Fred Thompson is the best candidate not running for President (yet).
This is obvious, because the yappy-poodle darling of the left, Michael Moore, put down his donut and ventured into the unaccustomed sunlight to pen this letter to Fred, calling him out on the subject of healthcare and Thompson's criticism of Michael Moore's publicity stunt of taking Ground Zero veterans to Cuba for treatment. Moore is under investigation by the US Treasury Department for possible violation of the travel ban to Cuba.
Apparently Mr. Moore is now an expert in healthcare, and in a typically winding, insulting and insinuating style he criticized Thompson's positions on healthcare relative to his, and challenged him to a debate.
Within the day we get Fred's response:
Yowch. Michael's not the only one with experience in the media. This is a Reaganesque slapdown, in 38 seconds, on the Internet and available in less time than it took Michael to write his letter. Keep those challenges coming, Scruffy, Fred's got a whole sack of 'Shhh!' with your name on it.
We need this guy to run. Now.
Fred+Thompson Michael+Moore slapdown
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The Fairness Doctrine
Dad and I are co-teaching a Wednesday night Bible study out of one of Max Lucado's books, The Great House of God. It's an examination of our relationship with God, using the Lord's Prayer as text and the metaphor of a house to examine different aspects of God.
Dad's part a couple of weeks ago was on the phrase "Hallowed be thy name". The gist of the lesson was respect for God, and being reverent. The text he used was the Book of Job, where Job makes the unfortunate mistake of asking questions of God at a time when God is prepared to answer. A humbling experience, as it turns out.
There's a lot about the Book of Job that "isn't fair". All his children die, his life's work is destroyed, all he's left with is a fairly unhelpful wife and three friends who are sure that Job brought the destruction on himself. I'm not sure we're far beyond Job's friends, many times as Western-educated people born of the Enlightnement and a rational worldview we assume a cause if an effect is noted. Even spiritually, it's hard for us to understand that bad things do happen to good people. Innocent children get cancer or have rotten parents, sometimes good parents die in car crashes or accidental drug overdoses or mysterious, lethal illnesses. So many unfair things seem to happen, at least they seem unfair to us.
This is such a common complaint with the people I discuss things with on the Internet. There is a burning desire to "make things fair", and what's interesting is how mutable the concept of 'fair' is depending on your position. Is fairness of outcome more important, or fairness of opportunity? There's one person who seems like a very committed 'social justice' Christian, and I can't help but marvel at what this good-hearted person considers fairness. As if it's a Godly requirement to support the increase of government-issued social benefits, rather than an individual responsibility to tend to the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the poor. I'm pretty sure their heart is in the right place, but it's wrong in my opinion to equate justice with fairness, and to consider that making the world fair through the support of one political opinion or another is the same as seeking God's Justice. The social Darwinists of the right don't come across much better but then most of them don't claim a moral imperative from God for their parsimony, either.
Another complaint of the left is that it's not fair that Westerners are so wealthy and those in the Third World so poor. An apparent lack of fairness in terms of equal distribution implies that the rules haven't been followed -- if it's not fair, someone must have cheated. And even if it's not the present generation that has cheated, all the inequity and unfairness in the world is pretty much due to white people exploiting other people. If fairness is your measuring stick, then yes, the world is unfair. And if the world is unfair, since everything should be fair (everybody just knows this, though there's little evidence for it), the search begins for the guilty party and the reparations are totalled up and an indigant bill submitted.
This concept of fairness is rather deeply ingrained, from early childhood. And for people that are determined to seek fairness in all things rather than God's mercy and justice, it's pretty easy to follow the Fair Fairy well off the straight and narrow. Because 'fair' is subjective, and flexible. For instance, it's fair for Al Gore to emit more carbon than some entire African towns because he's educating the rest of us, even though it's not fair for the average American to emit as much CO2 as we do. Al gets a pass, because...well, just because. Suddenly what is cut-and-dried fair is now a two-tier system of fairness: one for you enviro-sinners and one for a guy with a slide show and an Oscar. Some animals are more equal than others, and "fairness" is now no more of a guideline than any other, yet we sometimes hold to it like DiCaprio clinging to the door at the end of Titanic.
And so it got me thinking about fairness, and whether we can ever achieve fairness. I really don't think so, because fairness, despite its appeal to the objective, is inherently subjective. If you don't believe me, hang out with some five year-olds. If you want to see a discussion of fairness in action, give a group of them an unequal amount of some goody, and you'll get an immediate discussion of fairness. Scratch a kid and you'll find a lawyer underneath. Fairness is an unachievable externality, the only fairness we can hope to achieve on our own in this life is within ourselves, in the way we deal with others, and between our own ears. Even that requires constant evaluation of our motives and a careful ear toward our conscience. I certainly fail in this regard on a regular basis, and I'd be surprised if most of us don't manage to meet even our own definition of 'fairness' from time to time.
When it comes to Job, who had probably the best claim in the Bible to being treated unfairly, God is right there with the answer. God utterly destroys Job's claim of unfairness by pointing out how much Job doesn't know, how little he understands, Job's lack of divine perspective. Job to his credit, admits his mistake and shuts his mouth in the face of God's superior knowledge, and in faith with God's Justice (and more importantly at that particular time, God's Mercy). Job is a man of God, and manages to silence his inner five year-old. But the imperative to fairness runs deep, and it's hard to squelch. Some people in our society don't even try to stop it, it's a way of living for them. "That's Not Fair" is such a common rallying cry, and establishing fairness is justification for many things people otherwise might not do without the tug of making things fair. Selfishness is always present, fairness turbocharges selfishness by providing justification.
As Dad was discussing the difference between our fairness and God's justice, it got me thinking about The Judgement, the division between the faithful and the faithless. God divides the people, and the fact that God's been watching is a surprise to both groups. The sheep on the right hand, headed for Heaven and Eternal Life with God are just as surprised as the goats on the left, headed for Eternal separation. Both of them say, "When did we serve you, Lord?" and the answer is almost word-for-word the same to each. Equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. The decision is God's, made by his divine sense of justice and mercy.
That got me wondering about the Last Battle from Revelation, when Satan's forces and God's collide, and Satan eventually loses. Who is going to pick up a weapon and fight the God of the Universe alongside Satan? And I finally got the answer: people who, in the face of God's justice, will say, "That's Not Fair!" The concept of fairness, misused, is the key that unlocks selfishness instead of Godliness, self-righteousness instead of God's righteousness. Fairness is mutable, and mutability is a wonderful opportunity for The Deceiver to slip in and provide ultimately unhelpful suggestions.
This of course presupposes that something of our lives here accompanies us to the afterlife, and while I have little in the way of Biblical reference to support this, the story of Lazarus and the poor man suggests that maybe there is. I believe this life is an opportunity to get ready for the next, to bend and shape our souls into the kind of people that are ready to live in their Father's House. Not that salvation is to be earned, nobody can do that, but that as we grow closer to God and understand more of what His nature is, we'll be ever more at home in the next environment. If what accompanies you into the afterlife is a belief in fairness without a sense of God, a demand for fairness that supercedes the knowledge of your place relative to God's that Job understands at the end of the book, then I can certainly see someone committed to fairness trying to lock horns with God's justice, and being mad enough to fight about it.
Fairness is overrated. As a guiding force for public policy or personal living, it's not reliable.
I'd much rather have mercy.
Dad's part a couple of weeks ago was on the phrase "Hallowed be thy name". The gist of the lesson was respect for God, and being reverent. The text he used was the Book of Job, where Job makes the unfortunate mistake of asking questions of God at a time when God is prepared to answer. A humbling experience, as it turns out.
There's a lot about the Book of Job that "isn't fair". All his children die, his life's work is destroyed, all he's left with is a fairly unhelpful wife and three friends who are sure that Job brought the destruction on himself. I'm not sure we're far beyond Job's friends, many times as Western-educated people born of the Enlightnement and a rational worldview we assume a cause if an effect is noted. Even spiritually, it's hard for us to understand that bad things do happen to good people. Innocent children get cancer or have rotten parents, sometimes good parents die in car crashes or accidental drug overdoses or mysterious, lethal illnesses. So many unfair things seem to happen, at least they seem unfair to us.
This is such a common complaint with the people I discuss things with on the Internet. There is a burning desire to "make things fair", and what's interesting is how mutable the concept of 'fair' is depending on your position. Is fairness of outcome more important, or fairness of opportunity? There's one person who seems like a very committed 'social justice' Christian, and I can't help but marvel at what this good-hearted person considers fairness. As if it's a Godly requirement to support the increase of government-issued social benefits, rather than an individual responsibility to tend to the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the poor. I'm pretty sure their heart is in the right place, but it's wrong in my opinion to equate justice with fairness, and to consider that making the world fair through the support of one political opinion or another is the same as seeking God's Justice. The social Darwinists of the right don't come across much better but then most of them don't claim a moral imperative from God for their parsimony, either.
Another complaint of the left is that it's not fair that Westerners are so wealthy and those in the Third World so poor. An apparent lack of fairness in terms of equal distribution implies that the rules haven't been followed -- if it's not fair, someone must have cheated. And even if it's not the present generation that has cheated, all the inequity and unfairness in the world is pretty much due to white people exploiting other people. If fairness is your measuring stick, then yes, the world is unfair. And if the world is unfair, since everything should be fair (everybody just knows this, though there's little evidence for it), the search begins for the guilty party and the reparations are totalled up and an indigant bill submitted.
This concept of fairness is rather deeply ingrained, from early childhood. And for people that are determined to seek fairness in all things rather than God's mercy and justice, it's pretty easy to follow the Fair Fairy well off the straight and narrow. Because 'fair' is subjective, and flexible. For instance, it's fair for Al Gore to emit more carbon than some entire African towns because he's educating the rest of us, even though it's not fair for the average American to emit as much CO2 as we do. Al gets a pass, because...well, just because. Suddenly what is cut-and-dried fair is now a two-tier system of fairness: one for you enviro-sinners and one for a guy with a slide show and an Oscar. Some animals are more equal than others, and "fairness" is now no more of a guideline than any other, yet we sometimes hold to it like DiCaprio clinging to the door at the end of Titanic.
And so it got me thinking about fairness, and whether we can ever achieve fairness. I really don't think so, because fairness, despite its appeal to the objective, is inherently subjective. If you don't believe me, hang out with some five year-olds. If you want to see a discussion of fairness in action, give a group of them an unequal amount of some goody, and you'll get an immediate discussion of fairness. Scratch a kid and you'll find a lawyer underneath. Fairness is an unachievable externality, the only fairness we can hope to achieve on our own in this life is within ourselves, in the way we deal with others, and between our own ears. Even that requires constant evaluation of our motives and a careful ear toward our conscience. I certainly fail in this regard on a regular basis, and I'd be surprised if most of us don't manage to meet even our own definition of 'fairness' from time to time.
When it comes to Job, who had probably the best claim in the Bible to being treated unfairly, God is right there with the answer. God utterly destroys Job's claim of unfairness by pointing out how much Job doesn't know, how little he understands, Job's lack of divine perspective. Job to his credit, admits his mistake and shuts his mouth in the face of God's superior knowledge, and in faith with God's Justice (and more importantly at that particular time, God's Mercy). Job is a man of God, and manages to silence his inner five year-old. But the imperative to fairness runs deep, and it's hard to squelch. Some people in our society don't even try to stop it, it's a way of living for them. "That's Not Fair" is such a common rallying cry, and establishing fairness is justification for many things people otherwise might not do without the tug of making things fair. Selfishness is always present, fairness turbocharges selfishness by providing justification.
As Dad was discussing the difference between our fairness and God's justice, it got me thinking about The Judgement, the division between the faithful and the faithless. God divides the people, and the fact that God's been watching is a surprise to both groups. The sheep on the right hand, headed for Heaven and Eternal Life with God are just as surprised as the goats on the left, headed for Eternal separation. Both of them say, "When did we serve you, Lord?" and the answer is almost word-for-word the same to each. Equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. The decision is God's, made by his divine sense of justice and mercy.
That got me wondering about the Last Battle from Revelation, when Satan's forces and God's collide, and Satan eventually loses. Who is going to pick up a weapon and fight the God of the Universe alongside Satan? And I finally got the answer: people who, in the face of God's justice, will say, "That's Not Fair!" The concept of fairness, misused, is the key that unlocks selfishness instead of Godliness, self-righteousness instead of God's righteousness. Fairness is mutable, and mutability is a wonderful opportunity for The Deceiver to slip in and provide ultimately unhelpful suggestions.
This of course presupposes that something of our lives here accompanies us to the afterlife, and while I have little in the way of Biblical reference to support this, the story of Lazarus and the poor man suggests that maybe there is. I believe this life is an opportunity to get ready for the next, to bend and shape our souls into the kind of people that are ready to live in their Father's House. Not that salvation is to be earned, nobody can do that, but that as we grow closer to God and understand more of what His nature is, we'll be ever more at home in the next environment. If what accompanies you into the afterlife is a belief in fairness without a sense of God, a demand for fairness that supercedes the knowledge of your place relative to God's that Job understands at the end of the book, then I can certainly see someone committed to fairness trying to lock horns with God's justice, and being mad enough to fight about it.
Fairness is overrated. As a guiding force for public policy or personal living, it's not reliable.
I'd much rather have mercy.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Jack Bauer Tally: Hour 21
Now this is what I'm talkin' bout.
Jack's efforts to help resolve the FB sub-circuit board mess (we still don't know what "FB Sub-Circuit Board" stands for) are all for naught, he's sidelined by an otherwise sympathetic Nadia, who's waiting for her replacement from the oft-mentioned but never-seen District Office. Mike Doyle is suiting up a bunch of expendables (you can tell by their dark navy CTU Tactical uniforms) for a raid on the Bloomfield Chemical plant, where Audrey was held.
Skank-In-Chief Lisa Miller gets told to go back to her traitor lobbyist (redundant, I know) boy-toy to pass back information to the Russians that the FB sub-circuit board is secure. She gets a magic handbag with a camera that she just so happens to position so that she can be seen being disrobed and ravished by said boy-toy in the bedroom. She is understandably nervous, as is The Biscuit, who cares less about Lisa's naughty bits and more about the lobbyist uploading the digital bits of fake memos stored on Lisa's PDA about the crisis being over to his KGB handlers. No resolution on this count this week.
Being that Jack is cooling his heels and the tactical teams are en route to where they're just sure Cheng is located, of course Cheng and his mercenaries are planning an assault somewhere else. Jack Bauer abhors a vacuum, so the intended target of the mercenaries is of course CTU. The poorly-shaven Chinese hacker dude from last week shuts down all of CTUs systems and the baddies emerge from the sewer, spreading mayhem. Milo Pressman, (who looks remarkably like the son of the parking lot attendant who stole the Ferrari in Ferris Bueller's Day Off) bravely identifies himself as the station chief, and gets capped in the head for his troubles. It saves Mike Doyle the trouble of doing it for himself to break the Nadia/Doyle/Milo triangle. Who says being a systems analyst isn't dangerous?
Jack of course knows the place is under attack immediately and when the security guard hesitates after opening the door he gets shot for his troubles. Jack deftly uses the dead body (did we really know he was dead?) as a shield, picking up the guard's pistol and getting fatal hits on the assault rifle-wielding merc while lying on his side. He picks up the pistol (a Beretta PX4, if my eyes don't deceive me), reloads, sprays some shots down the hall to give himself cover and moves out. He gets another couple of kills with the PX4 and manages to snag one of the G36Cs the bad guys are using.
Grame Bauer's recently-ex wife and Jack's torch-carrying ex-girlfriend, Heidi Petrelli from Heroes and her son who looks suspiciously like Jack are in a rest area, having been debriefed. The bad guys break in and grab the boy, who is apparently their target. Jack takes them out with two precise three-round bursts and away they go, walking through the endless maze of CTU corridors looking for an escape. The find an air vent with a big nasty torso-slicing fan, which Jack jams with the rifle. The boy makes it into the vent, then the bad guys are on them. Jack shoots his pistol empty (see a pattern), and unable to retrieve the rifle, surrenders. Heidi Petrelli and Jack are marched back down to the control room where everyone else is sitting morosely around the cooling body of Milo Pressman.
The kid comes back out of the shafts when Chief Mercenary promises to shoot his mom. Seeing as Chief Mercenary has already used his Glock 18 (the machine-pistol version) to kill once in the last six or seven minutes, this isn't a hollow threat.
As the episode ends, we find out that the guy fixing the FB sub-circuit board is none other than Big Daddy Bauer, and kidnapping his grandson is part of the plan, along with a relocation to China, safely away from the treason charges and the Avenging Angel Of Pistol Caliber Justice, i.e., Jack.
Previews show Lisa Miller's boyfriend figuring out he's been played. I predict a tactical Biscuit-raid to save her. Morris will show he's got a pair and make up with Chloe, I estimate his chances of survival to the end of the season at 2 out of 3, though with another wound. Jack will kill everybody, including his Dad. Heidi Petrilli and the kid will survive.
Technical Note:
The G36C, or Compact, is a shortened version of the Heckler & Koch G36 assault rifle. The G36 is a .223 caliber assault rifle, it differs from the AR-15/M-16 in that is uses an operating rod to push the bolt back and reload the rifle after firing. The AR-15 series uses direct gas impingement to push the bolt back, which improves accuracy but adds fouling. The G36 body is almost all plastic, the G36C has a shorter barrel for, well, walking around in sewers, for example, and other indoor overwhelming firepower needs. It's a well-regarded weapon, though you wouldn't want to use the C-version for shots over 150-200m. The short barrel and resultant slower speed of the projectile mean there is less terminal damage, the shortened M4 version of the M16 has reduced lethality beyond 75m, according to Martin Fackler, the demigod of projectile injury.
The Glock 18 is a basically useless modification of an already-great firearm, the 9mm Glock 17. The 18 model is modified to fire in fully-automatic or semi-automatic based on the position of a switch on the slide, visible in the picture above. Chief Mercenary's Glock had a stainless slide, but it's the same gun.
The problem with the Glock 18, and most other machine-pistols, is that the moving mass of the slide is so light that the cyclic rate (rate of fire) is unbelievably high, around 1200 rounds per minute, or 20 rounds a second. This will empty a standard Glock 17 magazine in a little under a second. Even the extended 33-round mags made for the Glock 18 only give you a little more than 1.5 seconds of wildly inaccurate firing.
This is a video of this borderline-useless pistol in action:
Note the references to The Matrix. It's about the only place you can use a Glock 18 with any effectiveness. People skilled in firearms usage train for weeks and months to be accurate with a fully-automatic two-handed weapon like the MP-5, nobody is truly accurate with a full-auto pistol like a Glock 18. There are only a few in private hands in the US. There is a conversion device that replaces parts on the back of the slide and can turn pretty much any Glock into a fully-automatic pistol, but it's a) highly-illegal and b) turns a useful and reasonably accurate semi-automatic pistol into a useless and inaccurate fully-automatic pistol. If I want to see Fort Leavenworth, I'll take the visitor's tour, thanks.
Accurate fire is all that counts. Pros shoot semi-auto and hit their targets.
Jack gets five kills this week, three pistol and two assault rifle. An extra point to the assault rifle kills for three-shot bursts, that's good trigger control.
The Score so far:
Jack+Bauer 24 Glock+18 G36
Jack's efforts to help resolve the FB sub-circuit board mess (we still don't know what "FB Sub-Circuit Board" stands for) are all for naught, he's sidelined by an otherwise sympathetic Nadia, who's waiting for her replacement from the oft-mentioned but never-seen District Office. Mike Doyle is suiting up a bunch of expendables (you can tell by their dark navy CTU Tactical uniforms) for a raid on the Bloomfield Chemical plant, where Audrey was held.
Skank-In-Chief Lisa Miller gets told to go back to her traitor lobbyist (redundant, I know) boy-toy to pass back information to the Russians that the FB sub-circuit board is secure. She gets a magic handbag with a camera that she just so happens to position so that she can be seen being disrobed and ravished by said boy-toy in the bedroom. She is understandably nervous, as is The Biscuit, who cares less about Lisa's naughty bits and more about the lobbyist uploading the digital bits of fake memos stored on Lisa's PDA about the crisis being over to his KGB handlers. No resolution on this count this week.
Being that Jack is cooling his heels and the tactical teams are en route to where they're just sure Cheng is located, of course Cheng and his mercenaries are planning an assault somewhere else. Jack Bauer abhors a vacuum, so the intended target of the mercenaries is of course CTU. The poorly-shaven Chinese hacker dude from last week shuts down all of CTUs systems and the baddies emerge from the sewer, spreading mayhem. Milo Pressman, (who looks remarkably like the son of the parking lot attendant who stole the Ferrari in Ferris Bueller's Day Off) bravely identifies himself as the station chief, and gets capped in the head for his troubles. It saves Mike Doyle the trouble of doing it for himself to break the Nadia/Doyle/Milo triangle. Who says being a systems analyst isn't dangerous?
Jack of course knows the place is under attack immediately and when the security guard hesitates after opening the door he gets shot for his troubles. Jack deftly uses the dead body (did we really know he was dead?) as a shield, picking up the guard's pistol and getting fatal hits on the assault rifle-wielding merc while lying on his side. He picks up the pistol (a Beretta PX4, if my eyes don't deceive me), reloads, sprays some shots down the hall to give himself cover and moves out. He gets another couple of kills with the PX4 and manages to snag one of the G36Cs the bad guys are using.
Grame Bauer's recently-ex wife and Jack's torch-carrying ex-girlfriend, Heidi Petrelli from Heroes and her son who looks suspiciously like Jack are in a rest area, having been debriefed. The bad guys break in and grab the boy, who is apparently their target. Jack takes them out with two precise three-round bursts and away they go, walking through the endless maze of CTU corridors looking for an escape. The find an air vent with a big nasty torso-slicing fan, which Jack jams with the rifle. The boy makes it into the vent, then the bad guys are on them. Jack shoots his pistol empty (see a pattern), and unable to retrieve the rifle, surrenders. Heidi Petrelli and Jack are marched back down to the control room where everyone else is sitting morosely around the cooling body of Milo Pressman.
The kid comes back out of the shafts when Chief Mercenary promises to shoot his mom. Seeing as Chief Mercenary has already used his Glock 18 (the machine-pistol version) to kill once in the last six or seven minutes, this isn't a hollow threat.
As the episode ends, we find out that the guy fixing the FB sub-circuit board is none other than Big Daddy Bauer, and kidnapping his grandson is part of the plan, along with a relocation to China, safely away from the treason charges and the Avenging Angel Of Pistol Caliber Justice, i.e., Jack.
Previews show Lisa Miller's boyfriend figuring out he's been played. I predict a tactical Biscuit-raid to save her. Morris will show he's got a pair and make up with Chloe, I estimate his chances of survival to the end of the season at 2 out of 3, though with another wound. Jack will kill everybody, including his Dad. Heidi Petrilli and the kid will survive.
Technical Note:
The G36C, or Compact, is a shortened version of the Heckler & Koch G36 assault rifle. The G36 is a .223 caliber assault rifle, it differs from the AR-15/M-16 in that is uses an operating rod to push the bolt back and reload the rifle after firing. The AR-15 series uses direct gas impingement to push the bolt back, which improves accuracy but adds fouling. The G36 body is almost all plastic, the G36C has a shorter barrel for, well, walking around in sewers, for example, and other indoor overwhelming firepower needs. It's a well-regarded weapon, though you wouldn't want to use the C-version for shots over 150-200m. The short barrel and resultant slower speed of the projectile mean there is less terminal damage, the shortened M4 version of the M16 has reduced lethality beyond 75m, according to Martin Fackler, the demigod of projectile injury.
The Glock 18 is a basically useless modification of an already-great firearm, the 9mm Glock 17. The 18 model is modified to fire in fully-automatic or semi-automatic based on the position of a switch on the slide, visible in the picture above. Chief Mercenary's Glock had a stainless slide, but it's the same gun.
The problem with the Glock 18, and most other machine-pistols, is that the moving mass of the slide is so light that the cyclic rate (rate of fire) is unbelievably high, around 1200 rounds per minute, or 20 rounds a second. This will empty a standard Glock 17 magazine in a little under a second. Even the extended 33-round mags made for the Glock 18 only give you a little more than 1.5 seconds of wildly inaccurate firing.
This is a video of this borderline-useless pistol in action:
Note the references to The Matrix. It's about the only place you can use a Glock 18 with any effectiveness. People skilled in firearms usage train for weeks and months to be accurate with a fully-automatic two-handed weapon like the MP-5, nobody is truly accurate with a full-auto pistol like a Glock 18. There are only a few in private hands in the US. There is a conversion device that replaces parts on the back of the slide and can turn pretty much any Glock into a fully-automatic pistol, but it's a) highly-illegal and b) turns a useful and reasonably accurate semi-automatic pistol into a useless and inaccurate fully-automatic pistol. If I want to see Fort Leavenworth, I'll take the visitor's tour, thanks.
Accurate fire is all that counts. Pros shoot semi-auto and hit their targets.
Jack gets five kills this week, three pistol and two assault rifle. An extra point to the assault rifle kills for three-shot bursts, that's good trigger control.
The Score so far:
| Method | Score | Notes |
| Biting A Carotid | 9.0 | -1 for lack of Universal Protocol |
| Shooting Curtis | -8 | -10 own goal, +2 neck shot over a hostage |
| Shooting guard while handcuffed | 7.0 | +2 for while handcuffed |
| Shotgun | 5.0 | |
| Shotgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for saving hostages (Milo & Graeme's wife) |
| Handgun | 7.0 | +2 for disarm |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for suppressor, because suppressors are cool |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for suppressor |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for through car window |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 10.0 | +5 for called headshot |
| Neck Snap | 7.0 | Always cool. |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Length of Chain | 8.0 | Strangled Fayed |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Chinese henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Chinese henchman |
| Handgun | 6.0 | Merc, +1 for available cover |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Merc |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Merc |
| Handgun | 6.0 | Merc, +1 for three-round burst |
| Handgun | 6.0 | Merc, +1 for three-round burst |
| Net | 163.0 |
Jack+Bauer 24 Glock+18 G36
Monday, May 07, 2007
Jack Bauer Tally: Hours 18, 19 and 20
I haven't written much because to be honest, there hasn't been much to write about. This has been the dullest few hours of 24 since Kim met the mountain lion.
Jack swiped the 'FB sub-circuit board' from Mike Doyle at gunpoint, stole his car and headed off to meet Chang with a brick of C4 and a deathwish. After ditching the tracker under some powerlines (thank you, electromagnetic interference), he got to the meet point early and rigged the building to explode. Mike followed him and got there just before the Chinese, who were bringing the soon-to-be-revealed-as-catatonic Audrey Raines. Mike got a team in place, but not quite, and as he found out Chang was about to kill Audrey he capped a guard and everything fell apart.
One of Chang's guards immediately shot Jack at close range with what looked like a Heckler & Koch G36. Jack managed to recover enough to shoot the guard and one other, the only two kills in the last three hours. Chang and his remaining homies got away with the FB sub-circuit board in a plethora of black Hummer H1s, and was lost to tracking. Jack was arrested (again) and taken back to CTU (again) along with Audrey, who as it turns out can't generate much in the way of a complete sentence.
Chang had the gizmo, which includes a part of the decryption algorithm for Russian military equipment, analyzed by one of the apparently countless goateed hackers with intimate knowledge of foreign military systems in the Los Angeles area. The circuit board doesn't work, but nobody but Chang knows that. The Russians know the Chinese have the board because Lisa Miller, the skanky blond the VP has been having an affair with, has been two-timing the VP with a KGB mole.
Audrey was evaluated by a psychiatrist from 'District' (where is that, actually?), who declared her to be a catatonic due to torture and pharmaceuticals and immediately prescribed a regimen to improve her cognitive functions, consisting of torture and pharamceuticals. Mike Doyle let himself be overpowered by Jack, who opened and open-hand can on the psychiatrist and squirreled Audrey away to some dark corner of the CTU complex, and got her to say one word, which led CTU to a chemical factory where Chang is apparently holed up. Big Daddy Raines, the ex-SecDef, told Jack in no uncertain terms that he is not to see Audrey ever again, and stated (correctly, given his history), that Jack is cursed and everyone he loves dies or gets kicked off the series. I don't know if he included Edgar Stiles in this list, but the effect is the same.
Yawn. This is getting to be as bad as Spiderman 3. There's no crying in Spiderman!
Technical Note: Body Armor
The fact that Jack was wearing body armor should not have protected him from an assault rifle at 15 feet. Not all body armor is created equal.
All body armor is for the most part created the same way: fibers of some exceptionally strong material (Kevlar, Twaron, Spectra -- all plastics) are woven into layers and multiple thicknesses of these super-strong fibers are sewn together to make "soft" body armor. The reason soft body armor works is that rather than the kinetic energy of an incoming bullet staying on a tiny point where the bullet impacts, the individual weaved fibers spread the force out over a larger area, meaning that the energy is dissipated into the vest.
The National Institute of Justice has developed a testing system whereby soft body armor is tested to determine its ability to resist penetration and deformation against a variety of standard bullets. Penetration isn't the only thing, deformation is important as well. If a bullet doesn't penetrate a vest but it does allow your chest to be compressed so far it breaks ribs and does equivalent damage, it's not adequate. The NIJ "Levels" are as follows:
Level I will stop low-velocity .38 Special, up to 850fps or a .22 LR at up to 1050 fps. Virtually no vests on the street today are Level I.
Level IIA is equivalent to 16 layers of Kevlar and will stop a 9mm FMJ bullet at up to 1090 fps, or a .357 hollowpoint at up to 1,250 fps. This is good for most street situations.
Level II is equivalent to 22 layers of Kevlar and will stop a 9mm FMJ at up to 1175 fps or a .357 Magnum hollowpoint at up to 1,390 fps. You will likely get less blunt trauma from the force of a bullet compared to level IIA.
Level IIIA is equivalent to 30+ layers of Kevlar and will stop a 9mm FMJ at up to 1400 fps or a .44 Magnum at up to 1400 fps. The 9mm speed is typical for bullets coming out of longer barrels, i.e., submachineguns.
Note how the increase in velocity changes the number of Kevlar layers needed. A 10% increase in velocity separates Level II and Level IIA. This is because velocity is the major determining factor in force, from the equation f=mv^2, where the velocity is squared. To protect against a 10% increase in velocity you have to up the Kevlar thickness by about 35%. To protect against a 40% increase in velocity you need almost 100% more Kevlar between you and the bullet.
Note also the absence of any mentioned rifle bullets in this crowd. Rifles have incredible velocity compared to pistols, a 9mm at 1400fps is considered a "hot" bullet. A .223 (the caliber of the M16, and the G36 the Chinese dude used to shoot at Jack) is considered to be loafing at under 2500fps. Standard .308 rounds do about 2,700 fps out of a rifle barrel. It would take a mattress of Kevlar to have a prayer of stopping a rifle bullet, and most people can't pull off wearing a mattress inconspicuously.
To get above Level IIIA, you need something much sturdier than even Kevlar. At present, the two choices are metal or ceramic composites. The metal can be steel or titanium, the composite is some kind of borosilicate thing that sounds expensive because it is expensive. This is called a "trauma plate", and is worn outside the body armor in a pocket on the front and back of the fabric that holds the armor panels together, called a "carrier". The job of the trauma plate is to absorb the energy of the bullet and/or fragment it, so that the force that comes out of the back of the trauma plate and hits the rest of the vest can be dissipated by the vest itself.
Level III armor will stop at least six rounds .308 Winchester round at 2,750 fps. This is equivalent to 6mm of steel, 13mm of ceramic, or 25mm of extra polyethylene (Spectra).
Level IV armor will stop at least one round of .30-06 military M2 armor piercing ammo at 2,850 fps. This is equivalent to 12mm of specially-treated steel, or 18mm of ceramic.
You could wear a plate without the armor, but the impact would be equivalent to standing on home plate while Barry Bonds swings at a hanging curveball. Or worse. The soft body armor is very important.
And strangely enough, soft body armor is non knife-proof. The force of a knife is over such a small surface area that it can split the armor and still injure you.
The only way that Jack could be wearing body armor and take short-range hits from an assault rifle and not die is if he was wearing Level III armor (hard and soft armor) and was shot in the trauma plate. Otherwise, he'd have big bloody holes front and back. The other possible solution to how he could be wearing body armor and survive is if he was wearing Dragon Skin from Pinnacle Armor.
Dragon Skin is an update of an old concept: scale mail. An outer jacket of large discs of metal were sewn into an overlapping pattern. Swords and arrows would have to pierce the individual metal discs, each of which could rely on its overlapping neighbors for structural support. Dragon Skin replaces the discs of metal with roughly 1" discs of ceramic, in a matrix of Kevlar. For its weight, it tests out better than any other armor and is less than an inch thick. Instead of being a single inflexible plate, it's many small discs that flex easily, enabling it move when the wearer moves. It's certified Level III, and it stops AK rounds as well as .223 rounds. What's more, it will take a number of hits without quitting. The ceramic trauma plate typically shatters in the process of absorbing the energy from the bullet, meaning within a few hits your Level IV vest has gone to a Level IIIA vest with a pocket of gravel on the front. Individual Dragon Skin armor discs may shatter, but the rest of the vest is intact, and it takes just plain bad luck to take enough hits on one spot to let one get through.
Dragon Skin has seen use by Special Forces in the Afghanistan and Irsq campagins, it's popular because it's light and apparently reliable. Pinnacle has been trying to get their flexible Level III/IV system into the mainstream with the DoD, but they've been hitting some roadblocks in getting the Army to replace their Interceptor system with the Pinnacle SOV-3000. I would guess the main roadblock would be the $3-5000 it costs to outfit every ground-pounder with a new Pinnacle SOV-3000.
In summary, soft body armor isn't bullet-proof, it's bullet-resistant. To survive .223 shots at close range, Jack Bauer had to be wearing NIJ Level III or better armor, either with a trauma plate or Dragon Skin flexible armor with integrated armor scales.
Jack got two kills from the ground. Yawn.
The Score so far:
Jack+Bauer 24 body+armor
Jack swiped the 'FB sub-circuit board' from Mike Doyle at gunpoint, stole his car and headed off to meet Chang with a brick of C4 and a deathwish. After ditching the tracker under some powerlines (thank you, electromagnetic interference), he got to the meet point early and rigged the building to explode. Mike followed him and got there just before the Chinese, who were bringing the soon-to-be-revealed-as-catatonic Audrey Raines. Mike got a team in place, but not quite, and as he found out Chang was about to kill Audrey he capped a guard and everything fell apart.
One of Chang's guards immediately shot Jack at close range with what looked like a Heckler & Koch G36. Jack managed to recover enough to shoot the guard and one other, the only two kills in the last three hours. Chang and his remaining homies got away with the FB sub-circuit board in a plethora of black Hummer H1s, and was lost to tracking. Jack was arrested (again) and taken back to CTU (again) along with Audrey, who as it turns out can't generate much in the way of a complete sentence.
Chang had the gizmo, which includes a part of the decryption algorithm for Russian military equipment, analyzed by one of the apparently countless goateed hackers with intimate knowledge of foreign military systems in the Los Angeles area. The circuit board doesn't work, but nobody but Chang knows that. The Russians know the Chinese have the board because Lisa Miller, the skanky blond the VP has been having an affair with, has been two-timing the VP with a KGB mole.
Audrey was evaluated by a psychiatrist from 'District' (where is that, actually?), who declared her to be a catatonic due to torture and pharmaceuticals and immediately prescribed a regimen to improve her cognitive functions, consisting of torture and pharamceuticals. Mike Doyle let himself be overpowered by Jack, who opened and open-hand can on the psychiatrist and squirreled Audrey away to some dark corner of the CTU complex, and got her to say one word, which led CTU to a chemical factory where Chang is apparently holed up. Big Daddy Raines, the ex-SecDef, told Jack in no uncertain terms that he is not to see Audrey ever again, and stated (correctly, given his history), that Jack is cursed and everyone he loves dies or gets kicked off the series. I don't know if he included Edgar Stiles in this list, but the effect is the same.
Yawn. This is getting to be as bad as Spiderman 3. There's no crying in Spiderman!
Technical Note: Body Armor
The fact that Jack was wearing body armor should not have protected him from an assault rifle at 15 feet. Not all body armor is created equal.
All body armor is for the most part created the same way: fibers of some exceptionally strong material (Kevlar, Twaron, Spectra -- all plastics) are woven into layers and multiple thicknesses of these super-strong fibers are sewn together to make "soft" body armor. The reason soft body armor works is that rather than the kinetic energy of an incoming bullet staying on a tiny point where the bullet impacts, the individual weaved fibers spread the force out over a larger area, meaning that the energy is dissipated into the vest.
The National Institute of Justice has developed a testing system whereby soft body armor is tested to determine its ability to resist penetration and deformation against a variety of standard bullets. Penetration isn't the only thing, deformation is important as well. If a bullet doesn't penetrate a vest but it does allow your chest to be compressed so far it breaks ribs and does equivalent damage, it's not adequate. The NIJ "Levels" are as follows:
Level I will stop low-velocity .38 Special, up to 850fps or a .22 LR at up to 1050 fps. Virtually no vests on the street today are Level I.
Level IIA is equivalent to 16 layers of Kevlar and will stop a 9mm FMJ bullet at up to 1090 fps, or a .357 hollowpoint at up to 1,250 fps. This is good for most street situations.
Level II is equivalent to 22 layers of Kevlar and will stop a 9mm FMJ at up to 1175 fps or a .357 Magnum hollowpoint at up to 1,390 fps. You will likely get less blunt trauma from the force of a bullet compared to level IIA.
Level IIIA is equivalent to 30+ layers of Kevlar and will stop a 9mm FMJ at up to 1400 fps or a .44 Magnum at up to 1400 fps. The 9mm speed is typical for bullets coming out of longer barrels, i.e., submachineguns.
Note how the increase in velocity changes the number of Kevlar layers needed. A 10% increase in velocity separates Level II and Level IIA. This is because velocity is the major determining factor in force, from the equation f=mv^2, where the velocity is squared. To protect against a 10% increase in velocity you have to up the Kevlar thickness by about 35%. To protect against a 40% increase in velocity you need almost 100% more Kevlar between you and the bullet.
Note also the absence of any mentioned rifle bullets in this crowd. Rifles have incredible velocity compared to pistols, a 9mm at 1400fps is considered a "hot" bullet. A .223 (the caliber of the M16, and the G36 the Chinese dude used to shoot at Jack) is considered to be loafing at under 2500fps. Standard .308 rounds do about 2,700 fps out of a rifle barrel. It would take a mattress of Kevlar to have a prayer of stopping a rifle bullet, and most people can't pull off wearing a mattress inconspicuously.
To get above Level IIIA, you need something much sturdier than even Kevlar. At present, the two choices are metal or ceramic composites. The metal can be steel or titanium, the composite is some kind of borosilicate thing that sounds expensive because it is expensive. This is called a "trauma plate", and is worn outside the body armor in a pocket on the front and back of the fabric that holds the armor panels together, called a "carrier". The job of the trauma plate is to absorb the energy of the bullet and/or fragment it, so that the force that comes out of the back of the trauma plate and hits the rest of the vest can be dissipated by the vest itself.
Level III armor will stop at least six rounds .308 Winchester round at 2,750 fps. This is equivalent to 6mm of steel, 13mm of ceramic, or 25mm of extra polyethylene (Spectra).
Level IV armor will stop at least one round of .30-06 military M2 armor piercing ammo at 2,850 fps. This is equivalent to 12mm of specially-treated steel, or 18mm of ceramic.
You could wear a plate without the armor, but the impact would be equivalent to standing on home plate while Barry Bonds swings at a hanging curveball. Or worse. The soft body armor is very important.
And strangely enough, soft body armor is non knife-proof. The force of a knife is over such a small surface area that it can split the armor and still injure you.
The only way that Jack could be wearing body armor and take short-range hits from an assault rifle and not die is if he was wearing Level III armor (hard and soft armor) and was shot in the trauma plate. Otherwise, he'd have big bloody holes front and back. The other possible solution to how he could be wearing body armor and survive is if he was wearing Dragon Skin from Pinnacle Armor.
Dragon Skin is an update of an old concept: scale mail. An outer jacket of large discs of metal were sewn into an overlapping pattern. Swords and arrows would have to pierce the individual metal discs, each of which could rely on its overlapping neighbors for structural support. Dragon Skin replaces the discs of metal with roughly 1" discs of ceramic, in a matrix of Kevlar. For its weight, it tests out better than any other armor and is less than an inch thick. Instead of being a single inflexible plate, it's many small discs that flex easily, enabling it move when the wearer moves. It's certified Level III, and it stops AK rounds as well as .223 rounds. What's more, it will take a number of hits without quitting. The ceramic trauma plate typically shatters in the process of absorbing the energy from the bullet, meaning within a few hits your Level IV vest has gone to a Level IIIA vest with a pocket of gravel on the front. Individual Dragon Skin armor discs may shatter, but the rest of the vest is intact, and it takes just plain bad luck to take enough hits on one spot to let one get through.
Dragon Skin has seen use by Special Forces in the Afghanistan and Irsq campagins, it's popular because it's light and apparently reliable. Pinnacle has been trying to get their flexible Level III/IV system into the mainstream with the DoD, but they've been hitting some roadblocks in getting the Army to replace their Interceptor system with the Pinnacle SOV-3000. I would guess the main roadblock would be the $3-5000 it costs to outfit every ground-pounder with a new Pinnacle SOV-3000.
In summary, soft body armor isn't bullet-proof, it's bullet-resistant. To survive .223 shots at close range, Jack Bauer had to be wearing NIJ Level III or better armor, either with a trauma plate or Dragon Skin flexible armor with integrated armor scales.
Jack got two kills from the ground. Yawn.
The Score so far:
| Method | Score | Notes |
| Biting A Carotid | 9.0 | -1 for lack of Universal Protocol |
| Shooting Curtis | -8 | -10 own goal, +2 neck shot over a hostage |
| Shooting guard while handcuffed | 7.0 | +2 for while handcuffed |
| Shotgun | 5.0 | |
| Shotgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for saving hostages (Milo & Graeme's wife) |
| Handgun | 7.0 | +2 for disarm |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for suppressor, because suppressors are cool |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for suppressor |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for through car window |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 10.0 | +5 for called headshot |
| Neck Snap | 7.0 | Always cool. |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Length of Chain | 8.0 | Strangled Fayed |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Chinese henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Chinese henchman |
| Net | 135.0 |
Jack+Bauer 24 body+armor
Monday, April 16, 2007
Sympathy for Virginia Tech
Just...wow.
Incredible that someone could have such unfocused hatred. Incredible that after shooting over 40 people, the rage is unsatisfied and the shooter still feels the need to shoot. Phenomenal level of depersonalization, those people screaming, they're not really people. How can you line up and shoot people you don't have a specific reason to despise? I can understand being willing to kill if you're threatened, but to line people up and shoot them one after another? Boggles.
There's a natural desire to want to place the shooter outside the human experience, maybe he had a mental illness, he's a fanatic, he played too many video games, etc. I'm not going to draw any inferences about the shooter's motivations or background, at this point that's rather a secondary issue. There are no motivations or explanations that justify this. This will all come out in the next few weeks. Some people have noted that "Asian" is a code-word in the media for "Muslim", at least in Europe. That's the description given by students, so I don't think they're covering up for anything, sometimes "Asian" just refers to one of about 2.5 billion people who share slightly darker skin than Caucasians and an epicanthic fold. The religion issue is also secondary, premature and largely irrelevant at this point, IMO. The blame lies squarely on the person with the murderous intent, no other factor is anywhere near as significant as the decision to kill in a random fashion.
There are some truths that can already be derived. The media is passing around terms like "massacre", I wonder what else they expect when unsuspecting and unarmed people are stuck in a building with someone armed and in a mental state to kill randomly. It's worth noting that in 2006 a bill in the Virgina Legislature that would have allowed college students and others who had a Virginia Concealed Carry Permit to carry on campus was defeated. Accompanying that bill is a now-unfortunate statement by a VT spokesman:
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Right. May have been true at the time, but it didn't seem to help this morning. And the irony is that there was an increased police presence on campus to investigate the first shooting that occurred around 7am while the second and much larger shooting was taking place across campus two hours later. It's hard to conceive of a more ideal situation in terms of law enforcement response time, but nevertheless we're up to 31 innocents and one scum-sucking dirtbag dead even with the police present.
The ugly truth of public mass murders is that the only thing that will reliably stop someone armed with a gun is someone else armed with a gun. This is one of the reasons that people seek out concealed carry permits in the first place. Rather than making areas safer for people, declaring some places "Gun-Free Zones" is hanging out a "Free Buffet!" sign for wanna-be mass murderers. Pretty much by definition, a gun-free zone is the perfect place to commit a mass shooting, because all of your law-abiding victims will be unarmed. If you follow the law you won't be armed when you're there. If you don't follow the law the "NO FIREARMS" sign is good for a laugh as you walk by, and buys you several more minutes of resistance-free mayhem.
Even under ideal circumstances, with one armed person in each classroom, you're still going to lose some people when a mass-murderer goes off. The first attack is basically free, because there just isn't enough time to respond. You have to realize that, yes, you've been shot at or even shot, and then try to figure out what to do about that. The shooter knows what they're doing, you need to go from Remsburg's Condition White to Condition Orange, and then to Condition Red as appropriate. If you're a concealed carry permit holder and armed, your job is to see to the safety of those around you, and prepare to stop the threat with what you have at hand. The Bad Guy will get the first shot, always.
After reading about the Tueller Drill, after 9/11 and Columbine, it's amazing to me that anyone lets themselves be herded around by a gun-wielding person who's within 10 feet. It's horrible to read of students lined up and shot execution-style, that should never happen. And it's not the students' fault, they've never been trained to respond to force with force. And I don't mean they're not Marines, or black-belt holders, I mean nobody has ever looked them in the eyes and told them that when they're being lined up by a gun-wielding person in a school, they're already dead. They can die fighting or they can just die. The folks on Flight 93 understood this, "Let's Roll" should be the title for a school defense course. The Burleson ISD in Burleson, Texas has an active school defense plan, how much better would this work with a classroom full of 18-25 year old students?
The shooting today at VT is one step below the Beslan hostage crisis, and it's an example that as good and as dedicated as our police officers are, they just aren't prepared for a situation like this. US police in hostage situations are trained to contain and negotiate, there are only a few teams in the nation that are trained to go into a school and find and kill a shooter that is determined to kill or be killed. The FBI's Hostage Rescue Team could do it, but they're three hours by air from where I live. The Army's Delta teams could handle it, they're usually overseas. Maybe, maybe, SWAT from Los Angeles or NYC or Dallas could do it, but they're just too far away. The shootings in Norris Hall took only 20-30 minutes to complete, meaning that there is functionally no time to assemble an intervention of highly-trained people when the flag goes up. If you start hearing what sounds like firecrackers, you have: 1) you, and 2) what you have with you. My advice if you're unarmed is to comply only enough to get yourself within range, and then attack with everything you have until you're dead or he's dead.
It's not too hard to imagine that a group the size of the 9/11 hijackers (19-20 people) could simultaneously take over 5-10 schools in a single day, and cause a Beslan-style slaughter in each place. The only thing that has a chance of stopping them is someone else with a gun who will try to kill them before they can kill any more people. CCW permits should be universal and unhindered, CCW permit holders are pretty much by definition the most law-abiding people you'll find next to the people who own Federally-registered automatic weapons. If you really want to stop school violence, that's the best bet the public has. Not only is it free, but we pay for the privilege.
Sympathy and prayers for the students and their families.
PS: Maybe this is an example of why the UCLA cops were so quick to incapacitate someone who was loud and disruptive. They go to school every day thinking "This might be the day someone cracks." Today was the day for Virginia Tech.
Virginia+Tech concealed carry
Jack Bauer Tally: Hours 15, 16 and 17
Even though I've been out of town and busy (cruise, we'll get to that in a future post), Jack's been hard at work.
In Hour 15, Jack tracked down the guy who was trying to hack into the security protocols for a nuclear power plant, and managed to find out that it was actually his autistic brother doing the hacking. To insure the meet went down with Gredenko to transfer the data, Jack used Autistic Brother as bait. After a brief shootout, including a shot through the window of an open car door, Jack captured Gredenko and used Gredenko to get a location on Fayed. Bonus point for a shot through the window.
The CTU guys injected Gredenko's left arm with a radioactive tracer and let him meet Fayed at the Santa Monica Pier. Gredenko dumped his wire and had Fayed's guys cut off his arm with the marker in it so that he couldn't be tracked. Fayed and Gredenko went to leave through a bar, at which point Gredenko ratted out Fayed and the bar patrons charged him, Fayed shot a couple of them but unaccountably his gun was empty after a couple of rounds and Fayed was subdued. Gredenko got away in the melee and died under the pier. On the way into Fayed's meet-up spot, Jack capped a couple of bad guys, including a called headshot (Jack's actual words were "Show me your head"). Bonus for the called headshot.
Jack realized he couldn't torture Fayed to cough up in time (torture really doesn't work for this sort of thing, particularly on True Believers), so he and Mike Doyle set up a false-flag operation to get Fayed to talk. One of the CTU agents pretending to be on Fayed's side made the mistake of giving him a loaded pistol, and well, that ended badly. To secure Fayed's cooperation, the President bullied the Ambassador of Unnamedistan into threatening to kill a General arrested for complicity in the Fayed attacks by threatening to kill his kids. Apparently there was a code word exchanged, so Fayed killed the team that was with him, shot a garbageman and stole a truck, heading off to meet with the rest of his team and get the last two bombs.
Jack secreted himself under the truck and right next to the transmission, which made it hard for him to be heard when he radioed CTU. When the truck arrived at the destination, Jack neck-snapped the flunky detailed to guard the truck, shot the last five guys and ended up going hand-to-hand with Fayed when both of their pistols were empty. After taking yet another beating, Jack managed to sling a chain around Fayed's neck and winch him to his asphyxiatory demise. Bombs secured, world saved.
And then came the call from the one person Jack actually wants to kill: the Chinese guy who kidnapped him in the first place, and who has Audrey Raines in his evil clutches. According to the previews, Jack's going to have to fight CTU and everybody to go after Audrey, something tells me the Chinese are going to offer to trade her for him. The stage is set for the last six hours, and something tells me that by the time Jack is done the list of "Greatest Killers of the Chinese People" will go something like this:
1. Mao Zedong.
2. The Empire of Japan, 1931-1945 (tie)
2. Jack Bauer (tie)
4. Bubonic plague.
Technical Notes
1. Never give someone you don't trust a functional pistol. Removing the striker and/or firing pin is a good way to make a pistol look usable but in actuality be completely useless, other than as a way to club people at close range. Unprimed, unloaded ammo (i.e., a bullet in an empty case) is another option. Given the short period of time available, you can disassemble a Glock and remove the striker within 5 minutes, that's the route I would have gone.
2. The CTU folks would have been better served with a radiotracer like FDG, a tracer used in PET imaging. It's a sugar analogue that is taken up all over the body within half an hour, and the energy it produces is pretty high -- 512 kEV. This means it will be emitted right though walls, etc., it's pretty active and it can't be defeated by cutting off an arm. Half-life is relatively short, but it would be enough for a properly-equipped airborne detector to spot for a couple of hours.
3. Jack and Fayed both shot their pistols empty. Jack should have been carrying a spare magazine, or the "New York Reload" of another pistol. When yours goes empty, just pull out #2 and get after it. Jack should know better. Concealed carry people: YOU ARE UNDERDRESSED IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SPARE MAG.
The Score so far:
Jack's getting back on track, Hour 17 is pretty much midseason form for prior seasons.
Jack+Bauer 24
In Hour 15, Jack tracked down the guy who was trying to hack into the security protocols for a nuclear power plant, and managed to find out that it was actually his autistic brother doing the hacking. To insure the meet went down with Gredenko to transfer the data, Jack used Autistic Brother as bait. After a brief shootout, including a shot through the window of an open car door, Jack captured Gredenko and used Gredenko to get a location on Fayed. Bonus point for a shot through the window.
The CTU guys injected Gredenko's left arm with a radioactive tracer and let him meet Fayed at the Santa Monica Pier. Gredenko dumped his wire and had Fayed's guys cut off his arm with the marker in it so that he couldn't be tracked. Fayed and Gredenko went to leave through a bar, at which point Gredenko ratted out Fayed and the bar patrons charged him, Fayed shot a couple of them but unaccountably his gun was empty after a couple of rounds and Fayed was subdued. Gredenko got away in the melee and died under the pier. On the way into Fayed's meet-up spot, Jack capped a couple of bad guys, including a called headshot (Jack's actual words were "Show me your head"). Bonus for the called headshot.
Jack realized he couldn't torture Fayed to cough up in time (torture really doesn't work for this sort of thing, particularly on True Believers), so he and Mike Doyle set up a false-flag operation to get Fayed to talk. One of the CTU agents pretending to be on Fayed's side made the mistake of giving him a loaded pistol, and well, that ended badly. To secure Fayed's cooperation, the President bullied the Ambassador of Unnamedistan into threatening to kill a General arrested for complicity in the Fayed attacks by threatening to kill his kids. Apparently there was a code word exchanged, so Fayed killed the team that was with him, shot a garbageman and stole a truck, heading off to meet with the rest of his team and get the last two bombs.
Jack secreted himself under the truck and right next to the transmission, which made it hard for him to be heard when he radioed CTU. When the truck arrived at the destination, Jack neck-snapped the flunky detailed to guard the truck, shot the last five guys and ended up going hand-to-hand with Fayed when both of their pistols were empty. After taking yet another beating, Jack managed to sling a chain around Fayed's neck and winch him to his asphyxiatory demise. Bombs secured, world saved.
And then came the call from the one person Jack actually wants to kill: the Chinese guy who kidnapped him in the first place, and who has Audrey Raines in his evil clutches. According to the previews, Jack's going to have to fight CTU and everybody to go after Audrey, something tells me the Chinese are going to offer to trade her for him. The stage is set for the last six hours, and something tells me that by the time Jack is done the list of "Greatest Killers of the Chinese People" will go something like this:
1. Mao Zedong.
2. The Empire of Japan, 1931-1945 (tie)
2. Jack Bauer (tie)
4. Bubonic plague.
Technical Notes
1. Never give someone you don't trust a functional pistol. Removing the striker and/or firing pin is a good way to make a pistol look usable but in actuality be completely useless, other than as a way to club people at close range. Unprimed, unloaded ammo (i.e., a bullet in an empty case) is another option. Given the short period of time available, you can disassemble a Glock and remove the striker within 5 minutes, that's the route I would have gone.
2. The CTU folks would have been better served with a radiotracer like FDG, a tracer used in PET imaging. It's a sugar analogue that is taken up all over the body within half an hour, and the energy it produces is pretty high -- 512 kEV. This means it will be emitted right though walls, etc., it's pretty active and it can't be defeated by cutting off an arm. Half-life is relatively short, but it would be enough for a properly-equipped airborne detector to spot for a couple of hours.
3. Jack and Fayed both shot their pistols empty. Jack should have been carrying a spare magazine, or the "New York Reload" of another pistol. When yours goes empty, just pull out #2 and get after it. Jack should know better. Concealed carry people: YOU ARE UNDERDRESSED IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SPARE MAG.
The Score so far:
| Method | Score | Notes |
| Biting A Carotid | 9.0 | -1 for lack of Universal Protocol |
| Shooting Curtis | -8 | -10 own goal, +2 neck shot over a hostage |
| Shooting guard while handcuffed | 7.0 | +2 for while handcuffed |
| Shotgun | 5.0 | |
| Shotgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for saving hostages (Milo & Graeme's wife) |
| Handgun | 7.0 | +2 for disarm |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for suppressor, because suppressors are cool |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for suppressor |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for through car window |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 10.0 | +5 for called headshot |
| Neck Snap | 7.0 | Always cool. |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Handgun | 5.0 | Fayed henchman |
| Length of Chain | 8.0 | Strangled Fayed |
| Net | 125.0 |
Jack's getting back on track, Hour 17 is pretty much midseason form for prior seasons.
Jack+Bauer 24
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Jack Bauer Tally: Hour 14
Mopping up after the largest slaughter of Russians since Afghanistan, Jack relocates back to CTU and has his broken ribs splinted. The EMT guy says he "could have floating rib fragments, that could lead to internal bleeding", apparently he don't know Jack, so to speak.
The bad guys get their stealth drone into the air, headed for parts unknown but later to be revealed as San Francisco. They have a back door into the CTU system that lets them spoof the satellite tracking of their drone.
The lunatic VP-who-is-acting-President is going to nuke a patch of desert in Middleeasternstan to show that he means business if the second bomb goes off. Karen Hayes is understandably dismayed, Tom won't step in to change anything. The only one that can stop this is President Palmer, and he's just been put into a medical coma to stop brain swelling.
Jack got some bad news, apparently Audrey is dead. The official story is that she perished in China in a car accident, and there is "DNA evidence" to that effect. Any time a questionable incident off-camera is presented as a fait accompli in 24, it usually means the official story is wrong or a cover-up. Do I smell Season 7?
The data link the Russian drone pilot is using to stay undetected is detected, and traced to Nadia Yasser's station. Chloe had already confronted Nadia and Milo about Nadia using Milo's login to get around security restrictions placed on Nadia because she's a Muslim, but it's not clear whether or not Nadia and Milo undid what they did. Nadia is arrested and dragged to a holding room where Ricky Schroeder chokes her and she calls him a sadist, which he doesn't deny. Jason Bateman would have already been pulling fingernails if Silver Spoons is any guide, so she got off light. Milo looks pensive, probably because they'll figure out that at least he's committed a felony by letting her use his login, and at worst he's going to get busted if he planted the spoofing software.
Conveniently, the drone pilot is just three blocks from CTU, so Mike Doyle (Ricky Schroeder) and Jack round up a CTU posse and break in. Jack gets two kills with a silenced pistol, the pilot is disabled and the drone steered not over the Pacific, which would be too easy, but to Oakland where it crash-lands without detonating and spreads nuclear material on the docks. Bill Buchanan tells the Vice-President that the first responders "almost assuredly got a lethal dose", though in reality plutonium is only really toxic if inhaled. The VP orders a nuclear strike and is told that the sub will be in position to fire "within the hour", then the episode ends.
Technical Note
"Silencer" is a misnomer, almost no weapons are actually silenced. People in the know call the cylindrical doo-dads on the ends of pistols "suppressors" (or "cans", if they're really cool), because that's actually what they do. The noise made by a gunshot is composed of two or three separate sounds, depending on the round being fired. The two invariable sounds you'll here are the mechanical noise of the pistol being fired and the action working, and the explosion of burning powder and gas exiting the muzzle and pushing the bullet out of the barrel. If the bullet is supersonic (nearly all rifle bullets are supersonic, and some pistol bullets are supersonic), there is an additional sound from the bullet's shockwave as it breaks the speed of sound and produces a sonic boom.
To "silence" a weapon, you have to address all of these sounds, and only a few weapons have ever been truly silent. The Welrod pistol and the DeLisle carbine from World War II were some of the few really silent weapons, the Welrod was bolt-action pistol and the DeLisle was a modified British bolt-action rifle that fired the US .45 ACP pistol round. For both weapons, the only audible sound with firing was the click of the hammer hitting the primer.
Work on suppressors continued after World War II. The two main kinds of suppressors are ones that work with "wipes", typically rubber discs in a cylinder that trap the expanding gas, and more sturdy designs based on metallic baffles that trap, cool and slow down the gases shooting out of the barrel. One of the main advances in suppressor technology was designing the baffles so that the sound produced becomes very high frequency, to the point where it's practically inaudible. A dog would go "WHAT WAS THAT?!", but humans don't sense that sound very well. The precise appearance, number and design of baffles is the province of PhDs and patents, and the materials used are often the strongest, most heat-resistant metals in common use. The suppressors based on wipes may last only a few shots before the discs become ineffective, but the baffle-designed suppressors can last thousands of rounds.
Metallic baffle silencer
The supersonic issue is easier to manage than you might think. For one thing, heavier bullets that don't exceed the speed of sound (roughly 1000fps at sea level) are actually fairly common in pistol rounds, nearly all the loads for .45 ACP are subsonic, and there's even a heavy 9mm bullet that leaves a normal barrel at less than the speed of sound.
Some weapons that have the suppressor built into the weapon itself, like the MP5-SD shown above and the DeLisle, have a perforated barrel to prevent the gas from pushing the round past the speed of sound. Even without using a subsonic projectile, suppressors make it very difficult to locate the source of gunfire with human hearing. The supersonic crack may be audible, but it's a non-directional sound that is not helpful in determining where the shot originated.
Suppressors are legal Class III devices, each suppressor requires a $200 transfer tax and an application to the BATFE, but they are legal for civilian use. For home defense they're a good option if you can afford them because firing a weapon makes a LOT of noise, to the point where you can add "permanent hearing loss" to the list of your costs for defending your home. Suppressors are popular for urban combat because they reduce noise and often completely mask the flash signature of firing at night. The other plus is that since the suppressor traps the gas column coming out behind the bullet, accuracy can actually be improved with a well-designed and well-fitted suppressor. And most importantly, a suppressor allows you to fire a weapon without being identified by sound as having done so. Pistols sound like firecrackers, if you hear pop!-pop!-pop!-pop! in the distance (and you're near a gun range) you're hearing gunfire. Most people don't immediately identify fsst!-fsst!-fsst!-fsst! as suppressed gunfire.
One common Hollywood error is the sight of a suppressed revolver, the most egregious case is Magnum Force where David Soul snaps a suppressor onto a Colt Python.
All revolvers with the exception of the Nagant revolver have a "gap", a bit of open air between the cylinder and the barrel that the fired bullet has to cross to get into the barrel. This gap makes silencing a revolver functionally impossible.
The Score so far:
Jack+Bauer 24 silencer
The bad guys get their stealth drone into the air, headed for parts unknown but later to be revealed as San Francisco. They have a back door into the CTU system that lets them spoof the satellite tracking of their drone.
The lunatic VP-who-is-acting-President is going to nuke a patch of desert in Middleeasternstan to show that he means business if the second bomb goes off. Karen Hayes is understandably dismayed, Tom won't step in to change anything. The only one that can stop this is President Palmer, and he's just been put into a medical coma to stop brain swelling.
Jack got some bad news, apparently Audrey is dead. The official story is that she perished in China in a car accident, and there is "DNA evidence" to that effect. Any time a questionable incident off-camera is presented as a fait accompli in 24, it usually means the official story is wrong or a cover-up. Do I smell Season 7?
The data link the Russian drone pilot is using to stay undetected is detected, and traced to Nadia Yasser's station. Chloe had already confronted Nadia and Milo about Nadia using Milo's login to get around security restrictions placed on Nadia because she's a Muslim, but it's not clear whether or not Nadia and Milo undid what they did. Nadia is arrested and dragged to a holding room where Ricky Schroeder chokes her and she calls him a sadist, which he doesn't deny. Jason Bateman would have already been pulling fingernails if Silver Spoons is any guide, so she got off light. Milo looks pensive, probably because they'll figure out that at least he's committed a felony by letting her use his login, and at worst he's going to get busted if he planted the spoofing software.
Conveniently, the drone pilot is just three blocks from CTU, so Mike Doyle (Ricky Schroeder) and Jack round up a CTU posse and break in. Jack gets two kills with a silenced pistol, the pilot is disabled and the drone steered not over the Pacific, which would be too easy, but to Oakland where it crash-lands without detonating and spreads nuclear material on the docks. Bill Buchanan tells the Vice-President that the first responders "almost assuredly got a lethal dose", though in reality plutonium is only really toxic if inhaled. The VP orders a nuclear strike and is told that the sub will be in position to fire "within the hour", then the episode ends.
Technical Note
"Silencer" is a misnomer, almost no weapons are actually silenced. People in the know call the cylindrical doo-dads on the ends of pistols "suppressors" (or "cans", if they're really cool), because that's actually what they do. The noise made by a gunshot is composed of two or three separate sounds, depending on the round being fired. The two invariable sounds you'll here are the mechanical noise of the pistol being fired and the action working, and the explosion of burning powder and gas exiting the muzzle and pushing the bullet out of the barrel. If the bullet is supersonic (nearly all rifle bullets are supersonic, and some pistol bullets are supersonic), there is an additional sound from the bullet's shockwave as it breaks the speed of sound and produces a sonic boom.
To "silence" a weapon, you have to address all of these sounds, and only a few weapons have ever been truly silent. The Welrod pistol and the DeLisle carbine from World War II were some of the few really silent weapons, the Welrod was bolt-action pistol and the DeLisle was a modified British bolt-action rifle that fired the US .45 ACP pistol round. For both weapons, the only audible sound with firing was the click of the hammer hitting the primer.
Work on suppressors continued after World War II. The two main kinds of suppressors are ones that work with "wipes", typically rubber discs in a cylinder that trap the expanding gas, and more sturdy designs based on metallic baffles that trap, cool and slow down the gases shooting out of the barrel. One of the main advances in suppressor technology was designing the baffles so that the sound produced becomes very high frequency, to the point where it's practically inaudible. A dog would go "WHAT WAS THAT?!", but humans don't sense that sound very well. The precise appearance, number and design of baffles is the province of PhDs and patents, and the materials used are often the strongest, most heat-resistant metals in common use. The suppressors based on wipes may last only a few shots before the discs become ineffective, but the baffle-designed suppressors can last thousands of rounds.
Metallic baffle silencerThe supersonic issue is easier to manage than you might think. For one thing, heavier bullets that don't exceed the speed of sound (roughly 1000fps at sea level) are actually fairly common in pistol rounds, nearly all the loads for .45 ACP are subsonic, and there's even a heavy 9mm bullet that leaves a normal barrel at less than the speed of sound.
Some weapons that have the suppressor built into the weapon itself, like the MP5-SD shown above and the DeLisle, have a perforated barrel to prevent the gas from pushing the round past the speed of sound. Even without using a subsonic projectile, suppressors make it very difficult to locate the source of gunfire with human hearing. The supersonic crack may be audible, but it's a non-directional sound that is not helpful in determining where the shot originated.
Suppressors are legal Class III devices, each suppressor requires a $200 transfer tax and an application to the BATFE, but they are legal for civilian use. For home defense they're a good option if you can afford them because firing a weapon makes a LOT of noise, to the point where you can add "permanent hearing loss" to the list of your costs for defending your home. Suppressors are popular for urban combat because they reduce noise and often completely mask the flash signature of firing at night. The other plus is that since the suppressor traps the gas column coming out behind the bullet, accuracy can actually be improved with a well-designed and well-fitted suppressor. And most importantly, a suppressor allows you to fire a weapon without being identified by sound as having done so. Pistols sound like firecrackers, if you hear pop!-pop!-pop!-pop! in the distance (and you're near a gun range) you're hearing gunfire. Most people don't immediately identify fsst!-fsst!-fsst!-fsst! as suppressed gunfire.
One common Hollywood error is the sight of a suppressed revolver, the most egregious case is Magnum Force where David Soul snaps a suppressor onto a Colt Python.
All revolvers with the exception of the Nagant revolver have a "gap", a bit of open air between the cylinder and the barrel that the fired bullet has to cross to get into the barrel. This gap makes silencing a revolver functionally impossible.
The Score so far:
| Method | Score | Notes |
| Biting A Carotid | 9.0 | -1 for lack of Universal Protocol |
| Shooting Curtis | -8 | -10 own goal, +2 neck shot over a hostage |
| Shooting guard while handcuffed | 7.0 | +2 for while handcuffed |
| Shotgun | 5.0 | |
| Shotgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for saving hostages (Milo & Graeme's wife) |
| Handgun | 7.0 | +2 for disarm |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for suppressor, because suppressors are cool |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for suppressor |
| Net | 64.0 |
Jack+Bauer 24 silencer
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Frank Facts About Fred Thompson
Frank J, the proprietor at IMAO, is just screamingly funny.
If you enjoy the Chuck Norris Facts or Jack Bauer Facts, Frank has a list of Fred Thompson Facts for your perusal.
The funniest one is probably in the comments:
If Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called '1'. And people would now be decorating their homes with 'Fred' rugs.
Fred+Thompson IMAO humor
Movie Review: '300'
300, directed by Zack Snyder and adapted from a Frank Miller graphic novel of the same name, is yet another retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae. It's generating plenty of battles on its own. The basic story of the movie has been known for almost 2500 years, since Herodotus first wrote it down: 300 Spartans led by one of their kings, Leonidas, stood for three days against a Persian army of hundreds of thousands, and died at the pass of Thermopylae in Greece in 480 BC. Their sacrifice was an inspiration to the Greek city-states, who temporarily stopped killing each other long enough to fend off an invasion by the largest empire the world had ever seen, and subsequent events in Greece formed the basis of Western Civilization.
My exposure to the history of the Battle of Thermopylae comes from a circuitous route. In reading We Were Soldiers Once...And Young, the book by Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and Joe Galloway, from which the movie We Were Soldiers came, there was a section about why men fight, and what it's like to be a soldier -- not the physical experience, but the mindset. Both that book and another Vietnam memoir, Steel My Soldiers' Hearts by David Hackworth recommended yet another book: Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield.
It seemed odd that non-fiction books about Vietnam referenced a novel about ancient Greece, of all things, to explain the mindset of men in combat, the fraternity and lifelong bonds that the most dire of circumstances will produce. It seemed odd, that is, until I read Gates of Fire for myself, and I have to tell you, it's about the only book that has ever had me close to tears. I get close to tears when I read about the 19 year-old Marine who gets shot, and in shock and in pain apologizes to his Sergeant for being wounded, and whose first concern is for his squadmates who will be denied his assistance in the rest of the battle. There's a selflessness there that is out of place in a self-centered world, yet another reason that the military is unpopular in certain circles these days. The military shows us a high standard of selflessness that can be difficult to face, particularly by people whose concept of selflessness consists primarily of proscribing the speech of others and taking a day off of work to go to the protest. 'Courage' and 'sacrifice' are frequently ignored or defamed by people with lesser definitions of those qualities.
Having read Steven Pressfield's version of the historic battle (and having never covered much in the way of Greek history other than mythology in school), I was eagerly anticipating the Frank Miller/Zack Snyder version. The day before the opening I was talking to one of the young women at the office who indicated that her boyfriend had already gotten tickets for the next day, and she remarked that "Every guy I've talked to wants to see that movie. I guess they just like all that violence and gore." I replied that if men wanted to see violence and gore there are plenty of options, the Saw series comes to mind. What motivates men to see 300 and to be drawn to the story in general, in my estimation, was the example of a stand against impossible odds, to draw your line in the sand and pit your will and your strength against the other's. And most importantly, to do that beside your dedicated friends, men who have your back, who trust you and in whom you trust. The Spartans are the ultimate football team.
I must admit, there's also a certain adolescent impishness that makes the Spartans (in the commercials and trailers, as well as the movie) appealing, especially to younger men. They're tough, they're bad, and they'll tell you the same to your face. When called to lay down their arms, the Spartans respond "Come and get them." When Xerxes offers Leonidas an amicable sharing of cultures after the first day's slaughter of Persians, Leonidas respones with a smirk, "We've been sharing our culture with you all day." One of the Spartans (they have names, but they aren't really important to the plot) is threatened by a Persian that "Our arrows will blot out the Sun!", to which he replies, "Then we will fight in the shade." The Spartans are nothing if not cool, until the fight starts, at which point they're deadly, efficient and largely smarter than the poor saps they're fighting. In short, they talk the talk and they walk the walk, something to which most young men aspire. I was in no way surprised that the 9:30 showing last Saturday was probably 70% male.
The other strong presence in the movie is Gorgo, Leonidas' wife who stays at home yet still fights for her husband, attempting vainly to rouse the Spartans to follow her husband and the 300 on the slim hope of rescuing him. She's as strong in her way as Leonidas is in his, and toward the end of the film she provided the loudest "Woohoo!" moment in the movie. At one point the Persian envoy who comes to deliver the first message from Xerxes to Leonidas and the Spartans is shocked that she speaks in his presence. She calmly puts him in his place. From the portrayal in the movie, it's even more obvious why Gorgo is queen than why Leonidas is king, she's an admirable figure.
There are multiple historical inaccuracies. A portion of the Persian fleet did sink in a storm, but it was on the other side of the island of Euboea, and out of sight of the Spartans. The Spartans wore armor in battle, their shields were bronze-covered wood, not solid metal, the swords are a bit fanciful. The Spartans weren't dead-set against slavery, they had a servant-class called helots that were pretty close to chattel slaves, these do not appear in the movie. When Leonidas bellows about "free men", he's talking about free Spartan citizens, but some license is in order. Democracy and the rights of the individual have to start somewhere, and Sparta was one of the places it started. Leonidas never spoke with Xerxes, and Xerxes is not indicated as being eight feet tall, bald and pierced in the historical record. The Spartans neither fought nor died alone, even at the end somewhere between 700 and 1,100 other Greeks stood and fought with them.
The controversy over the movie comes in two major and one minor flavors: there are several critics who write the phrase, "There's a war on!" as a criticism, and there are a lot of people objecting to the portrayal of the Persians in the movie. The other comment about the movie I find more than a little silly is that it's homophobic, a criticism that rests on one derisive line about Athenians (they are referred to as "boy-lovers") and the fact that Xerxes looks to some reviewers like a "club queen" or an ancient analogue of RuPaul. To deal with the minor issue first, the Spartans never liked the Athenians on general principles, you have to be extremely hypersensitive to focus on two words out of a whole movie. Also, the visual of Xerxes is Frank Miller's, compared to the, well, spartan Spartans there has to be a visual way to communicate "the Other" and this is the way Xerxes was portrayed. It takes a mind bent on finding offense to find homophobia as a strong undercurrent, given the other outstanding inaccuracies of the movie.
The "There's a war on!" people like to try to raise questions about whether Xerxes or Leonidas is the George W. Bush of the film, and whether or not the film promotes violence. I can understand the perspective, particularly if you approach it from the US being decadent and expansionist and sinful and the insurgents of Iraq or Afghanistan as noble and peace-loving people who fight to protect their way of life. I don't see the world this way, and on as simple a question as "How do the Perisans and Spartans perceive the role of women?" the question is answered. The other issue would be who does the fighting and for what reason, the Spartans send 300 volunteers, a tiny force, to accomplish a huge mission. The Persians drive their non-volunteer troops to battle upon fear of death and in fear of the God-King, to avenge an insult. Slot in the ummah for the God-King and a religious philosophy that even today demands submission and fidelity beyond that given to a nation-state and you have a pretty good Islamist analogue for the Persian troops. There is also some concern that a pro-military movie might (gasp!) encourage young men to enlist. Wonder if that held up the producers of Guadalcanal Diary? Frank Miller comes across as an unabashed conservative in this audio clip from NPR, I'm pretty sure that if the movie means the Army and Marines don't have to scramble for recruits it won't be the worst thing to happen, in his opinion.
Gorgo at the forum in Sparta pleading for assistance for the few volunteer Spartans fighting for their lives far away may just be too accurate a picture of Western civilization circa 2007: peaceful at home and uninvolved while a few fight across the globe against a real threat that as a civilization we'd rather not notice. The Spartans at home seem to say, "They're at war with Athens, not us. The Athenians shouldn't have provoked them," much as some in Europe (and those Americans who want desperately to be Europeans) say, "The Islamist terrorists are attacking the Americans and the Israelis. The Americans and Israelis shouldn't have provoked them." As if that will stop the onslaught. It did nothing for the Phocians, who abandoned their posts and allowed the defenders of Thermopylae to be surrounded and eventually defeated. If current political figures are anywhere in the movie, George W. Bush is Gorgo and most of Europe's political elite is Theron, including the rape in return for help that never comes. If only GWB was as articulate as Gorgo...but I digress.
The other criticism comes from modern-day Persians, including the Government of Iran. Some of this criticism is valid, some is not. The invalid parts center around the CIA's involvment in bringing the movie to fruition, if the CIA had CGI capabilites this good, we would have 'found' WMDs a long time ago in Iraq. The Iranian government is having a cow over a movie and events that predate the birth of their prophet by a millennium, it's just more in a stream of idiocy that seems to pour forth like a fountain from Tehran. I wish the CIA were this good, about the only government the CIA seems to be threat to these days in that of the United States.
The Persians who feel slighted by the portrayal of Xerxes have a historical point, the Persian empire was considerably more liberal in its administration of its territories than comparable empires, by and large as long as the taxes arrived they didn't impose religion on people and left them alone. They may have been the first to do this but they were by no means the last, Rome employed a similar strategy. They also point out that Xerxes was simply responding to an Athenian provocation that occurred 20 years earlier, and to the prior Persian defeat at Marathon, 10 years before Thermopylae. For the sake of argument let's concede the point that the Persians are generic bad guys made fanciful and freakish for the movie, but the tip for careful viewers that this wasn't a historical film should have been at least by the point in the movie where 'The Immortals', Xerxes' personal guard showed up wearing Greek theater masks and swinging katanas. One would think that the fact that the only actual things in the movie are the actors playing the soldiers and the rest is CGI would have been the first clue. Compared to the contemporary falsehoods that are believed to be truths by many in the Arab world after viewing the movie Valley of the Wolves Iraq, license with historical accuracy from 2500 years ago may be somewhat easier to overlook than license with events from less than four years ago.
300 is a spectacularly violent movie that is not for children, but tells a story of a brave battle for high stakes and higher ideals that still has relevance today. There is nudity and dudity, some of the makeup and costumes are a little gross. But if you're an adult, have eight bucks you can spare and a couple of hours to kill, I highly recommend it.
300 movie+review
Weird Thought Of The Day
We were watching The Sound Of Music on DVD night before last and I couldn't stop giggling thinking about how different a movie it might have been with Georg Von Trapp played by Christopher Walken instead of Christopher Plummer.
Consider that the next time you see the movie.
Christoper+Walken weird The+Sound+Of+Music
Consider that the next time you see the movie.
Christoper+Walken weird The+Sound+Of+Music
Jack Bauer Tally: Hour 13
Well, last week was pretty uneventful from a Jack Bauer standpoint, he just broke into the Russian Consulate and cut off the left pinky finger of the Consul-General with a cigar cutter. Then he got blown up by a breaching charge (an explosive designed to rapidly open a door) and subdued by the Russian Consulate guards. He convinced a Russian security guy to call CTU and rat out the Consul-General, but evidently this fellow was Aaron Pierce's overly-trusting opposite number, because another guard shot this guard in the back of the head and hung up on CTU. Jack gets no points for a pinky, leaving Hour 12 with a fat zero net points.
In Hour 13, Jack disarmed the Bad Russian with the Dead Good Russian's belt, after being thrown down the stairs. Scuffling ensued, basically Jack got the Bad Russian's Makarov pistol and shot him with it, though he found himself trapped in the basement. Five points for the kill, plus two for the escape. Later in the episode the Russians found out where he was hiding and charged the room with AKs blazing, Jack got three more kills and was rescued by Mike Doyle (Ricky Schroeder) and his tactical team, who appear to have killed everyone else in the building in about 15 seconds, except the pretty Russian chick. It seems that really pretty people can't die in 24, they seem to have "charisma armor" or something. The blonde woman that was the arms dealer's girlfriend was unceremoniously executed, so it's not a hard-and-fast rule, but it's the way to bet.
The Makarov is a decent little Russian-designed double-action pistol that at least conceptually resembles the Walther PPK. It fires a 9x18mm (first number is diameter, second is case length) round that is between the .380 ACP (9x17mm) and 9mm Parabellum (9x19mm) in size as well as performance. It is useful for its intended purpose (shooting dissidents in the back of the head), but it's no tack-driver in terms of accuracy and production quality ranged from superb to abysmal.
The Europeans didn't seem to consider the pistol a fighting tool after World War I and always liked smaller calibers than we typically used. Police officers would actually be sent out on the streets with a self-loading .32 ACP as a defensive weapon, making the pistol the equivalent of a badge of office rather than a useful item. That is perhaps too severe a criticism, a .32 ACP is more effective than harsh language, at least at close quarters. This European fad burned out in the late 20th Century and now European firearms makers crank out a wide variety of "real" pistols in less-than-anemic calibers, and arm their police officers fairly well. Modern European police pistols include the Heckler & Koch P7, the SIG Arms P225 and P220, and other, more capable firearms.
Russian, East German and Bulgarian Makarovs were imported into the US in fairly large numbers in the 1990s, and were pretty cheap as pistols go, as little as $150, with the Russian and especially East German models fetching higher prices. As a backup gun they're not a bad option, but I'm pretty sure Jack would have preferred something else.
The Score so far:
Jack+Bauer 24
In Hour 13, Jack disarmed the Bad Russian with the Dead Good Russian's belt, after being thrown down the stairs. Scuffling ensued, basically Jack got the Bad Russian's Makarov pistol and shot him with it, though he found himself trapped in the basement. Five points for the kill, plus two for the escape. Later in the episode the Russians found out where he was hiding and charged the room with AKs blazing, Jack got three more kills and was rescued by Mike Doyle (Ricky Schroeder) and his tactical team, who appear to have killed everyone else in the building in about 15 seconds, except the pretty Russian chick. It seems that really pretty people can't die in 24, they seem to have "charisma armor" or something. The blonde woman that was the arms dealer's girlfriend was unceremoniously executed, so it's not a hard-and-fast rule, but it's the way to bet.
The Makarov is a decent little Russian-designed double-action pistol that at least conceptually resembles the Walther PPK. It fires a 9x18mm (first number is diameter, second is case length) round that is between the .380 ACP (9x17mm) and 9mm Parabellum (9x19mm) in size as well as performance. It is useful for its intended purpose (shooting dissidents in the back of the head), but it's no tack-driver in terms of accuracy and production quality ranged from superb to abysmal.
The Europeans didn't seem to consider the pistol a fighting tool after World War I and always liked smaller calibers than we typically used. Police officers would actually be sent out on the streets with a self-loading .32 ACP as a defensive weapon, making the pistol the equivalent of a badge of office rather than a useful item. That is perhaps too severe a criticism, a .32 ACP is more effective than harsh language, at least at close quarters. This European fad burned out in the late 20th Century and now European firearms makers crank out a wide variety of "real" pistols in less-than-anemic calibers, and arm their police officers fairly well. Modern European police pistols include the Heckler & Koch P7, the SIG Arms P225 and P220, and other, more capable firearms.
Russian, East German and Bulgarian Makarovs were imported into the US in fairly large numbers in the 1990s, and were pretty cheap as pistols go, as little as $150, with the Russian and especially East German models fetching higher prices. As a backup gun they're not a bad option, but I'm pretty sure Jack would have preferred something else.
The Score so far:
| Method | Score | Notes |
| Biting A Carotid | 9.0 | -1 for lack of Universal Protocol |
| Shooting Curtis | -8 | -10 own goal, +2 neck shot over a hostage |
| Shooting guard while handcuffed | 7.0 | +2 for while handcuffed |
| Shotgun | 5.0 | |
| Shotgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 6.0 | +1 for saving hostages (Milo & Graeme's wife) |
| Handgun | 7.0 | +2 for disarm |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Handgun | 5.0 | |
| Net | 52.0 |
Jack+Bauer 24
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Bangladesh Trial Update
If you remember my previous posts, the trial of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury for blasphemy for daring to write articles critical of Al Qaeda in Bangladesh and for advocating economic relations with Israel (as the charges read, "sedition, treason and blasphemy" -- right) was supposed to go off January 22, 2007.
The good news is that the government witnesses didn't show up, and apparently the government of Bangladesh is getting the picture that this trial isn't helping their image in the democratic countries of the world. Other good news is that the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed, in a bipartisan fashion and without dissent, a resolution calling for the government of Bangladesh to drop all charges against Mr. Choudhury. It should go to the full House soon.
The bad news is that while the government of Bangladesh had apparently told everyone concerned about the issue that there would be three hearings and no witnesses would show up, allowing the issue to be dropped, two witnesses showed up for his February 28 trial, and thus the trial has to continue. Given that the judge in the case is inclined to favor the Islamists, this is not a good thing for Mr. Choudhury.
Ask your representatives to co-sponsor House Resolution 64 (text (PDF)).
This just ain't right, folks.
Bangladesh Choudhury trial
The good news is that the government witnesses didn't show up, and apparently the government of Bangladesh is getting the picture that this trial isn't helping their image in the democratic countries of the world. Other good news is that the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed, in a bipartisan fashion and without dissent, a resolution calling for the government of Bangladesh to drop all charges against Mr. Choudhury. It should go to the full House soon.
The bad news is that while the government of Bangladesh had apparently told everyone concerned about the issue that there would be three hearings and no witnesses would show up, allowing the issue to be dropped, two witnesses showed up for his February 28 trial, and thus the trial has to continue. Given that the judge in the case is inclined to favor the Islamists, this is not a good thing for Mr. Choudhury.
Ask your representatives to co-sponsor House Resolution 64 (text (PDF)).
This just ain't right, folks.
Bangladesh Choudhury trial
Friday, March 02, 2007
Hyperpower? By Default.
Max Boot of the LA Times lays out the reason the US is the sole superpower left in the world, in the process of talking about why Tony Blair had to reduce Britain's troop committment in Iraq:
Adding all of Canada's 62,000 active duty soldiers to the British Army equals the manpower of the Marine Corps. The US does have the largest defense expenditures in the world at a shade over $500 billion a year, but that is just 4% of GDP and nowhere near Cold War-level expenditures, which were often 9% of GDP or higher. Meanwhile, Euroland has dropped its GDP expenditure for defense to 1.9%, on average. All of the EU armed forces together -- a geographic and economic power equal or greater in size to the United States -- can't muster a force anywhere near ours, and is woefully lacking in force projection, the ability to get boots on the ground around the world.
Why does the US "go it alone"? Because we functionally "go it alone" even when our allies come on board, in terms of numbers and capabilities. Barring some tectonic shift in European politics and budget priorities, even the "full support" of our traditional allies amounts to little more than political cover and a pat on the back. This is one of those times where appearance is more important than reality, because the reality is that if we fight in the future we'll be on our own in the field. Our French, German and British friends may stand behind us, but the reality is that they'll for the most part be behind us indeed -- like, back in Paris, Berlin and London.
This is not disparagment of the British or Canadian soldiers that take risk equal to our troops in Afghanistan, they are widely-regarded as extremely capable and brave troops especially for the numbers of them in theater. But it sure would help if there was no need for a qualifier after "extremely capable and brave troops". Canada in particular is doing yeoman work in Afghanistan, and the Conservative PM Stephen Harper is taking flak for the strain on the Canadian Forces to keep their troops there. The help of their troops is greatly appreciated, it would be easier on their troops if their societies would put more resources into defense. Many of the non-British and non-Canadian NATO troops in Afghanistan are forbidden by their governments from taking offensive action, even though operations in Afghanistan are supported and approved by NATO. While there are combat support jobs that need doing, that doesn't strike me as quite the same level of commitment the Canadians and British are showing. Not only are our combat troops defending American freedom and the principles of the nations of NATO, they're also fighting and dying in Afghanistan in part to defend European nations' right to a thick social safety net at the expense of their ability to project power.
Robert Kagan covered this well in Of Paradise and Power, a look at how America and its European allies interact in the post-Cold War period. He argues that there was a window for the EU to form a counterpole to America's default unilateral power after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that in essence Europe chose to buy into the Peace Dividend concept rather heavily. Part of Europe's reluctance to recognize the War on Terror as a War is their general position on Arab-Israeli interactions (it's the Jews' fault) and possibly more experience dealing with domestic terrorism, but another factor may be the Europeans' inability to participate in a war. They're simply not prepared. The EU's iffiness on whether Darfur requires UN intervention is likely due in part to the reality that if the EU declares a genocide, there's little they can do about it militarily.
The EU likes the soft power of trade and sanction and strongly-worded diplomatic notes because that's about the only power they have left. It's not inconsiderable power, but if boots on the ground become necessary that's a situation that only highlights Europe's impotence in that regard. Why encourage even righteous beat-downs of international criminals if it shows that the defense cupboard is bare because of decades of neglect? The last genocide on record happened over a period of years in Europe in the 1990s, and only when the US showed up to drop 96% of ordnance in a "joint" operation against Serbia in 1999 was the genocide stopped. Next time you're out to dinner with someone, offer to pay 4% of the check and see how much your companion appreciates you telling others you split the bill.
Where this becomes a problem is when the US feels the need to use the military force it has retained since the Cold War. The result is almost inevitably elitist disdain of our decision to have guns AND butter, rather than a whole lot of subsidized EU-certified butter. We can count on this attitude, no matter the issue, until the EU is able to field a force on par with US forces. It's not outside their capabilities, but from a political standpoint it does seem to be beyond their conception.
I belive I'll pick up Max Boot's latest book for our upcoming cruise.
Britain Army Hyperpower EU Max+Boot
The tragedy is that he had to rob Peter to pay Paul because Britain can't maintain 7,000 troops in Iraq and 7,000 in Afghanistan. Those are hardly huge numbers for a country of 60 million with the fifth-largest national economy in the world. Yet even as Britain has continued to play a leading role in world affairs, it has allowed its defenses to molder.
The total size of its armed forces has shrunk from 305,800 in 1990 to 195,900 today, leaving it No. 28 in the world, behind Eritrea and Burma. This downsizing has reduced the entire British army (107,000 soldiers) to almost half the size of the U.S. Marine Corps (175,000).
Adding all of Canada's 62,000 active duty soldiers to the British Army equals the manpower of the Marine Corps. The US does have the largest defense expenditures in the world at a shade over $500 billion a year, but that is just 4% of GDP and nowhere near Cold War-level expenditures, which were often 9% of GDP or higher. Meanwhile, Euroland has dropped its GDP expenditure for defense to 1.9%, on average. All of the EU armed forces together -- a geographic and economic power equal or greater in size to the United States -- can't muster a force anywhere near ours, and is woefully lacking in force projection, the ability to get boots on the ground around the world.
Why does the US "go it alone"? Because we functionally "go it alone" even when our allies come on board, in terms of numbers and capabilities. Barring some tectonic shift in European politics and budget priorities, even the "full support" of our traditional allies amounts to little more than political cover and a pat on the back. This is one of those times where appearance is more important than reality, because the reality is that if we fight in the future we'll be on our own in the field. Our French, German and British friends may stand behind us, but the reality is that they'll for the most part be behind us indeed -- like, back in Paris, Berlin and London.
This is not disparagment of the British or Canadian soldiers that take risk equal to our troops in Afghanistan, they are widely-regarded as extremely capable and brave troops especially for the numbers of them in theater. But it sure would help if there was no need for a qualifier after "extremely capable and brave troops". Canada in particular is doing yeoman work in Afghanistan, and the Conservative PM Stephen Harper is taking flak for the strain on the Canadian Forces to keep their troops there. The help of their troops is greatly appreciated, it would be easier on their troops if their societies would put more resources into defense. Many of the non-British and non-Canadian NATO troops in Afghanistan are forbidden by their governments from taking offensive action, even though operations in Afghanistan are supported and approved by NATO. While there are combat support jobs that need doing, that doesn't strike me as quite the same level of commitment the Canadians and British are showing. Not only are our combat troops defending American freedom and the principles of the nations of NATO, they're also fighting and dying in Afghanistan in part to defend European nations' right to a thick social safety net at the expense of their ability to project power.
Robert Kagan covered this well in Of Paradise and Power, a look at how America and its European allies interact in the post-Cold War period. He argues that there was a window for the EU to form a counterpole to America's default unilateral power after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that in essence Europe chose to buy into the Peace Dividend concept rather heavily. Part of Europe's reluctance to recognize the War on Terror as a War is their general position on Arab-Israeli interactions (it's the Jews' fault) and possibly more experience dealing with domestic terrorism, but another factor may be the Europeans' inability to participate in a war. They're simply not prepared. The EU's iffiness on whether Darfur requires UN intervention is likely due in part to the reality that if the EU declares a genocide, there's little they can do about it militarily.
The EU likes the soft power of trade and sanction and strongly-worded diplomatic notes because that's about the only power they have left. It's not inconsiderable power, but if boots on the ground become necessary that's a situation that only highlights Europe's impotence in that regard. Why encourage even righteous beat-downs of international criminals if it shows that the defense cupboard is bare because of decades of neglect? The last genocide on record happened over a period of years in Europe in the 1990s, and only when the US showed up to drop 96% of ordnance in a "joint" operation against Serbia in 1999 was the genocide stopped. Next time you're out to dinner with someone, offer to pay 4% of the check and see how much your companion appreciates you telling others you split the bill.
Where this becomes a problem is when the US feels the need to use the military force it has retained since the Cold War. The result is almost inevitably elitist disdain of our decision to have guns AND butter, rather than a whole lot of subsidized EU-certified butter. We can count on this attitude, no matter the issue, until the EU is able to field a force on par with US forces. It's not outside their capabilities, but from a political standpoint it does seem to be beyond their conception.
I belive I'll pick up Max Boot's latest book for our upcoming cruise.
Britain Army Hyperpower EU Max+Boot
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Missed Co-Branding Opportunity For The Wii
Had it for a couple of weeks before I managed to cowboy-up and climb into the warren of wires behind our A/V stack, add a component selector switch and power-on the Wii.
Let me just say that next to the trampoline in the backyard and a swimming pool, there is little that will send your kids to bed exhausted more than Wii Sports. I knew I should have stretched or something but I just couldn't help myself, and I've been sore for three days after maybe 90 minutes of Bowling, Tennis, Golf and Boxing.
Ouch. Fair warning to parents -- if you plan to play with your kids on the Wii, get limber or get Aleve. They won't get bored any time soon, and you'll still be sore. For the money it's a pretty good game system, it plays all the GameCube games if you have one of those, and it doesn't require a HD monitor upgrade to fully utilize. It wasn't the cost of the XBox360 that made me wait six months after they came out to buy one, it was the cost of the LCD panel to play it on. You sidestep that completely with a Wii, and it costs half of a PS/3 and 60% of an XBox360 with hard drive.
Soon as I get some other games I'll let you know. I was in college during Zelda, so I missed that part, but I'm sure something good is out there.
Ninetndo Wii pain
What is McCain Doing?
Comes to the reading room news that John McCain chose the august location of Late Show With David Letterman to announce his bid for the Presidency, and that he's declined an invitation to speak at the Conservative Political Action Committee's (CPAC) 2007 meeting.
The Letterman thing -- whatever. It's not ringing with historical overtones like Sen. Obama's announcement at the Illinois Statehouse, but then again nobody was going to mistake John McCain for Abraham Lincoln. It's less Web 2.0 than Hillary's videoblogged-announcement, but I guess it's pretty silly at this point to go on a national television talk program and waffle about whether you're going to run when you've been running for the last 3 years.
McCain put his foot in the same hole that Obama twisted his ankle in a month or so ago, saying that the lives lost in Iraq have been "wasted", which is not going to endear him to the milblog crowd at all. Then again, the poll data suggests that he's angering less than 50.1% of the population with that statement, so politically it makes sense, right? He has since apologized, and his fellow Senator from Illinois had the grace to not tapdance on the statement with golf shoes on. It does show some class for Senator Obama to do that, which is part of the reason I think Hillary Clinton's politcal machine will be picking its teeth with his femur before the primaries are over. Politics is no longer the place for the Nice Guy, but I respect him not taking the boots to McCain when he's down.
The CPAC thing is a much larger blunder. First, the 5,000 attending CPAC are the yeast in the conservative political dough, and not getting face time with them is not helping your chances in the race for money and support. Second, it's pretty obvious that McCain is afraid of video of him speaking to the foam-flecked Wingnuts of the ultra-right (see, I could write for DailyKos if I used more profanity) making it out to the public. He could really use some conservative help, I mean, we vote too, rather reliably if it's someone we like. Mitt Romney will be there, so will Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich. McCain's people were trying to get a room to meet with some of the CPACers on the sly, without saying anything to them on the record, but it strikes me that this only twists the knife -- I want your support, but I don't want my picture taken with you? This kind of makes CPAC attendees out to be the John Huang of this political cycle, don't it?
I guess the calculus is that the conservatives will vote for McCain if he's the GOP nominee, because we'd really rather not vote for Hillary. That's what I want to be, a President elected by the people who voted against the other guy. Whale of a mandate there. This would be a better strategy if there weren't other candidates at the conference. I think most conservatives would love to see Rudy Giuliani be the Designated Public Speaker for George W., the guy exudes credibility and he articulates the War on Terror as well -- but if it's Date-Marry-Kill between Rudy, Newt and Mitt, I'd go for them in that order and I imagine that most people at CPAC will feel the same way by the end of the conference. Rudy is a leader, but he's pro-choice and pro-gun control, and if you want to get me to stay home or vote Libertarian those are two good positions to articulate early and often. Mitt Romney? He's a bit of a cypher at this point. Yes, he was elected in a Blue state but his late conversion to conservative viewpoints seems based more on convenience than conviction, and since he's out of office he doesn't have a chance to demonstrate his commitment in any tangible way.
The reason I'd marry Newt is that he really is that smart. He's a good speaker. He thinks about the issues, and articulates real plans to do things, not more platitudes. Yes, he's had an extramarital affair or three, yes, he's been married more often than Britney Spears (in fairness, Britney is just getting started). I know all these things, if they're a negative for Newt they're a negative for Rudy "I Divorce Thee At A Press Conference" Giuliani as well. The thing is, I don't want a Pastor, I want a President. I want a GOP candidate that can, if necessary, intelligently talk the Democratic nominee into the ground, with detail, and be right. And do it all without cue cards. The Modern Political Playbook says know your Talking Points, and refer the answer to any question back to your Talking Points. What a world it would be if the candidates were Talking, instead of Talking their Points. Of the serious contenders for the GOP nomination (Brownback? Tancredo? WHO?), Giuliani can probably do that, but I would question Romney and McCain's ability to do so.
The trick is that Newt isn't running, at least not officially. But my prediction is that he will come in either second or third at the CPAC straw poll, and a lot of people who wished Jeb Bush would enter the race will leave CPAC wishing Newt would enter the race, and he will, if asked.
CPAC Newt+Gingrich John+McCain GOP politics
The Letterman thing -- whatever. It's not ringing with historical overtones like Sen. Obama's announcement at the Illinois Statehouse, but then again nobody was going to mistake John McCain for Abraham Lincoln. It's less Web 2.0 than Hillary's videoblogged-announcement, but I guess it's pretty silly at this point to go on a national television talk program and waffle about whether you're going to run when you've been running for the last 3 years.
McCain put his foot in the same hole that Obama twisted his ankle in a month or so ago, saying that the lives lost in Iraq have been "wasted", which is not going to endear him to the milblog crowd at all. Then again, the poll data suggests that he's angering less than 50.1% of the population with that statement, so politically it makes sense, right? He has since apologized, and his fellow Senator from Illinois had the grace to not tapdance on the statement with golf shoes on. It does show some class for Senator Obama to do that, which is part of the reason I think Hillary Clinton's politcal machine will be picking its teeth with his femur before the primaries are over. Politics is no longer the place for the Nice Guy, but I respect him not taking the boots to McCain when he's down.
The CPAC thing is a much larger blunder. First, the 5,000 attending CPAC are the yeast in the conservative political dough, and not getting face time with them is not helping your chances in the race for money and support. Second, it's pretty obvious that McCain is afraid of video of him speaking to the foam-flecked Wingnuts of the ultra-right (see, I could write for DailyKos if I used more profanity) making it out to the public. He could really use some conservative help, I mean, we vote too, rather reliably if it's someone we like. Mitt Romney will be there, so will Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich. McCain's people were trying to get a room to meet with some of the CPACers on the sly, without saying anything to them on the record, but it strikes me that this only twists the knife -- I want your support, but I don't want my picture taken with you? This kind of makes CPAC attendees out to be the John Huang of this political cycle, don't it?
I guess the calculus is that the conservatives will vote for McCain if he's the GOP nominee, because we'd really rather not vote for Hillary. That's what I want to be, a President elected by the people who voted against the other guy. Whale of a mandate there. This would be a better strategy if there weren't other candidates at the conference. I think most conservatives would love to see Rudy Giuliani be the Designated Public Speaker for George W., the guy exudes credibility and he articulates the War on Terror as well -- but if it's Date-Marry-Kill between Rudy, Newt and Mitt, I'd go for them in that order and I imagine that most people at CPAC will feel the same way by the end of the conference. Rudy is a leader, but he's pro-choice and pro-gun control, and if you want to get me to stay home or vote Libertarian those are two good positions to articulate early and often. Mitt Romney? He's a bit of a cypher at this point. Yes, he was elected in a Blue state but his late conversion to conservative viewpoints seems based more on convenience than conviction, and since he's out of office he doesn't have a chance to demonstrate his commitment in any tangible way.
The reason I'd marry Newt is that he really is that smart. He's a good speaker. He thinks about the issues, and articulates real plans to do things, not more platitudes. Yes, he's had an extramarital affair or three, yes, he's been married more often than Britney Spears (in fairness, Britney is just getting started). I know all these things, if they're a negative for Newt they're a negative for Rudy "I Divorce Thee At A Press Conference" Giuliani as well. The thing is, I don't want a Pastor, I want a President. I want a GOP candidate that can, if necessary, intelligently talk the Democratic nominee into the ground, with detail, and be right. And do it all without cue cards. The Modern Political Playbook says know your Talking Points, and refer the answer to any question back to your Talking Points. What a world it would be if the candidates were Talking, instead of Talking their Points. Of the serious contenders for the GOP nomination (Brownback? Tancredo? WHO?), Giuliani can probably do that, but I would question Romney and McCain's ability to do so.
The trick is that Newt isn't running, at least not officially. But my prediction is that he will come in either second or third at the CPAC straw poll, and a lot of people who wished Jeb Bush would enter the race will leave CPAC wishing Newt would enter the race, and he will, if asked.
CPAC Newt+Gingrich John+McCain GOP politics
Fathers and Anthrax
In case you missed it this week, a 22 year-old graduate student threatened the University of Missouri-Rolla campus with a bomb and anthrax. The bomb was less of a problem than the word 'anthrax', which resulted in the graduate student and nearly everyone around getting a disinfectant bath, including the civil engineering building in which he was holed-up. The powder turned out to be powdered sugar.
His roomate, also from India, gave background on the perp to the local media. This sentence in particular stands out to me:
Venkatramolla is an international student from a “well respected” family in India, according to Putta, who also pointed out that Venkatramolla’s father died when he was a child.
This clearly illustrates the importance of a father in a young boy's life to stress how wrong it is to threaten others with dread diseases. Take that, feminists!
I am truly sorry this kid lost his Dad. I'm unbelievably lucky to be my age and still have mine. But why does the loss of this kid's parent need to be in a story about six felony charges and anthrax? What journalistic purpose is served by including this detail, other than to generate sympathy? I went to college with a guy who lost both of his parents by the end of his senior year, people go through pain all the time. The vast majority of them manage to navigate it without showing a white powder that they say is enough anthrax to kill Central Missouri.
When in our society will a 22 year-old be held responsible for his actions, and explanations not offered for his bad behavior? And isn't it a little early in the process for excuses?
Hat tip LGF
Anthrax Fathers UM-Rolla
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)