I was doing a little metacognition (there's another fun word) and I came to the slightly pretentious realization on how I develop thoughts and ideas...I prototype. The last post and subsequent comment thread is a good example. Prototyping is a very common method of development (if not exactly the best one) used in software design, for example. What I tend to do is start with broadly, weakly supported assertions that may or may not be quite correct and sort of hone them in subsequent passes. Instead of trying to do it in a modular sense (honing each piece into completion and then synthesizing all items together as a full and complete package) I start with a rough exposition of my thoughts, warts and all, and work from there. And yes...this is all just a long-winded way of excusing any intellectual inaccuracies or fallacies contained in my last post and subsequent comments.

So who's up for a jumbled collection of thoughts on pacifism? You are? I thought as much! And a few caveats...for those of other faiths or of agnostic/atheistic persuasions, bear in mind that these arguments are not intended to be relevant to you necessarily, but they are concerned primarily with Christianity and pacifism.

St. Peter's Sword
Jesus's rebuke to Peter in John 18:11 is often used as an argument for pacifism. Bearing in mind the context, what is more likely Christ's motivation in this rebuke? That Peter was to meter out violence in defence of others, or that Peter was trying to intervene in the fate that God had chosen for His Son? Examine the two things he said. He asks Peter if he should refuse the cup the Father chose for him; he knew that resisting was futile and counterproductive. He instructs Peter, "put up thy sword into the sheath". He never tells him to cast it aside. He tells him to return it to its proper place: in its sheath, hanging at his side, ready to be used if truly needed. In Matthew 26:52 Jesus says "put up again thy sword into his place", which indicates that it was properly carried at his side, and the sword belonged on Peter's belt. Peter was a civilian, not a soldier or centurion. It is notable that Jesus had walked with Peter for three years, and had never admonished him to cast aside his weapon.

Swords as a Defensive Weapon?
There is often the implication that swords differ from handguns in that they can be "defensive" where handguns are purely "offensive". This is perpetuated by the concept of parrying and blocking which is possible with swords and similar weapons. However, it is fundamentally flawed. Handguns are defensive in that they can deter hostile action, or force it to cease when it occurs. Additionally, swords are naturally offensive...they would not require edges or points if they were purely designed for parrying the blows of an opponent.

The Sword as Symbolism
Throughout the Bible the sword is used in symbolism, typically to refer to the Word of God. If warfare and violence, for which the sword was designed, is inherently and consummately evil, then why would God choose a tool of evil to represent something so holy? Why would the sword be holy in a symbolic or spiritual sense, but be evil in its physical manifestation? This is a similar argument to those who see wine as inherently evil; God doesn't choose things he hates to symbolize things of purity and holiness. The sword was chosen because during that age it was the predominant sidearm. If Christ had come and the Bible had been written in modern times, would God have symbolized His Word with a Smith and Wesson revolver? I know it is abjectly unpoetic and distasteful to think about, but at the time swords were the cutting edge (seriously, no pun intended, believe me!) of weapons technology. Would Christ have told Peter to "put up again your Springfield 1911 into its holster"?

Weapons of Our Warfare - II Corinthians 10:3
As Paul states, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual. This is to say, that we as Christians do not win the war of the kingdom with Crusades, jihad, forced conversions, or genocide, but through spiritual warfare: through prayer and ministry of the Word. But to say that this makes the presence of "carnal weapons" wrong lacks something...just as Jesus and Paul spoke of spiritual bread, meat, wine, and milk, we still require physical food. The physical food we eat is a part of our simple daily life, and has no real importance to our eternal souls, but it is not sinful. Our use of physical food keeps our bodies (for which we are stewards) alive, just as the carrying of physical weapons likewise is intended to keep our bodies (and those of others) alive. Do we win souls and advance the Kingdom with them, or tear down strongholds of the Enemy with them? No...and Paul's point here is very important, because there was a lot of misunderstanding about this in the Middle Ages, in particular, by people who thought they were doing God's work by waging war with the Mohammedans in Palestine. Islam continues with this concept (embodied in "jihad") to this day.

Sell Your Shirt and Buy a Sword!
In a passage (Luke 22:36-38) that I've often read over without a second thought, Jesus speaks to his disciples before his crucifixion, and admonishes those who do not have swords to do what they need to do (including selling the shirt off their back!) to buy a sword. The Greek word used here for sword (maxairan) references a contemporary Jewish short sword or dagger used for defence against robbers and wild animals. Because this passage surprised me so much when I read it, I went to a number of commentaries to see what people had said of it in the past. To my surprise, the few that did not skip conveniently over this text all seemed to dismiss it as symbolic and non-literal, without giving any clear reason why or what he actually did mean, seemingly because the commentators could not believe or accept what Jesus said at face value. It reminds me of the classic Monty Python line about the misheard "blessed are the cheesemakers" at the Sermon on the Mount: "obviously it isn't meant to be taken literally, it refers to any manufacturer of dairy products." A plain reading of the text, on the other hand, shows Jesus clearly telling his disciples to arm themselves. If Jesus did not want his disciples to do so, why would he have used such confusing and apparently literal language?

Spiritual Warfare
All will readily agree that God engages in spiritual warfare; he is not a "pacifist" in the spiritual realm. In that the physical reality is a reflection of the spiritual reality, would God see engaging in battle as inherently sinful in this world but inherently righteous in the spiritual realm? It is worth bearing in mind that the spiritual realm is not, as we sometimes imagine it, "less real" and more symbolic, as if the term spiritual warfare was just a conceptual model for the struggle between God and Satan; the spiritual realm is eternal, and thus "more real" than the temporal physical realm.

Faith and Pacifism
A frequent argument for pacifism is that arming oneself for protection is to be lacking in faith in God's protection. We are to have faith for much more than just protection from evil men; "our daily bread" is just one other example. How many of us have refrigerators and pantries full of food, instead of waiting every day for God to mystically provide for us and making no provision for our nourishment? Is this a lack of faith? Most of us apply for jobs to earn money to take care of ourselves, and we plan for the future, setting money aside for our children's education, and other types of preparation. Would the God who gave the Book of Proverbs to Solomon find this planning wise or foolish? Is faith wise or foolish? God grants us stewardship of our lives, our bodies, the things we possess, and he trusts us to do his will with what he has given us. A sidearm is simply a tool used to preserve our bodies, just as physical food is, and we realize that we require no less faith for our protection when we go armed than when we are unarmed, because either way, our lives are still in his hands. An excellent article on this subject is posted on the Ethics/Religion section of http://www.corneredcat.com .

The Centurion
Jesus, upon meeting the Centurion in Matthew 8, never exhorted him to lay aside his weapons, but rather praised his faith. The man's very identity was embodied in his skill to do violence and lead his men in war; if such things were inherently sinful, would Jesus not have addressed it? Similarly this brings up the very practical and contemporary issue of police officers. Does a man who straps a Glock 22 every morning, trained and ready to use it to defend his life and the lives of others, violate God's law? Can a Christian be a policeman in good conscience? Or are these people "necessary evils" that we honor greatly because they do a work of evil that keeps us safe so we don't have to? If we stop and examine it, instead of conveniently ignoring it, is the work of a policeman, who is trained and willing to use lethal force if need be, sinful? Most would say no...and the delineation between policemen and civilians becomes markedly blurred when we think of off-duty cops, retired cops, ex-volunteer cops, EMTs and other first responders, and highly trained and certified civilians. Where do we draw the line? Is the use of lethal force sinful across the board, or in some contexts, or does it depend on who executes it? This all becomes very arbitrary and pointless to debate, but it illustrates that it is unfortunately not quite as simple as "Christians should never kill anyone".

David and Goliath
A very interesting case, in that it is used frequently as a testament of David's great faith in God, that God fought for him. But David did not take the pacifist role of inaction, waiting for God to smite Goliath before his eyes without lifting a finger. God had sent the bears and lions to him with his flock probably in order that God could teach his "hands to war" and "fingers to fight". Thus when David picked up his sling and carefully selected 5 stones (which could be considered equivalent to picking up a S&W J-frame and 5 rounds of carefully selected JHP), it was a tremendously deadly weapon due to his God-given skill in wielding it.

Martyrs
Many pacifists will point to non-violent martyrs as examples of the righteousness of pacifism, and it is certainly a good point. You could take as an example Jim Elliott and his party that were martyred by Aucas. But the problem is that you can't take the moral decision from that instance and apply it as easily to another situation. If a hostage rescue sniper is sitting on a rooftop with the reticle of his scope trained on a hostage taker's cranio-ocular cavity, he may be forced into a decision; if the hostage taker, who for the sake of an example is holding a revolver up against the head of a pregnant woman, pulls the hammer back on his revolver to shoot, the marksman is faced with a choice. He has sufficient training and experience to take out the criminal and save the woman's life. If he fails to do so, he will watch an innocent expectant mother be brutally murdered for no reason. What is the Christian decision here? This is a genuine question, and I can't claim to know the answer. In Ecclesiastes 3:3, the Preacher says there is "a time to kill". It seems that pacifism says, "no there jolly well isn't!".

Selflessness and Selfishness
There is a distinct difference one can note between selfish violence and selfless violence. The men who comprised the front rank of a Greek phalanx (a square formation of spearmen) knew they had almost no chance of survival going into battle, even if their side won decisively. A policeman walking into a "shots fired" situation or a SWAT team member taking point on entry into a hostage rescue assault are not acting in their personal interests, but they are exhibiting a good degree of selflessness. Selfishness and selflessness can be defined pretty broadly, so this is not a moral rule of any sort, but it is important not to conglomerate all acts of violence, both the selfish and evil, and the selfless and noble, as the same thing.

Paternal Instinct
A father's instinctive reaction to physical harm threatened against his young son or daughter, that is either sin nature or God's nature. The Bible speaks repeatedly of God's dedication to destroying those that harm his children, which leads me to believe the latter. A protective instinct is natural, but are all natural natures sinful? There is a natural nature of selfishness and greed which is sinful, but just as love for children is both present in physical nature and in God's nature, the protective instinct can be present in both natures as well.

Assorted References
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

Judges 3:16 "But Ehud made him a dagger which had two edges, of a cubit length; and he did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh."

Luke 11:21 "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:"

Song of Solomon 3:7-8 "Behold, it is Solomon's carriage! Sixty mighty men are around it, of the mighty men of Israel. They all handle the sword, and are expert in war. Every man has his sword on his thigh, because of fear in the night."

Genesis 3:24 (First Mention) "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Cheers, Mr. Scott, for the most propitious lending of Chesterton's "Orthodoxy". I'm into the Maniac chapter, the second, I believe, and it is quite interesting (specifically Chesterton's asserted causes of insanity). I have a nagging suspicion that to some degree his logic may take a somewhat oversimplistic view of insanity, in that his version of insanity may in actuality only represent one particular type of mental illness, among the many diverse forms known to the medical community now (but that were all lumped in together in his day). Not so much a criticism, but a defensive anticipation of external criticism. Debra had the probably-quite-boring task of achieving a Psychology degree, so I might have her read the chapter and see what she thinks from that perspective. I forgot what little I learned in my Psych 101 class. That said...I think Chesterton's argument works (in spite of any potential incompatibilities with the whole mental health issue) because he is not making a point about insanity at all. He is making a point about reason and creativity.

I don't want to wage a holy war on the emerg[ent/ing] church movement on here, at all, but I find Chesterton and Lewis, in particular, quite refreshing when considering these movements. While I've just started it, Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" seems to be a comedy of irony, or "farce" as he puts it, that shows Mr. Chesterton coming full circle as a logical, free thinker that finds the answers in the place he leasts expect...traditions, the established church. And Chesterton was (egads!) a Roman Catholic (hisssssss). And Lewis...well, he was a member of the Church of England...not exactly that great of a church, but he accepted its faults and didn't call for a "revolution" against the established church. Nor was he a conformist or a traditionalist. In The Screwtape Letters he talks about how churchgoers can be tempted to turn their focus to the frailties of the church body itself, by looking at their neighbors and dismissing the church because it is composed of imperfection. The thinly veiled contempt of the Emergies (great new word!) for "conventional church" reminds me so much of that. The thing I like about both of these authors is that they didn't dismiss 2000 years of church history because, surprise surprise, there was sin and apathy in the churches. But anyway, don't want to open a can of worms here. If I go into a real critique of "la revolucion" I would go on for a long time and probably run the risk of being firebombed by some revolutionaries. Debra and I discuss this stuff a lot, we are analytical types. No matter, though. Movements falter and disappear, denominations come and go, revolutions and rebellions fade to footnotes of history before being squeezed out of even such insignificant notoriety by the march of time...God remains.

On that note...I hate to say this, because other than being a hippie (and Cartman haaates hippies! "hippies everywhere! they wanna save the earth but all the do is smoke pot and smell bad!"), I've got nothing against him, but I've amused myself quite a bit coming up with parody ideas for Rob Bell videos. I mean, the guy is interesting and all, but his videos are just ripe for parody...I can't help it. I'm not sharing the ideas on here though, so at least I've got *some* self control.

I think "Emergies" is a great new term. What about you? It's like the Monkees meet the Goonies meet hippies meet Erwin McManus. See, why can't I have a nice logical discourse on this stuff without inventing a new pejorative term by which I am probably the only one even remotely amused?

By the by, I am now a happy possessor of the complete first and second seasonings of "A Bit of Fry and Laurie (Deceased)". I think with that sketch comedy, my favourite five British comedies have been established, including the following: Monty Python's Flying Circus, Fawlty Towers, Good Neighbors/The Good Life, Yes [Prime] Minister, and A Bit of Fry and Laurie. Honourable mention to Jeeves and Wooster, though its more of a series than a sitcom. Kind of literary sitcom, in a sense.

One downside to my fascination with the "Bit of Fry and Laurie" series is that only 2 of 4 of the seasons have been released on DVD, and I am left with naught but internet scripts for season 3 and 4. Neverthemind you less, for the clouds of night do but never such break the sun! It is but nary a small and incognificent thing, for to which has been sufficed most grandly with the present exemption of these the following sketches, with the which I present you to for your most endeavorsome enwritten enjoyment:

"A Word, Timothy" - nice little punchline, that...
http://www.geocities.com/mmemym/bits3/fal0120.htm

"Milk Pot" - wanton, profligate silliness
http://www.geocities.com/mmemym/bits3/fal0122.htm

Oh, and the episode of the Office that was on last night...fan-sodding-tastic. The fallout of Dwight's attempted coup had a dramatic inevitability and such a magnificent sense of ominous foreboding. He knows, Dwight (or is it "Dwigt"). He knows it was you. And it breaks his heart. The other side effect to that show is that now at work, I really want to play Call of Duty. Can I transfer to Stamford? I know what the difference between an MP40 and a 44 (assumedly the Stg. 44) is, unlike Jim. And I'd take the Sturmgewehr 44 over the MP40 any day. Huh-hoy.

Speaking of!!! What a magnificent transition. I've decided on two rounds, I believe. In .380 ACP for the Bersa, the Remington Golden Saber is said to have excellent reliability and is used widely among Bersa owners. For the Kel-Tec in 9mm Parabellum, I will probably go ahead and use Cor-Bon DPX. That is expensive stuff, about $1 per round, so it won't be for practice once I prove its reliability, but it is probably the best in that chambering. Excellent expansion, uses the Barnes X bullet. The expanded bullets look like little copper flowers, and if I recall correctly, can hit 3/4" after expanding, which is essentially .75 caliber. Although, hang on a minute...that may be the number for the .45 in DPX, so I'd expect the 9mm version to be more in the .50 to .65 range after expansion. Anyway, I'm feeling range deprived...need to get some more .380 to run through the Bersa. I won't trust it til I've run at least 200 rounds through it, and it runs malfunction free. Right now it is at 1 malfunction in 25 rounds, but it is still in the break-in period.

I cannot get Bertie Wooster's version of "47 Ginger Headed Sailors" out of my head. What a silly little song. "It's all the rage at the Drones at the moment".

Alright, true to my words, no talk of politics or ballistics in this entry...this time we are celebrating (oh isn't that a fantastically annoying liberal word?) the works of Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie. The latter being known to American audiences mostly as Dr. House on the similarly titled Fox medical dramedy. I say dramedy because "drama" just seems too heavy for that show. I digress. Anyway, the following are somewhat randomly selected snippets of their late 80s, early 90s sketch comedy show, "A Bit of Fry and Laurie". I heartily suggest you watch all of them. Every...last...one. If you must skip one...the Hey Jude a la chipmunk is amusing but disposable. The "subject of language" sketch is funny because Stephen Fry's character reminds me of the classic insufferable academic that loves to hear himself expound on any number of topics.

Hugh Laurie singing "America":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RXXaCIclJs

The "Major Donaldson" sketch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XehsN7OxVU0

Hugh Laurie's angry and incisive "Where is the Lid" song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZ-Cogr-rM

The "Subject of Language" sketch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHQ2756cyD8

Two quasi-jazzy but very witty Hugh Laurie songs, "Mystery" and "Little Girl":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYKsYehC_LI

This is just wrong...a chipmunked "Hey Jude":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkpNkBFUKMM

A limp-wristed song about Steffi Graf:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBwbJWF8_-Q

OK, this final one is the strangest, most absurd thing I've ever seen. And it is abjectly disconcerting...the sort of thing where you are unsure whether to laugh hysterically or just be confused. Don't watch this until you've watched at least most of the others, just so you don't prejudge the comedy of Fry and Laurie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lb581YGhDY

Also, check out a number of the "related" videos, because there are tons of Fry and Laurie clips on youtube. Enough to easily waste an afternoon. Trust me, I know.

Pardon me as I allow this blog to delve into the realm of its former existence as a haven of political ramblings. This isn't so much political as philisophical.

But "The Scandal of the Century of the Weekend" is Mark Foley. Let's look at what we know. Mark Foley is a prat, first off, we'll all readily admit it. He was commonly known to be gay, and he sent lurid emails and IMs to a 16 or 17 year old male teen page working at the House. Oust him? Sure! I'm all for that.

But what irks me is the predictable reaction to this...that Republicans and conservatives are all hypocrites and, well, evil child molesters. That conservative moral standards are somehow bad because someone who advocated them turned out to fail them miserably. Sooo...painting with a broad brush, conservatives say that there is right and wrong. Some of there members crash and burn and fail to live up to those standards, and liberals scream hypocrisy. Liberals don't really have to worry about hypocrisy because they hardly ever take a moral stand on anything. I am not communicating this well...it makes more sense in my head. But it is like one side saying "sin is wrong" and the other side saying, "there is no sin". The first side sins, and then the other side attacks them as hypocrites for sinning when they said sin is wrong. Well, newsflash, all men are by nature sinners. The fact that people are imperfect does not excuse the faults in our lives. The right thing for Republicans to do is to live up to the standards and punish Foley according to the law. If it was a Democrat, he would be celebrated and feted for his heroic stand for ephebophilic Americans. Don't believe me?

Gerry Studds was a Democrat congressman who was in an actual, physical relationship (not just instant messages) with an underage 17 year old male page. He was lightly censured by Congress when it broke in 1983, but he went on to be elected FIVE MORE TIMES to Congress. Tell me. How is this ANY different. The only difference is that one is a Republican, one is a Democrat, and Democrats feel that they don't have any standards to abide by sexually...pretty much in their book anything goes and its all "private matters". But when a Republican does it, shrieks of hypocrisy break the clouds from the Left. When will they understand...conservatives are not advocating moral standards to be forced upon all the other imperfect underlings...they advocate those moral standards because we are all imperfect, we are all prone to sin. If a Republican is caught speeding in his car it does not mean that the party's support for speed limits is not genuine. There will always be corruption, scandal, and immorality in Congress. The answer is not to claim it doesn't exist or to interpret its existence as support for removing moral standards, but to root it out whereever it does exist.

Ehhh, running out of concern here. Pardon me, this was probably one of the most poorly written blog entries I've done in a while. It makes me feel like a writer for Newsweek (har, har).

On to more pressing matters! The flat-stack 9mm I've had on order is shipping, though I'm far down the list. However, a guy on the Kel-Tec Owners Group forum managed to snag one Sunday...looks beautiful! He even managed to get it to the range, fed it 50 rounds with no malfunctions. He said the trigger was a little stiff, so we'll see on that. I'm trying to decide what a good ammunition selection would be...I've got it nailed down to Remington Golden Saber or Federal Expanding FMJ (EFMJ), both in +P. I think Golden Saber may be the first choice, but if I have any feeding issues, the Federal EFMJ will be next in line as its round nose will feed quite reliably. I'd love for a .357 SIG version of the PF-9, but due to the increased recoil that is unlikely. For the uninitiated, .357 SIG is a newer caliber that takes a 9mm bullet with an (approximately) 10mm necked-down casing, resulting in what is essentially a 9mm +P+P+P cartridge...huge muzzle velocity and energy because you're using the power of a 40cal cartridge to push a smaller 9mm bullet. There have been very good field reports from police departments around the country regarding the cartridge...including reports of higher-than-average one shot stops, and non-fatal shots that still stop an assailant.

Also, there is a company developing an electric less-lethal round that is very interesting...it generates electricity as it is fired and delivers a strong electric shot upon making impact. Note it is not "non-lethal" in that it could still be lethal, but the diminished need for multiple shots to stop makes it more likely that you could stop an attacker without necessarily killing him. Which we can all agree is a good thing!

For next time...no politics and no gun talk. I promise. How about a Bit of Fry and Laurie? Coming soon!

It's Range Report time!

Took only three to Lake City on Saturday. I put only about 20 rounds through my Kel-Tec PLR-16, basically just to get it "close" to being sighted in. It is closer to POA (point of aim) but nothing precise, really. I emptied several clips of .22LR from my Ruger...always a fun little plinker. And lastly I put the Bersa .380 through its paces. One failure to feed in 50 rounds...gouged a hole in the bullet face. I assume that is what happened as opposed to the gouge being there already and causing the stoppage, but I don't know. I'll have to pick the brains of the online gun gurus on that, as well as tear the gun down for a thorough cleaning. Recoil isn't bad...between firing the massive PLR and the light, almost recoil-less Ruger, I found it somewhere in the middle. More recoil obviously than the 22 but nothing like the thunderous blast of the PLR, which I may remind the audience is essentially an AR-15 chopped down to a pistol, albeit with a superior short-stroke piston for the gas operation, instead of direct impingement. So, like an AR-15, with one of the better aspects of the AK-47 thrown in. But all in all, I think I much prefer shooting down at the lake, with the inlaws. More informal, and much better suited for pistol shooting. Do you know how disheartening it is trying to shoot at a 6" target from the minimum distance of SIXTY feet with a short-barreled concealment pistol? 7 to 15 yards (21-45 feet) are much better ranges for pistol shooting, especially in a tactical training context. Lake City is more of a "come and hone your deer hunting skills" sort of place...crack out the scoped rifles, but pistols are kind of worthless.

In other news, I am too tired to write about other news. To quote from my favourite silly show of the moment, "Three pints of damnation and a chaser of hellblast, John!"

I wonder why they don't sell silhouette targets at Walmart. It's not as if they are pretending that they don't sell things related to self-defence....357 Mag hollowpoint and 9mm +P Hydrashok are NOT hunting calibers. But that's neither here nor there.

Well, the new addition to the family is here:



I apologize for the COB'ed manufacturer photo, but mine looks exactly like this...a duo-tone Bersa Thunder 380. Basically an Argentinean .380 compact pistol, blowback action, basically an improved version of the classic Walther PPK (a very famous gun...wielded in style by James Bond, used by Hitler to blow his brains out). First shot is double action, a very smooth trigger pull compared to the Walther, and consecutive shots are single action. Sights are very visible, and the fit and finish is excellent. Safety is a bit stiff but I've got instructions on how to make it smooth as silk. But the ergonomics of this gun are its high points...it melts into your hand. I know that sounds silly, but compared to either my snubbie or my 1911, this one just fits the hand, instead of the hand fitting the gun. It fits quite nicely in the shoulder holster for my snubbie, which surprised me...I just have to adjust the retention straps a bit. I bought a box of S&B ball ammo, which I'll be sending downrange this Saturday when I put it through its paces at Lake City. All my effusive praise and gushing aside, this isn't really my gun, it's Debra's. We were looking at compact .380s (including the ultra-compact Kel-Tec P3AT, which I fired last Saturday down at the lake) and this was the one she liked best. Perhaps not the smallest, nor the lightest, nor the most powerful, but well balanced. Fairly small, manageable weight, reasonable power with the right JHP loads, nice trigger, good sights, and excellent grip. The Kel-Tec on the other hand had great advantages in size and weight, close to equal power (though one less round, and a shorter barrel leading to lower muzzle velocity), VERY tricky trigger, non-existant sights, and a grip that was hard to manage comfortably. The Kel-Tec, don't get me wrong, is the ultimate answer for deep concealment and pocket carry, but it would actually be better for more avid and experienced shooters like myself...most people would actually perform better with more of a compromise, like the Bersa. Odds are the Bersa will be more reliable as well...they are built like Volvos...a little heavier than they need to be but solid and reliable. Kel-Tecs on the other hand are finicky race cars...great performance, and at the top of their class in certain respects, but they take special attention and care, and can be, as I said, finicky. My main carry pistol will probably be a Kel-Tec, but their flat stack 9mm soon to be out. I've had it on order for a while, but it will be a while yet before they come out with it.

I've got an experiment running that should be good...the "Dark and Stormy" is a cocktail made with a shot of dark (usually black) rum in a spicy ginger beer (ginger beer in the non-alcoholic but very spicy ginger soda sense...something like Reed's, not Canada Dry). I'm going one up and creating a "Less Dark But Even More Stormy" cocktail...basically I took a dark amber rum (Bacardi Select...hey, it was fairly cheap!) and I'm infusing it with a pound of peeled and chopped ginger root. Ginger-infused rum! The flavours go so well together...perhaps because they are both Carribean flavours, but the spicy, sugary "rumminess" of the rum (well, how else would you describe the flavour?) with the hot, fiery ginger...a dose of this in some Reed's, or Bundaberg...great for zingiphiles like myself. Yes I just made that word up (Zingiber officinale being the scientific name for ginger).

There are big issues to tackle on here, for you, my countable-on-one-hand audience, but I never seem to muster the mental effort to get started. The emerg[ent/ing] church movement, pragmatism and trusting God, and pacifism and the Bible. But I never actually buckle down and address these, do I? Oh well, not as if I'm doing the world a disservice by not enlightening the masses with the golden rays of Neufish opinion...its easier and quicker to rant about little things like hobbies!

S I V I S P A C E M , P A R A B E L L U M

It's about that time, another post on that enormously-uninteresting-to-whatever-readership-I-may-have topic of firearms. Well, at least first I'll make a comment on British comedy and other television entertainment...

First off, Hugh Laurie has become a favourite actor of mine...I'm not terribly keen on the general genre of "House", for which he is most famous currently, but his manic, darkly comic acting makes it much more entertaining than it could be. My favourite stuff of his, though, has always been with Stephen Fry, starting with Black Adder III and IV. As Prince/Lieutenant George he was crazy, foppish, innocent, and wholeheartedly daft. The sort of person who said, bally-ho, chaps, and advocated sunny optimism in total obliviousness to the utter crappiness of his circumstances...much to the chagrin of the more intelligent and cynical Blackadder (played by Rowan Atkinson, before he became the Bean). In Jeeves and Wooster, he plays the upper-class twit perfectly, and his interactions with Stephen Fry (as Jeeves) make what should be a very boring series (of the sort you'd see on PBS Masterpiece Theatre) into a quite funny and engrossing little show. And lastly, "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" ends up being my favourite, as a sort of reincarnation of Pythonian sketch comedy. Very, very funny and diverse stuff, and it highlights their talents as writers. Most people are surprised to learn that "House" isn't American, much less that he is principally a comedy actor.

"The Path to 9/11" was an exceptionally good TV movie. I've not seen a made-for-TV movie as good as that one, and it was highly engrossing, in a "24" sort of fashion. Although I really didn't trust Condi Rice when she was played by the actress who played the back-stabbing Sherri Palmer on "24". And Patricia Heaton? What a typecast role, hehe...you could almost hear her grating voice going "Ray.....get your parents out of the Embassy THIS INSTANT!". She ought to try to land some roles where she isn't...how shall I put this delicately...eternally bitchy. If she keeps these roles up she'll never be allowed to smile on film again. But on the whole, an excellent, well rounded film. Why in the world did the Clintons and the Democrats get their undies in a wad over this? Quite lame of them, I'd say. The film hands out blame in small dosages to BOTH administrations but reserves the greatest quantities for those that deserve it the most...the Islamist terrorist wankers themselves. It does a good job as well of not stereotyping...with the Massoud character, the Paki colonel, and the two informants...you don't walk away equating Muslim with terrorist at all! In fact, I was enormously saddened at the reenactment of Massoud's assassination (yes that actually happened), as he was one of the heroes of the film, and probably was equally as admirable in real life. Though perhaps the Russian Spetznaz didn't think so highly of him...

Finally, I'm digging myself into an ammo hole. Why is it that I can never buy two guns that share a caliber? It would save on ammo. Each firearm I own is of a different caliber which means I have to keep on hand a box of each for taking to the range. Right now I've got a new automatic coming, which will be my wife's gun. It's a fine pistol, a Bersa Thunder 380, which is an Argie gun loosely patterned after the Walther PPK. Small, compact, and comfortable to shoot. Fires the 9mm Kurz (short) 380ACP round, 9X17mm. My next gun (which will be for me, this time) is the on-order Kel-Tec PF9. Half the weight of the Bersa and more power (9mm parabellum)...not as comfortable to shoot for that reason, but very, very small and powerful. So those two will take me up to seven calibers to keep in stock (.22LR, .223 Remington, .303 British, .380 ACP, 9mm Parabellum, .38 Special, .45 ACP). Oh well! All the more fun to take to the range.

There's also a great website about women and concealed carry:

http://www.corneredcat.com

It has some fantastic articles on Christianity and pacifism:

http://corneredcat.com/TOC/TOC.htm#EthicalReligious

Very good reading. Even if you are not a woman...

Pardon the lack of content on here...usually when I can think of good things to post I don't have time to type them up, and when I do have the time I've forgotten anything worthwhile.

First off, a good show worth checking out is "Yes Minister", a British comedy I thought I'd give a shot since I rather liked Paul Eddington in "The Good Life". Very clever show...a bit too blasted clever sometimes, and I wish the DVDs had closed captioning, as it can be hard to follow. But a great indictment of office politics (and naturally government politics) and the stonewalling/CYA maneuvers of superfluous bureaucracy. One of the best written shows I've ever seen...can you imagine a show done in America about just three 55-year-old white men working together in an office for government administration? No wacky characters, no crazy situations, just the drudgery of paperwork and meetings. Cheap gags are at a minimum...they have to work for it to be funny, and they succeed at that.

Secondly, both Steely Dan and Michael McDonald were excellent in St Louis on Monday night. Jon Herington, in particular, is a freak of nature. With a guy like that in the band, Walter Becker ought to just sit down when it comes time for a guitar solo. Herington was the closest thing to mind-blowing I've seen in a live guitarist, whereas Becker, well, he does what he does pretty well, but his addiction to bluesy phrasings stuck out like a sore thumb on some songs. He definately has his own voice. But in terms of relatively unknown guitarists, Herington is it. I know this is one of those stupid sayings, but the guy really does reinterpret the original solos. Usually I am disappointed by the live solos, but not with this guy...easily an equal with Carlton and the others, if perhaps a generation late.

I fully intend to "one of these days" sit down and write out all my thoughts on the pacifism debate. It may be a futile intention, but at least I will mention the latest consideration:

Luke 22:36-38
36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

I found this surprising...not least because I'd never seen it before. Wondering how it was traditionally interpreted, I went to several commentaries, and found that the only ones (that I had) that mentioned the passage made unsupported claims that "obviously" this was not meant literally, without even presenting a lucid explanation of what he meant otherwise. Of course that immediately made me think of Python's "blessed are the cheesemakers" line, "obviously it isn't meant to be taken literally, it refers to any manufacturer of dairy products". Its that sort of snivelling contempt for the words of Jesus...that obviously we know what he MEANT to say, never mind what he actually did say. Jesus would not be so ignorant and uneducated as to advise his followers to purchase swords, would he?

There are reams that can be (and have been) written on Jesus' lack of compliance to pacifism, and its very interesting and eye-opening to study it out. It is just very different from the common wisdom that I was taught.

Again, I will flesh this all out and actually support it one of these days, just not today.

One final note...I've got a small copita glass of a Dalmore single malt, and I have to say, malt whisky from Scotland is one of the greatest imbibable inventions to which man can lay claim. They are as varied and as unique as the wines of Europe or California, each region having a distinct style, each distillery having a peculiar trademark, and each blend and bottling having a fingerprint, so to speak. This particular one has a splendid nose of honey, light molasses, and fleeting floral notes...an aroma more complex and varied than I can parse into words. The complexity is particularly amazing when you think the only real ingredients are barley malt and water. I used to think more highly of brandy than of whisky, but with the exception of certain varieties of apple brandy, that has switched. I have to say, I can see no higher purpose for barley.

Cheers to John Barleycorn!

To all those who have left comments on here...

Ummm, yeah. I didn't realize I had comment verification turned on or something, so I had 7 comments, spanning six months (yeah, this is a high traffic blog) that didn't get published. I was not being unresponsive if I neglected to respond to these comments...just unaware that they existed, and all that. Thanks to my wife for pointing out the obvious.

Josh...the Gervais show is a podcast, downloadable (or at least it used to be, you may have to pay for it now) at www.rickygervais.com.

Matt, thanks for the MacDonald link, and no, the commie libs at UMKC didn't put anything in my yard, presumably because they are aware of my intense appreciation of diversity: .303, .38, .45, .223, etc. Muahahaha. Also thanks for the offer of loaning Orthodoxy...I'm immersed in library books regarding English cooking and restaurant planning right now so don't worry about getting it to me right away, but it is something I'd love to read.

Say hello to my little friend...

This is my Kel-Tec PLR-16, a long-range pistol chambered in .223 Remington. It is similar to an AR-15 pistol, but it does not use direct impingement, relying instead on a short stroke piston system. It also does not have the buffer tube the AR pistols typically do. It has been customised to an extent...note the 30 round magazine and the compact foreend with the picatinny rail, both nice upgrades I think. I added a holographic reflex sight, BSA's multi-reticle version, which has worked out great. And most recently, the soft case (on which it is sitting) and the Yankee Hill Machine flash suppressor were given to me by my father-in-law for my birthday...quite nifty. I *could* modify it further with accessories on the underbarrel rail (such as a laser, or a tactical light) but I don't really need that at all. And a vertical foregrip would put this into a restricted class of weapons so I'll happily skip that.

How about a better view of the flash suppressor and reflex sight:

I'm looking to get this back out on the range again soon. It doesn't kick as much as you expect...the weight absorbs a good amount of recoil. Certainly nothing like the recoil you'd expect from something like this:

http://www.serbu.com/shorty.htm

So we went to the lake this last weekend...quite a nice weekend for it too, great weather, not even breaking into the 90s. Of course I brought a fair share of ammunition and put my firearms through their paces. I even fired my PLR-16, which is a .223 AR-15 pistol, at night...that was a treat, quite a flash signature! Also I shot my .45 auto, which confirmed a few things from my last trip to the range. It continuously kept choking on the Remington ball ammo I was feeding it, with probably 2-3 malfunctions per clip of 7 rounds. The two forms of malfunction encountered were same as the last trip, failure to go into battery and failure to extract. I knew what to do this time and could quickly resolve these malfunctions, the first with a light tap to the back of the slide, the latter by locking the slide back, extracting the magazine, racking the slide til the casing is extracted, and reinserting the magazine. However, rereading some manuals leads me to mention a correction in a previous post:

A type II malfunction, the failure to eject or stovepipe malfunction, is not ideally corrected by racking the slide, as I wrote before (and read in a Gabe Suarez book). Because the slide catches on the casing as it is returning forward, it could be that the next round is being chambered, and racking the slide back fully could chamber another round, resulting in a much more frustrating double feed malfunction. The ideal choice here is to curl your support hand over the top of the slide, in front of the ejection port, and sweep your hand backwards, catching the half-ejected casing and pushing it (as well as the slide that is holding it) enough to release it, which will then allow the slide to finish its action and go into battery. Since you aren't racking it all the way back, you won't be in danger of a double feed.

However, I luckily haven't been hit with one of these yet, so I can't say that my method works better in practice. Actually it certainly isn't my method, it's very common...I read it in an Erik Lawrence book, but I'm sure its been around for some time.

I watched "Walk The Line" over the weekend too, and have some strong feelings about the movie. I've never been a huge fan of his music; in my opinion I think people enjoy his style, his character, and those aspects of Johnny Cash more than his music itself. Kind of the same with Bob Dylan, though his are more about the lyrics. But I'm getting off topic. I grew to hate this movie for its message. It made a feeble attempt at justifying Cash's abandonment of his wife, and somehow tried to make his adulterous pursuit of another married (off and on) woman seem "romantic". It may be true to life, and I'm not condemning Cash here, but I'm disgusted how the movie portrays him as cool/admirable/etc. As Sam Miles would say, he was a "butt sniffer". Totally without character or integrity, totally given to whatever he felt he wanted at the time. It is very popular to justify infidelity and divorce with feelings and emotions...his wife "didn't support him or share his dreams", they were emotionally distant, they fell out of love, he and June were soulmates, all that BS. Just like John Lennon and Cynthia Lennon...one reason I never had much respect for Lennon, as an individual (though he had a wicked wit and and amazing musical gift). I've heard this movie defended in that their marriage was "over" by the time he pursued June, but that's respectfully a load of bollocks. A good half of the movie, spanning years, represents the time in which he is chasing one particular skirt and neglecting and dishonoring his wife, still very much married to him and still very much wanting him to be back with her. And all through the movie, they documented countless times when Vivian would desperately work to revive or repair their marriage, but I can't think of any drop of effort made by Cash to make it work.

I feel bad, because I'm not meaning to rag on Cash personally, despite the factual or unfactual nature of the movie, but its more the movie itself and the way it is popularly received that bothers me...that people look with such a flippant eye at the slow degradation of a marriage, the ounce-by-ounce betrayal that is painfully, horribly detailed and documented in this movie. It isn't a love story at all. They at least portrayed June in a more positive light, in that she resisted his advances for a long time and recognized how wrong it was. But like I said, the movie is painful to watch because "romance" is overshadowed and sullied by the terrible slow starvation and death of his first marriage, due to neglect and betrayal. The fact that this is so quickly glossed over and ignored by fans of the movie is what bothers me, that people can easily justify the dissolution of a marriage and the vows that come with it if it just starts to "not feel right" or if something better comes along. The moment you say "I do", you've picked your soulmate, and whoever else comes along, they aren't for you. And did anyone else notice how the Cash character was always doing this kind of lecherous leering thing towards the Carter character?
OK, I'll stop with the crotchety old man thing. It's just one of those things...why do you think 50% of marriages end in divorce? People say it is better to divorce than to lead an unhappy life. I kind of doubt people who try to lead lives of integrity and make every effort to honour their vows to their spouses end up all that unhappy as compared to the people who fly from relationship to relationship down a road paved with infidelity, divorce, and broken promises in pursuit of "happiness". But what do I know, I'm just a 20-something.

[/rant]

Besides, I prefer comedy. Like a romance between Johnny Cash and Jimmy Carter. Think of the giant swimming rabbit jokes that could be made! Oh and that wasn't so much a gay joke as a Jimmy Carter joke, so no offence, pooftas.

Another St. Crispin's dinner is in the works, for August. Perhaps I'll put up a menu, although as our invitees grow more numerous, my dining room is not getting any bigger, so I'm not sure how to handle that, exactly. But so far we've got dishes from Wales and Cheshire for this time. Don't have a deep fryer yet (yet being an operative word) so we'll have to wait a bit longer for fish and chips and Scotch eggs (aka cholesterol cluster bombs, arterial bunker busters, etc).

The Good, the Bad, and the English

Pardon this poorly titled review of two English culinary items, both sampled last night. First off is the bad...blue Stilton. I should have known better, given that the last time I sampled blue cheese (gorgonzola) I found it so disgusting I had to eat random items of food to expel the acrid, moldy taste from my mouth. Likewise, I found this cheese to be eminently inedible. There are those who love it, who sings its praises, who unjustly crown it "King of English Cheeses". To me, I'll stick with the venerable Cheddar, which in its aged and mature form is quite complex and delicious. Other great cheeses include Wensleydale (a new favorite), Cheshire, and Double Gloucester.

But onto the good...Cheshire Pork and Apple Pies. I diced up a pound of lean pork, added a couple diced rashers of bacon, and seasoned the mixture with salt, pepper, a healthy amount of sage, and a dosage of cream sherry to moisten. Then I diced up two Braeburn apples (I'd have rather had Cox's Orange Pippin, I'm sure, but hey, I'm stateside, and these are good apples) and rolled out two pastry crusts. I layered the pork alternately with layers of apples, and then finally dotted the top layer with a tablespoon or so of butter. I drizzled a tiny bit of apple brandy over each one (just, well, because) and folded the pastry over on itself and sealed it. Brushed it with beaten egg to glaze and vented the top with a knife...then into the oven for an hour.

It was quite good! Very interesting, a definite change of pace from other meat pies, most of which have a formula predominantly of beef/lamb, onion, and potatoes or other veg. I might go a little bit easier on the sage next time, and maybe sweeten the apples with a dusting of brown sugar, but on the whole it was great. Another obscure discovery of English cooking. Cheers to my wife for putting up with the experimentation.

Discourse on Randomly Selected Topics

First off, Henry V remains firmly the greatest of Shakespeare's works...challenged in my view only by Hamlet and Richard III. Henry V on the surface appears to be a simple patriotic history, but what a great play it is. Cheers to Lucian Cannole and the rest of the cast in the KC Shakespeare festival. All did a great job. I'll address what I think were the strengths and weaknesses, in comparison to Kenneth Branaugh's cinematic version, which I hold in high regard. Henry V in the stage version does well and seems very reminiscent of Branaugh, but the one area he lacks is due to the nature of stage performance. He doesn't get to cooly whisper lines with "hard favour'd rage" on his brow, the subtlety and self-control that Branaugh's character showed (thanks to closeups and good audio, luxuries the stage version lacked by nature) was one of my favourite things about it. Exeter, as well, had a kind of John Rhys Davies sort of authority as he was cast in the movie. The scene where Exeter addresses the French council in a full suit of armor and thunders his message...again, with some subtlety and a certain awing sense of bridled power...was excellent. "Scorn and defiance...slight regard...contempt..." And lastly, you just can't really upstage Derek Jacobi as Chorus. He put an almost comical amount of energy into that performance. The stage actor did well, too, but Jacobi had a fierce, visceral intensity that befits the seriousness of the play. Now, on the other hand...I think the "ethnic" portion of the play (Welsh, Scotch, Irish, and lower class English) had loads of great actors. The Welsh captain Llewellyn was particular excellent ("aye, leeks is good!"). And Captain Jamie, of course...played by Mr. Cannole quite well. But on the whole, I think you get more of an authentic Shakespeare experience with the staged version. A movie version offers a great many advantages and I admit I tend to prefer them (Gibson's Hamlet being another favourite of mine...and try as a I might I have never really liked Lawrence Olivier versions). But you get the feeling you are at a traditional play when they cast off the luxuries of movie sets, special effects, and the like.

Plans are progressing for an English brewpub in Kansas City. My responsibilities will be creative direction for the food, atmosphere, and all aspects of brewing. The financial and managerial tasks I will leave to my associate. But I am working aggressively to expand my repertoire of British cuisine and enhance my brewing techniques. Perhaps in the not too distant future there will be a place for you to watch the BBC while enjoying bangers and mash and a pint of freshly brewed bitter. Trust me, bangers and mash and a pint of bitter is a lot better than you might assume. I've had the real stuff at an expat joint in LA.

Next...firearms safety, and a discussion of autoloader malfunctions. First the four basic rules of gun safety:

1. Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Additionally, always check the chamber carefully before considering the gun "safe" or unloaded.

2. Muzzle Discipline: never let your muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

3. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it. Never shoot at shadows, and always realize that bullets can penetrate quite a lot, including interior walls (easily).

4. Keep your finger off the trigger and outside of the trigger guard until on target and ready to fire.

Next up, a discussion of typical autoloader malfunctions. I've experienced a few of these lately and as such have investigated them a bit.

First, failure to go into battery. This means that the bolt has cycled but failed to fully bring the next round into battery, and the symptoms are that the slide doesn't fully close and the trigger is inactive. Simple fix...strike the back of the slide to send it fully into battery. Had two of these but I treated them as duds (type I malfunction and racked the cartridge out of the gun).

Second, a Type I malfunction, failure to fire. Hammer falls and gun does not fire. It is best to hold for 30 seconds to ensure that it isn't a retarded primer, but then you tap the magazine to ensure it is fully seated, rack the slide to eject the dud and chamber a new round, and get back on target to resume firing.

Third, a Type II malfunction, failure to eject, or the "Stovepipe". This happens when a casing gets caught by the returning slide as it was ejecting, jamming the gun. Simple fix, similar to the Type I. Rack the slide back while simultaneously turning the gun to the side, throwing or dropping the spent casing clear, release the slide, and fire.

Fourth, the dreaded Type III, failure to feed/failure to extract. A spent casing fails to extract out of battery and the slide tries to chamber a new round, causing a double feed jam. I had one of these, and the important thing to remember (it took me 3 minutes to figure this out) is to immediately, before doing anything else, lock the slide open. Then remove the magazine (you might have to slide the half-fed cartridge back into the magazine to get it out). Then rack the slide at least twice to eject the spent cartridge...then put in the magazine securely and rack the slide, and you're ready again to fire. This one had me flummoxed, but at least now having dealt with it, I understand it fairly well. Better to be flummoxed by a jam on the range than under a God-forbid situation of extreme circumstances. But this is a tricky one to fix and I'll admit, its a good reason why people should either have a backup gun, or consider the slower firing but more reliable revolver. Autoloaders are excellent machines but they require more dedication, training, and maintenance than a simple double action revolver. Someone who doesn't know how to rapidly and safely address the potential malfunctions listed above should probably stay away from them. They are like racehorses...excellent performance but slightly finicky and jumpy, requiring an expert handler. At this point, anyone considering a firearm for home defense would be best served in my view by a medium frame double action .357 Magnum, or a 12 gauge pump action like a Mossberg 500 or Remington 870.

I've got to step up my dry fire drills, I think, as my marksmanship is a long way from what it needs to be, and I need to smooth out things like my draw/presentation considerably. I'm not sure how I feel about controversial topics such as point shooting. I've read avid praise of it, and ever so much more passionate criticism of it as well. I lean towards the "always use your sights" persuasion, because simply getting a hit will not stop an attacker necessarily, and as has been said before, the three principles of stopping power are marksmanship, marksmanship, and marksmanship. But on the other hand, sometimes you aren't given the luxury of extra time, in the case of a closing-within-arms-length attacker.

I have of late created what I think might be the best beverage I've ever run across. In Normandy there is a drink called "Pommeau de Normand". Normandy is famous for its fermented cider, as well as calvados, its oak-aged apple brandy. Pommeau is an almost equal blend of young apple brandy and fresh, sweet, unfermented apple cider/juice. The brandy preserves the juice, which is typically in the 17% to 20% ABV range. I simulated this hard to find beverage by blending a glass of Martinellis Sparkling Apple Cider (which I have found to be the most flavourful of sweet apple juices I have tried) with Laird's Straight Apple Brandy. The resultant beverage was extraordinary, full of complexity and flavour. Butterscotch, vanilla, floral notes, and of course crisp apple...very unique! I'll be blending and bottling some more of this, definately.

Just watched an interesting show, courtesy Netflix...season one of Mr. Show, from way back in 1995. Very silly (and rather profane) show, but it has its funny moments. David Cross is one of the funniest men alive though I'd venture to say he is funnier as Tobias Fuenke. The show is shockingly derivative of Monty Python's Flying Circus (I say shockingly because I had no idea such a show could snare a modern audience) but I don't slight them on that since I rather like Python.

I'm experimenting with Danish cooking now. Perhaps inspired from my many trips to Solvang, California (sort of a touristy "Little Denmark"...I highly recommend the trip, nonetheless).

My last blog entry bemoaned the confusion surrounding caliber dimensions. Reading up on the 357 Sig cartridge I found out that no, 9mm does not equal a .38 caliber, more like a .355 caliber. Why then is .380 ACP called 9mm Kurz? Is .380 ACP really .355 ACP? .40SW equals approximately 10mm, I can accept that...but this 9mm range of calibers from 357 Mag to 38 Special to 9mm Parabellum, I'm quite confused on. Is there a single, actual .38 cartridge out there? Do I care? Sadly, yes. I do. It's the Schrute in me. "The Schrutes produce very thirsty babies." Sorry for the Dwight quote, I couldn't help myself.

I started (and finished) reading Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme" last night, a seminal work in the area of firearms self-defence. Probably the best book on firearms in general I've ever read, even if it is (substantially) dated information. He talks about the "9 m/m" caliber like a fancy new invention from Germany! But I would recommend this to any and every gun owner. It is a sobering and reasoned examination of the ramifications of carrying or owning a weapon, and it forces the reader to consider hard questions that would be much better decided now than when life is on the line. Too many people think of a gun as a magical item imparting an aura of safety around the owner, and they give little thought to what they would do exactly were they forced to deploy it.

How's this for nerdliness: I'm going to make a crappy simulation of ballistic gelatin. Ballistic gelatin is a form of (duh) gelatin that is made do the density of the human body, and cartridges are fired into it to examine penetration, fragmentation, and wound channel size. It allows for a good comparison of terminal ballistics of various bullet calibers and styles. It also looks cool, I admit, which is the real reason I may attempt this. Basically I'm just going to mix up plastic milk containers full of jello (made to a thick consistency) and chill it, then blast it to kingdom come, and hope that it captures some bullets before they exit the other side. It would be awesome to get a perfectly expanded jacketed hollowpoint, even just to explain to people what the point of a hollowpoint is (because yeah...a LOT of people sure do ask me about that stuff...right...).

On the cooking front I've been interested in Asian foods, doing a lot of noodle dishes here recently. I like Thai rice noodles rather a lot, I've been cooking them and vegetables with pad thai sauces, curry sauces, and peanut sauces, all with a shot of Sriracha chili/garlic sauce for some blistering heat. If I ever do start that British brewpub, I'll be supplementing the good old Brit favourites with colonial tastes...chicken curry or tikka masala from India, and perhaps a Burmese/Thai noodle dish with lots of fiery chilies. That would go rather nicely with a malty, sweetish Southern England brown ale, I think. No fizzy pisswater lager allowed! Perhaps in October we could brew an honorary Oktoberfest Maerzen-style, but other than that, the lightest thing on the menu will be Bitter!

Two, at most three things remain on my "to get" list of guns for practical purposes. Note these are not "toys" like some guns might be...things to take to the range and have fun shooting with. I admit my last purchase, a Kel-Tec PLR-16, may have bordered on that, being basically designed as a weapon to be deployed against hordes of zombies. The first is a lightweight carry pistol, such as the planned-to-acquire Kel-Tec PF9. An HK USP Tactical would be "fun" but too expensive and impractical for anything but open carry. The second is that most trusty and proven home defence weapon, the 12-gauge shotgun. My plan would be to acquire a Mossberg 590 with ghost ring sights and retrofit it with a pistol grip and folding stock. Finally, and more optionally, would be a simple modern rifle with long range optics and a moderately powerful caliber, 7.62 NATO or higher. No there aren't many (any?) self-defence scenarios when you would need a long-distance rifle, but say I wanted to go hunting with the lads? Likewise, the Mossberg could double as a hunting weapon, though it would be comical to fire birdshot out of scary black folding-stock shotgun replete with tactical accessories. Kind of like hunting deer with an M82A1 Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle. Insert obligatory "go ahead Bambi make my day" joke here.

OK, one last gun-geek note. Is anybody else pissed that they named the .38 Special a .38 Special? Apparently the .38 Special is NOT in fact of a caliber of .38, as one would assume. I was always confused, because a revolver chambered in .357 Magnum can shoot .38 Special. Turns out, the .38 Special is actually .357. It's a bloody .357 Special if you ask me. Here I was thinking that a .38 Special was a rimmed, revolver version of a 9mm round. Just for clarification, the .380 Auto round, or 9mm Kurz, is 9mm x 17. 9mm Parabellum, the ubiquitous round known simply as "9mm", is 9mm x 19. I was thinking .38 Special was 9mm with a longer case than that, basically a juiced up 9mm. How wrong I was. The misleading bastards!

Ahoy there...

Barely managed to drag meself into work this morning...spent all last night (from 4:30, directly after work, til about 11:00) brewing a mild ale so I'm a bit tired...brewing is a relatively active hobby. For the uninitiated a mild ale is an old English style that resembles a brown ale in its emphasis on dark malts instead of hops, but with a light body and a very small alcohol content. I'm going to bottle this in the smaller 12oz bottles so I can perhaps have a bottle at mealtime when I'd prefer to minimize the consumption of alcohol. I suppose this belongs on my brew log, not my main blog, right?

I've been having some fun with an Airsoft pistol. It's a Beretta 92 clone. All I can say is, man, why didn't they have stuff like this when I was a kid? But it's nice to be able to sit on the couch and fire across the room into my cardboard target trap (making reasonably small groupings, I might add) while watching TV. Cheaper and easier than going to the range, although I of course recognize we're talking apples and oranges.

I watched the NBC Office marathon last night, which is a great show if not on the atmospheric level of the UK version. I think everyone is supposed to think of themselves as Jim and Pam, the normal, fun characters. What's funny is that my wife and I end up sharing a comic assortment of some of the MILDER qualities of another "couple" on the show, that of Dwight and Angela. No I have never dressed up as a Sith Lord before you jump to conclusions. But seriously, I built model tanks as a kid, I can discuss small arms tactics with confidence and interest, and I am a stickler for abiding by rules...in general. Am I Dwight Schrute? Perhaps. QUESTION: what is the point of this post anyway?

Behold the mighty Schrute Space:

http://blogs.nbc.com/office/

Tactical Rantings:

So watching a few TV shows...I've got some issues. First off is 24. Of all TV shows it is the most faithful to proper tactics and firearms training, but here are two issues. In season 2 which I am watching courtesy Netflix right now Jack shoots a thin young woman in her arm to get her to drop a gun. Jack, who never seems to carry anything but a medium frame automatic, may in fact be an excellent shot but no one trusts a sidearm to have that kind of accuracy, or at least no one should. I realize he needed to take her alive, but that's why he needed a 12 gauge with less-than-lethal rubber slugs or something. But I can forgive that. The other issue, which is also somewhat understandable from a TV show standpoint, is that for some crazy reason, he is always the first to enter hostile environments...which in itself is unlikely...and he does so never equipped with the body armour, helmet, ballistic face shield, and M4 carbine that all the other members of the assault team have. I'm sorry, but he should at least take an MP5 if he's going to go point on every single entry on the show. But I am grateful for this, they actually look like they've been trained on their weapons. Jack readily assumes the Weaver stance on a weekly basis and I did see him use the Harries technique once. None of this one-handed garbage.

Speaking of, I don't watch this show, but it is the feminine equivalent of 24...Alias. If I watched it (I've seen snippets) I could probably write reams about how it is unrealistic, so I should probably not open that box anyway. I doubt people expect realism from it. But the TV advert for it showed the heroine holding a large frame automatic with one hand, aimed at a target (presumably not the broad side of a barn...which would most likely be a challenge for her). Pardon my nerdliness as I emit a guffaw and a "yeah right". I don't care how much you train, one handed shooting will always be a fraction as accurate as a properly supported two handed stance, like the Weaver. It's a bloody fashion shoot, that show. Which reminds me of another (funnier) advert showing Wes Anderson, for a credit card company...the money quote was "can you put a bayonet on a .357?".

And lastly, last night's episode of Desperate Housewives. Admittedly the last place you'd expect to see accurate portrayal of CQB or SWAT tactics, but the final scene where the young killer guy has the mother (Bree, yes, I know most of the character names, I will admit that) at gunpoint...he's using a one handed stance but its at close range and you expect an untrained thug to do just that anyway. But when the SWAT team takes him out, apparently with an M4 carbine through the window, it gets a little trickier. First off, you don't hear the shot...totally unlikely, they didn't have silenced weapons and even if they had them off camera no one would put it on a sniper rifle for SWAT purposes. Secondly, the suspect was hit and made no immediate physical recognition of the hit...no jerking, no reflex, no jolt upon impact...highly unlikely. When a 5.56mm FMJ bullet strikes you in the chest, I would see it as highly unlikely that you'd stand stone still, then realize you've been hit, then fall down. And lastly, they went for a chest cavity shot. Unlikely...he was pulling the double action trigger and the chamber was cycling, with the hammer raising. The only way to stop that suspect was a careful shot to the cranio-ocular cavity. A shot to the chest would have a very likely reflexive action that would complete the shot.

OK, enough ranting, back to work.

Hello lads I'm back for another post of generally ponderous and shallow drivel. Let's start with the more intellectual crap and move on to the unimportant banter (saving the best for last).

C.S. Lewis has always been one of my favourite writers and lately I ran across a very interesting article regarding his views on pacifism. All the more interesting as I was having an internal debate (and still am, as a matter of fact) on acceptable use of force, and moral implications of both self-defence and defence of innocents for a Christian. It is a complicated subject, to say the least. C.S. Lewis as always has seemingly radical views that shock you at first (such as the thought that killing should be neither loved nor hated...you'd have to have context for this, honestly). There is a lot to consider in this area, and I've heard good arguments from what I would call "semi-pacifists" that I don't consider to be incorrect or anything, but while their particular philosophy (which I'm not going to take the time to spell out) works under many situations there are some situations that I think they would either act differently or perhaps be morally at fault for not doing so. All very, very complex. Let's put it this way...a guy has a gun on you, you have the capacity to draw and take him down. The argument would be, you are
going to heaven, you don't know about him, so your life is a fair sacrifice. That is fair. When you start to talk about home invasions, and the threat of death or worse to your family, things get a bit dicier. An innocent on the street about to be murdered, when you have the capacity to draw your weapon and intervene, or simply look away and walk on. What would the Christian do in that case? What is the selfless act, and what is the selfish act? Lewis makes an interesting case
regarding killing, and the difference between murder and killing. If a woman desperately fights off a man attempting to rape her, and he is pushed back, strikes his head on a rock and dies, she has killed him. Or if you're going to say "that's an accident" let's change it slightly...a woman about to be raped at knifepoint, grabs a rock off the ground and strikes her attacker on the head, killing him. Has she sinned? She committed an act of violence and killed a man, albeit in the most dire of self-defence situations. There are countless scenarios that could be presented, but enough with my one-way internal debate.

24 is a very tense show. I would not recommend that anyone purchase the DVD sets, because if I had all of the DVDs at one time I would stay up a very very long time and stay home from work, and probably start to hallucinate. I'd also start to believe that I worked for CTU and that President Palmer had authorized me to hunt down Sayed Ali and dispatch him. Just not safe, hehe. But one thing that cracks me up is how women are portrayed on the show, in two areas...the IT workers, and the terrorists. The IT workers are comically mostly women, which is almost exactly the opposite of the real world. Computer techs and specialists tend to be geeky left-brain guys, and we all know this. I grant you that Chloe is a funny and worthwhile character to have on the show, but all of the rest of them, its just a bit unlikely. And the other part is the "femme fatale" thing they have going through the series. Each season has at least one twenty-something American woman who apparently is a trained, heartless, and ruthlessly efficient killer-for-hire. How many twenty-something American women do you know who have even fired a pistol before, I ask? I can vouch for at least one, my wife, but the generally the only interest she has in guns is a sweetly sympathetic interest to share with her husband. Am I a chauvinistic bigot? If you say so. But I'm just being realistic. I'm not saying anything bad about women; in general women tend to be less interested in combat, violence, and using terrorism to accomplish political goals. Obviously there are exceptions but in 24 it is more the rule than the exception. Oh well, its just a show.

Still haven't taken my Kel-Tec out...maybe this Sunday? I should get some more ammo for it. I need to clean it fully before getting it out there. I broke it down and reassembled it, which is ridiculously painless in comparison to field-stripping a 1911 or my Ruger .22 MkII. The Kel-Tec PF9 looks good too...an extraordinarily small and lightweight 9mm handgun. Single-stack, it holds 7 rounds in the mag and 1 in the chamber. Double action only. Weighs about 1 lb (16oz) fully loaded, 13oz unloaded.

And lastly, Chicago II is a great album. Musicians don't do work like this any more. I'm sorry, I know it isn't the proper thing to say, but I'm not going to couch it in the premises of preference or evolving styles or any of that...modern music is lackluster, hit-and-mostly-miss garbage with sporadic moments of at least mediocre quality music. And it isn't just the music styles...musicians today just suck in comparison. Name a single guitarist played on modern rock radio who had the chops of Terry Kath. Or a bassist as good as Peter Cetera. YES THAT PETER CETERA. If you get outplayed by a guy who did a DUET with AMY GRANT what does that say about you. I mean, even though we are talking about the same guy who sang "You're the Inspiration"...he can hit the groove hard on the bass and lock in with a drummer, without being locked in to a song structure. "It Better End Soon", "I'm a Man", virtually anything of the first several Chicago albums, its all a showcase of some excellent bass chops. And let's get right down to it, you snivelling talentless hacks whose greatest musical achievement so far was learning a few Weezer songs from online tablature...you wouldn't know a groove if it was wedged up yer arse, sodding wankers. *ahem* No, but let's have some exemptions. The Chili Peppers definately have chops...they are a modern day AC/DC, good chops, good sound, but not too innovative and they tend to sound the same on each song. Radiohead was marginally technically gifted but only in comparison to the morons that surrounded them. They can play but they avoid anything too challenging (and then claim that choice to be motivated by artistic sensibility and not by technical limitations). Cake is good, they know how to groove and balance creativity and instrumental ability very well, and above all they don't take themselves too seriously (one would assume). The bassist who played with Ben Folds reminded me of my own style, due to his notey playing and use of fuzz. Maybe we both dug Chris Squire?

If you wanted to know who the REAL musicians were, take away the stages, take away fans who knew your names and your songs, take away all hopes and aspirations for success, recognition, and even the possibility that anyone would take the time to listen to your music. Strip all of that away, and you'd find untold numbers of musicians, particularly rock musicians, walking away. But jazz musicians...real jazz musicians...there is something about the way a guy who has unbelievable skill can sit in the corner of a restaurant with a small combo and groove and play these mind-blowing things that everyone else in the room just thinks of as "background music". No recognition, nothing. He's not going to get a record deal. He does it because his instrument is his voice (and for singers the reverse is true). I don't know, I'm a rocker by nature but I get so tired of the gigantic ego stuff that is pretty much the petrol in the tank of the rocknroll bus. To all the musicians I've ever known, I quote the aforementioned Radiohead: "ambition makes you look pretty ugly".

But even that stuff doesn't interest me all that much. Musicians ought to be free to do what floats their flotilla, I admit.

We have reached the end of my rant.

I'm reading a number of tactical handgun defence books right now...tomorrow I'm taking a CCW course in Platte City. I've noted that firearms/self-defence authors tend to be comically opinionated, egotistical, and entirely dismissive of any views other than their own. However, they still have a lot of good points, and I tend to take all of their advice with a grain of salt and use what I can. No use becoming an acolyte of some particular instructor (although I've found myself generally in accord with Gabriel Suarez) and then dismiss the valuable teachings of other instructors. Sometimes unfortunately I get very mixed information...one teacher recommends the Harries technique for holding a handgun and flashlight, another dismisses it offhand as a foolish technique taught by inexperienced organizations (without clarification of its purported flaws).

The books can be humorous in their frankness though...an example is from the current book I'm reading (name and author escape my memory): "Chapter Eleven: Shooting Into Vehicles and Shooting From Vehicles". As horrible as that sounds, it did contain some very useful pieces of information that are better to know beforehand than to learn the hard way (in one of those God-forbid type scenarios).

While the quote down below (attributed on the net as being from Mark Twain, but I've not seen that substantiated) retains the much-sought-after position of My Current Favourite Quote, here's another good (if a bit sad) quote:

"Shoot straight, you bastards, don't make a mess of it!" - Leftenant Harry Morant, calling out a final request to his firing squad before shuffling off this mortal coil and joining the choir invisible.

Well, I borrowed a cheap digital camera to let you see my happy family of firearms:

On top is my circa-1918 Lee Enfield SMLE No1MkIII...for the uninformed this was the standard battle rifle for the Brits for a long time (although during WWII it was a slightly modified variant, the No4). 10 rounds of British 303 with a surprisingly smooth bolt. Shame you can't see the Wilkinson bayonet in the photo...its a huge saber style bayonet, very beautiful.

Lower left, that's my Llama M1911 copy, chambered in (what else) .45ACP. Always on duty for home defence. A good gun, and after a thorough cleaning and oiling, a very nice, smoothly operating pistol. Lots of power, and fun to shoot.

Next is my wife's old Smith and Wesson .38 Special snubnose. 6 round cylinder loaded with hollowpoint currently. I keep this one....close.

Next is that beautiful new addition to the family, the Kel-Tec PLR-16. 30 round capacity of 5.56 NATO rifle ammunition, it's a big beast as you can see. For those times when "enough" just isn't enough.

Lastly, my first handgun, the Ruger MkII. A nice little .22LR plinker pistol, very accurate if unsuitable for defensive handgun purposes. A great way to have an inexpensive day at the range (22 rimfire ammo is ridiculously cheap).

Upcoming additions will most likely be first an ultra-concealable, sub-compact 9mm single-stack automatic (Kel-Tec PF9, most likely) for licensed carry, and eventually a tactical shotgun...the Mossberg 590 for extra home defence firepower.

Favourite Quote of the Moment:

"I like my beer dark, cigars strong, coffee black, bourbon straight, and politicians on the end of a rope." --Mark Twain

My gun collection is growing. Got the Kel-Tec, and a big mammajamma it be, most definately. I also snagged a nice Brit 30 round mag in black...although burning through that would cost somewhere around 7 bucks with the ammo I bought (WWB). I'm not sure when I'll get to fire it because I'm so blasted busy, but perhaps down at the lake in the next several weeks (where rapid fire isn't grounds for getting kicked off the range!).

Here is what I plan on adding to it. First the fore-end, depicted in the previous post. That gives you a solid grip on the front for firing SMG-style. Also adds a lower rail. Then, a Phantom (YHM 5C1) flash suppressor, to lessen the huge muzzle blast and recoil this thing will have. Then, a red-dot sight. For rapid aiming and low-light environments this will be priceless. Finally, for the lower front rail, a laser dot sight, which allows you to shoot from the hip. I always think about guns in the tactical environment of my house, which realistically is the only place they would ever be used for anything but target practice, and these mods would give me advantages and flexibility in one of those "God forbid" situations. Is it overkill, you ask, when a simple revolver or 12 gauge is the accepted home defence system for most people? Perhaps, but I don't really care about overkill and the last thing I'm going to do is play fair if someone invades my home and threatens my wife and me. And my kitty (said in an Eric Cartman voice, of course). My active assumption if someone breaks into my house is that they are elite and well-equipped professionals (which I grant is highly unlikely) and therefore I'm prepared to use whatever force I have at my disposal to counter them. I suppose you could take it to extremes. An M249 would be a little excessive for a home defence weapon, as would a crate of frag grenades.

Right now I've just got FMJ ammo, which I'll use for target practice, but due to the lower muzzle velocity of the PLR (a result of the short barrel) I'll pick up some hollowpoint eventually, and fill a mag to have at the ready for the home defence scenario. Still got my S&W 38Spl snubnose, as well as my Spanish 1911 copy. I love that 1911...I field stripped it and spent a whole evening cleaning and oiling it. The slide is smooth and crisp now. Ready to launch a clip worth of .45 caliber lead at a moment's notice. I've only fired it a few times but it has never jammed or failed on me. The Ruger MkII is, well, a pretty target pistol and a fun plinker, that's about it. But I like it! Extraordinarily accurate. The Enfield, which I also stripped and cleaned, is as always, a beautiful old gun with a lot of class. I may mount it in my dining room. Next to the javolina head that I don't have.

I'm still pondering the ideal concealed carry weapon. The Kel-Tec P3AT weighs in at a ridiculous 7 ounces, and I held one at the gun store (insanely small!). The other one I'd consider is a Bersa Thunder 380, which is admittedly heavier but would fit my hand nicer and be a bit more accurate...it doesn't matter how lightweight the gun is if it can't put steel on target. Oh well, one gun at a time. Me and my hobbies...

OK we're done posting about Donald Fagen for now, I promise.

Anyway...long-time readers (depressingly hilarious, innit?) will recall my quest for firepower and selecting the perfect "next gun". I've been back and forth on this quite a bit, eventually settling on a FAL, but I found something else in the meantime. The Kel-Tec PLR-16. Essentially take the AR-15 design, use a different gas piston system, shorten the barrel substantially and remove the stock. What remains is a 5.56mm pistol with a 30 round capacity, tons of power, capable of being outfitted with red dot sights, laser sights, you name it. I'll be getting mine next week. I know a lot of you may think to yourselves..."5.56mm vs. 9mm? That's a smaller and assumedly less powerful caliber!" Au contraire my friends. That's why the US military has been using 5.56 ammunition in all of its rifles and infantry-carried machine guns since the 70s. The bullet may be smaller but the power behind it is much greater, being a rifle round. Think of a 9mm round as a large rock fired from a sling shot, and 5.56mm as a small bolt fired from a powerful crossbow. The gun doesn't quite hit full AR-15 muzzle velocities due to the shorter barrel but if I recall correctly it does hit around 2600 fps. Anyway, here it is:


So but anyway....yeah. I'm looking forward to taking this baby to the range. It's a noisy sucker. I just have to wait until next Monday to get my handgun purchase permit from the Jackson County sheriff.

I'm still in a bit of a trance from Donald Fagen's latest album; it's a bit unfair to compare it to a classic like The Nightfly, but the astonishing clarity of Fagen's lyrics has a bit of a hold on me. It's almost as if he grew tired of the ruse, and stopped trying to camoflauge the meaning behind the songs. One particular song was rather disquieting..."Brite Nitegown", a tight, creepy funk number. Fagen's explanation of the song in the liner notes made it quite disturbing:

"I read in a biography of W.C Fields that the great comedian liked to refer to
Death as "the fellow in the bright nightgown". Each verse is a different
encounter with the Fellow."

I've always been quite fond of W.C. Fields and his movies, and his imagination of a man in a bright nightgown is...well, disturbing but yet difficult to envision. You can't quite picture what he imagines, but it holds a kind of grotesque normalcy. Nothing exotic like a demon or a fearsome reaper, just a fellow in a (perhaps glowing?) nightgown. I suppose the most horrible thought along those lines is that none of us would really know what the Fellow would look like, and the moment we do...he's here and our time is up. So with that quasi-ghoulish premise, here are the lyrics:

I dreamed I had a fever
I was pushin one-oh-three
My mom’s all upset - cryin’ by my bedside
Everybody’s prayin’ for me
I hear a scratchin at the window
I somehow twist myself around
I realize
I’m eyes to eyes
With the fella in the Brite Nitegown

Brite Nitegown
Brite Nitegown
You can’t fight with the fella
In the Brite Nitegown

The eagle flys on Friday
My baby wants to bash
I hit the ATM - and march down the street
With a roll of party cash
Right then a couple lit-up brothers
They gently put me on the ground
They do the steal
Leave me to deal
With the fella in the Brite Nitegown

Brite Nitegown
Brite Nitegown
You can’t fight with the fella
In the Brite Nitegown

Ten milligrams of Chronax
Will whip you back through time
Past Hebrew kings - and furry things
To the birth of humankind
I shared in all of nature’s secrets
But when I finally came around
I’m sittin’ on the rug
Gettin’ a victory hug
From the fella in the Brite Nitegown

Brite Nitegown
Brite Nitegown
You can’t fight with the fella
In the Brite Nitegown

Donald Fagen Returns

So Donald Fagen is back with his third solo album (first one in thirteen years), "Morph the Cat". Having listened to a portion of the album, its replete with complex, appealing grooves and jazzified harmonic progressions. Listen to "H Gang" for example. Classic Donald Fagen material, a nice bookend to the trilogy. Also check out his other two albums, "Kamakiriad" and "The Nightfly", the latter being an especially enduring classic.

Certain bands have a unique way of motivating me in music; if I listen to the great mass of modern popular music in just about every genre, I get a bit frustrated at the plainness, the boring cookie-cutter progressions, and the utter lack of impressive musicianship. It ironically makes me less interested in playing music when the music I hear wouldn't challenge me at all...people are getting paid, actually PAID to recycle this drivel and that depresses me a bit...

Then I listen to Steely Dan or Yes, and I realize, wow, I could focus entirely on my playing for ten years and not have the chops to hang with these guys. Knowing there is something beyond power chords and distortion keeps me interested.

Awesome grooves though, this is a great record...can't wait to get my actual copy (right now he's streaming lofi versions on his website, donaldfagen.com).

Cheers mates.

K A R L P I L K I N G T O N

So, I hope you've all discovered the Ricky Gervais show. It's almost as if Ricky Gervais himself has caused his own demise as the hot new comedic entity by giving the limelight to Karl. Karl Pilkington exudes a unique fusion of childish ignorance with adult cynicism that is as fiendishly comical as it is psychologically debilitating. He isn't Gareth...he possesses none of the gnawing self-doubt and insecurity of Mr. Keenan, on the contrary....Karl is strangely secure...secure in his supremely uncurious and sated expressions, secure in the veracity of his sweeping observations of the world around him, and secure in himself, as odd as that might appear.

Karl wouldn't wonder, as "Garrettio" did, whether there would ever be a boy born that could swim faster than a shark. He would simply muse on the futility of swimming in the ocean at all. There aren't any sharks on land.

Cobblers, toffeeshops, knob-at-night remixes, and Monkey News....Karl, we salute you and your great spherical noggin!

"...alright...."

OK, a lot of things have been going on, but one minor detail of the whole situation that strikes me as incredibly ironic...

First up is my recent article arguing for the confirmation of Sam Alito in the UMKC student newspaper (just some crap I threw together, nothing great or original):

Examining the Merits of Alito

Then, I find out yesterday that Alito made national headlines on his first day by breaking with Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, voting to extend the stay of execution for Michael Taylor. The whole situation seems surreal, hitting national news, not something I am used to, personally, but I'm a newcomer to the family. If you (anyone?) think of it, pray for the Harrisons.

CNN article on the case

But yeah, that's it. I'm sure I'll be back to the same old useless patter and silliness you've grown to know and love in the next post.

EXETER
I arrest thee of high treason, by the name of
Richard Earl of Cambridge.
I arrest thee of high treason, by the name of
Henry Lord Scroop of Masham.
I arrest thee of high treason, by the name of
Thomas Grey, knight, of Northumberland.

SCROOP
Our purposes God justly hath discover'd;
And I repent my fault more than my death;
Which I beseech your highness to forgive,
Although my body pay the price of it.

CAMBRIDGE
For me, the gold of France did not seduce;
Although I did admit it as a motive
The sooner to effect what I intended:
But God be thanked for prevention;
Which I in sufferance heartily will rejoice,
Beseeching God and you to pardon me.

GREY
Never did faithful subject more rejoice
At the discovery of most dangerous treason
Than I do at this hour joy o'er myself.
Prevented from a damned enterprise:
My fault, but not my body, pardon, sovereign.

KING HENRY V
God quit you in his mercy! Hear your sentence.
You have conspired against our royal person,
Join'd with an enemy proclaim'd and from his coffers
Received the golden earnest of our death;
Wherein you would have sold your king to slaughter,
His princes and his peers to servitude,
His subjects to oppression and contempt
And his whole kingdom into desolation.
Touching our person seek we no revenge;
But we our kingdom's safety must so tender,
Whose ruin you have sought, that to her laws
We do deliver you. Get you therefore hence,
Poor miserable wretches, to your death:
The taste whereof, God of his mercy give
You patience to endure, and true repentance
Of all your dear offences! Bear them hence.

This is a section of Shakespeare's Henry V that seems particularly relevant today, as a murderer awaits his punishment.

A bittersweet announcement...Donald Fagen will be releasing his third solo album in March. His last came out in '93, the first in the 80s, so it's been a long time coming. He's also touring to support the album. Of course, nowhere near Kansas City is on the list. I've a mind to email him, perhaps toss a few lyrics back at him, maybe "Kansas City born and growing" from Parker's Band, or "East St. Louis Toodle-Oo". Although even I know how small a crowd he would draw, relatively, here in the midwest. How about Toby Keith opens for him???

Oh well, I've seen him in concert before (with Becker as Steely Dan), but it would have been cool nonetheless, especially as a solo act.

"It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be a
chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying in Uptown or
wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day. This city
will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You
can't have it no other way." - Mayor Ray Nagin

OK, let's take a quick look at this despite it being old news. A few weeks have passed...has anyone ANYONE in the civil rights community called for this bigoted racist twat to resign?

Imagine a slightly different wording:

"It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be
a snow-white New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying in Uptown
or wherever they are. This city will be white as the driven snow at
the end of the day. This city will be a majority Caucasian city. It's the
way God wants it to be. You can't have it no other way." - Mayor Ray Nagin

Anyone else find that to be offensive? Anyone think that a prominent politician claiming the God-ordained destiny of his constituents are to become more and more white would have a snowball's chance in hell of political survival?

What a stupid idiot. But he doesn't make me mad...it's the fools and hypocrites who cry racism at the silliest things but then turn a blind eye to the most bald-faced racist rhetoric I've heard from a prominent politician in a loooong time. I mean, from the invocation of God's will in political matters to the call for racial purity, this guy should be more at home in the National Socialist party than with the Democrats. Note to libs, clean up your house, if you want to pretend that racism offends you so much, and dump this guy from your party pronto.

Alright, I won't post too much background info here regarding the personal connection, but allow me to rant for a moment. There is a case open right now contesting that Missouri's method of execution, a three drug injection, causes unnecessary pain and is somehow thus unconstitutional. I have doubts as to the truth of this, naturally, but a larger question remains...since when has capital punishment been mandated to be entirely pain-free? "Cruel and unusual punishment" now implies anything painful? Is there a more humane method of execution? I suggest this tongue in cheek, but somewhat seriously: if this lawyer's objection is genuinely only regarding the method of execution, why don't we offer him and his client a form, roughly as follows:

State of Missouri Execution Method Request Form
(Reorder # MO1X24-B)

Please mark a number '1' by your first choice, a number '2' by your second
choice, and a number '3' by your third choice for your preferred method of
execution. All efforts will be made to provide you with your first choice,
but you are ensured at least one of your three selections will be made available
to you.

___ Electric Chair
___ Hanging
___ Being Thrown Off a Cliff
___ Lethal Injection
___ Gas Chamber
___ Starvation
___ Firing Squad (please indicate preferred caliber: _____ )
___ Assisted Suicide
___ Guillotine (a 3 week lead time may be required)
___ Walking the Plank
___ Being Shot into Space towards the Sun

Pardon the slightly darker than usual humour...I know by all rights this is no laughing matter, but perhaps the absurdity in the above suggestion will make my point. Well, and for "assisted suicide" one wonders what difference there is between the injections Dr. Kevorkian used and those the State of Missouri uses.

OK this is tremendously ugly in Visio format but its a quick idea. It illustrates my rantings regarding the battle tactics (or lack thereof) in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. First note how the defensive line is arrayed with the mountain cliffs on its flank. In the movie they arrayed themselves in front of the mountain, which had the effect of cutting off a clear withdrawal path, and also offered no protection of the flank. My plan protects the left flank. The enemy were essentially all mounted or unmounted shock troops, and they advanced in an unorderly rabble straight for the Narnian line. You array your heavy infantry at the front, preferably behind some kind of fortification such as wooden stakes (to ward off cavalry charges). The light infantry is directly behind them, and can rain down arrows as soon as the enemy is within range, which would be especially effective since the fortifications could slow down the advance. Then, your heavy cavalry pours out from the right flank, speeds around and attacks the enemy's rear and flank. At this point the heavy infantry and heavy cavalry would be fully engaged in melee combat, and you would want to command your light infantry to lay down their bows and prepare for melee combat. Use them as a reserve, rushing in to bolster weak or broken points in the line. You would also want to wait until the enemy heavy infantry had reached the line and was engaged with your heavy infantry before unleashing the cavalry's flank attack. By springing the trap too soon they could double back and overwhelm the cavalry, forcing a hasty retreat and possibly a rout of your horsemen. Once they were encumbered in combat and clambering over the fortifications, there would be no way for them to properly reform on their left flank and rear to drive off the cavalry flank attack.

Here is the diagram: