Opposing Views: NEWS:Crazy End to HS Football Game; Now Bad Sportsmanship?
High school football, Michigan, Homecoming Game. With 0.08 seconds left to play, the home team in possession of the ball and down one point at 28-27, they elected to go for the field goal.
The kick is blocked, everybody is cheering for the presumed winner, the favored Visitor team, when the home coach realizes that the ball has not passed the line of scrimmage; the ball is still in play.
The ... what do they call the guy who holds the ball for the kicker? ... anyway, #87 has already reached down and picked up the ball when he hears his coach SCREAMING from the sidelines. The visiting team is already streaming off the field, so he tucks the ball against his body and sprints across the goal line.
Touchdown. The home team wins, 28-33.
Then come the recriminations.
That's the short version of the story. Click the "Opposing Views" link and read the whole thing. Oh, and be sure to read the comments.
And I still don't like football. I just enjoy other peoples' chaos.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
El Presidente - The Hard Way
A five-shot snubby at an IPSC match? Well ...
... perhaps not the most competitive choice, but at least it's "Revolver Reliable".
Congratulations to "Mikey Scribbles" for boldly going where no man has gone before. And shouldn't.
H/T: Yawn
... perhaps not the most competitive choice, but at least it's "Revolver Reliable".
Congratulations to "Mikey Scribbles" for boldly going where no man has gone before. And shouldn't.
H/T: Yawn
Fat Pride
Opposing Views: NEWS:Should Fat People Be Protected Under Hate Crime Laws?
This article helps fill my Equal Opportunity Blogging quota in three areas:
I've coined the phrase "Fat-Ism" (fatism?) to loosely address the sin of discriminating against people because they are fat. I don't want to make it sound as if I'm singling out Fat People, if only because I don't want to be charged with a Hate Crime in case I ever visit England or San Francisco. Yes, I am actually talking about Fat People, but my guess is that it soon will be the 21's Century's "N-Word". And I'm not willing to say "Obese" because I've already got an "O-word.
But The Brits are all up in arms ... which is a neutered term in Great Britain, since they are no longer permitted arms ... because they think that Fat-ism is as bad as Racism and Genderism and Ageism and all the other dash-isms describing folks who think they're special because they're different from everybody else.
The Opposing Views article talks about, if you can believe this, the "Size Acceptance Movement".
Geez, what will they think of next.
This is beginning to remind me of Monty Python and the "Silly Walks". Twenty years ago it was funny; today, it is actionable. I do believe that the sun has begun to set on the British Empire.
BUT:
the article also quotes another interviewed person:
... and you know, that sort of sounds familiar. I recall grade school (shudder!) and the kid they called "Stinky" and threw dirt clods at during recess, because his/her family was trying to survive with an alcoholic mother and father and the seven siblings didn't have much chance at the cold-water shower, or clean clothes. They were lucky to have two sets of clothes, and laundry was not a common option. But we hated them because they smelled bad, and anyone who had the seat next to them was teased because they were said to "love Stinky Alphreda Cleveland" (true story).
I remember a "Fatty", whose mother always made sure that they were as well-fed as she, and she was indeed very well fed. Biscuits and potatoes and gravy, oh my! And that was just breakfast.
And I remember the skinny kid in Junior High School, who won the annual competition for First Chair in the Tuba Section ("Double-E-Flat Sousaphone) and got beat up by the other to Fat Kids who could carry the weight in a parade, but never practiced as the skinny kid did.
(I was "the skinny kid", but no more. Bet I still couldn't beat up the Fat Kids, though.)
Sorry, bit of a Senior Moment there, what?
Anyway, it's true that children can be unbelievably cruel, especially to kids that are different from everybody else.
I have to accept that The Brits, and even San Francisco have a point: people are discriminated against because they are ... well, Fat. It isn't as obvious or as prevalent in the adult population as it is among children, but it's still there.
The thing is, it really isn't reasonable to discriminate against people for their race. Even if you think some races are lesser than others (Racism), it's unreasonable to take it out on the individual. After all, they didn't choose their parents any more than you did, and if your attitude against people of other races is the hand-me-down bigotry of one generation to its children, you probably didn't do a very good job of choosing your parents either, now did you?
When you get into the non-gene-based bigotry, then it gets rather messy. People who hold an instinctive bias against Homosexuals, for example, are often heard saying "Well, they could just change their behavior, couldn't they?" It's a slippery slope, which goes even harder against people who Body Mass Index (BMI) is higher than, say, yours. (Before you speak, visit that last link and see how far from the 'norm' you are. Then think about it.)
It's easy to say "well, they could just eat less and exercise more, couldn't they?"
Easy to say isn't easy to do, usually. There's a lot involved here, including genes, family history ("... mother always made sure that they were as well-fed as she ...") and self-image just to name a few.
If you're not already in that place, put yourself in that place for a while. We're the product of our genes (nature) and our up-bringing (nurture). All of us. If you're an Adonis or an Aphrodite, you probably had a lot of luck in both life-lotteries. You probably also have worked hard to maintain your temple-like body. Good for you, and I do envy you for your self-discipline.
I work with a fellow, and also a lady, who both have a BMI far higher than mine. They are absolutely excellent at their jobs ... both technical. Think about it: you may be able to do one-handed push-ups (yes, I have been re-reading Robert B. Parker's "Spenser" series), but can you de-bug an SQR program or define a computer application from the point of view of the user of that application?
For that matter, I know an IPSC shooter who outweighs me by a hundred pounds, and he's a gentle friend who typically out-shoots me on even the run-and-gun field courses.
I don't buy into the "Inside every Fat Person, there's a Skinny Person crying to be let out" philosophy. But I do believe that when we judge people by appearances, or by how closely their life-style matches ours, we diminish ourselves unconsciously much more than we diminish them meanly.
Both Sides Now:
Having looked at "Fat-ism" from every aspect, I still don't think that it's a reasonable solution to make "Fat-ism" a Hate Crime.
Why?
Because I believe that the entire concept of "Hate Crimes" is hateful. It's too easy to go overboard, to live life by The Rules rather than a realistic attitude toward life and behavior. It's like comparing Digital to Analogue. Digital gives us the Internet; Analogue gives us Van Gogh. I trust that's self-explanatory, and if it's not you must be a Digital person who is patently guilty of Analogue-ism.
See how silly that sounds?
...
I leave you with one more thought.
San Francisco (Open up that Golden Gate) has already passed some Fat-ism legislation. Brrrr ... the mere act of using "San Francisco" and "legislation" in the same sentence makes my teeth ache and my manhood shrivel.
This from the cited article:
When San Francisco passes a law that disallows my physician to nag me to stop smoking, I may begin to feel some respect for them. (I would ignore the good advice, of course, as I always do.) Other than that, this is just one more excellent example illustrating that the Nanny Statism that is San Francisco is similar to the mindless predatory actions of a rabid skunk.
It (the culture and administration of San Francisco) smells bad enough even when it's healthy. When it gets sick, the only effective remedy is to put it down, then cut off it's head so the veterinarian can examine what's left of its brain to determine whether, if you've been bitten by it, you need to take that painful series of anti-rabies shots.
Brrrrrr!
This article helps fill my Equal Opportunity Blogging quota in three areas:
- Cite Opposing Views while they do all the work of actually researching the subject
- Sneer at Hate Crimes and other versions of Nanny Statism
- Hold The Brits up to public ridicule
I've coined the phrase "Fat-Ism" (fatism?) to loosely address the sin of discriminating against people because they are fat. I don't want to make it sound as if I'm singling out Fat People, if only because I don't want to be charged with a Hate Crime in case I ever visit England or San Francisco. Yes, I am actually talking about Fat People, but my guess is that it soon will be the 21's Century's "N-Word". And I'm not willing to say "Obese" because I've already got an "O-word.
But The Brits are all up in arms ... which is a neutered term in Great Britain, since they are no longer permitted arms ... because they think that Fat-ism is as bad as Racism and Genderism and Ageism and all the other dash-isms describing folks who think they're special because they're different from everybody else.
The Opposing Views article talks about, if you can believe this, the "Size Acceptance Movement".
Geez, what will they think of next.
Back in London, members of the Size Acceptance Movement said they constantly face discrimination because of their waistlines. Kathryn Szrodecki said that in the UK fat people are stared at, pointed at, talked about and attacked. "I have been discriminated against - I am a YMCA qualified fitness instructor, but I have gone for jobs and been laughed off the premises."If you purport to be a teacher of grammar and you demonstrably cannot parse a sentence, nobody will accept you as a believable expert grammarian, either. Should we establish a League of Incomprehensible Grammarians for your defense?
This is beginning to remind me of Monty Python and the "Silly Walks". Twenty years ago it was funny; today, it is actionable. I do believe that the sun has begun to set on the British Empire.
BUT:
the article also quotes another interviewed person:
Marsha Coupe said. "I have been punched, I have had beer thrown in my face, I have had people attack me on the train. They say 'Move out of the way fatty! Well person coming down the aisle!'"
... and you know, that sort of sounds familiar. I recall grade school (shudder!) and the kid they called "Stinky" and threw dirt clods at during recess, because his/her family was trying to survive with an alcoholic mother and father and the seven siblings didn't have much chance at the cold-water shower, or clean clothes. They were lucky to have two sets of clothes, and laundry was not a common option. But we hated them because they smelled bad, and anyone who had the seat next to them was teased because they were said to "love Stinky Alphreda Cleveland" (true story).
I remember a "Fatty", whose mother always made sure that they were as well-fed as she, and she was indeed very well fed. Biscuits and potatoes and gravy, oh my! And that was just breakfast.
And I remember the skinny kid in Junior High School, who won the annual competition for First Chair in the Tuba Section ("Double-E-Flat Sousaphone) and got beat up by the other to Fat Kids who could carry the weight in a parade, but never practiced as the skinny kid did.
(I was "the skinny kid", but no more. Bet I still couldn't beat up the Fat Kids, though.)
Sorry, bit of a Senior Moment there, what?
Anyway, it's true that children can be unbelievably cruel, especially to kids that are different from everybody else.
I have to accept that The Brits, and even San Francisco have a point: people are discriminated against because they are ... well, Fat. It isn't as obvious or as prevalent in the adult population as it is among children, but it's still there.
The thing is, it really isn't reasonable to discriminate against people for their race. Even if you think some races are lesser than others (Racism), it's unreasonable to take it out on the individual. After all, they didn't choose their parents any more than you did, and if your attitude against people of other races is the hand-me-down bigotry of one generation to its children, you probably didn't do a very good job of choosing your parents either, now did you?
When you get into the non-gene-based bigotry, then it gets rather messy. People who hold an instinctive bias against Homosexuals, for example, are often heard saying "Well, they could just change their behavior, couldn't they?" It's a slippery slope, which goes even harder against people who Body Mass Index (BMI) is higher than, say, yours. (Before you speak, visit that last link and see how far from the 'norm' you are. Then think about it.)
It's easy to say "well, they could just eat less and exercise more, couldn't they?"
Easy to say isn't easy to do, usually. There's a lot involved here, including genes, family history ("... mother always made sure that they were as well-fed as she ...") and self-image just to name a few.
If you're not already in that place, put yourself in that place for a while. We're the product of our genes (nature) and our up-bringing (nurture). All of us. If you're an Adonis or an Aphrodite, you probably had a lot of luck in both life-lotteries. You probably also have worked hard to maintain your temple-like body. Good for you, and I do envy you for your self-discipline.
I work with a fellow, and also a lady, who both have a BMI far higher than mine. They are absolutely excellent at their jobs ... both technical. Think about it: you may be able to do one-handed push-ups (yes, I have been re-reading Robert B. Parker's "Spenser" series), but can you de-bug an SQR program or define a computer application from the point of view of the user of that application?
For that matter, I know an IPSC shooter who outweighs me by a hundred pounds, and he's a gentle friend who typically out-shoots me on even the run-and-gun field courses.
I don't buy into the "Inside every Fat Person, there's a Skinny Person crying to be let out" philosophy. But I do believe that when we judge people by appearances, or by how closely their life-style matches ours, we diminish ourselves unconsciously much more than we diminish them meanly.
Both Sides Now:
Having looked at "Fat-ism" from every aspect, I still don't think that it's a reasonable solution to make "Fat-ism" a Hate Crime.
Why?
Because I believe that the entire concept of "Hate Crimes" is hateful. It's too easy to go overboard, to live life by The Rules rather than a realistic attitude toward life and behavior. It's like comparing Digital to Analogue. Digital gives us the Internet; Analogue gives us Van Gogh. I trust that's self-explanatory, and if it's not you must be a Digital person who is patently guilty of Analogue-ism.
See how silly that sounds?
...
I leave you with one more thought.
San Francisco (Open up that Golden Gate) has already passed some Fat-ism legislation. Brrrr ... the mere act of using "San Francisco" and "legislation" in the same sentence makes my teeth ache and my manhood shrivel.
This from the cited article:
... where a law bans so called "fat-ism" in housing and employment. It also stops doctors from pressing patients to slim down.Oh, okay. So I didn't invent the term "Fat-ism" after all. Whew! That's good, I feel no more need for shame.
San Francisco lawyer Sondra Solway told BBC News, "The San Francisco ordinance says you may want to mention weight to the patient but if the patient says they do not want to talk about that then you are asked to respect those wishes."
When San Francisco passes a law that disallows my physician to nag me to stop smoking, I may begin to feel some respect for them. (I would ignore the good advice, of course, as I always do.) Other than that, this is just one more excellent example illustrating that the Nanny Statism that is San Francisco is similar to the mindless predatory actions of a rabid skunk.
It (the culture and administration of San Francisco) smells bad enough even when it's healthy. When it gets sick, the only effective remedy is to put it down, then cut off it's head so the veterinarian can examine what's left of its brain to determine whether, if you've been bitten by it, you need to take that painful series of anti-rabies shots.
Brrrrrr!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Soldier dies after receiving smoker's lungs in transplant - CNN.com
Soldier dies after receiving smoker's lungs in transplant - CNN.com
In this case, the Iraq War Veteran "...was serving in Iraq in 2005 when he was diagnosed with an incurable condition that left him unable to breathe."
So he was put on the waiting list, and they eventually came up with a pair of replacement lungs, but they didn't tell him that the lungs they had came from a 2-1/2 packs per day smoker.
Less than a year later, he developed Lung Cancer and died as a result of his wounds ... delivered by a 'grateful NHS.
This is just more example of the reasons why Socialized Medicine is Not A Good Idea. The entire program is supported by The State, and when the money runs out it's Hobbson's Choice for you, my lad. "This is what we have; take it, or leave it."
A leading UK hospital has defended its practice of using organs donated by smokers after the death of a soldier who received the cancerous lungs of a heavy smoker.Apparently, organ donations are not fully screened in the United Kingdom due to minimal funding under the National Health System (NHS).
Corporal Matthew Millington, 31, died at his home in 2008, less than a year after receiving a transplant that was supposed to save his life at Papworth Hospital -- the UK's largest specialist cardiothoracic hospital, in Cambridgeshire, east England.
Papworth Hospital released a statement saying using donor lungs from smokers was not "unusual."
The statement added that the hospital had no option but to use lungs from smokers as "the number of lung transplants carried out would have been significantly lower," if they didn't.
In this case, the Iraq War Veteran "...was serving in Iraq in 2005 when he was diagnosed with an incurable condition that left him unable to breathe."
So he was put on the waiting list, and they eventually came up with a pair of replacement lungs, but they didn't tell him that the lungs they had came from a 2-1/2 packs per day smoker.
Less than a year later, he developed Lung Cancer and died as a result of his wounds ... delivered by a 'grateful NHS.
This is just more example of the reasons why Socialized Medicine is Not A Good Idea. The entire program is supported by The State, and when the money runs out it's Hobbson's Choice for you, my lad. "This is what we have; take it, or leave it."
He was told he required a transplant and in April 2007 received a double lung transplant at Papworth Hospital.
Less than a year later, doctors discovered a tumor in the new lungs. Despite radiotherapy, Millington died on February 8, 2008, at his family home near Stoke-on-Trent, in Staffordshire.The inquest found a radiologist failed to highlight the growth of a cancerous tumor on the donor lungs.
Tests found that he had received the lungs of a donor who smoked up to 50 cigarettes a day, the inquest at North Staffordshire coroner's court heard.
[Emphasis Added] One wonders why this "cancerous tumor" was not found on the donor lungs before they were transplanted.
The answer is obvious: they didn't perform the necessary tests before the transplant, and the most obvious reason is that the NHS was reluctant to perform the necessary tests. Forget the obvious lies which blame it on a radiologist. Trust me, if you have lung cancer it CAN be detected by a CT scan.
This evening I talked to SWMBO, who was diagnosed with Lung Cancer 15 months ago. Today she was scheduled for another CT scan, and informed by her insurance carrier that she would be personally responsible for about 10% of the cost of the CT scan ... which costs a total of $3,250 - $4,500.
She was nonplussed about the fact that, although she pays $600/month for insurance, she would be required to pay $350 - $450 for the CT scan. As she is unable to work, and lives on her pension, she was unhappy with the news.
Evil Private Medical Insurance Bastards!
Under NHS, Corporal Matthew Millington was not required to co-pay for the CT scan which would have detected the tumor in his replacement lungs. Under the circumstances, I suspect that almost anyone would argue that it was a necessary pre-condition to accepting a pair of lungs that a CT scan be performed. Since the article did not mention it, and because the test is definitive and WOULD have detected a tumor, it seems safe to conclude that a CT scan of the donor lungs was not performed prior to them being transplanted in the body of a young, otherwise healthy veteran.
But the choice was not offered to the veteran recipient. He probably was not even aware that the most definitive (albeit expensive) examination of the transplant organs had not been performed.
Instead, NHS rolled the dice for him and ... oh darn. Sorry, but we put a smoker's lungs into your body without thoroughly testing them and I'm afraid we put a cancer in there as well. But I'm sure you understand that we had no way of knowing about the tumor, because we really couldn't afford to make the tests. Stiff upper lip, Old Boy, and all that.
Now we in America are pondering whether to invoke Socialized Medicine upon our populace.
Perhaps it would be better to just cut our own throats and save ourselves the pain and discomfort of Bandages-On-A-Budget.
Evil Socialized Medicine Bastards!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Arnie Signs AB 962
Earlier this week, California's Governor Arnold "The Barbarian In Name Only" Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law. Nothing new there, but the bill defines some reasonable restrictions on buying ammunition in California.
For ammunition purchaser in California, AB 962 means that every time you buy ammunition you have to present ID, fill out a form, and leave your thumbprint on the form. (Search here for "AB 962" to read the full final text of the bill, including the history, voting and status.)
Surprisingly, the Canada Free Press published a condemnatory (aka: opposed to bill on civil rights grounds) article on behalf of the NRA, which laudes Arnie for vetoing Senate Bill 585, which would have prohibited fire-arms sales in the Cow Palace. This was obviously nothing less than a direct assault on Gun Shows.
But when it came to AB 962, Arnie Blinked:
It registers nothing more than the purchasers of ammunition.
What's so bad about that? Oh, of course it implies that anyone who buys, say 9mm ammunition probably owns a 9mm firearm. In that caliber, it's probably a handgun. But anyone who purchases .22 ammunition may own either a handgun or a rifle. On the other hand, buying 5.56 ammunition suggests that the purchaser owns an AR type rifle. Buying in large quantities? You own an AR, and you shoot it a LOT.
Is that important information? Maybe. Maybe the sponsors of this bill actually fooled some folks with the descriptive text of the bill, which includes this verbiage:
Strangely, there are no provisions for identifying "... a person enjoined from engaging in activity associated with a criminal street gang...", so what is a purveyor of ammunition to do, in order to abide by the stated purpose of this bill?
The actual text of this bill describes the dealer as "... a person who knows, or reasonably should know, is a person described in [various section of law, including those defining 'street gangs'] ..."
Note: no definition of "reasonably should know".
Does this sound a little vague to you? Does it put the burden on the dealer to know the un-knowable, rather than to put the burden on the Government, which has enacted this law, to provide a legal description and procedures which are reasonable to follow in order to accommodate this law? Does it strike you as generally unconstitutional?
Yeah, me to.
California Assembly GOP Leader Sam Blakeslee seems to feel the same way, as evidenced in "The Blakeslee Memo" as published in an October 14, 2009, article in "Capital Weekly: the newspaper of California Government and Politics":
On October 14, 2009, another article describes the ramifications of the bill more fully.
According to this interpretation:
Well, maybe, in a sense. But that's not the most important issue here.
The most important issue is that it continues the recent trend toward stigmatizing firearms owners.
There was a time when anybody could own a gun. That was eventually attenuated by including the proviso that convicted felons, small children, and the certifiably insane should be prevented from owning guns. This is not, I must say, an unreasonable safeguard. If you are constitutionally or proven to be unable to safely own a weapon, then you shouldn't own a weapon. Case closed, period freaking dot done.
Unfortunately, this has been warped to suggest (as does this bill) that anyone who chooses to possess a firearm, or the means to use one, must also be restricted. This is regardless of any proven history of imbalance or irresponsibility.
Essentially, it lowers all responsible citizens to the questionable status of crack dealers and gang-bangers.
They don't even bother to define "... crack dealers and gang-bangers"! The California Assembly (and Governor Arnie) just cheerfully assume that if you want to buy ammunition, you must be A Bad Guy.
What Next?
Well, if you're acitizen subject of California, you're already screwed.
But if you're a citizen of another state you need to take a close look at this bill, and then keep a close watch on your own state legislature. As in: "Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer."
Because you can bet the farm that, while California may lead the way, your own state legislatures will be quick to pounce on this new approach to gun control, and they will try to dump the same kind of backward/sideways/upside/down laws on you, too.
Remember, you heard it hear first.
As A1 Ammunition Sales says:
For ammunition purchaser in California, AB 962 means that every time you buy ammunition you have to present ID, fill out a form, and leave your thumbprint on the form. (Search here for "AB 962" to read the full final text of the bill, including the history, voting and status.)
Surprisingly, the Canada Free Press published a condemnatory (aka: opposed to bill on civil rights grounds) article on behalf of the NRA, which laudes Arnie for vetoing Senate Bill 585, which would have prohibited fire-arms sales in the Cow Palace. This was obviously nothing less than a direct assault on Gun Shows.
But when it came to AB 962, Arnie Blinked:
Unfortunately, the Governor did sign AB962. This bill requires individuals purchasing ammunition be fingerprinted and registered at the time of sale, mandates that dealers keep these records and make them available for inspection by the California Department of Justice. Ammunition retailers would also have to store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. Finally, mail order ammunition sales are prohibited under AB962. Over twenty years ago, Congress abolished similar requirements because ammunition sales records were found to be useless for solving crimes. AB962 is a dire threat to our Second Amendment rights in the Golden State.We see the word "registered" above (emphasis added) and while we are genetically equipped to oppose registration of firearms, this bill -- now law -- doesn't register firearms.
It registers nothing more than the purchasers of ammunition.
What's so bad about that? Oh, of course it implies that anyone who buys, say 9mm ammunition probably owns a 9mm firearm. In that caliber, it's probably a handgun. But anyone who purchases .22 ammunition may own either a handgun or a rifle. On the other hand, buying 5.56 ammunition suggests that the purchaser owns an AR type rifle. Buying in large quantities? You own an AR, and you shoot it a LOT.
Is that important information? Maybe. Maybe the sponsors of this bill actually fooled some folks with the descriptive text of the bill, which includes this verbiage:
This bill would provide that a person enjoined from engaging inOh. So, the purpose of the bill is to prevent street-gangs from buying ammunition.
activity associated with a criminal street gang, as specified, would
be prohibited from having under his or her possession, custody, or
control, any ammunition. Violation of these provisions would be a
misdemeanor.
The bill would prohibit supplying or delivering, as specified,
handgun ammunition to prohibited persons, as described, by persons or
others who know, or by using reasonable care should know, that the
recipient is a person prohibited from possessing ammunition or a
minor prohibited from possessing ammunition, as specified. Violation
of these provisions is a misdemeanor with specified penalties.
Strangely, there are no provisions for identifying "... a person enjoined from engaging in activity associated with a criminal street gang...", so what is a purveyor of ammunition to do, in order to abide by the stated purpose of this bill?
The actual text of this bill describes the dealer as "... a person who knows, or reasonably should know, is a person described in [various section of law, including those defining 'street gangs'] ..."
Note: no definition of "reasonably should know".
Does this sound a little vague to you? Does it put the burden on the dealer to know the un-knowable, rather than to put the burden on the Government, which has enacted this law, to provide a legal description and procedures which are reasonable to follow in order to accommodate this law? Does it strike you as generally unconstitutional?
Yeah, me to.
California Assembly GOP Leader Sam Blakeslee seems to feel the same way, as evidenced in "The Blakeslee Memo" as published in an October 14, 2009, article in "Capital Weekly: the newspaper of California Government and Politics":
The SF Chronicle carries a couple of editorials about this subject. On October 5, 2009, an editorial asserts that the bill "... represents a sensible attempt to control the flow of ammunition to the criminals without constraining the rights of law-abiding citizens."To: "Assembly Republican Caucus"
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:57:45 -0700
Subject: Governor's Signatures
Members:
Yesterday we all witnessed the public policy disaster perpetrated by the Governor's hand.
His decision to sign into law some of the most noxious legislative proposals brought before us this year is both disheartening and revealing.
Most of us have read in today's papers accounts of the Governor's shocking reversal of position on the issues about which we care most deeply: taxes, second amendment rights, family values, over-regulation, etc.
This sudden realignment of his position reminds us to remain vigilant as defenders of Republican principles: limited government, individual freedom and opportunity, the sanctity of the family, and public safety.
On October 14, 2009, another article describes the ramifications of the bill more fully.
According to this interpretation:
Starting in July, the law will require dealers to keep records of handgun ammunition sales for at least five years, and store the bullets securely out of customers' reach.
Like gun transactions, all ammunition sales will have to be face-to-face, a requirement that will force online buyers to arrange delivery of ammunition to a seller in California. Another provision makes it a crime to knowingly sell or give ammunition to someone who cannot possess it legally, including felons, gang members and the mentally ill.
As of February 2011, all ammunition buyers will have to provide a driver's license or other state identification and a thumbprint.
De León [the sponsor of the bill] said Monday that the bill gives police "a valuable tool to crack down on armed, dangerous criminals and gang-bangers in our communities."
Opponents said the restrictions would burden gun owners and dealers without impeding criminals.
"Ammunition or ammunition purchaser registration, in any form, serves only to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens," Gun Owners of California said while the bill was before the Legislature.
In signing the bill, Schwarzenegger said local governments that require record-keeping for ammunition sales have enabled police to arrest many illegal purchasers. Governments that regulate ammunition sales include San Francisco, Oakland, Tiburon and Contra Costa and Marin counties.
"Utilized properly, this type of information is invaluable for keeping communities safe," Schwarzenegger said.
For those of you who are not familiar with the political geography orf California, the counties cited above are clustered around San Francisco.
The article also mentions in passing:
Again: Is This Registration?The article also mentions in passing:
The measure... survived close votes in both the Assembly and state Senate and strong opposition from gun-rights organizations, which succeeded in stripping a provision that would have required sellers of more than 50 rounds of ammunition a month to be licensed by the state.
One suspects that this provision was a "straw man" clause, intended to throw a bone to the Republicans who can now face their constituents, who will doubtless want to know why their representatives allowed such an egregious bill to pass, by saying "Hey, it could have been a lot worse. Look what we have done for you!"
Well, maybe, in a sense. But that's not the most important issue here.
The most important issue is that it continues the recent trend toward stigmatizing firearms owners.
There was a time when anybody could own a gun. That was eventually attenuated by including the proviso that convicted felons, small children, and the certifiably insane should be prevented from owning guns. This is not, I must say, an unreasonable safeguard. If you are constitutionally or proven to be unable to safely own a weapon, then you shouldn't own a weapon. Case closed, period freaking dot done.
Unfortunately, this has been warped to suggest (as does this bill) that anyone who chooses to possess a firearm, or the means to use one, must also be restricted. This is regardless of any proven history of imbalance or irresponsibility.
Essentially, it lowers all responsible citizens to the questionable status of crack dealers and gang-bangers.
They don't even bother to define "... crack dealers and gang-bangers"! The California Assembly (and Governor Arnie) just cheerfully assume that if you want to buy ammunition, you must be A Bad Guy.
What Next?
Well, if you're a
But if you're a citizen of another state you need to take a close look at this bill, and then keep a close watch on your own state legislature. As in: "Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer."
Because you can bet the farm that, while California may lead the way, your own state legislatures will be quick to pounce on this new approach to gun control, and they will try to dump the same kind of backward/sideways/upside/down laws on you, too.
Remember, you heard it hear first.
As A1 Ammunition Sales says:
You are responsible for knowing your own local state laws for the purchase of ammunition.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Dry-Firing Safely.
One of the things which I try always to teach the shooters at the Introduction to USPSA (Live Fire) course is the importance of practice, specifically dry-firing and magazine reloading.
Not only is it important to help build muscle-memory and safe gun-handling skills -- including the basics of knowing where the controls (safety, magazine release, slide-lock, etc.) are located and how to use them without having to think about it, but it is at least equally important to know how to dry-fire safely.
The elements are a simple four steps:
Unfortunately, there isn't time (only three hours) to present all of the material, so this bit is often "mentioned" out of context and I usually feel that I haven't emphasized it enough. It's difficult to get the Bare Essentials across in the limited time frame, so if it's even mentioned in passing, that may be the best that we can do.
And yes, not only the class members wonder if it's pertinent in the often confusing set of instructions, but sometimes I wonder if I haven't gone beyond the realm of reality when I try to offer more information than is easily assimilated ... and remembered.
That's why, when I went through my EMAIL archives tonight, I was glad to read this article by Jim Shepherd in the October 9, 2009, edition of The Shooting Wire.
[Disclaimer: I would link to the article if I could, but TSW does not typically offer permalinks to their "editorials". I've been quoted by the author, Jim Shepherd, though, and I know he is aware that I often quote his editorials in toto. As respectful as I am about intellectual property rights and copyrights, I feel safe including an entire article here, for the cause of proliferating valuable information. By the way, if you have not already subscribed to The Shooting Wire, you can do so here. I encourage you to do so.]
The Article:
The Shooting Wire (Jim Shepherd) quoted 10/13/2009 9:55PM
Not only is it important to help build muscle-memory and safe gun-handling skills -- including the basics of knowing where the controls (safety, magazine release, slide-lock, etc.) are located and how to use them without having to think about it, but it is at least equally important to know how to dry-fire safely.
The elements are a simple four steps:
- Practice where you are alone, with no distractions;
- Make sure that your pistol, and the magazines, are unloaded;
- Ensure that there is NO ammunition in the room where you are practicing, and don't touch ammunition until your practice session has been completed;
- Find an aiming point which is sufficient to stop a bullet if a Negligent Discharge should occur while you are dry-firing.
Unfortunately, there isn't time (only three hours) to present all of the material, so this bit is often "mentioned" out of context and I usually feel that I haven't emphasized it enough. It's difficult to get the Bare Essentials across in the limited time frame, so if it's even mentioned in passing, that may be the best that we can do.
And yes, not only the class members wonder if it's pertinent in the often confusing set of instructions, but sometimes I wonder if I haven't gone beyond the realm of reality when I try to offer more information than is easily assimilated ... and remembered.
That's why, when I went through my EMAIL archives tonight, I was glad to read this article by Jim Shepherd in the October 9, 2009, edition of The Shooting Wire.
[Disclaimer: I would link to the article if I could, but TSW does not typically offer permalinks to their "editorials". I've been quoted by the author, Jim Shepherd, though, and I know he is aware that I often quote his editorials in toto. As respectful as I am about intellectual property rights and copyrights, I feel safe including an entire article here, for the cause of proliferating valuable information. By the way, if you have not already subscribed to The Shooting Wire, you can do so here. I encourage you to do so.]
The Article:
The Shooting Wire (Jim Shepherd) quoted 10/13/2009 9:55PM
Taking Your Education Home More Effectively
At the end of a long day of shooting drills, Gunsite Academy rangemaster Larry Landers was sitting with us in the classroom in a debrief. Actually, we were just relaxing and chatting when Landers asked us a question: what would happen to our improved shooting skills when we went home on Friday?
The answer was obvious: if we didn't do something to reinforce the skills we'd been practicing, they'd quickly go away. At that point, we'd either revert to our previous training levels - or actually find ourselves fighting new bad habits as a result of being unfamiliar with the newly-formed good ones.
One solution to practice when time or facilities aren't at hand: dry firing. Dry firing, Landers explained, gives any shooter the ability to work on a variety of skills, from the simple repetition of working the controls of your firearm to smooth breathing and consistent, smooth trigger operations.
"But you've gotta be careful," Landers told us, "dry practice means you practice safety to the ultimate degree. Unload your weapon, then check it again to make absolutely certain it's empty. If you're going to be using magazines, check them and be sure they're empty, too. "
Then, Landers told us, we shouldgo even further in the prevention of a negligent discharge. "Take the ammunition for that firearm" he said, "and put all of it in a box and move it to another room. Don't even have ammo that will fit that firearm in the room while you're practicing dry firing. And don't start to reload anything until you're done practicing."
He also had another safety recommendation we should all know- and follow. Remember that any firearm - especially a heavy caliber one - is capable of penetrating one - or several - walls in today's typically constructed home. So, he says, put your practice target on a wall that could handle "a catastrophic accident." Believe me, if you've ever suffered a negligent discharge - especially in your home - you know exactly what Landers is speaking about.
After taking those safety precautions, he says, it's a simple bit of practice "look up, locate your target, then press the trigger smoothly."
Reset, breathe, repeat for around 18-20 minutes. Any more, Landers says, and you're going to get bored. Boredom can lead to carelessness, and carelessness has consequences when it comes to firearms.
"No matter how long you practice," Landers says, "don't ever end on a negative. End on a positive note, regardless. Don't stop with a negative image in your mind."
After all, he says, the idea of dry fire is to help you eliminate mistakes and replace them with solid shooting practices.
Sounds reasonable to me.
--Jim Shepherd
Monday, October 12, 2009
ARPC October 2009 match: "Thinking 3's"
It was ... nice, getting to a Practical Pistol match when I've missed so many in the past year. The Albany Rifle & Pistol club is about 20 minutes from SWMBO's house, and I arrived before 8am. I was the first shooter to sign in, so I was #1 on the squad sign-in sheet.
That was the first and last time I was #1 at the match.
I had only about 80 rounds of 10mm ammunition to feed the STI Edge GeekGun, so I didnt expect to compete in all the stages. As it turned out, I could only shoot 3 stages before I ended my personal match experience with only eight rounds remaining. The other 3 of 6 stages, I just worked as Range Officer for the squad. I didn't really mind, though. The important thing was being at the match actually participating, and allowing myself to just let the cares of the week float away while I enjoyed the thrill of "Gunsmoke In The Morning".
(Match Scores may be found here.)
As it turned out, I was squadded with the few members of "The Usual Suspects" who still competed on a semi-regular basis: The Hobo Brasser, Whitefish, and Higgie. AJ and KJ no longer show up at matches, Norm and Harold the Barbarian were also conspicuous by their absence. SWMBO is of course, not physically able to shoot because DAMN she has to wear the Oxygen Tank on her back and hasn't the strength to move smartly between shooting locations.
So this was All About Me, and I was content to shoot a few stages, work the rest, and enjoy the company of friends.
Match Director Mike McCarter was his usual devious self; he designed some stages which challenged each and every shooter to steer clear of the Rocks and Shoals of tiny steel targets, targets at long distances, and targets bordered by white "Penalty/No-Shoot" targets. I, personally, tripped up on every challenge, even though I only shot half of the stages.
One of the most challenging stages was "Thinking 3's".
This stage was rigidly constrained by vision barriers which offered the competitor to engage targets at any of five shooting locations. The bad part was that only a few targets were clearly visible from each shooting location. The Good News was that, perhaps due to an oversight or an error in stage construction, it was marginally possible for all targets to be engaged from three shooting locations ... the three the most-uprange .
The bad news was that if you lost track of what targets you had engaged, you were forced to move to more than three shooting locations. Also, the far-right target could be engaged from the near left shooting location, but it was a test of both balance and luck to actually hit the target from that location.
Also, just to make it "more fun", Mac set up the stage so that you had to over-extend your to engage the target. I fell into that trap, because I was so severely off-balance in attempting to engage this target, I was only able to actually hit the target on one of the three shots I attempted.
I realize this sounds terribly obtuse. Fortunately, I have a video showing three shooters on this stage, in cluding one who neglected to shoot is plan. It's worthwhile to note that al three outshot me.
Here's how it looked:
__________________________________
UPDATE: 13-OCT-2009
Evil Bill found a way to shoot the stage from TWO boxes, not three. It appears that the far-left target array, AND the near-left target array (behind stacked barrels) could be engaged from the center shooting location.
What a great way to game the stage!
In the actual event, the need to do multiple reloads (Evil Bill was shooting Single Stack Division ... no more than 8 rounds per magazine) may have slightly undermined the advantage of engaging the last two targets from the center, especially if only D-zone hits were possible. We can't see what the targets looked like from there.
But the point is that it was possible to engage the with a limited amount of movement, and the rest of us (at least in the two squads that I watched) never even noticed the possibility.
That's what makes this sport great. Almost 70 people walked through that stage, and shot it, without noticing that there was a way to minimize movement.
When I teach the Introduction to USPSA class (shooter certification), I emphasize that there are two ways to shoot a stage quickly: strive for accuracy, taken enough time to hit the targets without having to waste time making up misses; and eliminating time spent in unnecessary movement. Evil Bill is one competitor who has obviously learned this lesson well.
____________________________________________________
UPDATE: 14-OCT-2009
Is this The Blog From Hell? I can't go a day without posting another video version of this stage.
I love it!
"Yawn" chipped in with a comment asserting that he visited FOUR of the five possible shooting locations on this stage, and did just fine thank-you-very-much. And it's true, he did. (Video below, see the comments for the link.)
This video included all of the stages in the match. He often videos as many of the stages as he can and then posts them all together on YouTube, for which we-thank-him-very-much.
Looking at the video, you can see that Yawn has identified his shooting strength is speed in movement. Those who claim that "experience and treachery will beat youth and enthusiasm every time" are referred to another viewing of the video.
Not only does he move quickly and expeditiously from one shooting position to another, he has obviously scoped out every stage so he knows exactly where to go and when, for the most efficient solution to the shooting problem. Note that he performs beyond his15-months shooting experience in such matters of knowing when to reload without loss of time. (True, it doesn't always work out perfectly, but it saves him time more often than it does not -- and who among us can claim to perform more reliably?)
As a side note, I think it's a matter of integrity and honesty that he also includes the full video of his first stage, "Ba-da-Bing" in which he suffered an embarrassing "Failure To Feed" jam. Stuff happens to all of us, and I suspect that he cleared the jam as quickly as possible; there was a small glitch with his reload, but he covered most of it by doing a reload on the move between shooting ports. Jams do tend to rattle us for a few seconds, because when you are wired into your plan, it takes a while to get back into The Zone.
Here are the stages in the order he shot them, and the high-points of his performance:
Oh, and when you watch this video, turn your speakers UP. The background scoring reminds me of the introductory scene in "Zulu" (one of the finest reenactments of a military action ever filmed).
Not bad for "C" Limited.
Someone should mention this, so I will: Yawn was StatsMaster at the match. He did all the sign up, all the EZScore crap, and all the data entry of the scores. And he drove around the range picking up the stage score-sheets. He shot the stages between sessions of statistical work. Not all of us can switch from desk-work to performance shooting so seamlessly.
That was the first and last time I was #1 at the match.
I had only about 80 rounds of 10mm ammunition to feed the STI Edge GeekGun, so I didnt expect to compete in all the stages. As it turned out, I could only shoot 3 stages before I ended my personal match experience with only eight rounds remaining. The other 3 of 6 stages, I just worked as Range Officer for the squad. I didn't really mind, though. The important thing was being at the match actually participating, and allowing myself to just let the cares of the week float away while I enjoyed the thrill of "Gunsmoke In The Morning".
(Match Scores may be found here.)
As it turned out, I was squadded with the few members of "The Usual Suspects" who still competed on a semi-regular basis: The Hobo Brasser, Whitefish, and Higgie. AJ and KJ no longer show up at matches, Norm and Harold the Barbarian were also conspicuous by their absence. SWMBO is of course, not physically able to shoot because DAMN she has to wear the Oxygen Tank on her back and hasn't the strength to move smartly between shooting locations.
So this was All About Me, and I was content to shoot a few stages, work the rest, and enjoy the company of friends.
Match Director Mike McCarter was his usual devious self; he designed some stages which challenged each and every shooter to steer clear of the Rocks and Shoals of tiny steel targets, targets at long distances, and targets bordered by white "Penalty/No-Shoot" targets. I, personally, tripped up on every challenge, even though I only shot half of the stages.
One of the most challenging stages was "Thinking 3's".
This stage was rigidly constrained by vision barriers which offered the competitor to engage targets at any of five shooting locations. The bad part was that only a few targets were clearly visible from each shooting location. The Good News was that, perhaps due to an oversight or an error in stage construction, it was marginally possible for all targets to be engaged from three shooting locations ... the three the most-uprange .
The bad news was that if you lost track of what targets you had engaged, you were forced to move to more than three shooting locations. Also, the far-right target could be engaged from the near left shooting location, but it was a test of both balance and luck to actually hit the target from that location.
Also, just to make it "more fun", Mac set up the stage so that you had to over-extend your to engage the target. I fell into that trap, because I was so severely off-balance in attempting to engage this target, I was only able to actually hit the target on one of the three shots I attempted.
I realize this sounds terribly obtuse. Fortunately, I have a video showing three shooters on this stage, in cluding one who neglected to shoot is plan. It's worthwhile to note that al three outshot me.
Here's how it looked:
__________________________________
UPDATE: 13-OCT-2009
Evil Bill found a way to shoot the stage from TWO boxes, not three. It appears that the far-left target array, AND the near-left target array (behind stacked barrels) could be engaged from the center shooting location.
What a great way to game the stage!
In the actual event, the need to do multiple reloads (Evil Bill was shooting Single Stack Division ... no more than 8 rounds per magazine) may have slightly undermined the advantage of engaging the last two targets from the center, especially if only D-zone hits were possible. We can't see what the targets looked like from there.
But the point is that it was possible to engage the with a limited amount of movement, and the rest of us (at least in the two squads that I watched) never even noticed the possibility.
That's what makes this sport great. Almost 70 people walked through that stage, and shot it, without noticing that there was a way to minimize movement.
When I teach the Introduction to USPSA class (shooter certification), I emphasize that there are two ways to shoot a stage quickly: strive for accuracy, taken enough time to hit the targets without having to waste time making up misses; and eliminating time spent in unnecessary movement. Evil Bill is one competitor who has obviously learned this lesson well.
____________________________________________________
UPDATE: 14-OCT-2009
Is this The Blog From Hell? I can't go a day without posting another video version of this stage.
I love it!
"Yawn" chipped in with a comment asserting that he visited FOUR of the five possible shooting locations on this stage, and did just fine thank-you-very-much. And it's true, he did. (Video below, see the comments for the link.)
This video included all of the stages in the match. He often videos as many of the stages as he can and then posts them all together on YouTube, for which we-thank-him-very-much.
Looking at the video, you can see that Yawn has identified his shooting strength is speed in movement. Those who claim that "experience and treachery will beat youth and enthusiasm every time" are referred to another viewing of the video.
Not only does he move quickly and expeditiously from one shooting position to another, he has obviously scoped out every stage so he knows exactly where to go and when, for the most efficient solution to the shooting problem. Note that he performs beyond his15-months shooting experience in such matters of knowing when to reload without loss of time. (True, it doesn't always work out perfectly, but it saves him time more often than it does not -- and who among us can claim to perform more reliably?)
As a side note, I think it's a matter of integrity and honesty that he also includes the full video of his first stage, "Ba-da-Bing" in which he suffered an embarrassing "Failure To Feed" jam. Stuff happens to all of us, and I suspect that he cleared the jam as quickly as possible; there was a small glitch with his reload, but he covered most of it by doing a reload on the move between shooting ports. Jams do tend to rattle us for a few seconds, because when you are wired into your plan, it takes a while to get back into The Zone.
Here are the stages in the order he shot them, and the high-points of his performance:
- Ba-da-Bing - recovery from a jam
- Thinking 3's - quick movement
- Guard Run - literally thinking outside the box and ammo management
- Drum Line - masterly performance on a Memory Stage; great prior planning, and an excellent reload
- 4 Bill Drill - great courage on a sucky Classifier stage
- Double Up - excellent example of "Driving The Gun"
Oh, and when you watch this video, turn your speakers UP. The background scoring reminds me of the introductory scene in "Zulu" (one of the finest reenactments of a military action ever filmed).
Not bad for "C" Limited.
Someone should mention this, so I will: Yawn was StatsMaster at the match. He did all the sign up, all the EZScore crap, and all the data entry of the scores. And he drove around the range picking up the stage score-sheets. He shot the stages between sessions of statistical work. Not all of us can switch from desk-work to performance shooting so seamlessly.
The Red Sparrows
YouTube - The Red Sparrows
Whether you're a Monty Python fan or a Benny Hill fan, you'll enjoy the formation flying of the Hempshire Fire Department Aeronautical Drill Team ...
THE RED SPARROWS!
(H/T: Gary "T-Man")
Whether you're a Monty Python fan or a Benny Hill fan, you'll enjoy the formation flying of the Hempshire Fire Department Aeronautical Drill Team ...
THE RED SPARROWS!
(H/T: Gary "T-Man")
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize!
There are two things today which I find it impossible to believe:
Sorry, that was the reaction from the Left.
For the reaction from the Right, here is Bill Wittle's reaction on PJTV:
Again, sorry; I can't embed PJTV videos. But I do encourage you to go view the entire 10-minute video where you will hear, among other phrases, "Groveling Apologist". You may have to register to view the video, after a few days have past and it is moved to their archives. Still, it's free and the website is always the source of fascinating political opinions.
---
To put this into some perspective which applies to shooting competition, The Hobo Brasser and I briefly discussed this startling development prior to the beginning of the Saturday (October 10, 2009) club match at ARPC. I suggested that he nominate me for the Nobel Prize for Peace next year, and I would nominate him for the same Peace Prize in the next year. He questioned me: "What have you done in the past year to improve the peaceful lot of the world's citizens?"
I had to admit that I had done "Not one damn thing!" to advance that cause. His reply was: "Great! You're qualified!"
Later in the match, we shot a stage requiring six shots in each of four targets, "Virginia Count". He fired 7 shots at one of the targets. I was the Range Officer, so after he completed that string I penalized him ten points for one extra shot, as per the USPSA Rule Book.
He was astonished, at first believing that I was adding the comment in a teasing manner. After the penalty was confirmed by the Assistant Range Officer and several members of the observing squad, and a careful review of the timer statistics, he declared that he accepted the penalty but re-affirmed that he was not aware, at the time, that he had fired an extra shot.
(During scoring, we found that he had hit the 35-yard target with all seven shots, so he was also penalized another ten points for an "extra hit".)
After the stage was competed, Gary Whitefish and I conferred and announced our decision to nominate The Hobo Brasser for the 2010 Nobel Prize in Math.
Considering Obama's win, we feel sure that The Hobo Brasser is a shoo-in for the prize.
As for the immediate reaction to Obama's being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize from the Norwegians, we can go no higher than the Wall Street Journal's reaction.
Sorry again, for the third of fourth time (or as Clint Eastwood would say, "In all the excitement I completely lost count!") we must go back to PJTV.COM for Andrew Claven -- On Culture.
- This is October in Oregon. The weather at the ARPC Pistol Match was clear and dry. Sure, it was a little chilly with the occasional gust of cold wind from the North. But if this is Global Warming, I'm all for it.
- United States President Barrak Obama won the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace. What a surprise, and the reaction was clear and dry. Sure, it was a little chilly with the gust of occasional gust of cold wind from the Right. But if this is Global Warming, I'm still a little dubious.
Sorry, that was the reaction from the Left.
For the reaction from the Right, here is Bill Wittle's reaction on PJTV:
Again, sorry; I can't embed PJTV videos. But I do encourage you to go view the entire 10-minute video where you will hear, among other phrases, "Groveling Apologist". You may have to register to view the video, after a few days have past and it is moved to their archives. Still, it's free and the website is always the source of fascinating political opinions.
---
To put this into some perspective which applies to shooting competition, The Hobo Brasser and I briefly discussed this startling development prior to the beginning of the Saturday (October 10, 2009) club match at ARPC. I suggested that he nominate me for the Nobel Prize for Peace next year, and I would nominate him for the same Peace Prize in the next year. He questioned me: "What have you done in the past year to improve the peaceful lot of the world's citizens?"
I had to admit that I had done "Not one damn thing!" to advance that cause. His reply was: "Great! You're qualified!"
Later in the match, we shot a stage requiring six shots in each of four targets, "Virginia Count". He fired 7 shots at one of the targets. I was the Range Officer, so after he completed that string I penalized him ten points for one extra shot, as per the USPSA Rule Book.
He was astonished, at first believing that I was adding the comment in a teasing manner. After the penalty was confirmed by the Assistant Range Officer and several members of the observing squad, and a careful review of the timer statistics, he declared that he accepted the penalty but re-affirmed that he was not aware, at the time, that he had fired an extra shot.
(During scoring, we found that he had hit the 35-yard target with all seven shots, so he was also penalized another ten points for an "extra hit".)
After the stage was competed, Gary Whitefish and I conferred and announced our decision to nominate The Hobo Brasser for the 2010 Nobel Prize in Math.
Considering Obama's win, we feel sure that The Hobo Brasser is a shoo-in for the prize.
As for the immediate reaction to Obama's being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize from the Norwegians, we can go no higher than the Wall Street Journal's reaction.
Sorry again, for the third of fourth time (or as Clint Eastwood would say, "In all the excitement I completely lost count!") we must go back to PJTV.COM for Andrew Claven -- On Culture.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Gun-Rights Mom Killed in Apparent Murder-Suicide
Gun-Rights Mom Killed in Apparent Murder-Suicide - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com
Out of respect for the family, I will make no comment, other than to say that my position on the legal carry of firearms is not modified by this tragedy.A suburban mother who became a voice of the gun-rights movement when she openly carried a loaded pistol to her daughter's soccer game was fatally shot Wednesday along with her parole-officer husband in an apparent murder-suicide at their home in Pennsylvania Dutch country, authorities said.
Police released scant details about the deaths of Meleanie Hain, 31, and Scott Hain, 33, but said more information would be released Friday after their autopsies.
---Melanie Hain, who was cited for open-carrying a handgun at a soccer match in 2008 [see Geek Article here] was shot and killed, along with her husband yesterday, October 8, 2009.
Neighbors said the children ran outside and said their father had shot their mother, but Wright declined to disclose what investigators have concluded about how the deaths occurred.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Somali Pirates Mistake French Military Vessel for Commercial Ship - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com
Somali Pirates Mistake French Military Vessel for Commercial Ship - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com
No, I don't think so.
As they do there, so might we do here
Somali pirates in two skiffs fired on a French navy vessel early Wednesday after apparently mistaking it for a commercial boat, the French military said. The French ship gave chase and captured five suspected pirates.Is this an argument for unarmed vessels in the high seas?
No, I don't think so.
As they do there, so might we do here
Hot Sauce Teacher
Hot Sauce Teacher Sentenced - Miami News Story - WPLG Miami
The story doesn't provide the grade-level of the students (which might not correspond to the level of maturity of the students), but apparently the teacher added "hot sauce" to her soda, which presumably resided on her desk during the school day.
Another presumption was that her students were in the habit of drinking her soda during moments of the teacher's inattention , or more likely absence.
The charges imply that she deliberately added "hot sauce" to her drink in order to "booby trap" her soda. The reason? To keep her students from drinking her soda.
The question sees to pivot on whether she deliberately hotted-up her Pepsi to dissuade her students from drinking out of her cup, or whether she 'typically' hotted-up her Pepsi because she likes it that way.
Drinking even unadulterated Pepsi (no evidence that this was her soda of choice) seems, in itself, sufficiently teeth-gritting. Anyone who regularly adulterates her soda with hot sauce for her own enjoyment is suspect in my eyes. Ey-eeeeeew!
Which undermines credence of her defense I'm thinking.
Oh the other hand, if the little ragamuffins were slurping from her slurpy uninvited, I'm thinking You Go, Girl!
The Minor Monsters ought to keep their noses in their school-books, not in Teacher's 7-11 Monster Cup. How better to bring the lesson home, other than to make it a zero-sum Moment?
"Pet my dog? Sure. Read my Cliff-notes? Maybe. Drink our of my Pepsi Mug? Only at your own risk."
If she did, indeed, deliberately booby-trap her 16 oz Pepsi by making it taste BAD, I'm thinking that she ay have taught her students a far more useful lesson than the Three R's. This is NOT "A Bad Thing" that she did.
If it were up to e, I would give her a 12% bonus this year. Ten percent for living up to the expectations of being a Teacher, and two percent for originality.
And these yahoos want to put her on probation?
Pfahh! A pox on all their houses!
I'm sure glad that I, or my children, or my children's children, don't live in Miami. Those folks are all folked up.
Bunch a little beggars -- Not only the students, but also the School Administration, and the School Board.
A teacher convicted of child abuse after her students drank a soda laced with hot sauce will not be going to prison.Sylvia Tagle was found guilty of one count of child abuse after, prosecutors said, she intentionally allowed children at Bob Graham Educational Center to drink the spicy soda in order to teach them a lesson about not taking her drink.Uh, is this a tempest in a teapot?
The story doesn't provide the grade-level of the students (which might not correspond to the level of maturity of the students), but apparently the teacher added "hot sauce" to her soda, which presumably resided on her desk during the school day.
Another presumption was that her students were in the habit of drinking her soda during moments of the teacher's inattention , or more likely absence.
The charges imply that she deliberately added "hot sauce" to her drink in order to "booby trap" her soda. The reason? To keep her students from drinking her soda.
The question sees to pivot on whether she deliberately hotted-up her Pepsi to dissuade her students from drinking out of her cup, or whether she 'typically' hotted-up her Pepsi because she likes it that way.
Drinking even unadulterated Pepsi (no evidence that this was her soda of choice) seems, in itself, sufficiently teeth-gritting. Anyone who regularly adulterates her soda with hot sauce for her own enjoyment is suspect in my eyes. Ey-eeeeeew!
Which undermines credence of her defense I'm thinking.
Oh the other hand, if the little ragamuffins were slurping from her slurpy uninvited, I'm thinking You Go, Girl!
The Minor Monsters ought to keep their noses in their school-books, not in Teacher's 7-11 Monster Cup. How better to bring the lesson home, other than to make it a zero-sum Moment?
"Pet my dog? Sure. Read my Cliff-notes? Maybe. Drink our of my Pepsi Mug? Only at your own risk."
If she did, indeed, deliberately booby-trap her 16 oz Pepsi by making it taste BAD, I'm thinking that she ay have taught her students a far more useful lesson than the Three R's. This is NOT "A Bad Thing" that she did.
If it were up to e, I would give her a 12% bonus this year. Ten percent for living up to the expectations of being a Teacher, and two percent for originality.
And these yahoos want to put her on probation?
Pfahh! A pox on all their houses!
I'm sure glad that I, or my children, or my children's children, don't live in Miami. Those folks are all folked up.
Bunch a little beggars -- Not only the students, but also the School Administration, and the School Board.
253420
253420
That's how many "Hits" this website has received since it's inception in December 2004. Over a quarter of a million. (I've been watching the stats for the last few weeks, waiting to see the readership count top that mark.)
Actually, the blogsite started a while before the statscounter dot com statistics software was installed, but that's not important. The BIG blogs often receive that many hits on a single day.
Still, I choose to interpret this milestone as meaning that I am providing information which is of interest to more than a handful of friends and shooting buddies.
I think I could round up more "returning visitors" if I stuck to IPSC/USPSA topics, or even to "Shooting Sports" topics. However, my interests are wider than that. If you don't like to read humor, cultural or political articles, you still have the option of "voting with your feet".
I hope you stick around, though. While I write primarily for myself ("because I must!"), my original intention was to provide useful information to IPSC/USPSA competitors. It's just that I think IPSC folks are interested in more than a single topic. And so, of course, am I.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jerry the Geek
That's how many "Hits" this website has received since it's inception in December 2004. Over a quarter of a million. (I've been watching the stats for the last few weeks, waiting to see the readership count top that mark.)
Actually, the blogsite started a while before the statscounter dot com statistics software was installed, but that's not important. The BIG blogs often receive that many hits on a single day.
Still, I choose to interpret this milestone as meaning that I am providing information which is of interest to more than a handful of friends and shooting buddies.
I think I could round up more "returning visitors" if I stuck to IPSC/USPSA topics, or even to "Shooting Sports" topics. However, my interests are wider than that. If you don't like to read humor, cultural or political articles, you still have the option of "voting with your feet".
I hope you stick around, though. While I write primarily for myself ("because I must!"), my original intention was to provide useful information to IPSC/USPSA competitors. It's just that I think IPSC folks are interested in more than a single topic. And so, of course, am I.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jerry the Geek
Sunday, October 04, 2009
New Shooter Certification: October, 2009
It has been a few months since I was able to conduct a class in Introduction to USPSA at the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club. I've had family birthdays and other family situations which fell in unfortunate conflict with the regular first-Saturday schedule, and Mac has had to take up the slack.
I hadn't realized how much I missed this opportunity to familiarize "New Shooters" in the arcania of Practical Pistol shooting in the past six months, but to my joy I discovered that I had as much fun yesterday (October 3, 2009) as I did during my first instructional experience in June of last year.
Mac only identified one student (Corbin) when he notified me that a class was scheduled for October, but one is enough.
I was surprised -- and delighted --- when Luc ("Luke") and Gerry showed up for the class. One is enough for a good class, but having other attendees allows them to get to know other people in approximately the same situation. That is to say, they're new to competition in this oddball sport, and discovering that they're not the only people who are interested in IPSC/USPSA competition allows them to share their questions and experiences.
The standard syllabus includes:
Two of the students had studied the Columbia Cascade Training Manual (see link to the document at the CCS website, here) and had completed the worksheet. One student had not read the manual or completed the test. That he did not have the information needed to answer the 20 questions on the test, but still performed adequately during the live-fire portion of the class, proved that reviewing the test in class helped train people who don't have the advantage of having read the preparatory materials. In fact, after an hour discussion of the test questions the live-fire exercises showed no difference of actual gun-handling or stage-engagement ability between the two students who had read the material and completed the test, and the single student who had not been exposed to USPSA training documentation at all.
I hope that the student who has not read the manual will take the opportunity to do so before the test-match next weekend. We cannot teach all of the basic concepts in class, due to time constraints. We expect the students to read the manual before the first exposure to competition, both for their benefit and because we want to make sure than miscellaneous Safety concepts have been provided even if they are inadvertently overlooked during the three-hour live-fire instruction portion of the training.
---
It was no surprise to me that I found each of the attendees to be responsible, safety-conscious and skilled gun-handlers. We sawno major safety violations no safety violations at all -- these guys knew how to handle a pistol safety, and it took no more than a few prompts to keep the muzzle pointed downrange and the finger off the trigger.
Generaly speaking this was one of the most rewarding classes I have taught, given that it was not one-on-one training and I did not have an assistant to demonstrate each stage (I was my own demonstrator, and I fired a total of 12 rounds in demonstrating the stages.)
I brought my camera with the full intent to film the attendees, for their own benefit during the class. In the actual event, I had no time to use the camera. It wasn't really necessary, but I would welcome the opportunity to film a class some time in the future. I think it is (or would be) a valuable training tool, but perhaps more usable if the resultant videos could be used during the class rather than posted on the Internet for everyone to see. It's not a way to embarrass students, but a tool which they can use to improve their performance. But that is for a future date, with perhaps a smaller class and a dedicated photographer. Perhaps I can convince SWMBO to come along to perform that function.
Women in USPSA Competition:
One of the attendees (Gerry) noted in conversation that he would like to get his wife interested in USPSA competition.
Actually, she is already interested, but she is hesitant to enter training and (after that) competition because she doesn't feel comfortable in the milieu, although they have watched IPSC/USPSA competition at the ARPC club.
SWMBO has been available for the past several years to introduce women to USPSA, and to help make it clear that "Girls Can Do This". Although SWMBO will not, in the near future, be able to provide an active role-model in USPSA competition (because she has Lung Cancer, and cannot 'move about' without an oxygen tank on her back), she may be able to fulfill the duties of a "Demonstrator" for this very limited set of scenarios.
More important, she can server as a Role-Model to show prospective women competitors that competing in USPSA is a viable proposition for women as well as for men.
I know that SWMBO loves USPSA competition, and misses it more than you may imagine. Perhaps it would be valid to set up a class with only prospective female USPSA attendees, with a contribution by SWMBO to be limited to one or two demonstrations, and perhaps an opportunity for female attendees. to discuss the USPSA experience.
---
This last concept is very much off-the-top-of-my-head, but I am confident that we can define a situation in which she will be not only capable, but willing to participate.
It depends on her physical limitations, and the demand for a lady instructor. It may not be possible to set up until late next spring but I know that new lady participants are more likely to be convinced by another lady shooter than by anything I can say.
What about it? Are there men out there who would welcome an "Introduction to USPSA" class which was oriented toward Lady Shooters if there was an established Lady Shooter available to take an active role in the training?
I hadn't realized how much I missed this opportunity to familiarize "New Shooters" in the arcania of Practical Pistol shooting in the past six months, but to my joy I discovered that I had as much fun yesterday (October 3, 2009) as I did during my first instructional experience in June of last year.
Mac only identified one student (Corbin) when he notified me that a class was scheduled for October, but one is enough.
I was surprised -- and delighted --- when Luc ("Luke") and Gerry showed up for the class. One is enough for a good class, but having other attendees allows them to get to know other people in approximately the same situation. That is to say, they're new to competition in this oddball sport, and discovering that they're not the only people who are interested in IPSC/USPSA competition allows them to share their questions and experiences.
The standard syllabus includes:
- practicing basic range commands: "Make Ready", "Unload and Show Clear", as well as knowing when the shooter session begins and ends ("Range Clear");
- Engaging a single target;
- Engaging multiple targets, and mandatory reloads;
- Engaging multiple targets, reloads, moving to secondary shooting positions;
- Engaging multiple targets from behind a Bianch Barricade;
- Fault Lines - "In the Box", "Out of the Box", and neither "IN" nor "OUT" of the box (stage procedure definitions);
- Immediate action to clear jams;
- Scoring, role of Range Officer, and Assistant Range Officer ("Score Keeper")
- forward-falling poppers;
- strong-hand/weak-hand shooting;
- stage walk-through, and the value of understanding the nuances of a stage before shooting the stage.
Two of the students had studied the Columbia Cascade Training Manual (see link to the document at the CCS website, here) and had completed the worksheet. One student had not read the manual or completed the test. That he did not have the information needed to answer the 20 questions on the test, but still performed adequately during the live-fire portion of the class, proved that reviewing the test in class helped train people who don't have the advantage of having read the preparatory materials. In fact, after an hour discussion of the test questions the live-fire exercises showed no difference of actual gun-handling or stage-engagement ability between the two students who had read the material and completed the test, and the single student who had not been exposed to USPSA training documentation at all.
I hope that the student who has not read the manual will take the opportunity to do so before the test-match next weekend. We cannot teach all of the basic concepts in class, due to time constraints. We expect the students to read the manual before the first exposure to competition, both for their benefit and because we want to make sure than miscellaneous Safety concepts have been provided even if they are inadvertently overlooked during the three-hour live-fire instruction portion of the training.
---
It was no surprise to me that I found each of the attendees to be responsible, safety-conscious and skilled gun-handlers. We saw
Generaly speaking this was one of the most rewarding classes I have taught, given that it was not one-on-one training and I did not have an assistant to demonstrate each stage (I was my own demonstrator, and I fired a total of 12 rounds in demonstrating the stages.)
I brought my camera with the full intent to film the attendees, for their own benefit during the class. In the actual event, I had no time to use the camera. It wasn't really necessary, but I would welcome the opportunity to film a class some time in the future. I think it is (or would be) a valuable training tool, but perhaps more usable if the resultant videos could be used during the class rather than posted on the Internet for everyone to see. It's not a way to embarrass students, but a tool which they can use to improve their performance. But that is for a future date, with perhaps a smaller class and a dedicated photographer. Perhaps I can convince SWMBO to come along to perform that function.
Women in USPSA Competition:
One of the attendees (Gerry) noted in conversation that he would like to get his wife interested in USPSA competition.
Actually, she is already interested, but she is hesitant to enter training and (after that) competition because she doesn't feel comfortable in the milieu, although they have watched IPSC/USPSA competition at the ARPC club.
SWMBO has been available for the past several years to introduce women to USPSA, and to help make it clear that "Girls Can Do This". Although SWMBO will not, in the near future, be able to provide an active role-model in USPSA competition (because she has Lung Cancer, and cannot 'move about' without an oxygen tank on her back), she may be able to fulfill the duties of a "Demonstrator" for this very limited set of scenarios.
More important, she can server as a Role-Model to show prospective women competitors that competing in USPSA is a viable proposition for women as well as for men.
I know that SWMBO loves USPSA competition, and misses it more than you may imagine. Perhaps it would be valid to set up a class with only prospective female USPSA attendees, with a contribution by SWMBO to be limited to one or two demonstrations, and perhaps an opportunity for female attendees. to discuss the USPSA experience.
---
This last concept is very much off-the-top-of-my-head, but I am confident that we can define a situation in which she will be not only capable, but willing to participate.
It depends on her physical limitations, and the demand for a lady instructor. It may not be possible to set up until late next spring but I know that new lady participants are more likely to be convinced by another lady shooter than by anything I can say.
What about it? Are there men out there who would welcome an "Introduction to USPSA" class which was oriented toward Lady Shooters if there was an established Lady Shooter available to take an active role in the training?
ASBO Revisited
Back in mid-august of 2007, I wrote an article about "ASBO", which is shorthand for the "Anti-Social Behavior Order" which The Brits hand out like parking citations rather than to arrest hooligans for -- well -- hooliganism.
The Brits call hooligans "YOBs". It's "Boy" spelled backward, and generally refers to "a thuggish young male".
It's suppose to be a form of a social contract. The police identify a "Young Boy Behaving Badly", speak to him firmly so he supposedly (a) knows what part of his behavior is unacceptable, and why it is unacceptable; (b) draw up a document in which the YOB promises to never never act badly in that specific way again; and (c) if the YOB once again is found to behave badly in exactly the same way, he is subject to criminal penalties.
My thesis is that if the YOB misbehaves in a manner which is not legal, he should be subject to punishment for a criminal action the first time. This may not change his mind, but at least it gets him off the streets for a while. It serves the further purpose of suggesting to his victims that if they are the object of his mis-behavior, the police will respond with alacrity.
The problem with ASBOs is that the victims feel -- and with good reason -- that their demand for equal protection under the law is NOT taken seriously.
However, the way it works is that the YOBs get an ASBO each and every time they act out, and they routinely ignore them. And the police ignore the repeated cycle of lawlessness.
In point of fact, my original article served to initiate a dialogue with a British citizen who claimed that he was a police officer and was proud to be one of the most prolific writers of ASBOs.
My thought was that, if his area of responsibility was so inundated by YOBs, the public might be better served if the police took a few of the off the streets, instead of merely giving them a stern talking-to and accepting their solemn promise to go and sin no more. The YOBs are demonstrably without honor, or any concept of honor, by definition.
The resulting exchange of email between myself and "The ABSO-Monger" continued for a couple of days. The most telling contribution was from the research I did, which found a statement from the Britsh Home Office that "ABSOs Work".
In fact, I can point to a comment by "The ABSO-Monger" in which he categorically states:
No one is a bigger fan of ASBOs than street cops.
This statement may not be absolutely correct. If anyone is a bigger fan of ASBOs that street cops, it must be the YOBs. They just love it ... it's a license to steal! Also bully, harass, mug, intimidate, rob, maim, mutilate and drive their victims to a dispair that the only relief is suicide. (I'll get to that in a minute.)
Certainly the honest British citizen is no fan of ASBOs.
Case in point:
Thanks to Kevin at The Smallest Minority.
In his October 2, 2009, article ("Get Out. Get Out NOW"), Kevin links to the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington.
Fiona Pilkington had two "seriously disabled" children. The local YOBs chose these children, their mother and their home, to be the object of their continued abuse and assault. Pikington complained to the police ... 33 times ... that she and her family were being assaulted by rock-throwing children sometimes as young as 10 years old. Their home was literally surrounded by gangs; her children pummeled by thrown rocks as they biked home from school.
The police responded sporadically, never arresting anyone, never charging anyone. One time when a policeman was spotted leaving the Pilkington home, her house was surrounded by rock-throwing children; one parent even challenged her on her doorstep.
During the last of the seven years during which this harassment went on, Pilkington made 13 calls to police asking for help. They never responded. Finally, in 2007, Pilkington loaded her severely disabled 18-year-old daughter in her car, drove to an isolated spot, poured petrol (gasoline) in her car and torched it while mother and daughter were inside the car. Their bodies were identified by DNA.
The continued assaults on the Pilkington family lasted seven years; it must have become a tradition, almost a 'cultural climate' in the neighborhood to abuse the family. The neighbors knew about it, and they didn't do a thing to stop it.
The police knew about it, and they didn't do a thing to stop it.
Her MP, David Tredinnick, knew about it, and didn't do a thing to stop it.
During the Coroner's Inquiry subsequent to the death of Mrs. Pilkington and her daughter, Francecca, questions were asked of the police:
When children pelted the Pilkington son with rocks as he rode his bicycle home, why wasn't someone arrested?
Why were a vulnerable mother and her vulnerable children driven to the most painful suicide of all? Could it be because they despaired of ever receiving protection from the mob which the police are presumed to offer to their most vulnerable people?
Certainly, British law allows no options for them to protect themselves. Still, would they not be better off in prison because they defended themselves against a mob rather than allowing themselves to be driven to a horrible suicide? Can't a civilized nation even protect its citizens from such an extreme 'solution'?
The Answers:
Britain is no longer a civilized nation.
British citizens no longer exist; the remnant are British Subjects, who cannot even depend on honest Imperialism to enforce a minimal semblance of civilization ... of humanity.
Two years ago I used the British National Health System as a mechanism to define a descent from civilization to Socialism ... which has failed in every attempt recorded by history.
I was dismissive of British Socialism, naively assuming that such drastic measures would never become a measure to which Americans would never resort.
Today, I sadly admit that Americans seem as liable to accept draconian Governmental measures to resolve undefined "problems" as were the Brits. Considering our current one-sided debates, I despair of the ability of Americans to resist the temptation to allow our country to descent into "Nanny-Statism", resulting in the undermining of support for the common citizen.
Anti-Social Behavior Orders - coming soon to an American State near you!
---------------------------------------
UPDATE: 08-OCT-2009: "The whole thing is madness."
Kevin at "The Smallest Minority" has an article which is the perfect followup on this. Read it here.
The Brits call hooligans "YOBs". It's "Boy" spelled backward, and generally refers to "a thuggish young male".
It's suppose to be a form of a social contract. The police identify a "Young Boy Behaving Badly", speak to him firmly so he supposedly (a) knows what part of his behavior is unacceptable, and why it is unacceptable; (b) draw up a document in which the YOB promises to never never act badly in that specific way again; and (c) if the YOB once again is found to behave badly in exactly the same way, he is subject to criminal penalties.
My thesis is that if the YOB misbehaves in a manner which is not legal, he should be subject to punishment for a criminal action the first time. This may not change his mind, but at least it gets him off the streets for a while. It serves the further purpose of suggesting to his victims that if they are the object of his mis-behavior, the police will respond with alacrity.
The problem with ASBOs is that the victims feel -- and with good reason -- that their demand for equal protection under the law is NOT taken seriously.
However, the way it works is that the YOBs get an ASBO each and every time they act out, and they routinely ignore them. And the police ignore the repeated cycle of lawlessness.
In point of fact, my original article served to initiate a dialogue with a British citizen who claimed that he was a police officer and was proud to be one of the most prolific writers of ASBOs.
My thought was that, if his area of responsibility was so inundated by YOBs, the public might be better served if the police took a few of the off the streets, instead of merely giving them a stern talking-to and accepting their solemn promise to go and sin no more. The YOBs are demonstrably without honor, or any concept of honor, by definition.
The resulting exchange of email between myself and "The ABSO-Monger" continued for a couple of days. The most telling contribution was from the research I did, which found a statement from the Britsh Home Office that "ABSOs Work".
In fact, I can point to a comment by "The ABSO-Monger" in which he categorically states:
No one is a bigger fan of ASBOs than street cops. They know that they work. I have put quite a few wrong ‘uns in jail through ASBOs who were otherwise untouchable by the criminal justice system. Believe me – if you had something similar in the States you’d like them too. (In fact I’m surprised you don’t have something similar.(See also: "David The ASBOmonger on Gun Control".)
No one is a bigger fan of ASBOs than street cops.
This statement may not be absolutely correct. If anyone is a bigger fan of ASBOs that street cops, it must be the YOBs. They just love it ... it's a license to steal! Also bully, harass, mug, intimidate, rob, maim, mutilate and drive their victims to a dispair that the only relief is suicide. (I'll get to that in a minute.)
Certainly the honest British citizen is no fan of ASBOs.
Case in point:
Thanks to Kevin at The Smallest Minority.
In his October 2, 2009, article ("Get Out. Get Out NOW"), Kevin links to the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington.
Fiona Pilkington had two "seriously disabled" children. The local YOBs chose these children, their mother and their home, to be the object of their continued abuse and assault. Pikington complained to the police ... 33 times ... that she and her family were being assaulted by rock-throwing children sometimes as young as 10 years old. Their home was literally surrounded by gangs; her children pummeled by thrown rocks as they biked home from school.
The police responded sporadically, never arresting anyone, never charging anyone. One time when a policeman was spotted leaving the Pilkington home, her house was surrounded by rock-throwing children; one parent even challenged her on her doorstep.
During the last of the seven years during which this harassment went on, Pilkington made 13 calls to police asking for help. They never responded. Finally, in 2007, Pilkington loaded her severely disabled 18-year-old daughter in her car, drove to an isolated spot, poured petrol (gasoline) in her car and torched it while mother and daughter were inside the car. Their bodies were identified by DNA.
The continued assaults on the Pilkington family lasted seven years; it must have become a tradition, almost a 'cultural climate' in the neighborhood to abuse the family. The neighbors knew about it, and they didn't do a thing to stop it.
The police knew about it, and they didn't do a thing to stop it.
Her MP, David Tredinnick, knew about it, and didn't do a thing to stop it.
During the Coroner's Inquiry subsequent to the death of Mrs. Pilkington and her daughter, Francecca, questions were asked of the police:
On the second day of the inquest, Olivia Davison, the assistant deputy coroner for Rutland and North Leicestershire, repeatedly asked why
“common sense and basic old-fashioned policing” had not identified the family as extremely vulnerable. She said that their human rights were being breached because they were victims of a campaign at their home in the village of Barwell, Leicestershire.
During four hours of intense questioning from the coroner, Chris Tew, then the acting Chief Constable of Leicestershire, admitted that his force had failed to recognise that the family’s 33 pleas for help were all linked. The force classified the offences as antisocial behaviour rather than as a crime. [emphasis added] He said that things had changed in the force and by the end of this year 2,000 officers would have been trained to spot vulnerable people who were either physically or mentally disabled.
"The force classified the offences as antisocial behaviour rather than as a crime."
Let's go back to an earlier statement by David the ABSO-Monger:
No one is a bigger fan of ASBOs than street cops. They know that they work.
No, ABSOs do not work. The street cops like ABSOs because they remove responsibility from the street cops to make the hard decisions to actually arrest someone.
When children pelted the Pilkington son with rocks as he rode his bicycle home, why wasn't someone arrested?
Why were a vulnerable mother and her vulnerable children driven to the most painful suicide of all? Could it be because they despaired of ever receiving protection from the mob which the police are presumed to offer to their most vulnerable people?
Certainly, British law allows no options for them to protect themselves. Still, would they not be better off in prison because they defended themselves against a mob rather than allowing themselves to be driven to a horrible suicide? Can't a civilized nation even protect its citizens from such an extreme 'solution'?
The Answers:
Britain is no longer a civilized nation.
British citizens no longer exist; the remnant are British Subjects, who cannot even depend on honest Imperialism to enforce a minimal semblance of civilization ... of humanity.
Two years ago I used the British National Health System as a mechanism to define a descent from civilization to Socialism ... which has failed in every attempt recorded by history.
I was dismissive of British Socialism, naively assuming that such drastic measures would never become a measure to which Americans would never resort.
Today, I sadly admit that Americans seem as liable to accept draconian Governmental measures to resolve undefined "problems" as were the Brits. Considering our current one-sided debates, I despair of the ability of Americans to resist the temptation to allow our country to descent into "Nanny-Statism", resulting in the undermining of support for the common citizen.
Anti-Social Behavior Orders - coming soon to an American State near you!
---------------------------------------
UPDATE: 08-OCT-2009: "The whole thing is madness."
Kevin at "The Smallest Minority" has an article which is the perfect followup on this. Read it here.
Friday, October 02, 2009
I pity the fool!
First pictures of new A Team film revealed | Metro.co.uk
Continuing the 'new' Hollywood tradition of making movies based on 1980's Television Series ("Dukes of Hazard", etc.), "The A-Team" movie is now in production. Release is scheduled for 2010.
(Original A-team intro)
Check here for comparison pictures of original and 'new' A-team cast members.
Liam Neesom as Hannibal?
I don't think so. Does he know how to smoke a cigar?
Maybe it'll look more like ... this!
"I love it when a plan comes together."
Continuing the 'new' Hollywood tradition of making movies based on 1980's Television Series ("Dukes of Hazard", etc.), "The A-Team" movie is now in production. Release is scheduled for 2010.
(Original A-team intro)
Check here for comparison pictures of original and 'new' A-team cast members.
Liam Neesom as Hannibal?I don't think so. Does he know how to smoke a cigar?
Maybe it'll look more like ... this!
"I love it when a plan comes together."
Thursday, October 01, 2009
I'm from the government, and I'm here to help
Today's Email Of The Day:
(H/T: The Hobo Brasser)
To the Congress of the United States(both sides of the isle):
The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right.......... it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right;...............it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right;........it is broke.
The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor";.......it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right............they are broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right..........it is broke.
Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009... none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new source: the American taxpayer.
And finally, to set a new record:
"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments..
So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?
20% of our entire economy?
With all due respect,
Are you crazy?
(H/T: The Hobo Brasser)
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Roman Holiday - from morality
Driving home from work, I heard on the radio that a bunch of "entertainment industry" creepezoids had initiated & signed a petition to "Free Roman Polanski!"
It's all over the internet, Google listed 65,700 hits on "polanski petition" and as nearly as I can tell the petition just hit the news yesterday (28-sept-2009). The petition is posted here, but I can't get it to load. Perhaps it's just overwhelmed, or perhaps it's just a matter of technical incompetence on the part of the webmasters: the website is French. Now, why does that not surprise me. (My visceral disdain for the French is the reason I make it a rule to never blog about them. Folks take me to task for talking so often about "The Brits" and their failing culture, but I actually like The Brits.)
Fortunately, some energetic blogger named fkacharietrout over at Community.livejournal has the full text of the petition (in English), along with a list of the signers. Hardly the Declaration of Independence, except in a very limited way. Many of the "organizations" which support the petition have names beginning with "Le" ("le Festival de Cannes"), "La" ("la Cinémathèque Française"), or "L' " ("l'Union des producteurs de films"). Notable exception: "Scott Foundas (LA Weekly)" [Translation: Left-Coast Liberal Useful Idiot]
Number one on the Google Hit-list was this article from The Guardian ("The Brits"):
The FOX article from Los Angeles incudes this summary from the LA Times:
He had left France, where he had been living since he skipped bail in 1978(?) after pleading guilty, in order to accept a "Lifetime Achievement Award" in Switzerland. And in fact, LA County had made numerous attempts to arrest Polanski every time they learned that he may be traveling outside of France, which was protecting him from extradition. (Polanski was born in France, of Polish parents.)
The Charges:
Roman Polanski had met the 13 year old Samantha Geiler and convinced her mother to allow her to visit him at Jack Nickolson's home for a "photo shoot". He had promised to build a portfolio and support her desire to become an internationally recognized model. She ended up naked in the hot tub, drugged with Quaalude, and at the mercy of the 40-something Polanski who was accused of rape, sodomy, and other crimes.
The Morality:
Now the international film community, France, and The Huffington Post assert that it is "wrong" to hold him accountable for his confessed crimes. Why is it wrong? Because the victim has changed her mind about prosecuting him, after 31 years of building a private life; because it has been so long since the 'incident' that is should be forgotten; because he is an internationally famous and successful movie director; because the District Attorney doesn't really care; and because there was 'nothing really so wrong about it' or, in the words of Whoopi Goldberg: It wasn't really "rape-rape". (youtube link to "The view" here.)
The woman is a clown; that is her career and her choice. Her opinion should be held suspect on any subject, let alone one so egregious as this.
My Take On It:
The man is scum. He raped a child. He drugged her, with liquor (champagne) and drugs (Quaalude) to undermine her defenses. He took her every way he could think of. He confessed to it, and then instead of taking his admittedly justifiable consequences, he fled to a country from which he could not be extradited. In his arrogance, he left that country and put himself at risk of (righteous) capture and punishment, because he thought nobody cared.
It may be significant that his wife, Sharon Tate, was slaughtered by the Manson Clan while pregnant. If his wife had lived, if his child had lived ... would he have acted differently? As a father, I hope so; as a cynic, I am not convinced.
The man is scum. Enough of that.
Now we see that the Entertainment Industry has rallied in defense of his hedonistic lack-of-defense because they see that their celebrity is no defense against The Law. That does not speak well for them. They are uncomfortable, because they have always believed that their celebrity has put them Above The Law. IF this man can be prosecuted (not "Persecuted") for his sins after a third of a century, to what crimes may they be held accountable?
I can only hope the Polanski is extradited, convicted again, imprisoned and exposed to the same kind of sexual abuse as he has imposed upon his victim.
To me, that would be Justice.
It's all over the internet, Google listed 65,700 hits on "polanski petition" and as nearly as I can tell the petition just hit the news yesterday (28-sept-2009). The petition is posted here, but I can't get it to load. Perhaps it's just overwhelmed, or perhaps it's just a matter of technical incompetence on the part of the webmasters: the website is French. Now, why does that not surprise me. (My visceral disdain for the French is the reason I make it a rule to never blog about them. Folks take me to task for talking so often about "The Brits" and their failing culture, but I actually like The Brits.)
Fortunately, some energetic blogger named fkacharietrout over at Community.livejournal has the full text of the petition (in English), along with a list of the signers. Hardly the Declaration of Independence, except in a very limited way. Many of the "organizations" which support the petition have names beginning with "Le" ("le Festival de Cannes"), "La" ("la Cinémathèque Française"), or "L' " ("l'Union des producteurs de films"). Notable exception: "Scott Foundas (LA Weekly)" [Translation: Left-Coast Liberal Useful Idiot]
Number one on the Google Hit-list was this article from The Guardian ("The Brits"):
What is "this terrible situation", anyway?Woody Allen, David Lynch and Martin Scorsese today added their names to a petition demanding the immediate release of Roman Polanski from detention in Zurich. The director was arrested on Saturday over a three-decade-old underage sex case when he arrived to receive a lifetime achievement award at the city's film festival.
"Film-makers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision," says the petition, which is co-ordinated by the Société des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques (SACD), a film industry organisation which also represents performance and visual artists.
"It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary film-makers, is used by police to apprehend him," it adds.
The petition has now been signed by more than 70 film industry luminaries, including Polanski's fellow directors Michael Mann, Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodóvar, Darren Aronofsky, Terry Gilliam, Julian Schnabel, the Dardenne brothers, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Wong Kar-Wai, Walter Salles and Jonathan Demme. Actors Tilda Swinton, Monica Bellucci and Asia Argento, as well as producer Harvey Weinstein, have also put their names on the petition. Yesterday, Weinstein stated he was "calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation".
The FOX article from Los Angeles incudes this summary from the LA Times:
In 1977, when Polanski was 44, he lured Geimer *, who was then 13, to actor Jack Nicholson's home on Mulholland Drive, saying he wanted to take photographs of her for a magazine. During the shoot, he gave her champagne and part of a Quaalude and forced her to have sex. After spending 42 days in a prison hospital ward for a mental evaluation, a deal was worked out for him to plead guilty and be sentenced to time served.There are commentaries (see here and here) which suggest that it was Polanski's lawyers who triggered a renewed determined attempt by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office to arrest Polanski.
Geimer* has said that although the sex was not consensual, she wants the matter dropped.
"He should never have been put in a position that led him to flee," she wrote in 2003. "He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, just as we all agreed."
Polanski had been trying to get his Los Angeles County arrest warrant dismissed. In July, lawyers for Polanski appealed Los Angeles Superior Court Peter Espinoza's denial of his petition to have the charge dropped.
* "Samantha Geimer, who is now 44, married and living in Hawaii, [and who] has previously said she wished the matter would be dropped ..."
The accusation that the Los Angeles County district attorney's office was not serious about extraditing Polanski to face sentencing in a child sex case he fled in 1978 was a minor point in two lengthy July court filings by the director's attorneys.
He had left France, where he had been living since he skipped bail in 1978(?) after pleading guilty, in order to accept a "Lifetime Achievement Award" in Switzerland. And in fact, LA County had made numerous attempts to arrest Polanski every time they learned that he may be traveling outside of France, which was protecting him from extradition. (Polanski was born in France, of Polish parents.)
The Charges:
Roman Polanski had met the 13 year old Samantha Geiler and convinced her mother to allow her to visit him at Jack Nickolson's home for a "photo shoot". He had promised to build a portfolio and support her desire to become an internationally recognized model. She ended up naked in the hot tub, drugged with Quaalude, and at the mercy of the 40-something Polanski who was accused of rape, sodomy, and other crimes.
The Morality:
Now the international film community, France, and The Huffington Post assert that it is "wrong" to hold him accountable for his confessed crimes. Why is it wrong? Because the victim has changed her mind about prosecuting him, after 31 years of building a private life; because it has been so long since the 'incident' that is should be forgotten; because he is an internationally famous and successful movie director; because the District Attorney doesn't really care; and because there was 'nothing really so wrong about it' or, in the words of Whoopi Goldberg: It wasn't really "rape-rape". (youtube link to "The view" here.)
The woman is a clown; that is her career and her choice. Her opinion should be held suspect on any subject, let alone one so egregious as this.
My Take On It:
The man is scum. He raped a child. He drugged her, with liquor (champagne) and drugs (Quaalude) to undermine her defenses. He took her every way he could think of. He confessed to it, and then instead of taking his admittedly justifiable consequences, he fled to a country from which he could not be extradited. In his arrogance, he left that country and put himself at risk of (righteous) capture and punishment, because he thought nobody cared.
It may be significant that his wife, Sharon Tate, was slaughtered by the Manson Clan while pregnant. If his wife had lived, if his child had lived ... would he have acted differently? As a father, I hope so; as a cynic, I am not convinced.
The man is scum. Enough of that.
Now we see that the Entertainment Industry has rallied in defense of his hedonistic lack-of-defense because they see that their celebrity is no defense against The Law. That does not speak well for them. They are uncomfortable, because they have always believed that their celebrity has put them Above The Law. IF this man can be prosecuted (not "Persecuted") for his sins after a third of a century, to what crimes may they be held accountable?
I can only hope the Polanski is extradited, convicted again, imprisoned and exposed to the same kind of sexual abuse as he has imposed upon his victim.
To me, that would be Justice.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Brett Favre Incredible TD Pass to Win the game (Vikings/49ers)
YouTube - Brett Favre Incredible TD Pass to Win the game (Vikings/49ers)
I'm not much of a football fan. In fact, I'm not a football fan at. I don't like spectator sports, so even if my television was hooked up to cable (or something other than a DVD/VHS player) I would watch SWMBO's HGDV shows before I would watch football, basketball, hockey, etc. Okay I might be persuaded to watch a little baseball from time to time, but I haven't even done that in over 20 years.
However, I found this video on the internet tonight, and I have to admit that I'm impressed.
I once stopped in the middle of a sidewalk to watch a semi driver back into a very small, awkward mercantile loading dock, and gave him a standing ovation because I was impressed by his professionalism.
It is with the same respect for the skill of a pro that I present this very short video of Brent Favre's game-winning TD pass.
I'm not much of a football fan. In fact, I'm not a football fan at. I don't like spectator sports, so even if my television was hooked up to cable (or something other than a DVD/VHS player) I would watch SWMBO's HGDV shows before I would watch football, basketball, hockey, etc. Okay I might be persuaded to watch a little baseball from time to time, but I haven't even done that in over 20 years.
However, I found this video on the internet tonight, and I have to admit that I'm impressed.
I once stopped in the middle of a sidewalk to watch a semi driver back into a very small, awkward mercantile loading dock, and gave him a standing ovation because I was impressed by his professionalism.
It is with the same respect for the skill of a pro that I present this very short video of Brent Favre's game-winning TD pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)