Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Dum spiramus, tuebimur

While we breathe, we shall defend...


Protector of the Light

Class: Archangel
Alliance: Light
You tend to be a very honorable person. At the same
time you are calm, level-headed, and capable of
holding it together in a crisis. Your role
would be that of Protector. As a Protector of
the Light you would take a defensive stance
against the forces of evil. You are the strong
presence that works to keep others safe.
Your Anglic Name: Gabriel

Which Warrior Angel are You and Whose Side are You On? (With Anime Pics)
brought to you by Quizilla

Hallelujah, praise the lord, and pass the ammunitions

From Global Security:

"The US Special Operations Command [USSOCOM] issued a solicitation in August 2005 to obtain commercially available non-developmental item (NDI) Joint Combat Pistol (JCP) system, Caliber .45 (ACP). The Program (which absorbed an earlier Future Handgun System program) will use full and open competition to fulfill the JCP requirement. The JCP will be delivered in accordance with specification entitled "Performance Specification Joint Combat Pistol" to be provided with issuance of the solicitation. Two configurations of the pistol will be required. One configuration will have no external safety and the other configuration will have an external safety.

The Combat Pistol System consists of: a Caliber .45 pistol and its ancillary equipment including: Magazines (standard and high-capacity); Suppressor Attachment Kit for operation of the pistol with and without sound suppressor; Holster; Magazine Holder (standard and high-capacity); Cleaning Kit; and Operator's Manual..."

I've been saying this was coing for a while now, first it goes to SOCOM, then we may see general issue. The Contractor grapevine has been buzzing that the RFP was written just for HK to get the bid, but we'll see.

Oh but this requirement... I mean DAMN:

"When fired from a rest, at a range of 50 meters, the mean radius of a 10-shot group fired from the JCP shall not be greater than A) 3.15 inches or B)1.8 inches over baseline ammunition performance, whichever is less (T). Baseline ammunition performance is defined as the average mean radius plus two sample standard deviations of three 10-shot groups fired from a test barrel at 50m."
That's serious match pistol performance. COnsidering it's expected to have an MRBS (Mean Rounds Between Stoppage) or 2000 rounds, that's gonna be tough. Theres only one .45 pistol I know to have done that, with that level of accuracy, and that's the Springfield FBI model.

Then theres this:

"The JCP shall have a standard magazine capacity of no less than eight [8] rounds (T), greater than eight [8] rounds (O) of .45 ACP ammunition. The JCP shall also have a high-capacity magazine of no less than ten [10] rounds (T), fifteen [15] rounds (O), of .45 ACP ammunition."
Hmmmm... somebody is either thinking HKP2000/USP Compact, a SIG P220, or a 1911...

and these two narrow it down further:

"The JCP length, with standard barrel, shall be less than 9.65 inches (T). The JCP width shall be less than 1.53 inches (T).

The JCP shall function in double action/single action (DA/SA) or double-action only (DAO) including Striker-Fired Action (SFA) (T). The JCP should have a modular action mechanism that allows reconfiguration at the unit level without modification to the weapon’s major assemblies (O).

All DA/SA pistols shall have a consistent trigger pull of eight to ten [8-10] pounds on Double Action, and a consistent trigger pull of four to six [4-6] pounds on Single Action and all DAO pistols shall have a trigger pull of five to eight [5-8] pounds (T). All pistols shall have a trigger pull that is consistent within one [1] pound from average pull (T). When pressure is applied to the JCP trigger and then released, the trigger shall reset to its forward-most position, even if the pistol is not fired (T). The operator shall be capable of pulling the trigger, without shifting the firing grip."

Uhhh yep, looks like a SIG or an HK to me, and HK is "owed" a major military contract. Actually the more you read, the clearer it is that this was indeed written for HK to win. Read the whole thing.

HT: River Dog

"SO, how was thanksgiving"

I had some friends who couldnt do thursday, so we decided to have thanksgiving on Sunday.

We got a 19lb turkey, made 5 lbs of cornbread the night before, and then did everything fresh.

Fresh cornbread apple cranberry stuffing (in the bird of course, then mixed with pan drippings), and fresh cranberry sauce, butter whipped potatos, sweet potatos, and thick cream and peppercorn turkey gravy.

The turkey was magnificent if I do say so myself. We throroughly injected it with a mixture of butter, olive oil, turkey stock, balsamic vinegar, soy sauce, salt, pepper, rosemary, sage, and thyme. We also rubbed it with the same mixture.

Stick it directly under the heat for a few minutes to start the skin to crisping, then tent it up for four hours at 325.

I couldnt even carve it because it fell apart completely.

Tonight I roast the carcas and take the rest of the meat, potatos, and gravy for turkey potato soup. Maybe take the stuffing and cranberry sauce and rebake it into a bread pudding or summat.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Hmmm, no Gondorians?


To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

Gee REALLY? Who'da thunk it?

You scored as Serenity (from Firefly). You like to live your own way and do not enjoy when anyone but a friend tries to tell you that you should do different. Now if only the Reavers would quit trying to skin you.

Coming on December 1, 2005:

Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? The Sequel

Serenity (from Firefly)


Moya (from Farscape)


Nebuchadnezzar (from The Matrix)


SG-1 (from Stargate)


Enterprise D (from Star Trek)


Galactica (from Battlestar: Galactica)


Millennium Falcon (from Star Wars)


Bebop (from Cowboy Bebop)


Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com

Go. Read. Now

Fran Poretto writes one ot the more useful histories of our current two party dominant system in "Hierarchies and Revolutions"

Let me just give you the concluding paragraphs here:

"Revolution would seem to be in the offing for both our major political hierarchies.

If this is an accurate assessment, then the opportunities for ambitious activists will soon blossom again. Desperate groups within both parties will seek to suborn the rules of advancement to make headway for their golden boys. Persons eager for power or influence will find ways to slip past the parties’ remaining institutional defenses. With doctrinal weakness as the norm, electoral victory will usually be supreme above all other considerations. Moral constraints on acceptable tactics will fade, possibly even disappear.

It’s happened in every democracy known to Man, except for ours.

There is a significant possibility of civil disorder as our political system degenerates. Politics is the alternative to rule by the sword; it only works when the overwhelming majority of men see it as superior to bloodshed. If the system loses a sufficient degree of popular loyalty, the Asimov assessment will become prominent:

The feeling will pervade the Galaxy that only what a man can grasp for himself at that moment will be of any account. Ambitious men will not wait, and unscrupulous men will not hang back. By their every action, they will hasten the decay of the worlds. [from Foundation.]

What, then, must we do?

Perhaps the answers will arrive with our next."

Good stuff, read it all, right now.

If only...

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Happy thanksgiving

Limited, light and/or no posting this holiday weekend.

Thanksgiving today, then I'm flying off to my high school reunion tomorrow (yes they scheduled it the day after thanksgiving because they figured everyone would be "home"); and when I get back on sunday it time to celebrate a second thanksgiving with friends who couldnt be there today, and a birthday party.

Oh and maybe a range trip sunday morning as well.

Should be a fun and busy weekend.

Have fun everybody, eat too much, don't drink too too much, and don't get caught (by the cops of fate).

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Dignity and Class...

... Unfortunately are not often things associated with television, even inn the news division.

I may disagree with Ted Koppel politically, but the man showed real class last night:

"There's this quiz I give to some of our young interns when they first arrive at Nightline. I didn't do it with this last batch. It's a little too close to home. "How many of you," I'll ask, "Can tell me anything about Eric Severeid?" Blank stares. "How about Howard K. Smith or Frank Reynolds?" Not a twitch of recognition.

Chet Huntley, Jack Chancellor? Still nothing. David Brinkley sometimes causes a hand or two to be raised; and Walter Cronkite may be glad to learn that a lot of young people still have a vague recollection that he once worked in television news.

What none of these young men and women in their late teens and early twenties appreciates, until I point it out to them, is that they have just heard the names of seven anchormen or commentators who were once so famous that everybody in the country knew their names. Everybody.

Trust me. The transition from one anchor to another is not that big a deal.

Cronkite begat Rather, Chancellor begat Brokaw, Reynolds begat Jennings; and each of them did a pretty fair job in his own right.

You've always been very nice to me. Give this new Nightline anchor team a fair break. If you don't, I promise you the network will just put another comedy show in this time slot. Then you'll be sorry.

That's our report for tonight...I'm Ted Koppel in Washington...

For all of us here at ABC News... Good night."

It's funny because it's true part eleventyjillion

More on "Double Standard and Magic Numbers"

There have been a couple of comments on the original post, both here and on the NoR that I wantes to talk about.

"I think there is and SHOULD be a double-standard. Girls are much more vulnerable sexually. As for age of consent, for girls (sans marriage) I’d suggest 25 tongue wink Removing the parents ability to charge statutory rape would be a HUGE mistake."


"So, if you would have fathered a child @ 13, what is your responsibility? Who would have paid the child support? You can't assume an abortion.

Is it reasonable to saddle someone who cannot legally work and cannot contract with the financial responsibility of raising a child? Or are the grandparents saddled with that financial burden?

I'm glad that you personally didn't get into this situation. That's very lucky and good for you. It's a poor guide for policy."

"It’s only in western society that sex has become set as being something which is age restricted (some others in Asia are starting to follow suit) and only relatively recently.

The best (physically) age range for a woman to bear children is between roughly age 15 and 30, for men that’s I think a few years later.

So physiologically there’s nothing wrong with it at all, and it’s only our societies which have somehow decided that someone isn’t able to decide for themselves until they’re 18 (or 21 in the US) (and getting ever older) that determine that it’s “wrong”.
Instead we use all kinds of medical techniques to ensure that people who are well over the age where they can normally get children do indeed get pregnant and have somewhat healthy offspring (I think it was this year that a 70+ year old woman delivered a baby).

What I have a problem with in this instance is not the fact that the boy was 14, or the woman 25, but the fact that the woman was in a position of trust and power over the boy and may have abused that trust and power."


Here's the thing... I have no problem with the age difference issue, so long as there is absolutely no co-ercion or a power relationship.

The problem I have with the situation, and I mentioned it but only for a second in my original post; is entirely the abuse of authority issue. I didn’t address that because I think the main question here is about the age difference issue, but let me clarify:

Coercion is NEVER acceptable, whether it is physical or because of a power relationship. Someone placed in a non-sexual power relationship over someone else should NEVER have sexual relations with that person.

You dont have sex with your employees or your employer, and you dont have sex with people in your chain of command; unless one of those factors is going to change immediately.

Now as to the “25 for girls”... when do we stop? Why do we expect parental authority, or parental responsiblity, or individual irresponsibility to extend for so long? Why do we ALLOW IT?

I believe that everyone is, and should be, responsible for themselves, as soon as they are capable of being so. I was on my own at 16, living in my own apartment, paying my own bills, and making my own decisions. The only reason why at least 50% and more like 80% of all 16 year olds “can’t” do the same thing, is because we don’t make them.

“But what about the innocence of childhood? Why can’t we just let kids be kids?”

Do you really think that a 14 year old is a kid anymore? We don’t let them be Kids, we turn them into confused adults with adult bodies and concerns and issues, but no adult responsibilities or accountabilities… and we expect them to end up healthy and well adjusted afterwards?

We have developed into a society that keeps everyone morally and practically children for as long as possible (well into their 30’s if one works the system right); and yet makes them sexually adults as EARLY as possible.

...and it’s entirely arbitrary and capricious.

Doesnt anyone else find this not only absurd, but in fact harmful and disgusting?

Further Proof the TSA is a joke

Two Stations Get Their Reporters On Planes --
Repeatedly -- Without Proper ID

"Two television news operations at different ends of the country -- Houston's KPRC and Rochester, NY-based WHEC -- have come to the same startling conclusion: over four years after 9/11, just about anyone can board a commercial airline flight -- with or without valid identification.

In both cases, the stations used undercover cameras as reporters and producers made it past the check-in counter and security checkpoints with all forms of identification -- including a Sam's Club card, a Costco card, and even an easily-reproduced company ID that could be done on any home computer -- to clear security.

No driver's license and no passport were shown, according to KPRC, and no questions were asked. The Houston, TX station cleared security at both of Houston's large airports, as well as airports in Dallas, St. Louis, Nashville, and Little Rock.

In Rochester, a WHEC producer flew from the New York city to Washington, DC and back, using an ID card he made on a computer.

WHEC reports there is a fundamental flaw in TSA policy in how it is written, not simply how it is implemented: the station says the TSA website makes clear that a form of government issued id is required -- although there is no law that backs that up."
This surprises me in no way, in fact I used to do it all the time. One of the consulting services I have offered in the past (actually a regular contract when I worked for an access control and idenitification management company) was physical security audits of airports. I’ve done penetrations at JFK, LaGuardia, Logan, and several smaller regional airports.

It’s ridiculously easy to get on a plane, with or without ID, with faked ID, with home printed ID… and with or without weapons -- EVEN AFTER 9/11

Screeners are trained to look for seven objects, and objects that look very similar to them. If a screener is unable to identify an object, in theory they are supposed to stop and manually search the bag; but in practice they almost always just pass the bag along so long as it doesnt resemble one of the seven objects.

I have deliberately sneaked on board, or into security areas, the following:

1. Numerous knives of every size and shape
2. Several simulated explosive devices
3. Several standard commercially available pistols
4. One standard commercially available shotgun (though it was modified and disassembled)
5. Ammunition and prepared (though unarmed) demolition charges (to test the chemical screening)

Hell, I’ve ACCIDENTALLY gotten on board with a small pistol (polymer framed pocket pistol in an inside pocket of a laptop case with a bunch of metal and batteries in it), and several times with substantial pocket knives…

...and yet granny gets her tonail clippers confiscated.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it over and over and over again: The only real security will be when there is a visibly armed man at every checkpoint with orders to shoot to kill anyone who presents a viable threat, and both visible and hidden armed guards on every flight.

A good step would also be to allow every U.S. citizen with a CCW or other similar qualification (we should at least make folks prove they aren’t a felon or hostile foreign national boarding with an illegally posessed gun) to carry on board.

We should also certainly make the pilot carry qualification much easier (90% of federal agents couldnt pass it, and they did that deliberately. I ran it once as a simulation, and it was damned hard) and actively encourage pilots to take it.

Hell, if they would make the qualification reasonable, and start offereing it at more than once training facility (yes, they limited it to one facility for the entire country); I’d even say it would be OK to make armed passengers go through it.

Front Slide Serrations

Gunny #1: "Ugh they're ugly"
Gunny #2: "oooh, that looks good"
Gunny #1: "They're un-safe, you could blow your hand off"
Gunny #2: "Only if you're an idiot..."

Ok, so, front slide serrations. Those milled in cuts on the front of the slide of some pistols, most notably almost every Kimber, as pictured above. Who, what, where, when, why...

Well, you can "blame" IPSC shooters of the 80's for them, if you are so inclined. To be more specific, I think it was either Jimmy Von Sorgenfrei or Ross Seyfreid who first made a gun with them famous, though it may have been Rob Leatham, I just can't remember.

UPDATE: I looked it up, it was actually Doug Koenig in '90 who first won with front slide serrations and optics.

Anyway, they are there, because they were originally a race gun feature, primarily for guns with optics. That of course made them popular among the “High Speed Low Drag look” crowd in the late 80’s and the rest is history.

I don’t care for them, because they trap dirt, increase the effort necessary to clean, promote rusting, and catch on fabric. Basically, they arent good for a carry gun, and I dont like features on my defensive caliber pistols that make them less practical for defensive purposes.

I’m neutral about their looks, some guns they look good, some they dont; and it’s highly dependent on the finish and exact configuration of the gun. I find them attractive on dark finished long slide guns for example.

As to their function, I’m also neutral, though I always recommend against anything that can potentially cross the muzzle of course. A proper press check with forward serrations is conducted with a pinch from under the barrel, moving your support hand directly from your shooting grip to the serrations.

Unfortunately, most people don’t have the hand strength necessary to do a press check of this type against a full power recoil spring; and since most also don't have optics on their 1911. there is no necessity for them to do so.

Again, the reason for those serrations, and that technique, was to allow for a press check wtih optics, before racegunners started using “T” hooks attached to their sight mounts and the sides of their slides. Most of those folks were using minimum loaded .38 super, and a recoil spring as light as would return their high mass slides to battery. Not only that but they trained hours and hours to do this, and had the hand strength necessary.

So, since they aren't even useful for racegunners anymore why are they still there? Well people have associated that look with high quality custom and semi-custom pistols, so now we're stuck with it.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Double Standards, and Magic Numbers

A friend of mine on the NoR asks the question:
"There is a very pretty young teacher who has been brought up on rape charges for having sex with a 14 year old male student.

We’ve kidded about this at home saying something like, “there is only one word to describe the boy in this case.... LUCKY.”

Some have argued (not necessary here) that if we don’t prosecute the woman in this story that we’re giving the appearance of a double-standard, ie, one set of rules that pertains to young men and sex with an adult female and one for girls with an adult male.

What’s your take?"
Actually I think this is a very important question, that touches on some aspects of our society that are in conflict: Liberty, Responsibility, and Protection

Remember, when our average lifespan was 40, people were frequently married off by 13 or 14. Even as recently as the 1930s it was common to be married by 16. It was only with the era of victorian morality, followed soon after by the rise of compulsory schooling ending at 18, that teenagers became viewed as unable to marry or to be sexually active.

I have had a student teacher physical relationship. I was 16 she was a 23 year old student music teacher; and I was in no way used, abused, taken advantage of or pressured. It was a very satisfying relationship both physically and emotionally, on both our parts; and I am very glad it happened.

That said, I have known 16 year olds who did not have the emotional maturity for such an experience; and clearly Susan Smith’s chosen victim did not for example. Hell, I've known 30 year olds who aren't mature enough for sex.

Additionally there is the matter of abuse of trust of the parents, and the potential for coercion in a power relationship.

Most folks in this country would probably agree that a 14, or at least a 16 year old boy who was in this situation was indeed lucky; but most of those same folks would want to string up a male teacher who had the same experiences with a 16 year old girl... and CERTAINLY a 14 year old.

Why is that?

Why is there a double standard there, and why is 16, or 18, or any other age OK?

I have a real issue with what Fran Poretto calls “Magic Numbers” in our society. At 18 (or 16, or 14) it is magically OK to have sex, while at 17 and 364 days it isnt? At 18 it is ok to sign a contract, but at 17.99 it isnt? At 21 it is OK to drink, but at 20.99 it isn’t?

I became sexually active at 13, and I don’t regret it. I was ready to do so, and I appreciated it, and the risks and rewards of it. I don’t regret becoming sexually active so early at all, but I do regret my sexual morality during the follwing five years, which was somewhat indescriminate. The thing is, I needed to make those mistakes on my own; and I'm glad I made them when I was young.

I also know folks who had a similar age experience, who believe it severely damaged them emotionally, and in their sexual/mental health and approach to relationships.

Every person is different. To my mind, it’s not something we can just say hard and fast “this is ok, and this isn’t”.

Of course the problem then becomes subjectivity of standards, and the unequal application of law. The law can be neither arbitrary nor capricious; and still be fair and constitutional.

So here’s what I think from a real world standpoint:

1. Under 13 is always child abuse no matter what. You have to draw a bottom line and this is where I put mine.

2. 13-15 should be evaluated on a case by case basis; but complaints of statutory rape or abuse must either arise from a judgement that the minor wasn’t competent to make the decision to have sex, or from a direct complaint by the minor themselves. Parents should not be able to make claims of statutory rape or abuse without the co-operation of the minor. I believe this should be the case even though there may be the suspicion of co-ercion. Now if there is clear proof of co-ercion that is another matter entirely, and is a case for rape, not statutory rape.

3. 16 and over should never be considered statutory rape or abuse unless the minor has been judged incompetent to make the decision to have sex.

Yes I realize that leaves many who are not ready for those decisions unprotected by the law; but I do not believe it is the laws job to protect everyone from everything. At 16 you should be able to make most of your own decisions; even if they are stupid ones.

Monday, November 21, 2005

"Good Night, and What the Fuck?"

George Clooney is an ass.

Of course you probably knew that or you wouldn't be reading this. I happen to think he's a decent actor, a half decent director/producer, and a pretty good movie star (which is different from being an actor); unfortunately that almost always means that the individual in question is an ass.

You see hollywood is full of commies. Not jsut liberals, but hard core socialists, redistributionists, collectivists, communists etc... and it has been since the '30s.

It's also filled with absolutely enormous egos, all of whom seem to have a persecution/messiah complex.

George Clooney is one of the biggest of them at the moment. He seems to have dedicated to himself to bringing america arround to the "correct" way of thinking, by cultural force.

Thus bringing us to the movie "Good Night, and Good Luck", which is in theory a story about Edward R. Murrow, and the destruction of the "EEEEEVIL" Joseph McCarthy.

Ann Coulter, she of the ridiculously long chicken legs, and viciously barbed language; has posted a through trashing of Clooneys ridiculous paean to the "angels and martyrs of the blacklist" (I got that quote from some article about Elia Kazan, obviously intended to be sarcastic)

See, here's the thing... McCarthy was right.

This is also known as "Even Paranoids Have Enemies" or "Just because you're
paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you" effect.

McCarthy was the worst sort of bully, a violent alcoholic, and a raving
paranoid. He was also right more often than not. Of course, he was most often right by accident, and he destroyed peoples lives without consideration. I hate the guy, not jsut because of the above, but because he set back the cauze of anti-communism in this country to the point where the commies were essentially allowed to take over our educational establishment, and much of the democratic party.

Fact: Hollywood and the state department were full of actual communists

Fact: Many of those communists were acting as intelligence agents
against U.S. interests for either the communist party, or the soviet
union directly

Fact: Many of those communists were deliberately attempting to influence
the press, the government, and the film industry; frequently
successfully; to promote communist values

Now, if you believe that communism is an objective evil, as I do, then
it is self evident that; aside from frequently being felonious; what
these people were doing was in furtherance of evil.

If you believe that communism is objectively good, or at worst neutral;
then you are most likely willing to excuse all that in the name of
"freedom of expression" etc... Which is fine up until you start giving
national secrets away to a hostile foreign power. Then you get the
chair, or at the very least go to prison.

Alger Hiss
Julius Rosenberg
Ethel Rosenberg

Yeah, we can prove beyond all doubt they were spies. If you don't think
so, or if you think that's OK because the russians were "our friends"
at the time, I'm not even going to continue speaking with you because
it's obviously hopeless.

I've got a name for this asshole to look up

Go, Read, Now

Seriously, go and read this now. I've been saying this for several years now, and the RiverDog sums it up quite handily right here:

"I believe in constitutional, representative democracy. If you oppose my belief, you are my enemy. If you oppose my belief with force, I will kill you in the name of, and for the sake of my belief. If I set out to kill you, I will not pause in my efforts until you are dead or I have died in battle with you."

I actually said the same thing in comments just yesterday; though not nearly as well as our esteemed brownwater brethren.

Well, he's Canadian so we can forgive the name slipup

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Gun Show Report

So we went to PHX’s second biggest gun show today(ter-mark. Crossroads is the biggest, in two weeks) and it was a pretty thin day overall.

The objectives for the day were to try out revolvers and shotguns with our new shooter, possibly pick up a scope and a flip up front sight for my new varmint upper, some riser rails and rings, and pick up a large quantity of ammo for NAD.

Well let me tell you the pickings were slim.

The firstthins we noted was that the AR parts and accessories were almost non-existent. There was only one vendor, with two booths, selling AR accessories, and it was all chinese forgery crap. THere was only one dedicated new AR venodr (mad dawg, a decent company), and really all they had were uppers, lowers, parts kits, and complete rifles.

On the scope and rungs front, there was NOTHING BUT CRAP. I mean nothing but NcStar ang Guntek and other chinese shit. Stuff I wouldnt put on an SKS type shit.

On to ammo, and there was NO 7.62x39 to be found at all.

Remember, this is two hours into the first day of the show, and no-one including J&G and ammo wholesalers has any.

No mil-surp, no barnaul, no wolf… just plain nothing.

Also almsot no 5.56. Very little xm193/ss193, very little other 55gr, really no 62gr except wolf, and almost nothing heavier than 62gr at all. In the entire show I was able to find FOUR BOXES TOTAL of 69gr, and one of the reloaders had some 75gr left bit nothing else.

I would estimate that in total there were less than 10 cases of 5.56 at the whole show.

They did have some .308; but only one vendor had any in decent quantity, and the price was such that I wasn't interested.

Asking the vendor triggered the response, “we just can’t get anything, and what we get we can’t keep in stock”.

We ended up picking up some reman ammo from a guy I've dealt with before, some once fired brass, a small amount of commercial match ammo for the AR, and a TON of .22 (John and I were both running low). All in all I guess 3000 rounds, but only about 1500 of that was centerfire.

Overall, a thumbs down show. Here's hopin crossroads is better.

Happy Birthday and National Ammo Day Gun Guy

As y'all SHOULD know, today is National Ammo Day, which just coincidentally and through pure happenstance is The Gun Guy's birthday.

Happy birthday oh favorite grumpy African American.

So everyone buy your minimum 100 rounds (I'm hitting the gun show and plan on buying 1K-2K or so), and go and hit the tip jar at http://www.thenationofriflemen.com

Friday, November 18, 2005


Friends and I are watching the Harry Potter DVD's in preparation for watching the movie, probably sunday.

Oh, and tomorrow gun show and range trip to celebrate national ammo day. We're introducing a new shooter to the hobby as well.

Should be a damn good day.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Ladies and gentlemen... "The Beatles!!!"

A few days back I posted the following:

"Ok so the debate has arisen once again, "Who is the greatest rock band of the '60s, the Beatles or the Stones".

How about neither?

The Beatles were not a "rock" band until the holy trinity (rubber soul, revolver, Sgt. Peppers). Before that they were straight up, a “boy band” type pop band 1964 style. I love the beatles, but I dont try and pretend they were a great rock band before that; and even still ost of their music wasn't "rock"."

And the Gun Guy responded with:
The Beatles did several things: they made it almost de rigueur for bands to write their own stuff; they played neither blues nor rock nor skiffle, but a kind of mixture of all three, depending on who was doing most of the vocals and/or composing.

But most importantly, the Beatles broke the ground for other bands to follow.

If you look at the pre-Beatles Top 10 charts, both in the UK and in the US, they were dreadful. People like Lonnie Donegan and Frankie Laine abounded, not to mention the horrible Pat Boone, Bobby Vinton and their ilk.

Good grief, when the Beatles' "From Me To You" (their first #1) was at #1 in Britain, the #1 hits in the U.S. were: "It's My Party" (Lesley Gore), "I will follow him" (Little Peggy March) and "Sukiyaki" (!!! Kyu Sakamota).

When "She Loves You (yeah yeah yeah)" was at #1 in Britain, the U.S. #1 was "Blue Velvet" (Bobby Vinton).

After all this time, it's easy to forget just how much the Beatles changed popular music, but change it they did -- and most of the other bands that have been mentioned here would have still been playing in their Dads' garages were it not for them.

Oh, and one last thing:

When "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was at #1, the top U.S. hit was... "Dominique", by the Singing Fucking Nun.

Oy vey.

He is absolutely 100% entirely correct.

The beatles are the most INFLUENTIAL musical group of all time by far. No other group has ever had the kind of impact, and I doubt any every will. The MASSIVE changes in popular music ushered in by the beatles can never be overstated.

I LOVE the Beatles. I think that Revolver, Rubber Soul, and Sgt. Pepper, released in three years, is an achievement in popular music never achieved before or since.

I just don't think they are the greatest "rock" band of all time, or even the greatest of the 60's, in term of the raw quality of the music. They are without doubt the greatest pop band of all time,they are the most influential rock OR pop band, and one of the top ten rock bands, just not the greatest "rock" band.

Am I the only one...

Who thinks that Hope and Faith would actually be watchable only if it were remade as a hardcore lesbian sitcom?

Or is it just that I want to see Kelly Ripa and Faith Ford get it on? I mean two hot blondes with serious high heel and short busines suit skirt fixations... come on

Maybe it's just me...

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

More on my family

Family is most important in your life.

Having a high focus on family indicates that you are a loving and nurturing person. You want to have a nice big family of your own, and you are very close with your siblings and parents.

Life Piechart - QuizGalaxy.com

Take this quiz at QuizGalaxy.com

So I just got off the phone with my mother, and she had some "good" news.

I mentioned last week that my brother had an assault charge pending, that he had just been bailed out a few days prior.

Well a computer error listed his status as first time offender (he has several serious misdemeanors in other states including posession, criminal trespass, breaking and entering, disorderly conduct etc...), and at his preliminary hearing they granted a continuance without a finding pending the completion of an anger management program within 12 months.

So he avoids jail time and has to take classes; YEAH, that's REALLY gonna help.

My brother is on a bad road, and he's been on it a long time. Every time he falls down theres someone there to pick him up, or for some reason he gets off light. This is just one more step down the road. This time he's managed to beat some kid near to death (admittedly he deserved it but that's neither here nor there), and get off without punishment.


He needs some serious consequences, or his actions will jsut get him, or someone else killed. I swear, next time he's gonna kill somebody, and the lesson will be permanent.

My mother wants me to come over for thanksgiving. I refused of course, because of my brother, and she started crying. She just doesn't understand that this isn't helping him, it's just making him worse; and I refuse to be a part of it.

UPDATE: Quiz from my other friend Ben

Better than Festivus

Blatantly stolen from the terpsboy

The Mental Hurdle

Some friends of mine tried to open up a home school support business. This was the kind of mental hurdle that they faced among the population.

Or rather this was the most POLITE mental hurdle they faced. Most of the other ones are religious slurs... which is funny because they are atheists.

Oh and I should point out, I agree with the first frame entirely; though Aaron McGruders ultra left conspiracy addled mind seems to think it's a RIGHT wing mind control operation. The rest of us know better.

Of course the rest of us also realize that that The Far Right doesnt include Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Michael Bloomberg, and Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

Monday, November 14, 2005


So the question was raised on the NoR, "what is the role of the mortar in infantry combat"?

Very simply, mortars are an indispensible tool for heavy infantry.

When I say indispensible I don’t mean “useful” or “a good thing”, I mean indispensible, as in you don't do without them if you can avoid it.

One of the missions of heavy infantry is to operate and complete objectives without extensive support from external and supporting forces in areas ahead of the main secured areas.

To accomplish this mission, heavy infantry need to be able to move rapidly through varied terrain and facing varied and potentially semi-hardened resistance. Additionally they may face organized lines of resistance, in which salients and breakthroughs must be created and exploited. To do this, the order and discipline of opposing forces must be disrupted at key points.

Finally, supporting functions such as battlefield illumination, terrain marking, and potentially mine clearance are critical.

All of these functions are supported by light and medium mortars (as well as medium and heavy machine guns), which should ALWAYS accompany heavy infantry maneuver elements. They are not themselves maneuver elements, but fire support organic to those elements.

Heavy mortars are for FOB/FOP and FFP/FFB; as a semi fixed emplacement. They are also useful in vehicle mounts if such mounts are supported for that mortar platform. In this role their primary function is perimiter defense.

Now as relates to the U.S.; we currently don’t have traditional heavy infantry as such.

Or rather we have medium/heavy infantry, but we use them tactically as medium infantry. We don’t include many man portable crew served weapons with them but they are otherwise equipped as heavy infantry and/or mechanized infantry.

In fact, we are heading more and more towards a full heavy infantry load for every soldier; whether they are employed as heavy infantry or not. This is a natural outgrowth of our increasing reliance on technology; and our force protection philosophy.

We don’t really have traditional light infantry anymore either. Up until recently we HAD regular organized light infantry, but have mostly disestablished them; except in the person of the Rangers, MEF, and SOCOM forces.

This suits our current rapid fire/rapid maneuver style of warfare, which counts on extensive supporting elements, and combined operations elements. In this we are able to effectively leverage our HUGE C3I advantages.

Of course this leaves the mortars role as somewhat ill defined. It is still extremely useful, but the clear tactical doctrine for it’s use is kind of out the window.

The mortar is currently used by U.S. forces as an "as needed weapon", primarily for building clearance and tactical illumination. It can also serve as a company commanders personal artillery, much as the MLRS functions for a brigade or division commander.

With their beatles and their Stones

Ok so the debate has arisen once again, "Who is the greatest rock band of the '60s, the Beatles or the Stones".

How about neither?

The Beatles were not a "rock" band until the holy trinity (rubber soul, revolver, Sgt. Peppers). Before that they were straight up, a “boy band” type pop band 1964 style. I love the beatles, but I dont try and pretend they were a great rock band before that; and even still ost of their music wasn't "rock".

The Stones of the '60s were a decent blues cover band, never were anything more, frequently have been something less. They didnt even touch their "artistic" growth until the late '60s and '70s.

Don’t get me wrong, I like a lot of the Stones ("Paint it black", and "Sympathy..." are two of my favorite all time songs), but they werent great musicians, great artists, or anything other than great entertainers… as far as Im concerned that’s good enough, but not great.

“The Who” were a lot more original, had better lyrics, better musicianship etc.. but weren't nearly as commercially viable as either until the late ‘60s.

If you want great British "rock", with originality, lyrics, music, and entertainment value from that time you need to look to “The Animals” and “The Kinks”; both of whom started as blues cover bands as well.

Then came Led Zeppelin who took the blues cover genre and blew it out of the water. No-ones ever done it better, before or since.

Oh, an interesting note, “The Beatles”, “The Rolling Stones”, “The Who”, “The Kinks” and “The Animals” were all founded in their canonical form within 18 months and 300 miles of each other.

Friday, November 11, 2005

Veterans Day

"I, Christopher Byrne, having been appointed a 2d Lt. in the United States Air Force do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, SO HELP ME GOD."
Almost nine years... Damn I feel old.

Memorial day is for the dead, today is for the living.

To all y'all still serving, thank you. Let me tell you most of us would be there with you if we could; or at least we wish we would if you know what I mean.

God bless you.

To those of us who are out, thank you too (kind of gratuitous to thank myself, but hey I'm one of that group).

Thank you Dad (USA '66-'74 SFC) - a 15 year old Irish immigrant with a forged birth certificate; grew up on the streets, but became both a citizen, and a man in the Army. Almost 9 years in, almost all of it in SF, and almost all of that in SEA. By the end he was broken, and he only recently put himself together again. I love you dad.

Thank you uncle Patrick (USN '68-72 GM3) - My fathers brother, who spent most of those years sending steel over the coast of VN.

Thank you uncle Brian (USMC, '79-87 SSgt. USANG '88-92 SFC) - My mothers brother, who fought the war we pretended didn't happen in the phillipines, and then again in the gulf.

Thank you Ben (USA '97 - 2001, Cpl, Inf, Rgr, 3rdBt. 75th rgt.) - Lead the way, then lead his family.

Thank you cousin Jesse (USN, '97 - present, UDT, BM1) - Only one thing he ever wanted in life, to be a SEAL. He got his wish, and he's off god knows where doing god knows what; and couldn't be happier.

Thank you cousin Johnathan (USN 2001 - present, MM3) - dropped out of college after 9/11 to join the Navy, because in his own words, it was the right thing to do for his country.

To everyone still serving, good luck and god speed.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Happy Birthday

For all I make fun of them (and god knows I do), and for all their ooh-rah sometimes irritates me, I love Marines. D'you know why? Because they well and truly believe in five words:

Semper Fidelis


Improvise, Adapt, Overcome

Let me tell you something; with the belief in those five words, a motivated individual can do anything humanly possible, and some things that just shouldn't be; and a motivated team can do even more than that.

The Marine Corps Hymn

From the Halls of Montezuma
to the Shores of Tripoli,
We fight our country's battles
On the land as on the sea.
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean,
We are proud to claim the title
of United States Marine.

Our flag's unfurl'd to every breeze
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in every clime and place
Where we could take a gun.
In the snow of far-off northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes,
You will find us always on the job
The United States Marines.

Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve;
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve.
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes,
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

The "First Handgun" question

One of the questions we get frequently at the NoR, and that I hear in gun shops all the time, is "What should I get as my first handgun?"; this is usually followed by "I've only got about $300-$400 to spend".

Well, my answer to this is always "Are you looking just to shoot at the range, or are you looking for a gun to defend yourself with?"

If you’re looking to establish basic pistol shooting skills, I’d recommend purchasing a double action .22 revolver, like the Smith and Wesson model 17, 18, or 617; or  .22 automatic like the Browning Buckmark, or Ruger Mark X series pistol (currently at Mark III). There are better shooting .22s out there, but the Ruger and Buckmark are both reliable, and great for practice and fun plinking.

On the other hand, if you’re looking for a self defense weapon, and have no experience with handguns; I can’t recommend strongly enough that you choose a mid size revolver in .357 magnum.

You should be able to find a decent used Ruger SP101 or GP100, the older Ruger Security Six (and it's variants), or an older Smith and Wesson model 19/619 or maybe model 65/620 for $350 or so.

Also, if you hunt around you can find some really GREAT deals on Taurus revolvers, which are just as good as the Rugers, and nearly as good as the S&W's (some of them were originally licensed S&W designs in fact) for a lot less money. Their medium frame 7-shot model 66 can be had for less than $400 brand new from the right dealer, and their slightly more basic model 65 (a 6 shot) for less than $350. Oh and Tauruses have an unlimited lifetime warranty - a BIG plus for anyone but especially a new shooter.

No mater what you get, if you can get one for a good price, I recommend going with a stainless gun. They are just easier to maintain.

Now, the reason I say a .357 revolver, is because they are dead simple, dead reliable, and you have the option of a full power magnum, or a .38spl for practice. The reason I say go for a mid sized (S&W K or L frame for example), is that the large frame pistols are bulkier and heavier than they need to be for .357(and really the GP100 as well which is more of an extra-medium); and the compact .357's are very difficult to properly control. Really they should be considered experts weapons. The mid sized frames are large enough to help tame recoil, and establish a full and solid grip; but not so large that they are difficult to point, or unwieldy. This balance will help you to develop basic handgun shooting skills.

You’re going to have a hard time finding a decent automatic in that same price range without going to a Milsurp or foreign import discount pistol; or by going to CDNN and picking up a reissue. Now, all of these can be a great deal, but again, these are not really weapons for the novice.

The reason I recommend against these bargain autos and re-issues, is because as a beginner, you don't have the experience with pistols yet to deal with malfunctions, and speed reload drills; which are essential for a defensive pistol. If you can’t perform malfunction drills and speed reloads, you are taking a serious risk with your self defense weapon.

I shoot hundreds, and sometimes thousands of rounds a month, and my bedside gun is still a revolver, because I don’t want to think about malfunctions when I’m sleepy and startled. Also as I recently found out, I don’t practice my speed reload and malfunction drills nearly enough; and again, I’m an experienced pistol shooter.

Once you develop good basic handgun habits with a revolver, then you should buy that aforementioned .22 automatic. Then once you’ve developed the basic knowledge of automatic operations, and practice malfunction clearance and reloads, you can venture into full sized automatics; when, hopefully, you have the money to buy a decent one.

Differing First Principles

The subject of arguing above first principles has recently come up on the NoR forums

Let me just restate my maxim on first principles:

No useful discussion or debate can occur between individuals who have differing first principles on a subject; except as relates to those first principles themselves.

Because higher level arguments are always based on first principles, you need to make sure that all parties in a debate on higher level arguments are proceeding from the same first principle. If the parties to an argument or debate have different first principles, the argument itself cannot be resolved, or even debated.

As an example, this is why it's useless to argue with MOST liberals about gun control in any way.

They are proceeding from the first principle that guns are by their nature bad and/or evil, therefore restrictions on gun ownership are self justified. Their argument from this first principle on gun control, is that the only people who should have guns are the ones that can absolutely prove that they NEED them.

Our first principle is that guns are a useful tool, and an interesting work of engineering and the machinists art. Additionally our larger first principle is that arms are necessary to freedom, because the government that does not fear it's citizens, will ALWAYS result in tyranny.

Thus, our argument on gun control is also self justified, in that only those restrictions on ownership absolutely necessary (and some believe in NO restriciton at all) should be allowed.

At that point it should be obvious that these two higher level positions cannot be argued usefully

A memorial day for 9/11

Should we have an officially designated memorial day for 9/11
Yes, and it should be called (post in comments)
Yes, and we should just refer to it as September 11th
No, we shouldnt memorialize a terrorist attack
No, we don’t need a holiday to remember 9/11
No, it’s too soon, maybe in ten years
No, we shouldnt trivialize 9/11 with just another day off work

Free polls from Pollhost.com

This thought has been kicking around in my head for a while, and I can’t really come to any resolution with it.

Next year will be the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Should we officially memorialize 9/11? By this I mean should we declare a memorial day for 9/11? If so what should we call it?

I honestly share a bit in all of the opinions I’ve got listed in the polls; and I can’t resolve them in my mind.

I think we SHOULD do something to permanently remind us of that day, but at the same time the thought of memorializing a terrorist attack sickens me. I want to do it now to help us ensure that the memory does not fade, but I also think it may be too soon.

Lord knows it would smack of political opportunism.

Veterans day is three days from now, and I can’t help but think about the fact that we no longer respect our holidays for what they are supposed to be. To many, Veterans day and Memorial day are just another day off work…

And if we DO choose to memorialize the day, what in the hell do we call it? I honestly have no idea.

Your thoughts?

Monday, November 07, 2005

Sick again

God damnit I can't win this week.

I woke up feeling like crap around 6:30, so after the GF left at 8:30 I went back to bed. Now its 5pm, I feel worse than ever, and I've got a fever of 101...


UPDATE: I'm up to 104. I cant remember feeling this hot in all my life, though I went to 106 when I was 5 and had scarlet fever.

UPDATE again: I've stayed between 102 and 103 somethin almost all day. No other symptoms except a stuffed up nose so I really have no idea what this is. Of course I can't take sudafed 'cuz it'll make the fever worse, and anything more than 104 is hospital time.

I've lost 15 lbs in three days, and I've been stuffing myself and drinking tons. I do NOT recommend this diet plan.

UPDATE final (I hope): Well the fever broke again early this morning, after a long night of tossing around, fever dreams, and muscle spasms from the fever and dehydration.

I'm actually more sore right now than I was after the RWVA shoot.

Anyway, I'm down below 100, and I'm fervently hoping I stay that way/keep going lower (I have a normal oral temp of 96.6 or so)

last action hero

You scored as William Wallace. The great Scottish warrior William Wallace led his people against their English oppressors in a campaign that won independence for Scotland and immortalized him in the hearts of his countrymen. With his warrior's heart, tactician's mind, and poet's soul, Wallace was a brilliant leader. He just wanted to live a simple life on his farm, but he gave it up to help his country in its time of need.

William Wallace


Indiana Jones


James Bond, Agent 007


Neo, the "One"


Lara Croft


Batman, the Dark Knight


Captain Jack Sparrow




El Zorro


The Terminator


The Amazing Spider-Man


Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com

Sunday, November 06, 2005

A note on the French civil war

...and make no mistake, that's what it is.

I may be alone in this, but I’m pretty sure the French are going to let this go only so far, and then terrorist leaders are going to start “Disappearing”.

The French as a whole may be cheese eatin surrender monkeys, but once the pols let the military take over… and they will when it gets bad enough… the bullshit is going to stop RTFN.

Ya know why? Because as big a pussy as the french political mass is, their special operations, and anti terror folks are born again hardcore. They think NOTHING about killing entire towns to prove a point (read about some of the anti algerian ops sometime).

Sure, if it’s jsut one or two of their “leaders” who go down the rioting will get worse; but when every single one of them “disappears” in a single night,along with anyone who they talked to, and maybe all their families (and yes, GIGN WILL do that), these unwashed hordes will almsot certainly lose their will to fight.

Seriously, you dont fuck with the French when it comes to terrorism

Thursday, November 03, 2005


My brother made me draw my gun on him today.

For those of you who are not long time readers, my brother is a drug dealing asshole who sucks off of my mom, and everyone else around him. He is a liar, a cheat, a thief, and he basically hates everyone and everything (except weed and baseball), and expresses himself freely on that hate.

The only redeeming factor he has at all, is that he lives with my mom, and makes sure she is taken care of on a day to day basis. Of course he wouldnt be doing that if it werent for the fact that because of it he doesnt have to work, and gets free room and board.

So, to today...

There was a gun in a box at my mothers place for a few months. Actually several, but one of them belonged to a friend of mine from another state. I had done some work on it, and was waiting for him to come pick it up.

Well, I went over there to fix my mothers computer (fifth warranty repair from HP. Total piece of shit), and to pickup my friends gun because he was in town this weekend, and heading back out of town today.

A few minutes after I arrived, I had to get a UPS power strip that my brother had removed from my mothers office area, so I could finish setting up her computer. Please understand these things have a 5lb battery in them, and they are not at all light.

Instead of giving me the UPS, he threw it at my head then turned around and flopped down on the couch in the other room. I deflected it with my arms, got up, went into the other room, said "Give me the gun, I'm going" and he said "Oh, I pawned it, it's gone".

Needless to say I was angry and I started yelling at him. He moved to come towards me off the couch agressively, and I kicked him in the head. I then secured him in a front head lock and told him "I want that gun, or the damn pawn ticket RIGHT NOW". He said that it was long gone and what was I going to do about it.

"I SHOULD SHOOT YOU IN THE FUCKING HEAD. Jesus christ Rob DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'VE DONE. Stealing a fucking gun across state lines is a federal felony, 10 fucking years". He gave me some flip response and he started fighting me again.

Then he managed to get his arm free and he grabbed the butt of my gun on my belt.

I just pushed him back down, cleared back from him and drew my pistol on him.

"Do you understand what you have just done. If you move I'm going to shoot you. Don't think I wont". He came up off the couch pushing my mother away and I just yelled out "My finger is on the fucking trigger you piece of shit", and he backed off.

He calmed down, and I let him up and put my gun away, and he started ranting about ME, and getting up in my face again.; saying I had hurt my mother, insulting me, screaming how dare I pull a gun on him etc... and he made a move to come at me again.

I had enough of it, I secured his head again, and I started choking him out (this time I had full arm control, and my gun side was well away. No repeats of before); and saying "I want the damn gun. I'm not going to fucking prison because of you you piece of shit. Wheres the fucking gun".

Meanwhile my best friend and my near crippled terminally ill mother are trying to get in the middle of this; and I keep telling them to get the hell away they are just making the situation worse. My mother gets pushed to the ground, and theres a big chance of a gun getting loose here.

Finally my mother pleads with me to let him go so I drop him on the ground, and he goes to call the cops. I just got my shit and got ready to leave, and I told him "Go ahead, if you try and make something out of this, you will get nowhere, and you'll just fuck yourself over. And if you come near me, I WILL shoot you."

You have to understand, the house smells very strongly like Marijuana, and theres drug paraphenelia all over the place. Not only that but my brother just got out of jail on an assault charge a few days ago.

My mother says the he didnt pawn the gun, she knows where it is, and she went and retrieved it. The little son of a bitch was just deliberately provoking a fight with me.

He's been telling my friend Jimmy every time he visited, that he was going to start a fight with me next time he saw me, and he did.

The cops came over, and they told him (according to my mother, I had already left before I jsut let lose and beat him to a bloody pile of shit) "Theres nothing to do here. You started an altercation and he acted within his rights. The only thing we can do is give you the paperwork to file a restraining order."

I don't know why he went for my gun. Maybe he thought I really was going to shoot him, maybe he was just trying to get a hold of me, or maybe he was really trying to get my gun away to shoot me; I just don't know.

Remember what I said last week about every fight being potentially life and death? In that fight between brothers, where there was no intent (at least on my part) to seriously harm , there was a real chance I could have killed my brother not just with my gun, but also several times during the fight.

I held back from doing so because he's my brother, but at any time I could have crushed his larynx or broken his neck. Lord knows what would have happened if he had got hold of my gun. Or if I had slipped. Or if he had hit me the wrong way at the wrong time and made me lose it.

I don't want to kill my brother, but he damn near made me do it today.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Home, Alive, and Reasonably Well

Well, JohnOC, LVGunner, and I arrived safe at home about 6am this morning.

I just woke up for the first time, and I plan on heading back to sleep as soon as is humanly possible.

There will be pictures, and posts, and gun reviews, and gift explanations, and all sorts of other good stuff forthcoming shortly.