to run for a second term he just quit.  One good thing about Lyndon; he did NOT migrate to Canada to avoid the draft ... as did thousands of young American men.  See: Jimmy Carter (Below)

Johnson was selected as Kennedy's running mate because he could bring in the votes from the Deep South.  
Lyndon was one of the most successful politicians of all time, but one of the least effective presidents.  History my prove that our current Supreme Leader may beat him out of that claim to fame .. or notoriety.

In his defense, he did push for Kennedy's Tax Cut (Kennedy having been perhaps the last American Democratic President who understood economics).  Surprisingly, he was also successful in establish Civil Rights as a societal priority.  Then he got into the "Great Society" thingie, and we may never survive THAT little bagatelle.  (See: Barak Obama, below)

Richard M. Nixon (Republican) 1969-1974

"Tricky Dick" was the first American President I got to vote against.  I turned 21 in 1966, was drafted in 1968, and voted against Mr. Milhouse as a serving member of the U.S. Army while I was in Basic Training at Fort Lewis, Washington.  I had to report my company commander and explain why I needed his signature on my absentee ballot.  The CO was not pleased ... he actually asked me who I had voted for, and when I replied "Sir, I voted against Richard M. Nixon"  (I couldn't remember the name of the doofus I had actually voted FOR!)   He asked me why, and I stated (disingenuously):  "Sir, I would never vote for a man that I wouldn't buy a used car from.  Sir!"

Strangely, I had made the right decision.  I was a Registered Democrat then, as all young people should be, and had just graduated from college and had been six days married when I reported for duty.  Young, responsible, naive.   That is a VERY dangerous combination!

Dick (were his parents channeling future MSM reporters when they named him?) was later forced to resign the presidency when it became obvious that he had instigated the (illegal) burglary of the Democratic National Party Election Headquarters by the "Watergate Plumbers).  No, I'm getting tired of doing the google searches and providing the links.  If you're interested .. you do it!.  Fearing the impending impeachment, Dick just ... bailed out.  He must have learned something about "Sell Date" from Johnson.  Later, he acted as an emmisary to China, and actually may have done some temporary good for Sino-American relations there.  It's kind of a shame: he might have been a decent Secretary of State, but he should never have gone for the Presidency.  Perhaps he was channeling Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Do you suppose she learned something from him?  (Nawwww!)  Perhaps Dick's purpose in life was to serve as a good example of a bad example?

Oh, yes;  Kennedy won the presidency in the narrowest margin in U.S. History when running against Nixon.  Perhaps there are some lessons to be learned here.
  1. Thirty years ago, the Democrat Party espoused values which the Republican Party now includes in their platform .. but the Democrat Party now pays only lip-service to .. if that.  Witness Kennedy's Economic Policies.
  2. Thirty Years ago, we first refused to elect Mr. Shifty; then we elected him; then we regretted it; then in this century, we elected another Mr. Shifty and we haven't learned a damn thing about Presidential Politics since then!  See "Obama" (Below)
Gerald R. Ford (Republican) 1974 - 1977

The best thing we can say about Jerry Ford is that he has a kewl first name.

Okay, if you're all finished laughing .... okay, go ahead.  I'll wait.

Finished?

Okay.

The purpose of Ford is that he makes Eisenhower look DYNAMIC!  Good!  S$EXY!

Hell, if I ever get elected president, he would make ME look sexy.    Don't laugh .. if Ford can get elected, I can!

Well, actually, he never did get elected.  He was Nixon's VP after Spiro Agnew  (Nixon's first VP) was indicted for income-tax evasion.

But we won't go there, okay?  Because it's far too rich for this megalo-mento blog.  Spiro deserves his own time, except to say that three are congress-critters who have done the same thing in recent years and STILL have managed to retain their seats.  I will not name names.

Anyway, Jerry was famous for playing golf even less adroitly than Eisenhower; for being a stand-in for a real president (yet to be named), and for liking to watch football on TV.  In fact, while Nixon at least officially ended the war in Viet Nam ... I think he did that just for spite, so that Jerry couldn't.  Jerry wasn't castigate as Richard "Eighteen Minute Gap" Nixon was.  In fact, he never distinguished himself at all, politically.

He was a book-end.   That's all.

Nothing to see here, folks, it's just another train wreck .. move on.
Also for being the only President of the United States (POTUS) who was NEVER elected to the office.

Even as VP. Well, Spiro having left the building ... Jerry was affable, but none to bright.    He did, however, up the ratings for  Monday Night Football.  The best thing he did was not to start a war.


Jimmy (James Earl) Carter (Democrat) 1977 -1981

Jimmy Carter was grateful to his brother, Billy Bob, because Billy made Jimmy look GOOD by comparison!

Jimmy .. author of "The Great American Electric Power Blackout", and "The Rescue Of The Iranian Embassy (not!)" was probably a great peanut farmer.

Not a good wartime president .. witness the Russian incursion in Afghanistan.  He had TWO chances (Afghanistan, Iran), and he blew them both.  As he also blew the Energy Crisis.  Remember the long lines at the gas station?  Well .. he did inherit that from Jerry.  Not that he actually FIXED anything!

Oh, did I mention that he was a one-term president?  And that he is arguably the worst president in the history of American Politics?  It's not enough that he was a "Do-Nothing" president ... Ford had that one pretty well wrapped up.  But even when he tried to do something ... he failed.  Miserable.

Famously quoted by Playboy Magazine at a doorstep-interview as saying: "I have sinned in my heart" .. he still played the Baptist Minister on TV.  My personal memory is that Carter was once the commander of a Nuclear Submarine .. and I gave him a lot of credit for that responsibility.  Unfortunately, I haven't found any supporting evidence of that.  I guess the bad things are reported more reliably than the good things.

What I DO remember was dancing in a disco club (yes, to my shame, I admit to having done that ONCE ... but the gurl was hot!) and sweating like a pig because Carter's Energy Program forbade them to run the air conditioners.  But then, this might be in the same category as his being a submarine commander.

Apparently, we ALL just .. .want ... to ... forget .. the Carter Years.

Ronald W. Reagan (Republican) 1981 - 1989

The thing about Ronnie Ray-Gun was .. Star Wars!

Yeah!  The Star Wars Initiative was going to protect America from Russian sneak missile attacks.  (This is something that 2012 military technology can still not deliver .. but they're still trying!)

Out of respect for the late president, please allow me to express this in the most gentle terms possible:

Ronnie was as dumb as a stump, and his wife Nancy was a harridan.

This didn't bode well for their public image, and it certainly was a disaster for international relations .. especially with The Soviet Union!

On the other hand, Ronnie was "The Great Communicator .. and I love to go back and watch him on YouTube.    I also liked him on Death Valley Days (Co-starring with .. well, the 'other' wife'). I wasn't so big on "Bedtime for Bonzo, and the entire franchise, where he was consistantly upstaged by a chimpanzee.

The funny thing is, though, that his economic policies revitalized America.  And he so frightened the Soviet Union that they BANKRUPTED their country trying to keep up with the measures that Ronnie established to close the "Window of Opportunity".

You see .. Ronnie had a vision.  He understood the problem, knew exactly what to do and how to do it, and then he did it.

My personal problem is that, even having read a couple of Reagan biographies (eg:  DUTCH) I still don't understand what that vision was.

It doesn't  much matter, though .. does it?  Gorbie of the gruesome forhead-raspberry capitualted (as did the entire Soviet Union) in 1991 as a consequence of Reagan's political/international relations policies .. and Military overspending!  ... and now we are all good friends of Russia (which is NO LONGER the Soviet Union, because those other folks?  Won't even talk to them nice!)

"Voodoo Economics" aside ... Reagan managed to balance domestic economic policies, international relationships, and "democratic obstructionism" counter-tactics to constitute what may be described as The American Springtime.   Nobody was trying to attack us .. certainly nobody thought it was "safe" or "A Good Idea" to blow up buildings in NYC  (Well, they were still hijacking cruise ships and airplanes, but nobody's perfect), and the American Economy experienced a resurge which had not been matched in decades.  Who says that the President can't influence the Economy?

Yup .. the guy was an ACTOR ... and at one time the head of the Screen Actors Guild.  He liked FDR. He was a Democrat until he turned 50.  ("Any man under 50 who is not a Democrat is not listening to his heart; any man who is not a Republican when he is over 50 is no listening to his head"   ... anonymous, probably misquoted in detail)

He supported a 'smaller' federal government, and the military.  For his reward, he was shot in the head by a would-be assassin in 1981.  He famously said to his doctors "I hope you are all Republicans".

In my own personal opinion, any man with so much moxie that he challenges the political bent of surgeons just before he undergoes brain surgery at their hands ... deserves the lead the most free nation in the world.

He liked FDR, he liked Goldwater.  I'm not convinced that Politics was his forte ... he just liked leaders who inspired him, so he tried to be an "Inspiring Leader".  He generally managed that, perhaps not least because of his wide experience as an actor.  No American could tell a yarn, a story, an anecdote or a quip without twirling a rope as he talked.  He was the iconic American Speaker of his time .. and he could probably have bested Mark Twain and Will Rogers as the best loved speaker of his time.

"Tax Cuts and Spending Cuts" were his theme, along with "Trickle-down Economy".  This meant that if you didn't position taxing philosophy to discourage entrepreneurs, the economy would prosper.  Critics titled this "Voodoo Economics" or "Reaganomics", although it isn't far removed from the economic policy of John Kennedy.

His VP was George Herbert Walker Bush (see below).  See also "Iran-Contra"  where he took profits from South American "Contra" fighters to support NIcaraguan Freedom Fighters during the South AmericanWars), and when his actions were investigated he famously said, frequently:  "I misremember" .. a lot.
  Well, Mr. Clinton (see below) seems to have learned a lot from Ronald Reagan about how to manage aggressive congress.

George Herbert Walker Bush (Republican) 1989-1993

AKA: BUSH 41

Vice president to Ronald Reagan (and father of George "W" Bush), this presidential candidate was famous for saying:

"Read My Lips:  No New Taxes"!

... and then turning around and imposing new taxes on the American public when he later realized that as President, his control over the economy wasn't quite as tight as he had expected.

Are we beginning to learn that "It's The Economy, Stupid!" isn't entirely a catch-phrase of the Democratic party?

"HW" is probably most frequently regarded as the father of late-20th-century-Republican Politics .. being the father of two governors ... one of which was later to be elected President of the United States (See: George W. Bush  ..... below).


That is, besides being so demonstrably unable to live up to his "no new taxes' campaign promise,.  That wasn't very popular, in the end result.

Bush tried to continue Reagan's economic policies, but wasn't very successful.  He had been Ambassador to the United Nations before Reagan selected him as his VP Co-runner.  This was probably the pinacle of the political career of GWH Bush  ("Bush 41)

William ("Bill") Jefferson Clinton (Democrat)  1993 - 2001

Bill Clinton felt our pain.

We know this, because he told us so.  Frequently.   In fact, so frequently that it soon lost its "impact" on the American Public ... except for that portion who wanted to believe any politician who wanted to tell them what the wanted to hear.

Bill successfully negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which is probably the high-light of his political career.  This agreement removed restrictions in trade between the United States, Mexico and Canada.

in other words, if Mexico or Canada can produce 'widgets' less expensively than those produced by American labor ..  these cheaper widgets may be imported to the U.S. without needing to bear the imposition of import duties or taxes.

Which means .. if America can't make quality widgets for a dollar a pound, we'll find someone who will.

Depending on whether or not you're a member of an American Labor Union, you may or may not see this as A Good Thing.

Of course, if you're an American Consumer, you may be biased in your evaluation.

W.J. Clinton had several other political and economic influences on America during his Presidency.

Among the influences (and accomplishments) are ...
  1. he survived multiple political, fiscal and sexual scandals
  2. turned a huge national deficit into a surplus
  3. stopped "Ethnic Cleansing" in Bosnia and Kosovo
  4. Presided over the greatest prosperity since  the early 1960's
Well, considering the source some readers may consider that Point #1 is the only non-controversial claim.

Especially the  part about Bosnia.  But also parts (2) and (4) .. which are also subject to interpretation.  We won't quibble here, take it as read.  He feels our pain, and we feel his ... although not all of us would have gone into the Oval Office with the same agenda as Monica Lewinski.  (Yes, I do still hold that against him, but from a safe distance.)

However, it's worth mentioning  that he attempted to sponsor "Hillary Care"  .. a national Health Care bill which would provide free medical care to ALL US Citizens regardless of almost anything, and would be paid for by a fifty-cent-per-pax Federal tax on cigarettes.  Note that at the time, cigarettes (which had  previously been selling at $1/pack) were selling at $4.00/pack  They now cost $5.50/pack because of .. you guessed it .. higher taxes, not higher costs of production OR inflation.

And Hillary Care never made it past the starting gate, because not everybody believed that National Health Care could be supported by cigarette taxes, which would be funded entirely by cigarette smokers, who (if Clinton Mania could be believed) would be all dead in the next ten years because Cigarettes are Chillers.

"Ethnic Cleansing"?  Still going on, in an increasing number of countries .. although that has famously shifted its focus south from Bosnia to Africa.

"Greatest Prosperity"?  See "Obama" (below) .. also a Democratic president.

Bill was  the second president (see "Nixon", above) to be almost-impeached for malfeasance in office, but Bill assured us that ... "I did not have sex with That Woman ...".  (Depending on what your definition of "Sex" is; Hillary was reportedly livid with Bill, and threw a lamp at him.  Not because he was catching BJs in the Oval Office, but because he handled the resultant 'bad press' so inadroitly.)

On the positive side, he defeated both George H.W. Bush (see above) and Ross Perot to win the election.  It would have been petty of me to suggest that I could have beat those two Major-League Losers as well, but then I never actually submitted my name for inclusion on the ballot.  In retrospect, I may have let my country down.

The National Budget was the next hurdle.  Congress refused to accept a budget which was not supported by either budget cuts or increased taxation.  Bill refused either alternative, and threatened to shut down the government.  Rather than accept the default of both social and military programs by facing down an intransigent President, Congress backed down and Bill called it a WIN/WIN situation.  In the Clinton Administration, this is defined by Bill saying "Nya Nya Nya .. I'm the President and you're not" and Congress allowing him to get away with it.

Also see "Whitewater",   Re: pre-election scandals; Bill enhanced the Presidential Stature by facing down Ireland, Haiti, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania and Bosnia.  Major powers, all.  He also responded to Terrorist Attacks by firing a Tomahawk missile with the net benefit of killing one camel, an aspirin factory, and two canvas tents.  Good shooting, Bill!  I bet Monica was very proud of you!

(Of course, Hillary hasn't talked to you since 1999 ... which is another benefit of a presidency well spent.  Frankly?  If I was the President, and I had to choose between Monica in my under my desk and Hillary in my bed, I would be hard pressed to choose the lesser of two evils.  But apparently these difficult decisions are the stuff that being Presidential are made of.  Thanks for showing us what it takes to being "An Effective President", Bill!)

George W. Bush (Republican) 2001 - 2009

George Walker Bush was president when the Islaamic Terrorists drove civilian passenger airplanes into the Twin Towers in NYC; the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and into an empty field in Ohio (thanks to the selfless sacrifice of passengers who knew they were going to die anyway); during those few trying days early in his presidency,  he kept his nation together and demonstrated leadership by NOT giving into the panic which was endemic across the nation during that horrific day.

For this, "W" has been labelled as indecisive, ineffective, and cowardly by his detractors ... most of which are either Democratic politicians, or members of the Main Stream Media.  (But I repeat myself.)

George W. Bush ("Bush 43", as oppose to "Bush 41" .. his father, see above) has never been accused of being an intellectual.  Intellectuals may be defined as those politicians who are similar to Al Gore (2000) and John Kerry (2004), both of whom were defeated by "W" in national elections.  Gore was defeated because he is a lying elitist ass-hat.  Kerry, on the other hand, is a smug elitist ass-hat.  Both were defeated because of (a) the supreme court rulings, which upheld the election rules which were in effect at the time (and still are!), and (b) because they are both very smart, but are still fucking idiots, and the voting public cannot ignore their idiocy.  Good for you, good for me.  Do I need to mention that all three candidates have a lot of money?  Two of them inherited it from their families.  Kerry did it 'the hard way'; he married an ugly woman.  (Clinton, to his credit, also married an ugly woman even though she didn't come from a particularly wealthy family; perhaps this had something to do with his decision to boink the fat intern?)

During his presidency, "W" accomplished the following goals:
  • he didn't bring charges against the office workers of the previous administration, who in a fit of jealous rage at losing their political office, trashed their physical office';
  • established a tax cut, with the intention of increasing net federal funding by 'growing' the economy; this worked;
  • Signed the largest (economically) education bill in the history of the country.  For this he was excoriated by Ted "Let God Sort 'Em Out" Kennedy because it wasn't as big a bill as he wanted;
  • not deliberately attempting to emulate his father's "Thousand Points Of Light", nevertheless established a national government which was EXTREMELY aware of Democratic agendas, and in fact risked offending main-stream Republicans because his policy decisions were more 'liberal' than theirs;
  • Took charge immediately after the Terrorist attack on America, inventing "on the fly" Security Measures which were hopefully designed to identify, track and apprehend individuals whose actions were obviously aimed at bringing pain and suffering to American citizens (see "Patriot Act", below)
  • Responded to reports of 'international' terrorist support, and attempted to curb the support of terrorist by "rogue nations" by publicly announcing that nations which encouraged or supported terrorist acts would be punished by America to the same degree and effect as the individual terrorsts;
  •  Effected these policies by attacking rogue regimes, and non-governmental groups (eg: "Al Queda") whenever they might be identified and found.  The results of this policy included the attack on the terrorist government of Iraq, and Taliban elements of Afghanistan;
  • Responded effectively (which is defined as "something more likely to change the behavior of terrorists than hurling a Tomahawk missile at a camel") in terrorist strongholds in other nations ... usually with the agreement of host nations such as Pakistan;
Patriot Act:
One of "W"s earliest efforts at combating terrorism in American was his definition and establishment of "The Patriot Act".  (HR3162)

This bill, later being enacted by congress, included the expansion of wiretap laws, research into personal information accesses (library searches, etc.), regulates financial transactions, allows for deportation of emigrants suspected of supporting terrorism, and enlarges the definition of "terrorism"  (including especially "Domestic Terrorism".

A highly controversial bill/act/law, this was immediately seen as either one of two effects on American freedoms:
  • curtailing the freedom of law-abiding citizens, or;
  • allowing the federal government to insure the safety and lives of law-abiding citizens
It rather depended on the individual perspective of the affected law-abiding citizens.  And yes, it did erroneously affect the freedom and liberty of some citizens, and also some non-citizen residents of America.

Ultimately, though, other than establishing means to better protect the security of America as a nation (against attacks aimed at both the citizenry and the infrastructure of the nation), the Patriot Act is secondary to the increased economic prosperity of the country.  Those effects were not as immediate as the Patriot Act .. which saw some residents arrested and later found innocent of crimes or intent to perform criminal and/or terrorist acts ... but the economic benefits were more generally wide-spread in that they established the "Trickle Down" effect.

Essentially, when "job creators" (including corporations, small businesses, and other entrepreneurial enterprises) are taxed LESS, and when businesses can be assured that the taxation and other restrictions on businesses are LESS likely to change dramatically and with little or no advance notice ... employers can make long-term plans with some assurance that their business plan will not be arbitrarily interrupted by changes in governmental regulation.  Also, tax incentives are available which encourage the growth of business, and consequently management may be inclined to hire new workers with some assurance that they will be able to maintain a larger staff to support a healthier business environment.

At the same time, he initiated the "No Child Left Behind" plan, which turned out to be a total bummer as his plan included a "standard testing" regime which left teachers teaching "the test" rather than "the material' because failure of a school's students to pass "the test" resulted in ceasement of federal funding assistance and closure of 'inadequate' schools.

Also, both his original election win and his re-election bid were perceived as 'flawed' because of inconsistencies and errors during balloting.  This led to a wide-spread feeling that the elections were being defined by (conservative) Supreme Court Members rather than by the electorate.  More, the Electoral Vote plan came under wide attack when it was seen that the majority of votes did not always agree with the Electoral votes.

The war in Iraq, in the meantime, dragged on and on and on ... first the military effort was seen as a boondogle, then as a "Quagmire" when Liberals charged that the national leadership had no "Exit Plan" ... which can only be defined as: "When will it end, and/or when will we admit that we have been defeated?"

Bush couldn't find Osama Bin Laden, who taunted America frequently by public broadcasts  of the "Nani Nani Boo Boo ... I'm still alive!" variety.

The rationale for attacking Iraq was cited as ".. British Intelligence tells us that IRAQ has Weapons of Mass Destruction, and is actively seeking materials for the construction of nuclear weapons".  When American troops searched the country, only small amounts of Chemical materials (or their precursors) were found, and no evidence of a nuclear program were found.  An 'independent' American agent went to Nigeria, talked to two people, and publically reported that Iraq had NOT been seeking nuclear materials.  The Liberal press made popular the expression "Bush Lied; People Died", which replaced the previous Liberal mantra: "No Blood for Oil!"  (Incidentally, Sadaam Hussein fired foreign Mid-eastern oil fields in '91, murdered thousands of Iraqi citizens .. mostly Kurds .. using chemical WMDs; but because no facilities or materials were found after American troops entered Iraq, those confirmed and proven actions were largely ignored by the Main Stream Media.)

Barack Husein Obama (Democrat) 2009 - Present

After "W"'s lame-duck presidency allowed him to improve the economic health of the nation, albeit accompanied by a 'security plan' which was highly controversial,  The Junior Senator from Illinois was elected President when he completely overwhelmed the Republican Senator from Arizona, John Mccain.

Although McCain was very much more experientially more qualified, Obama was seen as a refreshing change, and the hope for a new approach to politics; this was emphasized in his campaign slogan:   "Hope and Change".
The first-term senator Obama is charismatic, well-spoken (in front of a teleprompter) and most importantly NOT of the "old guard" and NOT GEORGE BUSH!  (This didn't work well for Al Gore, or John Kerry; but against McCain .. who was widely perceived as establishmentarianistic,, not well spoken, stodgy, and 'old' ... well, it's a younger country today than it was 8 years ago, and almost every one was HOPING for a CHANGE!)

During his first term in Office, Obama has accomplished:
  • Introduction of a National Health Plan bill, which the leader of a Democratic Congress has said that "We have to pass the bill before we can understand it";
  • Escalation of the National Debt by 14 TRILLION Dollars .. the largest increase during a single term of office in the history of the nation;
  • "We Got Obama!" ... referring to the killing of the leader of Al Queda, the group universally acknowledged to be responsible for the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on America; this was accomplished by a team of Navy Seals which were part of the world-wide search for Obama which had been ongoing for over ten years and was originally initiated by ... "W";
  • Has been seen, and photographed, BOWING before foreign persons (not always national leaders) in apparent subjugation to their majesty;
  • Recently refused to renew the economic stimulus plans of "W", despite its proven benefit to the national economy;
  • Obama has been described as having "no experience in business or economics, and little experience in national politics'.  Still, he has now won TWO national elections as President of the most powerful nation in the world ... and he still doesn't look very presidential to many Americans.
_____________________________________________________

If you have read this far .. and I certainly wouldn't blame you if you haven't, since I've just spend 8 hours on research and writing the article and I know *_I_* am sick and tired of it ... you may have received the impression that I don't have hi regard for almost anyone we've elected President of the United States (POTUS) in the past 60 years.

And you would be right.

Based on their records, as War Presidents I think that FDR, TRUMAN, and W have come across looking pretty good.  On the other hand, if we win ... or we have confidence in their efforts to win ... almost any president can be a good War President.

Economically?  Reagan did swell, W did pretty good (because he used Reagan's model)

Socially?  Johnson and Kennedy and Eisenhower were in position to work on civil rights, and they did what they needed to do.  Frankly, Eisenhower started it all, and without doing much damage to the country in 'other' areas.  I've always liked Ike!

Presidents I actively don't like?  Nixon, Ford, Carter, Clinton, Obama.   Why?  They all went crazy, to one extreme or the other; either in the chase for personal power, or for ineffective leadership.  A couple of the take heavy hits in both categories.

"If God had meant for us to vote, he would have given us candidates;."
x

Saturday, October 27, 2012

I'm going to take some heat over this one

Glock Myth Laid to Rest: Uberfail Over The Beach Test - YouTube

Some of my best friends shoot Glocks.

When I was in College, there was a saying:  "Friends won't let friends vote Republican".
Forty years later, that had changed to: "Friends won't let friends vote Democrat".

Well, people change and so do their politics.

When I was riding motorcycles, it was "Friends won't let friends ride a Honda".

Okay, so maybe not everything changes.

During the past 25 years, I've tried shooting a few Glocks but I just didn't like them.  I had been spoiled by the 1911 frame and ergonomics; the Glock fits my hand no better than does a spade.  (Or a vacuum cleaner, for that matter.)

However, I do NOT subscribe to the "Friends won't let friends shoot Glocks" meme because ... hey, I'm older now and frankly, I don't much care.   You shoot what works for you; I'll shoot what works for me.

In defense of their hoplofilial choice, my Glock-shooting friends often point to the plethora of tests which show that Glocks will continue to perform under any circumstances.  Dump them in dirt, throw them in a swamp, your beloved Glock will continue to perform "no matter what".

As if your life depended on it.

(Yes, I HAVE seen the You Tube videos of Glocks being subjected to a variety of torture tests.  I have no intention of attempting to explain the differences between those videos and this one.

The video I'm featuring today seems to contend that the "no matter what" contention is as valid as "When seconds count, the police are only minutes  away".

1911


I've mentioned in earlier articles .. years ago, I have no intention of looking up the specific articles .. that the 1911 was designed by John Moses Browning  to function under "combat conditions" .. including being dumped in a mud puddle.    I don't know how true that is.  I haven't tested either my own 1911 (ca: 1918) nor The Beloved Kimber (ca: 1998) nor any of the STI 2011-style pistols I've used in competition.  At least, not under "combat conditions".

But these guys (see below) have tested a loaded Glock by (1) pouring dirt into the works via the ejection port, and then (2) dumping it into yucky water "until the bubbles stop coming up".  Then they pulled the pistol out, let it drain, and tried to fire it.  Actually, it worked fun when just dirty.  But when it got wet, it functioned for only a limited time and then experienced several failures to feed, and just plain failure to fire.  I think I did hear it go "CLICK" some times, but no joy in the "under any conditions" department when the conditions included moisture.

Full Disclosure:  When they had managed to get it to fire several times -- enough to dry it out -- it started functioning with a greater degree of reliability.

You can see the whole thing here.   Then you can draw your own conclusions. 
I'm not saying that the Glock is a POS ... but they are.

(Sorry, Embedding has been disabled by request of the contributors)

Oh, and BTW, I'm appalled by their casual attitude toward safe gunhandling.

Friends won't let friends try this at home!

Friday, October 26, 2012

I'm Gonna Getcha, Sucka!

Somebody came phishing in our pond here at Geek Central.    I received an email from someone who claimed to be from PayPal Customer Service and Support.  There was a return address on it and everything.  The email started with the salutation to "Dear PayPal Services User".

It was a long email, announcing that PayPal had rewritten "over 60" policies and replaced them with just two, which were shorter and easier to read.  They asked me to download an attached file and .. well, here's the pertinent text:

- How can I read and accept the PayPal policies ?

It's easy:
1. Download the new policies attached to this email.
2. Confirm that you're the owner of the account.
3. Read and accept the Privacy Policy and Merchant Services Agreement by clicking the "I Accept" button.

Please note:
You have to read and accept our new policies within the next 10 working days, however, if you don't comply to accept our new policies, we (PayPal Inc.) will be forced to terminate your account.
[I underlined the part that was the 'kicker' .... it was an attempt to induce me to comply using fear tactics.)

The email had an attached file, which I did NOT open!

Instead, I went to the PAYPAL website, found the page on "SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS", and forwarded the entire message including the attachment to spoof@paypal.com

Later, I received the following message from PAYPAL:

Thanks for forwarding that suspicious-looking email. You're right - it was a phishing attempt, and we're working on stopping the fraud. By reporting the problem, you've made a difference!
Identity thieves try to trick you into revealing your password or other ersonal information through phishing emails and fake websites. To learn more about online safety, click "Security Center" on any PayPal webpage.
Every email counts. When you forward suspicious-looking emails to spoof@paypal.com, you help keep yourself and others safe from identity theft.
Your account security is very important to us, so we appreciate your extra effort.
Four things alerted me to this obvious phishing expedition:
  1. The salutation ... if a vendor sends me 'official' email, they use the identity with which I had subscribed to their service.   They don't use some generic salutation.
  2. The technique; Download a file to read the policy?   And how would I confirm that I had read it?   It's just bogus ... any legitimate vendor would have a webpage on their official (and Safe/Secure) website.
  3. The threat .... no legitimate vendor would cancel a subscription because their customer didn't reply to an email.  Suspend an account, perhaps, under special circumstances.
  4. The address .... I DO have a PayPal account, but it's not related to the email account to which this email was sent.  In fact, none of my business accounts reference any of my 'public' email accounts.
So no, I didn't open the attachement.  As soon as I received the confirmation from PayPal, I permanently deleted the original email and the attachment.  They were already in limbo, because the FIRST thing I did was to mark it as S*P*A*H*M (deliberately misspelled) because the domain name was obviously bogus.

Companies like PayPal and EBay all have these kind of security concerns.   But we have to do our part, too.   If YOU ever get an email that you think may be bogus, the first thing to do is to not click on any links, and not open any attachments.  Not all email providers have protocols as safe as they should be, and Microsoft Outlook is just the most obvious example of software which may open files without instructions, if you don't have the highest level of security settings activated.

In the meantime, I'm feeling just a little smug tonite.  Instead of them getting me, I got them!


Tuesday, October 23, 2012

"You Are Not Special"

How I wish someone would have told me this 49 years ago.

Instead, I had to learn it the hard way.   Although, I probably wouldn't have listened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lfxYhtf8o4&feature=plcp

(Hat Tip to "The Hobo Brasser")