Whose Lab seems a pertinent question here

The Al Fin Next Level blog is one that I have been following for 6+ years now, largely because the posts there cover a range of topics I often have at least some interest in and the posts themselves present a well-thought-out, balanced, and well sourced approach to the topic du jour. As witness, see: It Wouldn't Be the First Virus to Escape from a Laboratory 

Some Experts Believe the Virus May Have Escaped a Lab

Viruses in the same family as Wuhan Coronavirus are routinely collected and studied at minimal protection levels, making lab accidents and viral leaks more likely.

Ebright thinks that it is possible the COVID-19 pandemic started as an accidental release from a laboratory such as one of the two in Wuhan that are known to have been studying bat coronaviruses.

Except for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, two deadly viruses that have caused outbreaks in the past, coronaviruses have been studied at laboratories that are labelled as operating at a moderate biosafety level known as BSL-2, Ebright says. And, he says, bat coronaviruses have been studied at such labs in and around Wuhan, China, where the new coronavirus first emerged. “As a result,” Ebright says, “bat coronaviruses at Wuhan [Center for Disease Control] and Wuhan Institute of Virology routinely were collected and studied at BSL-2, which provides only minimal protections against infection of lab workers.” __ TheBulletin

Which, as any blogger strives for, brings us back around to the titular point of the post; precisely whose lab had this particular strain of coronavirus get out into the world?

Which brings this post to the website Veterans Today  Billed as "Serving the Clandestine Community since 2004" may provide some useful framing for the following story:

 https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/03/26/us-athlete-intelligence-officer-in-china-games-named-as-patient-zero-for-covid-debunking-trump-rhetoric-updating/

I can't figure out how to quote from the article directly; it's in English, but not in a coherent fashion, you'll have to go see for yourself.

At first glance, the article at Veterans Today appears to be a mash-up of someone's propaganda, or equally arguably someone's public relations efforts. Not being a professional in either, I decline to speculate. In any case, the article specifically identifies US Army Reserve Staff Sergeant Maatje Benassi as a US "intelligence officer" and "an armed diplomatic driver ... for General James Jones" who is further claimed to be assigned to US Army Intelligence. Given that Fort Meade is publicly acknowledged as the home of the US National Security Agency, a General Jones - a US Army Intelligence Officer specifically - being assigned duties proximate to the NSA doesn't seem particularly noteworthy, unless said General Jones isn't publicly identified to be in that assignment. Some cooberative linkagrey would seem the least effort required to retain even a fleeting grasp on 1st amendment claims. Also, it strikes me that an "armed diplomatic driver" would almost certainly be drawn from the ranks of active duty personnel, not a reservist (unless she were to be on active duty status at the time of posting to the position).

At the very least, this reporting verges uncomfortably close to doxxing absent the links to corroborate such claims.

Adding at least the appearance of legitimacy to all of this is this article from October 25, 2019 by the US Department of Defense: https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1998827/us-women-place-8th-despite-crash-in-50-mile-cycling-race/

A hit from behind on the final lap may have dashed the U.S. team's hopes for gold in women's cycling, but bruised ribs and a cracked helmet didn't stop Army Sgt. 1st Class Maatje Benassi from crossing the finish line.    Teammates from a trail vehicle rushed to her side to provide aid, but she refused medical care for the moment, jumping right back up on the bike. "My goal was to finish it. … I came this far, I trained this hard, I had to finish it," she said. "I was in a lot of pain, and my bike was rubbing, too. … Nothing went smooth, but I said, 'Forget it, I'm just going to finish.'" Benassi finished last among the 30 competitors from 11 nations who completed the road race.

 "But that's racing", she said. "You win some, you lose some". The Army Reserve noncommissioned officer from the 312th Observer-Controller-Trainer unit at Fort Meade, Maryland, said she won't let the setback keep her down. A few days later, she was back out training.

 It may seem trivial to non-service members, but getting the Sergeant's rank wrong is a prominent red flag regarding the factuality of everything that follows. Beyond that, is SFC Benassi's duty posting, A) correct, B) a matter of public knowledge, or did Jim W. Dean, managing editor of Veterans Today, just break operational security and subject SFC Benatti to career ending scrutiny via his deliberate doxxing of her?

It seems obvious to me that this story about the source of the COVID-19 coronavirus takes a plausible-seeming sports story from last October, associates it with nebulous claims of nefariousness (source of said claims not identified), and aligns the story presentation with known PRC/CCP propaganda that they aren't the source of this pandemic, the US Army is (there are two USAF LTC's and a US Navy Commander also mentioned in the DoD story, if infection was the objectivity why wouldn't they be included in the effort? Is veteranstoday.com officer-class snobbery showing through? Maybe PRC/CCP money is the easiest answer).

What makes this potentially something more than a moderately interesting blog post is the national security questions riddled throughout. Is this an example of PRC/CCP 4G warfare? How about "mere" collusion with a foreign power as an undeclared agent of influence? OTOH did what we know as COVID-19 get out of a lab at Fort Detrick, which is 40-odd miles northwest of Fort Meade? Not impossible, and neither is it seemingly implausible, which makes it all seem more likely as propaganda absent further facts to support such a claim.

US Army Chief of Staff General James C. McConville has the duty to his country and his fellow soldiers to investigate this matter as fully as possible, and to report his findings to the Commander-in-Chief. One direct way of starting such an inquiry is to poll the four women identified in the DoD story from last October (along with the unidentified teammates in the support vehicle) as to their physical health during the months of October and November, 2019, with medical records to support such recollections. A second line of inquiry needs to identify all of the possible means of "cross pollination" between Forts Detrick and Meade. This would be useful whether or not any member of the US team became infected with any disease. Finally, this investigation needs to happen as a matter of considerable urgency. In what I regard as on my Top 5 Worst Case Scenarios list, The USA and the PRC going Def Con 1 with each other is certainly in their somewhere. We absolutely want to know as certainly as we possibly can that we know why while we go all "duck and cover". On a different list is the names of those who get a traitors just rewards.

And you were lamenting just the other day about the lack of sports stories, weren't you? Personally, I'd rather go back to ignoring Jim Lampley.

What Do You Mean By "Fight"?

I've recently had occasion to think about two apparent dichotomies; words mean things, and word usage changes over place and time. Word definitions don't really change in the usual meaning of the word change. They tend to acquire added meanings that can supplant the historical meaning, but the earlier definition remains a valid usage depending on the context within which it is used. English english and American english being probably the most obvious example of usage change over place and time I can think of off hand.

The inspiration for the above came from my thinking about the word "fight", both in the limited martial arts context and in the more general strategy application. Specifically, is it better to "fight to win", or is it better to "fight not to lose"?

Fighting not to lose is the only consideration that gives the concept of "Just War" any practical meaning at all. Note that I said meaning, not justification. You can justify literally any conduct or action by simply declaring, "Deus vult!" (or the equivalent in your alternative language of choice), or you can circle around the question(s) endless epistemological expositions instead, but understanding meaning, definitionally and contextually, is what is required to actually make an informed decision - in this case, whether and how to fight.

Fighting to win requires one to accept from the moment of deciding to engage in active conflict that there are neither restrictions nor constraints imposed upon the choices you make during the coming combat, so long as the end result is your indisputable defeat of your opponent. Indeed, allowing any consideration or circumstance to interfere in achieving that outcome must be regarded as an act of treason in any fight to win conflict. Why so many people seem so willing to forget the same applies equally to all involved in such a fight mystifies me.

Fighting not to lose, on the other hand, is the underlying factor inherent to the very concept of civilization. A "no holds barred" fight is one without rules (even a knife fight, Butch :)) and therefore an unreliably predictable outcome, whether between two outlaws having nothing but the clothes they stand in or two civilizations possessed of grandeur and glory. Laws of War, Code Duello, Lines In The Sand, Street Justice, all are mechanisms to impose fighting not to lose on all combatants, such that all may have some reason to think they have an understanding of what (more importantly, how much) they risk by fighting (or not).

These are the meanings of the words we use to decide the acceptable-to-us answers to the classic 6 questions (who, what, when, where, why, how) as they apply to our routine and extraordinary competitions with one another. Our shared civilization is built upon our mutual expectation that we will all cooperate with the constraints imposed by fighting not to lose, witness our outrage and condemnation when one combatant fails to do so (or only plausibly can be made to appear to so fail). Deliberate obfuscation of the previously agreed to meanings of these words may well be the single greatest act of betrayal of trust any human can inflict upon another.

Thoughts? Disputations? I have been known to be full of shit before this; based on my track record to date, that's not that risky a proposition bet to be honest. Nevertheless, this is my ante ... fight to win is the choice of a fool, fight not to lose is the only way to position yourself to outlast your attackers.

It's also the only way to keep your world civilized while you're winning (or not) and most especially after. Update: I don't know why the long paragraph breaks; I cut-and-paste from my FB page where I first composed this. It be what it be ...

A Click Here, A Click There ... It Adds Up

Went HEMA shopping today. Bought the 82nd Shorty face mask/helmet from Destroyer Modz, a cruciform feder from Castille Armory, a pair of Koning Gloves from St. Mark (which won't arrive 'till March maybe, depending on where I fall in the ordering que), and a nylon chest protector and HEMA gear bag ("fits a long sword" - worth a try) from Purple Heart Armoury. I've got a full set of general training pads, cup, etc from my Krav Maga training so I think I will hold off on buying a sparring jacket just yet. On that note, any informed opinions on the PBT sparring jackets? I suspect the included guards and pads (that have to be removed for cleaning - and then have to be put back into the now-smaller holes afterwards) (this is not my first rodeo) may be more trouble than they are worth.  It looks attractively priced compared to the basic Axel Petterrson SPES jacket, but ...

That was a quick thousand bucks; good thing it's only "fiat currency", what?

Thoughts, opinions, rude gestures?

Links:

http://www.destroyermodz.com/product/the-82nd-shorty/

http://castillearmory.com/

http://www.saintmark.se/

http://www.woodenswords.com/default.asp

http://pbthistoricalfencing.com/

http://www.woodenswords.com/product_p/spes-jacket.htm

Germany 1 - Argentina 0

Now that the World Cup has finally run dry, can we get back to the Baseball?

Thanks to Borepatch for this one though.  I'm not quite convinced this is how FIFA wants the tourney to be remembered, but Whoops ... there it is.

Going For The Gold

Via Drudge I learn from this AP story that some private US domestic organisation claims to have "stripped" Lance Armstrong of all of his 7 Tour de France titles - an authority actually exercised by the International Cycling Union.  The USADA also claims authority to revoke an International Olympic Committee authorized Bronze Medal awarded to Armstrong for his (carefully drug monitored) performance in the 2000 Olympics, as well as "... any awards, event titles and cash earnings."

I think I begin to smell a motive for all this.

If the USADA does succeed in claiming for it's own all of Lance Armstrong's "earnings" over the course of his sports career, how much of his cancer foundations monies (reportedly some $500+ million) count as his earnings?

Talk about going for the gold.

Why I'm a blogger and not a reporter

I suppose most people are at least generally aware of the recent confrontation instigated by Alex Jones with Hot Air blogger and sometime Fox News reporter/commentator Michele Malkin yesterday in Denver, CO; see here for a written report by Charles Martin of events from one participants perspective and here for a largely unedited video recording of the incident by Stephen Greene (aka VodkaPundit) who happened to be on-scene working as a Pajamas Media reporter as events unfolded.

While I am certain that Alex Jones chose the tactic he did because Michele Malkin is a 5' nuthin' Filipina and the living incarnation of the definition "petite", and that Alex Jones would never, for any reason, even consider attempting something similar involving myself (being that I am the diametric opposite of said definition) as the object of his invective-laden assault, I still feel it incumbent upon me to note that, were he ever to do so here in Texas - the state we both reside in, I absolutely would shoot him DRT.

And, I fully understand that a Lone Star version of Denver's Smirky Mc DoNut, as described briefly in Mr. Martin's report, would no doubt be the first to insist I accept his offer of accommodation as a guest of the Governor immediately thereafter.

We who go to all the trouble to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm do so for nearly as many reasons as there are number of us, but one of the most common is to generally accept a greater share of responsibility for our own security and safety. I submit to all and sundry that the behavior exhibited by Alex Jones in the PJM video is a classic example of "threatened and in fear for my life" as anyone might hope not to ever personally experience.

I believe that about the second time he directed his assaultive behavior in such a close, in-your-face fashion, and had he done so to me in a similarly aroused mob atmosphere, I'd have killed him without a moments hesitation.

Which causes me to re-raise a question I briefly skirted about with Kevin Baker some months ago; to what extent does our recreational shooting training influence our behavior in an actual defensive gunfight situation?

Using the PJM video as a reference, at what point in the course of events would you consider the self-defense requirement to have been met (if at all) and thereby feel justified in shooting the attacker? No fair cheating and using Michele Malkin's unarmed action as a guide; this question is for concealed carry license holders, presumed to be subject to a near-identical assault, in a state that recognises their license and thus can be presumed to be armed at the time.

I bring this topic up because I believe that we all run an under-appreciated risk of unnecessary legal jeopardy by not periodically including some form of specifically "defensive shooting"-oriented training and/or regular practice session as a part of our normal shooting experience. My problem is, I'm not fully confident what such a regimen ought to realistically (as well as legalistically) consist of.

I am certain that reliance upon the tactics and techniques inherent to Steel Challenge, IDPA and the like probably would offer as much opportunity for a potential prosecutor as it would my defender.

Here in Texas (and I'm willing to bet this is common in other states, too) a private citizen is entitled to defend his life and (with certain stipulations) his property from direct attack. But only to the point of safeguarding said life and property, wherein lies the rub.

A defensive shooting training exercise would have to explicitly include a mechanism for breaking direct contact with an attacker (never mind the old "best defense ..." chestnut) in order for such a gunfight to be consistent with a defensive action. I submit that the shooting disciplines I previously cited teach the diametric opposite of such a principle. Please understand, there's nothing wrong with that in it's own context, until an attorney is using it to demonstrate your willful disregard for the life of the decedent and why the jury should award the plaintiff 110% of everything you will ever earn in perpetuity. In that circumstance, maybe a defense attorney could make a telling counter-argument to a jury out of a training regimen that specifically includes dis-engaging from attack if safely possible for you to attempt. Being able to question witnesses as to your training in and practice of such a defensive discipline might usefully improve your image with a jury as well.

The possibility of being able to actually train not to shoot idiots like Alex Jones as part of an effective "combined arms" philosophy to personal concealed carry seems useful to me also. The superior strategist is one who defeats an enemy's attack at the least cost to himself.

Any thoughts ... ?

Update (9/01): Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs site has a post up by "Zombie" regarding yet another recent near-riot in Denver last week. In addition to the apparent propaganda effort made by the Rocky Mountain News to spin this minor side-show to an equally minor arrest, there's the question of how the police handled the threatening crowd scenario as opposed to what occurred in the separate incident involving Michele Malkin.

For better or worse, I believe that this sort of organised, structured and well-practiced behavior is more than likely going to be the standard of conduct to which all individuals forced into a similar circumstance will be compared. The stunning disparity between a department of trained professionals degree of resources and training to that of virtually any individual not withstanding, I expect the presence of firearms and a state license to carry same will be the over-riding factors in most people's minds when it comes to assessing the degree of civil guilt and/or responsibility for a given outcome.

We shooters with concealed carry licenses need to better prepare ourselves for the full range of responsibility that accompanies the personal protection we seek to secure for ourselves. Specifically, to include surviving intact the legal fight that will almost inevitably follow any gun fight.

A pyrrhic victory isn't. Don't build a strategy around such an obvious point of failure.

Good Enough

Kevin Baker laments his lack of speed in firing "controlled doubles" at a recent shooting match he attended. In his post, Kevin links to a classic Chris Byrne post that thoroughly explains and illustrates precisely the what and why of the issue. I should also note that I've met Chris and seen him shoot (at the NoR Fest/Conf last year); not only does he clearly understand the difference between a controlled double and a doubletap, he can demonstrate same with depressing regularity and accuracy.

With a brand new, straight-out-of-the-box, never before fired by him 10 mm no less.

Sigh.

All that said, I'm going to argue the position that, outside the bounds of formal competitions like IDPA/IPSC and the like, the standards of performance Chris and Kevin seek to achieve are not entirely realistic for actual pistol gunfights (says the man who is loudly grateful never to have actually had to engage in one).

Lemme 'splain.

Hold your hand in front of you, palm toward you, fingers extended and touching each other. Then make a fist with the thumb resting outside the closed fingers. I should point out that attempting to punch someone with your fist in this configuration will almost certainly result in more damage to your fist then to another's face; also, the area demarcated by your fist (base of the palm to the closed fingers x the thumb knuckle joint to the blade-edge of the palm) is a reasonably accurate simulacrum of the size of your heart. Place your closed fist over the mid-point of your chest and you will have a clear illustration of the target area involved. Now, center the last joint of your little finger on your upper lip and take note of the portion of your face your fist covers.

As part of your next trip to the range, make this same fist but this time extend your arm towards the target you just shot. If the X-round (6, 7, 8, 17?) string you just shot is covered by your extended fist, I'm going to suggest that you did indeed "got him" and that that's more than good enough.

Which is the point underlying this post; just how much and, at least as critically, how fast is "good enough" when your target is another human trying to shoot you and not just a steel plate or piece of paper?

My belief is that one shot "within the fist" on a consistent basis is of greater importance then almost any number of shots placed adjacent to the critical location. Keep in mind the dimensions of an "A" shot as described in Chris' post. The area of my own extended fist is ~ 2.5 inches wide by 4 inches high, considerably smaller then the 6" x 10" area permitted in competition. In a defensive handgun fight, a potentially lethal wound will almost certainly limit the number of return shots you will have time to deliver - which is still really bad news for your opponent.

Especially if we reverse the scenario and you are the opponent.

I contend that, while the averaging effect achieved in IDPA-type competition is an excellent test of a shooter's overall skills, the value of a single well-placed first shot is of overriding importance. Furthermore, if you are capable of consistently placing a shot within the fist on a human chest, you are equally capable of doing so to a human head. Should that be the case (talk about your critical self-analysis!), then for the purposes of a defensive gun fight, if both target areas are equally clear* the head shot ought to be the primary choice. Remember, this is handguns, not rifles, and at a probable distance between shooters of 7 to 10 yards maximum (anything much beyond that range starts to call into question the whole "defensive" aspect of the thing, don'tcha agree? You're gonna get sued anyway, why make it easy for them?).

I choose to carry a 1911 pattern .45 acp semi-auto as my primary weapon, with a S&W 431 PD in .32 H&R Magnum as a pocket/back-up weapon. If you also choose to fire a bullet of lessor mass than a .45/357/44 mag (9 mm or .38 for example) you too will be more likely to find a second shot necessary. I do agree that delivering a follow-up round to the same fist-size area as the first shot within one second of firing that first shot is a realistic objective. You aren't likely to be given more time then that by the other shooter in any case, so the impetus behind Kevin's desire isn't simply confined to seeking competitive advantage in a formal match setting. Now that he too is (will be soon?) carrying concealed, the ramifications of doing so need to be considered as well.

Shooting competitions, practical or otherwise, are structured to emphasise the competitive relationship between the shooters pretty much as a requirement of their design, whatever the practical/defensive intent might also be. If you're going to carry a gun off the range as well as on, I believe you should regularly train to use your weapon to an off-range requirement on a regular basis, in addition to training for any other shooting setting that attracts your interest. Just keep clearly in mind the differing circumstances of your varied interests, that's all, and be careful not to practice one to the exclusion of some other.



*A "clear" target is one that is unobstructed, both in front and behind, along the likely trajectory of the fired bullet.

I'm not crazy enough yet

Want to see something that will amaze you? Go here and click "play".

They did what?

Why do I feel certain Mr. Wilner isn't a fellow Texican?

State of Play

I used to be a sports official and particularly liked umpiring baseball. That experience is why I find this story in the Austin fish-wrapper to be borderline insulting:

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/other/08/14/0814umpires.html

I've often said in years past that I liked baseball the best because I had the best seat in the house and got paid to tell everyone else what just happened. Like most such hyperbole, there's more than an element of truth to that.

Here's some of the reality.

On any field of play, there are three teams present; the home team, the visiting team and the officiating team. That's anywhere from 2 to 6 on-field umpires and at least one official scorekeeper for baseball. My own experience is limited to 2, 3 and 4-man mechanics (there was one time I was part of a 6-man crew, but that was a result of a scheduling mix-up and everyone was a bit uncomfortable with the unusual responsibility assignments).

With a couple of specified exceptions, the plate umpire has the sole responsibility for determining if a pitched ball is a strike or not. Before we get to that decision though, there are a few other things he has to rule on also.

Is the field of play still in a playable condition (no fans running around or fences fallen over for example)?

Are the other members of the umpire crew in position and ready for continuation of play?

Is the pitcher making a legal presentation of the ball prior to the pitch?

Is the batter legally in the batting box (and the catcher not)?

In that fraction of a second between release from the pitcher's hand to arrival at the catcher's glove, the umpire gets his only opportunity to decide, and immediately announce, where the ball was in relation to an imaginary frame of reference known as "the strike zone".

At the same time, the umpire has to determine if any action taken by the batter, catcher or other player was within the rules of play.

And with all of this going on, some professor thinks he can detect racism influencing the plate umpire's calls? Now, I will admit that my opinion of a particular player has influenced how generous I might be as regards his on-field conduct. If the guy's a whiner, or some other category of asshole, I have been known to adhere to a closer interpretation of the rules for that day's game. But both teams got the same treatment that day and I've rarely run into a catcher who hadn't figured out what was going on, and why, within an inning or two.

Frankly, you just don't have time out there to pay attention to what color or accent the pitcher has. In any case, you're trying to get a complete game in as quickly as the state of play will allow; screwing around with your strike zone is a certain way to have a very long and bad day at the ballpark. Not to mention a very ... difficult conversation with the rest of your crew afterwards.

What we have here is a unique opportunity for an academic to demonstrate how much of a fool he can be in public, not how questionable umpire's judgement is.

We already knew that.

UPDATE: Oh goody. Rob at SayAnything.com has this:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/are_baseball_umpires_racist/

Apparently, Time magazine has also decided to carry this story without any critical analysis of the content. Well done Time. (/sarcasm)