SWMBO (She - Who Must Be Obeyed) went through major surgery on September 26, 2007. She's be recovering quickly, returning to work after only 3 weeks instead of the six-to-eight weeks predicted by her surgeon.
But she hasn't felt up to shooting an IPSC match until last week-end, when we both went to the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club (ARPC) Points Match.
We had agreed that if either of us felt like dropping out, it was 'okay' with the other. (I had been out half of October with the Flu, which makes us a pair of Sick-O's.)
As it happened, we both managed to get through the whole match, and in fact both did our share of officiating, taping and brassing.
To our mutual surprise, we were blissed out the whole day. We knew we missed our friends and the mild exercise available through IPSC competition, but the surprisingly best part was --- it was fun!
Sometimes it's easy to be so focused on "being competitive", it's easy to lose track of the real reason why we spend so much time and money on competitive shooting: it's fun!
If we did nothing else last weekend, we got back to the root-cause of the investment in shooting.
It's fun!
Here's the video of SWMBO's first stage in her first match in two months. Note the smiles, note that both She and the Range Officer have big silly grins and are laughing though most of the movie.
Did I mention the most important thing about IPSC competition?
It's fun!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
I lost my glasses!
I lost my glasses!
I lost them (I think) on the mean streets of beautiful downtown Corvallis, Oregon, ten days ago.
I put them in my jacket pocket when I parked in front of the US Bank (downtown), and walked to the very very retro (read: cheesy, but '50's reminiscent) Downtown Barber shop on 2nd. One block there, only to discover that they had closed early, and a block back to where I had parked. I had my cased glasses in my jacket pocket, and I can only imagine that they jiggled out when I pulled my cell phone to tell SWMBO that I was on my way back.
Not that you care about any of this, but I'm a GEEK and if I can't see the screen, I can't work. Or blog. Or net-surf. All of this is Bad Stuff.
I had a backup of drug-store eyeglasses, which worked well for me. So I decided to Do Nothing about losing my glasses (after going back and walking the street where I thought I had lost them.... no joy, no black glasses case found on the sidewalk). My best guess was that as soon as I made an appointment to get replacement glasses, the old ones would somehow magically SHOW UP!
This didn't happen; you may have seen this coming.
Still, I had the Drug-Store eyeglasses as a back-up, so I took them to work until Sunday Night when ... as I was taking the Drug-Store eyeglasses (1.5 Diopters, Bifocals, light wire frames) ... the right-hand part that hooks over my ears (the bow? I can't tell an Optician from an Obstetrician, so how should I know the parts of a pair of eye-glasses?) ... fell ... off!
The Ocular Gods hate me. After this setback, I decided I better do more than 'think about' getting replacement glasses, especially since the only other backup glasses were 3.0 diopter (read: magnifying lenses) non-bifocal glasses I bought from the Fred Meyers store five years ago ... and those lenses give me headaches.
Therefore, on Monday I called the folks who had made my original 'Computer Glasses', Valley Eye Care (VEC).
These are good people, and I highly recommend to the (one person who reads this blog and who lives in Corvallis, Oregon ... which is ME) local potential customers to go there for their ocular needs.
They made me an appointment for Wednesday at 10am (today) and took real good care of me. After the technician performed the basic tasks .. including "The Puff Test", which blows air in your face to see how well you can take it (I could get that for free any night at the Peacock Tavern), I was eventually to meet again with my Optometric Physician, "James".
I remembered James from my original appointment two years ago, and it was immediately obvious why he was so memorable: personable and professional, James understood that I was under some serious time constraints and worked hard to get me through the refresher eye exam and back to the office. What's more, the rest of the staff were able to meet my 'special needs', including a higher reach of the magnifying part of my new eyeglasses, and finding an exact match to the frames of my lost glasses. This is important to me, because I'm a picky old phart and hard to please.
After the prescription was updated and the order placed, and the check was written and I was told that I couldn't get my new glasses for two frickin' weeks ("there's a holiday in there, you know?") I was again closeted with James for the exit interview.
We got talking about my old glasses, and I mentioned that I had earlier specified Polycarbonate lenses because there was a bare possibility that I might want to use my Computer Glasses (back in 2005, when I originally acknowledged that I could no longer get a clear sight-picture of Iron Sights on a pistol). The good folks at VEC informed me that Polycarbonate lenses were, admittedly, extremely shatter-resistant. The problem is, they were very soft and they scratch easily.
In the good old days when you could get a new pair of Polycarbonate glasses from Silencio for $20 or less, that didn't matter. But I can't find Silencio glasses in these here parts anymore, so I'm looking for a better deal. Specifically, extremely shatter-resistant glasses which I don't have to replace every year or so.
The VEC folks told me about (and sold me) a set of lenses which are just as tough as Polycarbonate, just as light, but don't scratch so easily. And the name of this wonder material is ...
I can't remember. I swear, I remembered it as "Olympic" but I may be wrong. If not, here is a link I found which combines the search arguments "Olympic" and "eyeware".
Whatever it is, it should be replacing Polycarbonate glasses Real Soon Now. And I intend to get a pair from VEC or anyone else who can give me better eye protection on the range.
Moving along with the Exit Interview stuff, I started telling James about how my vision was an important factor in Practical Pistol shooting. James told me about his cousin who had encouraged him (James) to go to 'several' pistol matches at the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, which is 20 minutes away, and mentioned the USPSA National Multigun match in 2006. I told him I had been to the match as a spectator and took a large number of photographs and videos. Also the 2007 USPSA Area 1 Multigun match.
We talked about the two USPSA National Pistol matches in Bend a few years ago. I told him I had worked them as a Range Officer, and BTW what was the name of his cousin, maybe I know him?
Turns out that his cousin is Mark Seeklander, current CEO of the USSA Shooting Academy at the new Tulsa, Oklahoma range. He also said that his cousin had sent him some videos of the 2006 MG match. I said I may have filmed those videos. I also mentioned that one of the reasons I needed good 'computer glasses' is because I not only work on the computer 8 hours a day at work, I also put in something like 4 hours a day several days a week working on my Blog.
James said "So how do I find your blog?". I said: "Look for Jerry The Geek"
So James, if you're here ... this is the place. Sorry it's a particularly unexciting article, but if you look around I'm sure you can find something more interesting here.
Same to the rest of you.
I lost them (I think) on the mean streets of beautiful downtown Corvallis, Oregon, ten days ago.
I put them in my jacket pocket when I parked in front of the US Bank (downtown), and walked to the very very retro (read: cheesy, but '50's reminiscent) Downtown Barber shop on 2nd. One block there, only to discover that they had closed early, and a block back to where I had parked. I had my cased glasses in my jacket pocket, and I can only imagine that they jiggled out when I pulled my cell phone to tell SWMBO that I was on my way back.
Not that you care about any of this, but I'm a GEEK and if I can't see the screen, I can't work. Or blog. Or net-surf. All of this is Bad Stuff.
I had a backup of drug-store eyeglasses, which worked well for me. So I decided to Do Nothing about losing my glasses (after going back and walking the street where I thought I had lost them.... no joy, no black glasses case found on the sidewalk). My best guess was that as soon as I made an appointment to get replacement glasses, the old ones would somehow magically SHOW UP!
This didn't happen; you may have seen this coming.
Still, I had the Drug-Store eyeglasses as a back-up, so I took them to work until Sunday Night when ... as I was taking the Drug-Store eyeglasses (1.5 Diopters, Bifocals, light wire frames) ... the right-hand part that hooks over my ears (the bow? I can't tell an Optician from an Obstetrician, so how should I know the parts of a pair of eye-glasses?) ... fell ... off!
The Ocular Gods hate me. After this setback, I decided I better do more than 'think about' getting replacement glasses, especially since the only other backup glasses were 3.0 diopter (read: magnifying lenses) non-bifocal glasses I bought from the Fred Meyers store five years ago ... and those lenses give me headaches.
Therefore, on Monday I called the folks who had made my original 'Computer Glasses', Valley Eye Care (VEC).
These are good people, and I highly recommend to the (one person who reads this blog and who lives in Corvallis, Oregon ... which is ME) local potential customers to go there for their ocular needs.
They made me an appointment for Wednesday at 10am (today) and took real good care of me. After the technician performed the basic tasks .. including "The Puff Test", which blows air in your face to see how well you can take it (I could get that for free any night at the Peacock Tavern), I was eventually to meet again with my Optometric Physician, "James".
I remembered James from my original appointment two years ago, and it was immediately obvious why he was so memorable: personable and professional, James understood that I was under some serious time constraints and worked hard to get me through the refresher eye exam and back to the office. What's more, the rest of the staff were able to meet my 'special needs', including a higher reach of the magnifying part of my new eyeglasses, and finding an exact match to the frames of my lost glasses. This is important to me, because I'm a picky old phart and hard to please.
After the prescription was updated and the order placed, and the check was written and I was told that I couldn't get my new glasses for two frickin' weeks ("there's a holiday in there, you know?") I was again closeted with James for the exit interview.
We got talking about my old glasses, and I mentioned that I had earlier specified Polycarbonate lenses because there was a bare possibility that I might want to use my Computer Glasses (back in 2005, when I originally acknowledged that I could no longer get a clear sight-picture of Iron Sights on a pistol). The good folks at VEC informed me that Polycarbonate lenses were, admittedly, extremely shatter-resistant. The problem is, they were very soft and they scratch easily.
In the good old days when you could get a new pair of Polycarbonate glasses from Silencio for $20 or less, that didn't matter. But I can't find Silencio glasses in these here parts anymore, so I'm looking for a better deal. Specifically, extremely shatter-resistant glasses which I don't have to replace every year or so.
The VEC folks told me about (and sold me) a set of lenses which are just as tough as Polycarbonate, just as light, but don't scratch so easily. And the name of this wonder material is ...
I can't remember. I swear, I remembered it as "Olympic" but I may be wrong. If not, here is a link I found which combines the search arguments "Olympic" and "eyeware".
Whatever it is, it should be replacing Polycarbonate glasses Real Soon Now. And I intend to get a pair from VEC or anyone else who can give me better eye protection on the range.
Moving along with the Exit Interview stuff, I started telling James about how my vision was an important factor in Practical Pistol shooting. James told me about his cousin who had encouraged him (James) to go to 'several' pistol matches at the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, which is 20 minutes away, and mentioned the USPSA National Multigun match in 2006. I told him I had been to the match as a spectator and took a large number of photographs and videos. Also the 2007 USPSA Area 1 Multigun match.
We talked about the two USPSA National Pistol matches in Bend a few years ago. I told him I had worked them as a Range Officer, and BTW what was the name of his cousin, maybe I know him?
Turns out that his cousin is Mark Seeklander, current CEO of the USSA Shooting Academy at the new Tulsa, Oklahoma range. He also said that his cousin had sent him some videos of the 2006 MG match. I said I may have filmed those videos. I also mentioned that one of the reasons I needed good 'computer glasses' is because I not only work on the computer 8 hours a day at work, I also put in something like 4 hours a day several days a week working on my Blog.
James said "So how do I find your blog?". I said: "Look for Jerry The Geek"
So James, if you're here ... this is the place. Sorry it's a particularly unexciting article, but if you look around I'm sure you can find something more interesting here.
Same to the rest of you.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Kalifornia vs STI
STI rejects California FIrearms Restrictions)
Last month we cited STI as one firearms manufacturer which was unlikely to accept the California Microstamping Restrictions:
Why?
We at Cogito Ergo Geek recognize the monetary impact this recent law may have on small firearms manufacturers, and more importantly we recognize and approve of the "line in the sand" stance established by STI.
The Microstamping law is just one more example of arbitrary legislation designed not to increase firearms safety, or to improve law-enforcement ability to identify and apprehend criminals; but rather intended to restrict access to quality firearms which are otherwise available to the citizens of that state.
It is not the duty of the firearms manufacturer to enhance the availability of tools for the state's criminal justice system; rather, it is the goal to provide a reliable, safe product for sale.
The expressed claim (by the Governor of California) of the Microstamping bill to "... provide law enforcement with an additional tool for solving crimes committed with semi-automatic handguns in California ..." is both disingenuous and transparent.
The real reason for enacting this law is to establish just one more roadblock to private firearms ownership.
STI establishes the pure position of all firearms manufacturers:
Last month we cited STI as one firearms manufacturer which was unlikely to accept the California Microstamping Restrictions:
Some manufacturers (STI specifically, with 25 models of 'semi-automatic pistols' in their current line) refused to yield to this unreasonable obligation. Manufacturers who gave in to the last (Act I: 2004) round of excessive gun-control legislation are likely to take a second look at the profitability of selling to California buyers when Act II becomes effective.This month (H/T LawDog) STI has announced that they will not ...
One more time, just for the record: this is not a safety issue, this is not a 'crime stopping' issue, it's not even a 'crime solving' issue.
It's a back-door 'gun control' issue ... just one more way to keep firearms out of the hands of honest citizens. And that means that by signing the bill, Arnold the Barbarian has signed the bill for purely political reasons.
... renew certification nor to sell to LEO and governmental agencies in CA, regardless of their exempt status, because there was no exemption from liability or legal fees which could bankrupt this company.By this single bold move, STI has reversed polarity on the state-wide egregious restrictions on new firearm sales, and announced that it will cease doing business in California.
Why?
While we truly feel badly for the law abiding citizens of California, we feel it is necessary to take a stand against irresponsible legislation designed solely to inhibit the American citizen’s right to keep arms. We are fierce proponents of the Second Amendment, and it is our hope that other manufacturers will follow our lead. It is time for the gun industry as a whole to take a stand against the insanity.(ED: Emphasis added)
We at Cogito Ergo Geek recognize the monetary impact this recent law may have on small firearms manufacturers, and more importantly we recognize and approve of the "line in the sand" stance established by STI.
The Microstamping law is just one more example of arbitrary legislation designed not to increase firearms safety, or to improve law-enforcement ability to identify and apprehend criminals; but rather intended to restrict access to quality firearms which are otherwise available to the citizens of that state.
It is not the duty of the firearms manufacturer to enhance the availability of tools for the state's criminal justice system; rather, it is the goal to provide a reliable, safe product for sale.
The expressed claim (by the Governor of California) of the Microstamping bill to "... provide law enforcement with an additional tool for solving crimes committed with semi-automatic handguns in California ..." is both disingenuous and transparent.
The real reason for enacting this law is to establish just one more roadblock to private firearms ownership.
STI establishes the pure position of all firearms manufacturers:
To our loyal supporters in California, we sincerely regret the measures we feel we must take and will continue to honor all warrantee obligations. We hope for a speedy resolution of this ill conceived violation of the Second Amendment.
"I need help here"
Sondra K (of "Knowledge Is Power" continues her series of posts about protesters blocking convoys of trucks attempting to carry military equipment out of the port of Olympia, Washington. She's out there daily, protesting the protesters. But she can't do it alone.
Summer Wine Redux
Over two years ago, I published a short cultural/opinion article about a record album. Nancy Sinatra and Lee Hazelwood had created (in 1968) an album titled "Nancy and Lee", which included a song titled "Summer Wine".
I made the point that this gentle song had resonated for me, because I thought it was not only decent music and mediocre poetry, but was emotionally satisfying. No, I didn't say it like that. I just said I liked it because it brought to mind the nirvana of the 60's:
Isn't it funny how a song will stay in your mind for decades, and hop onto your tongue for no good reason at all?
Since that date (2005), I have noted a surprising number of 'hits' on my statscounter for this article, as people seem to Google the song title on a weekly basis. This was vaguely interesting, but not particularly significant, until last week when I received a surprising email from a woman in the UK named Ilanna.
She said she found my ode to "Summer Wine" and wanted to know more about my personal impressions. Specifically, she wanted to know whether the song was commonly played at "high school proms in 1968 - 1969".
I replied, thanking her for her interest, but admitted that I couldn't answer her question because during that period I was a College student and had no information about High School Proms.
In subsequent correspondence, she questioned whether the song "Summer Wine" might have had a provocative influence on both The Manson Family murders and the Zodiac Killer murders.
My response was that I could see absolutely not basis for making such a connection, although the timing (1968) was coincidental I also mentioned that the Mansons scrawled "Helter Skelter"
(released on The Beatles White Album, Disc #2, song #6) in blood on the walls of the Sharon Tate home. Implied was the question why they didn't scrawl "Summer Wine". God knows they had enough blood to work with!
Most resently, the correspondent replied with an apology for suggesting a connection, mentioning a (deceased) relative who had some connection .. not clearly established .. with one or the other massacre event.
I don't pretend to understand the thought processes of my correspondents, I only mention it here to illustrate the startling twists such exchanges can elicit however unintended the connections and inferences may have been originally.
As a curious 'unintended consequence', this exchange rekindled my interest in the album. I discovered that the original "Nancy and Lee" was no longer available for blood nor money (apologies for the implied relationship) but the album had been more-or-less re-released under a new title: "Nancy and Lee, Fairy Tales and Fantasies".
Apparently there is a hunger for the original album, and some doubt whether the re-release is true to the original. This seems to center on two points:
- Whether all of the songs on the re-release were those which were available from the original "Nancy And Lee" album; and
- Whether the re-release presented them in the same sequence as the original.
With one perhaps insignificant difference:
The 8th song, "Some Velvet Morning", was originally released under the title "Phaedra".
I know this intuitively as certainly as I know my own name, which is "Jerry the Geek" to you, but which is ... something else, according to my mother.
Note:
Curiously, as I listen to these "Nancy and Lee" songs again, I find that the song which plagues me during my morning showers is not as often "Summer Wine" as it is "Greenwich Village Folk Song Salesman". This is perhaps due to my own personal psychological imbalances, as I also find that my most-often-sung-in-the-shower QUEEN song is "Bicycle Race".
Most people cannot abide that song. Yet I find it difficult to get out of my head.
Go figure.
Rush Limbaugh and "Phony Soldiers"
A couple of weeks ago ... when this was all 'current news' ... I followed this story.
To recap, Limbaugh referred to "Phony Soldiers" during a session of his radio show. For whatever reason, Liberals in Congress pounced on this conservative commentator with all talons out. Besides speeches in Congress, a baker's dozen of United States Senators signed their name to a letter to the president of Clear Channel Radio (host of Limbaugh's show)castigating him for his lack of support for the troops.
!!!!!
By now we all know the story: Limbaugh put the original letter up for sale on EBAY, with a promise to match the winning bid, and the letter sold for a huge amount of money. With Limbaugh's matching funds, the total was millions of dollars, all of which was donated to a fund benefiting the families of servicemen who had died in combat.
This not only re-established the already long-established support of troops by Limbaugh, but resulted in an embarrassment for the congress-critters who were signatory to the letter.
One of the signers was, sadly, a Democratic senator from the great state of Oregon, Ron Wyden.
Background: Wyden was elected to congress on the basis of his personal support for 'old folks' in Oregon. He had initiated a group which he chose to call the "Grey Panthers" in an effort to get more Federal funding to support retired persons in Oregon. I thought it was a worthwhile goal, although suspiciously smacking of Nanny-statism, so I supported Wyden even though I knew him from the days when he was a City Councilman in Portland, and later a State Representative. (I once was visited by Wyden when he was door-to-door campaigning for the House in Oregon, and told him that he didn't have my vote because I didn't agree with his politics ... even though I was a registered Democrat at the time. This was Long, Long Ago and Far, Far away.)
Moving up to Current Era:
When I saw that one of the signers was a senator from my home state, I wrote to him to express my disappointment that he had allowed himself to be distracted from the important business of the Senate to lend his name, and the prestige of both his office and his constituency, in the service of a purely partisan attack on a private citizen. I thought that Limbaugh had established the appropriate context for his comment, and that it had been validated at least twice (here and here) in sufficient detail to confirm that his reference was NOT intended to castigate serving military personnel who disagreed with current use of the military, but rather to identify and disavow private citizens who were NOT 'serving military personnel' although they claimed to be such for their own personal aggrandizement ... a la Jesse MacBeth.
In my email, I stated these facts (although without the links which you see here.)
Why do I bring this up after the controversy is essentially over?
Because today, LONG after I had taken my U.S. Senator to task for supporting the vituperative and odious attack on a private citizen, I received an email from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) which attempted to justify his participation. I offer the full text of Wyden's letter here, without comment, so that you can know the perfidy of our serving senators:
To recap, Limbaugh referred to "Phony Soldiers" during a session of his radio show. For whatever reason, Liberals in Congress pounced on this conservative commentator with all talons out. Besides speeches in Congress, a baker's dozen of United States Senators signed their name to a letter to the president of Clear Channel Radio (host of Limbaugh's show)castigating him for his lack of support for the troops.
!!!!!
By now we all know the story: Limbaugh put the original letter up for sale on EBAY, with a promise to match the winning bid, and the letter sold for a huge amount of money. With Limbaugh's matching funds, the total was millions of dollars, all of which was donated to a fund benefiting the families of servicemen who had died in combat.
This not only re-established the already long-established support of troops by Limbaugh, but resulted in an embarrassment for the congress-critters who were signatory to the letter.
One of the signers was, sadly, a Democratic senator from the great state of Oregon, Ron Wyden.
Background: Wyden was elected to congress on the basis of his personal support for 'old folks' in Oregon. He had initiated a group which he chose to call the "Grey Panthers" in an effort to get more Federal funding to support retired persons in Oregon. I thought it was a worthwhile goal, although suspiciously smacking of Nanny-statism, so I supported Wyden even though I knew him from the days when he was a City Councilman in Portland, and later a State Representative. (I once was visited by Wyden when he was door-to-door campaigning for the House in Oregon, and told him that he didn't have my vote because I didn't agree with his politics ... even though I was a registered Democrat at the time. This was Long, Long Ago and Far, Far away.)
Moving up to Current Era:
When I saw that one of the signers was a senator from my home state, I wrote to him to express my disappointment that he had allowed himself to be distracted from the important business of the Senate to lend his name, and the prestige of both his office and his constituency, in the service of a purely partisan attack on a private citizen. I thought that Limbaugh had established the appropriate context for his comment, and that it had been validated at least twice (here and here) in sufficient detail to confirm that his reference was NOT intended to castigate serving military personnel who disagreed with current use of the military, but rather to identify and disavow private citizens who were NOT 'serving military personnel' although they claimed to be such for their own personal aggrandizement ... a la Jesse MacBeth.
In my email, I stated these facts (although without the links which you see here.)
Why do I bring this up after the controversy is essentially over?
Because today, LONG after I had taken my U.S. Senator to task for supporting the vituperative and odious attack on a private citizen, I received an email from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) which attempted to justify his participation. I offer the full text of Wyden's letter here, without comment, so that you can know the perfidy of our serving senators:
Dear Mr. *********:
Thank you for contacting me about statements made by Rush Limbaugh regarding American soldiers. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
During a September 2007 radio broadcast, Mr. Limbaugh used the term "phony soldiers" in reference to soldiers who are critical of the U.S. effort in Iraq. In response, I joined several Senate colleagues in sending a letter to the CEO of Clear Channel Communications, which syndicates Mr. Limbaugh's show. Our letter called on Clear Channel to repudiate Mr. Limbaugh's comments and to request that he apologize to our men and women in service.
I have heard from many Oregonians who condemn Mr. Limbaugh's comments and many who defend his right to free speech. Let me be clear: our letter did not call for Mr. Limbaugh's termination or threaten his right to express himself as he wishes. Instead, the letter simply expressed the belief that the brave men and women risking their lives in Iraq deserve the right to question the wisdom of the war without having their military service or patriotism called into question.
Thank you again for keeping me apprised of the issues that are important to you. If I may be of assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ron Wyden
United States Senator
To write to me, go to http://wyden.senate.gov/ and choose the "E-mail Ron" link. Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered.
Monday, November 12, 2007
ARPC November, 2007
SWMBO and I have been 'out' of the sport for the past couple of months, give or take.
She had Major Surgery in September, and I lost half a month in October because I had The Flu. (Broncheal Congestion, not the nausea and vomiting "Stomach Flu", thank you Jesus!)
By the time we felt strong enough to shoot another IPSC match, it was November. So we showed up for the November ARPC match despite weatherman prognostications of "rain, wind"!
This only serves to prove that the weatherperson's goal is to NOT disappoint his audience: the weather on the Second Weekend of November was gloriously sunny, and mostly characterized by match competitors taking off the extra layers of clothing they had worn in anticipation of a rainy day.
The match administrators (Mike McCarter) didn't even bother to hang plastic bags (rain protectors) on the targets. The weather was THAT GOOD.
We started the match at 9am, and finished a bit after 1pm. No rain showers interrupted the match, thanks to pre-arrangements by the ARPC Staff (according to MD Mac.
By the end of the day, the imevitably clement weather had encouraged "head - to - head" competition between individual competitors, which always adds flavor to the match.
Here's the video which demonstrates last-stage competition between WhiteFish and The Geek. The match results aren't yet available, so we'll leave it to you to decide who REALLY had the best approach on this stage.
Fish was ready to concede the points, but I'm not so sure .../
What do YOU think?
She had Major Surgery in September, and I lost half a month in October because I had The Flu. (Broncheal Congestion, not the nausea and vomiting "Stomach Flu", thank you Jesus!)
By the time we felt strong enough to shoot another IPSC match, it was November. So we showed up for the November ARPC match despite weatherman prognostications of "rain, wind"!
This only serves to prove that the weatherperson's goal is to NOT disappoint his audience: the weather on the Second Weekend of November was gloriously sunny, and mostly characterized by match competitors taking off the extra layers of clothing they had worn in anticipation of a rainy day.
The match administrators (Mike McCarter) didn't even bother to hang plastic bags (rain protectors) on the targets. The weather was THAT GOOD.
We started the match at 9am, and finished a bit after 1pm. No rain showers interrupted the match, thanks to pre-arrangements by the ARPC Staff (according to MD Mac.
By the end of the day, the imevitably clement weather had encouraged "head - to - head" competition between individual competitors, which always adds flavor to the match.
Here's the video which demonstrates last-stage competition between WhiteFish and The Geek. The match results aren't yet available, so we'll leave it to you to decide who REALLY had the best approach on this stage.
Fish was ready to concede the points, but I'm not so sure .../
What do YOU think?
SWMBO Laughs!
Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, November Club Match -- "Who Listens?"
You've got to appreciate the irony here.
Also the Chutspha (sp) , the nerve, and the confidence.
When you're shooting an IPSC stage, you're all alone. Anyone who offers advice from "The Peanut Gallery" runs the risk of incurring a procedural penalty (how this applied? Anyone?) and the shooter who obviously changes his/her approach to engaging targets on a stage risks incurring a similar penalty on the stage.
The Best Thing To Do is, invariably, Shoot 'Em as You See 'Em, and if you screw up ...
Let's Face The Music and Dance.
Here SWMBO loses track of her Round Count, and out of frustration makes a standing reload which eats up her time.
Does that deter her? Hell No!
If anyone ever thought that the best shooters are those who gets the most points in the least time, they have no idea why people come back every week to compete in IPSC matches.
If everyone ever thought that the best reason to compete in IPSC matches was to have a good time, and to enjoy the process, they simply have no idea why ... but you get the picture.
And in case you are among the benighted few who Have No Idea, here's a hint:
You've got to appreciate the irony here.
Also the Chutspha (sp) , the nerve, and the confidence.
When you're shooting an IPSC stage, you're all alone. Anyone who offers advice from "The Peanut Gallery" runs the risk of incurring a procedural penalty (how this applied? Anyone?) and the shooter who obviously changes his/her approach to engaging targets on a stage risks incurring a similar penalty on the stage.
The Best Thing To Do is, invariably, Shoot 'Em as You See 'Em, and if you screw up ...
Let's Face The Music and Dance.
Here SWMBO loses track of her Round Count, and out of frustration makes a standing reload which eats up her time.
Does that deter her? Hell No!
If anyone ever thought that the best shooters are those who gets the most points in the least time, they have no idea why people come back every week to compete in IPSC matches.
If everyone ever thought that the best reason to compete in IPSC matches was to have a good time, and to enjoy the process, they simply have no idea why ... but you get the picture.
And in case you are among the benighted few who Have No Idea, here's a hint:
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Veterans Day
Today is Veterans Day, 2007.
It may alternatively be describe as Veterans' Day, or Armistice Day.
Sufficient to say that, although this date (November 11) is generally reserved to honor American Military Veterans, it was originally intended to recognize the Armistice ... which occurred on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month (November 11) and acknowledged the surrender of the surrender of the German forces at the nominative end of World War One.
Since then, it has been alternative named Armistice Day and Veterans' Day, and has been the instrument of acknowledging the contributions of American Military Veterans.
So much for establishing cross-links between the date, the event, and the raison d'etre.
It may be useful to note that, since November 11, 2007, falls on a Sunday, this date and this event is formally recognized on Monday, November 12, 2007. Also, the union (Service Employee's International Union, or SEIU) in my home state, in negotiated agreement with my State employer) has 'traded' this day of observation in exchange for a Three Day Weekend, which this year is represented by The Day After Thanksgiving (a Friday). Much as it has 'traded' Presidents' Day for The Day After Christmas.
May I go on record as stating that I find this trade-off as an egregious exchange which disallows me from celebrating the entirely laudable option of celebrating the sacrifices of my fellow Americans in preference for a three-day weekend?
Okay, I've SAID that, but I don't really mean it.
I can celebrate the military sacrifice of my fellow Americans ... and some of my family ... anytime. The difference is that the Federal Government has 'adjusted' the legal holiday to fall on a week-day, so we can all rejoice in a paid holiday. And my union has negotiated the date so it falls on (this year) the Friday after Thanksgiving, so we can all enjoy a 4-day weekend.
I wonder how many of us, given the option, would take an unpaid day away from work to recognize and acknowledge the sacrifices of our friends and family, and people we never met, who gave their lives in support of their country, to protect the freedoms of their fellow man, and in service to their country?
Show of hands? Nobody? Probably not.
I know I wouldn't be comfortable with taking an unpaid day to recognize Veterans' Day. I am willing to wager that few of you who would be given the the option of working on V-Day, would be willing to take an unrecognized (unpaid) day off to march in a parade.
Perhaps I "under-misestimate" your patriotism, and if I do ... I apologize. I only offer my own poor integrity for your consideration.
It has been 37 years since I wore the uniform as a member of the American Military. Since then, I have chosen one single way to offer my own personal manner of recognizing the Sacrifice of Service.
There is a "Wall" (similar to, but smaller than, The Wall in Washington, DC) in a park in Portland, Oregon. This Wall lists the name of all Oregon servicemen and women who gave their lives in the Vietnam Conflict.
For over a decade, it was my habit to go to The Wall on the 11th hour (pm ... the dark of night) with a six-pack of cans of Budweiser Beer and a hard-pack of Marlboro Cigarettes, and a new book of matches.
I would 'infiltrate' the park area of The Wall, open the package of cigarettes and light and smoke one cigarette. Then I would open, and drink, one can of beer.
This was my way of 'sharing' with my past comrades a drink and a smoke.
I would then leave the (closed) pack of cigarettes, with matches, and the five remaining cans of beer, in memorial to my comrades. And I would then go home.
I assume that the remaining beer and cigarettes would be picked up by park employees the next day. They would either join me in imbibing, or throw everything away. (If I was park Maintenance Staff, I would throw it all away ... who knows where that stuff came from? I'm not talking!) I hoped that they would understand.
In recent years, I have not chosen this way to recognize the sacrifices of my fallen brothers. It seems too dramatic. Or it's disrespecting of the people who have to pick up after me.
Or it's too much trouble.
I probably don't do this any more because after thirty plus years, I've become too detached from the experience to feel the immediacy I felt before.
I'm reminded of the final scene of "Saving Private Ryan", where the Senior Citizen / Private James Francis Ryan comes to the military cemetery (in France?) and wails that he has spent his entire life in an attempt to "Earn This" ... the sacrifice of his fellow soldiers to save his life.
I do not wish to become a Private Ryan. I do not wish to 'earn' the sacrifice of my fellow soldiers. I saw them die in 1969, and never hope to be the REASON why I lived, while they died.
The point of a MOVIE is that your fellow soldiers gave their lives that you ('We', "I") might live.
And while it is true that men in combat most often risk/sacrifice their lives for their brothers, I can only hope that this "Band of Brothers" sacrifice themselves for a higher purpose than my personal survival.
I have seen men ... American Soldiers ... die in combat.
If I thought for one moment that they gave their lives for me, I would .... well, perhaps not be "unable" but certainly "not accept" that I was the reason for their gift of life.
Who could live with that burden?
And so I have put aside the burden of the sacrifice of my Brothers assuming that they have accepted the Ultimate Sacrifice for perhaps the meanest of reasons:
We were there. And it seemed to be The Thing To Do. We were young.
Had I been the one to die, I would never have wanted to put a 'guilt trip' on the men I/we fought and lived with and died before.
I hope I would have been so brave. I'm not sure. But I have too much with the men I knew in Vietnam to think otherwise.
Or perhaps I'm just getting too old to feel the pain ...
It may alternatively be describe as Veterans' Day, or Armistice Day.
Sufficient to say that, although this date (November 11) is generally reserved to honor American Military Veterans, it was originally intended to recognize the Armistice ... which occurred on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month (November 11) and acknowledged the surrender of the surrender of the German forces at the nominative end of World War One.
Since then, it has been alternative named Armistice Day and Veterans' Day, and has been the instrument of acknowledging the contributions of American Military Veterans.
So much for establishing cross-links between the date, the event, and the raison d'etre.
It may be useful to note that, since November 11, 2007, falls on a Sunday, this date and this event is formally recognized on Monday, November 12, 2007. Also, the union (Service Employee's International Union, or SEIU) in my home state, in negotiated agreement with my State employer) has 'traded' this day of observation in exchange for a Three Day Weekend, which this year is represented by The Day After Thanksgiving (a Friday). Much as it has 'traded' Presidents' Day for The Day After Christmas.
May I go on record as stating that I find this trade-off as an egregious exchange which disallows me from celebrating the entirely laudable option of celebrating the sacrifices of my fellow Americans in preference for a three-day weekend?
Okay, I've SAID that, but I don't really mean it.
I can celebrate the military sacrifice of my fellow Americans ... and some of my family ... anytime. The difference is that the Federal Government has 'adjusted' the legal holiday to fall on a week-day, so we can all rejoice in a paid holiday. And my union has negotiated the date so it falls on (this year) the Friday after Thanksgiving, so we can all enjoy a 4-day weekend.
I wonder how many of us, given the option, would take an unpaid day away from work to recognize and acknowledge the sacrifices of our friends and family, and people we never met, who gave their lives in support of their country, to protect the freedoms of their fellow man, and in service to their country?
Show of hands? Nobody? Probably not.
I know I wouldn't be comfortable with taking an unpaid day to recognize Veterans' Day. I am willing to wager that few of you who would be given the the option of working on V-Day, would be willing to take an unrecognized (unpaid) day off to march in a parade.
Perhaps I "under-misestimate" your patriotism, and if I do ... I apologize. I only offer my own poor integrity for your consideration.
It has been 37 years since I wore the uniform as a member of the American Military. Since then, I have chosen one single way to offer my own personal manner of recognizing the Sacrifice of Service.
There is a "Wall" (similar to, but smaller than, The Wall in Washington, DC) in a park in Portland, Oregon. This Wall lists the name of all Oregon servicemen and women who gave their lives in the Vietnam Conflict.
For over a decade, it was my habit to go to The Wall on the 11th hour (pm ... the dark of night) with a six-pack of cans of Budweiser Beer and a hard-pack of Marlboro Cigarettes, and a new book of matches.
I would 'infiltrate' the park area of The Wall, open the package of cigarettes and light and smoke one cigarette. Then I would open, and drink, one can of beer.
This was my way of 'sharing' with my past comrades a drink and a smoke.
I would then leave the (closed) pack of cigarettes, with matches, and the five remaining cans of beer, in memorial to my comrades. And I would then go home.
I assume that the remaining beer and cigarettes would be picked up by park employees the next day. They would either join me in imbibing, or throw everything away. (If I was park Maintenance Staff, I would throw it all away ... who knows where that stuff came from? I'm not talking!) I hoped that they would understand.
In recent years, I have not chosen this way to recognize the sacrifices of my fallen brothers. It seems too dramatic. Or it's disrespecting of the people who have to pick up after me.
Or it's too much trouble.
I probably don't do this any more because after thirty plus years, I've become too detached from the experience to feel the immediacy I felt before.
I'm reminded of the final scene of "Saving Private Ryan", where the Senior Citizen / Private James Francis Ryan comes to the military cemetery (in France?) and wails that he has spent his entire life in an attempt to "Earn This" ... the sacrifice of his fellow soldiers to save his life.
I do not wish to become a Private Ryan. I do not wish to 'earn' the sacrifice of my fellow soldiers. I saw them die in 1969, and never hope to be the REASON why I lived, while they died.
The point of a MOVIE is that your fellow soldiers gave their lives that you ('We', "I") might live.
And while it is true that men in combat most often risk/sacrifice their lives for their brothers, I can only hope that this "Band of Brothers" sacrifice themselves for a higher purpose than my personal survival.
I have seen men ... American Soldiers ... die in combat.
If I thought for one moment that they gave their lives for me, I would .... well, perhaps not be "unable" but certainly "not accept" that I was the reason for their gift of life.
Who could live with that burden?
And so I have put aside the burden of the sacrifice of my Brothers assuming that they have accepted the Ultimate Sacrifice for perhaps the meanest of reasons:
We were there. And it seemed to be The Thing To Do. We were young.
Had I been the one to die, I would never have wanted to put a 'guilt trip' on the men I/we fought and lived with and died before.
I hope I would have been so brave. I'm not sure. But I have too much with the men I knew in Vietnam to think otherwise.
Or perhaps I'm just getting too old to feel the pain ...
Thursday, November 08, 2007
I Am A Genius ... NOT!
I've been reading my own blogroll, and both The Real Gun Guys and Josh have announced that their blogs are at Genius Level.
Here's my reading level.
Well, I suppose they have higher number of readers, or the number of articles they post. Either that, or There Has Been An Exchange Of Money.
(mutter mutter mutter ....)
Yeah, that's it. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the quality of the content.
Here's my reading level.
Well, I suppose they have higher number of readers, or the number of articles they post. Either that, or There Has Been An Exchange Of Money.
(mutter mutter mutter ....)
Yeah, that's it. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the quality of the content.
Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions
Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions
No comments, other than that this is a fine resource for people who are curious about legal references to the Second Amendment.
Although, for more current issues, here is an interesting article recently published in the ABA Journal (American Bar Association). H/T Michael Bane
No comments, other than that this is a fine resource for people who are curious about legal references to the Second Amendment.
Although, for more current issues, here is an interesting article recently published in the ABA Journal (American Bar Association). H/T Michael Bane
Monday, November 05, 2007
Gene Wilder
It's not as easy as it may seem to write about the filmography of Gene Wilder. The best anyone can do is rave about their favorite Gene Wilder movie, and even then with some trepidation about their own personal masculinity.
1975 he wrote, directed and starred in a little movie called "The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter brother", which I remember with fondness and for which I have been searching for a couple of years. I finally found a DVD of the movie a few weeks ago, ordered it and saved it unopened until both SWMBO and I were sufficiently recovered from our various malaise until we could watch it together. I admit, I was a bit disappointed. It doesn't seem as fresh and spontaneous as it did in 1975, but that may have been because Wilder (Jerome Silberman) really needed the genius of Mel Brooks to teach him what comedy was all about.
Ignoring his 1963 Broadway rendition of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest with Kirk Douglas", Wilder had a small but impressive movie part in "Bonnie and Clyde" in 1967 as " ... as a frightened young undertaker abducted by the duo".
But in his appearance as "Leo Bloom" in Brooks' "The Producers", opposite the brilliant but zany Zero Mostel, Wilder proved himself capable of making the most sublime characterization seem almost reasonable. (Note: now that Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick on Broadway have taken over the roles of Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder as "The Producers", you can't find images of the original movie on the Internet!)
As the man who finds himself drawn into impossibly bizarre situations, most often through no fault of his own, the frizzy-haired, inadvertently felon Wilder lent credence to the most improbable plot twists.
Watching Wilder was usually much like watching a Donald Duck cartoon; when the Duck played a baseball pitcher and his wind-up was so vigorous that his pitching arm turned into an airplane propeller, causing him to rise up off the ground ... Wilder movies also called upon the viewer to 'suspend disbelief' in order to appreciate the situation.
Brooks brought Wilder through some of the zaniest social situations imaginable. And every picture he ever made was, to some extent, a 'con job'.
In The Producers, the con was to produce a play which was so outrageous that nobody would attend it past the first night. Then Mostel, who with his extreme comb-over would somehow romance elderly widows to invest in the play (until it was 1000% oversubscribed). Finally, when the show bombed, the huckster Mostel and the milquetoast accountant Wilder would abscond with the investments ... which had of course been used up by the newly found wild lifestyle. Of course, because of the unpredictably fickle Broadway audience, the most outrageous script, most disgusting musical lyrics of "Springtime for Hitler and Everyone" was judged to be "Camp" (shades of Televisions "Batman) and the dynamic duo of Mostel and Wilder were required to distribute profits instead of wiping the slate clean in the planned El Bombo.
Sure, it was both silly and stupid, but the combined brilliance of Brooks and Mostel (as well as the small but significant contribution of the vaguely effeminate Wilder) it seemed almost ... reasonable.
After Wilder's semi-failed attempt at independence with "Sherlock Holmes .." ("Sheer Luck!"), Wilder dallied in "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", and later went back to Brooks. In an improbable teaming with Cleavon Little (later to star in a short-lived but hilarious hospital-based comedy named "Temperature's Rising") found his forte' in 1974's "Blazing Saddles", a cowboy movie where he played the improbable gunslinger "The Waco Kid". ("Wanna see my fast draw? Wanna see it again?")
"Blazing Saddles" somehow managed to combine Wilder, Little, Brooks, Alex Karras, Slim Pickens, Harvey Korman and Madeline Kahn (remember these names, you'll see many of them again) in a movie which featured the famous line (with Little holding a pistol to his own head) declaiming: "Nobody Moves, or the nigger gets it!".
To everyone's surprise, this was among the most memorable ... and most laughable ... lines in the movie. One of the cast found it extremely difficult to deliver lines including "the 'N-word", but was convinced by, of all persons Mel Brooks. Cleavon Little reportedly laughed through the making of the movie because of the discomfort of "the white boys". Everybody laughed through the "Bean Fart Scene" which was bowlderized in the television version ... the sound track was 'suppressed' ane parts of other scenes were completely deleted in both the television and the first-run movie. You have to buy/rent the DVD to see the movie as it was originally intended.
Later in 1974 (they were on a roll), Brooks and Wilder combined with Kahn to create"Young Frankenstein", featuring Peter Boyle as "The Monster". Marty Feldman, Wilder's alter ego in "Sherlock Holmes" and Cloris Leachman as "Frau Blucher" and Terri Garr as "Inga" all contributed some of the most memorable 'straight lines' in comedic movie history. It may be that Wilder's frizzy hair made him a 'natural choice' to play Frankenstein's grandson ("That's Frahnensteen!), but Wilder managed to hold his own among the most notorious scene-stealers since Harvey Korman and Dom DeLuis (and Brooks himself) in "Blazing Saddles".
The next year, Wilder co-starred with Richard Pryor in the improbable "Silver Streak", with Jill Clayburgh, Ned Beatty and Patrick McGoohan (Secret Agent Man) 'as Deveraux'. This was a patent contest between Pryor and Wilder to steal scenes; the score is tied, as it was in 1989's "See No Evil, Hear No Evil" (Wilder was blind, Pryor was deaf: or was it the other way around? Event they sometimes seemed to lose track but it didn't matter) and the earlier 1980 "Stir Crazy".
Somewhere in the middle of all that, Wilder marries Gilda Radner and, after she contracts Cancer, they star together in a comedically poignant (if that's possible) "Haunted Honeymoon".
Someday, someone will write the life story of Gene Wilder and it will prominently include the love story between Wilder and Radner. It won't be Carol Lombard and Cary Grant; it won't be Bogart and Becall; it won't be Tracy and Hepburn. But it will be no less important to the people who were involved, and The One Who Was Left Behind.
Why was this written?
Because if you haven't watched Wilder with some appreciation for his life's work, you've missed something that isn't important to anyone but you.
1975 he wrote, directed and starred in a little movie called "The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter brother", which I remember with fondness and for which I have been searching for a couple of years. I finally found a DVD of the movie a few weeks ago, ordered it and saved it unopened until both SWMBO and I were sufficiently recovered from our various malaise until we could watch it together. I admit, I was a bit disappointed. It doesn't seem as fresh and spontaneous as it did in 1975, but that may have been because Wilder (Jerome Silberman) really needed the genius of Mel Brooks to teach him what comedy was all about.
Ignoring his 1963 Broadway rendition of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest with Kirk Douglas", Wilder had a small but impressive movie part in "Bonnie and Clyde" in 1967 as " ... as a frightened young undertaker abducted by the duo".
But in his appearance as "Leo Bloom" in Brooks' "The Producers", opposite the brilliant but zany Zero Mostel, Wilder proved himself capable of making the most sublime characterization seem almost reasonable. (Note: now that Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick on Broadway have taken over the roles of Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder as "The Producers", you can't find images of the original movie on the Internet!)
As the man who finds himself drawn into impossibly bizarre situations, most often through no fault of his own, the frizzy-haired, inadvertently felon Wilder lent credence to the most improbable plot twists.
Watching Wilder was usually much like watching a Donald Duck cartoon; when the Duck played a baseball pitcher and his wind-up was so vigorous that his pitching arm turned into an airplane propeller, causing him to rise up off the ground ... Wilder movies also called upon the viewer to 'suspend disbelief' in order to appreciate the situation.
Brooks brought Wilder through some of the zaniest social situations imaginable. And every picture he ever made was, to some extent, a 'con job'.
In The Producers, the con was to produce a play which was so outrageous that nobody would attend it past the first night. Then Mostel, who with his extreme comb-over would somehow romance elderly widows to invest in the play (until it was 1000% oversubscribed). Finally, when the show bombed, the huckster Mostel and the milquetoast accountant Wilder would abscond with the investments ... which had of course been used up by the newly found wild lifestyle. Of course, because of the unpredictably fickle Broadway audience, the most outrageous script, most disgusting musical lyrics of "Springtime for Hitler and Everyone" was judged to be "Camp" (shades of Televisions "Batman) and the dynamic duo of Mostel and Wilder were required to distribute profits instead of wiping the slate clean in the planned El Bombo.
Sure, it was both silly and stupid, but the combined brilliance of Brooks and Mostel (as well as the small but significant contribution of the vaguely effeminate Wilder) it seemed almost ... reasonable.
After Wilder's semi-failed attempt at independence with "Sherlock Holmes .." ("Sheer Luck!"), Wilder dallied in "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", and later went back to Brooks. In an improbable teaming with Cleavon Little (later to star in a short-lived but hilarious hospital-based comedy named "Temperature's Rising") found his forte' in 1974's "Blazing Saddles", a cowboy movie where he played the improbable gunslinger "The Waco Kid". ("Wanna see my fast draw? Wanna see it again?")
"Blazing Saddles" somehow managed to combine Wilder, Little, Brooks, Alex Karras, Slim Pickens, Harvey Korman and Madeline Kahn (remember these names, you'll see many of them again) in a movie which featured the famous line (with Little holding a pistol to his own head) declaiming: "Nobody Moves, or the nigger gets it!".
To everyone's surprise, this was among the most memorable ... and most laughable ... lines in the movie. One of the cast found it extremely difficult to deliver lines including "the 'N-word", but was convinced by, of all persons Mel Brooks. Cleavon Little reportedly laughed through the making of the movie because of the discomfort of "the white boys". Everybody laughed through the "Bean Fart Scene" which was bowlderized in the television version ... the sound track was 'suppressed' ane parts of other scenes were completely deleted in both the television and the first-run movie. You have to buy/rent the DVD to see the movie as it was originally intended.
Later in 1974 (they were on a roll), Brooks and Wilder combined with Kahn to create"Young Frankenstein", featuring Peter Boyle as "The Monster". Marty Feldman, Wilder's alter ego in "Sherlock Holmes" and Cloris Leachman as "Frau Blucher" and Terri Garr as "Inga" all contributed some of the most memorable 'straight lines' in comedic movie history. It may be that Wilder's frizzy hair made him a 'natural choice' to play Frankenstein's grandson ("That's Frahnensteen!), but Wilder managed to hold his own among the most notorious scene-stealers since Harvey Korman and Dom DeLuis (and Brooks himself) in "Blazing Saddles".
The next year, Wilder co-starred with Richard Pryor in the improbable "Silver Streak", with Jill Clayburgh, Ned Beatty and Patrick McGoohan (Secret Agent Man) 'as Deveraux'. This was a patent contest between Pryor and Wilder to steal scenes; the score is tied, as it was in 1989's "See No Evil, Hear No Evil" (Wilder was blind, Pryor was deaf: or was it the other way around? Event they sometimes seemed to lose track but it didn't matter) and the earlier 1980 "Stir Crazy".
Somewhere in the middle of all that, Wilder marries Gilda Radner and, after she contracts Cancer, they star together in a comedically poignant (if that's possible) "Haunted Honeymoon".
Someday, someone will write the life story of Gene Wilder and it will prominently include the love story between Wilder and Radner. It won't be Carol Lombard and Cary Grant; it won't be Bogart and Becall; it won't be Tracy and Hepburn. But it will be no less important to the people who were involved, and The One Who Was Left Behind.
Why was this written?
Because if you haven't watched Wilder with some appreciation for his life's work, you've missed something that isn't important to anyone but you.
The 2007 Weblog Awards
I am, of course, desolate that once again I am not among the Top Ten finalists for "Best Gun Blog" this year.
The sole redeeming factor is that there is once again no category for "Best Gun Blog". So, I'll probably survive my Annual Disappointment.
For those of you whose tastes run parallel to mine, though, you still have the opportunity to vote for "The 2007 Weblog Awards" in 'other categories'.
For "Best Comic Strip" you can vote for Day By Day Cartoons here.
And for "Best of the Best 250 - 500", you can vote for Sondra K. here.
The sole redeeming factor is that there is once again no category for "Best Gun Blog". So, I'll probably survive my Annual Disappointment.
For those of you whose tastes run parallel to mine, though, you still have the opportunity to vote for "The 2007 Weblog Awards" in 'other categories'.
For "Best Comic Strip" you can vote for Day By Day Cartoons here.
And for "Best of the Best 250 - 500", you can vote for Sondra K. here.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Miami Vice
I bought the First and Second Seasons of Miami Vice (the television show) a couple of weeks ago. I've spent much time which might more profitably be spent 'blogging', watching the First Season.
Other than the Jim Zibiena show, Season One is a disappointment. Until they decided to lose the comedy routines, replacing the theme with a more serious mien, the show was was a little lame.
Although I am inclined to recommend the video discs, I have to admit that there is only so much of Don Johnson that mortal man can abide in a limited time period.
Ann Coulter and "Automatic vs Semi-Automatic Firearms"
I've also been reading the books which Ann Coulter has 'recently' published. Like most people, I've found some minor inconsistencies, but nothing important ... until I got to Page 263 in "How To Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), published in 2004.
In this book she reprints previous columns which either have or have not been published (you have to read the whole thing, which implies "buy the book", to get the sense of which columns have not been published. Personally ... I can't tell the difference.) But each chapter is carefully prefaced by her own comments.
In Chapter 13" "Elian Gonzalez: The Only Immigrant Liberals Ever Wanted to Deport" (pp: 257 - 272) she discusses the obvious subject. Rather than quoting her articles, she presents an 'overview' and some background information demonstrating how ...
I realize that Ms. Coulter is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. She makes that perfectly clear in Chapter 15: "Hello, Room Service? Sent Up a Bottle, a Blonde, and a Gun" (pp: 304 - 319; July 1999 thru July 22, 1999.)
But the point her is ...I do SO wish that Conservative writers, who intend to support Second Amendment causes, would at least get their facts right!
I refer, of course, to the parenthetical statement:
Semi-automatic weapons are not necessarily " ... considerably less lethal ..." than full-automatic weapons. Lethality is a characteristic determined by many factors, not least are caliber and velocity.
Rate-of-Fire is not really a measure of lethaltity.
I note that the danger of fatal wounds from a 9mm MP-5 is probably less than that of a 7.62 M-60 (full-auto machine guns) and the MP-5 is probably less 'lethal' than a.30-30 .30-40 Krag.
Ms. Coulter is much smarter than I am, and a much better writer of political essays without doubt.
But she should leave the question of firearms lethality to the people who know what they're talking about. Or she should research the subject at least as much as Lexis/Nexis will support, or no further.
Or she should not make comments which are not supported by her research.
She does the RKBA folks a disservice when she offers opinions in the guise of fact ... a situation for which she (rightly) castigates Liberals without mercy.
In this book she reprints previous columns which either have or have not been published (you have to read the whole thing, which implies "buy the book", to get the sense of which columns have not been published. Personally ... I can't tell the difference.) But each chapter is carefully prefaced by her own comments.
In Chapter 13" "Elian Gonzalez: The Only Immigrant Liberals Ever Wanted to Deport" (pp: 257 - 272) she discusses the obvious subject. Rather than quoting her articles, she presents an 'overview' and some background information demonstrating how ...
"[w]hen it came to Elian, liberals abandoned every seditious cause they had once held dear -- disfunctional familes, judicial activism, illegal immigrants, their opposition to the use of military force, their fear and hatred of "assault-type weapons," the Constitution as a living document, Fourth Amendment rights, and a weak executive branch."On pp 261-262, she discusses the pre-dawn "Commando raid" which was conducted for the specific purpose of " ... seizing the terrified little boy ..." (Elian Gonzalez) "... who was hiding in a closet":
"Relying on the media's complete, abject ignorance of firearms, the administration and its lackeys insisted on calling the MP-5 submachine guns carried by the Delta Force Gang "automatic rifles." That sounds so much more gentle than "machine gun" -- which is what an "automatic rifle" is. (By contrast, those "assault weapons": liberals are so terrified of are semi-automatic rifles, considerably less lethal than the gun pointed at Elias's head.) ...[Emphasis added by Editor]
I realize that Ms. Coulter is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. She makes that perfectly clear in Chapter 15: "Hello, Room Service? Sent Up a Bottle, a Blonde, and a Gun" (pp: 304 - 319; July 1999 thru July 22, 1999.)
But the point her is ...I do SO wish that Conservative writers, who intend to support Second Amendment causes, would at least get their facts right!
I refer, of course, to the parenthetical statement:
(By contrast, those "assault weapons": liberals are so terrified of are semi-automatic rifles, considerably less lethal than the gun pointed at Elias's head.)Although it may be too late to be pertinent in the quoted context, I call upon Michael Bane (who knows Ms. Coulter much better than do I) to impress upon her the following pertinent facts:
Semi-automatic weapons are not necessarily " ... considerably less lethal ..." than full-automatic weapons. Lethality is a characteristic determined by many factors, not least are caliber and velocity.
Rate-of-Fire is not really a measure of lethaltity.
I note that the danger of fatal wounds from a 9mm MP-5 is probably less than that of a 7.62 M-60 (full-auto machine guns) and the MP-5 is probably less 'lethal' than a
Ms. Coulter is much smarter than I am, and a much better writer of political essays without doubt.
But she should leave the question of firearms lethality to the people who know what they're talking about. Or she should research the subject at least as much as Lexis/Nexis will support, or no further.
Or she should not make comments which are not supported by her research.
She does the RKBA folks a disservice when she offers opinions in the guise of fact ... a situation for which she (rightly) castigates Liberals without mercy.
Look For The Union Label ... Measure 50 in Oregon
I probably could have titled this article "Why I Am Not A Union Member", but the other was more to the point.
I work on a University campus in Oregon, and when I was hired in 1996 I was given a choice. I could either join the union, or I could become a "Fair-Share" employee. Essentially, the difference was that (a) I was a Union Member and could vote on issues, or (b) I paid union dues, but had no voice.
Of course, there was always (c) - if I was a Union Member and the Union called a strike, I was bound to respect their picket lines. Or face 'penalties'.
I chose (b). I don't agree with the liberal politics of the union, so I don't care to be associated with them more than is required by the (unfair) requirements of "Fair-Share" ... which takes $x out of my paycheck every month.
This month there is a state-wide Issue on the November ballot called Measure 50. Friday, I received a flyer from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) encouraging all Union members and "Fair-Share" employees to vote YES on the measure.
Here's what the (local 503) Union website (supported by the World Socialist Web Site) had to say about Measure 50:
This measure would result in an increased tax on tobacco products to pay for this program. Not all Oregonians would pay for it ... only tobacco users. The flyer states that "70% .. would fund the ... program". The rest would go for 'other uses', including "tobacco prevention".
It doesn't mention that, as a result of a federal suit some years ago, Oregon has been receiving MILLIONS of dollars from the Tobacco industry ... supposedly to pay for "tobacco prevention" programs as well as to compensate for health-care costs which are directly imposed on the state as a result of uninsured tobacco users who incur medical costs which they cannot pay and which are absorbed by 'the state'. (More likely, picked up by health-care providers which are already required to pay for the medical care of 'indigent' patients ... such as Illegal Aliens.)
The State has not reserved these funds for the expressed purposes. Instead, it has included the funds in the "general fund", which could well be used (and has been) for 'any' purpose.
Now they want to impose a new tax to provide medical care for 'the children', who are generally supposed NOT to be 'tobacco users'.
A twenty-five cent pack of cigarettes now costs $4.40, because of the "Sin Taxes" added at the unilateral behest of Federal and State taxes.
Unanswered is the question: "What does Child Health Care have to do with adult Tobacco Users? If the concern is Child Health Care is at such a critical state, why should tobacco users foot the bill?"
What they aren't mentioning AT ALL:
The purpose of the bill isn't just another attempt to add another tax in Oregon. The State has attempted to add new tax revenue (including both Tobacco Taxes and a State Sales Tax ... Oregon is one of only TWO states which does not impose a Sales Tax on its citizens, and every time the legislature attempts to impose a Sales Tax it is voted down, and The State fulfills its threats by cutting back on Essential Services such as Police staffing).
No, Measure 50 doesn't JUST impose another tax. Instead, it proposes a constitutional amendment which would allow The State to impose a "Special Tax" on a consumer product.
Imagine, for comparison, a measure to enact a Constitutional Amendment to establish a tax on Mascara. This is a consumer product which is used only by a narrowly defined subset of the citizenry. Presumably, those who use excess mascara (harlots, professional models, actresses, Katherine Harris if she should move to Oregon) would only be affected and would be obliged to sacrifice for the benefit of another, unrelated minority.
Should we blithely accept this measure ... this constitutional amendment ... because the cost would only be borne by the 'unsavory element' of the voters?
This is the "Tyranny of the Majority", as John Stuart Mills defines it, at its worst.
More important, acceptance of this approach would impose a burden on a minority which is acceptable only because they are a minority.
Most important, it would lay the groundwork for other, even more egregious impositions on minority populations for the benefit of measures which are not generally accepted, and which have failed all other tests of the popular vote.
Fatuous, pernicious pusillanimous politicians. I detest them politically, and I detest their tactics both as a matter of personal and political preference.
Within the next week I will write to the local chapter of SEIU and require that they return all funds of my "Fair-Share" which are earmarked for political activism.
I have been acquiescent long enough.
What a bunch of Maroons!
I work on a University campus in Oregon, and when I was hired in 1996 I was given a choice. I could either join the union, or I could become a "Fair-Share" employee. Essentially, the difference was that (a) I was a Union Member and could vote on issues, or (b) I paid union dues, but had no voice.
Of course, there was always (c) - if I was a Union Member and the Union called a strike, I was bound to respect their picket lines. Or face 'penalties'.
I chose (b). I don't agree with the liberal politics of the union, so I don't care to be associated with them more than is required by the (unfair) requirements of "Fair-Share" ... which takes $x out of my paycheck every month.
This month there is a state-wide Issue on the November ballot called Measure 50. Friday, I received a flyer from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) encouraging all Union members and "Fair-Share" employees to vote YES on the measure.
Here's what the (local 503) Union website (supported by the World Socialist Web Site) had to say about Measure 50:
What they barely touch upon:
Health Insurance for all Oregon Children
117,000 Oregon children don't have health coverage. They don't get necessary health care services, and are more likely to end up in emergency rooms or require more expensive treatments. Measure 50 is a fair and accountable way to provide our kids the health coverage they need.
Measure 50 Funds Health Care. Over 70% of the new cigarette tax revenue will fund the Healthy Kids Program. The rest goes to other health programs, including health clinics, tobacco prevention, and health coverage for 10,000 low-income adults.
As Employers Reduce Health Coverage, Oregon's Working Families Pay the Price:Kids can't wait! Kids should be at the front of the line when it come sto helth care. Let's protect the most important resource Oregon has ... our kids!
- More than 80,000 Oregonians have lost their employer provided health insurance int he past four years
- As health care costs rise, more employers are either reducing coverage or shifting the costs to employees and their famililes
This measure would result in an increased tax on tobacco products to pay for this program. Not all Oregonians would pay for it ... only tobacco users. The flyer states that "70% .. would fund the ... program". The rest would go for 'other uses', including "tobacco prevention".
It doesn't mention that, as a result of a federal suit some years ago, Oregon has been receiving MILLIONS of dollars from the Tobacco industry ... supposedly to pay for "tobacco prevention" programs as well as to compensate for health-care costs which are directly imposed on the state as a result of uninsured tobacco users who incur medical costs which they cannot pay and which are absorbed by 'the state'. (More likely, picked up by health-care providers which are already required to pay for the medical care of 'indigent' patients ... such as Illegal Aliens.)
The State has not reserved these funds for the expressed purposes. Instead, it has included the funds in the "general fund", which could well be used (and has been) for 'any' purpose.
Now they want to impose a new tax to provide medical care for 'the children', who are generally supposed NOT to be 'tobacco users'.
A twenty-five cent pack of cigarettes now costs $4.40, because of the "Sin Taxes" added at the unilateral behest of Federal and State taxes.
Unanswered is the question: "What does Child Health Care have to do with adult Tobacco Users? If the concern is Child Health Care is at such a critical state, why should tobacco users foot the bill?"
What they aren't mentioning AT ALL:
The purpose of the bill isn't just another attempt to add another tax in Oregon. The State has attempted to add new tax revenue (including both Tobacco Taxes and a State Sales Tax ... Oregon is one of only TWO states which does not impose a Sales Tax on its citizens, and every time the legislature attempts to impose a Sales Tax it is voted down, and The State fulfills its threats by cutting back on Essential Services such as Police staffing).
No, Measure 50 doesn't JUST impose another tax. Instead, it proposes a constitutional amendment which would allow The State to impose a "Special Tax" on a consumer product.
Imagine, for comparison, a measure to enact a Constitutional Amendment to establish a tax on Mascara. This is a consumer product which is used only by a narrowly defined subset of the citizenry. Presumably, those who use excess mascara (harlots, professional models, actresses, Katherine Harris if she should move to Oregon) would only be affected and would be obliged to sacrifice for the benefit of another, unrelated minority.
Should we blithely accept this measure ... this constitutional amendment ... because the cost would only be borne by the 'unsavory element' of the voters?
This is the "Tyranny of the Majority", as John Stuart Mills defines it, at its worst.
More important, acceptance of this approach would impose a burden on a minority which is acceptable only because they are a minority.
Most important, it would lay the groundwork for other, even more egregious impositions on minority populations for the benefit of measures which are not generally accepted, and which have failed all other tests of the popular vote.
Fatuous, pernicious pusillanimous politicians. I detest them politically, and I detest their tactics both as a matter of personal and political preference.
Within the next week I will write to the local chapter of SEIU and require that they return all funds of my "Fair-Share" which are earmarked for political activism.
I have been acquiescent long enough.
What a bunch of Maroons!
Saturday, November 03, 2007
USPSA survey: Win a Shotgun!
USPSA recently emailed this survey to members:
The only problem is, the survey requires you to register by submitting your USPSA member number and your PIN.
PIN?
What the heck is my PIN?
Do you know what your USPSA PIN is? I don't. I've never had to enter my PIN for USPSA access before.
I know what my USPSA number is, and I know what the UID and password is to enter the MEMBERS area. (Come to think of it, I don't know this: it's in my PASSWORD area for Microsoft XP. But that doesn't work, either.)
Come on, USPSA. I guess you know what my PIN is, but I don't. Is it one of the magic numbers published in the Front Sight magazine? I can't even find the magazine, and you expect me to know my PIN?
I'm thinking, this is one survey that isn't going to get a lot of responses.
Dave, email me. Okay?
(What, you can't find my personal email address Dave? Okay, I feel your pain.)
UPDATE: November 4, 2007
Comment from Evil Bill:
I used the PIN I found on my Front Sight mailing label and was able to take and complete the survey.
I'll let you know how much I enjoy my new MOSSBERG shotgun as soon as they ship it to me. It may be a companion piece to the new MOSSBERG shotgun I bought in April.
Thanks, Evil Bill!
Pretty cool, eh?In 2005 USPSA conducted a member survey that helped the organization present an accurate profile of the practical shooter to the media, the firearms industry and USPSA partners and sponsors. The data gathered in 2005 was extremely valuable and response from the industry was excellent.
We are once again conducting a survey to measure the impact our members have on the firearms industry. This 2007 survey will allow us to track any trends and provide an updated profile of the USPSA member to dealers and manufacturers at the 2008 SHOT Show.
Please take a moment to complete this survey. The information you provide will be vital in our efforts to expand our sponsor base and build the sport. As a thank you for completing the survey, you will be entered in a drawing to win a brand new Mossberg shotgun. Although the survey will continue, the eligibility deadline for the Mossberg shotgun is 11/09/2007.
As with the last survey this online polling system gives USPSA the ability to collect data through a protected, anonymous online system. This system also ensures the integrity of the information by preventing individual members from filling it out more than once. It won’t tell us what you said on the questionnaire, only that you completed it. Your personal information will be protected, but USPSA will benefit from knowing more about our members.
We appreciate your participation and encourage you to act quickly to complete the survey in order to be eligible to win a brand new Mossberg shotgun.
The only problem is, the survey requires you to register by submitting your USPSA member number and your PIN.
PIN?
What the heck is my PIN?
Do you know what your USPSA PIN is? I don't. I've never had to enter my PIN for USPSA access before.
I know what my USPSA number is, and I know what the UID and password is to enter the MEMBERS area. (Come to think of it, I don't know this: it's in my PASSWORD area for Microsoft XP. But that doesn't work, either.)
Come on, USPSA. I guess you know what my PIN is, but I don't. Is it one of the magic numbers published in the Front Sight magazine? I can't even find the magazine, and you expect me to know my PIN?
I'm thinking, this is one survey that isn't going to get a lot of responses.
Dave, email me. Okay?
(What, you can't find my personal email address Dave? Okay, I feel your pain.)
UPDATE: November 4, 2007
Comment from Evil Bill:
Jerry---It's on your Front Sight mailing label.Once again, Evil Bill is right.
Look for PIN: followed by a string of seven numbers. Probably just to the right of your name.
I used the PIN I found on my Front Sight mailing label and was able to take and complete the survey.
I'll let you know how much I enjoy my new MOSSBERG shotgun as soon as they ship it to me. It may be a companion piece to the new MOSSBERG shotgun I bought in April.
Thanks, Evil Bill!
Meaningful Blogging Hiatus
I've had the flu for the past 4 weeks, SWMBO is recovering from major surgery, and neither of us have been to an IPSC match for over a month.
In the meantime, I'm running BlogMeat, Ugly Betty and "Plastic Greaves".
Can you see it's time for us to get back on the range?
I thought you could.
In the meantime, I'm running BlogMeat, Ugly Betty and "Plastic Greaves".
Can you see it's time for us to get back on the range?
I thought you could.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Ugly Betty
I never thought I would find myself linking to STYLE.COM ...
.. but here we are. Must be a slow news day, eh?
The thing is, I have from time to time found myself at SWMBO's house watching television, and actually enjoying Ugly Betty. I don't like their politics, don't like most of the people, but like millions of Americans I am totally charmed by Ugly Betty.
Imagine, then, my chagrin at learning that she 'cleans up good'.
(Click! Wait for it!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)