Strategic planning for individuals and families, Part 4

This is part of a series of articles, which may be found at the following links, and should be read in numerical sequence:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

You'll recall (from Part 1) that the name of the planning process we're using is P.O.S.T., which stands for Purpose, Objectives, Strategy and Tactics.  We've examined the purpose and objective of our strategic plan in the first three parts of this series;  what they are, how to derive them, and how to evaluate them against each other, discard the ones that conflict with each other, and come up with a set of objectives that sound rational and reasonable for the next five to ten years.

We now need to perform a reality check.  Under the circumstances and conditions in which we live, is it feasible to do what we want to do?  Are there factors that might prevent us doing so?  If not, good:  but if there are, maybe we need to revise our purpose and objectives in that light, before we put effort into planning how to achieve something that simply can't be achieved.

This reality check involves another process, known as S.W.O.T.  This stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.  I define them as follows.  Strengths and Weaknesses are internal factors, in your life, relationship(s), education, attitude, abilities, etc. that may help or hinder you in achieving your objectives.  Opportunities and Threats are external factors, in your location, employment, environment, etc. that may help or hinder you in doing so.  Let's look at each in turn, in the light of some sample objectives.

Joe and Mary may have agreed upon an objective to move closer to Mary's parents sometime during the next five years, so they can help them raise the children they hope to have during that period.  Is that objective feasible?  Let's find out.

Their strengths (i.e. internal factors affecting their decision) may include:

• They have enough money saved to afford the deposit on a new home;
• They earn enough to be able to afford higher mortgage payments.

Their weaknesses (also internal factors) may include:

• When Mary stops work for a while to have children, their joint earnings will be less, and therefore they'll struggle to afford the higher mortgage payment until she can return to work;
• They don't have enough furniture to set up rooms for the children they hope to have, and they'll therefore have to use some of their savings to buy it, or use a line of credit to do so - but that may affect their credit-worthiness for the mortgage financing they'll need to buy their new home.

Opportunities (external factors) may include:

• Houses of the size and quality they want are more plentiful in the area they hope to move to than they are in their present location, making it easier for them to find something suitable;
• A lot of people are moving out of their desired location, meaning that more houses are available, more cheaply - in other words, it's a "buyer's market".

Threats (also external factors) may include:

• Mortgages are harder to come by under current economic conditions, and lenders are much 'pickier' about who they'll lend to than they would be in better times.  This may mean Joe and Mary won't be able to get the mortgage they need, or will have to pay a higher interest rate to do so;
• Mary's parents are getting older and are in poor health.  They may have to give up their home and move into an assisted living facility in the short to medium term - but there are none in the area where they currently live.  If they move away to another area, Joe and Mary's proposed new home will no longer be conveniently situated for them;
• The reason more people are currently moving out of the area they want to move to is that there are factors driving them out - for example, rising crime levels, or nearby industrial development that will mean more pollution of the local environment.  Do they really want to move to a place like that?

You can thus see that strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats must all be evaluated against each other.  If there are too many negatives (weaknesses and threats), they may outweigh the positives (strengths and opportunities), meaning that the objective in question probably isn't a good idea.  Under those circumstances, we can either reshape and reword the objective to be more practical and achievable, or abandon it altogether and try to find a new one to take its place.

Let's look at a second objective with that in mind.  Joe and Mary need a new vehicle, and want one that will be practical in the light of their soon-to-be-growing family.  Mary prefers a minivan, and presents the following S.W.O.T. analysis to defend her choice.

Strengths:

• They can afford it based on their current income levels, even if she has to stop working for a while to have each child.
• It'll give them enough space to carry around a couple of young children plus all the paraphernalia (child seats, diaper bags, toys, etc.) that go with them.  It's a very practical choice.

Weaknesses:

• A minivan is basically designed for city and suburban streets, such as those on which they currently live.  However, it won't be the best choice for the dirt roads leading to her parents' farm, which they often visit.

Opportunities:

• There are many affordable models available, so they can shop for one that fits their budget.
• Generous financing incentives are available from manufacturers who want to sell more vehicles.

Threats:

• If they finance a new vehicle right now, it may affect their credit rating.  That, in turn, may affect them getting the mortgage they need to buy their new home.  They may have to pay a higher interest rate to get it, meaning that the house they want will cost more than they can afford in terms of monthly payments.

Joe objects.  He doesn't deny the strengths and opportunities Mary has identified, but adds the following factors for consideration:

Weaknesses:

• A minivan is socially less desirable than another type of vehicle.  It's looked down upon as a 'soccer mom' type of transportation.  Joe doesn't want to be associated with that stereotype.

Threats:

• They want to move closer to Mary's parents so the latter can help them raise their kids;  but that will mean more frequent trips out to their farm.  That's a safety issue if the minivan can't cope well with dirt farm roads, particularly when they're muddy and slippery after rain.  They don't want to put their kids or themselves at greater risk in that way.

After discussing the issue, Joe and Mary find a mutually acceptable compromise.  They decide to buy a medium-size SUV instead of a minivan.  It will be more expensive (a weakness), but offers almost as much space and practicality for their family as a minivan would (a strength), and also avoids the social 'stigma' of a 'soccer mom' minivan (a strength from Joe's perspective, if not from Mary's).  Furthermore, its four-wheel-drive capability and higher suspension will make it safer on dirt farm roads in all conditions (converting a threat - less frequent visits to Mary's parents, dependent on the weather - into an opportunity - more frequent visits, irrespective of the weather).  That minimizes the weaknesses Joe had identified, whilst simultaneously catering for most of the attributes Mary wants.  They run their choice through another S.W.O.T. analysis, and find that it passes muster.  Everyone's happy.

On the other hand, there might be a scenario in which they couldn't find an acceptable compromise.  What if Joe wanted a more 'manly' vehicle, such as a pickup truck?  It would have less space in the passenger compartment (even with a crew cab) than a minivan, and give Mary fewer of the features she, as a mother-to-be, regards as essential.  That would almost certainly lead to serious conflict in their relationship, as neither side would regard the other's objections as reasonable.  Their individual objectives are too far apart for their needs as a couple.  If that happens, to minimize conflict and preserve their relationship, it might be best to back off that particular objective for a while, work on others where mutual harmony is more easily maintained, and return to the question of transportation at a later date.  On the other hand, if the issue simply can't be postponed (for example, if Mary's present vehicle has broken down repeatedly and proved itself unreliable), then some hard choices will have to be made.  (Hint:  I'd say that the person who will most often use the vehicle should have the final say over what vehicle to buy.  That makes for greater domestic peace and tranquility.  Just my $0.02 worth...)

You can therefore see how the S.W.O.T. process acts as a 'reality check' on the factors identified during the P.O.S.T. process.  The latter is theoretical;  the former is practical.  P.O.S.T. says, "This is what I/we want to achieve."  S.W.O.T. says, "This is what is practically possible for me/us right now."  The two processes work hand-in-glove with each other.

This is where we have to be ruthless with ourselves.  It's pointless to waste our time and resources trying to achieve something that's utterly impractical under our present circumstances.  If an objective proves to be impractical, it must be either abandoned, or postponed, or (at the very least) amended in such a way that it becomes achievable.  No matter how badly we want that particular objective (and a young man wanting something like a sports car, so he can look good to the ladies he's trying to impress, can want that objective very badly indeed!), we have to be realistic.  At first, while we're getting used to the planning process, we may find that half (or even more) of our objectives are not achievable as stated, once we run a S.W.O.T. analysis on them.  We'll have to go back to the P.O.S.T. drawing board, redefine our purpose in the light of modified and alternative objectives, then run another S.W.O.T. analysis to see whether we're closer to reality this time.

Remember, planning is an exercise in self-discipline, and in discipline as a couple.  It gives us a framework within which we agree to operate, in order to accomplish the things that are important to us.  In terms of a couple, it's a mutual agreement, in which we commit to each other to work together to achieve what we've planned.  If we build the framework, then immediately bust through it and go on our merry way without bothering to suit our actions to the plan, then why did we waste our time developing the plan at all?

We've now (hopefully) developed our purpose and objectives (using P.O.S.T.), and tested them in the light of reality (using S.W.O.T.).  In the next article, we'll discuss how to take an objective and develop strategies and tactics that will help us achieve it.  Those strategies and tactics will then also be tested against reality, to make sure they're achievable, before we implement them.

Peter

'Brings The Lightning' is now available in a hardcover print edition

All my books so far have been available in e-book and paperback editions.  Thanks to Castalia House, who published my most recent book, I'm very glad to announce the availability of 'Brings The Lightning' in a hardcover edition.  Here's the front and back covers.

The e-book remains available at the previous link.  Amazon.com will link the two editions at a single URL over the next couple of days, so that both (and, in a very short while, the paperback edition) can be accessed from a single page.  I'll post here when they do that, to let you know.

I think Castalia did a great job on the cover for this book.  I'm really looking forward to seeing what they come up with for future volumes.  I'm also very pleased to be their first author to be published simultaneously in hardcover and paperback editions.

Thank you all, readers, for your support of my new novel.  Neither Castalia nor I knew what to expect in the way of sales, what with Westerns being a moribund genre and this being my first venture into it.  The book's sold better than we expected, and sales are still strong even after almost a month on the market.  Its reviews are the most positive of anything I've published so far.  This bodes very well for the series into which I hope this will develop.

Peter

Media bias? What media bias?

The news that Donald Trump has revoked the Washington Post's press credentials to his campaign has predictably aroused howls of protest on the left (and from the Post itself, of course).

What I find curious is that, while the Post boasts it has 20 reporters assigned to investigate Trump and is planning to publish a book about him later this year, it has no comparable journalistic task force (or plans for a book) concerning his Democratic rival for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton.

WND asked the Washington Post: “Exactly how large is the team your paper has tasked with thoroughly investigating Hillary Clinton’s background and associations? Are there at least 20 people tasked specifically with digging through her past and finding details in ‘every phase’ of her life?”

Washington Post Vice President of Communications and Events Kristine Coratti told WND that Woodward was referring to a large team of two-dozen reporters and researchers working on “a special book project” examining Trump’s life.

Why a book on Trump and not Hillary and her 22 biggest scandals?

“[W]e have years and years of reporting on Hillary Clinton to draw from, including her last presidential campaign, her time as secretary of state, and her position as U.S. senator,” Coratti explained. “Because Trump’s involvement in political life is far more limited, the Post newsroom decided to embark on a book as a special project. In order to complete the book in a timely fashion, reporters from throughout the newsroom have been assigned to work for a brief period on particular aspects of his life and career.”

Coratti claims the Post has the “same number of people” on staff investigating Trump and Clinton for its news coverage. She said the Post is planning a series on “the life and career of Hillary Clinton,” which “launches in just a few weeks.” Coratti wouldn’t provide any further details about the upcoming series.

So WND asked if she could point to any investigative stories on Hillary’s past that the Post team has published in the last month.

That’s when Coratti stopped responding to WND’s requests for comment.

There's more at the link.

I'm not one of Mr. Trump's supporters, but the media bias concerning him is becoming so blatant that I can't believe most voters are blind to it.  It's like a mass feeding frenzy, with journalists becoming more and more hysterical on the matter.  Surely they can't expect us to miss it?  And surely they can't expect us to notice how they're ignoring Hillary Clinton's background?  As editorial cartoonist A. F. Branco sagely noted, 'The hills are alive with the sound of scandals'.

Media bias?  What media bias?

Peter

Manly movie geeks can start rejoicing

The original 'Highlander' movie was kitchy and clunky, but it became a cult hit with a global following.

Queen's soundtrack became as iconic as the movie.

Now comes the welcome news that the movie's been remastered in 4K.

The Edinburgh International Film Festival and Studiocanal have partnered to screen a newly restored 4K version of Russell Mulcahy’s “Highlander” at the upcoming 70th edition of the fest.

The special screening will take place on June 18 in the Scottish city to mark the 30th anniversary of the 1980s action-fantasy cult classic.

. . .

Studiocanal will release the restored version of the film on DVD and Blu-Ray on July 11th.

There's more at the link.

Here's the trailer for the restored version.

I guess that one goes on my 'Must Buy' list.

Peter

40 years ago today . . .

. . . South Africa changed forever, and my life changed with it.  The Soweto Uprising broke out on June 16th, 1976.  About 20,000 school pupils in Soweto revolted against being forced to learn in Afrikaans, a language most of them could not speak or understand.  The police reacted savagely.

This video clip, featuring many of those who took part in the uprising, will be difficult for many Americans to follow, because the accents are heavy.  Nevertheless, it's worth the effort if you're interested in learning what can drive a people to despair, and from despair to defiance, and from defiance to open revolt.

Soweto was crucial in that it was the first time that the leaders on both sides lost control of their followers.  The leaders of the African resistance movements could not control the youth, who acted in defiance of their parents and leaders and went wild for the next few years.  The white politicians who thought themselves masters of South Africa's destiny found out the hard way that they could push people so far . . . but no further.  On June 16th, 1976, for the first time, they lost control - and they were never again to fully regain it.

Hundreds died on that day.  Thousands, and then tens of thousands, would die between 1976 and 1994, when democracy finally came to South Africa.  The human cost was immense.  The total of those who died will never be known.  My best guess (which is, let me add, a pretty well-informed estimate) is that it was approximately 100,000, give or take ten thousand or so.  The death toll was so immense that it traumatized the entire nation.  It left our collective psyche deeply scarred.  How else do you explain this song's (and its parent album's) popularity on the local hit parade in 1983?  I remember kids singing its lyrics in the streets . . . kids.  Schoolkids.  They were living this reality every day.

I remember those years all too well.  I remember Soweto in 1976.  I can never forget it.  It changed my life, and its echoes reverberate within me still.

Peter

Strategic planning for individuals and families, Part 3

This is part of a series of articles, which may be found at the following links, and should be read in numerical sequence:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Since every individual has his or her own abilities, interests, aspirations, hopes and dreams, it's impossible to impose a 'one-size-fits-all' set of objectives on everybody.  The same goes for couples and families.  Furthermore, a lot will depend on where we are in life.  A young, single person has a great deal more flexibility than an older, married couple, whose lives are already tied together and who must therefore take each other (and their children, if any) into account.  The best I can do is to use a few real-world examples as illustrations, and invite you to conduct your own planning exercise accordingly.

It's also important to be realistic in your planning.  To make a plan for the next twenty, or thirty, or fifty years is probably unrealistic.  Who knows what the economy will do over that period, or what social upheavals may take place?  If a company had made a detailed 30-year business plan in 1990, when the World Wide Web wasn't much more than a twinkle in its designers' eyes, would that plan have been able to cope with the new opportunities and threats offered by that technology?  I'd say probably not.  I therefore suggest to people that they make a plan for the next five years as an initial exercise.  With that under their belts, and while implementing it, they can start planning for further out - say, the next ten years.

Let's look at a few examples.

Joe has just completed a degree in education.  He wants to teach, but also needs to pay off his study loans, which amount to about $50,000 and will be a crippling financial burden.  Furthermore, he's pretty serious about a young lady, and they've discussed marriage.  However, given his existing study loans, their credit rating won't be good enough to qualify for a mortgage, so they'll have to rent a home together - and rents are very expensive in the area where they live.

Joe starts by defining his personal objectives.  He places a high priority on paying off his study loans;  so, being a teacher, he hopes to take advantage of teacher loan forgiveness programs.  However, doing so will require him to teach in any of a number of schools and school districts designated by the government.  This may restrict opportunities elsewhere, and/or require him to live and work in an area that isn't particularly attractive to him.  On the other hand, doing so will pay off some or all of his student loans in a reasonable period of time, after which he'll be free to move on.  He'll have to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide whether such programs are worthwhile for him.

His acceptance or rejection of such programs will impact his other objectives.  One may be to live in a particular city or state;  but if that area doesn't have teaching positions eligible for loan forgiveness programs, he may have to defer moving there until a later date (or not use the programs, but pay off the student loans from his own earnings and other resources).  Another may be to buy a particular model of car that he finds attractive.  However, if he has to work in a less affluent area with higher crime rates, it might not be advisable to drive it to work every day, for fear of theft or damage.  Should he drive something less attractive to criminals until he can move to or work in a better area?

Joe must also consider the views and aspirations of his partner.  She'll need to do her own individual planning as well, then they'll have to sit down as a couple and compare notes.  Consider:

• Joe may want to live in an area where he has easy access to outdoor sports such as mountain climbing, hiking, hunting, fishing, etc.  However, she may want to be close to gyms, yoga classes, and so on.  Are their desires compatible with a single city or area that they both like?
• Joe may like simple, home-cooked food, and enjoy grilling steaks on the barbecue at weekends.  She may dislike cooking, and prefer to eat at restaurants more often, particularly if there's an ethnic cuisine such as Chinese, Thai or Indian that she enjoys.  Can they compromise?  Can they afford to eat out more often?
• Joe may have to move to and work in a given town or area, in terms of the loan forgiveness programs.  However, there may not be many jobs there for someone with her qualifications.  She may prefer to stay in her present location, where she already has a well-paid job.  What will this mean for their future together?  Which is more important - their jobs, or their life together?

All those considerations will affect where they decide to live, how much money they need to earn to indulge their desires and aspirations, etc.  What sacrifices are they willing to make to be together?  If the sacrifices appear very great, is their love for one another sufficient to make them worthwhile?

Let's use an older couple as our next example.  They have no children, and don't expect to have any.  They're considering where would be the best place to live.  There are a number of factors they'll have to take into account.

• Both have suffered injuries and illnesses that restrict their mobility to at least some extent, and can be expected to become more restrictive as they get older.  Therefore, they can't move too far from readily available medical assistance.  Living out in the boondocks may be relatively low-cost and private, but it's a long way for an ambulance to come and get them in an emergency, and driving to doctors and pharmacies may become a burden.
• They're on a limited income, and want to live within their means.  However, the city where they now live is expensive, particularly where property is concerned.  They're therefore considering less costly neighborhoods, including moving to another city or state if necessary.  Houses may be cheaper there, but what about the cost of moving?  Do they have enough money to do that?  What about health care in their new location - will it be as accessible as where they are now?
• One partner has no relatives within easy reach, but the other does.  Can they move further away from them without imposing undue strain on such relationships, or is it important to maintain closer proximity to them?  What about friends?  The same considerations apply to them.
• One partner is self-employed, and can work from home wherever that happens to be.  The other is not, and would prefer to continue employment outside the home.  Will jobs be available if they move?  How important is that as a factor influencing any decision to relocate?

What's more, bear in mind that all these questions relate specifically to the question of where to live.  That's not the be-all and end-all of that couple's life together;  rather, it's only one out of a laundry-list of factors affecting their lives together.  They have to look at what they want to do together;  how they want their relationship to grow;  where they want to be (metaphorically and literally) in, say, five years' time;  and so on.  If one partner wants to further develop a career, is the other willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do so, or are they motivated by something completely different?  Their strategic planning process will have to take all those elements into account, and many more.

What will emerge from the planning process is a list of objectives that are constantly being refined, and which help to refine each other.  Here's an example.

Joe:  "I really want to buy a Supergizmo Hyperspeed sports car as soon as we can afford it.  I've wanted one for years!"
Mary:  "I don't see why.  I mean, sure, those things are super-fast, but you'll be driving it on city streets where you can't use all that performance."
Joe:  "Yeah, but... speed!  Cornering!  Babes!"
Mary:  "What do you mean, babes?  You've got me!  How many more do you want?"
Joe:  "Oops..."
Mary:  "Besides, we've agreed we want children soon.  The Supergizmo Hyperspeed only has two seats.  Where are we going to put the child seat?"
Joe:  "Maybe I need to rethink that one."
Mary:  "Yeah, I think you do!"
Joe:  "You've also got some thinking to do, honey.  You said earlier you really want to hike the Appalachian Trail from one end to the other in the next year or two.  I like that idea, but you also want kids as soon as possible.  I don't see how the two can go together."
Mary:  "But it's something I've wanted to do for years!"
Joe:  "I know, and I'd love to do it with you, but what comes first?  Trail, or kids?"

When all the objectives have been discussed, and impractical ones discarded, and viable ones refined, you'll end up with a list of things you want in the short to medium term - in other words, objectives - both as individuals, and as a couple.  The former will influence the latter, and vice versa.  When the list is complete, you can use its elements to compile a single, one-sentence statement of purpose that encompasses them and gives you a simple, direct yardstick against which to measure your progress.

Remember, each objective has to be quantifiable and measurable if it's to be of any value.  If you can't quantify or measure it, how will you know whether you're getting any closer to achieving it?  If you want to buy a Supergizmo Hyperspeed sports car, you know what it will cost, and how much of a deposit you'll need to put down, and what the monthly payments will be.  You can measure those numbers against your savings and monthly disposable income, and figure out how close you are to getting one.  On the other hand, you can also figure out what kids will cost you, and how much you have to budget for their needs each month - and that may make your ambition to buy a sports car recede into the more distant future, until the kids have grown up and are able to support themselves.

Joe and Mary may compile a statement of purpose for the next five years of their relationship that reads something like this:

To support each other in developing our careers, and earn enough to allow us to have two children over the next five years, while moving closer to Mary's parents, in order to have their help and support in raising our kids.

That's fairly specific.  They could be more explicit if they wished;  instead of saying 'develop our careers', they could specify that Joe wants to become Vice-President of Sales in five years, or Mary wants to become a partner in her law firm in the same period.  They could quantify the amount they'll need to earn to be able to afford the kids they want, or move closer to her parents (or help her parents to move closer to them).  However, I think those may be better expressed as objectives beneath the overall statement of purpose.  Make the objectives as specific and measurable as possible, then frame a statement of purpose that encompasses them all - or, at least, all the important ones.

Note, too, that some elements are taken for granted, and not explicitly stated.  For example, it's presumed that Joe and Mary will remain a couple.  It's assumed that they love each other and have no plans to divorce.  If their relationship is on rocky ground at present, they need to deal with that before they have kids or move closer to her parents.  That needs to be an explicit and mutually agreed expectation, and incorporated into their planning as a very important element.  If they don't get that right, no other elements of their shared plan will be very important any longer!  (As a corollary, building and maintaining a relationship is hard work.  It's probably worth codifying in one's plan any specific expectations in that regard.  For example, a couple may place a high priority on having a 'date night' at least once per week, with nothing to distract them from being there for and with each other, no matter what other activities each of them may have.  That 'date night' should be a specific objective in their shared plan, and prioritized as such.  If it isn't, other elements will get in its way sooner or later - probably sooner.)

Furthermore, make your plans flexible enough to account for new and unexpected developments.  Let's say you're an older person or couple, facing health issues (eyesight or co-ordination, for example) that will affect your ability to drive as they get worse.  You may have resigned yourself to a certain loss of independence by moving into an assisted living facility and giving up your car and/or drivers license(s).  However, the new technology of self-driving cars is already being tested, and is likely to be commonplace in five to ten years.  If your present state of health can be preserved and extended for that long, you may not need to move out of your present home, because technology may help to preserve your independence.  Furthermore, robotic 'assistants' for the elderly are already on the market in places like Japan, and are certain to become available in other countries before too long.  They, too, will help to preserve your independence.  Those are good examples of how current developments may affect future plans.

In the next instalment, we'll look at a way to evaluate our purpose and objectives to see whether they're practical and feasible.  After that, we'll see how we take a specific objective and begin to develop strategies and tactics to implement it.

Peter

May I have this dance?

Peter

Another lying journalist is exposed

I'm sure many of my readers saw this hysterically over-the-top, wildly exaggerated and factually 'challenged' report in the New York Daily News.  (That newspaper is, of course, notorious for its liberal perspective, anti-gun stance and sheer gullibility when it comes to facts.)

Among the article's claims was this one.

Frank Stelmach of Double Tap Shooting Range and Gun Shop invited me, videographer Michael Sheridan and reporter Adam Shrier to come down. Stelmach is not like many gun lovers. He admires his weaponry, yes, and has difficulty explaining why law-abiding citizens need a gun that can empty a 40-round clip in less than five seconds. But he also hates the idea that “bad people” get a hold of a gun like this and use it to kill without difficulty.

“There should be expanded background checks — extending into your family, friends and associates,” he said. “And there should be a mental health screening. In Europe, if you want to buy a gun, you have to see a doctor (for a psychiatric examination) to see if something’s not right.”

Stelmach, who opened his shop six years ago after a career in law enforcement in Europe, even calls for government officials to take away guns from some owners — something very few gun advocates support.

He also said he never sells a gun to someone who “looks a little bit funny,” and he claimed he had prevented many guns from getting into the wrong hands because the would-be purchaser “asked stupid questions” like, “What happens to me if the gun is stolen?”

There's more at the link (although why anyone would want to read such drivel, I don't know).

Unfortunately for the newspaper's and the journalist's credibility, it seems the report was far from correct.  The gun shop responded on Facebook:

Yesterday the man in this video from the NY Daily News called and asked if he could come and interview us about the basic principles of how an AR-15 works. We acknowledged his offer so that we could prove that an AR-15 is indeed a great and safe weapon as stated in the video. After the video was filmed there was another Q&A type conversation on how things work in other countries, what are some of the things others believe would be a step into the right direction of gun control. To our knowledge we did not know that Mr. Kuntzman would completely turn things around and make our establishment look like one of anti-gun advocates.

We have received dozens of phone from all over the country in regards to the article. Many of these callers expressed disgust with the article and told us to stay away from the media. I can assure everyone that we do not support mental health screenings like they do in Europe and we don't think that government officials should take away guns from people as it was portrayed in the article. Currently we are doing everything we can to take this article down because after reading it we are just as disgusted about it as all of you are. Our team here at Double Tap would like to sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding and report that we are doing everything in our power to get this article removed.

I implore all of our supporters to share our apology with everyone in order to help defend ourselves from the media who is doing anything in their power to blemish the face of all gun owners and attempting to add more rule to the fire of the attempt of the liberal gun-grabbing agenda.To those that are writing negative reviews about us, please understand we had no intentions of having this article cause such an issue, nor intentions of us looking like anti gun advocates but, to educate which in turn did the complete opposite due to Mr. Kuntzman. If anyone has anymore questions or concerns please feel free to come in or call us we will gladly discuss this issue with you.

And for the record, if you get a bruised shoulder or PTSD from shooting an AR-15 you may be a Katie Couric, liberal with ought testicular fortitude.

So much for journalistic integrity . . . although nowadays that very concept appears to be an old-fashioned anachronism, more's the pity.




Peter

Strategic planning for individuals and families, Part 2

This is part of a series of articles, which may be found at the following links, and should be read in numerical sequence:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Yesterday we examined the purpose of an organization.  Today I'd like to go into more detail about defining, refining and stating our purpose as individuals and families.  It's critical to get this right, because it's the single most important reference point in the entire planning process.  Anyone, at any time, should be able to stop and ask him- or herself:  "Is the work I'm doing right now directly contributing to my/our purpose?"  If it is, great.  If not, why are you doing it?  Why not do something more important, more productive and more relevant to the plan?

First off, our purpose has to be something concrete and measurable.  As a pastor, I used to ask couples preparing for marriage what their aims and objectives were.  I never ceased to be frustrated by the number who replied airily, "Oh, to be happy together!" or "To raise a family."  There's a whole lot more to marriage than that . . . and couples who don't understand that face a greatly increased risk of ending in divorce, or (at the very least) enduring more problems than they need to.  The same goes for individuals.  "What do you want to do with your life?" is a very important question.  Too few of us are prepared or equipped to answer it, particularly when we're young and living for the moment.  That's what this series is all about.

In defining a concrete, measurable purpose, we have to remember that it's no good if it's so grandiloquent, so all-encompassing, that it can never be measured or achieved at all.  For example, if a couple sets their purpose as being "To be a happy, productive family," how is that to be measured?  Against what yardsticks?  When can or will it be accomplished - in five years?  Ten?  Twenty?  What does 'productive' mean in terms of the different stages of family life?  Does it mean lots of children, or kids growing up with good grades at school, or starting successful careers?  Does it mean financial success, or domestic tranquility, or both?

There's also the problem of wrong-headed expectations.  Think of the 'flower power' culture of the 1960's.  "Everybody's got to be free!" was the refrain - but free from what?  Debt?  Worries?  Chores?  Expectations?  How was/is that freedom to be achieved?  If you're free from obligations (e.g. the need to work or earn a living), does that mean that others have to take on the obligation to support you?  This has practical implications - for example, many young couples today are burdened with study loans and other debt even before they marry, so that their credit scores are insufficient to afford to buy a home of their own.  How do they propose to deal with the problem?  Have they even thought about it?  If not, why not?  (No, voting for a politician won't do it!)

All these questions demonstrate clearly how important it is to take a clear, unsentimental, objective look at where we are now.  From that foundation, we can set a goal (or goals) of where we want to be within a reasonable timeline from today.  That statement of "where we want to be" is our purpose.

It's often easier to start by defining a number of 'subsidiary' purposes - things we want to achieve in specific areas, but any one of which isn't sufficient to justify committing all our energies and resources to it, to the exclusion of other things.  For example, what might a young college graduate want to achieve?  A 'wish list' might include:

1. Buying the 'dream car' I've always wanted;
2. Being debt free by the age of 25;
3. Saving $100,000 by the age of 30;
4. Meeting and marrying a suitable partner;
5. Making enough money to live independently, without being a 'wage slave';

and so on.  Some of them may be mutually exclusive (see, for example, 1 and 2 above!).  We'll have to first list everything that comes to mind, then winnow it in the light of reality.  (For example, if we're starting at the age of 23 with no job, a degree in underwater basket-weaving, and $100,000 in student debt, the odds of us being debt free by the age of 25 are slim to none.  We should probably alter or discard that objective.  On the other hand, if we're starting at the age of 23 as a trained welder [i.e. having completed a technical education and practical training], with minimal student debt and six welding shops competing to hire us, our financial prospects are a whole lot brighter!)

Families can begin the process, too.  A family might set goals like these:

1. Pay off all our credit cards within five years;
2. Build up reserves of food and other necessities sufficient to last our entire family for three months in the event of emergency;
3. Build up a $5,000 reserve fund to pay for any sudden crisis (e.g. a car repair, a medical emergency, whatever) without taking on additional debt;
4. Provide a quality education to our children;
5. Buy our own home within five years;

and so on.  Again, some of these expectations may be mutually exclusive (e.g. 1, 2 and 3 may conflict with 5, which will need a fair amount of money as a down payment and to pay for moving costs).  Others need to be more carefully defined.  For example, what do we mean by a 'quality education'?  If our local public schools are of poor quality, achieving that may require us to home-school our kids (which will affect at least one adult's earning ability because of the time he or she must devote to that task), or put them into private schools that charge a much higher tuition.  Can we afford to do that without adversely affecting our other objectives?  Again, desires must be adjusted to take account of reality.

Note that we haven't defined a single thing to actually do at this point.  We're still focusing on what we want to achieve rather than how we're going to achieve it.  There's no point in addressing the latter unless we've come up with practical, realistic, achievable goals for ourselves.

I'd like to suggest that we begin the planning process by making a list of the things that must be addressed.  This will necessarily vary widely from person to person, and from family to family.  For example, one objective everyone should have is to prepare for emergencies that might confront us.  That will depend very heavily on where we live and the hazards to be found there.

• Someone in an inner-city urban ghetto will face a much higher likelihood of crime and violence than someone in a quiet suburb of a smaller town.  The former will have to give a much higher priority to preparing for that risk than the latter - but the latter can't ignore it completely.
• Someone living in an earthquake zone, or a flood plain, or in 'Tornado Alley', will have to give a much higher priority to dealing with those risks than someone who lives in a safer area.
• On the other hand, everyone should have enough emergency supplies to cope for a limited period if the shops are closed, or if resupply is restricted for some reason.  It doesn't matter where we live - those risks are much the same for all of us.

Having defined what must be addressed, we can expand the list to include what we want to address.  It can include ambitions, desires, objectives - everything the person or family wants to achieve.  In the case of a family, it will be necessary to balance individual objectives against those of the group.  One teenager with musical talent and a dream might want to study at Julliard, but the family's finances may make that impossible from their own resources - or, if they do address that dream, it might mean other children have to give up their desires to make it possible.  On the other hand, that's no reason to shoot down those dreams.  Instead, focus them on working towards a scholarship, or earning enough money through other means to save up for future studies.  It can be done, as we saw earlier this month.  That kid had a plan, and implemented it.  Good for him!

When all (or most of) the important objectives have been listed, and weighed in the balance against reality, and adjusted accordingly, we can start to figure out how to measure each one.  Remember, if an objective can't be measured, it can't be evaluated - and if we can't evaluate it, how will we know we've achieved it?  It's easy to evaluate an objective such as "Buy my dream car."  To know whether or not you've achieved it, look in the driveway!  Others, such as "Be happy," are less quantifiable and less easily measured.  We'll need to refine them and make them measurable.  When we've done that - when we can measure each objective and report on the progress we've made towards achieving it - then we'll also be able to say what progress we're making towards achieving our overall purpose, encompassing all our objectives.

Tomorrow we'll examine refining and nailing down our purpose.  That done, we can move on to the next stage in the planning process.

Peter

The "Kermit Sutra"? Really?

Here's an aphrodisiacal tale for the amphibian aficionados among us.

For years, scientists have thought frogs and toads used only six positions to mate. It turns out they may be wrong. In a forest in India, researchers say, they've documented a seventh.

This latest entry in the Kermit Sutra is called the dorsal straddle. Like other positions but unlike mammal sex it's aimed at letting the male fertilize eggs outside the female's body.

Researchers spent 40 nights in a dense forest, finding male Bombay night frogs by listening for their mating calls and filming the action when a female showed up.

. . .

In any case, all the frog work can come to naught. Of the 15 egg clutches the researchers monitored for the new paper, 12 were eaten by predators before hatching.

There's more at the link.

I wasn't aware that frogs were presumed to have only six mating positions.  In fact, I didn't think it was of any importance whatsoever to know about them!  Clearly, I've been living a sheltered life . . . if scientists can spend forty nights filming the froggy action, there must be more to it than meets the eye (or any other portion of anatomy, for that matter).  Is there a sort of Playfrog Club out there?  What do the waitresses wear?  Slimy skin and tadpole tails?

Nevertheless, full marks for the pun to whoever came up with "Kermit Sutra"!

Peter

OK, that's a good excuse!

I was set back on my heels a bit this morning at a local car repair shop.  I'd been in there on Monday last week to arrange to have them look at some electrical problems on my pickup.  They'd promised to call me on Thursday or Friday last week to set an appointment, but didn't do so.

I found the owner outside, and asked him, "What's up?  Why no phone call?"

"Waal, one o' my mechanics cut his foot off last Thursday with a brush hawg.  We been busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kickin' contest coverin' his work as well as our own!"

Er . . . yeah . . . that's a pretty darn good excuse!  I promised to be patient until he could slot me into his suddenly over-full schedule.

(The mechanic's going to be OK.  He's had surgery to straighten up the stump, and will be fitted for a prosthetic foot soon.  Needless to say, everyone's already calling him 'Stumpy'!)




Peter

Doofus Of The Day #912

I don't normally confer Doofus awards for incidents involving death or serious injury, but today's award just has to go to three particularly inept thieves in Mexico.  (A tip o' the hat to reader George F. for sending me the link to the story.)

Three men boarded a ... bus traveling on the Mexico City-Pachuca highway at 10:00am yesterday ... They ... soon revealed their intentions by ordering the other passengers to hand over their valuables.

But unfortunately for them, one of their number let off a warning shot with a hand gun to frighten their victims. The bullet struck the ceiling of the bus, ricocheted and hit one of the thieves, who staggered from the vehicle and died at the roadside.

About 30 passengers took advantage of the moment to attack the other two assailants. They beat one to death and the other — who survived the blows — was held until authorities arrived on the scene.

There's more at the link.

Not only poor victim selection, but shooting their own comrade in crime?  That's got to be one of the most inept robberies I've ever heard of!

Peter

Strategic planning for individuals and families, Part 1

This is part of a series of articles, which may be found at the following links, and should be read in numerical sequence:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

In my articles about personal security and self-defense, emergency preparation, economic hard times, and a number of other issues, I've emphasized the need to think ahead, have a plan, and work towards implementing it.  However, a large proportion of the replies I receive indicate that a lot of people simply don't know how to plan.  They've never been taught the conceptual framework that allows us to figure out what we want to do, then move towards implementing it, step by step.

To help remedy that, I'd like to offer a series of short articles on how to draw up a strategic plan.  These techniques can work for anyone in any situation.  They work for a military unit, a small business (or a large one, for that matter), an individual, a family . . . any and every situation where individuals have to work out what to do and how to get where they want to be.

There are many planning techniques available.  Follow that link to see a huge range of them.  I think that's often part of the problem;  we get lost in a sea of techniques, so many of them that we don't know which one to choose.  I'm therefore going to suggest one of the older techniques I know, one that's fairly simple and cuts to the chase without getting too convoluted.  We'll examine each stage, then apply each stage to a particular problem to see how it works.

The technique I recommend is nicknamed P.O.S.T.  The acronym stands for Purpose, Objectives, Strategy, Tactics.  In brief, it works like this:

1. Your PURPOSE is what you want to accomplish.  It should be stated in one sentence, the shorter the better.
2. An OBJECTIVE is a stepping-stone to achieve your PURPOSE.  Each one is, in effect, a purpose in miniature, dividing a bigger goal into 'bite-size' segments.
3. A STRATEGY is the approach you adopt to achieve each OBJECTIVE.  It speaks in general terms rather than specific.
4. A TACTIC is a specific thing you're going to do to implement a given STRATEGY.

We start at the top.  What is the PURPOSE of our exercise?  This needs to be short, pithy, and easily understood by everyone involved.  It's also a yardstick against which anything and everything we do can be measured.  That's an important word, because if something can't be quantified, it can't be measured;  and if it can't be measured, then it can't be assessed.  We should be able to look at any activity and ask, "How is this related to our purpose?"  If the answer isn't clear, perhaps we need to re-think our approach - or stop doing that particular thing altogether, because it's wasting time that could be used more productively.

Some purposes - many of them, in fact - can't be measured in and of themselves.  They have to be measured in terms of the objectives that must be met in order to fulfil them.  For example, according to Clausewitz, war is the continuation of politics by other means.  Therefore, a defense force might have as its purpose:  "To implement the political will of the government by military means."  That's not very measurable, is it?  However, that encompasses several lower-level objectives, such as winning wars, providing disaster relief, aid to other nations, and so on.  Each of those objectives can be measured;  and to the extent that all (or none) of them are achieved, so the purpose of the organization will (or will not) be achieved.  Therefore, to define the objectives is also to define (and, if necessary, to refine) the purpose.  It's a repetitive, circular process, possibly with many iterations before both aspects are finalized.

With that in mind, here are a few actual statements of purpose (or mission) from different organizations.

Section 3062 of Title 10 US Code defines the purpose of the US Army as:

1. preserving the peace and security, and providing for the defense, of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions, and any areas occupied by the United States;
2. supporting the national policies;
3. implementing the national objectives; and
4. overcoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States.

You can see immediately that it's very unwieldy.  It's not one sentence, but several, and each sentence would have to be measured according to different norms and standards.  I submit that it's a very poor statement of purpose, but not a bad outline of some (but not all) of the objectives needed to achieve a purpose.  Clausewitz would probably lump all of them together under the overall purpose of "continuing the politics of the government by military means".

What about big business?  Until 2003, IBM's mission statement (which is as close to a corporate statement of purpose as it had) read:

At IBM, we strive to lead in the creation, development and manufacture of the industry's most advanced information technologies, including computer systems, software, networking systems, storage devices and microelectronics. We translate these advanced technologies into value for our customers through our professional solutions, services and consulting businesses worldwide.

Those terms are certainly measurable, but not always easily, and I think there are too many of them.  A lot of them are more like objectives, or the purpose of a specific sub-division, rather than an overall corporate purpose.  Furthermore, after 2003 IBM changed its mission statement.  It became much more wishy-washy and less focused - more 'politically correct', if you will.  The company's results have suffered accordingly.  You can read one interesting analysis of the company's strategic plan at this link.

Small businesses can be less ambitious and more focused in their statement of purpose - and the more focused they are, the bigger they can grow.  For example, Amazon.com has this mission statement:

Our vision is to be earth's most customer centric company; to build a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online.

I really like that statement of purpose.  It's short, direct and to the point, and can be measured using a number of metrics.  Using it, Amazon's gone from nowhere in 1994 (the year it was founded) to becoming, in 2015, the largest retailer in the USA by market capitalization, eclipsing even giant supermarket chains like Walmart.  That blunt, pithy statement of purpose has, I'm sure, helped to focus the minds of everyone at Amazon and helped them to achieve those stellar results.

I can already hear readers complaining, "That's all very well, but I'm not an army or a big business!  How can I develop a personal plan, or one for my family, that will help me/us achieve what we want?"  I can only point out that Amazon.com began as nothing more than an idea in the mind of Jeff Bezos.  He developed a plan to make that idea happen and let it grow.  The result is what you see before you.  That same process can help each and every one of us develop a personal and a family plan.  (Note that usually the two will go together.  It's no good for an individual to develop a personal plan that ignores his or her family's priorities;  and it's no good for a family's plan to ignore the aspirations, interests and capabilities of every one of its members.)

Tomorrow I'll consider family and individual statements of purpose, both overall and for specific ambitions or conditions.  From there, we'll start building them out.

Peter

A techno-rock equivalent to 'Bolero'?

Regular readers will know that I'm a big fan of Mike Oldfield's music, and have been since he released his first album, 'Tubular Bells', in 1973.  I bought it at once, and I've bought every album of his since then.

I've enjoyed his double album 'Light & Shade' since its release in 2005.  It consists of two different styles of music, the first album being more along the lines of 'classic techno-rock', the other more 'high energy Ibiza rock'.  Both are interesting listening.  One of the tracks on the first of the two albums is 'First Steps'.  It builds to a crescendo from simple beginnings, and I find it very enjoyable.  I've struggled for some time to figure out why I like it so much, and today it came to me;  it's like a rock equivalent to Ravel's Boléro, which also builds to a crescendo by repeating the same theme over and over, drawing in more and more instruments and getting louder and louder.

Try it for yourselves.

Mmmm . . . definitely one of my favorite tracks from the album.

Peter

Another nursing pro tip . . .

. . . from my friend and Blogorado comrade Christina.




Peter

"The view you must adopt is that you are dead right there, right now."

That's the advice of Karl Denninger when confronted by an attacker such as the terrorist at the Orlando night club on Saturday evening.  It ties in with what I had to say on the subject.

The reason for this is simple: If you are already dead then any act you undertake can only improve the outcome.  It cannot make it worse, because the worst possible outcome has already happened.

You must accept and internalize the fact that the cops will not save you; they will, however, dutifully inventory your dead body 12 hours later.

. . .

We used to, as Americans, face this reality on a regular basis.  We had a large percentage of our population that were drafted and sent to war from time to time and faced bullets whizzing by their heads for months or years, with many of their friends falling to the ones that found their mark.  We had a frontier where you faced snakes, Indians (interested in your scalp as you were, from their point of view, invading their land!) and simple starvation or running out of water, and more than a few succumbed to one of the above.  Disease felled even more, regularly.  There was no such thing as a "safe space" nor the idiot "progressives" demanding and putting forward same as "rights"; that is utter crap yet it has massively contributed to the "oh my God hide in the bathroom!" mentality.

Simply put you must individually perform this exercise, starting right now.  You must be prepared on a mental basis to adopt the "I'm dead" belief and position in mind, body and soul if confronted with such a situation.

. . .

Because ... when that jackass shows up if he doesn't spend one of his first magazine's rounds on you there will be a short period of time, just a few seconds, where you have the ability to disrupt his attack and you must seize that moment and attempt to do exactly that.

There's much more at the link.  Go read, and ponder.  He's right.

Peter

"The Everest of motorcycling"

That's how an article in the Telegraph describes the iconic annual Isle of Man TT motorcycle races.

As an official, the Clerk [of the Course, Gary Thompson] tells me, this is the pinnacle of motorsport.

“There is the MotoGP, there are World Superbikes, there are many different levels – but they all have around 16 to 18 levels to them. There is only one TT.

“It is unique,” Thompson enthuses, “because there is no other motorsport event or road race like it in the world.”

The TT, Thompson tells me, is the brand of the island. This small, 200-square-mile island is world-famous because of it. And, for two weeks every year, the Isle of Man’s roads are closed from 10am to 5pm to facilitate one of the most dangerous road time trials in the world.

“We’ve been doing this since 1907,” Thompson says. “So to say that it’s a well-oiled machine would be an understatement. I work with the Highways Agency and whatever happens on that course during periods of racing is down to me – it’s my responsibility.

“And it’s become more difficult as the TT has gained in popularity,” adds the head official. The TT, Thompson says, has exploded during his tenure as Clerk of the Course thanks, in part, to the 2011 Guy Martin-led documentary Closer to the Edge.

. . .

I remember what Martin himself told me about the TT when I interviewed him late last year.

“I did crash at the TT, yeah,” the daredevil had acknowledged, flippantly. “I was conscious, sliding into a wall at about 170mph, and I just thought, 'oh that’s it, I’m dead'.

“But I remember thinking, 'there’s nothing I can do about this now',” Martin had added. “So I glanced off a wall – which broke a few bits and bobs – and then flew back through the bike, which was exploding. But I was all right in the end.”

There's more at the link.

There's an aura, a mystique, about the TT that eclipses all other motorcycle racing events.  Part of it is the death toll.  Literally hundreds of riders have died over the history of the race - five this year alone.  So dangerous an event would be shut down by the authorities in almost every country . . . but on the Isle of Man, it's recognized that the risk of death goes with the race, and is an inescapable part of it.

Guy Martin's fiery crash in 2010 has become yet another icon of the event.  Here's the trailer for the documentary 'Closer To The Edge', examining the 2010 race and focusing on Martin's near-death in his quest for victory.

The full two-hour documentary is available on YouTube (in HD as well as standard resolution).  It captures the spirit of the TT as perhaps nothing else can, apart from actually going there and being part of it for yourself.

Peter

The usual idiots are trying to use the Orlando attack for politically correct purposes . . .

. . . and they cannot be allowed to succeed.  Ignore all the idiots calling for gun control, all those waffling about "hate crimes", all those wringing their metaphorical and politically correct hands about "not bringing religion into this".

This video says it all.

I can only refer my readers, once again, to my earlier post about the Orlando attack. Our security is in our own hands. It's our responsibility, no-one else's.  We certainly can't entrust it to the authorities.  If you think they're able to protect us . . . ask the hundred-plus dead and wounded in Orlando how that worked out for them.

I'm not surprised that Orlando happened.  I'm angry, because our present system of government and the present dominance of political correctness in our society made it inevitable.  What's more, it's going to happen again, unless and until that dominance is removed.  More gun control and more restrictions on our freedom will only make it more inevitable.

Welcome to the real world.

Peter

Lessons to be learned from the Orlando terrorist attack

We've discussed terror attacks like that last night at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on numerous occasions in these pages.  Suffice it to say that anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew that something like this was coming.  Furthermore, it won't be an isolated event.  More such attacks will follow.  Our terrorist enemies have already promised that - and every time they've made that promise, they've kept it.  We know they're coming.  The question is, are we - we as individuals, not just as a society - prepared to do something about it?

Again, I've written extensively about this in the past.  I'm going to recapitulate some of the most important points, and refer to articles to which I've linked in the past, in the hope that I might reach some readers who may have forgotten (or ignored) our previous discussions.


1.  In 2003, John Farnam gave some excellent advice about keeping yourself safe.  We've mentioned it before.  Here it is again.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis, particularly in the light of the Orlando attack.

The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don’t be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don’t go to stupid places. Don’t associate with stupid people. Don’t do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the “penalty” for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable.

Crowds of any kind, particularly those with an agenda, such as political rallies, demonstrations, picket lines, etc are good examples of “stupid places.” Any crowd with a high collective energy level harbors potential catastrophe. To a lesser degree, bank buildings, hospital emergency rooms, airports, government buildings, and bars (particularly crowded ones) fall into the same category. All should be avoided. When they can’t be avoided, we should make it a practice to spend only the minimum time necessary there and then quickly get out.

“A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills.”

There are doubtless those who'll say that to avoid places like the Pulse nightclub is to give into terrorism.  If any of my readers wish to think that way, be my guest.  The fact remains that in an environment where terrorist attack is possible, even likely, that sort of place is a STUPID place to be - particularly because a 'gay bar' is anathema to fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, who will be more likely to attack such targets.  Therefore, choose your recreation destinations wisely.


2.  If you allow yourself to be disarmed, the consequences are on your own head.  If that was forced upon you (e.g. you had to use an airport, or a hospital, or some other place that you couldn't avoid), I have some sympathy for you.  If your choice to be disarmed was voluntary (as in, for example, going to a shopping mall or nightclub where no weapons are allowed), then I have little sympathy for you.  You made your bed;  now you have to lie on it, and you can't blame anyone else if you don't find it comfortable or safe.

Remember Officer Smith's advice?  We've discussed it, and similar recommendations, before.

Buy a gun. Get a bat. Own some weapon and have enough skill to use it to save your own life and the lives of your family members. DO NOT RELY ON THE POLICE TO SAVE YOUR LIFE FOR YOU.

There's more at the link.  Read it all.  It's important.

If you absolutely have to go somewhere that doesn't allow weapons, ask yourself very seriously whether you have any other choice.  If you do, take it.  If you have no other choice, ask yourself equally seriously what your life's worth to you.  I'm not going to recommend that you break the law, or the establishment's rules;  that's a decision each of us has to make for him- or herself.  Nevertheless, I made my decision long ago.  I will not be disarmed unless I absolutely have no other choice in the matter.  It's as simple as that.

If you can't carry a gun, consider alternatives.  At the very least, I'm going to have some of this stuff available - the largest size I can conceal.  (I highly recommend the gel or foam option, rather than the spray, because the former are less likely to blow back in your face or fill a room with gas, thereby affecting you as well.  I particularly recommend this option for maximum concealment, because it comes with a second training unit that you can use to familiarize yourself with its use.  There's no time to start learning when the proverbial brown substance has already hit the rotary air impeller.)  I'll also have something like this on my keyring, to turn it into a useful defensive weapon in an emergency.  (Punch someone in the eye with something like that, and they're not going to be concentrating on you for a while.  They're going to be too busy bleeding and screaming.  I know.)

Those are bare minimum options.  Whenever and wherever possible, I'll have more - and more effective - alternatives as well.  I've got to the point where if I can't take a gun with me, I'll very seriously question whether it's worth going somewhere.  Think that's paranoid?  Tell that to the clubbers at Pulse last night.


3.  Surrender is never an option.

Handing over your life by surrendering to someone who is in the process of committing a violent crime against you is a form of suicide. Some survive but many do not. The monster gets to decide for you.

. . .

You cannot expect mercy from someone who does not know what mercy is.

. . .

If you resist with a commitment to win you may well prevail, especially if you are armed and trained. If you lose it is still better to die fighting in place than to be taken prisoner and have your head cut off with a dull knife while your screams gurgle through your own blood as we have witnessed on numerous videos from the “Islamic practitioners of peace,” as well as the Mexican drug cartels.

. . .

How will you respond if you are confronted by evil as some of us have been in the past and some of us will be in the future? If you have not decided ahead of time what you will do, you will likely do nothing.

There's much more at the link.  Go read it all.


4.  The late, great Jeff Cooper had a succinct answer to such evil in our midst.

We can speculate at length upon why this foulness has come upon us so strikingly at this point in our history, but I doubt that any incontrovertible conclusion will result ... But such speculation is academic. We have the problem; never mind why. What shall we do about it?

. . .

The man to protect you is you. Not the state, not the agent of the state, and not your hired hand—YOU!

. . .

Still we hear, over and over again, that we should not be armed, that we should not resist, that we should rely on the police for our personal safety—that our best answer to violence is to give up. Such drivel demands a stronger stomach than mine.

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

Your best protector is you! The obvious way to eradicate crime is to eradicate criminals, but neither the lawgivers nor the constabulary seem inclined to do this. The man who elects to prey upon society deserves no consideration from society. If he survives his act of violence, he rates a fair trial—but only to be sure that there has been no mistake about his identity. If he is killed in the act, there can be little doubt about whose act it was.

. . .

Laws are not the answer. We have laws against murder. We have laws against kidnapping. We have laws against extortion. And murder, kidnapping, and extortion are on the rise. The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. Let the thug take his chances with an alert, prepared, and angry citizenry. It may very well spoil his whole career.

This is not a call for vigilantism: It is a call for self-reliance.

Again, more at the link.  Read it all.


5.  Jeffrey Snider once called America 'A Nation of Cowards'.  Judging by the behavior of so many people at the Pulse! nightclub last night, he wasn't far wrong.

"Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. "Self-respect" implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. "Self-esteem" simply means that one feels good about oneself. "Dignity" used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.

It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.

. . .

Our society suffers greatly from the beliefs that only official action is legitimate and that the state is the source of our earthly salvation. Both liberal and conservative prescriptions for violent crime suffer from the "not in my job description" school of thought regarding the responsibilities of the law-abiding citizen, and from an overestimation of the ability of the state to provide society's moral moorings. As long as law-abiding citizens assume no personal responsibility for combating crime, liberal and conservative programs will fail to contain it.

Go read the rest.

It is cowardice to allow terrorists to proceed unhindered.  If it hadn't been for the presence of an off-duty police officer last night, who returned fire and drove the terrorist into a restroom (where he took hostages), thus preventing him from killing others in the main body of the building, the death toll would likely have been far higher.  I have nothing but praise for that off-duty officer . . . but why the hell didn't others get involved as well?  It matters not that they were unarmed (although they should have been, as discussed earlier).  By choosing not to fight terror, they gave in to terror.  Even if they were unarmed, if enough of them had tackled him, some would have lived long enough to get to him and take him down.  By choosing to run, they abandoned others to evil.  How can they live with themselves this morning?


These are the lessons I've learned (yet again!) from last night's terrorist attack.  How about you, dear reader?  Let us know in Comments.

Peter

A very sad year for the Isle of Man TT races

We've discussed the breathtaking annual Isle of Man TT motorcycle races in these pages before.  They're renowned as the most dangerous in the world.  Sadly, 2016 has demonstrated that yet again.  No less than four competitors died during this year's event.

Two additional riders died Friday following crashes at the 2016 Isle of Man TT, bringing this year’s death toll up to four. The last time four riders died at the IOM TT was 2000.

The Auto-Cycle Union (ACU) reports that Andrew Soar, 32, died following a crash at Keppel Gate during the final race of the 2016 TT, the Senior TT. Ian Bell, 58, of Bedlington, was the other; he crashed Friday at Ballaspur during the second Sidecar race.

Soar and Bell bring the total fatalities at the 2016 IOMTT up to four; the other two riders perished Saturday, June 4. Paul Shoesmith, 50, crashed during solo practice, and Dwight Beare, 27, crashed during the first sidecar race.

With the passing of Soar and Bell, a total of 247 riders have died in both TT and Manx Grand Prix races since 1911.

There's more at the link.

Casualties might have been far greater but for the use of the most modern safety devices on the circuit.  They can't compensate for all the risks, but they kept some riders alive when in earlier years, they might not have been so fortunate.  Here, for example, is Horst Saiger discussing his near-miss with James Cowton during this year's event.  Cowton lost control at very high speed and crashed into a side barrier.  Fortunately, the barrier was padded with Recticel foam safety padding, which prevented serious injury.  Saiger runs over the padding as it peels off the barrier (with Cowton wrapped in it!), as you'll see in the video.  That's another advantage to this sort of technology - it causes minimal damage to other vehicles, unlike earlier systems that might have brought down the second rider as well.

To illustrate the almost insane speeds involved in the race, here's a new record lap on the Snaefell Mountain Course, set this year by Michael Dunlop in the Superbike event.  It's the first time in history the course has been covered in less than 17 minutes. I suggest watching it in full-screen mode for best results.

Even at my best on a motorcycle, when I was much younger and more foolish, I couldn't come within a good country mile of that level of performance.  Now, I wouldn't dare try!




Peter

The Space Shuttle as you've never seen it before

This is a fascinating 45-minute compilation of launch and behind-the-scenes video clips from the 30-odd years of the Space Shuttle program.  It's well worth the time of aviation and space enthusiasts to watch it in full.

I'm glad I made it to this country in time for the last decade or so of the Shuttle program.  It was good to get closer to it, and see coverage that generally wasn't available in South Africa.

Peter

Adrenaline junkie in action

I haven't enough words to describe how pointless, foolish and stupid this seems to me . . . but clearly this guy doesn't feel that way.

I wonder how his parents would feel if he splattered himself all over that archway?  I don't care how amped the adrenaline rush makes him feel . . . it's not worth that cost, or that much pain, to them.

Peter