So a bit from the local news...
Original article
April 2
Two men, including the 18-year-old son of Arizona's Senate president, pleaded guilty Monday to one count of aggravated assault for shoving broomsticks and flashlights up the rectums of 18 young boys last year.
Clifton Bennett, of Prescott, and Kyle Wheeler, 19, of Glendale, accepted a deal offered by the Yavapai County Attorney's Office to drop all but one of 36 original charges in exchange for the guilty plea.
Wheeler also pleaded guilty to an additional aggravated assault charge for choking three of the boys until they passed out.
Parents of the victims expressed frustration and anger over the plea deal, saying it was too lenient.
Judge Thomas O'Toole of Maricopa County Superior Court, who is overseeing the case, said he reviewed evidence and the plea deal fits the circumstances of the case.
The deal leaves the defendants facing up to two years in prison on each count. O'Toole could also reduce the charges to misdemeanors when he sentences the two in May.
"I don't agree with the plea agreement," the mother of one young victim said after the court hearing. "It minimizes the fact that there is more than one victim."
As if this wasn't bad enough, the County Attorney made her own statement "supporting" the position of the prosecutors in taking the plea deal. It doesn't help too much.
And then Montini does his own column, with a few choice snippets from one of county prosecutors:
Last week, I sent some questions to Polk via e-mail. I wanted to know, for example, if the victims in the case were thoroughly evaluated by sexual-assault experts.
I also asked about a remark made by one of her prosecutors, who said, "We would certainly start from a different perspective if it was girls (as victims)." Are boys lesser victims than girls?
Likewise, that same prosecutor suggested that if the perpetrators were gay it would have altered prosecutors' view of the crime. As if the sexual orientation of the offender matters.
Just lovely, huh?
So what do the families of the victimized do when the criminal courts fail them? What they did earlier this week. Sue both "men" and the father of the younger perpetrator, who happens to be the AZ state senate president.
Because we all know that when the criminal courts fail, the civil courts will pick up the slack for those who have the sense to use them.
Besides, everyone knows everything can be fixed with a lawsuit. That is, after all, the American way.
Mel
Just call me Mel, everyone else does.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
10,000 Round Springer
I bought my Springfield Champion in October of 2003, for $800 out the door, tax included.
I put 500 rounds through it the next day. I believe in shooting my guns.
The Champion is a commander length 1911, with a bull barrel, and a double captured recoil spring setup; no bushing and no recoil buffer. From the factory it ships with a tight ramped chamber, and with a spring change it's safe for .45 super (though that voids your Springfield warranty).
After I broke the pistol in, I ordered up some new springs from Wolff. The factory stock recoil setup has about an 8# pound captured secondary spring, and about a 14lb main spring; giving an effective spring rate of a bit less than 22lbs (vs the 1911 Gov't standard of 16 or 18lbs), with some progressive tension built in. I'm guessing on the stock numbers, because Springfield only says the whole system is 22lbs tension not what the individual springs are, and because the secondary spring jsut maxes out my trigger pull scale.
Well, that's fine and dandy, but it's a bit too light if you want to eat a steady diet of .45 +p+, and the occaisonal .45 super which I do; so I ordered some new 22lb main springs. Wolff sells them for people who want to remove the double captured setup and go to a single spring with a guide rod, so they are at full tension without a secondary spring, and of coruse higher tension with it. This gave me an effective spring rate of something like 30lbs.
I also ordered a full Wolff spring set; and a 24lb recoil spring and a 10lb secondary spring for gits and shiggles. Oh and I picked up a spare recoil spring assembly from Springfield Armory, after accidentally launching the spring bushing into the wilderness one day.
Then I shipped the pistol off to Yost for him to do his magic; and I've been shooting it with the 22lb springs ever since.
Funny enough, lots of people have commented about how much tension there is in my recoil spring, but I never really notice. I DO notice the nice groups and snappy slide motion though.
Well as of this morning (well, two weeks ago but I only noticed it last night) I've worn out both of the 22lb springs, and both of the original secondary springs.
I'd noticed there was a little wear for the last few months, then noticed it more when I put a new extractor in and sometimes had a failure to go completley into battery on the first round; but I figured that was just the extractor breaking itself in. Well I was doing a chamber check on the gun last night, and I noticed the lockup was a bit loose, so I cleared it and did some hammer drops and slide drops; and sure enough my springs were worn out.
Of course that's somewhat unsurprising, since I've put well over 10,000 rounds through the gun in the last 2 and a half years; at least half that very hot and heavy loads. Hell, I'm actually even starting to see some barrel wear.
Anyway, I decided to replace them with the 10lb secondary and 24lb primary spring.
When I first assembled it the main spring was compressing the secondary spring too much while in battery, and it caused the guide rod to bind. I compared the new 24lb spring to the old 22lb and noticed it was 4 coils longer; so I snipped two coils, rechecked it, and the gun hand cycles like a top now. More importantly lockup is once again rock solid.
Of course the springs are now so strong that Mel can barely cycle the gun; but I expect to see more than 5000 rounds out of this spring; and Mel doesnt shoot my 1911 without me, so I think it's a valid tradeoff. I'd love to actually get a tension scale to see how much pressure is required to cycle the gun; but as long as it functions and I can cycle it without a problem, I'm not too concerned.
Now I just need to take it to the range and see how it functions there. I'll load up some just barely major power ammo and make sure it's 100% with it; if so, I'm golden.
Of course that means I need to finally unpack and reset all my reloading gear. Lord I hate moving. My gun room is now piled floor to cieling with random crap.
Oh well, it's a good excuse to clean it.
Glocks and Safety
So some of my fellow gunbloggers have made arguments against issuing Glocks to police, or against beginners using Glocks; because they have a high incidence of negligent discharge. Some (mostly those same fellows), also say they just don't feel a gun without a positive acting external mechanical safety, is safe.
Then there are those folks who go on and on about Glock Kabooms! (I do so love that word).
Let's break these issues down shall we?
First, we need to explain that there are two types of Unintentional Discharge, and differentiate between them. Those two types are an accidental discharge, and a negligent discharge; and there is a world of difference both technically, and legally seperating them.
An AD occurs when a mechanical or physical failure causes a gun to unintentionaly discharge; or when a gun discharges when operated in a way not intended to make it discharge. For example a sear breaks on a gun without a trigger or firing pin safety, and it fires; or a gun fires when the safety is wiped off (a common problem for 1911s with unsafe trigger work).
Accidental discharges are quite rare in most pistol designs; and in some designs are nearly impossible unless there is massive damage to the pistol. The Glock is one of those designs.
Negligent discharges occur when the shooter operates the weapon in a way designed to make it fire; when they did not intend to do so. NDs unfortunately are quite common in comparions to ADs. Almost every shooter has at least one in their shooting career. I've had two myself (stupidity on my part), and been on the recieving end of two. One just ended up going through my range bag; unfortunately destroying a holster, and scuffing along the dustcover of my custom Champion (the copper jacketing mark is still faintly visible), luckily leaving it undamaged. The other one I wasn't so fortunate, and I ended up with a 5.56 slug in my forearm (thankfully it was from long range and didn't penetrate deeply or damage much - Hurt like an SOB though).
Negligent discharges are caused by three things. Complacency, Stupidity, and lack of training.
I think it’s safe to say that Glocks have more stupid, incompetent, and untrained users than any other brand of pistol excepting common criminal drop pieces (Raven, Lorcin, Jennings, Davis etc... all of which also have very high negligent discharge rates, as well as high ACCIDENTAL discharge rates).
Glocks are the best selling pistol brand in America (the 1911 is the most popular type but is sold under many brands). They are often purchased by people who know little to nothing about guns. They are often issued to police officers who know little to nothing about guns. Also, they are a favorite of criminals, and criminal wannabe's because of their prevalence in Hip-Hop culture (though this is declining somewhat).
Hell, this guys probably qualifies in all three categories:
All gun types and brands are sometimes misused; but because of these factors, Glocks are more often misused than any other gun.
Let’s say that again: Glocks have a higher negligent discharge rate because there are more of them; and because their users are on average less experienced with guns.
In particular, the most common stupid inexperienced safety mistake, putting a finger on the trigger when not ready to fire, also defeats the Glocks only external safety (which is built into the trigger). The almost universal tendency of the inexperienced to point the muzzle of a gun at whatever they are looking at simply adds to the problem.
The Glock is made to be simple, reliable, and fire when the trigger is pulled; it will not prevent a stupid user from shooting something they didn’t intend to.
For comparison, when the 1911 was new, and all the way up until the Mid '80s; it had the worst ND rate of any gun; because there were so many of them, and because so many people had such bad habits as keeping a finger on the trigger when taking the safety off. The reason why this has changed, is because the 1911 has become the enthusiasts gun of choice; and enthusiasts as a whole have higher equipment and training standards then beginners (though we still ND just like everybody else). Begninners on the other hand are now generally going for... well a Glock.
Making this worse, it was popular among competitors in the 70s and for some time in the 80s to disable the grip safety of a 1911, to ensure more reliable functioning when ones grip wasn't fully indexed. Added to that of course was the fact that most competitive shooters lightened their trigger pulls into the 2lb (or sometimes less) range. Of course they did this using the highest quality parts, expert gunsmiths, and handling by highly trained individuals with safety as a primary concern; and they WEREN'T generally carrying these guns on the street.
When the bubba in the street copied these trends on his homegrown and backyard gunsmithed 1911... well let's just say that when combined with bad habits like resting the finger on the trigger, the results were often dangerous.
The pistol was functioning as built, and designed; but it wasn't built or designed to prevent an idiot from doing something stupid... or actually it was, but it was then modified so that it wouldn't.
OK, back to Glocks now.
Additionally, and again due to stupid and inexperienced users; Glocks have a higher rate of accidental shootings while cleaning.
The most basic step before disassembling a gun is to ensure it is completely unloaded INCLUDING A CHAMBER CHECK. Glocks (and some other pistols of similar action type) require you pull the trigger for disassembely. Stupid users shoot themselves and those around them by leaving a round in the chamber and then pulling the trigger to disassemble the gun. This characteristic (and this accident type) isn't limited to Glocks of course, but the trigger pulling factor, combined with the huge number of Glocks out there make it occur more frequently than with other pistols.
Again, the weapon is designed to fire when the trigger is pulled, and will not prevent a stupid or inexperience user from shooting something they didn’t intend to.
Glocks don't fire unless you pull the trigger. Even if the gun fails mechanically, the Glock striker doesnt have enough tension to pop a primer unless the trigger is pulled, unlike an SA or DA/SA auto where a broken sear or safety can cause the hammer to fall and ignite the round. That's one of the reasons they call it the safe action. It's just damn near impossible to make a Glock fire accidentally under normal circumstances; unless it has been modified in an unsafe way.
The standard Glock trigger is 5.5lbs nominal and the lightened trigger is 3.5lbs nominal. The original NY trigger was 8.5lbs nominal (and is actually a bit heavier). The new york 2 trigger is 11.5lbs nominal.
Any of them are safe for carry assuming proper safety habits.
A Glock with a properly set up trigger WILL NOT UNINTENTIONALLY FIRE ACCIDENTALLY; only negligently.
Note, I said under normal cricumstances above. Those who dislike Glocks often refer to something called "the frisbee test". In 1992 the DEA conducted a series of acceptance trials for new issue pistols, and the Glock failed a portion of the test colloquially reffered to as the frisbee test.
The test consisted of throwing the weapon from chest height, like a frisbee, a minimum of fifteen feet onto concrete. The test was repeated six times without an unloaded magazine and passed. Then a loaded magazine was inserted, and on the third through sixth time the gun failed.
All first generation Glocks, and some second generation glocks (manufactured before april 0f 1991) have frame rails that are slightly too short. In the event of a violent impact (like being thrown 15 feet onto concrete) it is possible for the slide to separate from the frame, and make a light strike on the primer of a chambered round.
If that round has a soft primer, it is possible that the cartridge will ignite.
Generation 2.5 and later frame rails have been lengthened to ensure this doesnt happen under any normal circumstances. In fact, the guns have been tested by dropping them from flying aircraft onto concrete at over 100 miles per hour, and they still didnt fail.
Also the firing pin, firing pin safety plunger, safety bearing and spring, trigger bar, and extractor were all redesigned to ensure it is impossible to accidentally discharge a round when the slide separates from the frame.
In 1992 Glock announced a "voluntary upgrade" (really a recall, but they wouldn't call it that) for safety and reliability, to replace those six parts. The older generations slide can still separate from the frame in a violent impact; however if it does, a chambered round will NOT be ignited.
Now as to positive acting external mechanical safties, first a definition: When I say that, what I mean is a safety device that must be actively disengaged by the shooter before pulling the trigger will cause the gun to fire. This does not include passive safeties such as grip safeties and trigger safeties.
For example, the 1911 has a thumb activated safety that allows the trigger to be pulled, but stops the hammer from moving.
One of the most basic principles of firearm safety however, is that safety systems do not make a gun safe. You can't trust a safety to work; so you act as if there wasn't one and follow the four rules:
If you are following the four rules, there is no need for an external safety on ANY DA or DA like pistol (including Glocks), unless one wishes to carry the weapon with the hammer cocked (in which case a safety is needed for condition 1 carry).
DA revolvers have been around for over a century, and have never needed manual safeties; neither do Glocks. In fact, Glocks (and other half cock striker systems) are SAFER than many revolvers, because there is absolutely no way for them to release the striker with enough force to ignite a primer unless the trigger is pulled (or unless you dropped it from two stories up and it hit directly on the muzzle), whereas you can accidentally cock a revolvers hammer in the holster by snagging it on something (I've had it happen to me, and it's scary).
Basically, if you feel that pistols without a manual safety are unsafe, then you are trained improperly. Though you may personally prefer to have a safety, as I generally do, those pistols without it are not unsafe.
The only way a Glock would fire unintentionally that a manual safety would prevent, is if the shooter had a habit of resting his finger on the trigger; which as we have mentioned is a training issue, not a safety flaw in the gun.
Lets repeat that: A Glock WILL NOT FIRE UNLESS THE TRIGGER IS PULLED.
It is so mechanically unlikely as to be nearly imposible that a Glock in proper functioning condition can be made to unintentionally discharge accidentally, only negligently.
I personally have no problem with either a DA revolver, or a Glock (or a Kahr, Springfield XD, SW9/40, Walther P99 etc... all of which use similar systems); having no external manualsafety.
Ok, now that I'm done beating you over the head with all that, how about the Kaboom! thing?
The vast majority of the Kaboom! stories are not the fault of the gun, or the design.
First, a Kaboom is just a fun word for a catastropic case head separation. This happens when cases are weakened near the head (the base of the cartridge), and/or cartridges are overcharged; or more seriously when a pistol fires jsut slightly out of battery; and the case head separates and blows back out into the pistol when ignited. This frequently destroys the frame of the pistol, and often the magazine and grip panels; and may seriously injure the hand, and possibly the face and upper body of the shooter.
Of course we're USED to 1911s; we know what makes them go kaboom, so we generally don't do it anymore.
See non-match grade 1911's have a loose chamber with an unsupported section cut out in the bottom of the rear of the chamber to act as a feed ramp, and in general aid in reliability.
This system works great with the basic .45ACP, which is a relatively low pressure round. Unfortunately, as you increase the pressure, that unsupported and loose chamber stresses the brass much more than a tighter supported chamber would.
From the 50's all through the 80s, folks would regularly blow up their 1911s by overloading their handloads; but you never really saw it happen with factory ammo; because even an overcharge generally wasnt enough to blow the gun up with the factory powders. Also, so long as they were using a steel framed 1911 and steel magazines, there generally weren't catastrophic frame failures injuring peoples hands.
When the .38 super became a popular competitive chambering in the 70's there were a whole series of new case head rupture incidents; because the super is a very high pressure round, and .38 super brass and barrels from that time period were generally not as tough, or as tightly specced as they are today.
There were so many of these incidents among competitors in fact, that a name devleoped for the small pits and scars that would result from the small metal fragments and burning powder being blown back onto the shooter; "super face". It was common to see shooters with a .38 super suddenly show up with a new beard to cover up the remnants of the incident.
This happened to other guns as well of course; but not as frequently as the 1911, as there were not only more 1911's out there, but nearly everyone who reloads shoots the 1911.
By the time the 80s came around, reloaders had really figured out just how far they could push with standard barrels; and what they could do with fully supported, tight chambered match barrels that have an integrated feedramp (like the one I use in my custom commander length 1911). Hell, they even went and made things like the .45 super; which bumps .45 pressure up from 20-25,000 psi into the 30,000 psi range; and .460 rowland which bumps it into the 40,000psi range
Importantly though, the .45 super (and .460 rowland) has much thicker brass in the case head area. Original .45 super brass was actually manufactured by turning and trimming down .308 rifle cases. If you tried to load to those pressure levels with standard brass... well you'd get a kaboom; especially with a loose, unsupported chamber.
Enter Gaston Glock.
The primary design parameter for Glock pistols is reliability. Tighter chambers are less reliable when a weapon is dirty, or springs are worn out, or ammo is slightly out of spec. Glock decided on a looser chamber for reliability reasons.
A barrel with a wide flared ramp at the base of the chamber will feed more reliably; so Glock decided to do that.
That means that most Glock pistols (the .357SIG being the exception, because it's a bottlenecked cartridge) have a loose, unsupported chamber; just like with a 1911 (which by the way does it for the same reason).
Again, this wasn't a problem for the most part; until the .40 S&W came out in 1990.
The .40 is a great defensive pistol cartridge; a good compromise between the 9mm and .45acp. It's been rapidly adopted by police agencies and private shooters across the country; and is now the third most popular auto pistol chambering in America behind the .45acp and the 9mm.
What's particularly significant, is that probably more than half of all the .40 pistols out there are Glocks, because the Glock was the first company to chamber a pistol in it (beating even the designer S&w). Also Glock is the most commonly issued police weapon, and the .40 is now the most common police caliber; and many defensive shooters emulate those police practices.
The .40 was developed as a cut down verion of the near magnum level 10mm cartridge. Unfortunately they also used slightly thinner brass; because the cartridge is loaded to a much lower pressure than the 10mm, at about 40,000psi (37,800 for standard ammo).
Of course that's still a very high pressure cartridge; just below magnum level pressure actually.
Worse, the .40 is very wide relative to it's length, and there is very little room between the powder and the base of the bullet. Given the powders generally used for pistol reloading, reducing the expansion space by seating a bullet too deeply; or through bullet setback (where bullets get pushed into the case through handling or repeated chambering) can quite literally DOUBLE the maximum pressure reached when the cartridge is ignited. This doubling of pressure is enough to blow up almost ANY gun, supported chamber or no.
A similar problem can occur if the bullet is crimped too tightly into the case; which is the primary means of reducing bullet setback, so it's a no-win situation. The best bet is to load bullets with a cannelure (a ridged groove around the bullet), and use a very mild crimp over the cannelure. This will avoid excessive setback without greatly increasing pressures. Unfortunately, most pistol bullets don't have a cannelure, because unlike revolvers, pistols headspace on the case mouth.
So, what happens when you take a thin case, loaded to a high pressure, and ignite it in a relatively loose, unsupported chamber?
No, it doesn't necessarily go Kaboom; but it DOES stretch the case web almost twice as much as in a tight fully supported chamber; and almost four times as much as when it is downloaded to pressure levels in the 30,000 psi range.
If you reload this brass, you are putting even more stress on it; then you fire it again...
and again...
Yes, it's going to eventually go kaboom! in a bad way.
Again, this is not unique to Glocks; many pistol designs have relatively loose, unsupported chambers. It's just that there are SO many more .40 Glocks out there that it appears to be a Glock problem.
Also this isn't limited strictly to the .40s&w chambering, but the .40 has the strongest combination of factors that contribute to this issue. The problem has been reported in .380, 9mm, .40, .357sig, 10mm, and .45acp - basically the full range; but there are more reports of it happening in .4o than in all other chamberings put together; and I know of no reports in any caliber other than .40 that involve factory ammunition, unless it was absolutely proven to be an overcharge or other overpressure situation.
Now it is possible to Kaboom! with factory ammo; and there are maybe a dozen reported cases of it happening that I know of, all attributed to a factory overcharge, or severe bullet setback. Relative to the millions of Glocks out there, it's statistically insignificant.
It can also happen with other chamberings, but most of them don't have that combination of high pressure, thin case wall, and the loose unsupported chamber issue; so it happens more frequently with the .40.
What it comes down to, is if you shoot a Glock or any other gun with a loose, unsupported chamber in .40; don't reload your brass, or shoot reloads. If you want to do so, get yourself a Bar-Sto match marrel with a tight, supported chamber and you won't have to worry about it.
Let's review:
1. Follow the four rules
2. Glocks wont keep stupid people from negligently discharging
3. Glock WILL fire when the trigger is pulled (even if you didnt want them to)
4. Glocks will NOT fire when the trigger ISN'T pulled
5. Glocks won't just blow up for no reason; but if you give them a good enough reason, they will; so don't give them that reason
Are we clear?
Oh and one more thing; why is it that people have it in for Glock so much?
Three reasons:
1. They are ugly pices of plastic
2. They are foreign made
3. Gaston Glock is an arrogant ass who has declared his designs the absolute pinnacle of perfection without flaws. In fact the Glock slogan is "Perfection"
When you declare yourself perfect, that tends to get people to want to prove you aren't; and really just irritates people in general. What's worse is, GLocks are in general so well made and well designed that you really have to go to the extremes to find an objective problem (vs. asthetics of ergonomics which are subjectieve - witness the frisbee test) that it pisses people off even more.
No Glocks aren't perfect; no mechanical device is. They are ugly, and kinda bulky, the grip feels funny, and the triggers arent all that great; but they are absolutely reliable, as safe as any other gun, and safer than most.
Then there are those folks who go on and on about Glock Kabooms! (I do so love that word).
Let's break these issues down shall we?
First, we need to explain that there are two types of Unintentional Discharge, and differentiate between them. Those two types are an accidental discharge, and a negligent discharge; and there is a world of difference both technically, and legally seperating them.
An AD occurs when a mechanical or physical failure causes a gun to unintentionaly discharge; or when a gun discharges when operated in a way not intended to make it discharge. For example a sear breaks on a gun without a trigger or firing pin safety, and it fires; or a gun fires when the safety is wiped off (a common problem for 1911s with unsafe trigger work).
Accidental discharges are quite rare in most pistol designs; and in some designs are nearly impossible unless there is massive damage to the pistol. The Glock is one of those designs.
Negligent discharges occur when the shooter operates the weapon in a way designed to make it fire; when they did not intend to do so. NDs unfortunately are quite common in comparions to ADs. Almost every shooter has at least one in their shooting career. I've had two myself (stupidity on my part), and been on the recieving end of two. One just ended up going through my range bag; unfortunately destroying a holster, and scuffing along the dustcover of my custom Champion (the copper jacketing mark is still faintly visible), luckily leaving it undamaged. The other one I wasn't so fortunate, and I ended up with a 5.56 slug in my forearm (thankfully it was from long range and didn't penetrate deeply or damage much - Hurt like an SOB though).
Negligent discharges are caused by three things. Complacency, Stupidity, and lack of training.
I think it’s safe to say that Glocks have more stupid, incompetent, and untrained users than any other brand of pistol excepting common criminal drop pieces (Raven, Lorcin, Jennings, Davis etc... all of which also have very high negligent discharge rates, as well as high ACCIDENTAL discharge rates).
Glocks are the best selling pistol brand in America (the 1911 is the most popular type but is sold under many brands). They are often purchased by people who know little to nothing about guns. They are often issued to police officers who know little to nothing about guns. Also, they are a favorite of criminals, and criminal wannabe's because of their prevalence in Hip-Hop culture (though this is declining somewhat).
Hell, this guys probably qualifies in all three categories:
All gun types and brands are sometimes misused; but because of these factors, Glocks are more often misused than any other gun.
Let’s say that again: Glocks have a higher negligent discharge rate because there are more of them; and because their users are on average less experienced with guns.
In particular, the most common stupid inexperienced safety mistake, putting a finger on the trigger when not ready to fire, also defeats the Glocks only external safety (which is built into the trigger). The almost universal tendency of the inexperienced to point the muzzle of a gun at whatever they are looking at simply adds to the problem.
The Glock is made to be simple, reliable, and fire when the trigger is pulled; it will not prevent a stupid user from shooting something they didn’t intend to.
For comparison, when the 1911 was new, and all the way up until the Mid '80s; it had the worst ND rate of any gun; because there were so many of them, and because so many people had such bad habits as keeping a finger on the trigger when taking the safety off. The reason why this has changed, is because the 1911 has become the enthusiasts gun of choice; and enthusiasts as a whole have higher equipment and training standards then beginners (though we still ND just like everybody else). Begninners on the other hand are now generally going for... well a Glock.
Making this worse, it was popular among competitors in the 70s and for some time in the 80s to disable the grip safety of a 1911, to ensure more reliable functioning when ones grip wasn't fully indexed. Added to that of course was the fact that most competitive shooters lightened their trigger pulls into the 2lb (or sometimes less) range. Of course they did this using the highest quality parts, expert gunsmiths, and handling by highly trained individuals with safety as a primary concern; and they WEREN'T generally carrying these guns on the street.
When the bubba in the street copied these trends on his homegrown and backyard gunsmithed 1911... well let's just say that when combined with bad habits like resting the finger on the trigger, the results were often dangerous.
The pistol was functioning as built, and designed; but it wasn't built or designed to prevent an idiot from doing something stupid... or actually it was, but it was then modified so that it wouldn't.
OK, back to Glocks now.
Additionally, and again due to stupid and inexperienced users; Glocks have a higher rate of accidental shootings while cleaning.
The most basic step before disassembling a gun is to ensure it is completely unloaded INCLUDING A CHAMBER CHECK. Glocks (and some other pistols of similar action type) require you pull the trigger for disassembely. Stupid users shoot themselves and those around them by leaving a round in the chamber and then pulling the trigger to disassemble the gun. This characteristic (and this accident type) isn't limited to Glocks of course, but the trigger pulling factor, combined with the huge number of Glocks out there make it occur more frequently than with other pistols.
Again, the weapon is designed to fire when the trigger is pulled, and will not prevent a stupid or inexperience user from shooting something they didn’t intend to.
Glocks don't fire unless you pull the trigger. Even if the gun fails mechanically, the Glock striker doesnt have enough tension to pop a primer unless the trigger is pulled, unlike an SA or DA/SA auto where a broken sear or safety can cause the hammer to fall and ignite the round. That's one of the reasons they call it the safe action. It's just damn near impossible to make a Glock fire accidentally under normal circumstances; unless it has been modified in an unsafe way.
The standard Glock trigger is 5.5lbs nominal and the lightened trigger is 3.5lbs nominal. The original NY trigger was 8.5lbs nominal (and is actually a bit heavier). The new york 2 trigger is 11.5lbs nominal.
Any of them are safe for carry assuming proper safety habits.
A Glock with a properly set up trigger WILL NOT UNINTENTIONALLY FIRE ACCIDENTALLY; only negligently.
Note, I said under normal cricumstances above. Those who dislike Glocks often refer to something called "the frisbee test". In 1992 the DEA conducted a series of acceptance trials for new issue pistols, and the Glock failed a portion of the test colloquially reffered to as the frisbee test.
The test consisted of throwing the weapon from chest height, like a frisbee, a minimum of fifteen feet onto concrete. The test was repeated six times without an unloaded magazine and passed. Then a loaded magazine was inserted, and on the third through sixth time the gun failed.
All first generation Glocks, and some second generation glocks (manufactured before april 0f 1991) have frame rails that are slightly too short. In the event of a violent impact (like being thrown 15 feet onto concrete) it is possible for the slide to separate from the frame, and make a light strike on the primer of a chambered round.
If that round has a soft primer, it is possible that the cartridge will ignite.
Generation 2.5 and later frame rails have been lengthened to ensure this doesnt happen under any normal circumstances. In fact, the guns have been tested by dropping them from flying aircraft onto concrete at over 100 miles per hour, and they still didnt fail.
Also the firing pin, firing pin safety plunger, safety bearing and spring, trigger bar, and extractor were all redesigned to ensure it is impossible to accidentally discharge a round when the slide separates from the frame.
In 1992 Glock announced a "voluntary upgrade" (really a recall, but they wouldn't call it that) for safety and reliability, to replace those six parts. The older generations slide can still separate from the frame in a violent impact; however if it does, a chambered round will NOT be ignited.
Now as to positive acting external mechanical safties, first a definition: When I say that, what I mean is a safety device that must be actively disengaged by the shooter before pulling the trigger will cause the gun to fire. This does not include passive safeties such as grip safeties and trigger safeties.
For example, the 1911 has a thumb activated safety that allows the trigger to be pulled, but stops the hammer from moving.
One of the most basic principles of firearm safety however, is that safety systems do not make a gun safe. You can't trust a safety to work; so you act as if there wasn't one and follow the four rules:
1. Always assume all guns are loaded at all times
2. Never point a gun at something you do not wish to destroy
3. Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire
4. Always be sure of your target, and what is behind it
DA revolvers have been around for over a century, and have never needed manual safeties; neither do Glocks. In fact, Glocks (and other half cock striker systems) are SAFER than many revolvers, because there is absolutely no way for them to release the striker with enough force to ignite a primer unless the trigger is pulled (or unless you dropped it from two stories up and it hit directly on the muzzle), whereas you can accidentally cock a revolvers hammer in the holster by snagging it on something (I've had it happen to me, and it's scary).
Basically, if you feel that pistols without a manual safety are unsafe, then you are trained improperly. Though you may personally prefer to have a safety, as I generally do, those pistols without it are not unsafe.
The only way a Glock would fire unintentionally that a manual safety would prevent, is if the shooter had a habit of resting his finger on the trigger; which as we have mentioned is a training issue, not a safety flaw in the gun.
Lets repeat that: A Glock WILL NOT FIRE UNLESS THE TRIGGER IS PULLED.
It is so mechanically unlikely as to be nearly imposible that a Glock in proper functioning condition can be made to unintentionally discharge accidentally, only negligently.
I personally have no problem with either a DA revolver, or a Glock (or a Kahr, Springfield XD, SW9/40, Walther P99 etc... all of which use similar systems); having no external manualsafety.
Ok, now that I'm done beating you over the head with all that, how about the Kaboom! thing?
The vast majority of the Kaboom! stories are not the fault of the gun, or the design.
First, a Kaboom is just a fun word for a catastropic case head separation. This happens when cases are weakened near the head (the base of the cartridge), and/or cartridges are overcharged; or more seriously when a pistol fires jsut slightly out of battery; and the case head separates and blows back out into the pistol when ignited. This frequently destroys the frame of the pistol, and often the magazine and grip panels; and may seriously injure the hand, and possibly the face and upper body of the shooter.
Note: This doesn't cover the polygonal rifling issue with soft cast lead bullets. Several designs use polygonal rifling, and all of their manufacturers specifcally recommend against using lead bullets because of excessive pressure buildup as the barrel leads up. This isn't a design issue; and the problem can be aleviated by shooting very hard cast lead, or only using jacketed bullets.Let me tell you what the two most frequently kabooming guns are across the last 50 or so years. Number one isn't the Glock, it's actually the 1911. Glock is only number two.
Of course we're USED to 1911s; we know what makes them go kaboom, so we generally don't do it anymore.
See non-match grade 1911's have a loose chamber with an unsupported section cut out in the bottom of the rear of the chamber to act as a feed ramp, and in general aid in reliability.
This system works great with the basic .45ACP, which is a relatively low pressure round. Unfortunately, as you increase the pressure, that unsupported and loose chamber stresses the brass much more than a tighter supported chamber would.
From the 50's all through the 80s, folks would regularly blow up their 1911s by overloading their handloads; but you never really saw it happen with factory ammo; because even an overcharge generally wasnt enough to blow the gun up with the factory powders. Also, so long as they were using a steel framed 1911 and steel magazines, there generally weren't catastrophic frame failures injuring peoples hands.
When the .38 super became a popular competitive chambering in the 70's there were a whole series of new case head rupture incidents; because the super is a very high pressure round, and .38 super brass and barrels from that time period were generally not as tough, or as tightly specced as they are today.
There were so many of these incidents among competitors in fact, that a name devleoped for the small pits and scars that would result from the small metal fragments and burning powder being blown back onto the shooter; "super face". It was common to see shooters with a .38 super suddenly show up with a new beard to cover up the remnants of the incident.
This happened to other guns as well of course; but not as frequently as the 1911, as there were not only more 1911's out there, but nearly everyone who reloads shoots the 1911.
By the time the 80s came around, reloaders had really figured out just how far they could push with standard barrels; and what they could do with fully supported, tight chambered match barrels that have an integrated feedramp (like the one I use in my custom commander length 1911). Hell, they even went and made things like the .45 super; which bumps .45 pressure up from 20-25,000 psi into the 30,000 psi range; and .460 rowland which bumps it into the 40,000psi range
Importantly though, the .45 super (and .460 rowland) has much thicker brass in the case head area. Original .45 super brass was actually manufactured by turning and trimming down .308 rifle cases. If you tried to load to those pressure levels with standard brass... well you'd get a kaboom; especially with a loose, unsupported chamber.
Enter Gaston Glock.
The primary design parameter for Glock pistols is reliability. Tighter chambers are less reliable when a weapon is dirty, or springs are worn out, or ammo is slightly out of spec. Glock decided on a looser chamber for reliability reasons.
A barrel with a wide flared ramp at the base of the chamber will feed more reliably; so Glock decided to do that.
That means that most Glock pistols (the .357SIG being the exception, because it's a bottlenecked cartridge) have a loose, unsupported chamber; just like with a 1911 (which by the way does it for the same reason).
Again, this wasn't a problem for the most part; until the .40 S&W came out in 1990.
The .40 is a great defensive pistol cartridge; a good compromise between the 9mm and .45acp. It's been rapidly adopted by police agencies and private shooters across the country; and is now the third most popular auto pistol chambering in America behind the .45acp and the 9mm.
What's particularly significant, is that probably more than half of all the .40 pistols out there are Glocks, because the Glock was the first company to chamber a pistol in it (beating even the designer S&w). Also Glock is the most commonly issued police weapon, and the .40 is now the most common police caliber; and many defensive shooters emulate those police practices.
The .40 was developed as a cut down verion of the near magnum level 10mm cartridge. Unfortunately they also used slightly thinner brass; because the cartridge is loaded to a much lower pressure than the 10mm, at about 40,000psi (37,800 for standard ammo).
Of course that's still a very high pressure cartridge; just below magnum level pressure actually.
Worse, the .40 is very wide relative to it's length, and there is very little room between the powder and the base of the bullet. Given the powders generally used for pistol reloading, reducing the expansion space by seating a bullet too deeply; or through bullet setback (where bullets get pushed into the case through handling or repeated chambering) can quite literally DOUBLE the maximum pressure reached when the cartridge is ignited. This doubling of pressure is enough to blow up almost ANY gun, supported chamber or no.
A similar problem can occur if the bullet is crimped too tightly into the case; which is the primary means of reducing bullet setback, so it's a no-win situation. The best bet is to load bullets with a cannelure (a ridged groove around the bullet), and use a very mild crimp over the cannelure. This will avoid excessive setback without greatly increasing pressures. Unfortunately, most pistol bullets don't have a cannelure, because unlike revolvers, pistols headspace on the case mouth.
So, what happens when you take a thin case, loaded to a high pressure, and ignite it in a relatively loose, unsupported chamber?
No, it doesn't necessarily go Kaboom; but it DOES stretch the case web almost twice as much as in a tight fully supported chamber; and almost four times as much as when it is downloaded to pressure levels in the 30,000 psi range.
If you reload this brass, you are putting even more stress on it; then you fire it again...
and again...
Yes, it's going to eventually go kaboom! in a bad way.
Again, this is not unique to Glocks; many pistol designs have relatively loose, unsupported chambers. It's just that there are SO many more .40 Glocks out there that it appears to be a Glock problem.
Also this isn't limited strictly to the .40s&w chambering, but the .40 has the strongest combination of factors that contribute to this issue. The problem has been reported in .380, 9mm, .40, .357sig, 10mm, and .45acp - basically the full range; but there are more reports of it happening in .4o than in all other chamberings put together; and I know of no reports in any caliber other than .40 that involve factory ammunition, unless it was absolutely proven to be an overcharge or other overpressure situation.
Now it is possible to Kaboom! with factory ammo; and there are maybe a dozen reported cases of it happening that I know of, all attributed to a factory overcharge, or severe bullet setback. Relative to the millions of Glocks out there, it's statistically insignificant.
It can also happen with other chamberings, but most of them don't have that combination of high pressure, thin case wall, and the loose unsupported chamber issue; so it happens more frequently with the .40.
What it comes down to, is if you shoot a Glock or any other gun with a loose, unsupported chamber in .40; don't reload your brass, or shoot reloads. If you want to do so, get yourself a Bar-Sto match marrel with a tight, supported chamber and you won't have to worry about it.
Let's review:
1. Follow the four rules
2. Glocks wont keep stupid people from negligently discharging
3. Glock WILL fire when the trigger is pulled (even if you didnt want them to)
4. Glocks will NOT fire when the trigger ISN'T pulled
5. Glocks won't just blow up for no reason; but if you give them a good enough reason, they will; so don't give them that reason
Are we clear?
Oh and one more thing; why is it that people have it in for Glock so much?
Three reasons:
1. They are ugly pices of plastic
2. They are foreign made
3. Gaston Glock is an arrogant ass who has declared his designs the absolute pinnacle of perfection without flaws. In fact the Glock slogan is "Perfection"
When you declare yourself perfect, that tends to get people to want to prove you aren't; and really just irritates people in general. What's worse is, GLocks are in general so well made and well designed that you really have to go to the extremes to find an objective problem (vs. asthetics of ergonomics which are subjectieve - witness the frisbee test) that it pisses people off even more.
No Glocks aren't perfect; no mechanical device is. They are ugly, and kinda bulky, the grip feels funny, and the triggers arent all that great; but they are absolutely reliable, as safe as any other gun, and safer than most.
I WANT
That is a Dan Wesson Commander Classic Bobtail. It's basically the same as the Ed Brown Bobtail guns, except a tiny bit simpler in execution; but from what I've seen no less well done. In fact, the pistol is essentially Ed Brown hard parts, Wolff springs, and a custom forged frame and slide; assembled by the DW folks who have moved Massachusetts to I believe New York. Put an Ed Brown piece, and this up against one another, and I think the only difference you'll see is MAYBE a bit better finish on the Brown piece, and a bit tighter lockup. Oh, that and the $1300 extra and six months wait for the Ed Brown of course.
The Dan Wesson name has a pretty interesting reputation behind it; one of good guns, bad business, and bad luck. It was defunct for a few years, then under new ownership went into very limited production for a while, only to fail and be sold off... I think it was two more times. About two years back they brought out these new 1911's, and then a few months later they were bought again; only this time by a company that can really do something with the brand.
DW has recently been revived under CZ-USA ownership, and so far what they've produced has been of excellent quality. In particular they are noted for the one feature that specifically has me wanthing this gun.
It's in 10mm.
Better; it's not just a conversion; the new DW models were all originally designed and created with 10mm in mind, so they'll have no problem with a full service life of full power loads.
Take a look at the feature specs:
· Round top slide with fixed 3 dot tritium night sights (Novak)Funny enough, that's a lot like what I've had done to my Champion, though I used mostly Wilson or Yost-Bonitz parts not Ed Brown.
· Forged, one piece match grade barrel and bushing.
· Ed Brown Bobtail mainspring housing
· 20 LPI checkered front strap
· Hand polished flat surfaces with contrasting bead blasted rounds
· Beveled magwell
· All sharp edges dehorned by hand
· Lowered and flared ejection port
· Ed Brown memory groove grip safety
· Ed Brown slide stop
· Tactical, extended thumb safety
· Commander style match hammer
· Match grade sear
· Aluminum trigger with stainless bow
· Extended serrated magazine catch
· Wolff springs
· Tuned, machined, internal extractor
Their standard 1911 styles are jsut as well made, and of course have the traditional full frame. IMportantely they are also available in 10mm.
See, I love the 10mm; I jsut dont much care for the Glock 20 or 29 as carry pieces, and I didnt like most of the 1911 conversions out there for reasons of long term reliability.
Now all I have to worry about is, where am I gonna get the money for it???
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
By the pricking of my thumbs
I've been thinking about some Bradbury.
I got involved in a somewhat rambling discussion this evening, about Science Fiction.
You might have noted that I am a big fan of both SF and fantasy, as well as SFnal adventure and thrillers; and even the SF/F themed romance novels that have been coming out the past few years (and are actually pretty good books in some cases), like the eariler Anita Blake books, J.D. Robb, etc...
Anyway, a few months back I saw the 100 Science Fiction Books You Just Have to Read, which Kevin Baker linked to today.
The list contains a lot of classic (including pre-golden age) SF, so most "modern" readers aren't going to have read a lot from the list, but as it turns out I've read 58 of them, and like about 48 of those.
Anyway that's not what got me to writing.
I dislike dystopianism as a whole, and a lot of the list are dystopian in nature. Of course some of that is inevitable because of the sheer volume of dystopian SF out there; and because good stories generally require good conflict, which is easier and often more interesting to create out oof very difficult situations.
In a future where technology can take us across the stars, the ordinary every day difficult situations we face today are to a great degree obivated, so often "great" SF focuses on the essential conflicts of Man vs. Himself, and Man vs. Society; which can create a mode of paranoia, insanity, hopelessness etc... Of course great SF also uses these settings, freedoms, and paradigm to allow for a great moral exploration, that would not be possible in a less constrained world.
Some SF writers are true masters at being disturbing, intentionally or not; and in particular morally disturbing. Harlan Ellison, Alfred Bester, P.K Dick, Kurt Vonnegut, and Ray Bradbury spring to mind immediately, and within a few seconds I'm sure I could list a half dozen more.
Note: If you haven't read Ellisons "I have no mouth, and I must scream" it's available free online and you need to go read it now. Then you'll understand what I mean about disturbing.
The funny thing is, I love Bradburys writing, but I don't LIKE anything he wrote; because most of what he wrote is intensely unlikeable (one should note, he never thought of himself as writing SF, except for Farenheit 451. He thought of his work as mostly fantasy).
My first exposure to Bradbury was either the TV movie of "Something Wicked This Way Comes", which most of you probably know, or something which to me was much darker; but isn't all that well known.
When I was in grade school, in one of my ACE (the "gifted program" accelerated cognitive education) classes they screened a tv production of "All summer in a day" for us. It's quite possibly the most heartless depiction of the cruelty of children I have ever heard of. As a small child it was quite frankly disturbing, and even as an adult it should screw with your head. It's available here to read online as well.
Anyway, that got me to thinking about Bradbury in general, and how he was pissed at Michael Moore for the title of Farenheit 9/11 (though he hasnt expressed a direct political opinion about the film he did say that moore was a completely phony asshole, and an awful person, and that the movie was mostly lies). And then I thought about Farenheit 451.
If you don't know the story, 451 is about a future America that has essentially abandoned all thought, principle, culture... anything but hedonsim and instant gratification. Anything that would disturb the sheeplike populace from their blissful ignorance is banned, and actively destroyed.
Books as it turns out are one of those things that disturb people; because they have bad and confusing and ambiguus 'ideas", so the government employs "firemen" to find and destroy books as they are harmful to the social order.
The protagonist of the story is a fireman who becomes disenchanted both by the life he is expected to lead (and those of his fellow Americans), and by his work, which perpetuates that life. The story then progresses into the conflict between the man and himself, and his society; that characterize so much of great literature in general, and as I metioned above great SF specifically.
It's funny, because this book is often referenced by leftists as if it was about censorship and book burning in the normal way they refernece those sorts of things; which is to say shallowly. They tend to look at it through the phony prism of "mccarthyism" and no further.
Of course that is a complete mis-understanding of the book.
The entire story is about mans struggle for independent existence, and independent thought against the all pressures that human society places on one both to conform, and to simply be hedonistic and selfish. It is a redemption story most of all.
In the end it is a rejection of dogma, a rejection of groupthink a cleansing of self; to reach a state of almost salvation through the embrace, and then fight for independent thought, knowledge, and action.
It is in it's nature one of the most ANTI-leftist books I could imagine. It is in fact almost completely libertarian (as much SF tends to be), and anti-dystopian (unlike the general run of British dystopians who seem to indulge in their depressions and feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness). Not only that but it explicitly embraces spiritual as well as moral redemption, and the necessity of good acts, and spreading of the truth.
This message; and it was most certainly explicitly intended as such by Bradbury, who never missed a chance to shoot you in the head with an idea; is something we NEED right now.
In F451, it finally takes a nuclear strike to make America understand that hedonism, and group think had destroyed it; not were destroying it, HAD DESTROYED IT; and that it must be rebuilt from the ashes, into the country of independence and self reliance that it was originally intended to be.
Funny enough, I think that is all the more relevant today than it was 53 years ago.
I got involved in a somewhat rambling discussion this evening, about Science Fiction.
You might have noted that I am a big fan of both SF and fantasy, as well as SFnal adventure and thrillers; and even the SF/F themed romance novels that have been coming out the past few years (and are actually pretty good books in some cases), like the eariler Anita Blake books, J.D. Robb, etc...
Anyway, a few months back I saw the 100 Science Fiction Books You Just Have to Read, which Kevin Baker linked to today.
The list contains a lot of classic (including pre-golden age) SF, so most "modern" readers aren't going to have read a lot from the list, but as it turns out I've read 58 of them, and like about 48 of those.
Anyway that's not what got me to writing.
I dislike dystopianism as a whole, and a lot of the list are dystopian in nature. Of course some of that is inevitable because of the sheer volume of dystopian SF out there; and because good stories generally require good conflict, which is easier and often more interesting to create out oof very difficult situations.
In a future where technology can take us across the stars, the ordinary every day difficult situations we face today are to a great degree obivated, so often "great" SF focuses on the essential conflicts of Man vs. Himself, and Man vs. Society; which can create a mode of paranoia, insanity, hopelessness etc... Of course great SF also uses these settings, freedoms, and paradigm to allow for a great moral exploration, that would not be possible in a less constrained world.
Some SF writers are true masters at being disturbing, intentionally or not; and in particular morally disturbing. Harlan Ellison, Alfred Bester, P.K Dick, Kurt Vonnegut, and Ray Bradbury spring to mind immediately, and within a few seconds I'm sure I could list a half dozen more.
Note: If you haven't read Ellisons "I have no mouth, and I must scream" it's available free online and you need to go read it now. Then you'll understand what I mean about disturbing.
The funny thing is, I love Bradburys writing, but I don't LIKE anything he wrote; because most of what he wrote is intensely unlikeable (one should note, he never thought of himself as writing SF, except for Farenheit 451. He thought of his work as mostly fantasy).
My first exposure to Bradbury was either the TV movie of "Something Wicked This Way Comes", which most of you probably know, or something which to me was much darker; but isn't all that well known.
When I was in grade school, in one of my ACE (the "gifted program" accelerated cognitive education) classes they screened a tv production of "All summer in a day" for us. It's quite possibly the most heartless depiction of the cruelty of children I have ever heard of. As a small child it was quite frankly disturbing, and even as an adult it should screw with your head. It's available here to read online as well.
Anyway, that got me to thinking about Bradbury in general, and how he was pissed at Michael Moore for the title of Farenheit 9/11 (though he hasnt expressed a direct political opinion about the film he did say that moore was a completely phony asshole, and an awful person, and that the movie was mostly lies). And then I thought about Farenheit 451.
If you don't know the story, 451 is about a future America that has essentially abandoned all thought, principle, culture... anything but hedonsim and instant gratification. Anything that would disturb the sheeplike populace from their blissful ignorance is banned, and actively destroyed.
Books as it turns out are one of those things that disturb people; because they have bad and confusing and ambiguus 'ideas", so the government employs "firemen" to find and destroy books as they are harmful to the social order.
The protagonist of the story is a fireman who becomes disenchanted both by the life he is expected to lead (and those of his fellow Americans), and by his work, which perpetuates that life. The story then progresses into the conflict between the man and himself, and his society; that characterize so much of great literature in general, and as I metioned above great SF specifically.
It's funny, because this book is often referenced by leftists as if it was about censorship and book burning in the normal way they refernece those sorts of things; which is to say shallowly. They tend to look at it through the phony prism of "mccarthyism" and no further.
Of course that is a complete mis-understanding of the book.
The entire story is about mans struggle for independent existence, and independent thought against the all pressures that human society places on one both to conform, and to simply be hedonistic and selfish. It is a redemption story most of all.
In the end it is a rejection of dogma, a rejection of groupthink a cleansing of self; to reach a state of almost salvation through the embrace, and then fight for independent thought, knowledge, and action.
It is in it's nature one of the most ANTI-leftist books I could imagine. It is in fact almost completely libertarian (as much SF tends to be), and anti-dystopian (unlike the general run of British dystopians who seem to indulge in their depressions and feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness). Not only that but it explicitly embraces spiritual as well as moral redemption, and the necessity of good acts, and spreading of the truth.
This message; and it was most certainly explicitly intended as such by Bradbury, who never missed a chance to shoot you in the head with an idea; is something we NEED right now.
In F451, it finally takes a nuclear strike to make America understand that hedonism, and group think had destroyed it; not were destroying it, HAD DESTROYED IT; and that it must be rebuilt from the ashes, into the country of independence and self reliance that it was originally intended to be.
Funny enough, I think that is all the more relevant today than it was 53 years ago.
Monday, April 10, 2006
I have found gods perfect food
So I was playing poker at the monthly tournament of champions last night, and godlike player that I am, I was .... FIRST TO GO OUT .
Actually it wasnt that big a deal, I jsut caught two very good hands (two pair, aces and kings went down to a full house; then a two pair A-Q went down to the straight) in a row that got beat by slightly better ones and that was all she wrote.
Anyway, that wasn't the point of this post. The early exit left me plenty of time to eat dinner, and I notice something interesting on the menu for dessert.
I of course orderd it, and ate it... or rather I started eating it and realized that what I was eating transcended all prior dessert experiences.
It was deep fried cheesecake.
Yes, It was cheescake... only it was DEEP FRIED.
I know, I know, cosmically wrong; cardiologists everywhere are having aneurysms jsut thinking of it.
So they take a really decent cheescake, cut it into bit sized pi es, roll it in cinnamon, sugar, and crushed graham crackers, and then flashfry it. Cover it in strawberries and whipped cream, and serve piping hot.
The only way it could have been any better was if it was served with a little soft homemade icecream and a bit of carmel sauce.
Oh my god it was good. I'm going to have to experiment a bit and try doing this soon.
Actually it wasnt that big a deal, I jsut caught two very good hands (two pair, aces and kings went down to a full house; then a two pair A-Q went down to the straight) in a row that got beat by slightly better ones and that was all she wrote.
Anyway, that wasn't the point of this post. The early exit left me plenty of time to eat dinner, and I notice something interesting on the menu for dessert.
I of course orderd it, and ate it... or rather I started eating it and realized that what I was eating transcended all prior dessert experiences.
It was deep fried cheesecake.
Yes, It was cheescake... only it was DEEP FRIED.
I know, I know, cosmically wrong; cardiologists everywhere are having aneurysms jsut thinking of it.
So they take a really decent cheescake, cut it into bit sized pi es, roll it in cinnamon, sugar, and crushed graham crackers, and then flashfry it. Cover it in strawberries and whipped cream, and serve piping hot.
The only way it could have been any better was if it was served with a little soft homemade icecream and a bit of carmel sauce.
Oh my god it was good. I'm going to have to experiment a bit and try doing this soon.
Guy toy porn overload
I jsut got my brigade quartermaster, and harbor freight tool catalogues in the mail on the same day.
Friday, April 07, 2006
A Military Structure Primer for SciFi and Historical Fiction Readers
So I was chatting with JohnOC about a David Weber book, in which he compares the combat power of a single power armor equipped marine to an infantry company, or a Main Battle Tank (MBT).
The thing is, those two units are not in fact comparable in combat power; and it surprises me that Weber would make an invalid comparison like that, because although he himself didn't serve (at least according to any bio source I can find), he majored in Military History in college, and he generally gets that sort of thing down pat.
Anyway, I can see an ACS (armored combat suit) being as tough and having the firepower of an MBT; in fact that's exactly what I was thinking of in terms of combat power BEFORE I heard Webers comparison. An infantry company however, if properly armed and employed, is significantly more combat power than a single tank. In fact, an infantry company, SHOULD be equivalent in combat power to an Armor company, assuming either in their most effective circumstances.
In actuality, I'd say an armored company COULD be more effective than an infantry company even in suboptimal terrain because a tank troop is a fair bit of combat power; but up the command size just a bit, and give me a batallion of mechanized infantry, with a heavy weapons company, a heavy weapons platoon in each of the companies, and light armored transport (most modern ifnantry, whether they call themselves mechanized or not, are at least partially so. Only infantry explicitly defined as "light infantry" are generally not), plus fast softies; and given broken and obstructed terrain with heavy cover, that batallion will in fact be far MORE combat effective than an armored batallion.
Of course put that same infantry batallion in the desert, and the tanks will chew them to pieces.
It's a matter of mission suitability. There are three basic types of ground combatant: Infantry, Cavalry (now armor), and Artillery. In each of their respective operational environments, a batallion of infantry should be as effective as a batallion of armor, should be as effective as a batallion of artillery etc...
Why mission suitability?
Well, in open terrain with a little bit of cover, good traction, and no rivers or big hills (say, the hard desert or tundra), a company of tanks is about the most effective combat unit possible (at least with tanks today). In that same terrain, an infantry company would be effectively slaughtered by artillery or armor (assuming they are mounting adequate anti-personel weapons).
If there is just enough terrain and cover to slow the tanks down though, the artillery battery is going to completely destroy the tanks, whereas the infantry will have enough cover to at least survive if not be effective, and if they have the right weapons mix they're going to at worst trade even with the tanks.
Roughen the terrain up more; include steep slopes, hard structures, lots of cover etc... and artillery is only marginally effective (well... until it pounds the cover to dust anyway), though it may keep infantry or armor from being too effective; and armor is in it's worst possible environment, because what keeps armor alive is, oxymoronically not the armor on the vehicles, but the mobility that armor presents (thus the armored cavalry tradition). Infantry on the other hand is in it's ideal environment, and it can use the cover and terrain effectively to neutralize both the armor and artillery (again assuming proper weapons mix).
Artillery has often been called the king, (or queen depending on your military tradition) of the battlefield. Artillery is the nightmare of both armor in the rough, and infantry in the open; and has perhaps the most broad range of effectiveness. You can never have too much arty (assuming well regulated), and there are very few situations in which you can't use at least a little bit. The problem of course is that artillery is only minimally mobile in comparison to armor or infantry. This means that it has to be pre-laid in appropriate positions in order to be most effective. Some artillery types CAN operate on the fly, but effectiveness is highly variable there. This allows armor and infantry to use mobility to eventually get inside the effective range for final protective fire on an artillery position, and destroy it... if there are any left that is.
Obviously this parity isn't always the case, as variances in missions, equipment, leadership, training, and forces structure make HUGE differences; but in gross, you can generally assume equivalence from line combat division to line combat division; given suitable missions for each type of ground combatant (and assuming the same approximate definition for division).
Let's see I've talked about companies, battalions, divisions... what exactly do those mean?
Each is a particular sized unit, with a particular rank for it's commander. Unfortunately these sizes and ranks aren't exactly entirely consistent across nations, across different armed force types, or even across types and specialties of division within the same army; and they can be rather confusing.
Lets break the various command elements down for the reader in the next section shall we?
The point of all this, is to help out readers, who may not have a familiarity with military command structure; in deciphering what an author means when he says that a regiment is going to get hit by 4-6 divisions, and get destroyed in the process...
That is effectively what Leonidas and Demophilias did at Thermopylae, before being slaughtered when the massed armies found a way around them and killed them from the rear. 300 spartan soldiers, 700 citizens pressed into arms, and 400 unwilling allies defended the pass at thermopylae against somewhere between 40,000 and 120,000 men directly assaulting them; and perhaps as many as 800,000 men behind them (historians widely disagree as to the numbers present).
The example is popular among military writers, not only for it's valor, but also for its stupidity; and for the fact that Thucydides, Simonidies, and Herodetus wrote "histories" of the account, with a masterful use of language. There is a monument on the site which reads
Anyway, on to the important info here.
The basic combat element in almost any military is infantry; and forces structures are generally defined based on their equivalent infantry structure, so rather than make this thing 30 pages long, we're going to base it on infantry. I'll also include some notes on other service command equivalences, but often naval commands don't map exactly to army commands. Air Force commands don't even make sense to me, and I SERVED in the AF; never mind mapping to the command structure of the other armed services (Colonels may command as few as a few dozen people for example, or may command a full regiment sized unit).
Also I'm going to try and cover most of western military tradition here, not just the U.S.; and I'm going to try and be as general as possible. Once you get deep into the specifics of individual nations armies (and especially navies and air forces) the intracacies can be mind boggling (as the Heartless Libertarian points out below).
Now, the first four infantry command elements (pair, team, squad, platoon) are generally informal or semi-formal organizations within a company. They may or may not exist within a given command, and may be without a recognized or acknowledged command hierarchy, except within the company. Importantly, the command structure of these smaller formations is fluid, and is generally decided on, and changed by, the company commander, in consultation with his platoon leaders, staff, and cadre; and without formal promotion or assumption of command.
Regarding command structure in general, one should note the technical distinction between a leader and commander. A leader makes tactical decisions and gives direction (and possibly commands which are distinct from orders) but not necessarily orders. A commander is legally as well as tactically and strategically responsible for the actions carried out under him, and gives orders (as well as direction, decisions, and commands). Formally and legalistically speaking, anyone can be a leader, even a private; but only a commissioned officer is a commander.
Pair, Partner, or Combat Buddies: Two soldiers paired together for mutual support.
(Fire)Team(or Section): Usually four to six soldiers (sometimes eight), may or may not have a designated leader, usually a corporal or sergeant.
Squad(or Section): From 5 to 14 individual soldiers, generally lead by a corporal or a sergeant, but may be lead by a staff sergeant. May or may not be subdivided into two or three fire-teams. MAY be commanded by a second lieutenant in some specialties.
This may also be equivalent to a naval section, depending on specialty, and would generally be lead by a petty officer third or second class.
Platoon (sometimes also called a Section): Two to Four squads (or sections) comprised of anywhere from 20-40 men, and generally commanded by a lieutenant, assisted by a platoon sergeant. There are some special platoons or sections that may be commanded by a captain (generally a highly technical or special operations specialty).
A platoon is generally the smallest command element commanded by a commissioned officer. In the cases where a section is lead by a lieutenant, that officer is generally acting as a leader but not as a commander.
The platoon/section can also be equivalent to a naval section, though a section is more likely lead by an NCO (a chief or PO/1c).
Company( sometimes called a Troop - in armored cavalry - or a Squadron): A formal command element generally consisting of 3 to 5 platoons (may have as little as two or as many as six platoons), and anywhere from 80 to 250 or even 300 soldiers depending on specialties (typically 120-160). A company is generally commanded by a Captain, but in some armies, and in some specialties a company may be commanded by a Major, especially if it is a larger company. The company commander is assisted by the command staff (typically intelligence, logistics, and communications officers or sergeants);the cadre, lead by the first sergeant (who may or may not be a Sergeant first class); and by their platoon leaders.
The company is the basic infantry combat unit in almost all armies. The company commander is often considered to be the best pure combat command level, as there are fewer strategic, political, and logistic issues to consider outside of basic mission parameters.
The equivalent Naval command would be a small boat command (which would consist of one medium or large boat but not a ship, or several smaller boats in a squadron), or a shore section command, which would be commanded by a Naval Lieutenant (the equivalent to an Army Captain
battalion(also sometimes called a Squadron): A batallion generally consists of four or five companies, but may have as few as two, or as many as six, and from three hundred to one thousand soldiers, depending on the specialty. Some armies may not use battalions, simply organizing companies into regiments. Smaller battalions may be commanded by a major, but larger battalions in most specialties will be commanded by a Lt. Colonel, assisted by a full command staff (usually a light company), including intelligence, plans and operations, communications, logistics and supply officers, and generally having a Master Sergeant or Sergeant Major as the leader of the Cadre.
The naval command equivalent would be a small ship, or a large boat squadron, commanded by a Lt. Commander, up to a medium ship or submarine (also called a boat) commanded by a Commander.
Regiment: A regiments has from two to five battalions, or may have only companies without a batallion structure, or squadrons without batallion structure (in the case of cavalry divisions) and generally consists of 1000 to 2500 men, though it may have up to 3500 (for a pocket brigade). Some armies may not use regiments, simply organizing battalions into brigades. A regiment is almost always commanded by a full Colonel; however there are some organizations called regiments, which are effectively small brigades (called pocket brigades), and which are generally commanded by brigadier Generals. A regiment will have at least a headquarters company, and may have an HQ batallion with a full staff section, and Cadre lead by a Sergeant Major.
The Naval command equivalent would be a medium to large ship command, or a small group of small or medium ships (which may or may not be called a squadron), commanded by a naval captain.
Brigade: A brigade consists of two to five regiments, and generally from 1500 to 3500 soldiers., but may have as few as 1000 and as many as 5000. Some armies may not use brigades, simply organizing regiments or battalions into Divisions. A brigade is generally commanded by a brigadier general, but may be commanded by a major general for a heavy brigade, or a special or very prestigious command. A brigade will have a Sergeant Major as it's Cadre leader (generally a command sergeant major, or chief sergeant major - which may or may not be a formal rank).
The naval command equivalent would be a very large ship command, or a squadron or group command of medium to large ships, commanded by a Rear Admiral (lower half), or a Commodore.
Division: A division will have two to five brigades, or may be broken into five to ten regiments without a brigade structure, and typically consists of from 10,000 to 20,000 men, but may have as few as 5,000, and as many as 30,000 for some specialties. A division will generally be commanded by a Major General, but for some smaller divisions may be commanded by a brigadier General, and for larger divisions or very prestigious commands may be commanded by a Lieutenant General.
The naval command equivalent would be a battle group, task force, or heavy squadron, commanded by a Rear Admiral, or a vice admiral
Corps: A Corps generally consists of two to three divisions, and generally 30-50,000 men; though there may be as many as five divisions and 100,000 men for a heavy corps. A corps is generally commanded by a Lieutenant General, but may be commanded by a General for a Heavy Corps.
The naval command equivalent could be a small fleet, or large battle group, commanded by a vice admiral.
Army: An army generally consists of two or three corps, and anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 men and is commanded by a full General (four star), or a Marshall; though in World War Two some were commanded by Lieutenant Generals.
The naval command equivalent would be a navy, a large fleet, or a fleet group; commanded by a full admiral.
Army Group(also Group Army, or Theater Army): An Army Group is two to five Armies, anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 men, and is commanded by a general of the army (five star) or Field Marshall; and is generally the largest unified command structure employed by organized militaries in war.
The naval equivalent command would be a naval group (multiple fleets), or naval theater, commanded by a fleet admiral.
UPDATE: Reader "Heartless Libertarian" adds the following detail
An aside about American military command history:
The entire American military has at times been commanded by effectively a single brigadier General. Even after the great expansion of the military after 1812, there were still very few generals of any type, and the highest rank was effectively Lieutenant General (Winfield Scott to U.S. Grant). In general our militaries have been resistant to rank inflation, with more responsibility given to lower grade officers than in other forces; especially in the U.S. Marine Corps (though the Air Force is something of an exception to this rule).
While many countries have (or have had) marshals, Field marshals, and even Grand marshals, there have only been five Generals of the Army in the history of the United States:
George C. Marshall
Douglas MacArthur
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Omar Bradley
and their equivalent ranked admirals:
William D. Leahy
Ernest J. King
Chester W. Nimitz
William F. "Bull" Halsey
Additionally, there has also been one Admiral of the Navy, George Dewey; and two Generals of the Armies: John J. Pershing, who commanded all U.S. forces in World War One, and George Washington (who never held official rank higher than General, but congress retroactively voted him General of the Armies later).
The largest the U.S. military has ever expanded to was during World War Two, when we had 30 active army corps (including Army Air Force), with over two million men under arms; and almost half of that in the Navy (including the Marin Corps). With a total of three million men actively under arms at one time, and up to six million total serving in uniform; we never appointed a six star general or admiral; and only had nine five star flag officers EVER.
In comparison, the UK, with only about 1 million men under arms at peak, had dozens of marshals and Field marshals; and the Soviet Union had even more.
Many people think that Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander, and equivalent to Pershing in rank; but in actuality, he was the Commander Supreme (Headquarters) Allied Expeditionary Forces (Europe) or SHAEF. Eisenhower was de jure equal in rank to MacArthur, who commanded the pacific theaters expeditionary forces, and in both cases the Naval Forces were not subordinate to their commands; though of course there was a great degree of command deference in most cases.
In fact, in order to explicitly ensure that the naval commands would remain independent of the Supreme Allied Commanders for each theater, secretary of the Navy Frank Knox with the connivance of president Roosevelt (who was also secretary of the navy some years before) deliberately promoted the five star admirals THE DAY BEFORE each of the corresponding generals, so as to ensure a date of rank precedence.
Eisenhower however is almost always considered by historians to be SLIGHTLY "more equal" than the other Generals and Admirals.
Oh, and why were there five five star generals but only four five star admirals? Congressman Carl Vinson, who had a HUGE influence over the navy (so much so they named an Aircraft Carrier after him, along with John Stennis), personally disliked the fifth admiral submitted for the rank, Ray Spruance; and blocked his appointment to the rank, although they officially advanced Spruances pay grade to that of five star.
The thing is, those two units are not in fact comparable in combat power; and it surprises me that Weber would make an invalid comparison like that, because although he himself didn't serve (at least according to any bio source I can find), he majored in Military History in college, and he generally gets that sort of thing down pat.
Anyway, I can see an ACS (armored combat suit) being as tough and having the firepower of an MBT; in fact that's exactly what I was thinking of in terms of combat power BEFORE I heard Webers comparison. An infantry company however, if properly armed and employed, is significantly more combat power than a single tank. In fact, an infantry company, SHOULD be equivalent in combat power to an Armor company, assuming either in their most effective circumstances.
In actuality, I'd say an armored company COULD be more effective than an infantry company even in suboptimal terrain because a tank troop is a fair bit of combat power; but up the command size just a bit, and give me a batallion of mechanized infantry, with a heavy weapons company, a heavy weapons platoon in each of the companies, and light armored transport (most modern ifnantry, whether they call themselves mechanized or not, are at least partially so. Only infantry explicitly defined as "light infantry" are generally not), plus fast softies; and given broken and obstructed terrain with heavy cover, that batallion will in fact be far MORE combat effective than an armored batallion.
Of course put that same infantry batallion in the desert, and the tanks will chew them to pieces.
It's a matter of mission suitability. There are three basic types of ground combatant: Infantry, Cavalry (now armor), and Artillery. In each of their respective operational environments, a batallion of infantry should be as effective as a batallion of armor, should be as effective as a batallion of artillery etc...
Why mission suitability?
Well, in open terrain with a little bit of cover, good traction, and no rivers or big hills (say, the hard desert or tundra), a company of tanks is about the most effective combat unit possible (at least with tanks today). In that same terrain, an infantry company would be effectively slaughtered by artillery or armor (assuming they are mounting adequate anti-personel weapons).
If there is just enough terrain and cover to slow the tanks down though, the artillery battery is going to completely destroy the tanks, whereas the infantry will have enough cover to at least survive if not be effective, and if they have the right weapons mix they're going to at worst trade even with the tanks.
Roughen the terrain up more; include steep slopes, hard structures, lots of cover etc... and artillery is only marginally effective (well... until it pounds the cover to dust anyway), though it may keep infantry or armor from being too effective; and armor is in it's worst possible environment, because what keeps armor alive is, oxymoronically not the armor on the vehicles, but the mobility that armor presents (thus the armored cavalry tradition). Infantry on the other hand is in it's ideal environment, and it can use the cover and terrain effectively to neutralize both the armor and artillery (again assuming proper weapons mix).
Artillery has often been called the king, (or queen depending on your military tradition) of the battlefield. Artillery is the nightmare of both armor in the rough, and infantry in the open; and has perhaps the most broad range of effectiveness. You can never have too much arty (assuming well regulated), and there are very few situations in which you can't use at least a little bit. The problem of course is that artillery is only minimally mobile in comparison to armor or infantry. This means that it has to be pre-laid in appropriate positions in order to be most effective. Some artillery types CAN operate on the fly, but effectiveness is highly variable there. This allows armor and infantry to use mobility to eventually get inside the effective range for final protective fire on an artillery position, and destroy it... if there are any left that is.
Obviously this parity isn't always the case, as variances in missions, equipment, leadership, training, and forces structure make HUGE differences; but in gross, you can generally assume equivalence from line combat division to line combat division; given suitable missions for each type of ground combatant (and assuming the same approximate definition for division).
Let's see I've talked about companies, battalions, divisions... what exactly do those mean?
Each is a particular sized unit, with a particular rank for it's commander. Unfortunately these sizes and ranks aren't exactly entirely consistent across nations, across different armed force types, or even across types and specialties of division within the same army; and they can be rather confusing.
Lets break the various command elements down for the reader in the next section shall we?
The point of all this, is to help out readers, who may not have a familiarity with military command structure; in deciphering what an author means when he says that a regiment is going to get hit by 4-6 divisions, and get destroyed in the process...
That is effectively what Leonidas and Demophilias did at Thermopylae, before being slaughtered when the massed armies found a way around them and killed them from the rear. 300 spartan soldiers, 700 citizens pressed into arms, and 400 unwilling allies defended the pass at thermopylae against somewhere between 40,000 and 120,000 men directly assaulting them; and perhaps as many as 800,000 men behind them (historians widely disagree as to the numbers present).
The example is popular among military writers, not only for it's valor, but also for its stupidity; and for the fact that Thucydides, Simonidies, and Herodetus wrote "histories" of the account, with a masterful use of language. There is a monument on the site which reads
- Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by,
- that here, obedient to their laws, we lie
Anyway, on to the important info here.
The basic combat element in almost any military is infantry; and forces structures are generally defined based on their equivalent infantry structure, so rather than make this thing 30 pages long, we're going to base it on infantry. I'll also include some notes on other service command equivalences, but often naval commands don't map exactly to army commands. Air Force commands don't even make sense to me, and I SERVED in the AF; never mind mapping to the command structure of the other armed services (Colonels may command as few as a few dozen people for example, or may command a full regiment sized unit).
Also I'm going to try and cover most of western military tradition here, not just the U.S.; and I'm going to try and be as general as possible. Once you get deep into the specifics of individual nations armies (and especially navies and air forces) the intracacies can be mind boggling (as the Heartless Libertarian points out below).
Now, the first four infantry command elements (pair, team, squad, platoon) are generally informal or semi-formal organizations within a company. They may or may not exist within a given command, and may be without a recognized or acknowledged command hierarchy, except within the company. Importantly, the command structure of these smaller formations is fluid, and is generally decided on, and changed by, the company commander, in consultation with his platoon leaders, staff, and cadre; and without formal promotion or assumption of command.
Regarding command structure in general, one should note the technical distinction between a leader and commander. A leader makes tactical decisions and gives direction (and possibly commands which are distinct from orders) but not necessarily orders. A commander is legally as well as tactically and strategically responsible for the actions carried out under him, and gives orders (as well as direction, decisions, and commands). Formally and legalistically speaking, anyone can be a leader, even a private; but only a commissioned officer is a commander.
Pair, Partner, or Combat Buddies: Two soldiers paired together for mutual support.
(Fire)Team(or Section): Usually four to six soldiers (sometimes eight), may or may not have a designated leader, usually a corporal or sergeant.
Squad(or Section): From 5 to 14 individual soldiers, generally lead by a corporal or a sergeant, but may be lead by a staff sergeant. May or may not be subdivided into two or three fire-teams. MAY be commanded by a second lieutenant in some specialties.
This may also be equivalent to a naval section, depending on specialty, and would generally be lead by a petty officer third or second class.
Platoon (sometimes also called a Section): Two to Four squads (or sections) comprised of anywhere from 20-40 men, and generally commanded by a lieutenant, assisted by a platoon sergeant. There are some special platoons or sections that may be commanded by a captain (generally a highly technical or special operations specialty).
A platoon is generally the smallest command element commanded by a commissioned officer. In the cases where a section is lead by a lieutenant, that officer is generally acting as a leader but not as a commander.
The platoon/section can also be equivalent to a naval section, though a section is more likely lead by an NCO (a chief or PO/1c).
Company( sometimes called a Troop - in armored cavalry - or a Squadron): A formal command element generally consisting of 3 to 5 platoons (may have as little as two or as many as six platoons), and anywhere from 80 to 250 or even 300 soldiers depending on specialties (typically 120-160). A company is generally commanded by a Captain, but in some armies, and in some specialties a company may be commanded by a Major, especially if it is a larger company. The company commander is assisted by the command staff (typically intelligence, logistics, and communications officers or sergeants);the cadre, lead by the first sergeant (who may or may not be a Sergeant first class); and by their platoon leaders.
The company is the basic infantry combat unit in almost all armies. The company commander is often considered to be the best pure combat command level, as there are fewer strategic, political, and logistic issues to consider outside of basic mission parameters.
The equivalent Naval command would be a small boat command (which would consist of one medium or large boat but not a ship, or several smaller boats in a squadron), or a shore section command, which would be commanded by a Naval Lieutenant (the equivalent to an Army Captain
battalion(also sometimes called a Squadron): A batallion generally consists of four or five companies, but may have as few as two, or as many as six, and from three hundred to one thousand soldiers, depending on the specialty. Some armies may not use battalions, simply organizing companies into regiments. Smaller battalions may be commanded by a major, but larger battalions in most specialties will be commanded by a Lt. Colonel, assisted by a full command staff (usually a light company), including intelligence, plans and operations, communications, logistics and supply officers, and generally having a Master Sergeant or Sergeant Major as the leader of the Cadre.
The naval command equivalent would be a small ship, or a large boat squadron, commanded by a Lt. Commander, up to a medium ship or submarine (also called a boat) commanded by a Commander.
Regiment: A regiments has from two to five battalions, or may have only companies without a batallion structure, or squadrons without batallion structure (in the case of cavalry divisions) and generally consists of 1000 to 2500 men, though it may have up to 3500 (for a pocket brigade). Some armies may not use regiments, simply organizing battalions into brigades. A regiment is almost always commanded by a full Colonel; however there are some organizations called regiments, which are effectively small brigades (called pocket brigades), and which are generally commanded by brigadier Generals. A regiment will have at least a headquarters company, and may have an HQ batallion with a full staff section, and Cadre lead by a Sergeant Major.
The Naval command equivalent would be a medium to large ship command, or a small group of small or medium ships (which may or may not be called a squadron), commanded by a naval captain.
Brigade: A brigade consists of two to five regiments, and generally from 1500 to 3500 soldiers., but may have as few as 1000 and as many as 5000. Some armies may not use brigades, simply organizing regiments or battalions into Divisions. A brigade is generally commanded by a brigadier general, but may be commanded by a major general for a heavy brigade, or a special or very prestigious command. A brigade will have a Sergeant Major as it's Cadre leader (generally a command sergeant major, or chief sergeant major - which may or may not be a formal rank).
The naval command equivalent would be a very large ship command, or a squadron or group command of medium to large ships, commanded by a Rear Admiral (lower half), or a Commodore.
Division: A division will have two to five brigades, or may be broken into five to ten regiments without a brigade structure, and typically consists of from 10,000 to 20,000 men, but may have as few as 5,000, and as many as 30,000 for some specialties. A division will generally be commanded by a Major General, but for some smaller divisions may be commanded by a brigadier General, and for larger divisions or very prestigious commands may be commanded by a Lieutenant General.
The naval command equivalent would be a battle group, task force, or heavy squadron, commanded by a Rear Admiral, or a vice admiral
Corps: A Corps generally consists of two to three divisions, and generally 30-50,000 men; though there may be as many as five divisions and 100,000 men for a heavy corps. A corps is generally commanded by a Lieutenant General, but may be commanded by a General for a Heavy Corps.
The naval command equivalent could be a small fleet, or large battle group, commanded by a vice admiral.
Army: An army generally consists of two or three corps, and anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 men and is commanded by a full General (four star), or a Marshall; though in World War Two some were commanded by Lieutenant Generals.
The naval command equivalent would be a navy, a large fleet, or a fleet group; commanded by a full admiral.
Army Group(also Group Army, or Theater Army): An Army Group is two to five Armies, anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 men, and is commanded by a general of the army (five star) or Field Marshall; and is generally the largest unified command structure employed by organized militaries in war.
The naval equivalent command would be a naval group (multiple fleets), or naval theater, commanded by a fleet admiral.
UPDATE: Reader "Heartless Libertarian" adds the following detail
"Note: the equivalent of an infantry company in the cavalry (and, in some countries, armor) is called a Troop, not a squadron.
In the artillery, it's called a battery (also in air defense artillery).
In the US Army, things at the regiment & brigade level have gotten a bit wierd. During the Civil War, and possibly as late as the Spanish-American War, regiments were grouped into brigades (commanded, appropriately by a brigadier general).
During the First and Second World Wars, and possibly Korea, brigades disappeared, and regiments were direct components of divisions.
Now, a regiment are pretty much equivalent. Both consist of a 5 to 8 battalions (armored Cav being the biggest, and including organic helicopter battalions), some separate companies, and being commanded by a full colonel.
With the ongoing restructuring, it's even gotten a bit more complicated, as the new 'Brigade Combat Teams' are combined arms entities, with the same commander owning the maneuver battalions (infantry, armor, and/or cavalry), plus the artillery, engineer, and support units. (Previously, Artillery, Engineer, and Logistic units had their own colonel in charge of them who reported to the Division Commander)
In the 82d and 101st divisions, the regiments ARE brigades (and the bases for BCTs), a bit of history preserved thanks to the fact the the 'Airborne (Infantry) Mafia' has historically turned out a very high number of the Army's highest ranking generals.
The other surviving organic regiments are the 2nd Cavalry (now a Stryker BCT), and 3rd Armored Cav, and the 11th (Blackhorse) Armored Cav (the OPFOR at NTC)."
An aside about American military command history:
The entire American military has at times been commanded by effectively a single brigadier General. Even after the great expansion of the military after 1812, there were still very few generals of any type, and the highest rank was effectively Lieutenant General (Winfield Scott to U.S. Grant). In general our militaries have been resistant to rank inflation, with more responsibility given to lower grade officers than in other forces; especially in the U.S. Marine Corps (though the Air Force is something of an exception to this rule).
While many countries have (or have had) marshals, Field marshals, and even Grand marshals, there have only been five Generals of the Army in the history of the United States:
George C. Marshall
Douglas MacArthur
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Omar Bradley
and their equivalent ranked admirals:
William D. Leahy
Ernest J. King
Chester W. Nimitz
William F. "Bull" Halsey
Additionally, there has also been one Admiral of the Navy, George Dewey; and two Generals of the Armies: John J. Pershing, who commanded all U.S. forces in World War One, and George Washington (who never held official rank higher than General, but congress retroactively voted him General of the Armies later).
The largest the U.S. military has ever expanded to was during World War Two, when we had 30 active army corps (including Army Air Force), with over two million men under arms; and almost half of that in the Navy (including the Marin Corps). With a total of three million men actively under arms at one time, and up to six million total serving in uniform; we never appointed a six star general or admiral; and only had nine five star flag officers EVER.
In comparison, the UK, with only about 1 million men under arms at peak, had dozens of marshals and Field marshals; and the Soviet Union had even more.
Many people think that Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander, and equivalent to Pershing in rank; but in actuality, he was the Commander Supreme (Headquarters) Allied Expeditionary Forces (Europe) or SHAEF. Eisenhower was de jure equal in rank to MacArthur, who commanded the pacific theaters expeditionary forces, and in both cases the Naval Forces were not subordinate to their commands; though of course there was a great degree of command deference in most cases.
In fact, in order to explicitly ensure that the naval commands would remain independent of the Supreme Allied Commanders for each theater, secretary of the Navy Frank Knox with the connivance of president Roosevelt (who was also secretary of the navy some years before) deliberately promoted the five star admirals THE DAY BEFORE each of the corresponding generals, so as to ensure a date of rank precedence.
Eisenhower however is almost always considered by historians to be SLIGHTLY "more equal" than the other Generals and Admirals.
Oh, and why were there five five star generals but only four five star admirals? Congressman Carl Vinson, who had a HUGE influence over the navy (so much so they named an Aircraft Carrier after him, along with John Stennis), personally disliked the fifth admiral submitted for the rank, Ray Spruance; and blocked his appointment to the rank, although they officially advanced Spruances pay grade to that of five star.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Now I lay me down to sleep
And angels keep me through the nightWTF? I was incidentally watching the first minute or two of the new TV show 'Supernatural', and the cute little girl going to bed said her prayers as above.
Until I see the morning light
Oh come one people...
Ok everyone MY age or older knows the worlds creepiest prayer goes like this:
Now I lay me down to sleepSo they're pussifying PRAYERS now? Jesus H. Frikken Christ.
I pray the lord my soul to keep
And if I die before I wake
I pray the lord my soul to take
Argh, another burn
This time I blistered the crap out of my feet.
The kids let the dog run loose out the front door without his leash on. Of course this is before his walk for the day, so he's ALL about bounding down the road; and I'm already outside, with my shoes off, so I take off after him.
Only I didn't take into account the fact that even though the temp is only 80, on the blacktop it's more like twice that. Thing is I didn't even feel it, because I've got some decent callouses.
Only not decent enough for the nice burnination.
Plus I had walked a mile last night in uncomfortable shoes I hadnt worn in three years, so my feet were already a little banged up.
Anyway, by the time I caught up with him, got him on the leash, and got him home (about 1/4 mile later) I had quite nicely managed to blister up the soles of my feet.
And I'm completely out of moleskin.
Oh well, at least I have a valid excuse for stayin in bed now...
The kids let the dog run loose out the front door without his leash on. Of course this is before his walk for the day, so he's ALL about bounding down the road; and I'm already outside, with my shoes off, so I take off after him.
Only I didn't take into account the fact that even though the temp is only 80, on the blacktop it's more like twice that. Thing is I didn't even feel it, because I've got some decent callouses.
Only not decent enough for the nice burnination.
Plus I had walked a mile last night in uncomfortable shoes I hadnt worn in three years, so my feet were already a little banged up.
Anyway, by the time I caught up with him, got him on the leash, and got him home (about 1/4 mile later) I had quite nicely managed to blister up the soles of my feet.
And I'm completely out of moleskin.
Oh well, at least I have a valid excuse for stayin in bed now...
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Summer '06 Bad Fashion Choice Awards
It's getting warm in the metro Phoenix area again, which means that on top of scalding hot steering wheels and immediate sunburns we have the many fashion faux pas of our fellow Zonies and the few unfortunate tourists. Nothing encourages bad choices as much as warm weather, and this year is no exception.
Since I work retail at a state park frequented by visitors and live in metro Phoenix I have unfortunately seen too many of these as of late. So, along with my first 3 examples I will give rules for the fashionably challenged.
This season started off pretty tame, with a young woman whose mother evidently did not teach her the finer rules of wearing a bra. So the first two fashion rules are:
1. No part of a bra should be visible under a shirt.
2. If, for some reason, a bra should become visible it should not be so different in color from either skin or shirt that it is obscenely obvious.
This poor soul was wearing a pure white racerback bra with a black halter top, thus both pulling everyone's attention to the bra and the fact that the only hidden part of the bra was the cups. Oddly enough after she left I commented about this to the next customers I had, a pair of 60-something woman. When I said I worried about the generation after mine one said," and how do you think we feel about you?" Touche. But no amount of worry could remove the fashion faux pas of the young woman and thus she became the first contender.
Shortly after the previous contender I was confronted with an even worse choice. Now I understand that black is a social statement, but this was a little ridiculous. So, here goes:
3. Do not wear colors that clash together, especially not close together.
4. Anyone who wears black in the summer will be assumed to be insane.
5. Fashion trends have an expiration date. Check yours before leaving the house.
Another young woman, obviously pissing her parents off. Black tights, black and yellow plaid school-girl skirt, black baby doll t-shirt, and a RED and black men's necktie. Primary yellow and red DON'T mix, and the Avril Lavigne necktie rage died oh, about FOUR YEARS AGO. Keep up please.
Ah, but this was trumped just yesterday by someone who should have been old enough better. Middle aged women cannot be assumed to be ignorant of the rules, which include:
6. Sweatsuits don't belong anywhere outside of the house, gym, or morning jog.
7. NO ONE looks good in sweatsuit grey.
8. Designing your own hemlines is a recipe for disaster.
9. Plaid only matches the colors within the plaid, if you're lucky.
10. Cowboy hats only go with (semi-)western clothing.
11. SOME PEOPLE SHOULD NOT WEAR MIDRIFF-BARING TOPS. Unless you are under thirty, have flat abs, or are intentionally trying to torture us they should be avoided at all costs.
So this fine specimen who should have known better entered the store where I was working wearing plaid Keds and a white cowboy hat so you already know it will end badly. But her choice of attire was a grey sweatsuit cut to have t-shirt length sleeves, capri length pants, and a bare midriff. On a middle aged woman with a belly roll.
*pause for shudder*
So for all of the contenders, you will have to (somehow) make worse choices than the middle-aged woman above. I know there will be plenty more entries before the summer is over as readers rat on you (feel free to email them in to melody.byrne@gmail.com or put them in comments) but that one will be tough to beat.
I honestly hope I am not the one to spot the winner.
Mel
Just call me Mel, everyone else does.
Since I work retail at a state park frequented by visitors and live in metro Phoenix I have unfortunately seen too many of these as of late. So, along with my first 3 examples I will give rules for the fashionably challenged.
This season started off pretty tame, with a young woman whose mother evidently did not teach her the finer rules of wearing a bra. So the first two fashion rules are:
1. No part of a bra should be visible under a shirt.
2. If, for some reason, a bra should become visible it should not be so different in color from either skin or shirt that it is obscenely obvious.
This poor soul was wearing a pure white racerback bra with a black halter top, thus both pulling everyone's attention to the bra and the fact that the only hidden part of the bra was the cups. Oddly enough after she left I commented about this to the next customers I had, a pair of 60-something woman. When I said I worried about the generation after mine one said," and how do you think we feel about you?" Touche. But no amount of worry could remove the fashion faux pas of the young woman and thus she became the first contender.
Shortly after the previous contender I was confronted with an even worse choice. Now I understand that black is a social statement, but this was a little ridiculous. So, here goes:
3. Do not wear colors that clash together, especially not close together.
4. Anyone who wears black in the summer will be assumed to be insane.
5. Fashion trends have an expiration date. Check yours before leaving the house.
Another young woman, obviously pissing her parents off. Black tights, black and yellow plaid school-girl skirt, black baby doll t-shirt, and a RED and black men's necktie. Primary yellow and red DON'T mix, and the Avril Lavigne necktie rage died oh, about FOUR YEARS AGO. Keep up please.
Ah, but this was trumped just yesterday by someone who should have been old enough better. Middle aged women cannot be assumed to be ignorant of the rules, which include:
6. Sweatsuits don't belong anywhere outside of the house, gym, or morning jog.
7. NO ONE looks good in sweatsuit grey.
8. Designing your own hemlines is a recipe for disaster.
9. Plaid only matches the colors within the plaid, if you're lucky.
10. Cowboy hats only go with (semi-)western clothing.
11. SOME PEOPLE SHOULD NOT WEAR MIDRIFF-BARING TOPS. Unless you are under thirty, have flat abs, or are intentionally trying to torture us they should be avoided at all costs.
So this fine specimen who should have known better entered the store where I was working wearing plaid Keds and a white cowboy hat so you already know it will end badly. But her choice of attire was a grey sweatsuit cut to have t-shirt length sleeves, capri length pants, and a bare midriff. On a middle aged woman with a belly roll.
*pause for shudder*
So for all of the contenders, you will have to (somehow) make worse choices than the middle-aged woman above. I know there will be plenty more entries before the summer is over as readers rat on you (feel free to email them in to melody.byrne@gmail.com or put them in comments) but that one will be tough to beat.
I honestly hope I am not the one to spot the winner.
Mel
Just call me Mel, everyone else does.
"Obese" babies and other misconceptions
So I'm looking through the news yesterday and I read an article quite similar to this one.
Then I woke up this morning and while thumbing through my political cartoons on Cagle found this beauty:
Now that's just a bit too much for me.
I have two large children. Rosie was born 7lbs, 13oz and Shai was 8lbs, 4oz. A healthy infant gains 200% of their birth weight within the first year, and both came within ounces. They've both always been extremely healthy and active and have stayed at the same weight percentile their entire lives.
The kids have two cousins close in age (1 month apart and 1 month 9 days apart) who are the same size but are no means the same weight. They could swap clothes easily, but picking up one of my kids after picking up one of my nephews is like picking up a lead weight. Their bones are just dense and they are ridiculously hard to hurt. I've seen my two year old bang her head on a ceramic floor and get up as if nothing happened.
On 2-2-06 Rosie was 43.5" tall and 45lbs and Shai was 37" tall and 36lbs. Both have gone up another clothing size in that time so I am reasonably certain that Shai is close to 40lbs at this point. What does that mean? Shai has outgrown most car seats with restraints because most are only rated to 40lbs. She's also only 2 1/2, so she's a full two years away from a booster seat because according to federal standards she won't be old enough (physically ready to absorb the shock) until she's 4 1/2. I may be cynical, but if we are ever involved in an accident I a.) want my kids to have the best protection available and b.) want to be able to go after the insurance company for medical bills WITHOUT having to argue over whether or not the restraint being used was "adequate".
Fortunately there are "combination" car seats which have been on the market for years that fulfill the function of both car seat and booster seat and allow the restraints to be used up to 60lbs or so. I bought one when Rosie outgrew her infant seat and Shai uses the same one to this day. So what's the big deal? Manufacturers have known for years that there are big kids out there that don't fit nicely into the prescribed age and weight ranges. They follow profit, and it didn't take long for them to figure out that if parents only had to buy one car seat, they could charge the same price for a dual purpose car seat as they would for two, and use fewer materials at the same time.
So where is the flap coming from? Ah, yes, the "o" word that everyone is afraid of for their kids. Obese. For some reason some parents (and much of the media) believe that children must fall into this simple chart of age and approximate weight and if the poor child is even slightly over that "acceptable" weight the kid is obese.
Yes, my kids are heavy for their ages. They are also dense as hell and are taller than many kids a few years older. Rosie wears 5T/XSM clothing and Shai is solidly into 4T clothing. As I wrote earlier this year Rosie is moving into the scary "girls" section and she's not even in Kindergarten! But despite their size many parents and much of the media consider them "overweight" even though their doctors have repeatedly said that as long as the weight is steady in proportion to height they are perfectly healthy. I mean, health is the real point here, isn't it?
No, not anymore. Now, in this country, exist parents who think their infants are overweight. It's almost impossible for an infant to be overweight but entirely possible for a healthy baby to put on as much as 20% of their body weight in one month. Are they obese? Most likely not. Both my kids added on weight rapidly one month, then learned how to crawl and eventually walk off all of that extra stored energy. This is of course a direct result of better nutrition and health over generations, and something to be proud of. The kids are fulfilling every bit of their genetic potential and I don't see that as a bad thing.
But parents are paranoid, both for health reasons and social reasons. It's quite ridiculous actually; parents putting babies on diets, pre-pubescent girls starving themselves because they don't realize the extra weight they've just put on is about to turn into breasts and hips. All because of the "o" word.
This won't be the last we hear of it of course. I'm sure the babies I will have with Chris will be just as heavy and dense, and I'll still be scouting for combined car seats. Manufacturing as a whole knows to follow the profit, and a kid that can't fit into a car seat (or soon, cars) comfortably is a sale lost. Manufacturing never needed hysteria to get in the way, and never needed the "o" word as motivation.
Yesterday while working I saw an eighth-grader from the San Carlos Indian Reservation school group who was 6'5" and skinny as a rake. This from a native group (Apache) not much known for their stature. But this also was a result of better nutrition and health, as many of his classmates were also larger than the parental chaperones among them. I couldn't help but wonder what kind of car he was going to be able to drive with those extremely long legs. I'm sure manufacturers will come up with something though, they always do. Now if only the rest of us could see the good fortune of such a healthy generation.
Mel
Just call me Mel, everyone else does.
Damnit, now I NEED one
See I love Apples new hardware. I can't wait for them to come out with their dual CoreDuo towers. Hell I hope that they'll hit the quad cores next year some time. I'd LOVE an 8 core workstation.
I also love MacOS X. The systems is damn good... IF you have enough ram and proc for it.
Well the new CoreDupos are definitely enough proc, and you can always buy the RAM (up to 8 gigs), so that's covered.
The problem has been that I NEED windows for some things. A few months ago I said the second I could get a viable windows installation on an apple machine alongside OSX, I was going to have to buy one.
Well I guess it's time to start saving the pennies... hell I need a new laptop anyway:
Apple Launches Software to Run Windows XP
Apr 5, 10:07 AM (ET)
(AP) In this Feb. 28, 2006, file photo, Apple Computer Inc. CEO Steve Jobs gestures in front of the...
Full Image
CUPERTINO, Calif. (AP) - Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL) (AAPL) on Wednesday unveiled new software that allows Intel-based Macs to run Microsoft Corp. (MSFT)'s Windows XP software. Apple shares rose nearly 7 percent in early trading.
The computer maker said its new "Boot Camp" software is available as a download beginning Wednesday. It allows users with a Microsoft Windows XP installation disc to install Windows XP on an Intel-based Mac computer.
"Apple has no desire or plan to sell or support Windows, but many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple's superior hardware now that we use Intel processors," Philip Schiller, Apple senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in a statement.
Boot Camp makes it easier to install Windows software on an Intel-based Mac, with a step-by-step guide. It also lets users choose to use either Mac OS X software, or the Windows software when they restart their computer.
Users can download the new Boot Camp software from Apple's Web site. A final version of Boot Camp will be available as a feature in the upcoming Mac OS X version 10.5 "Leopard."
Apple shares gained $4.07, or 6.7 percent, to $65.24 in early trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market, while Microsoft shares rose 23 cents to $27.87 and shares of Intel Corp. (INTC) rose 9 cents to $19.39.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
So I got a call last night..
And it was a political poll. I've done these a few times (2004 presidential election, a couple of state issues), and I don't mind taking the time to give the politicos some answers from an educated voter.
Anyway, don't be surprised to see some nuclear power related legislation soon.
The questions I got, for about a half hour, were all basic variants on the same four:
1. Do you have a very favorable, moderately favorable, moderately unfavorable, very unfavorable view of
a. Nuclear generated electricty
b. Coal generates electricity
c. Natural gas generated electricy
d. Oil generated electricity
2. If a major power plant was built in your area, which type would you prefer
a. Nuclear power plant
b. Coal power plant
c. Natural gas power plant
d. Oil powerplant
3. Which type of power do you feel is safer/cleaner/more independent of foreign sources etc...
a. Nuclear generated electricty
b. Coal generates electricity
c. Natural gas generated electricy
d. Oil generated electricity
They would then tell me certain facts about the various power types, and ask me basically the same questions again, in a slightly different way and a different order with a different order of answers in the multiple choice sections.
4. They would then ask if given this information I had a much more favorable, somewhat more favorable, somewhat less favorable, much less favorable opinion of
a. Nuclear generated electricty
b. Coal generates electricity
c. Natural gas generated electricy
d. Oil generated electricity
Of course none of the information they repeated changed my opinion at all, since I knew quite a lot more about the subject than the pollster... in fact I'd assume I know more about it than the person writing the poll; and likely the people voting on any legislation.
The fact is, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be generating ALL our electricity in this country with Nuclear power, except for enviro-loonies. There is almost no reason to use coal, nat-gas, or petrolueum, which would be better put to use other ways.
I can almsot guarantee you that before I die, we'll be better than 80% nuclear in this country, and Japan and France are already most of the way there.
Anyway, don't be surprised to see some nuclear power related legislation soon.
The questions I got, for about a half hour, were all basic variants on the same four:
1. Do you have a very favorable, moderately favorable, moderately unfavorable, very unfavorable view of
a. Nuclear generated electricty
b. Coal generates electricity
c. Natural gas generated electricy
d. Oil generated electricity
2. If a major power plant was built in your area, which type would you prefer
a. Nuclear power plant
b. Coal power plant
c. Natural gas power plant
d. Oil powerplant
3. Which type of power do you feel is safer/cleaner/more independent of foreign sources etc...
a. Nuclear generated electricty
b. Coal generates electricity
c. Natural gas generated electricy
d. Oil generated electricity
They would then tell me certain facts about the various power types, and ask me basically the same questions again, in a slightly different way and a different order with a different order of answers in the multiple choice sections.
4. They would then ask if given this information I had a much more favorable, somewhat more favorable, somewhat less favorable, much less favorable opinion of
a. Nuclear generated electricty
b. Coal generates electricity
c. Natural gas generated electricy
d. Oil generated electricity
Of course none of the information they repeated changed my opinion at all, since I knew quite a lot more about the subject than the pollster... in fact I'd assume I know more about it than the person writing the poll; and likely the people voting on any legislation.
The fact is, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be generating ALL our electricity in this country with Nuclear power, except for enviro-loonies. There is almost no reason to use coal, nat-gas, or petrolueum, which would be better put to use other ways.
I can almsot guarantee you that before I die, we'll be better than 80% nuclear in this country, and Japan and France are already most of the way there.
Well Well, what is this I see in my logs...
Now, considering what happened here: Don't be Evil? Ok, how about politicially biased then? I think this entry in my logs is a bit interesting.
Oh, their response last time was as follows:
Oh, their response last time was as follows:
From: Google AdSense Policy Enforcement
to: me
Hello Christopher,
Thank you for your email. Although your account has been permanently
disabled, you will receive a final payment for your remaining balance.
Your check will be sent out in our next available payment cycle.
Sincerely,
The Google AdSense Team
The Darrens
So I'm watching the "E! True Hollywood Story" on bewitched, and I'm just thinking... Dick York was WAY better then Dick Sargent; and what a guy for managing to do all that physical comedy for six years with a crippling back injury.
I mean the guy ended up literally putting himself into a coma.
It was kind of creepy how much they looked alike; hell they were both even 6'1-1/2".
Most folks figured the show jumped the shark at that point, and I can't say as I disagree.
Oh, and Elizabeth Montgomery? Super hot.
Monday, April 03, 2006
More on public, private, parochial, and parental schooling
John Scalzi has me thinking once again about aducating our kids. Specifically the advantages and disadvantages of private, public, parochial, and home schooling.
Mel and I are both non-christians, but I was raised as a catholic, in Boston, in the late 80s. That has pretty much put me off the catholic church for all time; but there is one thing I very much like about the church, and that is the general quality of modern catholic schooling.
We live in Arizona, which has some of the worst public schools in the nation; we have two girls, a 4 and a 2 year old, and we're thinking of more kids.
We don't intend on raising our kids to be catholic, but we are very seriously looking at catholic schools; because they offer rigorous academic discipline. If choosing a jesuit school especially, they offer an education in LEARNING; not just in those facts necessary to pass standardized tests.
In particular I'm a big fan of independent reading, logic, debate, and disputation; all core tenets of a jesuit education.
...Oh and never understimate the value of learning latin; especially if your chosen profession involves science, medicine, or the written word.
Most catholic schools we've looked into do require a religion class every semester, but I've sat through those classes, read the curriclae etc... and they are most defeinitely not of the proseletyzing variety.
The modern churches philoshophy is to present the religious "facts" to people, give them the tools to evaluate them in a spirtual context of faith, and choose for themselves; even including the choice of no faith. Faiths other than catholicism are represented, and debated, as well as core catholic tenets.
Even though we don't want to raise our children catholic, I think this is a valuable experience.
The other fact is this, there are perhaps a dozen decent catholic schools within easy range of our house, and all of them cost less than $10,000 per year, with several of the closest less than $5,000 (and even less for their kindergarten and preschool programs). These schools also have large charity programs to allow for students of lesser means to afford their schools. The good secular private schools in my area mostly run over $20,000 a year, and that's even for first grade.
It's important to my wife and I that our girls get an education that doesnt exclusively consist of overpriviliged Scottsdale assholes; but that still insists on discipline and academic rigor. We have looked at Arizona public schools and found them laughably bad; and we don't see a better alternative than catholic schools for this.
We've thought about homeschooling, especially since Mel (my wife Melody) wants to stay at home at least until the kids are all school aged, then finish her degree (I'm pretty OK with that idea myself).
The problem however is that we can't ensure we will always live in a homeschool friendly area. Then theres the custody issues with their canadian genetic material donor. British Columbia is notably hostile to conservative and libertarian Americans, nver mind homeschooling from them. Hell I'd bet they wouldn't be too thrilled about catholic school either.
Also some colleges still look at homeschooled kids kinda funny (never mind the general public); no matter what their educational approvals and qualifications may say, or how far ahead of other students they may be (generally considerably).
Mel went to standard public schools, and was pretty much miserable for every second of that time. I had what might be termed as a hybrid education.
My family were poor in income, but lived in a rich town (single mom, father in prison, struggling independent business owner, rich grandfather who rented us a house at price we could afford) so I had a decent public school to attend; but I had scholarship opportunities to Milton Academy (I mostly grew up in Milton), Newman Prep, Judson Academy, and a few other prep schools. My mother decided that she didnt want me growing up with the elitists (a view she now deeply regrets, but she was steeped in 70s bullshit at the time).
The hybrid part was in that I attended public schools, but because of my "exceptional gifts", beginning in third grade, and all throughout my primary and secondary educational carrer; I spent half my time in a program that sent me to special classes at private schools, local universities, and private lectures.
This program gave me excellent educational opportunities, far beyond what my other public school mates were recieving, even in what was at the time considered one of the best public high schools in the country. In fact, after about sixth grade, my time in standard public school classes was for all intents and purposes, wasted (academically anyway). I had an interesting social and extracurricular life (I'm a big strong boy, and I co-captained football and wrestling), but academically it was pointless.
Unfortunately my unusual education also very much skewed things on my college applications; because I wasn't issued a standard high school diploma. At the time my school district didnt allow early graduation, even though I had finished high school at 16; and in order to leave school they required I take an equivalency exam.
I was able to gain admission to all my colleges of choice; but it took a 1540 SAT score, 28 advanced credits (AP, achievement tests, and college courses I took while in HS) a waiver from the district, AND extensive (as in several months worth) conversations with admissions staff to get over the hurdles.
It also invalidated me for almost any financial aid eligibility my freshman year.
This was all because I worked "outside the system". In fact getting anyone to even consider going "outside the system" was a major difficulty for that entire period of my life.
Perhaps things are less rigid today; but if I had instead gone to an "elite" private school, I wouldn't have had those problems; nor would I have had nearly as much wasted time as in public school.
Additionally, an education at one of those schools would have provided me with extensive personal, and professional contacts; that would be invaluable in most career choices (though probably not mine as it is).
Thing is though, I have said above I don't want my daughters to grow up exclusively around Scottsdale assholes; and I meant it. I think that an education exclusively at upper middle to upper class schools fosters a sheltered outlook on life, and a general lack of skills for dealing with those unlike you; and hell, just the real world as a whole. Not only that, but high school is enough of a conformity engine all by itself without class pressures added into it.
That said, I won't deny there are a lot of advantages to the "elite" institutions; and although I have been quite successful in my chosen paths, I think it would have stood me in good stead to take advantage of them when I had the opportunity.
So what do we do? When I'm in a good gig, we can certainly afford good private schools, but we don't like the social environment (regardless of it's advantages). Homeschooling may give an excellent education, but I'd like my daughters not to have to buck the system like I did (and have it buck back on them as it did me). Catholic school just seems to be the best option here.
Mel and I are both non-christians, but I was raised as a catholic, in Boston, in the late 80s. That has pretty much put me off the catholic church for all time; but there is one thing I very much like about the church, and that is the general quality of modern catholic schooling.
We live in Arizona, which has some of the worst public schools in the nation; we have two girls, a 4 and a 2 year old, and we're thinking of more kids.
We don't intend on raising our kids to be catholic, but we are very seriously looking at catholic schools; because they offer rigorous academic discipline. If choosing a jesuit school especially, they offer an education in LEARNING; not just in those facts necessary to pass standardized tests.
In particular I'm a big fan of independent reading, logic, debate, and disputation; all core tenets of a jesuit education.
...Oh and never understimate the value of learning latin; especially if your chosen profession involves science, medicine, or the written word.
Most catholic schools we've looked into do require a religion class every semester, but I've sat through those classes, read the curriclae etc... and they are most defeinitely not of the proseletyzing variety.
The modern churches philoshophy is to present the religious "facts" to people, give them the tools to evaluate them in a spirtual context of faith, and choose for themselves; even including the choice of no faith. Faiths other than catholicism are represented, and debated, as well as core catholic tenets.
Even though we don't want to raise our children catholic, I think this is a valuable experience.
The other fact is this, there are perhaps a dozen decent catholic schools within easy range of our house, and all of them cost less than $10,000 per year, with several of the closest less than $5,000 (and even less for their kindergarten and preschool programs). These schools also have large charity programs to allow for students of lesser means to afford their schools. The good secular private schools in my area mostly run over $20,000 a year, and that's even for first grade.
It's important to my wife and I that our girls get an education that doesnt exclusively consist of overpriviliged Scottsdale assholes; but that still insists on discipline and academic rigor. We have looked at Arizona public schools and found them laughably bad; and we don't see a better alternative than catholic schools for this.
We've thought about homeschooling, especially since Mel (my wife Melody) wants to stay at home at least until the kids are all school aged, then finish her degree (I'm pretty OK with that idea myself).
The problem however is that we can't ensure we will always live in a homeschool friendly area. Then theres the custody issues with their canadian genetic material donor. British Columbia is notably hostile to conservative and libertarian Americans, nver mind homeschooling from them. Hell I'd bet they wouldn't be too thrilled about catholic school either.
Also some colleges still look at homeschooled kids kinda funny (never mind the general public); no matter what their educational approvals and qualifications may say, or how far ahead of other students they may be (generally considerably).
Mel went to standard public schools, and was pretty much miserable for every second of that time. I had what might be termed as a hybrid education.
My family were poor in income, but lived in a rich town (single mom, father in prison, struggling independent business owner, rich grandfather who rented us a house at price we could afford) so I had a decent public school to attend; but I had scholarship opportunities to Milton Academy (I mostly grew up in Milton), Newman Prep, Judson Academy, and a few other prep schools. My mother decided that she didnt want me growing up with the elitists (a view she now deeply regrets, but she was steeped in 70s bullshit at the time).
The hybrid part was in that I attended public schools, but because of my "exceptional gifts", beginning in third grade, and all throughout my primary and secondary educational carrer; I spent half my time in a program that sent me to special classes at private schools, local universities, and private lectures.
This program gave me excellent educational opportunities, far beyond what my other public school mates were recieving, even in what was at the time considered one of the best public high schools in the country. In fact, after about sixth grade, my time in standard public school classes was for all intents and purposes, wasted (academically anyway). I had an interesting social and extracurricular life (I'm a big strong boy, and I co-captained football and wrestling), but academically it was pointless.
Unfortunately my unusual education also very much skewed things on my college applications; because I wasn't issued a standard high school diploma. At the time my school district didnt allow early graduation, even though I had finished high school at 16; and in order to leave school they required I take an equivalency exam.
I was able to gain admission to all my colleges of choice; but it took a 1540 SAT score, 28 advanced credits (AP, achievement tests, and college courses I took while in HS) a waiver from the district, AND extensive (as in several months worth) conversations with admissions staff to get over the hurdles.
It also invalidated me for almost any financial aid eligibility my freshman year.
This was all because I worked "outside the system". In fact getting anyone to even consider going "outside the system" was a major difficulty for that entire period of my life.
Perhaps things are less rigid today; but if I had instead gone to an "elite" private school, I wouldn't have had those problems; nor would I have had nearly as much wasted time as in public school.
Additionally, an education at one of those schools would have provided me with extensive personal, and professional contacts; that would be invaluable in most career choices (though probably not mine as it is).
Thing is though, I have said above I don't want my daughters to grow up exclusively around Scottsdale assholes; and I meant it. I think that an education exclusively at upper middle to upper class schools fosters a sheltered outlook on life, and a general lack of skills for dealing with those unlike you; and hell, just the real world as a whole. Not only that, but high school is enough of a conformity engine all by itself without class pressures added into it.
That said, I won't deny there are a lot of advantages to the "elite" institutions; and although I have been quite successful in my chosen paths, I think it would have stood me in good stead to take advantage of them when I had the opportunity.
So what do we do? When I'm in a good gig, we can certainly afford good private schools, but we don't like the social environment (regardless of it's advantages). Homeschooling may give an excellent education, but I'd like my daughters not to have to buck the system like I did (and have it buck back on them as it did me). Catholic school just seems to be the best option here.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Borders CEO Kicks some ass
I wasn't one of those folks who was down on Borders for not carrying the various magazines with Muhammad characatures (there arenow three as I understand it, though it was jsut one libertarian magazine that started this issue), because they are a private company, they are not a monopoly, and they can do as they like.
Then I read this, and I'm completely with him on it (emphasis mine):
UPDATE: Apparently this is satire from Gerard Van Der Leun (I didnt notice it was an April 1st post), but I still think he's right.
Then I read this, and I'm completely with him on it (emphasis mine):
"Let me lay it out for you.Fuckin-A-Right Bubba.
I run a bookstore. A book store. I run a big bookstore. I've got 34,000 people, real people, working for me every day in lots of places around the US and in other countries too. Those people owe Borders, every day, one good day's work. Borders owes the people who work for it a safe day's work. I've got stockholders too, but let's leave them aside for now, because as much as you may think so, this is not about money. (And yes I caught that business about the fact that we're trying to open stores in Arab and Muslim countries, but as you may have noticed every country these days contains an Arab and Muslim country.)
My bookstore is in a lot of places and it has, in employment and other matters, an open door policy. It advertises its address. It's not hard to find. You can Mapquest it. If you are lucky you can park your fully-loaded van or truck right next to it and set the timer. During business hours, all our employees are "home." Call me paranoid, but you don't get to be the CEO of a big corporation and not think about these things.
Like the United States itself, we're into "Open Borders." Like the United States, Borders lets anybody in. But we're not running some sort of NSA airport check-in deal at the door. You open our door and you walk in and somebody says "Welcome to Borders." You can come as you are and wear whatever you choose under that long and suspiciously large coat. We've no dress code when it comes to our customers. You can be locked and loaded in more ways than one because, hey, its a free country with a strong Second Amendment as well as a First.
Yes, we have security, but you may have noticed that they are not wearing body armor, carrying automatic weapons and patrolling the cookbook section in an up-armored Humvee. It's just not the Borders Way, bloggers. If you ever stopped filling up your cart with clicks at Amazon.com and visited a store, that's what you'd find.
Don't get me wrong. At Borders we make a "business" out of Free Speech and Free Expression. It's a core value. Three other not-so-obvious and possibly competing core values at Borders are 1) Make a profit, 2) No riots in the store, ever, especially not in the Children's section, and 3) All employees and patrons get to home at the end of the day without a side trip to a hospital.
Now you and the other bloggers who are sitting around safe in your undisclosed locations may feel that I have a duty to carry the 46 copies of Free Inquiry magazine I'm going to sell chain-wide in the next month. You know, the one with those drawings of the Prophet (Peace be upon his raggedy ass.). You might feel I should do this in the name of being the last, best bastion of Free Speech in America. I feel your pain, but after due consideration I must respectfully instruct you all to just pound sand.
Who do you think we are up here in Ann Arbor, the 82nd Airborne?
Let's review. Embassies and other buildings set on fire. People injured and killed for months across the globe. Islamics freaking out everywhere. (Very excitable and childish culture and religion that.) All because some newspaper way up in the corner of Denmark pumps out a few drawings.
And no major US newspapers prints them. No major US media shows them. No real action from the US government other than tongue clucking. And everywhere around the world there has been no significant moment when these whack job Muslims are getting their asses roundly and dependably kicked for rioting.
Nope, there is no place outside of Afghanistan and Iraq where violent Muslims are getting their asses kicked by government or the press.
You want this shit to stop and people able to draw and publish what they want anywhere in the world at any time without being afraid of getting a bread knife in gut from some hyperventilating Islamic idiotarian with a religiously implanted mental disorder? Start getting governments that can grow a pair at home as well as overseas, and start kicking some Muslim ass whenever and wherever this crap gets started. Don't come bitching to me that Borders has to step up and take the hit."
UPDATE: Apparently this is satire from Gerard Van Der Leun (I didnt notice it was an April 1st post), but I still think he's right.
A Family addition
Hi everybody, this is the newest member of our family, Mac.. short for MacGuyver
Yes, we named the doc MacGuyver, it's metageek ironic humor, live with it. Besides, he likes it.
Mac was a desert rescue from a co-worker of Mels; apparently someone threw him out of their truck off a side road out near Superior, AZ. Dan, Mels Co-worker found him, and fixed him up, but couldnt keep him (they've already got like six dogs), so he's come home with us.
Near as we can tell he's definitely an Akita, mixed with something else. From the ruff and coat color I'd almsot say german sheppard, but it could be any of the stronger, and larger, working dogs. Plus, the dappling and markings he has arent consistent with sheppard; in fact they almost look border collieish.
Whatever he's mixed with, he is STRONG. This is a dog that can pull ME along behind him; but he's well broken to the leash, well behaved, and responds to voice very well.
Mac is unfortunately a bit overweight, because he hasnt had enough excercise at all (the folks who fixed him up didnt have the time or space) but we're gonna fix that, which of course means I'M gonna have to get off m,y fat ass as well and walk this big boy. I havent weighed him yet, but I HAVE picked him up, and I'd guess he's about 140lbs. We're thinking 100lbs would be better, because Mac is not a young dog. He' showing some age around the mouth and eyes, but theres no eye degeneration, so we're gussing he's 7 or 8, solidly middle aged for an Akita.
Oh and did I mention he's cute as hell, loving, and very very very energetic? Yeah getting these pics was somewhat less than easy.
Well, the kids don't know about him yet; they'll be back later today and what a surprise it will be eh...
Update from Mel:
There has been much squealing in this household since the kids got home. They are delighted to have a dog, and Mac is extremely good with them. He doesn't bite or jump on them, even when they get in the way of his food. He seems to love him, even if he is barely enough dog for two active preschoolers. He will lose a lot of weight, very quickly.
Update from Chris: Yes I know the show spelled it MacGyver. The show was wrong, and it irritates me. A Guyver is a Scottish raider, mercenary, or guardsman, with armor and a longsword, depending on which reference you look at.
Angus MacGyvers name was changed from MacIver, which is an ENTIRELY different thing. Iver is a viking name, and the name of a town in Scotland and another town in northern England, so MacIver would be the son of a viking raider, or the son of a resident of northern england/southern Scotland, whereas MacGuyver would be the son of a SCOTTISH raider or guardsman.
Of course the dog is Japanese in descent anyway AND there is an anime and manga called Guyver about powerd combat armor and mercenaries (which they got from the original Scottish sense - and which inspired a REALLY bad movie).
See what I mean about metageek...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)