Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Taxi Driver, Kick Your Ass!

From The Guardian:

11 hurt in clashes over ban on female taxi passengers

Rory Carroll
Saturday December 17, 2005
The Guardian


Hundreds of taxi moped operators in the northern Nigerian city of Kano have clashed with Islamic authorities over a ban on women passengers, a new sharia law which they said deprived them of their best customers.

A fleet of riders, known as achaba, drove through the city wielding sticks this week in protests which turned violent, leaving 11 people injured and 24 motorised tricycles vandalised.

"No amount of intimidation and lawlessness will deter us from carrying out this noble duty of stopping women from riding on achaba," said Yahaya Farouk Chedi of the religious police.

(Emphasis added)

Under Sharia law, women are not allowed to drive vehicles. If they want to go someplace, they have to find someone to drive them. A reasonable alternative, you might say, would be to take a taxi.

But in this Nigerian city, the "motorized tricycle" seems to be a common form of taxi. I'm only guessing, they don't have a lot of Checkers cabs there.

("Gee, you can't drive, you can't take a taxi . . . you're a woman under Sharia Law, how do you get from point "A" to point "B"? Answer: Point "A" is the kitchen, or the bedroom. You don't have to go anyplace else. Besides, you're a WOMAN, and if we see you in public we will be overwhelmed with lust and defile ourselves by raping your sinful body. It's not our fault, we can't be expected to control our lust. The only defense we have is to keep you LOCKED UP! Who cares what you want? You're only a woman. Note: this doesn't reflect badly on us. We're men. If you don't like it, we can kick your ass, and the scooter you rode in on.")

Now they can't even use taxis to get around. Continuing with my "I'm only guessing" trend, "I'm only guessing" that the lauded "noble duty of stopping women from riding on achaba" has a lot to do with treating women as second-class citizens . . . or property.

I only know one muslim personally, and he seems as happily hen-pecked as the rest of us. He lives here (in Oregon), he does an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, and he also respects his wife. I don't think he's living under Sharia law. That's the law that the militant muslims would impose on the entire world, one nation at a time.

How many of us could live under Sharia law, where the courts are ruled by religious leaders and there is no real 'rule of law' appeal to their decisions, unless it is supported by their primary religious beliefs?

Let me be completely clear here. I consider the actions of the Nigerian Religious Police to be shameful. More, I consider the entire concept of Religious Police to be completely unacceptable. I'm a nominal Christian, even though religion isn't part of my life-style and I haven't been inside a church for almost a year.

These aren't religious principles we're discussion. They're cultural principals. I think that people who use their religion to justify acting like hooligans (there is no better word in the English language to describe such conduct) are little better than animals. They're using the precepts of their avowed religion to excuse egrigious conduct. I'm searching for a word here, and I'm mulling over 'duplicitous', but it's not strong enough to express my revulsion. How about a more complex phrase, such as "state-supported thugs"? No, that's not strong enough either.

Maybe you can help me out here.

The point may be in comparing this 'thing' with the previous 'thing'.

The people who beat up taxi drivers because women hire them are the same kind of people who drive airplanes into public buildings. They think they know better than we do, about how we should live our lives.

I don't like that. I think we should fight against that sort of 'holier than thou' attitude, and we should use every weapon in our arsenal to fight their drive to impose their rules on us.

Islamists Are Crazy

In support of the evolved theme that Islamists Are Crazy, here's an offering from "The Scotsman dot Com", one of my favorite news sources:.

Jihad is 'Muslim obligation'

A lawyer defending al Qaida-linked suspects standing trial for the 2003 suicide bombings in Istanbul told a court that jihad, or holy war, was an obligation for Muslims and his clients should not be prosecuted.

"If you punish them for this, tomorrow, will you punish them for fasting or for praying?" Osman Karahan -- a lawyer representing 14 of the 72 suspects -- asked during a nearly four-hour speech in which he read religious texts from an encyclopedia of Islam.

No.
If I "punish them for this" (suicide bombing of innocents) they won't be around for fasting or praying. Obviously, those activities haven't improved their ability to celebrate Allah or God in their conduct. I'll happily grant them the opportunity to reboot and restart the Game of Life, because they will be dead.

If I understand the Hindu religion correctly, these people may have erred in this life. They have accumulated 'bad Karma'. If they have "moved away from the light" they may be reincarnated in a lower form of life.

Perhaps they will be reincarnated as beetles.

That would be good; they need someone to step on them for a few incarnations so they can Get A Clue.

I think, in my next life, I want to come back as a Hindu. It seems like a religion (or philosophy, if you will), which is much easier to live up to than Wahibbism and Sharia 'law'.

Canadian Clue-Bat

From the Edmonton, Alberta (CA) CBC.Ca:

Handgun sales on the rise
Last updated Dec 19 2005 07:49 AM MST
CBC News
Gun shop owners say handgun sales in Edmonton are skyrocketing since Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise to ban them.

A Canadian "Liberal Leader" made a promise to ban handguns in Alberta. Well, they're already 'almost banned', but this sounds like the Nuclear Option.

Now that Albertans have been assured that the Demon Gun will no longer be an option, how do they react?

Do they dance in the streets and give candy to strangers, as Pallistinians do when they are assured that Sharon is ailing?

No, they do not.

Instead, they rush to gun stores and buy handguns.

Eh?

What is this strange discordance between Canadian Citizens and Canadian Politicos?


"I'm Just Guessing" that there is a national schizophrenia in action, where Canadians will vote for the Liberal Wacko de jure, but they retain sufficient grey matter to realize that "I've Got Mine!" is a survival instinct.

Why do they buy handguns, when they are assured that the future promises that handguns will be illegal? Are they just buying handguns so they can give them up when the new administration confiscates them? That's not right. Why would they deliberately buy a Demon Gun when they are assured that it will soon be rendered Ex Post Facto illegal.

Note: BANS lead to REGISTRATION, which leads to LICENSING, which leads to CONFISCATION. I'm sure they are clear on the concept.

Could it be that they plan to NOT allow their new (and newly illegal) handgun to be confiscated?

Can it be that they have no confidence in the rightness of the action, and expect to have their very own handgun for personal defense when it all goes into the crapper?

Note to Albertans:
Instead of planning to circumvent the Law of the Land, why don't you quit voting for these Liberal Moonbats and elect non-Liberal leaders who won't make you a criminal for performing an action (buying a handgun) which was legal when you did it?

I don't know about you, but it seems a lot easier to fight 'em at the polls than to fight 'em at the barricades.

To quote my old friend, Earthworm:

"What a bunch of Maroons!"

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Big Dawg Invitational

The Michael Bane Blog: SHOOTING GALLERY Challenge/Big Dawg Invitational Update

Michael Bane (my hero!) has once again defined competition shooting. This time, he has scheduled a 'mixed media' invitation-only match to the top Big Dawgs of various disciplines for a two-day match with surprise stages and ranges from seven to seventy yards . . . all to be engaged with 'THEIR" pistols,

That's the deal. Invitation match, top shooters include:
(IPSC)
  • Todd Jarrett
  • Doug Koenig
  • Rob Leatham
  • Max Michel
  • Dave Sevigney (Production King)
  • Jerry Miculek (Revolver King)
Cowboy Action stars include:
  • Randi "Holy Terror" Rogers
..... that's it? You've got six male IPSC champions, and one lone Female SAS shooter?

Sheee - ooot ... she's got 'em outnumbered and surrounded.

I don't know about you, but Jerry M. has sacrificed his 'underdawg' status to Randi Rogers. I want her to kick serious IPSC butt, and you know that Michael Bane isn't going to play up the diversity angle at ALL.

Yeah, right. And I'll receive an all-expenses paid invitation to represent the "Geek" contingent.

The deal is, you do NOT "shoot what you brang".

THEY (the producers) supply the guns, THEY supply the ammunition, THEY design and set up the stages, THEY make the rules, THEY score the stages, and THEY keep the cameras rolling while the Best of the West have every oppportunity to screw up by the numbers.

I love it.

Seven shooters. Six stages. Two days. What's not to like.

Okay, I wish (as if it makes a differnece) there was a 'normal' shooter in the mix to provide perspective. And I would really like for my hero, Jerry 'The Burner' Barnhart, to be one of the competitors. But he has announced that he is no longer a competitor, and you have to respect his decision to retire even if you (as I do) would prefer that he continue competing for at least one more year. The man contributes CLASS to what would otherwise be, as the Artillaryman's creeed suggests, a "mundane affair".

I'm thinking seven shooters is an odd number, and there needs to be some balance here.

They need a GEEK to leven the mix.
Well, there's . . . hey, I'M a Geek. I could do this.

I couldn't do squat, of course, but I can provide a benchmark experience.

I remember May, 1999, when I shot 'Mano a Mano' against Todd Jarret.

It was Stage 5 of the 1999 Area 1 Championship match of USPSA.

A large number of IPSC targets were presented for a four-string Timed-fire stage.

Jarret shot a fast rhythm of engagement against the half-dozen targets, all obscured by camoflauge netting.

I, shooting The Beloved Kimber ( .45 APC, fixed sights, C-Limited shooter) tried to keep up with his rhythm.

He hit all of his targets, at 50, 40, 20 and 10-yard distances.

I missed most of them. But DAMN! I sounded good, keeping up with the World Champion in pace if not in accuracy.

I can do it again. Well, maybe not.

This is a whole new deal, with the Best of the Besto of the Best competing agains each other

It will be interesting, seeing if the stage designs are 'Revolver friendly' for Miculek and Rogers. I can't imagine there isn't a bias in favor of the people who are accustomed to pushing their load-limit.

But the scenario is that everybody shoots the same gun, with the same ammunition, at the same stages.

It could be interesting. It could be a 'level playing field'.

It could be exciting!

Doh!

Concealed Carry

To carry, or not to carry. That is the question.

According to my old (and obsolete) friend, GURUNET, "Concealed Carry" means:

concealed carry (USA)

In the United States, concealed carry is the right to carry a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner.

I've just posted an article about FishOrMan, describing his twenty-month legal battle to defend his Open Carry of a pistol in the state of Washington, USA.

This is different from Concealed Carry in that you are required to carry your pistol in a manner which makes it obvious to the casual observer that you are armed.

It is also different in that, in Open Carry states, you (supposedly) need no governmental permission to carry Open.

This isn't always the case, as FishOrMan learned.

<>
Why?
Because the people who are paid to enforce the laws aren't always clear about what the law is, and how it should be applied, it may be prudent to get 'pre-approval' from the State (or County) to carry a concealed weapon. LEOs pay attention to this. Also, being 'merely human', they may apply their own interpretations as to whether your chosen method of carrying a firearm is legal.

I have made my own decision about whether or not to carry, and the associated decision about seeking governmental approval of my right to carry a concealed weapon. This is a good time, I think, to talk about that decision.

<>
It's important to consider how one will exercise the right (if right it is) to carry a concealed weapon.
Probably the most common reason for carrying a weapon is self-defense. This supposes that one will be attacked and need to defend one's life, another person's life, or even one's personal well being or property.

Defense against, for example, rape or assault with injury which may NOT lead to death is a point of contention. Most people think that they have the right to defend themself with lethal force against injurious assault, but some assert that they would submit to assault or even die rather than to take the life of another human being. I personally find this hard to understand. Perhaps I'm just a selfish person, but I believe that anyone who would willingly assault another human being has already decided to accept the risk that it may escalate into a Life Or Death situation for at least one of the (unwilling) participants, and thus has accepted the unspoken covenant that the life of the assailant is forfeit if the assaulted can only accomplish it.


This result (that an assaulted person might ultimately kill his or her assailant) strikes me as 'an outcome ernestly desired' by some innocent who is violently attacked. "Your Mileage May Vary", but it seems to me that I have the right to defend myself by whatever means available when attacked, and if I have not chosen to arm myself beforehand I have made the decision to submit to any injury or indignity which another can force upon me.

You might not agree with me NOW, but when you are attacked by a naked man with a machete when you are walking to your car after work, you may have an entirely different perspective on the question. Of course, by then it will be too late to work out the ethical details.

Thus I postulate that I have a right to arm myself in defense of myself, and this right has been generally conceded by the Bill of Rights (2nd Amendment) and specifically by over two thirds of the States of the Union.


Given that this right is correct and real, and supported by the Rule of Law, what am I going to do with it?

Most states which legally support the right of the individual to arm in self defense include several conditions of qualification. Most common of these conditions are proof that one is legally entitled to own a firearm (felons need not apply; insane maniacs get in line behind the felons, but don't get your hopes too high; juveniles . . . don't even think it, you have less rights than maniacs.)

Assuming you're not a felon, or a maniac, or a juvenile, can you prove that you are competent to use a firearm? Most states require some certification that you have received the benefit of training, or have received instruction on the rights and/or obligations of a responsible carrier of weapons.

Given, for the sake of argument, that I am a legally responsible adult citizen in all respects, and I can prove it, and if I can get at least three other people to vouch for me (also a common stepping-stone on the road to permission to carry), I can be awarded a Good Conduct Medal. This is variously referred to as 'Concealed Pistol License" (CPL), a "Concealed Weapon Permit" (CWP), or in my home state as a "Concealed Handgun Permit" (CHL). I'll use the term CHL to describe the governmental permission.

The good thing about a CHL is that you can carry a handgun ALMOST anywhere, and you can carry someplaces where you would be subject to legal penalty if you don't have a CHL. This most accurately describes the situation in my state. If I have a concealed pistol in my car, I can go to jail. However, if I have a CHL, it becomes my "get out of jail free" card.

This the reason why I applied for a CHL in Oregon. I often attend shooting matches around the state, and became concerned because in the confusion of loading the car with guns, ammunition, pistol belts with holsters and magazine carriers, tools, spare parts, clothing appropriate to a surprise change in the weather, food, water, a thermos of coffee, and perhaps a suitcase with toiletries and a change of clothes for a weekend stay with friends . . . I may put the bag with the guns in the back seat of the car instead of in the trunk of the car.

In my home state, the law requires that guns must be transported in a locked compartment, and not accessible by the driver of the automobile while operating the car. By accident or inattention, I may violate that law and thus be subject to penalties including confiscation of automobile and firearm, fine, and imprisonment. (One of my cousins was once caught with a pistol in the glove compartment of his car, while on the way to a ground-squirrel hunting area. He was fortunate that he was not imprisoned, but it cost him more money than he could afford and he was put on probation for six months. Plus, he lost a really fine Ruger .22 handgun. He was perhaps careless, certainly overconfident, but absolutely not felonious in his intent.)

To avoid this situation, I have chosen to apply for, and was eventually 'awarded with', a Concealed Handgun License by the state of Oregon and the county of Benton.

I took a one-day class in "Home Defense" from my local gun club, filled out the forms, had three friends sign my "certificate of whatever", gave the Sheriff's office my fingerprints, gave the same sSheriff's office a check for $55, let them take my picture, and two months later received a CHL.

Now I don't care where I put the bags with the guns when I load the car. My Jeep Cherokee doesn't have a trunk, and I don't care. Cargo compartment, back seat, front seat, glove compartment . . . it doesn't matter where I put the guns, I'm legal. They can't touch me, as long as I don't have the gun laying open to casual observation in the car. (Another local aberration.)

So the CHL works for me, because it protects me from goofy laws which may or may not . . . but have, historically . . . cause legal problems for someone who hasn't jumped through the legal hoops and paid their danegeld to the County.

What does this do for my Self-Defense Posture?

Not much, if we're talking about defending myself against assailants.

But it does a LOT in the area of defending myself against bureaucrats!

<>
Hey, what about defending myself against assault?

Okay, let's talk about this.

There are restrictions against carrying a weapon, even if you are the somewhat proud possessor of a CHL.

FIrst, you can't carry a gun into a court of law. (Some states include "Any Public Building", such as a post office, the local FBI office, or a school ... we'll discuss this in a minute.) Often, your CHL will not allow you to carry in a place where liquor is served. This means, if you go to a restaurant and they have a license to server beer or wine, you can't bring your gun with you.

In my state, there was once a law stating that you couldn't have a handgun in your possession within 1000 yards of a school. Good law, we're doing this 'for the children', right?

Not really. What if you live within 1000 yards of a school? What if you are driving by the school on your way to or from a shooting match? (A thousand yards is over a half-mile. Many schools are located on or near main surface streets; you may be within this artificial legal limit while driving to a shooting range from your house, your gun may be locked in the trunk, but if you're stopped for a traffic infraction you are subject to many legal penalties even though you obviously had no nefarious intention in mind.)

This law was eventually overturned in my state, because it was too vague and put too much burden on the casual wayfarer to KNOW when he or she was within X distance of a school. Besides, there are schools which somehow have retained a 'Shooting Club', and it made it impossible for them to operate. Yes, I am aware that this is a mind-boggling situation, but in Oregon there are still some people who believe firmly that competition shooting builds character and is good 'for the children'. I happen to be one of them, because I participated in Gallery Rifle Competition from Junior High School through College (ages 11 thru 23).

This all sounds Gun-Owner Friendly, right?

Unfortunately, I spend most of my daylight hours on the campus of the college where I am employed. If I bring a gun to work with me, the state can prosecute me for having a firearm in a "public building".

What if I bring a gun to work/school, but leave it in the car?
The school may or may not have a policy (it hasn', to my knowledge, been published yet) against having guns in the car?

Well, they MAY not be successful in prosecuting me for breaking the law; but there's a HUGE grey area, which hasn't yet been addressed, about whether an employer can refuse permission for employees to have a firearm in posession on 'their' property. As far as I know, a University Campus has not yet been defined as a "public building", so I don't really know if it's possible for me to arm myself while walking to and from my car in the dark of the pre- and post-work hours.

Even if they can't prosecute me, they MAY be able to discharge me for having a weapon on campus, even if it is locked up in my car.

And frankly, a gun in my car doesn't do me a lot of good if I'm attacked while I'm walking to my car in the dark at the end of the work day.

As far as I know, this is the most dangerous part of the day . . . walking to my car after work. And I'm at least 'discouraged' from carrying to defend myself.

Is that a familiar scenario? Is your employer the the entity which prevents you from defending yourself from random violence? I'll bet it is.

<>
So, what's the bottom line here?
A concealed handgun license MAY protect you from the state; it won't protect you from the State's efforts to negate your ability to protect yourself from assault.

H/T: Bearman's 45 blot, "Why I Don't Have A Concealed Weapons Permit"



Act like you've got a pair!

I received this note in the COMMENTS section of an article I wrote a couple of days ago. It wasn't directly applicable to the events of the article, but it certainly is in keeping with the RKBA theme. I quote Jason (FishOrMan) entirely for your convenience:

Hello Jerry,

I find you commented on my cases and it sounds like you would be interested to know I actually WON that appeal, (fighting Pro se too)!

http://fishorman.blogspot.com/2005/12/judges-decision-is-in.html


Needless to say, I feel like Christmas came early, (I truly figured it would take until I reached the court of appeals before I got a judge to actually look at the issue).

Yes, I did get my ass kicked out of the whole deal. Yet, I am still unsure how I would respond to a direct violation of the right to bear arms by any state employee. They swore an oath to the Constitution, and when they are breaking that oath, I don't think they should be treated with anything better then contempt.

That is what I think... what I will do in the future I just don't know. But, somehow, I feel my children and grandchildren are already watching me.


The article in which I was "commenting on (his) case . . . " is called Second Amendment Woes, and I wrote it on December 22, 2004. Here's one of the most critical comments I made there:

This poor SOB has made his stand, and has asserted his Civil Rights. Maybe someday, ten or twenty years from now, and if he has enough money (which he has not) to hire clever lawyers who will pursue the case, he may even be cleared of all criminal charges. Maybe even the civil charges (which have not yet been brought by the local authorities). For now, he's facing jail time, and bankruptcy because he needs to find and pay lawyers, and he is completely despondant about his ability to defend himself, his family, and his home. I thank him for providing a 'test case' which may someday expand the interpretation of the Second Amendment for the rest of us, but I sure wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

(Emphasis added here)

I'm not sure I would want to be in his shoes today, either.

I know it took a year and a half (dating from his original May, 2004, arrest) for him to beat the rap, and it cost him a lot of time, money, anguish and embarassment. I can't imagine what his family went through, but I have checked out his blog from time to time for updates on court hearings (time off work?), trying to find decent lawyers that he could afford (who can afford any competent lawyer?), and general expense and inconvenience.

Most difficult, I suspect, was dealing with the sheer frustration of knowing that he was being harrassed not because he broke the law, but because he demanded his rights as defined by the law.

Second most difficult may be not knowing whether his rights as an acknowledged citizen of America would be taken away from him.

I don't know what it has cost him, but I know it wasn't insignificant and that his life has been dramatically interrupted by his experience.

When this all started, I was doubtful that he would be able to defend himself, or would be willing to endure the expense, humiliation and inconveneince (too weak a word!) to which he would be subjected. Most men would have given up. Most men would have cut a deal.

Jason didn't. He stood up for himself and demanded his rights. In a very real sense, he battled for the rights of all of us here.

This was his personal Saint Crispin's Day, and he can make any kind of speech he wants to. He earned it.

He won, and it's one of the most remarkable stories I've heard in a long, long time.

Congratulations, Jason. There can't be much question now whether you are Fish or Man. You've showed us the difference.
Great Big Brass Ones!


Monday, December 19, 2005

NOLA, CHPs, and Katrina Confiscations

Musings of The GeekWithA.45

Geek With A .45 (The Alpha Geek of Bloggers, Joe Huffman notwithstanding) posted recently about Patricia Konie, a middle-aged New Orleans resident who was forcibly removed from her home during the flooding which resulted from hurricane Katrina.

He refers to a previous post, and cites a video which is merely an overview of National Guard troops doing a house-to-house search for survivors . . . whom they were ordered to forcibly evacuate.

One resident, Patricia Konie, was very clear when she was visited by members of the California Hiway Patrol (who were sent to help in any way they could to support the NOPD). She didn't want to leave her home, and she didn't want the police officers in her home.

Ms Konie, you may remember, allowed the CHPs to enter her home but stood in her kitchen with a pearl-handled revolver and a clasp knife in her hand, in a non-threatening attitude (she had them both in her left hand, and was holding the revolver around the cylinder, rather than holding the grip of the revolver with her finger on or near the trigger.) When she refused to leave her home and her two dogs, the CHPs attacked her, "took her down" to the floor, confiscated her weapons and forcibly removed her from her home.

Geek reports that she suffered a broken and dislocated shoulder, which required surgery, and is now suing for damages. *

So far, so good.

Trigger Finger has found himself behind the groundswell of bloggification, so he adds a great deal of details to the story. *(She's suing The State of Louisiana, the Louisiana State Police, The State of California, and the California Hiway Patrol.)

One of the details is a link to the video which was taken when Ms Konie was 'taken down'. This is a presentation by KTVU in California, reporting on the CHPs participation in the evacuation.

Okay, we've got to the bottom line of the JerryTheGeek version of the story.

At the end of the KTVU video, we see Ms. Konie being lead out of her house, and the announcer mentions that she was allowed to take her two dogs with her.

And it shows her LIFTING ONE OF HER DOGS into the back of a military vehicle. The tailgate is armpit-high on the lady, but she doesn't seem to have much problem lifting it up.

I'm not saying she's shamming.

The news reports cited by Geekwitha45 imply that her injuries "required surgery".
The text of the suit cited by Trigger Finger suggests that surgery "may be necessary".

I've never had either a broken OR a dislocated shoulder, so perhaps someone reading this may have experiential or anecdotal evidence which will clear up the question.

All I want to know is, if a 100-pound woman was so badly injured in the shoulder, would she be able to lift a 20-pound dog to shoulder height and deposit it in the back of a truck, without showing any sign of pain or distress, shortly after the injury was inflicted?

I always thought that a dislocated shoulder was immediately and dramatically debilitating. A childhood friend of mine suffered a broken collar-bone, and he couldn't even get out of bed for a month. Are shoulders not, after all, that painful?

Has anyone heard whether she actually DID undergo surgery for these shoulder injuries?

What's the dealio here?

Don't Tread On Me!

Gadsden and Culpeper: The Official Don't Tread On Me Outfitter


I just found a link (On Kim DeTuit's new forum website) to a supplier which specializes in the Gadsden "Don't Tread On Me" flag stuff.

Sometime in the distant past, I mentioned that I think this was the best possible American flag.

Well, perhaps not this graffic, which is the website icon.


This flag, which is a reproduction of the original 'Gadsden' flag.

Perhaps I went a little crazy here, but I like the flag so much that I bought pins, stickers and a shirt. Prices weren't bad, and I spent enough that the shipping is free.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

The new Free Gun Australia

This is the content of an email I recently received from a CCS friend who has relatives in Canada. Apparently, they also have friends/relatives in Australia. I present it without comment, except that it may be an 'old' email and I haven't verified any of the claims made here.

The new gun free Australia

It's amazing that getting rid of all the (non -criminal) guns in Australia only cost a fraction of what we're spending for a database system to register ours.

Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts...

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi friends, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone,

homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the Canadian evening news or hear your Member of Parliament disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Canadians, before it's too late!

FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST. [ I DID ]

DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY.

BE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN CANADA.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Happy Birthday To Me

Today's my birthday.

Well, not my NATAL birthday, although it is a form of genesis. It's the first anniversary of the day when Cogito Ergo Geek was born.

Actually, I published for a couple of weeks before December 15th, but this is the day when I installed StatsCounter and started keeping track of hits. (20,706 as of right now) Almost everything posted earlier in 2005 was just practice, trying to decide on a format, and learning to use the software.

My first post was on December 1, 2004, and it was pretty gruesome.

But the second week of January contains articles which still are among the most commonly referenced (by keyword) over the past year, and in fact are still getting 'hits' today:

January 15, Gold Medal Gunslingers - VPC takes on "IPSC as an Olympic Sport"
January 12, STI IPSC 30th Anniversary Edition - a beautiful STI EDGE
January 12, Heston, "Winning the Culture War" - 2/16/1999 speach to Harvard Law School Forum
January 12, Heston, "On Gun Control" - 2/11/1997 speach to National Press Club
January 11, The General - Eulogy to Mike Jones, who started IPSC competition in Oregon
January 10, STI Special Edition - a 24 caret gold-plated (looking good!) STI Edge
January 9, Amazing Stories - television commercials that lie

Since then I've written about IPSC rules, gun-control issues (including detailed analysis of new and proposed state & federal laws), police shootings that have made the news, gadgets, gizmos, guns, girls, Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip (still haven't found a copy I can afford), cars - ugly cars, car races, car accidents, shooting matches, political elections, fluffy kitties ....
okay, I lied about the kitties.

I've installed new software and new features: Statscounter, Technorati ("Blogs that link to me"), books, music and movies I'm reading/listening to/watching, a photo gallery, a rudimentary website (work in progress - very little progress so far, no link offered!), Day By Day Cartoon, Haloscan, software to upload, download, resize and reformat both photos and videos. I've got rid of dial-up and AOL in favor of high-speed internet and Comcast email. This last move actually SAVED me money and will save me even more as soon as I quit my telephone landline and go to strictly cell telephony. I've even learned some HTML, and bought Front Page . . . which is the reason why my web-page is still rudimentary, since after I bought it I learned that my web hosting friend (Thank you again, Brian!) can't support Front Page-generated webpages.

Actually, I've spent less than $300 on this website during the past year: $100 of that was the FrontPage software, and the rest was subscriptions to online services. For example, to research the 'TV ads that lie" article, I subscribed to Consumer Reports so I could get the low-down on an "ionic air purifier" . . . just to prove that it didn't work. Blogspot is free, ImageShack (hosted my photos for a while) cost me $5 so I could upload a lot of photos at once, WS-FTP cost me $40 so I could upload a LOT of files to the webhost, and I'm currently enrolled in a 'trial period', with NapSter so I can download music to go with the videos I produce.

(I don't count the $300 I paid for a digital camera, which also takes the photos; it's my blog, I can do my accounting any way I want to.)

Actually, the internet hosting and the photo gallery haven't cost me anything yet. My friend Brian is hosting online services, and the gallery software is free except that Brian had to install it on his server.

Have I thanked Brian enough yet? Probably not. He hosts websites for the Columbia Cascade Section and the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club (ARPC) as part of his ARPC volunteer support, and has graciously allowed me to piggy-back on his server. I promised to overload his system, but I haven't yet. I'm working on it, and apparently the 1000+ photos and videos haven't over-encumbered his server yet. When it does, I've made a standing offer to buy another hard-drive, but we aren't there yet.


I've met a lot of new friends here.

I started by linking to other RKBA- and Shooting-related websites. Then I got to meet some of the other gun-bloggers in the PNW last September. I've found quite a few of them, and enjoyed the email and occasional personal chats with them. They only reinforce my opinion that gun-folks are the nicest people in the world.

I would, and probably should, identify them all by name here. But if you're a regular reader you know those who I have already met, and you see all of the links on my sidebar. I consider that a formal introduction and if you haven't read them yet, you should.

In my original post I mentioned that this was a "vanity" blog, and this article simply serves to reinforce the impression.

I've indulged myself here by just talking about how my experiences in the past year have been satisfying and fulfilling. I can do that, because it's my blog and often I don't expect what I write to be very interesting to others.

Sometimes, though, I've been able to contribute to a dialogue on a subject which takes hold of the reader and enhances comments made by others. The continuing story of Barrett's .50 BMG is one example; evaluation of proposed gun-control laws is another.

When I talked about the love and respect that followed Mike Jones after his death, over 200 people linked from the Canadian Gun Nuts Forum because they understood that a man's life extends past his death, if he is a worthy man. Mike was one such a man and I miss him still.

If I can say that I was proud of any single thing I wrote, it would have to be "The General".

You will note that the only links I've included in this article are to my First Post, my first 'good week', and to "The General".

That's because I realize that if I started providing links I would have to admit that 99% of the content was just BS.

Vanity. All vanity.

I'm having a good time. Thanks for the ride. I wouldn't have done it without you.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

UK Hospitals may ban treatment for smokers, drinkers

Britain, UK news from The Times and The Sunday Times - Times Online

A recent ruling may allow medical practitioners to disallow appropriate treatment to patients if they feel that a patient's "lifestyle" will undermine the effectiveness of the treatment.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) said that doctors who considered that a particular treatment might not be effective, or cost-effective, because of the lifestyle of the patient, may be entitled to withhold it.
That's 'NICE'.

Speaking of the NICE report,

It concluded that clinical guidance should recommend a treatment for a particular age group only where there was clear evidence of a difference in the treatmentÂ’s effectiveness for that age group.
(Emphasis added)

"Clear evidence."

I presume this means that if your British doctor says "This MAY help, but again it may not", the hospital isn't obliged to make the treatment available to the afflicted.

Well, there's a splendid argument for Socialized Medicine.

Or, as we refer to it in the States:

"Hillary Care"

Just one more reason, as if we needed one, why that . . . person . . . should never be elected to Public Office.

The World Is Not Enough

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE: The National Conservative Weekly Since 1944

Human Events Online (click the link above for the full text of the article) is working hard to inform us of the latest global incursions on your personal rights.

A recent article delineates the international movement to 'take control' of the Internet.

Ostensibly, this is intended to reduce the predation of pornographers and pedaphiles, hackers and other cyber-criminals whose efforts to attack our personal and commercial selves affects us all.

But the verbiage (as reported here) goes beyond these near-universally accepted boundaries. In practice, according to the author, there is nothing to prevent intrusive legal action against any person who publishes any statement which "they" find objectionable. "They" is not necessarily some unknown and unknowable individual; "they" are foreign governments, whose laws YOU may be breaking by the words and ideas YOU promulgate on the Internet.

How Hot is it, Johnny?

Nobody knows for sure how 'hot' these foreign potentates can make it for the average web-citizen, but since you're reading this, and since I've published it on the Internet, chances are it will affect you either directly or indirectly.

Indirectly, it may reduce the scope of the information you can receive on the Internet, because directly it may reduce the scope of information which may be posted on the Internet.

For an example (selected because of the scope of THIS Internet website), suppose I write an article about a match I attended in the USA in which the Metric Target is used. Suppose further I post pictures from this match, and comment that the "Classic" target is inferior.

We know that some countries have passed laws to the effect that targets which suggest a 'human shape or form' cannot be used for competition. What if some country took this one step further, and outlawed the depiction of people shooting at these targets?

According to this proposal, they are authorized to demand that the Corvallis Police Department arrest me and hold me for trial, because I have broken a law in their country even though I have never been there, and even though I have not mentioned either the country or the law.

To take it one step further, suppose that YOU commented on my article and voiced approval of my thoughts. You may also be held accountable, and be subject to arrest and prosecution even though you were not the author of the original statement(s), or had nothing to do with the shooting match, the photography, or the posting of those thoughts or images on the Internet.

Let's pause here and look at the opening remarks of the artical from Human Events Online:

by James Plummer
Posted Dec 8, 2005

An internationalist assault on the sovereignty of the United States and the privacy of U.S. citizens is currently awaiting action by the full Senate.

The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime is being aggressively pushed by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.), who reported the treaty out from his committee in early November. That should come as little surprise, in that Lugar has also been a leading proponent of the better-known Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), another key building-block in the structure of world government.

Originally conceived as a tool to facilitate international cooperation in the pursuit of computer hackers and the like, the Cybercrime Treaty evolved during 15 years of negotiations to encompass any criminal offense that involves electronic evidence -- which in the 21st century is essentially limitless.

As written, it could require more surveillance on Americans who have been accused of violating the laws of foreign countries -- even if they haven’t violated U.S. law. Treaty cheerleaders paint menacing pictures of hackers and child pornographers. But in reality the Convention is drafted so broadly that it encompasses virtually every area of law where the possibility exists of computerized evidence. That could affect thousands of innocent people, including not only political dissidents, but also the politically incorrect.

How does this affect the Average Joe in America?

Well, what if you (or I) object to certain social, religious or moral situations?

The European view of “human rights” includes the shielding from mere criticism of certain protected minorities such as abortionists, third-world immigrants, and homosexuals. The London Times reports that the European Commission has announced its first list of mandatory continent-wide criminal laws and will soon seek to add speech-based crimes such as incitement to hatred to the list. (France has in the past fined California’s Yahoo! for an American customer’s auction of a vintage Nazi war medal.) De Boer-Buquicchio and other Eurocrats regard the Cybercrime Treaty as one of those “global governance mechanisms” by which to enforce these views. She even went on to press for greater ratification of the Cybercrime Treaty in the very same speech.
You don't like Zero-Tolerance laws? Unprotected borders? Pederast Scout-Masters? Are you Pro-Life? Then don't talk about it on the Internet, because it is no longer just the Liberal Athiest Activists who will only argue with you and call you names - you're busted!

There may be some hope that this treaty will not be ratified by the US:
Fortunately, one heroic, albeit currently anonymous, conservative senator has placed a “hold” on this Cybercrime Convention, a procedural maneuver that prevents an immediate, unannounced vote on the floor of the whole Senate. Conservatives concerned with sovereignty and the Bill of Rights need to both become aware and raise others’ awareness of the dangers posed by the Cybercrime Treaty, lest the Senate acquiesce in this subjugation of Americans to European-style “hate speech” laws through an electronic back door.
UN-fortunately, the fact that this objector has chosen to remain anonymous (so far) doesn't bode well for his/her willingness to lead the fight against this treaty.

What happens if a foreign power wants to arrest me for something that isn't illegal here?

Note that this IS a treaty, not a bill in Congress. Is this a good thing? No, it is not. Treaties have the effect of law in the United States of America, and in fact may take precedence when there is a conflict between the treaty and U.S. Law (or the Constitution).

I say this based upon the Treaty of Vienna, which states in part:

Part III Observance, application and interpretation of treaties

Section 1. Observance of treaties

Article 26 Pacta sunt servanda

Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

Article 27 Internal law and observance of treaties

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

This last article is subject to interpretation, but it seems clear that when it says:

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
.... it means that if a nation's internal law (including the federal code and the Constitution of the United States) is in disagreement with the treaty, that 'internal law" is not sufficient justification to refuse to enforce any part of the treaty.


Here's the bottom-line in the Department of Bad News:
Most egregious in Lugar’s ratification report to the full Senate is the voluntary declaration that foreign governments, under the fig leaf of “urgency,” be able to order American law enforcement agencies to enforce their orders without judicial review. So even though these foreign orders may be opposition to the U.S. Constitution, no U.S. judge will be able to enforce the Constitution to prevent it. (sic) The treaty also has no “dual criminality” requirement, which means federal law enforcement agencies could be investigating Americans for constitutionally-protected activities which offend European sensibilities.

Even worse, the Cybercrime Treaty is open to all nations to ratify. That means a future leftist President could even allow Communist China to sign on to the treaty and direct U.S. law enforcement to investigate Chinese dissidents, even Americans, based in the United States.
(Emphasis added)

No, I'm not liking this one.

BLOGMEAT! Bore Me - Highway spin

Bore Me - Highway spin

I don't know how old this is, but BORE ME presents (courtesy of ebaum world) a traffic-chopper view of a high-speed chase in Oakland, California. The stolen car is driven by either one of the finest drivers in the world, or one of the luckiest ... or most desperate.

The video is probably not suitable for dial-up, I'm afraid.

Want to see more?

How about a drag race between a motorcycle, a Porsche, and a jet fighter?
The motorcycle gets the jump out of the shoot, but after about 10 seconds is passed by the Tornado, closely followed by the Porsche. Guess who wins?



The Porsche does a nice 'cookie' at the end in celebration of his 2nd place finish, but even then the Tornado's Victory Roll shows where the true class lies.

Another chase scene?

How about the Good Samaritan Truckers on another California freeway?

"I got your 'Rocking Chair' right here, good buddy!"


And the "March of the Toreadors" orchestrates the dancing antics of the Saab Driving Team.


Finally, my personal favorite: Parking Lot War!

Monday, December 12, 2005

This Meme Must Die - REALLY!

One in a row....: 7 wonders meme

See what happens when you don't check your stats frequently? One in a Row dinged me for the 7x7 thingie, and I didn't even realize it until I started poking around through my blogroll.

Sorry, but you've heard all the reasons why I can't / won't resist.

Seven things to do before I die:
  1. Win a stage in an IPSC match
  2. Win an IPSC match!
  3. Learn how to detail-strip a 1911
  4. Put the sucker back together!
  5. Win the lottery, so I can hire somebody ELSE to load ammo!
  6. Go to every 'major' IPSC match in the country for an entire compettive year
  7. Get my Christmas presents mailed on time
Seven things I cannot do:
  1. Keep a clean house when I am NOT depressed
  2. Wrap presents
  3. Go to the bathroom without 'reading material'
  4. Be punctual
  5. Eat my vegetables
  6. Repair ANYTHING mechanical
  7. Stay mad
Seven things that attract me to......(SWMBO):
  1. Sexy
  2. Stronger than she thinks she is
  3. Thinks I'm funny
  4. Perfect comedic timing
  5. Certified Range Officer, and good at it
  6. Willing to risk 'looking silly', but she never does
  7. Responsible, assertive, brains, beauty, and she shoots. What's not to like?

Seven things I say most often:
  1. I really shouldn't
  2. Okay, but just one
  3. You say that like it's A Bad Thing
  4. What? (My best John Travolta impression)
  5. "When you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk."
  6. I'm not as dumb as I look
  7. My pop always use to say . . .

Seven books (or series) that I love:

  1. Stephan Hunter "Bob the Nailer" series
  2. David Drake "Hammers Slammers" series
  3. Robert B Parker "Spenser" series
  4. Rudyard Kipling . . . everything!
  5. David Weber "Honor Harrington" series
  6. Lois McMaster Bujold "Vor" series
  7. Robert Heinlein . . . everything!
Seven movies I watch over and over again:
  1. Silverado
  2. Last Man Standing
  3. Face Off
  4. La Femme Nikita
  5. Red River
  6. Ronin
  7. The Mummy
Seven suckers I want to infect:

Nobody. Like I said, "This Meme Must Die!"

Besides, I'm ticked off. There aren't nearly enough opportunities to list all of the books and movies I read/watch over and over, and I've made some very difficult choices.

The Meme Stops Here! (maybe)

45-Caliber Justice: Stoopid Meme.

Blogger Memes are like chain letters. You know, pass this along to five people within five days or you will have five years of bad luck. Yikes. Frankly, I've HAD five years of bad luck, and I survived them, so that don't scare me none (as my hill-william family would say.)

Jason at .45-caliber justice (see above) was 'kind enough' to tag me for this one, and as I've said on similar occasions I just can't resist either Cosmopolitan Magazine Surveys or memes. Simple common decency should give me strength, but the spirit is weak, so here are

Five Weird Things About Me

(1) I really am a geek. That's small-letter geek, not Major Geek and certainly not Alpha GEEK! I started computer programming in 1972, which indicates that I represent 23 years of mediocrity, and counting. People actually pay me to do this stuff. Oh, not for blogging, or posting pictures. They pay me to write application programs, like "write me a program that generates a report on how many widgits I sold last year, how many components I bought, which and for how much, and by the way include last-in-first-out tax accounting." The funny thing is, I don't really enjoy programming. It's just that it's such an easy job, and I can work indoors while I'm sitting down and I get coffee breaks and everything.

(2) I assign nicknames to EVERYBODY! This is probably the weirdest thing about me. It's not that I can't remember your real name, it's just that ... mmmm ... I can make up better names than your mother could. Perhaps your mother was just to conservative to call you BigDawg, or G-Man, or Norm the Ungrateful or WhiteFish or Harold the Barbarian or (my personal favorite) SWMBO! I got started in the army. I was an infantry platoon sergeant in Viet Nam (no, I never did see John Kerry there) and I quickly learned that everybody had a nickname. Assigning nicknames to the new guys was one of my unofficial duties. "Whitey" was a guy with very light blond hair, even though he wanted everybody to call him "Ghost". Doesn't work that way, pal, I'm the boss of this platoon. "Teddy" was a guy with wire-rimmed glasses, after Theodore Roosevelt. I won't tell you the nicknames I gave the various platoon leaders (Lieutenants) who came through during my sojurn, but they were uncomplimentary. I never met a second lieutenant I didn't despise, although I did know a good First Lieutenant. We called him El-Tee (Lt.)

(3) I'm a gun blogger, more or less, and I can't tell you how many guns I have. I know there are more than a dozen rifles in the house, and less than a dozen pistols, so it shouldn't be too hard to keep track. I don't care enough to bother. Sure, I have it all written down somewhere, with serial numbers & descriptions and with photos too for insurance purposes, and if I wanted to I could probably name them all and describe them. But who cares? If I need a gun for a special purpose, I can go rummage around and find one that can be used. Heck, there are 3 or 4 of 'em in this room, but I don't know what all of them are.

(4) The room where I keep my PC is called the "Hell Room". I've always had a Hell Room. That's where all the overflow "stuff" is kept. But since I've started spending much of my evenings working on the computer, and moved into a place with a 2nd bedroom where I could set up my roll-top computer desk, that has become the Hell Room. I've got a big red-leather reclining chair that you can't sit in, because it has 'stuff' piled upon the seat. There are boxes of softwaer, broken DVD players, magazines, gun stuff and an external DVD writer sitting on the floor. Nobody can ever steal my computer. Even I can't get to it without difficulty, and if you don't know the path from the door to my chair, you probably won't be able to leave the room once you get in.

(5) I really DO do things just to irritate people. Almost everyone who knows me is aware of that. Just ask my sister, she'll tell you. For sixty years, she has been trying run my life, and when I don't do what she says, she says "You just do that to irritate me, don't you!" That's probably why I write, too. It doesn't matter what the subject is, or whether I know anything about it, or even whether I have an opinion. Give me a subject, and by the time I'm done I'll have an opinion and I'll be convinced that it's the only RIGHT opinion, too. Some people find that irritating, and even more irritating is that I not only will write about anything, I'll take forever to say something that can be said in a dozen words or less. Try this: go back over these points, keep the first sentence in every paragraph and throw out the rest. It's a better read, right?

Okay, you've suffered enough.

When I started to write this, I thought I would just let this branch of the meme die a dignified death. I've changed my mind. Instead, I'll pass this on to some people who deserve better, even if they have already responded to it.

Mr. Completely
Vile Bill
Cowboy Blob (who LOVES memes!)
Wadcutter
Lay Lines

I do this, of course, only to irritate them.

Heh heh heh . . .

Sunday, December 11, 2005

The Magnificent Seven Lives - NOT!







One of my all-time favorite movies is "The Magnificent Seven", John Sturges and William Roberts' apocraphal and marvelously pivotal 'western' which glorifies the willingness of rude men to suffer that others may live peacefully.

(This was inspired by Akira Kurosawa's 1954 masterpiece, "Shichinin no Samurai" (The Seven Samurai).

The Magnificent Seven were played by:
Yul Brynner - Chris Adams
Steve McQueen - Vin
Brad Dexter - Harry Luck
Charles Bronson - Bernardo O'Reilly
Robert Vaughn - Lee
Horst Buchholz - Chico
James Coburn - Britt

And, of course, the villain's role was admirably played by Eli Wallach as Calvera.

This paeon to these wonderful actors is inspired by the notification by "Dead or Alive" (see the sidebar; the link has been there for a year) that today is the 3rd anniversary of the death of Brad Dexter. He died 3 years ago 'today' (12/12/2002) at age 85 of emphasema.

This made me curious about the current 'state of entropy' of the rest of the stars of this siminal film.

Yul Brynner - Chris Adams: died of cancer in 1985 of cancer at the age of 65
Steve McQueen - Vin: died of cancer in 1980 at the age of 50
Brad Dexter - Harry Luck: again, died of emphasema in 2002 at the age of 85
Charles Bronson - Bernardo O'Reilly: died of Pneumonia in 2003 at the age of 81
Rogert Vaughn - Lee: Born in 1932, now aged 73, he is still Alive
Horst Buchholz - Chico: died in 2003, at the age of 63, of Pneumonia
James Coburn - Britt: died in 2002, at the age of 74, of heart attack

What of the immortal Chavez (aka "Tuco" from "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly"?)

Eli Wallach - Calvera - Alive

Born in 1915, Wallach is now a robust NINTY YEARS OLD and has survived 6 of the seven "Magnificent Ones".

How about the administrative side of the movie?

John Sturges
- Director: died in 1992 at the age of 81 of heart attack
William Roberts - Writer (screenplay): not listed in DEAD OR ALIVE, but IMDB lists him as having died in 1997 due to 'respiratory failure', at age of 83

Still-alive Robert Vaughn (who went on to portray Napoleon Solo in "The Man From Uncle" in 1964 - 1968) played the part of "Lee", the gunfighter who finally overcame his fear of dying and was the first to die in the movie.

Still-alive Eli Wallach played the villain Calvera and was the last to die in "The Magnificent Seven". He's still working on a movie, scheduled for release in 2006, called "The Hoax".

Curiousm, isn't it? The first and the last; the worst and (arguably) the best.

What conclusions are we to draw from this?

Nothing, in particular.


The only real coincidence I find is that Steve McQueen once stared in a television series called "Wanted - Dead or Alive" from 1958 to 1960.

If you would listen to a few seconds of Elmer Bernstein's memorable theme song, you might be able to download a RealPlayer version of it here.

Thus spracht ME: Visit from overseas

Thus spracht ME: Visit from overseas

"Steaming Dragon" from Ohio passes on this personal experience tale of being caught with firearms-training related content up on his (personal - not work) computer at his multi-national corp. office during a tour of Japanese associates, conducted by "Mr. Big".

Bottom line, the company sponsored him to train a number of said multi-national corporation folks in firearms handling.

Big win all around. Said trainees were impressed that they could get firearms training which was not available to them at 'home'. Mr. Big is informed that SD's training techniques are highly effective. No resume'-dings seem to be in SD's future.

I love a good story with a happy ending, don't you?

Friday, December 09, 2005

December Stuff

I've added another bloglink to my sidebar.


"Xavier Thoughts - A Nurse With A Gun" has a lot to say, and says it well. Among his recent "thoughts", I especially recommend his "Idiot With A Gun" series, typified here; and also his brief, but cogent, "SQUIBS" article.

Note that I've updated my BOOKS/MOVIES section of the sidebar.


The BOOK is "The Chronicles of Amber", by Robert Zelazny. This is a compilation of 5 consecutively interleaved stories (novelettes, actually), originally serialized between 1970 and 1978 in Galaxy magazine. Zelazny wasn't the first author to do Sci-Fantasy . . . E.R. Bouroughs might arguably be the originator of that honor, as distinguished from Sci-Fiction. (Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein", for example, is more completely in the "Sci-FI" genre." But, in my mind, he was the first to make Fantasy Science Fiction, to give it another name, both popular and acceptable to the SF reading public. Rather than to give you a Geek Length monologue about the difference between SF and Sci-Fantasy, I'll offer the definition that Sci-Fantasy relies heavily on the proposition that "Magic Rules The World", and ignore Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I read this in the original serialized form in Galaxy magazine (to which I was one of the 'charter subscribers' in the 1970's), and then bought the individual books when they were published independently. Two years ago, while browsing through a used-book store, I found the two-volume set which included all of the stories. I bought it, and read it. Loaned it to a couple of friends. Having had it returned recently, I'm re-reading it for the fourth or fifth time and I'm still charmed by the originality of the concept.

Incidentally, Zelazny's work is reminiscent of Phillip Jose Farmer's five-volume "Riverworld" series, which unfortunately was typified by keeping readers spellbound from 1969 for YEARS, only to end with an ultimately unsatisfying explanation of the basic phenomenon. If you read all but the last book, though, it's a helluva rush. (Sci-Fi? Sci-Fantasy? It depends on whether you read the last book! Promises not kept . . . )

All I can say is that the publisher was a marketing genius, to milk an unresolvable theme for so many years.



The MOVIES section has been temporarily replaced by the MUSIC section. Ignore the heading on the sidebar; I frequently interchange the two, but I don't always change the heading because I'm so darned lazy.


The featured MUSIC CD is "Miami Vice", which was not only excellent Pastel-o-vision but also candy for the ears. Besides Jan Hammer's excellent compositions, the television series provided some of the very best music of the 80's, at least according to these biased ears. I especially draw your attention to "The Original Miami Vice Theme" which begins the set, and also "Smuggler's Blues", "Chase", "Evan" . . . well hell, almost all of it's great stuff, which is why I bought the music on tape several years ago and I bought it again on CD today.

(I plan to use the music to enhance IPSC videos which I post on the Jerrydgeek Shooting Gallery - see the sidebar - as I have already done with "Queen" and "Dire Straits", among others. I need more rockin' music! This is my investment in the future!)

Incidentally, if you go to the link you will see that you can listen to various segments of the individual songs. I couldn't get the Windows Media versions to play. I had to upgrade RealPlayer with new software to listen to the music. Windows Media is great for videos, and in fact I highly recommend it to view the *.WMV movies I present on the Shooting Gallery. But it sucks for music, and I load all of my CDs to my hard-drive via RealPlayer. That software has a better cataloguing system, and it's easier to work with in my not-so-humble opinion.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Blogging Stats

The following information is provided as a public service, so that you may know what information is revealed about YOU when you visit a website.

Judging by my frequent lapses in blogging activity, it may seem that I'm not interested in building readership.

The fact is, I'm always trying to find something new and interesting to share with you, and in fact I've even contracted with a blogging statistical service to tell me how many people have visited the blog. You can see that in my STATSCOUNTER, which incidently is the name of the service I use.

But I'm not only interested in how many people visit, I'm also curious about where they are located. The stats service tells me this. See the partial list of countries above? This is an accurate accounting of the country-of-origin for the last 1100 'hits' on this website.

Naturally, most of the hits come from the USA, because I usually write about events and issues which are of national interest.

Still, over 20% of the people who view this blog are 'extra-nationals' . . . people who don't live in the USA. (Unfortunately, due to size limitations, I've had to trim the last dozen lines from the graphic.)

In case it concerns you that I'm collecting information on my readership, you should be aware that I don't know WHO you are. Although I may know the town where you live and your Internet Provider, certain characteristics about your computer and your browser, your personal anonymity is assured.

For example, if you are a subscriber to AOL and you view this (or any other Internet website) through your AOL browser, the screen-name you're signed into isn't available to me.

This statistical analysis is not an unusual for a website owner, and especially for a blogger. Anytime you visit a weblog, you are likely to see a hits-counter somewhere on the sidebar. The same service which provides this counter will probably also provide statistics, and this service is so frequently offered free of charge (at least for the last 100 hits) it costs the webauthor little or nothing to sign up for, and receive, these statistics.

So, although we don't know who you are, personally, we know quite a lot about what 'you' look like.

For example, we know where you came from . . . that is, if you visit a website as a result of a link from another website, we know the URL of that originating website.


We know whether you're using Internet Explorer, NetScape, AOL, Mozilla or some other browser.

We know your display settings: 1024x768, 1280x1024, 80x600, 1152x864 are represented in a 503/303/122/77 ratio(with miscellaneous resolutions not referenced here.) This information is of importance to the webauthor because it helps to know what size of images can be readily viewed by the readership.

This may seem intrusive to you, but actually it is a service to webauthors.


The first thing we know about you is how MANY of you access the website every day. This is part of the Summary, which is provided as a graph.

Because, bloggers know what articles (and on what subjects) they post every day, by knowing which days receive the most activity they can keep track of the subjects which seem to be of most interest to their readers.

As a surprising side-benefit, for those of us who don't submit new articles as often as we would wish to, we may note that we still have visitors on days when no new articles have been published. This suggests to us that we have a certain number of readers who aren't referred to the website necessarily by links provided by other websites, but because either (a) they are regular readers, and they check the website often to see what has been added, or (b) they have visited the website because they have searched the internet for keywords that are of interest to them, and the author's website has registered a 'hit' on those keywords.

In fact, there's a special set of statistics kept on that very criteria. STATSCOUNTER keeps track of the keywords that result in a hit, and summarize it by frequency and number of hits. We also can see what search engines are used to generate those hits. In fact, we can summarize it by search engines used . . . FYI, GOOGLE is the most common, YAHOO is next, then MSN and EARTHLINK on a 22/10/1/1 ratio.

Getting back to the subject of LINKS, you should know that people who provide internet content are inclined to provide links to similar websites so that their readers can research the basic information they have been given, or so that they can easily identify websites with similar or associated content. Thus, you will see that Cogito Ergo Geek provides an extensive set of links on the sidebar (that funny looking blue area on the right side of the webpage.)

Bloggers blog for a lot of reasons, but most commonly because they have a primary interest and they not only write about it but they read about it as well. When they find another website which provides valuable content, they may . . . and should ('blogger etiquette') include this link so that their readers can enjoy the fruit of their web-surfing labors.

Part of 'blogger etiquette' is that, when you (as a blogger) find that people are visiting your website because they found a link to it , you (as a blogger) are obliged to provide a link TO that originating website. Thus, you have not only acknowledged that there is another website which provides interesting content to a common readership, but you have thanked that other author by the most valuable resource possible, a cross-link.

There are services which take advantage of this cross-linkage, and the service I use is Technocrati. You will see an icon on my sidebar with the icon, and the text "blogs that link here". When another blogger includes a link to my website, that information is captured and summarized in a special webpage which identifies the blogger, the blogpage, and a short description of the content of the originating blog which cites the link.

(This information is available to me, I see no reason why it shouldn't be available to you.)

Only those websites which have signed up for the free TECHNOCRATI service are cited there, but the statistics are only cited if someone actually USES the link to move from one website to another.
Probably the most interesting statistics are CAME FROM, RECENT VISITOR ACTIVITY, and ENTRY PAGES. These statistics provide a lot of information, but most importantly they tell us specifically which 'other' websites privided a link which led you here, what page you saw when you first entered, which was the 'exit page' (the last one you looked at before you left the website), and how long your visit lasted.

If you stayed for 10 seconds and left, I know you were unimpressed. That doesn't give you time to read more than a few lines of a Geek-Length article. On the other hand, if you stayed for several minutes, I know that you were either interested in the content, or you were interested in the images presented. This provides information that I can use to design web pages that are more convenient for you to use, or are more interesting to you . . . either graphically, or in terms of content.

Alternatively, it may suggest that you were accessing the website from a slow access method (dial-up?) and just weren't patient enough to wait for the images to download so you left immediately; or, there were no images at the top of the page, so you read the text and that held your interest while the images downloaded. I don't really know WHY you didn't stay very long, so I'm left with trying to interpret the raw data. That's good for you, because you don't want me to know a lot about you; it's not so good for me, because I'm forced to use trial-and-error techniques to determine what web design and what content is most interesting to you.

The implication is that I am doing a better job if I tend to push images further down the page, so you can read text while you're waiting for the page to load. Of course, a short visit may also indicate that you found nothing of interest, so you dropped in and immediately dropped out again because you're bored.

Or it may be that you just stopped by to find a link that you knew I had embedded in my webpage, and clicked on it to move on to the website you REALLY wanted to visit. In that case, I'm content that I'm providing a valuable service, because if nothing else I'm helping you to find the information you want and need.

The statistics provided to a webauthor are not definitive, they only help to indicate directions we can go to in our web design and the selection of our content. The most valuable feed back available is the comments you leave behind. Unless you are a webauthor whose only interest is in leaving a link to YOUR commercial website, there are very few comments you can leave behind you which are not welcome by any responsible webauthor. For example, if you don't agree with something that I have said, I appreciate it if you say so. I may not change my opinion because of your comments, but it will certainly make me stop and rethink what I have said that caused you to react negatively.

And at least I know you're reading, and thinking about, the value of what I have written.

Reloading: Primer Tube Filler

Reloading Tip:
Do you use a progressive loading press which features a "primer feed tube"?





I do, I've been using the Dillon XL650 for about 14 years and the thing I NEVER liked about it was using the Ashtray (Primer Flip Tray) to orient the primers, and the primer pickup tube to fill the primer feed tube.












For a while, I considered spending the (budget challenging) two hundred fifty bucks to buy the Dillon RF 100Automatic Primer Filler. But hey! I could buy a case of bullets with that money, so that's what I did.




Four or five years ago, a friend introduced to a simple, inexpensive, powered primer tube filler . . . the Vibra-Prime Automatic Primer Tube Filler from Frankford Arsenal.


It's all plastic, looks cheap, and it works like a charm. The best part is, instead of paying $249.95, you only pay $60!

There are three major parts to it: The primer tray assembly, the 'gun', and the tube assembly.

Step 1: Dump the primers in the bottom half of the primer tray, shake it to orient all the primers (just as you do with the Ashtray), put the cover over the primer tray so the outlet hole corresponding to the primer size (large or small) is open.

Step 2: Slide the primer tray assembly into the gun, insert the tube assembly (either the white one for small, or the black one for large primers) into the bottom of the gun and lock it into place.

Step 3: Pull the trigger and watch the battery-powered (one AA battery, not included) gun shake the primers from the tray into the tube.
Then all you have to do is dump the primer feed tube into the primer tube of your reloading press. It's all done.


After I got my Vibra-Primer, I immediately did a Geek Customization Job on it.
I separated the primer feed tube from the feed tube adapter in the primer tube assemblies, and added an extra step to the process. In Step 2, instead of using the included primer tube assembly, I just insert the primer tube adapter (white plastic for small primers, black plastic for large primers) into the gun. Then I put a Dillon Primer Pickup Tube in the hole where the primer feed tube went.


Before I did this, I bought extra primer pickup tubes from Dillon - two batches of four for small primers and two batches of four for large primers, at $16/4-pack - so when I start loading primers I pull the plastic tips off the pickup tubes and load THAT end into the primer tube adaptor. After I've filled each tube, I remove the tube from the adaptor, put the plastic tip on it, set it aside and start the process over again. That way I can load 8 tubes at a time (takes about 10-15 minutes, all together) and then I can load 800 rounds of ammunition without having to 'revisit the priming process'. And BTW, the primer tray CAN accomodate the large Federal-brand Primer boxes.