In Commemoration

Upon the occasion of my 59th birthday, This.

@ Maria Konovalenko

Ignoramuses?  Really?

Well, it is the web, there's bound to be at least a few, so fair enough, but aren't you painting with a terribly broad brush?

I sincerely doubt there are any who genuinely desire a return to the cyclical wars that plagued Europe's history.  That said, is it really so ignorant to lament the method selected to interrupt the progression of violence?  And even if that laudable end does justify the questionable means, how is the present day manipulation of the political design somehow more worthy than those men and women who actually created the political process that began its existence as the Common Market?

Looking at the map you so helpfully provide, I remember a train trip I took once upon a time.  Starting at the cambio in the train station in Brindisi, Italy (where I exchanged my Greek Drachma for Italian Lira), I rode up the length of Italy through Rome - and a lovely few days stay that was - into Austria and on to Munich, (in then West) Germany.  Eventually, from there it was more riding the rails to the channel and across (via ferry - the channel tunnel was only an epic engineering design challenge at the time :)) to London, England.

Taking in the whole of the trip, I (along with pretty much everyone else on the continent) routinely exchanged for, and spent in a sense of routine security, Greek Drachma, Italian Lira, German Marks, French Francs and British Pounds (not to mention a good many US Dollars along the way).  Contemplate the economic burden each of those countries currently struggles with and tell me more about the "convenience" of "one currency".   There is a value to be had from being able to apportion one segment of a common market from the rest via a regional (read: national) currency.  That each trades at a variable rate depending upon the circumstances of the day is a feature of the process, not a bug.  It's the trade mechanism that adds the value, not the hypothetical "currency" traded in, I submit.

You undoubtedly have memories of your own country's experience of an enforced, artificial political union.  Look about Moscow (indeed, all of Russia along with the rest of the old USSR) and decide for yourself; is the convenience of a universal currency, lack of internal borders and "peace" better or worse than what you see outside your window today?

Peace is the (mostly unintended) by-product of people vying for competitive success, deliberately just shy of the extremes of effort.  People thinking for themselves, about their own best interests - which necessarily include consideration of those about them with whom they interact, sometimes at great personal remove.  Looked at in that light, don't you think giving a group of people looking to their own main chance a prize for doing the obvious might be fairly construed as just the tiniest bit silly and pretentious?

Please understand, it's not the people of "Europe" whose efforts at not destroying their own stuff for a change is what is being called into question.  Only the urge among a pretentious few to award them for doing so, as if the rest of the continent were somehow too dim as a group to recognize the value of their own efforts at making and taking care of their own stuff.

That is ignorant.

I think of life extension in much the same way; who benefits from my (or anyone, really) having a longer healthy lifespan?  Obviously me, of course.  Maybe those around me (that is going to vary I'm afraid; I can be a bit of an a-hole at times) (I know, shocking isn't it? :)), and arguably the rest of the country through the added taxes and societal fees we all pay.  The real value is to be found in the availability of the same result to everyone desiring it.

And why exactly would some government agency or bureaucrat have any interest in making such opportunity available to any of us except as doing so benefits them directly?

No.  Life extension is the innate human rights and freedom we are all born with extended.  No more, nor less.  That's the prize European people, not to mention all the rest of us, should be working towards awarding ourselves. 

Peacefully, necessarily.

Dear Uncle

Now with update, too!

About my T-shirt idea; maybe you should consider answering the "When" question just a bit more indirectly than I originally suggested.  In place of the proper English spelling, maybe use the euro sign, a "u" with an umlaut, whatever letter that backwards-looking N is in the Cyrillic alphabet, and an upside-down lower case "t" instead*.

Granted, there will be some reduced emotional impact in response to our campaign in support of medical research (and I strongly recommend this lie exercise of our 1st Amendment rights to everyone who might consider buying one of these) as a result of this dissimulation, but we will all be the happier to have avoided the Bovril-themed boxcars transporting us to the Brideshead Gaol alternative.

* I'm too stupid to figure out how to make my keyboard actually make those letters appear on the screen.

Update 10/22/12:  Kevin Baker nailed it in comments.  Now to see if Uncle takes advantage of this financial risk opportunity.

A Transhuman Strategic Model

Maria Konovalenko is a young Russian woman who works for the Science for Life Extension foundation in Moscow, FRS  On her personal blog she recently put up a post titled Transhumanism Presentation in Tallinn at the NMR Meeting at which she made a live stage presentation of the following notion:

the opportunity to share our ideas about transhumanism as the ideology that can be used as the basis for uniting researchers and increasing the amount of funding.

  The idea seems to be most simply put as, while cooperation between disciplines can extend the available funding, the shortage of research funding is universal to all disciplines of study and won't be relieved until there is widespread "social mandate" sufficient to compel politicians to allocate public monies appropriately.

It could work.  Maria cites the lunar landings of the '60's and '70's as support of this technology development model.  I, having personally been alive throughout that whole period of human history, wish to take this opportunity to suggest that there may be a better model to consider, one that doesn't require that whole [fill in the blank] War framework of competition so critical to the US/USSR Moon Race.

Post-Debate Thoughts

Everybody has their reaction to last nights initial Presidential Debate up for all to see; here's mine:

Mitt Romney is the more polished debator.  This has multiple potential applications for an elected executive office holder.

Barack Obama did nothing to support the image that has been constructed about him in the media these last few years.  This will have consequences on election day as most voters tend to be swayed by the degree a candidate appears to conform to their (the voters) expectations about the candidate.

One other note; many are making note of both candidates "character".  The test for that will be found in both men's behavior at the subsequent debates.  This was only the introductory tune-up match, more a test of each campaigns capability than it was of either man or party platform yet.

The Suck Really Blows

After a quick rummage through the closet, I got out my couth and decorum guidebook and looked up the proper response to this.

Herself needs to put up another donation link that says "Tam's Snot Locker Fund", because using her current ammo fund link is just a tad bit morbid under the circumstances, don'cha agree?  Doubt I'm the first in line and certain I won't be the last, but you take my sincerity Tam and stack it up with all the rest - the good doctor will help you spread it around where it will do you the most good I'm sure.

And after the biopsy, remember the first rule of blogging - it didn't happen without pictures.

:)

Edited to add: I can't make up my mind whether Triple Barrel Booger Blower is completely over the top or just a bit "too soon".  I'm not an ARFCOMmie (Hi Kevin! :)), but it's in the same spirit and all ...

Political Humor Crudity

You have to wonder if the last thought that went through the mind of that poor Obama voter in Benghazi the day before yesterday (just as his trousers started down) was, "But this isn't the Hope and Change I voted for!"

Probably not, but still ...

On Recent American Foreign Policy

Needs
More
5
Finger
Death
Punch

Does This Make Me Look Cheat?

So, Tam wrote a post recently (Ha; bet you thought I was going with this one didn't you?) in which she made the observation, "This is what comes of the gradual shift of the word "elitist" from an aspiration to a pejorative."

To which I thought in reply, "But its always been both, hasn't it?'

If you think of yourself as being among the elite, that you personally, not just your actions/opinions are superior to the people around you, then you are a [insert crude slang word for the appropriate human genitalia here] and the personification of the very word "pejorative".  OTOH if the majority of those around you consider you to be among the elite in whatever is under discussion, you're probably doing whatever it is just about well enough.

I take Tam's point to have been that these days people seem to actively aspire to the pejorative type of elitist behavior in the mistaken belief that doing so is the way to achieve the admired result.  That pretending skilled accomplishment deserves equal respect to actually being accomplished at some task requiring developed skills.  That the perquisites and considerations they receive from others is what those judged to be superior are really all about.

I considered elitist thinking back in 2006 at Gary Gagliardi's old Warrior Class blog (where I first started blogging in late 2005).  One of the more questionable hallmarks of elitist behavior is the assumption that the status is inheritable or somehow transmissible from another.  This is the objection I have to Albert Nock's theories regarding the elite condition; that somehow this is an inherent attribute present in some people but not others.  Call me cynical, but the following makes me think he wasn't being quite as rigorous in his pronouncements as he is credited with being:

"In the mid-1920s, a small group of wealthy American admirers funded Nock's literary and historical work..."

 Horses and carts come to mind as does biting the hand that feeds, and all that.

In my belief, true individual elite status is bestowed upon you by those both familiar with you and who are themselves regarded as being worthy to make such a judgement.  Elite status can be lost by you for being seen as assuming the perks of that status rather than accepting them.  Merely being the child/nephew/inheritor of an elite person will give you a certain advantage of opportunity to achieve such a status judgement for yourself, but attaining such a regard is on you.  Ask Paris Hilton, for only one example.

Or Tam herself.  Elite gun blogger isn't necessarily a well-defined specialty, but having an established history of subject knowledge mastery and personal expertise is certainly part of it. 

The Empire State Bldg Police Shooting

There has been the to-be-expected commentary about last Fridays NYC shooting.  This is my analysis of the gunfight between a single armed man and two NYPD officers on the street outside the Empire State Building on Friday, August 24, 2012, as this event applies to licensed handgun carriers who are not also sworn officers of the court.  This analysis is based solely on my experience with firearms generally, my understanding of CQB theory and practice, the general legal constraints that apply to CHL holders along with the linked YouTube video of the CCTV image stream of the action.

The image opens with the shooter passing on the street side of a large potted plant being loosely followed by two police officers.  The shooter then turns to his left (toward the camera and building), shielding his right hand from view by his pursuers, during which time he appears to draw a handgun from a valise he's carrying in his left hand.  It is at this point (approx :09 seconds into the linked video) that others on the street begin to vacate the immediate area and the two officers initiate their direct confrontation of the man.

There is the to-be-expected initial lack of coordination between the two cops (and it should be noted that the man with the gun does not appear from this video to be actively firing his gun at them, only* brandishing - or more charatably proffering - it toward the two officers), who then separate themselves so as to gain two distinct directions of approach towards the man while requireing him to keep track of separate sources of threat.  It appears the two cops begin firing their weapons at the man virtually immediately following initiaton of their separation movement.

In my judgement, this appears to be an example of panic firing (that is, one officer beginning to fire and the other doing so because the first cop is shooting) as I can see no indication of the man doing anything different to what he had been doing up to that point such as to trigger the two officers going from arrest mode to kill in self-defense mode.

The officers had begun to place themselves in good position to initiate an arrest, then the more distant-from-the-man officer begins backing away as he circles to his own left (the single man's right) as both officers appear to open fire.  The video available doesn't show any change of behavior or increase in the threat offered to make shooting at that point necessary.  This could very well be a result of limited information via the video stream.

My purpose in this post is to comment on possible individual self-defense possibilities CHL holders might consider in a similar circumstance (armed shooter on a public street not actively firing at the moment).  You may find Joe Huffman's much more involved approach to a teachable moment of interest as well; I recommend it.

First point being that should an armed shooter approach in your direction on a public street, LEAVE.  Unlike the police, individual citizens have no duty to confront a threat of unlawful behavior displayed by another.  This is a critical difference from having a right to defend one's self from threat.  If you safely can, it is simple common sense (though Texas is one of the States in which it is not a statutory requirement) to avoid the danger.  In the video, it is clear that the man was attempting to flee the scene.  Unless his further action makes you unable to safely do so, allow him to and provide information of his direction of travel to his constituted pursuers.  Remember, from their perspective, you also becoming violently involved at best only complicates an already complex situation and at worst has you dead on the ground too.

If leaving the scene simply isn't an option, the behavior of the officers in the video is an excellent example of a good secondary option; take cover.  In the example, the potted plant container gave the closer of the two police officers cover while still allowing him to engage the threat.  For a non-police citizen with a CHL, this type of cover (or even only concealment) would be a better option to take than just standing around like a fool, but I think there isn't a justification to draw your weapon unless the man actually turns towards you with his own weapon drawn.  If he continues on his way your gun should either never have left the holster or be immediately returned thereto (being personally among those of the persuassion to carry in Cond 2, I would draw my gun and cycle a round into the chamber, but keep the gun at "low ready" so as to not offer visual threat; I would safe the gun and holster it as soon as the man showed his intent to continue walking away) (he says hopefully).

In the actual event, the more distant-from-the-shooter police officer moved to contain the man's movement by circling to the mans right.  In doing so, the officer also extended the distance between himself and the man.  This is a mistake that anyone having the necessity to engage an armed person must train not to do.  By circling and continuing to approach the man, the officer increases his potential opportunity to arrest the man without shooting while decreasing his potential to miss the man if doing so becomes necessary.  It is my understanding that a licensed and armed citizen making the same engagement approach (while possibly justifiable under other considerations) would void any claim to self defense as a result.  If there should be some necessity for a citizen (armed with a gun or not) to engage an armed opponent in similar fashion, advanceing while circling will better set up a dis-arm maneuver while increaseing the likelihood of the gunman remaining distracted for long enough for you to close the distance before his making the decision to fire.  It is my understanding that police departments commonly do not train their officers to employ such techniques and in at least two examples to my personal knowledge have policies in place that expressly forbid their officers from attempting such.

Self defense is a very limited legal concept and potential threat doesn't rise to the legislatively stipulated level required to qualify for the legal defense the claim proffers.  You can't shoot the driver of a passing car even if s/he has just run somebody over and is proceeding down the street in your general direction, unless the driver tries to run you down as well and quite possibly even then the local DA will take exception to your judgement call after the fact.  Similarly, an armed by-stander standing in a virtually identical location to that in which this shooting actually took place (and also being well away from the previous shooting scene and there being no immediate threat being proffered towards nearby citizens) would likely not rise to the justification necessary to successfully claim "self defense" after whipping out his gat and dropping the perp DRT.

I'm sympathetic to the thought that the general presence within the community of lawfully armed citizens tends to have the secondary effect of reducing the statistical likelihood of shooting events like this particular example taking place, but in this case it seems equally unlikely that such an armed citizen having been present would have significantly altered events.  The shooter reportedly shot his victim in the head initially at near-contact range, followed by four follow-up shots to the torso, and then immediately set out to leave the scene with his gun hidden in the satchel he was carrying.  There doesn't seem to have been any practical opportunity for an armed bystander to have intervened prior to the first killing and no real self defense justification to do so afterwards.  The shooter put his gun in his valise and walked (rather hastily) away, offering no violent threat to anyone else apparently.

I will be curious to learn the results of Joe Huffman's USPSA shooting stage just generally, but wonder how well anyone could react given the time and legal constraints that modify this given example?  While it isn't part of the current stage design he has published, I wonder how difficult it would be to include a test of the over-penetration effect a shooting of these caliber guns at this range of engagement has on the safety of the bystanders?  How many of the injured, who were indeed all hit by NYPD bullets, were as the result of thru-penetrations as opposed to out-right misses by the involved officers?  Torso-sized gelatine blocks aren't that difficult to make, but they still might be over-much for this first test of the shooting stage.  Maybe a refinement for a future runthrough.

* This post is not meant as a particular criticism of the NYPD or the two police officers who were actually involved; while all of those roundly deserve the critical commentary they have received about the state of their training, I do think that there is a tendancy amongst we licensed gun carriers to unrealisticly apply statistical averages to our own hypothetical actions in a similar circumstance.  Possibly worse than that, there is the initial impulse to justify such hypothetical actions with a mis-interpretation of the actual statutes that govern such actions.  If situations like this one in NYC can be said to have any general value, it is as a learning opportunity for we the survivors (however distant from the action).  It is important that we who do go armed not learn falsehoods that influence the judgements we have to make as a result of our choice to carry a gun lawfully.