Not "Thanksgiving Day", but Thanks Giving Day.
This is the day when we give Thanks to our Creator for delivering us to our beautiful country.
This year, there are a number of articles being proliferated in America, describing how our traditional celebration is not what we had been brought up to believe it to be.
We are told that the native Americans ... the "Indians" ... did not participate.
Logically, we are told, why would they? Either the celebration was a "Family Celebration", and they were not among the families of 'the immigrants". Or else the festivities were to give thanks to a God which they ... the Indians ... did not recognize.
Logically, therefore, this was a Day of Sadness for the Indians.
After all, the Indians had been cheated out of their land, for a paltry $24 worth of trinkets.
We cannot definitively state (they say) that our traditions are truth. Therefore, it must be a lie, and as such should not be celebrated as a Day of Joy.
I say ... how paltry must be the appreciation of these nay-sayers, that they are so ready to deny their traditions; to make such a tawdry effort to besmirch this culture which is the envy of all the world.
I say .. how paltry must be their faith, that they cannot conceive an immigrant population which would include the native people in their joyful celebration at arriving in such a wonderful land.
I say ... how paltry must be their life, that they would rather find joy in undermining the traditions of a people who have lived in this land for over 200 years, instead of joining their people in the continuation the celebration of an act of Thanks Giving.
And I say ... I pity the fools.
______________________
A Pilgrim's Account from 1620 --- courtesy of the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Nanny State Hits Oregon University... with a Bang!
"Our Smoking University" (OSU) has proposed an initiative to ban ALL smoking on Campus.
This is just one more example of the many ways the Blue State which is Oregon has edged toward Liberal Nanny-Statism.
Earlier editions of this student newspaper have railed against the use of cardboard containers for take-out food, and the campus in the 1960's was an early hot-bed of activism for OSPIRG ... Ralph Nader's honey-child Oregon State Public Interest Research Group ... which later evolved into a Green Party political activist group.
While we applaud student activism, we can't help but wonder how older members of the OSU community can be expected to match the energy of the student body. While our priorities are not Styrofoam-oriented, the proposed campus-wide ban on smoking doesn't address indoor smoking, which is already long-established.
The proposed all-campus 'no smoking' ban applies to going outside of your work-place or classroom to smoke, or smoking while walking across the campus. Participants who smoke Clove cigarettes are included in the ban, so it is not merely a punitive measure against the Demon Tobacco (which is already locally forbidden in enclosed public areas such as bars, taverns and restaurants ... and which already has caused the locally popular venue "The Peacock Bar and Grill" to discontinue employment for half of its wait-staff.)
This extremely local measure (a college campus within a community) is cause for consternation only because it may affect student enrollment:
On the other hand, it was indicative of the state-wide trend toward demonizing smokers by sponsoring (most recently) a failed state constitutional amendment which would have imposed an excessive tax burden on Oregon Smokers to the supposed benefit of "the children" ... Measure 50 of the 2007 Ballot would have changed the state constitution for the sole purpose of imposing additional taxes on tobacco sales.
This measure was defeated by Oregonians who took exception to the concept of changing the constitution for the sake of adding taxes on a specific product ... never mind that it would have imposed those taxes on only 20% of the population for the benefit of an unrelated minor portion of the population. ALL taxes on Tobacco, Liquor and other obvious "Sin Tax' products are punitive.
The State Legislature is uncharacteristically candid about "Sin Taxes", because they seem to believe that the Electorate is with them in their drive to convince "Sinners" to reconcile their souls by yielding to governmental pressure. It never seems to occur to legislators that "Sinners" are a contrary bunch, and unlikely to yield to legislative pressure.
The ban on smoking would affected only a limited percentage of the population, and since it (the bill) addressed smoking out of doors they (the unidentified sponsors of the bill) can't be justified by a claim that it was intended to 'limit second-hand smoke".
"You are out of doors smoking a cigarette, the wind is blowing and it's raining ... where the hell is the smoke going?"
(Answer: nowhere!)
This is a purely punitive measure, intended to save smokers from themselves.
Does it serve any other purpose?
Why yes, it does ... but the defined purpose is insulting to the identified audience:
"The Benighted WOGs seem to think that they have a right to smoke out-of-doors, because no matter what second-hand-smoke issues may apply indoors, their primitive mind-set doesn't seem to appreciate that 'smoking out-of-doors' is still 'wrong' where second-hand smoke isn't an issue ."
We're here to teach them that it doesn't matter whether or not smoking affects their friends and neighbors; smoking is just WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
There you have it, folks. The Nanny State in Action.
And I have to live with these idiots!
This is just one more example of the many ways the Blue State which is Oregon has edged toward Liberal Nanny-Statism.
OSU's Student Health Advisory Board has launched the Fresh Air Initiative to assess how students and faculty will react to a new smoking policy on campus.This article appeared on the Front Page of the November 19, 2007 issue of the OSU Barometer directly adjacent to an article which condemned the use of Foam-Plastic containers (here, and earlier .. here) for take-out food.
The current procedure at OSU is a boundary policy, which entails non-smoking areas around certain buildings. The goal would be to make the entire campus a smoke-free environment.
Earlier editions of this student newspaper have railed against the use of cardboard containers for take-out food, and the campus in the 1960's was an early hot-bed of activism for OSPIRG ... Ralph Nader's honey-child Oregon State Public Interest Research Group ... which later evolved into a Green Party political activist group.
While we applaud student activism, we can't help but wonder how older members of the OSU community can be expected to match the energy of the student body. While our priorities are not Styrofoam-oriented, the proposed campus-wide ban on smoking doesn't address indoor smoking, which is already long-established.
The proposed all-campus 'no smoking' ban applies to going outside of your work-place or classroom to smoke, or smoking while walking across the campus. Participants who smoke Clove cigarettes are included in the ban, so it is not merely a punitive measure against the Demon Tobacco (which is already locally forbidden in enclosed public areas such as bars, taverns and restaurants ... and which already has caused the locally popular venue "The Peacock Bar and Grill" to discontinue employment for half of its wait-staff.)
This extremely local measure (a college campus within a community) is cause for consternation only because it may affect student enrollment:
The initiative, however, raises a concern that a smoke-free campus would affect the recruitment process and cause fewer students to attend OSU.The measure is reminiscent of the (passed) 1998 smoking ban, in which Corvallis was the first community in the state to restrict smoking in restaurants.
On the other hand, it was indicative of the state-wide trend toward demonizing smokers by sponsoring (most recently) a failed state constitutional amendment which would have imposed an excessive tax burden on Oregon Smokers to the supposed benefit of "the children" ... Measure 50 of the 2007 Ballot would have changed the state constitution for the sole purpose of imposing additional taxes on tobacco sales.
This measure was defeated by Oregonians who took exception to the concept of changing the constitution for the sake of adding taxes on a specific product ... never mind that it would have imposed those taxes on only 20% of the population for the benefit of an unrelated minor portion of the population. ALL taxes on Tobacco, Liquor and other obvious "Sin Tax' products are punitive.
The State Legislature is uncharacteristically candid about "Sin Taxes", because they seem to believe that the Electorate is with them in their drive to convince "Sinners" to reconcile their souls by yielding to governmental pressure. It never seems to occur to legislators that "Sinners" are a contrary bunch, and unlikely to yield to legislative pressure.
The ban on smoking would affected only a limited percentage of the population, and since it (the bill) addressed smoking out of doors they (the unidentified sponsors of the bill) can't be justified by a claim that it was intended to 'limit second-hand smoke".
"You are out of doors smoking a cigarette, the wind is blowing and it's raining ... where the hell is the smoke going?"
(Answer: nowhere!)
This is a purely punitive measure, intended to save smokers from themselves.
Does it serve any other purpose?
Why yes, it does ... but the defined purpose is insulting to the identified audience:
One major benefit of a smoke-free campus is an updated learning process for students - a reminder about the dangers associated with smoking.Translation:
"International students sometimes come from countries where it is encouraged to smoke," said Tina Withrow-Robinson, coordinator of special programs at OSU.
One of the goals of the smoke-free initiative is to educate international students about the dangers associated with smoking and second hand smoke.
"The Benighted WOGs seem to think that they have a right to smoke out-of-doors, because no matter what second-hand-smoke issues may apply indoors, their primitive mind-set doesn't seem to appreciate that 'smoking out-of-doors' is still 'wrong' where second-hand smoke isn't an issue ."
We're here to teach them that it doesn't matter whether or not smoking affects their friends and neighbors; smoking is just WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
(How many times, how many ways must we state this to get the message across? Never mind, we'll just make it illegal and can their ass if they choose to disagree with us! That'll show the uppity blackguards!)I am so sick of living in a Nanny State. Won't someone please help me elect an Republican Governor?
There you have it, folks. The Nanny State in Action.
And I have to live with these idiots!
SCOTUS and the 2nd Amendment
There has been a plethora of commentary across the Internet, recently, in reference the the Supreme Court's decision to judge the question (essentially) as to whether the 2nd Amendment acknowledges (not 'grants') the right of the individual to possess a firearm.
As Jim Shepherd says in "The Shooting Wire" (not a permanent link):
U.S. vs MILLER
In The United States vs Miller et al, the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas found:
No appearance for appellees.
Remember this, because it is important.
Here's the story behind the story:
Miller and Layton were 'moonshiners' (unlicensed distillers of untaxed spiritous liquors) whom the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) had been determined to catch and imprison because of their primary business ... making and selling Moonshine.
In 1938, Federal Agents ("Revenuers", or locally "revenoors") received word that they were distilling whiskey at a certain location, and raided the place. When they arrived, the Revenoors found a working / workable still, but no people were there and no direct evidence that Miller and Layton were involved was found.
However, the Revenoors found a sawed-off shotgun in a pickup, traced to Miller (or Layton), and in their frustration they brought charges against both parties for possession of an illegal weapon.
Specifically, they were charged with transporting a sawed-off shotgun ... not simple possession.
Note that Miller and Layton were not 'pillars of the community'. They (or at least Miller) were bank robbers, and probably guilty of other crimes.
Eventually, both Miller and Layton were charged in District court for the 'crime' of transporting a sawed-off shotgun.
Miller died (was murdered) before the trial started. Layton pleaded guilty, and disappeared.
When the trial was convened, Layton conveniently disappeared. He later re-appeared, and was imprisoned for the charges.
It's significant that neither defendant was present at the trial.
But the Federal attorneys were present.
They made the charge that the firearms was subject to taxation (in the same sense that a machine gun was/is subject), and that a sawed-off shotgun was not a firearm suitable to "the militia".
This argument completely ignored the "Trench Guns" (sawed off shotguns) which were commonly used by the U.S. Army in WWI. However, since there was no Defendant present, and no defending attorney, no contradicting argument was presented. Therefore, the judge (McReynolds) had no choice but to find for the plaintiff .. the United States of America ... which established their argument as a precedent for all future judgments concerning the Second Amendment.
This single uncontroversial (unopposed) argument has thus become the single precedent for ALL subsequent trials which consider the Second Amendment as a defense.
Historically, it has been a boon to district and federal courts, because it did establish a precedent by which any court can deny a citizen (honest or otherwise) the right to own a firearm ... under any circumstances which may freely be ignored by the courts as long as this precedence may be applied.
Essentially, the cited authority:
...
(Here is another reference to the legal documents pertaining to US vs MILLER)
...
US vs EMERSON:
A husband who is accused by his wife of 'threatening' can be deprived of firearms ownership based upon the unsubstantiated testimony (of his spouse) that he has made violent threats.
1999: see US vs Emerson from UMKC Law School:
In the end, Emerson lost his appeal. Thus it is that (essentially) a man seeking to buy a firearm must attest to the fact that he is under no restraining order from his spouse. A finding that this testament is untrue is not only grounds for denying the right to purchase a firearm; possession of a firearm is illegal when a man is found to have had a restraining order issued, even on on the sole testimony of his spouse.
(Further citations available from www.law.umkc, and jurist.law.pitt.edu)
This ruling is different from US vs MILLER in that (a) it has been incorporated into the forms which anyone must complete and sign before buying a firearm; and (b) it establishes a precedence for confiscating firearms which were legally obtained; and (c) may be activated solely by registration of a restraining order created by a spouse ... with no substantiating evidence, documentation or testimony. In other words, it may be based on hearsay.
Summary:
In today's litigious society, deprivation of 2nd Amendment rights may be based on bad case law, or on hearsay. The justification may be valid, but there is no legal standard by which the justification may be measured.
Were SCOTUS (The Supreme Court of the United States) to certify today that the 2nd Amendment specifically refers to an 'individual right', there is still no basis under which we may assume that these precedents will be overthrown.
CONCLUSION:
You are SO screwed!
As Jim Shepherd says in "The Shooting Wire" (not a permanent link):
The last "significant" ruling on the Second Amendment came in 1939 when the court ruled a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used in the militia.This incident is so frequently cited, I think it might be pertinent to describe the circumstances under which that decision was reached.
U.S. vs MILLER
In The United States vs Miller et al, the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas found:
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. [307 U.S. 174, 175] Mr. Gordon Dean, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
No appearance for appellees.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132d (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132c (June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.' 1 [307 U.S. 174, 176] A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' [307 U.S. 174, 177] The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.
Note the italicized comment at the beginning of the document:
No appearance for appellees.
Remember this, because it is important.
Here's the story behind the story:
Miller and Layton were 'moonshiners' (unlicensed distillers of untaxed spiritous liquors) whom the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) had been determined to catch and imprison because of their primary business ... making and selling Moonshine.
In 1938, Federal Agents ("Revenuers", or locally "revenoors") received word that they were distilling whiskey at a certain location, and raided the place. When they arrived, the Revenoors found a working / workable still, but no people were there and no direct evidence that Miller and Layton were involved was found.
However, the Revenoors found a sawed-off shotgun in a pickup, traced to Miller (or Layton), and in their frustration they brought charges against both parties for possession of an illegal weapon.
Specifically, they were charged with transporting a sawed-off shotgun ... not simple possession.
Note that Miller and Layton were not 'pillars of the community'. They (or at least Miller) were bank robbers, and probably guilty of other crimes.
Eventually, both Miller and Layton were charged in District court for the 'crime' of transporting a sawed-off shotgun.
Miller died (was murdered) before the trial started. Layton pleaded guilty, and disappeared.
When the trial was convened, Layton conveniently disappeared. He later re-appeared, and was imprisoned for the charges.
It's significant that neither defendant was present at the trial.
But the Federal attorneys were present.
They made the charge that the firearms was subject to taxation (in the same sense that a machine gun was/is subject), and that a sawed-off shotgun was not a firearm suitable to "the militia".
This argument completely ignored the "Trench Guns" (sawed off shotguns) which were commonly used by the U.S. Army in WWI. However, since there was no Defendant present, and no defending attorney, no contradicting argument was presented. Therefore, the judge (McReynolds) had no choice but to find for the plaintiff .. the United States of America ... which established their argument as a precedent for all future judgments concerning the Second Amendment.
This single uncontroversial (unopposed) argument has thus become the single precedent for ALL subsequent trials which consider the Second Amendment as a defense.
Historically, it has been a boon to district and federal courts, because it did establish a precedent by which any court can deny a citizen (honest or otherwise) the right to own a firearm ... under any circumstances which may freely be ignored by the courts as long as this precedence may be applied.
Essentially, the cited authority:
... said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132d (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132c (June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934... which MAY be interpreted as a simple 'taxation' offense, becomes in and of itself a felonious act which MAY be prosecuted civilly, and the consequences to the offender NOT being adjudicated as 'relieved' by the simple act of paying the tax plus a fine. Rather, imprisonment and confiscations have been the punishment for this act, and any act judged to be 'similar'.
...
(Here is another reference to the legal documents pertaining to US vs MILLER)
...
US vs EMERSON:
A husband who is accused by his wife of 'threatening' can be deprived of firearms ownership based upon the unsubstantiated testimony (of his spouse) that he has made violent threats.
1999: see US vs Emerson from UMKC Law School:
The ultimate decision is that the charged spouse is not permitted to possess a firearm, or to buy or to borrow a firearm.Defendant Timothy Joe Emerson ("Emerson") moves to dismiss the Indictment against him, claiming that the statute he is prosecuted under, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Emerson's Motion to Dismiss.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 1998, Emerson's wife, Sacha, filed a petition for divorce and application for a temporary restraining order in the 119th District Court of Tom Green County, Texas. The petition stated no factual basis for relief other than the necessary recitals required under the Texas Family Code regarding domicile, service of process, dates of marriage and separation, and the "insupportability" of the marriage. The application for a temporary restraining order--essentially a form order frequently used in Texas divorce procedure--sought to enjoin Emerson from engaging in various financial transactions to maintain the financial status quo and from making threatening communications or actual attacks upon his wife during the pendency of the divorce proceedings.
On September 4, 1998, the Honorable John E. Sutton held a hearing on Mrs. Emerson's application for a temporary restraining order. Mrs. Emerson was represented by an attorney at that hearing, and Mr. Emerson appeared pro se. Mrs. Emerson testified about her economic situation, her needs in the way of temporary spousal support and child support, and her desires regarding temporary conservatorship of their minor child.
During the hearing, Mrs. Emerson alleged that her husband threatened over the telephone to kill the man with whom Mrs. Emerson had been having an adulterous affair. However, no evidence was adduced concerning any acts of violence or threatened violence by Mr. Emerson against any member of his family, and the district court made no findings to that effect. Furthermore, the court did not admonish Mr. Emerson that if he granted the temporary restraining order, Mr. Emerson would be subject to federal criminal prosecution merely for possessing a firearm while being subject to the order. [ED: emphasis Added]
ANALYSIS
As stated above, Emerson was indicted for possession of a firearm while being under a restraining order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) ("the Act"). This statute states that:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(8) who is subject to a court order that--(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury . . . .
In the end, Emerson lost his appeal. Thus it is that (essentially) a man seeking to buy a firearm must attest to the fact that he is under no restraining order from his spouse. A finding that this testament is untrue is not only grounds for denying the right to purchase a firearm; possession of a firearm is illegal when a man is found to have had a restraining order issued, even on on the sole testimony of his spouse.
(Further citations available from www.law.umkc, and jurist.law.pitt.edu)
This ruling is different from US vs MILLER in that (a) it has been incorporated into the forms which anyone must complete and sign before buying a firearm; and (b) it establishes a precedence for confiscating firearms which were legally obtained; and (c) may be activated solely by registration of a restraining order created by a spouse ... with no substantiating evidence, documentation or testimony. In other words, it may be based on hearsay.
Summary:
In today's litigious society, deprivation of 2nd Amendment rights may be based on bad case law, or on hearsay. The justification may be valid, but there is no legal standard by which the justification may be measured.
Were SCOTUS (The Supreme Court of the United States) to certify today that the 2nd Amendment specifically refers to an 'individual right', there is still no basis under which we may assume that these precedents will be overthrown.
CONCLUSION:
You are SO screwed!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
High Hopes
You have probably heard by now that the SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) have decided to consider the question of whether local laws in Washington DC are a violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Many of us who are RKBA-minded about the decision of The Supremes: If they rule that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right, it opens all sorts of positive possibilities for private ownership and usage of firearms. But, if they rule that the community can ignore that interpretation, the decision (depending on how it is phrased) could conceivably CLOSE more doors than it opens.
Those who are determined to restrict private ownership and usage of firearms are similarly, if oppositely, agitated. What if, they postulate, the DC gun ban is stricken down at the federal level? Will we see gangsters openly sporting fully automatic weapons? Will the Gun Nuts be allowed to have grenade launchers, artillery and bombs?
We can only guess that the question will finally shake down somewhere in the middle, but there is no guarantee that the final outcome will be as universally acceptable as a 'consensus'. The Supremes don't typically do consensus. They're hired to make decisions. These kinds of decisions are never, every popular with everyone.
What now?
Now the question has become a hot-ticket item for politicians. Michael Bane points out that Rudy G. has jumped on the bandwagon. Rudy uses the issue to show how determined he is to encourage SCOTUS to interpret the constitution strictly 'by what it is'.
And Fred Thompson has chimed in with a deeply intrinsic appreciation for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Some people are less than completely confident that the final ruling will make much difference. Even if the 2nd amendment is completely confirmed as an 'individual right', recent state laws in California point the way by which the gun-banners can attack ... not your right to own firearms, but your ability to purchase them. Whether the laws are thinly disguised as a 'safety issue' or 'a way to help us solve crimes', we continue to rediscover that a determined liberal can invent new ways to suborn state legislators to undermine our constitutional freedoms.
A direct attack on the Constitution was only the first step, and it has served their cause for decades.
When that no longer works ... the liberals still have high hopes.
Many of us who are RKBA-minded about the decision of The Supremes: If they rule that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right, it opens all sorts of positive possibilities for private ownership and usage of firearms. But, if they rule that the community can ignore that interpretation, the decision (depending on how it is phrased) could conceivably CLOSE more doors than it opens.
Those who are determined to restrict private ownership and usage of firearms are similarly, if oppositely, agitated. What if, they postulate, the DC gun ban is stricken down at the federal level? Will we see gangsters openly sporting fully automatic weapons? Will the Gun Nuts be allowed to have grenade launchers, artillery and bombs?
We can only guess that the question will finally shake down somewhere in the middle, but there is no guarantee that the final outcome will be as universally acceptable as a 'consensus'. The Supremes don't typically do consensus. They're hired to make decisions. These kinds of decisions are never, every popular with everyone.
What now?
Now the question has become a hot-ticket item for politicians. Michael Bane points out that Rudy G. has jumped on the bandwagon. Rudy uses the issue to show how determined he is to encourage SCOTUS to interpret the constitution strictly 'by what it is'.
And Fred Thompson has chimed in with a deeply intrinsic appreciation for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Some people are less than completely confident that the final ruling will make much difference. Even if the 2nd amendment is completely confirmed as an 'individual right', recent state laws in California point the way by which the gun-banners can attack ... not your right to own firearms, but your ability to purchase them. Whether the laws are thinly disguised as a 'safety issue' or 'a way to help us solve crimes', we continue to rediscover that a determined liberal can invent new ways to suborn state legislators to undermine our constitutional freedoms.
A direct attack on the Constitution was only the first step, and it has served their cause for decades.
When that no longer works ... the liberals still have high hopes.
Monday, November 19, 2007
"Man Bites Dog!"
ABC News: Peeved Patron Plugs the Postman
In a 'new' twist, a postal patron is dissatisfied with the delivery service (apparently) and shoots the postman. Isn't this a lot like ... kill the messenger?
Thankfully, the postman did not die from his wounds, which must be the reason why ABC News feels free to treat the alliteratively titled news story with inappropriate flippancy.
Well, I've done much the same with my "Man Bites Dog" title, haven't I?
Still, it's odd to find a non-postal-carrier private citizen, as they say, 'going postal'.
I'm glad the (entirely innocent of any perceived failure to provide premium service, according to the Comments) USPS worker didn't die from his wounds. I can't imagine the agony he suffered from the wound in his thigh.
Let us pray for his complete recovery, and hope that the IDIOT who shot him is fond, prosecuted, and serves heavy time in the Big House.
And that all of his letters and Christmas Cards are lost in the mail.
Well, I think we can pretty much take that as a given consequence.
In a 'new' twist, a postal patron is dissatisfied with the delivery service (apparently) and shoots the postman. Isn't this a lot like ... kill the messenger?
Thankfully, the postman did not die from his wounds, which must be the reason why ABC News feels free to treat the alliteratively titled news story with inappropriate flippancy.
Well, I've done much the same with my "Man Bites Dog" title, haven't I?
Still, it's odd to find a non-postal-carrier private citizen, as they say, 'going postal'.
I'm glad the (entirely innocent of any perceived failure to provide premium service, according to the Comments) USPS worker didn't die from his wounds. I can't imagine the agony he suffered from the wound in his thigh.
Let us pray for his complete recovery, and hope that the IDIOT who shot him is fond, prosecuted, and serves heavy time in the Big House.
And that all of his letters and Christmas Cards are lost in the mail.
Well, I think we can pretty much take that as a given consequence.
Rainman
Yesterday (November 19, 2007) there was an IPSC match at Tri County Gun Club (TCGC) at Sherwood, Oregon.
SWMBO and I had originally planned to shoot the match, but Family Emergencies interrupted our plans ("Life Happens") and we spent that morning driving to Eugene, instead.
I admit, I wasn't terribly disappointed.
We have experienced some of our most difficult matches in November at TCGC. It's not the fault of the club, or the range ... it's the fault of Oregon!
If you remember the movie "Jeremiah Johnson", you may remember the line toward the end of the movie:
"March is a wet and muddy month. Some folks like it. Farmers, mostly." (said by Will Geer to Robert Redford.)
Well, in Oregon, November is a 'wet and muddy month' and nobody likes it very much; especially the folks who have to be outside and do things in the wet and the mud.
The weather in November and December is so inclement (read: nasty!) that the December match at TCGC is traditionally a "Concealed Carry" match ... which supports the tendency of IPSC competitors to show up with lots of warm clothing.
The November was not (as far as I know ... remember, I wasn't there) a Concealed Carry Match, but I know how hard it was raining where I was in Oregon, and I'm certain the weather was not much better in Sherwood, Oregon.
I'm often asked by friends and co-workers "What do you do when it's raining? Surely you don't go shooting as you do most of the year!" The truth is, IPSC matches in Oregon are poorly attended, mostly because of the cold and the wet. The difficulty in pasting bullet-holes on targets, the wind and the rain, the mud puddles found on the most 'advanced' gravel-surfaced bays ... all of these factors tend to make most of us think again at 7am whether we would rather go shooting, or stay home for the home-made Eggs Benedict with Mimosas, watching the telly and working the Sunday Crossword puzzle.
It is for this reason that I applaud the 25 hardy souls (sorry, match results not currently available ... it's rainy out here, you know) who actually showed up and packed steel back to the Conex storage at the end of the match. When they were cold, and wet, and tired ....
All of this is intended as an introduction to Trevor O., who provided some videos of what it's like to shoot an IPSC match in genuinely yucky weather.
Sorry, no music. This is the way it looks, this is how it feels. Pay close attention to standing ground water, and Trevor's t-shirt 'rain gear'. He's shooting a revolver this time, although he usually competes in Limited 10 Division. (Note: there were only 3 Open-Division shooter on this day.
Enjoy!
I'm liking it. I wasn't there, freezing my Personal Private Parts off and trying to tape soggy targets. (YouTube link here.)
There are some advantages to being a cranky old man. Mostly, you no longer feel obliged to prove that you are an Iron Man.
Or ... a RainMan!
SWMBO and I had originally planned to shoot the match, but Family Emergencies interrupted our plans ("Life Happens") and we spent that morning driving to Eugene, instead.
I admit, I wasn't terribly disappointed.
We have experienced some of our most difficult matches in November at TCGC. It's not the fault of the club, or the range ... it's the fault of Oregon!
If you remember the movie "Jeremiah Johnson", you may remember the line toward the end of the movie:
"March is a wet and muddy month. Some folks like it. Farmers, mostly." (said by Will Geer to Robert Redford.)
Well, in Oregon, November is a 'wet and muddy month' and nobody likes it very much; especially the folks who have to be outside and do things in the wet and the mud.
The weather in November and December is so inclement (read: nasty!) that the December match at TCGC is traditionally a "Concealed Carry" match ... which supports the tendency of IPSC competitors to show up with lots of warm clothing.
The November was not (as far as I know ... remember, I wasn't there) a Concealed Carry Match, but I know how hard it was raining where I was in Oregon, and I'm certain the weather was not much better in Sherwood, Oregon.
I'm often asked by friends and co-workers "What do you do when it's raining? Surely you don't go shooting as you do most of the year!" The truth is, IPSC matches in Oregon are poorly attended, mostly because of the cold and the wet. The difficulty in pasting bullet-holes on targets, the wind and the rain, the mud puddles found on the most 'advanced' gravel-surfaced bays ... all of these factors tend to make most of us think again at 7am whether we would rather go shooting, or stay home for the home-made Eggs Benedict with Mimosas, watching the telly and working the Sunday Crossword puzzle.
It is for this reason that I applaud the 25 hardy souls (sorry, match results not currently available ... it's rainy out here, you know) who actually showed up and packed steel back to the Conex storage at the end of the match. When they were cold, and wet, and tired ....
All of this is intended as an introduction to Trevor O., who provided some videos of what it's like to shoot an IPSC match in genuinely yucky weather.
Sorry, no music. This is the way it looks, this is how it feels. Pay close attention to standing ground water, and Trevor's t-shirt 'rain gear'. He's shooting a revolver this time, although he usually competes in Limited 10 Division. (Note: there were only 3 Open-Division shooter on this day.
Enjoy!
I'm liking it. I wasn't there, freezing my Personal Private Parts off and trying to tape soggy targets. (YouTube link here.)
There are some advantages to being a cranky old man. Mostly, you no longer feel obliged to prove that you are an Iron Man.
Or ... a RainMan!
Friday, November 16, 2007
"... your (FFL) licence will be revoked"
Due to my prior support of Red's Trading Post, I have been the recipient of several emails from owner Ryan Horsely.
Don't be confused by the stilted structure of that sentence. I fully support Horsely's objection to ATF abuses which may yet result in the inequitable revocation of his (his business's) Federal Firearms License.
The latest email from Horsely, however, reveals even more blatant excesses on the part of ATF (The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of The United States' Treasury Department.)
As a preface to the following email, and the embedded links, I have a few comments.
First: Jeanette Compton seems like a Janet Reno Wanna-Be. She has the autocratic attitude, the arrogance, even The Look down cold.
Second: the irony of the statement "I'm from the Government, I'm here to help you" can be no better illustrated. In other words, we couldn't make this up. It's too precious for words.
Third, in Horseley's first link there are two videos. The second is the same (if in a larger format) as the first. Choose which one you want to watch, the final words ... in regards to the close watch on FFL dealers NEED to have ....
Compton's speech is boringly presented, but she presents talking points which are chilling as she talks about, among other things, the roll of ATF Investigators. (Note: NOT ATF Agents.)
Here are a few excerpts, admittedly transcripted by an amateur:
(Most of her speech is a literal reading of the applicable regulations regarding the transfer of firearms. As if the FFL-holders in her audience don't deal with these regulations every business day.)
Under "Secure Gun Storage or Safety":
Compton's opening comment is true:
"I've been with the ATF for over 22 years .... It's time for me to retire"
Please, Lady. When you do retire, would you please take your boss "Maximum" Mike Sullivan with you? (Anyone endorseded by both John Kerry and Ted Kennedy can't be a friend of small business ... or the private citizen.) That would be the best way for you to protect the public ... from Sullivan's heavy-handed abuse of authority.
Don't be confused by the stilted structure of that sentence. I fully support Horsely's objection to ATF abuses which may yet result in the inequitable revocation of his (his business's) Federal Firearms License.
The latest email from Horsely, however, reveals even more blatant excesses on the part of ATF (The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of The United States' Treasury Department.)
As a preface to the following email, and the embedded links, I have a few comments.
First: Jeanette Compton seems like a Janet Reno Wanna-Be. She has the autocratic attitude, the arrogance, even The Look down cold.
Second: the irony of the statement "I'm from the Government, I'm here to help you" can be no better illustrated. In other words, we couldn't make this up. It's too precious for words.
Third, in Horseley's first link there are two videos. The second is the same (if in a larger format) as the first. Choose which one you want to watch, the final words ... in regards to the close watch on FFL dealers NEED to have ....
Compton's speech is boringly presented, but she presents talking points which are chilling as she talks about, among other things, the roll of ATF Investigators. (Note: NOT ATF Agents.)
Here are a few excerpts, admittedly transcripted by an amateur:
"The purpose of this seminar is to educate you, the Federal Firearms licenses ... on firearms laws and regulations as enforced by ATF ... (and) licensees responsibility in maintaining proper records and business practices that help prevent the acquisition of firearms by prohibited persons."
(Most of her speech is a literal reading of the applicable regulations regarding the transfer of firearms. As if the FFL-holders in her audience don't deal with these regulations every business day.)
Under "Secure Gun Storage or Safety":
"Licensees are required to have Secure Gun Storage or Safety Devices available at any place in which firearms are sold under the license to persons who are not licensee (subject to the exception that in any case in which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable because of theft, casualty loss, consumer sales, backorders from a manufacturer, or any other reason beyond the control of the licensee, the dealer shall not be considered to be in violation of the requirement to make available such a device.)She announces that "part of the mission (of the ATF) is protecting the public."
"There is an exception, if (they're) temporarily unavailable because of a theft, or casualty loss, or consumer sales, or backorders from manufacturers, then we won't consider that a violation."
"We note that the secretary ... after the opportunity for a hearing ... we will revoke the license of a dealer who willfully violates the requirement to have secure gun storage or safety devices available at any place at which firearms are sold.
"I have been given the authority to revoke licenses. So if I determine that it was willful, then your license will be revoked."
Compton's opening comment is true:
"I've been with the ATF for over 22 years .... It's time for me to retire"
Please, Lady. When you do retire, would you please take your boss "Maximum" Mike Sullivan with you? (Anyone endorseded by both John Kerry and Ted Kennedy can't be a friend of small business ... or the private citizen.) That would be the best way for you to protect the public ... from Sullivan's heavy-handed abuse of authority.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
BLOGMEAT! Volume III, No. 11
"Geeks Surf The Net So Americans Don't Have To ..."
Happy Birthday!
Tomorrow is my sister's birthday. She'll be (mumble mumble mumble) years old. Hint: she's 5 years older than me, and I love her dearly ... if only because I always have "I'd like you to meet my MUCH older sister" to hold over her head.
I doubt that she will be enchanted to learn that her birthday is about to be shared by a cartoon character, but hey! I think it's funny.
Terrorism, American Style
The fallout from the 'right to assemble' protests at the Olympia, Washington, port protests SHOULD be over now that all of the military equipment has been sent on its way to Fort Lewis.
(Note: That's right, the military equipment was not being sent to Iraq; this is military equipment which has been returned from Iraq. Why these idiots are protesting 'returning' equipment we may never know.)
However, the breaking news is that the extremes to which these "protesters for Peace" have gone in their bid to disrupt lawful activities may result in real penalties.
One female protester went so far as to use her children as 'human shields'. It worked, because no decent person would scoop them up for fear that the children would be harmed. As it turns out, this neo-hippie Earth Mother was so distracted by the Victory Dance when the cops chose to leave their "And A Little Child Shall Lead Them" human barricade, she ... dropped her toddler son on his head. In the gutter.
[sigh] And another Liberal shall arise, which should be the final convincing argument in the "Nature or Nurture" argument.
(H/T: Sondra K)
A Thing of Beauty is a Joy Forever
Kim chimes in with this article about a college Physics student who takes a bevy of friend to the range.
He got some great photos in there, too, including a young lady shooting a suppressed 10/22 at sunset (apparently they just kept shooting until they ran out of either light, or ammunition ... whichever comes first; this philosophy has always worked well for me.)
Unfortunately, there was one photo showing a nubile nimrod who managed to break not one, but TWO rules of gun-handling safety.
- It is always not a good idea to stick the muzzle up your nostril;
- Keep your booger-hook off the bang-switch.
Lessons learned here:
(1) When introducing tyros to guns, it is best to have at least one experienced and safety-minded shooter watching each tyro every time they get near a gun.Who are you ... really?
(2) Those 'safety officers' should have no other duties (eg: taking photographs) than watching for unsafe gun-handling ... and stopping it when it invariably happens.
(3) Nobody wants to dampen the enthusiasm of brand new shooters, but they WILL do something scary. Expect it. Watch for it. Stop it.
(4) Remember, if you brung 'em, you're responsible for 'em. Don't let them shoot their noses off. They'll thank you for it ... and if they don't, they are among those who should be protected by not encouraging them to go shooting with you next weekend.
The wonderful Lawdog contributes a link to a test designed to answer the question: "If you were a character in DiskWorld, who would you be?"
He (Lawdog) bravely announces that he is Samuel Vines, the notational 'hero' of Morpork.
To my absolute and total surprise, I got the same rating, but only just barely squeaking past the dubious distinction of being Lord Havilock Vetinari.
I am not amused. I have always thought that Vetinari was the real Thrilla from Manilla. On the other hand, I was worlds away ... so to speak ... from being type-cast as "Rincewind" (the Geeky Wizard). Well, now I'm twice disappointed.
I suspect that the questions which doomed me to comparison with a comic/action hero were "can you tell where you are by the feel of the road under your feet" and "do you like drinking". But on the other hand, maybe I'm just paranoid ... well, there you go again. Maybe I AM Vines.
What's that? You say "What the F are you talking about, Geek!" Is it possible that you are not acquainted with (dare I say, 'familiar with' DiskWorld?
Oh, bother.
Just check it out on Amazon.com (or any link that you find when you google "diskworld" except the clearly out-of-touch Wikipedia link), and write down the names of the books. No, on second thought, just write down the name of the genius who invented it: Terry Pratchett.
Then hie yourself off to your friendly neighborhood used book store and buy one of every Pratchett book you find there. Don't worry, there will be few -- folks who read Pratchett usually keep their book copies to read again. Certainly, don't buy just one because you'll just be back next week to buy the rest. Save yourself the trip.
You'll soon find yourself haunting bookstores, ordering from Amazon and Barnes&Nobel because Pratchett is one of the very few authors who can write a lot of books aiming for comedy ... and actually achieves it. First time, every time. (The only other author who can match this bizarre standard is Donald Westlake.)
Who are you ... Really? (Part Deux)
The London Daily Mail (file this under "The Brits!" has announced that the British Government has ...
... unveiled plans to take up to 53 pieces of information from anyone entering or leaving Britain.Not exactly "proposed", not even "tabled" and certainly not "enacted" ... but "unveiled" plans to impose thisFor every journey, security officials will want credit card details, holiday contact numbers, travel plans, email addresses, car numbers and even any previous missed flights.
The plan, apparently, is that when you are required to tell the government (for example) where you are going, who you plan to stay with, and the contact information of your hosts .. why, if you (sometime in the future) 'act up, badly' the Gov will know not only all about you, but about your pals and what they are up to, too!
Well, we're all honest persons, right? Why would we object to providing this information to our Nanny-State? It's obviously vital information in The War Against Terrorism.
Stepping out of the 'sarcasm mode' for just a moment, I must admit that I've been very accepting of 'security measures' enacted in the U.S. since 9/11.
The trouble is, who knows how far it will go? How intrusive it may become, how likely it may be to bite us in the posterior at a future date?
The Geek Rule Of Thumb is: Watch The Brits. If there's any 'security measure' which might be enacted by a Nation to the detriment of its citizenry, The Brits Will Lead The Way.
Not to say I have an opinion here, or would wish to impose it upon you. But if I had an opinion, it would probably be something along the lines of ...
What a bunch a Maroons!
.
Join Me! We're the ATF!
Red's Trading Post: ATF Recruitment Video
(H/T "Red's Trading Post")
Here's an ATF Recruiting Video, courtesy Ryan Horseley of Red's Trading Post.
Qctually, there are three movies shown on this page.
The first is the ATF recruiting video. I'm sorry, I know it sounds crude to say it, but I think the most telling image here (it's from ATF, for goodness sake!) is the group of ATF agents standing before the rubble of The Twin Towers, scratching their heads in bewilderment. The only element missing is the balloon caption asking"WTF?????"
The second video on the webpage is pretty much a recap of the first. I admit, I didn't play the whole six+ minute version. If I was a FFL holder, the ATF would probably bring charges against me for insufficient documentation.
The third video is apparently from "The Gang Movie", a documentary critical of the ATF (with special emphasis on the massacre at WACO.)
Isn't it a darn shame, when a governmental agency ... OUR government, America's Government ... so lends itself to the criticism of its citizens?
Maybe, just maybe, the world wouldn't have come to this state if the ATF and associated Governmental Agencies (eg: FBI) hadn't found themselves in a position where the only viable recourse was to slaughter American civilians who had not been accused of Capital Crimes (Ruby Ridge, Waco).
The situation hasn't noticeably improved under a New Administration.
I weep for my country.
(H/T "Red's Trading Post")
Here's an ATF Recruiting Video, courtesy Ryan Horseley of Red's Trading Post.
Qctually, there are three movies shown on this page.
The first is the ATF recruiting video. I'm sorry, I know it sounds crude to say it, but I think the most telling image here (it's from ATF, for goodness sake!) is the group of ATF agents standing before the rubble of The Twin Towers, scratching their heads in bewilderment. The only element missing is the balloon caption asking"WTF?????"
The second video on the webpage is pretty much a recap of the first. I admit, I didn't play the whole six+ minute version. If I was a FFL holder, the ATF would probably bring charges against me for insufficient documentation.
The third video is apparently from "The Gang Movie", a documentary critical of the ATF (with special emphasis on the massacre at WACO.)
Isn't it a darn shame, when a governmental agency ... OUR government, America's Government ... so lends itself to the criticism of its citizens?
Maybe, just maybe, the world wouldn't have come to this state if the ATF and associated Governmental Agencies (eg: FBI) hadn't found themselves in a position where the only viable recourse was to slaughter American civilians who had not been accused of Capital Crimes (Ruby Ridge, Waco).
The situation hasn't noticeably improved under a New Administration.
I weep for my country.
CZ Extreme Euro Open website
CZ Extreme Euro Open website -
I received an invitation to register for the "Extreme Euro" match in June.
I have no idea what this is about (insufficient English on the invite), but a week-long presumably) IPSC match with 550 rounds sounds ... interesting
I received an invitation to register for the "Extreme Euro" match in June.
I have no idea what this is about (insufficient English on the invite), but a week-long presumably) IPSC match with 550 rounds sounds ... interesting
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
She's B-A-A-A-A-ACK!
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)