Firearms Safety - the abreviated version or the comprehensive one:

The below, is a post I made over at the Firing Line (an apparently very good firearms related site). It is about the rules of gun safety; the so called 4 rules of gun safety versus the older more comprehensive rules of firerarms safety. It is a long read, but see what you think, and please comment on this one, I am fascinated by the discussion on this topic. of course you can always go to The Firing Line to comment in the forum.

*************************************************************************************
My apology beforehand, for this post beginning as it does, I felt I had to address one specific off shoot before I go on the the main subject, so it will take part of 2 replies to make it fit (here in my blog it will just be one long rant).

"So have we suffered enough? I am eager to learn from the Master what the true safety rules are."

As for remarks like the above, I guess there always has to be one wise guy in the group who likes to try to offend someone who wanted to make a point in polite discussion. Yet, because of the point made in that one disrespectful sentence, I will tell you all my qualifications. Then you all can decide for yourselves whether or not you want to put any credence into what I am about to say on the original subject.

I started shooting at about age 8 or 9, at summer camp. I won quite a few NRA patches. That is not important. What was important and relevant to this thread is that before I could shoot, I had to learn the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety, the ones that had been in use for many, many years before Jeff Cooper shortened them to sell a book, and to sell his brand of firearms training.

As I matured I used firearms a bit over the years. Then after college, I got my first job in law enforcement as a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. Again I had to learn the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety, and I had to stick to them for the 4 years I was in the patrol.

I then transferred to the U.S. Customs Patrol. Again I went to an academy wherein I learned the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety.

While a Customs Patrol Officer, I attended an NRA Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor School. I was qualified, by successful completion of that training to become a firearms instructor. I began to have collateral firearms instructor duties at my job after that. Guess what, again I had to learn the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety in order to do so; but there is a new twist, now I had to start teaching them too.

My stint with collateral duties as a firearms instructor while working for the U.S. Customs Service lasted 14 years, from my time as a Patrol Officer, through my time as a criminal investigator, through my time as a special agent and through part of my time as a senior special agent. In all that time I never once heard another firearms instructor teach that there were only 4 rules of firearms safety. I went through co-training with the New York Police Department (several times), I had firearms training with the U.S. Secret Service, I had training with the Federal Air Marshals, I had training with the NYS Police, I had co-training with the U.S. Army in Fort Benning, I had training in 2 Customs Service academies, and I was qualified to instruct revolver, pistol, shotgun and rifle; later I was qualified to instruct submachine gun. Lest I forget, I took the NYS, and CA, hunter safety courses; and I am also a life member of the NRA, and am a member of the NYS Rifle and Pistol Association. In addition I have used my firearms to save my own life more than once.

Am I as well versed in firearms as was Mr. Cooper, probably not. Yet I can say without a doubt that I have never heard anyone else teach his abbreviated form of firearms safety except for those in recent years, and for those who praise him on the Internet.

Am I a master as TimRB would sarcastically like to suggest. No I do not think I am a master. Yet, I sure as heck know a little bit about firearms safety after having been trained in their use, and having had used them, over a period of about 43 years; the last 27 plus of which I have done so on pretty much a daily basis. I am a stickler for safety when anyone else handles them in my presence too. Because I am not a so called master, does not mean that I cannot have a disagreement on this issue with someone like Jeff Cooper,; and because Jeff Cooper was who he was does not necessarily mean that someone else might have a better way. By the way, I am not claiming these rules as my own, far from it, they were written out long before I was born, some even before cooper was born. I simply suggest you may want to consider them (they follow below), and use them in your firearms uses.

With my qualifications out of the way, not only to appease the wise guy, but rather to allow the reader to get an idea if I may know something or not, allow me to continue. I am sorry that the lengthy introduction was, at least in my opinion, necessary. Since one wise guy with poison pen if often enough to ruin a good discussion, I felt the above was prudent.

I am about to quote some of the replies I received, nothing personal, nothing intended to insult, upset, or anything like that, but I will be blunt if only because this is such an important topic.

"Furthermore, as has been pointed out, they are widely known and taught, and it would be counterproductive at this point to introduce competing rules of gun safety."

Ah, there is an irony in what you say, though you may be to young to realize it, then again maybe not.

Those 4 rules of gun safety were not the original rules of gun safety. In fact they were a cut back, abridged version, of the original rules. Some really important ones were left out, and these were written to appeal to the macho he man, what with words like 'destroy' added to them.

I wear a firearm daily, in a strong side hip holster. It 'covers' everything at which it points during the day. Do I want to destroy those things, no I do not. I am not willing to destroy them either. I take it off the shelf, put it into the holster, and take it out of the holster, and put it back wherever I put it at least once a day. I am not willing to destroy anything at which it points, although I am more willing to have a bullet pass through whatever I point it at than I would be to injure or hurt someone. So this one is, in my opinion, kind of a ridiculous rule as it is written, and I think it appeals greatly to those who have a gunslinger mentality to some extent, a real macho image, and to those who like abbreviated rules to another extent, among others to whom it gives some appeal for other reasons. Some may even like it because they never learned the other rules.

As for these rules being the lowest common denominator, they are not; in fact they are lacking when it comes to safety. I have seen several people try to use ammunition of the wrong caliber in their firearms over the years. I have seen the results in some cases in which the round actually sort of fit, then went bang, and the barrel bulged, the barrel cracked, the barrel actually blew open quite a bit, somewhat like a gun that you would see in a cartoon when Bugs Bunny put his finger into Elmer J. Fudd's rifle. At other times I have seen just plain old malfunctions, malfunctions that would get you killed had you tried to use such an improperly loaded gun in a self defense situation.

One of the cardinal rules of gun safety used to be, and still should be: Only use the proper ammunition in your firearm. It is not common sense, as there have been too many screw-ups on this one over the years by people who just did not know better. They think it looks the same, so it must fit and function the same.

Right along with that is the one that says, or said in the olden days: Always use only a firearm in proper working condition. Again, one that is not necessarily common sense. I have seen people show up for quarterly qualifications with their primary firearms not functioning properly, and they knew it, yet they carried it like that anyway.

Another apparently bygone cardinal rule of firearms safety, lost in the translation offer by Mr. Cooper, is that: You should never combine booze and drugs with firearms. Maybe Mr. Cooper did not think drinking and guns a problem when together. He came from an era when the effects of booze were looked upon with contempt than today. I will admit, this one is a bit over the top even for me, and it has been changed in many venues to work better, but not because I think you should drink a few and shoot. I think it would be okay to take an aspirin because your shoulder hurts, or something like that. The newer version of this rule, the one that makes more sense, is along these lines: Never use anything that impairs your functioning, or could potentially impair your functioning, while handling a firearms - like prescription sedatives, alcohol, marijuana, other illicit drugs and so forth. This one would certainly seem like common sense, but I actually have had people tell me they routinely drink a few drinks while shooting, and I do not mean Kool Aide. They see no problem with it as long as they remain within their 'limit'. I guess that goes for when they drive home from the range too.

As far as the one about all guns always being loaded, many of you have addressed that one, but not how I would based upon my experience. You should always treat any gun that you pick up or handle as being loaded until you check and double check to see that it is not, each time you pick it up or handle it anew.

In other words, if you are dry firing a revolver in your home (no I do not advise it, but plenty of folks do it), one that you checked and double checked to make sure it was unloaded that is sort of fine. What do you do though when this happens. The telephone rings, you put the revolver down, go to answer the telephone, have a ten minute discussion with your girlfriend or boyfriend who tells you she/he is hot to trot. You get into that call, you cannot wait to get into - well I'll leave that to your imaginations. After the call ends, you go back to the revolver, you pick it up, you point it wherever while your mind is a bit preoccupied, and you continue to dry fire. The revolver goes click, click, click, bang and you just put a hole through your wall. I have seen it happen more than once. The guys who did it forgot they had started to reload as the telephone was ringing. You have to check each time you pick it up; but that does not mean each gun is always loaded or that you should tech such an impossible thing to anyone as a rule. Teach it the right way.

As to the one telling you to never place your finger on the trigger until you have your sights lined up, well I guess that rules out point shooting, push off shooting, and vertical tracking. It is, in my estimation a foolish thing to teach anyone who is learning about self defense shooting. It could get someone killed. The only guy I have ever shot was not in my sights when I shot him, yet I knew I would hit him. I fired virtually as soon as my pistol cleared leather. The rule was: "Keep your finger off of the trigger until ready to shoot.”

Of course, you should always be sure of your target, but here another thing was abbreviated! Whatever happened to know your target and what is beyond. This of course goes hand in hand with some of the other rules, but is a rule nonetheless. I have not fired a shot, on a few occasions, because it would have potentially jeopardized people in the background. Knowing your target is simply not enough, not by a long shot.

And another cardinal rule of firearms safety, excepting emergency situations is: Always know how to properly operate your firearm before using it. This is one of the most violated rules of firearms safety that I have ever seen, right up their with a finger on the trigger at the wrong time, or the gun pointed in a very unsafe direction .I guess Jeff Cooper, for some reason or other, decided that these other already long standing rules were not to his liking, or were not necessarily conducive to safe firearms handling. I respectfully beg to differ with him for safety reasons. I believe his 4 rules are sorely lacking.

"However, the gun world is full of literalists and authoritarians. That starts the hissy fits. Maybe that isn't the answer you want but to nit pick the exact words to of the rules is to fall into this trap"

I can only hope my answer was less 'hissy fit', and more informative, than you some of you apparently had expected. I also hope you realize I was not so much 'nit picking' at the words, as I was trying to give you a feel for the rules that I have learned over the years, and that countless others (including mr. Cooper) had learned. In my estimation, the one who may have had trouble with those words, the one who may have nit picked them to fit his own purpose, is the one who shortened them in the first place. That is not meant to be irreverant to someone whom a lot of you look up to. The man knew a lot about his business, I just think there was no good reason to shorten the rules as he did, because it left a lot to be desired as far as someone knowledgeably and safely handling a firearm goes, in my opinion. If you are going to handle firearms, or teach others how to handle them, then comprehensive firearms safety must be the first sure shot, otherwise someone will always be at risk unnecessarily.

Hopefully I did not forget any of the cardinal rules of firearms safety that others have taught to me, and that I have taught to shooters over the years. I am a bit under the weather today, and it is time for me to crawl back up to bed with a cup of hot tea and nurse myself back to feeling better.

Best regards,
Glenn B
*************************************************************************************

I hope you enjoyed it and found it somewhat informative. Thanks for reading it through all the way.

All the best,
Glenn B

I really do have hobbies other than firearms...

…related hobbies. Yes I do. For instance, I have quite the collection of animals. Note I did not say pets. Sure I have some pets, including a cat and three dogs among others; but I also have a collection of animals that are not pets in the sense that I play with them, or love them, or have joined PETA because of them (perish the thought, I just about puked just writing that).

What I have is an interest in herpetology and hepetoculture (a made up word maybe, but not made up by me). In other words I keep reptiles and amphibians. I have done so since I was about 4 or 5 I guess, when my uncle Ken (Unkie - back in the day) bought me a Red Eared Slider, a turtle, from a pet shop on Broadway in Brownsville, Brooklyn. Yes I lived in the hood. Ever since then it has caught onto me like a cactus that I just sat on. I have been keeping herps of one sort or another on and off, more on than off mind you - by a long shot, for about 45 or 46 years now. Man I am getting old, but later for that.

It was earlier tonight - after I had gotten done cleaning animal enclosures, after I had gone to my local herpetological society's monthly meeting (LIHS), after I had stopped at the pet shop to buy some things like guppies and a couple of tadpoles, after I had stopped at Home Depot to buy bird seeds (and I do not have any birds) to feed my rodents (and to feed the local wild bird population), after I did some more cage cleaning, after I fed the menagerie, after I watched them all for a while - that I realized I have one heck of a collection of animals; and more so I realized that I have one heck on an interest in animals.

I have kept hundreds of different species/subspecies of reptiles and amphibians over the years. I have bred a fair number of them, nothing grand but quite a few. I have also collected them from the wild, observed them in the wild, and even made a meal or two of them while camping out. Did I mention that groups like PETA and I do not see eye to eye. Yes I hunt, fish, and have bred animals for food (both the type for human consumption and the type for consumption by my herp collection). I used to dream of becoming a veterinarian, or a game warden, or a biologist, but those dreams fell through and I wound up doing something else for a career. Yet I keep in touch with that side of me on a regular basis through, at least in part, the animals I keep, the animals I observe in nature, the animals for which I hunt and fish, and so on.

As for the animals I keep, right now I figure I have about:

1 frog

2 tadpoles

2 turtles

2 tortoises

2 lizards

20 snakes

Besides the slimy and scaly animals, I also have some furry ones. These include about:

50 Guppies

12 adult mice

25 baby mice

5 Dwarf hamsters

In addition to these I have the aforementioned 3 dogs and 1 cat.

I also have a number of plants that I keep in with my herps, I figured I would add these in since they too are a form of living thing I keep.

That first red eared slider surely led me to a life long interest in animals; a fun one and a practical one, as to the practical one I remind you of the hunting and fishing.

There is only one person in my life to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude for helping me to develop this interest - that is my uncle Ken. If he ever reads this I hope he realizes how much that little turtle, so many years ago, wound up meaning to me. Well, I guess there is one other person to whom I owe a debt of gratitude if only for allowing me to further my interests, thanks mom. Without her okay, I would not have kept many of the critters that crossed my path over the years. Uncle ken, is her brother, but she in no way shares his or my love of animals. She was usually terrified by most of them, but she let me keep them just the same.

So why am I bringing all of this up here in my rant. Certainly, it would have been enough just to share the these thoughts with my readers; but I guess there is another reason too, one that could make this read more worthwhile to you. You all know, if you have read my other blogs, that I am into guns and shooting. I am into hunting. I recently took my son on his first big game hunt, and he bagged a black bear. That is another animal we have at home right now, what is left of it anyway, and that is in the freezer. Well, while my son is into shooting, and hunting and fishing, he is also into animals.

For many years, Brendan accompanied me to meetings of the LIHS. Lately he has been working on Sundays, which are the meeting days. He works for a veterinary hospital. He is a kennel worker, the guy at the bottom of the totem pole. Yet, he has ambition. He thinks he might like to become a veterinarian; and who knows maybe he will be a bit luckier than me in keeping true to his dreams, or maybe he will just choose something else. The thing is, and this is important, he has this interest in animals, sort of the same as me. Heck, he is 16 years old, will be 17 before the year is out, and he still likes to do things with his dad. You may have read my earlier rant on this, or may have seen my writing on it in a forum somewhere or another; but here it is again in case you missed it, or it did not sink in the first time around!

What is it that to which I refer when I say I say 'here it is'? It is the fact that if you want to have good times with your children, if you want to establish and keep a lasting bond of camaraderie between you and them, if you want to be your kid's friend, if you truly want to enjoy yourself more than you can in any other pursuit, then you had best enjoy doing things together with your kids; and you had best start developing that mutual enjoyment when your child is young.

I have shared my hobbies with both of my children. I used to take my daughter Celina hiking, camping, fishing, and shooting. She went out with me to catch frogs and snakes. Then we also brought her brother along. Celina kind of drifted away from the enjoyment of those things once she discovered boys. Oh well. I keep trying to get her interested in something that I understand, but it is more difficult now that she is 21 so to be 22. Hopefully I will get her interested in shooting again. I may just have to invite her latest boyfriend for a day at the range; I would bet that would do it if he says yes, and he seems the type to go for it. Of course, my daughter still also has an interest in animals, but pretty much just the dogs, but that is okay by me. I figure when she is out on her own or married someday, one of her first acquisitions will be a puppy of some sort. That is good, better than drugs for sure because if you overdose on puppy all it means is you get licked to death.

I guess it is not only me who owes a debt of gratitude to my mom and to Unkie; it is my kids too, because they got that love of animals from him through me. Of course they also have to thank their mom Linda for her putting up with all the critters. She has little love for any pet except the dogs, and a past bird or three we had. Of course I had best thank her too, because she puts up with me and the whole menagerie. Thanks dear, love you all the more for it. (She will never read

this, but it is nice to hope she might.)

Oh well, you get the idea, its a family thing these animals, and a lot of fun, interesting, and educational too.

All the best,

Glenn B

A little bit of help from the readers...

...would be nice. No I do not mean financial help, I am not about to ask for money for me to buy a new gun, or a used pick up truck, or to by myself a new camera, or a new pet, or for an operation, or for a trip fund, or anything like that. Heck I work for a living and make decent money - although I will admit I may start begging if I ever get more than about 9 readers a day, and at least one of them is rich.

The help I am seeking is one of product recognition. Again nothing to benefit me financially, allow me to explain. I am trying to find out if anyone recognizes the product I am about to describe, because I sure would like to be able to find it again. Many years ago, I am guessing at least 15 or so, my brother who is not at all into firearms bought me some gun cleaning products. The product consisted of a boxed set of three bottles, all plastic. Each bottle was the same size, about 8 to 10 ounces would be my guess this many years, and far fewer little gray cells, later.

One bottle contained a gun cleaning solvent, it was crystal clear, like water. It had a nice lemony aroma to it. It cleaned a firearm better than any other product I have ever used. I would pout one wet patch through a barrel, and then one dry patch. Then second which usually came out either clean or almost clean. It hardly ever took more than three dry patches to come out clean, and I mean really clean.

The second bottle contained a gun oil. It was a run of the mill gun oil as far as I recall.

The third bottle contained an oil to clean and treat wood stocks. It did nice work, and when rubbed in with plenty of rubbing gave a lasting finish to oil finished or unfinished stocks.

The box, if I remember right was open fronted, at least partially so you could see the bottles. There was no cellophane. I think the box was a dark red, almost like a garnet; with black printing.

The product was manufactured in Vermont.

My guess is my brother got it from a catalogue sale. I do not know for sure, and he does not remember.

Hopefully those are enough clues, if the product is still around, to have someone point me in the right direction.

All help is appreciated; and by the way, if you want to send money because you have nothing better to do with it, I have a mortgage and a college bill that need paying. LOL

All the best,
Glenn B

Yet Another Monster Among Us, but...

...this one may be the judge instead of the convicted child molester. See this article Convicted Sex Offender Chooses Canadian Exile Over Jail, found at FoxNews.com. You see, if the judge gets his way, and that would also be what the convicted man wants in this case, then the man who apparently was convicted of a sexual offense after having sex with a 15 year old will get out of jail Scott free if he agrees to stay in Canada for 3 years. This is to say the least, an unusual sentence.

I see some major problems with this agreement, and it is not just that it is unusual and therefore probably unconstitutional, not that I would make a stink about it on those grounds regarding a pedophile. The things that bother me about this decision are as follow:

1. This guy, who was a teacher by profession, is a apparently child molester who was arrested for having sex with a 15 year old child, a student. He seems to have broken one of the most sacred trusts. If he was convicted of any kind of sexual abuse in relation to this case, and he had to have been convicted of something in order to be sentenced by the court, then he deserves at the very least to be in jail for a long time. Instead he is not getting any jail time at all, not even the measly 2 weeks that ultra-liberal judge in Vermont sentenced a pedophile to last year. This is absolutely outrageous. The judge, in my opinion, should be removed from power, fired without chance of collecting a pension, and never be allowed to practice law anywhere. In fact he should not be allowed to work with children either.

2. Why on earth would Canada be expected to take this guy? He is quite possibly now a convicted felon, on sexual abuse charges. Why would canada want the chance of him now going after its children? I tend to doubt they would want him even though he was reportedly already living there with his wife and children.

3. How could a judge in the USA, say that this guy is fit to return to his own family in Canada, a family in which there are children? Of course his wife may not let him anywhere near the children again, but who knows.

4. The whole thing in the article about a judge having no authority to banish a U.S. Citizen is so much window dressing. The guy is not being banished, he is agreeing to stay in Canada otherwise he goes to jail. So I want to know, how does a town judge get off allowing a monster like this guy, yes that is how I see him - as monstrous, to make a choice between relative freedom to molest again and jail?

I think the pedophile is not the only monster here, I think the judge is worse than him. As I see it this judge is a disgrace, and I can only hope that Bill O'Reilly grabs hold of this story as he did the similar one in Vermont last year. In that one, mostly due to O'Reilly's hammering of that travesty of justice, the sentence on the Vermont pedophile went from 2 weeks to much more. Maybe this time around, he can get it boosted up to 20 years on the current offender.

I will be attempting to get in touch with Bill O'Reilly on this either by phone or email. If we all do likewise, maybe he will pick up the story and get this one fixed up a bit. I'll also be contacting some of my elected officials to have them put some pressure on this judge as well. This kind of thing has got to stop before we can even think of stopping the pedophiles; I mean how will we ever stop them if judges keep handing out sentences to them that in essence set them free to offend again!

All the best,

Glenn B

Ballseye's Boomers: Smith & Wesson Model 66

The last S&W Model 66 I owned, the one pictured, was in stainless steel, and had a 2.5" barrel. I got it at a great price, then turned around and sold it at a profit fairly quickly. I don't know why, since I do not have any revolvers in a caliber higher than .22LR because of that sale.

It was a nice gun too, a six shot, .357 caliber revolver, with rubber combat grips, smooth combat trigger, and adjustable rear sight, ramp front sight with red insert; and it shot like a charm - at least for the guy holding it. Certainly not a small revolver, and not a light weight either, more something that makes you realize you are holding a real gun when you heft it. I had had other Model 66 revolvers over the years, some made without as much quality control (back in the early 80's) and I got rid of them quickly without that pang of remorse later on. This one however seemed very well made indeed, and each time I think of it I miss it, the little bit of profit I made by sellng it was not worth all the regret later on that I let it go.

One heck of a good self defense gun, that shoots a pretty decent round at that. Carry a speedloader or two along with one, and you would be a well armed person indeed in a day to day regular life scenario here in the USA.

All the best,
Glenn B

N. Korea & Nukes, Another Look, Am I Too Cynical...

...or is Condoleezza Rice being a bit naive, or just to diplomatic? Here is what Condoleezza Rice said today, about China apparently influencing North Korea to cease nuclear testing and agree to come back to the table to talk:

"In this entire 30-year history of the North Korean nuclear program this is the first time that the international system has been able to actually impose a cost on North Korea for its nuclear behavior," Rice said. "It's able to impose that cost because China has been brought into the process in a way that China never was before." (FoxNews.com @ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222658,00.html)

That is all well and good, but only if North Korea actually comes back to the table to carry out realistic negotiations over its nuclear proliferation, its counterfeiting of U.S. currency, its trade violations, and the war with South Korea (please don't tell me you were not aware they are still technically at war with S. Korea, they have been only in a state of cease fire since, what was it, about 1953).

Of course, even if North Korea agrees to talks, either with just the USA or the 6 party talks, what will it all matter in the scope of things. They already have their nuclear weapons capabilities now, don't they! So what is it that the USA, and the rest of the world, will try to get them to agree. My guess is that North Korea will be ready to stop violating the DMZ, they will probably be ready to stop counterfeiting US currency, they probably will hold back on money laundering, they will likely tone down anti USA rhetoric, they will allow inspection of their ships at sea or in and out of ports, they will discontinue testing medium or long range missile for awhile (but probably not more than a year or two); in short they will make concessions to the USA. Just look at what Kim Jong il was quoted as saying (from the same linked article above):

""If the U.S. makes a concession to some degree, we will also make a concession to some degree, whether it be bilateral talks or six-party talks," Kim was quoted as saying by the Chosun Ilbo."

Wow, how conciliatory of him. Well, tell me, what is it he and the North Koreans are going to do next. My guess is not anything that actually amounts to much, that is except for one thing. The one thing they will keep doing that will amount to an awful lot is, by my guess, that they will keep whatever nukes they already have, and will probably produce more of them in secret. Sure they will make concessions on all those other things since none of them, not even all of them combined, amount to a hill of beans.

Regardless of that though, the US, and the rest of the world, will sit down expecting to have meaningful talks with Kim Jong Il and his government over all those silly subjects *silly when compared to a madman with his finger on a nuclear trigger), and what will they accomplish. Not a whole heck of a lot. The only ones who are accomplishing anything are the North Koreans, and they have almost no resources of which to speak. My hat goes off to them for that, then I would just as well nuke them preemptively.

Of course my cynicism may be misguided. Kim Jong il may have had a change of heart. The North Korean people may also suddenly and almost miraculously have begun to think that we are their friends instead of their bitter enemies - a fact which has been inundated into the essence of their being since the day each of them was born. In addition the world may stop rotating (or is it revolving) and starting bouncing its way through the cosmic debris - yeah right.

While we are having the so called talks with North Korea, I can only hope we do so with one major goal in place, that goal being having them un-nuke their military (sorry I lacked a better word but you get my drift). Of course if that means getting rid of Kim Jong il in some fashion that would be a plus because I believe he is a lunatic, and keeping him in power of more than a Newspaper Stand would be dangerous for the whole world.

Am I right to be concerned, well more than 50 years of very recent tell me yes I am quite justified. Am I right for sure, only time will tell, but I am willing to bet I'm right. We need to get rid of this guy, and fast, especially now that he has nukes.

All the best,

Glenn B

As I recall there were no non-family witnesses...

...to this suicide, see the article Husband Indicted in Van Suicide. If that is the case, that there were no witnesses other than the father and the children; I think the police are being extremely creative in charging the father/husband in connection with his wife's suicide. Of course my estimation of this precludes the 5 year old child having given a credible and coherent recounting of what went on, and that recounting would of course have to implicate the father. Somehow I find it hard to imagine that a 5 year old child would have understood enough of what went on if what the plice are alleging is correct. I hope the prosecutors are not pressing charges on a statement like: 'Daddy yelled at mommy, daddy was mad at mommy,mommy said she would kill herself, daddy got out of the car and mommy went over the edge" because folks that should not be anywhere near enough even in light of what happened. People say stupid things in arguments all the time, but then again I do not even know that the police have even that much.

Maybe they have other evidence to suggest he did this, maybe it is just super creative police imaginations gone wild; I hope that the truth will come to light, the truth of reality and not some jury decision based upon conjecture because this one seems even more inventive than the rape charges against the Duke University students.

All the best,
Glenn B

Ballseye's Boomers: A Few Midweek Guns...

...will have to be shown today, since I was unable to show any last Saturday while I was out in Wyoming.

When I got to my friend Don's house out in WY last week, I was quickly ushered to my room so I could unpack and freshen up. While I was looking around the room two things immediately caught my eye, well three really. The first was the balcony, off of which I remembered hearing Don tell me he liked to shoot; the next were a rifle and a shotgun leaning on the wall. One of these was a Marlin semi-auto rifle in .22LR. The other was a NEF 12 gauge single shot shotgun. I knew that somewhere along the way I would be shooting both. Of course I was right that I would shoot them both, but had I given it any thought, I would have figured on shooting the 12 gauge a bit more. One evening, while I was feeling bored to tears, or antsy, or just whatever, I told Don "excuse me, I have to do something" then I walked over too the sliding doors, opened the balcony doors, grabbed the shotgun. aimed in at the dirt below, and let off a blast. I needed that. What I did not need was having forgotten to put on a head set. Ouch, oh well - Don and I have heard our ears ring before - LOL. I did not bother with that toy again, if only because I did not readily see any rounds for it.

A few other times, I went to the balcony and fired off a number of .22LR from the Marlin. The rifle was scoped, as you can see, but it had not been sighted in for me. So, when I was shooting at some exploding targets I had picked up at a gun/pawn shop one day, I was missing badly. Well not badly, but certainly not making them go boom. When I finally got one, I came downstairs one afternoon to ask Don if he had heard it. He was on the phone and I think whomever he was speaking with had heard it too - whoops.

I guess by the third day I was there, Don and I went to Cabelas in Nebraska; the original store I think. A nice place but not as impressive as the one in Pennsylvania; still a good place to be for a couple of gun enthusiast buddies, even if we were there for about 4 hours. While I looked here and there at this and that, Don waited patiently for a friend who worked there to get some time for him. The friend had called Don about something’s Cabela's had gotten in stock that Don might like. So Don checked over a few revolvers, and it did not seem like he was interested enough to buy one. Then he checked out a Kimber in .45 Auto. I think Don began to salivate! I mean you tell me. is that nice or what. I thought it was pretty decent to great looking, and that coming from a Beretta fan. I could tell Don liked it a whole heck of a lot more than I did, even though I was liking it more and more as each minute went by. He wound up buying it for about $850 used. It had nary a mark on it, almost looked brand new. A good buy indeed, which I was soon to learn was about to get better.

You see Don had also had his eye on a Colt official Police revolver. As it wound up, Cabela's gives points for what you buy with their store Visa card. Don already had a good number of points built up from past purchases. He earned enough points for $85.00 worth of them by buying the Kimber. He had a certificate for $100 off. He then asked the guy who worked there a magic question: "Are you having a grand opening sale?" (you had to buy at least $500 in merchandise I think on your Cabela's visa card for this to be a magic question); and the next thing you know he was handed a certificate good as $150 in cash on his next purchase. With his points that would be credited by his next billing cycle, with the $100 certificate he already had, with the newly acquired certificate for $150, well he just put that Colt Official Police on lay-a-way. That way, when the next billing cycle on his Cabela’s Visa card rolled into town, he would be getting a free Colt Official Police. Not a bad deal.

I had brought Don some .45 ACP rounds, 100 of them, as a gift. Then after he bought that Kimber, we went across the road, where I bought him a box of 100 more rounds of .45 ACP, these were Remington .45 ACP 230 grain JHP. I got them at Wal-mart and they were about 6 or 7 dollars less expensive than at Cabela's for the exact same thing. When you shop you need to know prices. I had bought some ammo in .35 Remington that I knew was about $5 cheaper by the box at Cabela's than at Wally World. I also bought a pumpkin, a fairly good sized one, that I figured would make a nice jack-O-Lantern, after all it was October.

As you guessed by now, sooner or later we shot the Kimber. Don shot up some round to make sure it worked and I decided to wait. A few nights later, Don went out in the wee hours of the AM, him not being able to sleep, and he fired off a bunch of them. Some he fired right from his front porch and did not even wake me up!

The next day, I carved that pumpkin face. later on I told Don, "let's go shoot from the balcony", and he loaded up some Kimber mags. We had gone to JAX's Sporting Goods Fort Collins somewhere in the in-between, and Don had picked up some extra mags for it, though I supposed he already had enough .45 ACP mags around, he wanted new ones for this baby. Don fired off a mag full at the great Pumpkin, and I think hit it all 9 times. Yes he had bought Wilson Combat mags, 8 rounders, and also bought some sort of extension kit for his original Kimber mag. Then he let me fire it and I slammed it too, maybe missing once. It was about 30 or 35 yards away. As Don loaded up more mags, I checked to see he had his ears on, and I pulled out my Glock 19. I pretty much tore up Mr. Pumpkin Head, it seemed the 9mm rounds were doing more damage than the .45ACP. Then Don took more shots with the .45, and if I remember right we soon had it finished off between us into a pile of Pumpkin Pie ingredients 9just a figure of speech because I sure would not eat it, and I think neither would Don or his Kats).

Surprisingly enough, those 4 guns mentioned above are the only 4 I fired in the whole week out there. I never did light up the night sky, as I had planned, with a Mosan Nagant in 7.62x59R. Next time I guess.

All the best,
Glenn B

Friendship...

...is a treasure, or at least that is the way I see it. All true friends are good ones even though some friendships last and others do not. Friends come and go that is just part of the nature of friendships. The best thing about friendship is/are, I think, one's lasting friend(s).

Lasting friends are ones who create a bond of friendship with you that overcomes many obstacles to friendship. Such friends are the ones who despite their own personal feeling about things, despite how their feelings disagree with your own, despite how both of you disagree on issues such as politics, religion, the weather, gun control, sports, hobbies, how to raise a child, whether or not to have children, abortion, crime and punishment, abortion, who will win the girl, how to spend time together as friends, how to bake a cake, how to climb a mountain, how to kill some time, what type of booze to drink, always wind up there to accept you as their friend.

I certainly am not the best at making friends, so when I make one I have tried to be a friend like that to my friends. While I never give it any conscious thought in developing a friendship, I guess I always have always thought, in the back of my mind, that anyone to whom I give my friendship in that way would do likewise to me. So it is always a pretty hard blow to bear when one, or more than one, wind up breaking that friendship over something truly inconsequential in the greater scheme of things. It hurts a lot.

At times when you lose a friend, either because of some disagreement through which you can not bear your friendship any longer, or because of separation due to moving away, or possibly due to death, well at those times you hurt. You have lost a part of yourself when you lose a friend. Recently I lost a couple of friends. When I look at it now, I am pretty certain they never shared the feeling of friendship I had toward them with like feelings of friendship toward me; maybe they did, but now I doubt it. Nonetheless I had considered them my friends if only through ignorance that they did not return the amenity to me, no that is not right - even had they been simply neutral on the subject I still would have held them as friends. I guess it did not matter much to me at the time if I considered them my friends and they considered me likewise. I sort of thought they might not, but nonetheless I offered my friendship to them; I certainly never thought they despised me. Now that they have cut me off, over one of those truly silly inconsequential things, maybe it is for the best; time will tell, though right now it does hurt.

With that loss, I thought about other friends of mine. I guess I was trying to seek solace of a sort in thoughts of others who have befriended me, or whom I have befriended, over the years. Some of them, I have not seen in years; yet I know they are still my friends. One called me a few months ago, one who I have not seen in probably over 15 years. He called to tell me he had retired and moved to Florida, and that I should get my ass down to his place for a fun stay. I have not yet taken him up on it, but you can bet I will. You may wonder why I have not seen in him in such a long time. Well I guess it was because he cut himself off from contact with me. No it was not over anything silly or inconsequential, nor was it over any serious consequential disagreement between us. He had cut himself off, even before I had last seen him, mainly because he had a problem with which he needed to cope. He was advised that his problem could best be coped with by changing his lifestyle drastically, so he did just that and he saw very little of his old friends over the many years to follow. He succeeded in changing his lifestyle. He settled down, and he has a wonderful family. Heck he even made it to retirement. He did all this while having to break away from dear friends. I understand completely, and I was never sore at him about it. Had he ever come to me I would have been there for him, and I would hope he would have been there for me. I am sure he would have as evidenced by his recent offer to me. Our friendship never died, I cannot believe it ever will.

I have other friend like that; ones who for some reason or another got separated from me, or I from them, but we remain friends. I see them somewhat more often than the one I mentioned above. It is nice to see the welcoming look in there eyes when they greet me. I recently visited one of those friends, he lives in Wyoming.

Don, that is his name of choice, is one of those friends that you rarely make in a lifetime. I don't mean that you rarely make good friends in a lifetime, I think some folks have few and some have many, but just about anyone can make several. What I mean about Don being a rare friend is that while Don and I do often see eye to eye, we also often rub each other the wrong way. Rubbing each other the wrong way is usually more likely to cause friction, and maybe even a nasty fiery relationship between folks than it is to wind up being a longtime bond of good, or really good, friendship. On top of Don being a friend, despite our the friction that sometimes come up between us, Don is not just a friend, he is one of my best friends. Our friendship is truly a treasure that I hold dearly.

I had seen Don, only once, in many years, since he was transferred to El Paso, TX. We had both worked the same job, he was my supervisor; and somewhere along the way we developed a friendship. I guess I should note it was pretty soon after meeting one another. Despite the fact that I often did not see eye to eye with my supervisors, including Don at times, we got along well. I do not often make friends at work, but when I do they are usually good ones. Don wound up among the best of friends. I don't know exactly why it is that we are such good friends. Sure we have some of the same likes and dislikes, but we are still very different about many things. I guess one of the major reasons we get along as well as we do is because of acceptance, and note I did not say tolerance. We are sometimes quite intolerant of each other, that is in both of our natures; yet no matter how intolerant we are of one another, no matter how much we can disagree on something, no matter how much we rub each other the wrong way, no matter how really angry we can get with one another, we always wind up remaining good friends with one another.

In fact, we are such good friends, that when I recently thought of visiting Don for the Christmas Holidays, he was right up for it. Within a day though it seemed my plans were to fail. I had second thoughts thinking about leaving my family for the holidays, even though I was pretty sure my wife would say okay, and my kids would live with it. Then I started to check air fares anyhow. It wound up that if I was to travel within a week, I would save over $250, or there about, in air fare. I contacted Don again, and he said he would be pleased to have me see him within a week. I knew that was short notice but if okay by him, I would go for it. I spoke to my wife and she put the Kibosh on it. Then hours later she recanted and told me to go for it saying: "You only live once". Within about 8 days, I was on a plane to Denver to visit Don. I flew to Denver, CO where he picked me up, then drove me to his place in WY.

Don's closest neighbors are several miles away, and in different directions from him. He virtually lives in the middle of the high plains or foothills of the Rockies. He lives with two cats. Don is not the greatest people person I know, though he gets along with some and grandly at that. I know he also winds up in fiery disputes with others who he has called friend. After some of those explosions, I guess he loses some of those whom he had thought were his friends. We have had a few of those encounters ourselves; it isn't as easy to shake me off, and Don knows it. We know we are one another’s' good friend. I spent a nice week with him at his place, and visiting the better gun shops within about 125 miles of his place. We shared some good German Beer, and quite a few others he had in his coffers, as well as sharing some really decent Scotch Whiskey. We also shared some good bull shit sessions about nothing to something. When Don dropped me off at the airport back in Denver at the end of my stay, he said he hoped I had enjoyed myself. I think there was some doubt in his mind that I had done so.

Heck the only thing I could have thought of to have had a better time would have been to have hiked out to the nearest big hill from his house for a day. That was not done because of some guy driving around out on the hills near his place. Maybe a hunter, maybe a whacko, so we stayed at his place and enjoyed some beers and a movie, and maybe some Scotch. He really liked the movies I picked up for him: The Fifth Element, From Dusk Till Dawn, Pulp Fiction. So I missed a hike, that is okay by me, more of an excuse to visit Don again, I will do it next time.

But I digress, so let me get back to the point, Don is one of my best friends. It is a true treasure to have friends like him, and it hurts like hell when you lose a friend like the other ones I recently lost. If you ever lose a friend, or worse yet, if you ever are rudely awakened to find out that those to whom you freely gave your friendship really only believed you to be no more than a rude bastard, whom they would tolerate so long as it was to their benefit, then just remember the good friends you have. You can always find sojourn and solace in them, even without them being there in person. Even if there is only one, that friend is enough to get you through hard times.

I thank all of those good friends of mine whom I have thought of over the past day, who have made my loss a thing easier to live with.

Keep hold of your good friends as you can, they are a treasure indeed, a treasure beyond compare.

All the best,
Glenn B

A Raving Lunatic Among Us...

...is, in my opinion, even more dangerous than one in charge of another country. Yesterday I wrote about a person, whom I believe to be a true madman, in charge of nuclear weapons, Kim Jong Il of North Korea. My thoughts about him come down to one thing, he needs to be removed from power because he is extremely dangerous regarding the rest of the world and life as we know it.

Today though, I have another crazy person in my sights, well I think he is quite irrational anyhow, maybe even enough to be seen as crazy. This one is not an enemy afar, this one is, I believe, an enemy within; and he is, in my opinion, so crazy as to be blinded by his own good intentions (oh those twisted intentions of the mentally ill) not to realize he is an enemy of the USA. I am speaking of the man who was once our president, probably the least qualified to be president in my 51 years of life - Jimmy Carter. According to FoxNews.com, Carter has been blasting the Bush administration over the whole nuclear thing with North Korea, trying to say that the North Koreans having nuclear capabilities is all because of Bush's attitude toward North Korea. Where does this guy get off of his rocking horse, please let me know, because I want to be there when they put the white coat on him, the one with the wrap around sleeves. Yes I believe he has gone off of the deep end with those remarks, whether or not he is our former president. I might have a little more respect for his interpretation of things if I believed it was rational, which I do not.

Here is why I think the way I do. Here is a blurb from FoxNews.com @ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221918,00.html

"Former President Jimmy Carter said that an agreement he brokered 12 years ago for North Korea to halt nuclear weapons development is "in the wastebasket" since the Bush administration turned its back on the deal and labeled the isolated nation part of an "axis of evil.""

Furthermore FoxNews.co attributes this to Carter: (from the same linked article)

"He said that after President George W. Bush took office, "there was a rapid change in the attitude toward North Korea."

"Within a year, the entire framework was destroyed, and North Korea was branded a member of the axis of evil," he said."

Okay, so let's look at what Carter said, and let's see if this whole situation is blamable on George W. Bush and his policies, or if there could possibly be another culprit; let's see if carter is just Bush bashing at every opportunity because of the upcoming elections. And folks, try to remember I am no great fan of George W. Bush, I think him very lacking as our president, but do support some of his policies.

Carter says that his brokering of a peace agreement in 1994 led to relatively stable and peaceful times between us and North Korea. In actuality what that 1994 peace deal brokered was little more than appeasement of North Korea by the Clinton Administration, which was in the Whitehouse then. Since the end of the Korean conflict back in the 1950s, North Korea has been an avowed enemy of the USA and that is self avowed. They have had a state policy of hating us and our allies. They are a communist regime. Like most other communist regimes they are an abject failure. About the only fairly successful communist regime is Red China (yes I still call them Red China because they are commies). North Korea, on the other hand, is a failure manufacturing wise, a failure agriculturally (their people are just about starving), a failure in the international trade market, a failure in the political market (they are one of the most brutal dictatorships to come along in years). North Korea constantly pours a great majority of their wealth into its armed forces, now to include nuclear capability. Ex-president Jimmy carter would blame this all on George W. Bush because Bush called the North Koreans part of the axis of evil. Ooooh, that gets me so pissed off I want to build nukes too.

Jimmy is missing something. Jimmy is missing the history of North Korea being our avowed enemy. he was blinded by his desire to go down in history as the Peacemaker President. Doubt that then just look at his record. Because of his attempts at pandering Islamist extremists, much of this stuff started in the first place. Try to bear in mind that he was in charge during the first Islamist terrorist attacks against us. He set the pace so to speak. Yet, he would prefer to throw a blind eye in that direction. Okay, let's go with him on that and just stick to North Korea, another screw-up by him.

Here is another blurb from the same article that is an attempt to support Carter's claim:

"Between October 1994 and December 2002, no plutonium was produced in North Korea, said Marion Creekmore, author of the new book "A Moment of Crisis," about his 1994 trip with Carter and his wife, Rosalynn to Pyongyang."

Well we are rolling right along now with support for Jimmy's stance. I agree, there probably was no plutonium produced by North Korea in those years; but ask yourself: WHY NOT? Well part of the answer is they did not have the technology to do so, at least not until around that time of the 1994 agreement brokered by Carter. In fact, the North Koreans did not have nuclear capabilities of any sort until that 1994 agreement. They wanted to go to nuclear capability, and they used their lack of it as a bargaining chip. We were as close to war with North Korea in 1994 as we have been since the original Korean conflict ended in the 1950s. Even Carter agrees to that. So in order to appease North Korea, in order to make sure North Korea did not attack our allies in South Korea or in Japan, what did Jimmy Carter the peace broker, and the Clinton administration do? They agreed to give North Korea nuclear technology. Yes folks, they gave the North Koreans, our self avowed enemies, the ability to create nuclear power.

So guess what it was that the North Koreans set out to accomplish once they had this technology. If you guessed that they set out to create nuclear weapons, you win a prize, one that Carter was unable to win because he got the wrong answer. Now for anyone to say, hey North Korea did not have nuclear weapons grade plutonium (a product needed to make the bomb) is all factual; but they are leaving something out of the equation. What they are leaving out, is that once North Korea had nuclear technology, it took time for them to implement it to build nuclear power plants. Once they had those power plants they were a step closer, but they had to build them and it took time to build ones in which plutonium could be made. Then they had to figure out how to gear those plants to make plutonium, I wonder where they got the know how to do that. If it took time, maybe it was because they figured it out themselves over several years. Then they had to make weapons grade plutonium, not an easy task. It took them years to make a bunch of it, that is if we have guessed right as to how much they have. My estimate would be very conservative if only because the bomb they tested was very small; showing they do not want to waste what they have on hand.

What Jimmy Carter is saying though, is that it was only Bush calling them an axis of evil and changing US policy toward them that had them try to create nukes. This is preposterous. I contend that they were probably at it all along. Sure they made a big stink about starting up nuclear power plants a few years back, but my bet is they had never stopped their research into plutonium creation. Once they had it they used whatever excuse to start up the production of it. The key to the whole thing is that they never would have had this technology unless we had given them most of it; and now Carter wants to blame Bush! Amazing.

The truth is that before Bush called them an axis of evil, they were already starting up their war propaganda, and anti USA propaganda again. They had never backed down as a threat to Japan or South Korea, for example several missile tests over the sea of Japan and over South Korea, those long before the most recent ones, long before Bush. In fact it has been documented that they regularly supply missile technology to Syria, and Syria to terrorists. They also supply Iran with much of the same. So even if Bush called them part of an Axis of evil, he was not off the mark.

The thing is we need to wake up folks like those who admire Carter to see the light. They need to realize that North Korea is a threat to us no matter who is in power over here (unless maybe Kim Jong Il figures out how to be elected our president). They also need to realize that we need to act fast on this one, and decisively too. If you don't know what I mean, and you want to, read my rant from yesterday.

Guys like former president Jimmy Carter will never see it, his head is buried to far down in the sand counting peanuts. He means well, but so too did they who ignored Nazi and Japanese aggression prior to WWII. Let’s not get caught sleeping again. This time the giant may just get hit hard enough that he does not wake up.

What can we do, who should we call, how much longer do we wait...

...until we take swift and decisive actions against North Korea to prevent them from nuking anyone. This is not a rhetorical question, this is a question about our survival, about the survival of the world. North Korea has called the United Nations sanctions, enacted against North Korea because of its nuclear testing, an act of war.

It is now common knowledge that North Korea has developed nuclear weapons capabilities, in fact they have already tested a nuclear bomb, albeit a small one. This has the other nations of the world so concerned that the United Nations has condemned North Koreas actions in apparent record time for them to get anything done. Russia and China, though not as forcefully as other nations, are calling for North Korea to call it quits with nukes. South Korea is beefing up its military and civil preparedness for a possible strike by North Korea, a nuclear strike. Japan is beefing up its military with defensive missiles, troop buildups, naval buildups and the like. This a very big change in policy for them, all apparently spurred on by North Korea's nuke technology and by terrorism. It seems Japan may also be considering becoming a nuclear power, and that is a super big-time change of policy for them.

Why all of this fuss since North Korea has boasted before but never in my lifetime has it actually started a war. Well you get all this fuss because the rest of the world is pretty scared of the guy who, I believe, acts like a lunatic who is in power in North Korea - Kim Jong Il. Lunatics, even run of the mill crazy people, often say this and that and threaten violence without ever doing it, but you have to remember they also often resort to that violence or worse after years of having whatever it is simmering in their brains simmer away until it hits the boiling point. If a mentally ill person is in custody in a mental health institution the threat is lessened; if a mentally ill person is on medications the threat is lessened; if the mentally ill person is running around unfettered and comes into possession of deadly weapons - well then people are at risk. In this case the whole world is at risk as I see it because I believe that the leader of North Korea is totally bonkers, he is in my estimation living in his own personal Bizarro World.

Now he, or his government, is reported as having said that United nations sanctions effected against North Korea for their proliferation of nuclear weapons is: "a declaration of war". See this article http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221478,00.html. That should scare anyone to action, and I do mean to action, not just to more talk. How long will we wait before doing something that will actually be effective in getting rid of this threat to world security. Sanctions are not going to do it. They have a history of being miserable failures when in relation to countries like North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. Heck there were sanctions against North Korea for years, and what did they do, they took the nuclear technology that former U.S. President Clinton gave to them, and they effectively used that t4chnology to create their own nuclear bombs. Now what is to prevent the crazy guy from going berserk with his new toys? Think about that, are sanctions going to prevent him from pushing the button? I doubt it. So what can be done?

Of course we could invade North Korea. We might even get some support from other nations on this, even more support than we got in the Middle East in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We may even get as many nations to support us as we had allied with us in WWII. Yet such an attack would be costly to us, we would lose many brave men and women and our military would be stretched very thin what with our other obligations right now; so I wonder what other way. Well, we could bomb them either with conventional weapons or with nukes. These would have to be aimed at very strategic points such as at nuclear testing sites, at power plants, at other nuclear sites and so forth. The nuclear option would probably be the most powerful, but also the one with the most dire consequences, not just for North Korea but for the whole world. I am hopeful it will not come to that. So what else is left to us?

A North Korean defector has given us the answer; we can eliminate the head man, that guy I believe to be the insane nut job, who has his finger on the nuclear trigger.

The man once considered the mentor of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il said Tuesday that the reclusive country's nuclear weapons program cannot be stopped unless the strongman is ousted. (The above quote is from a FoxNews article at: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Oct17/0,4670,KoreasTopDefector,00.html). Now I think we have hit on an extremely viable alternative to getting this problem solved. Think about what would have been prevented had Adolph Hitler been terminated in some fashion, before he was able to fully implement his attempts at achieving his Third Reich. Think about what could have been prevented had Josef Stalin been removed from the scene shortly after WWII had come to an end. In each case, millions, heck 10s of millions, of lives would have been saved. It would not be all that hard to target this guy Kim Jong Il, and get him out of power in some way, before he becomes capable of launching or otherwise delivering nuclear bombs around the world, or even just to his closest neighbors. Should he do that, chances are that WWIII will break out in full force including no hold barred nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. What would he have to lose once he starts it, at least what would an insane man worry about losing once he starts killing. Not much and that is why crazy people on the rampage with weapons are so dangerous, so just imagine how dangerous is this guy with his nukes.

Would we get the support we need to carry out such a plan. I think we would. Would we get a lot of flack from countries who opposed the plan, sure we would. Would that flak matter, maybe it would, but not all that much as I believe too many countries in the world are truly scared of, who is in my opinion, the North Korean madman. Just about the only countries who seem to like the fact that North Korea has become a nuclear power are other pissant countries who sponsor terrorism. For instance Iran supports North Korea wholeheartedly, for reference see the article at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221478,00.html. Wouldn't they love to be the recipients of this nuclear technology. You bet they would, and where would they aim it or send it. Right to us, and to Israel, if they had it; and as they lobbed them so to would North Korea toward Japan, South Korea, Australia and so on. They would likely even try for us, it is not that far fetched with use of commercial or military aircraft, or even with North Korea's missile technology.

So who would support us. Well out in the open, I believe we would get support from countries like Australia, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Great Britain, Poland, Italy, India, Pakistan (how ironic from these last 2); and we would get more under the table support from countries like China, Russia, France, Germany, Greece, Turkey, Mexico, Canada, almost all of the former soviet republics, most of the Pacific island nations. Of course, that under the table support would come out atop the table should we knock this guy off successfully. I think we would have a great majority of the nations of the world behind us on this one; but we would have to do it quick, and decisively.

By quick and decisively, I mean we would not only have to get this Kim Jong Il on the first attempt, and get him right out of power; but we would also have to have a decisive deterrent set in place to assure the North Koreans would not attempt to react with a nuclear strike. This would be basically what we had in place with the Soviets, and still have in place with the Chinese – a nuclear deterrent and the will to use it if need be. We would have to express our will to do so to the remaining North Korean government officials immediately upon our strike to terminate Kim Jong Il reign. We would also have to communicate to them immediately our desire not to go to war over his ouster however achieved; an we would have to convince them we were willing to leave it at that should they stand down in their nuclear arsenal. Then we would have to immediately commence a plan to help bring North Korea into the 21st century, as a peaceful ally, with offers of technology, advances in agriculture, and plentiful commerce. Sort of what we did with Japan after WWII, and look how well it worked there – Japan is one of our best allies where once they had been our bitter enemy. I believe the same can take place with North Korea; all we need to do is to get rid of the crazy man and get someone with some rational sense in place, then offer them our help to develop a nation as we did with Japan. History shows it will work; so why we have not done it already is a mystery to me because once he throws one nuke that could wind up being the end of us all.

All the best,
Glenn B

I am soon to retire...

...after over 27 years of service in federal law enforcement. I became eligible to retire back in October, and up until then, I had sort of thought I would pull the plug right away. The job is, in my opinion, not what it once was; and yes I know nothing is what it was once, but that does not make it any easier to leave the job and head out to pasture.

For some reason, I keep thinking I'll wait a bit longer. The main excuse, I give to myself and to others, for waiting is that if I go out now there will not be quite enough to have me and my family financially settled. I have thought about that a lot lately, and I did some checking and came up with a figure and date that would make me happy (at least right now I think it would make me happy when it arrives) regarding my pension. To attain the figure I have in mind for my annual pension (no I am not telling you how much that will be as it is a private thing, too private right now for here) I would have to work until January 2009. That does not seem all that far off, only 2 years and 2 1/2 months. It ought to be something I could do standing on my head while spinning like a top - don't you think! Yet just as it has been getting harder and harder to go into work each day, I find it harder and harder to even think of retirement, and I am not sure why but I do have some ideas. The following is all my opinion about why I have not yet retired, and about why I am finding it hard to do so, even though I think the jobs sucks.

My job(s) used to be a fairly good one. I started off my career in federal service in the U.S. Border Patrol, as a Border Patrol Agent. I spent just over 4 years of my life dedicated to keeping the USA safe from those whose first on our soil act would be an illegal one. After those 4 years and quite a few on the job adventures including quite a few on the job injuries, quite a few off the job adventures that included at least a few senoritas and trips to places far from Calexico, California where I had been stationed - I figured it was long overdue for me to return to New York City.

I went back to NYC when I got a transfer from the Border Patrol into the U.S. Customs Service as a Customs Patrol Officer. I did that for a few years, then became a criminal investigator, and later a Special Agent (actually the same job just at higher pay than the crim. invest. in Customs).
All of the jobs had their share of boring lousy assignments, but all of them had more than a fair share of adventure - at least for me. Over the years I was one who never having been in the military service, and therefore never having learned the golden rule of the military, to volunteer for assignments. Because of that I wound up in a financial investigations group, then got transferred to a narcotics smuggling group, then to a general investigations group, and back into narcotics, then back to another financial group. These were usually the busier groups and the ones I was a part of were busy indeed. I have plenty of stories - all no brag, just fact - to tell to my grandkids someday about what I and other group members accomplished. I had some great supervisors, and great coworkers too and they will be included in my recounting of the good old days. I also have a lot of stories they maybe will not hear about some of the jerks I worked with and some of the even less intelligent and inept bosses under who I served - there was more than a fair share of them for sure. Some people should never have gotten into law enforcement, and I often wonder why they did; but I digress.

I went on, fairly happy in my work (though I could bitch and moan about anything, and let the bosses know when I thought they were wrong - often paying the price for it by missing a promotion), and I did more than my fair share of it over the years. An agent I know commented to me about a year ago that he was unaware of any other agent in our office having had as many cases as I had over my service in U.S. Customs. Maybe he was right, maybe not, and while I know I never had any earth shattering cases - I know I did my work and did it well, and many of my cases wound up with arrests, seizures, and convictions. Then things got kind of messy for me when a big boss wrongfully believed I had written some anonymous poison pen letters to Internal Affairs, The Office of the Inspector general, and the Secretary of the Treasury. I personally disliked that boss almost with a hateful passion, if only because I believed he was the biggest wrongfully vindictive asshole I had ever met, but I had never dimmed him out by writing anonymous letters. That was not my style. So I wound up transferred to a do nothing position. Not long after that, when the matter in those letters came under investigation, and the boss was about to go before a governmental hearing on charges another agent had filed against him and the Customs Service, said boss asked me if I wanted to go back to work for him, and he had a maniacal smile on his face when he asked. I declined. Instead, I testified at that hearing. I testified against him and against the Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement of the USCS (yes the 2nd in charge nationwide). My testimony, supported by that of others, and by hard cold evidence showed at least one of them to have perjured himself, as I now understand.

Customs did not reward me. I was transferred back to my old post. Not long after, I reported some wrong doing by an NY Police Department Officer who I had seen beat a prisoner. Very soon after that I was transferred to our office in Manhattan from JFK International Airport. I was then assigned totally administrative duties, to include collateral duties as a firearms instructor. I could live with those duties, and did so for a while.

Then came something that changed my career drastically, hell it changed all of our lives drastically. Yes I mean 9/11/2001. That date, bar the end of the world, was coming no matter what, it is too bad it came on as it did for all many reasons and for all too many people. My personal reasons are not that important in the overall scope of the events and aftereffects of that day, but I will tell you about some of them here, because they fit right in with the scheme of this rant. I was not in my office on 9/11; I was somewhere in CT, heck I cannot recall the name of the town or the department I was visiting, where my cousin and I were taking a Glock Armorers course. A police officer came into the room and told us an aircraft had hit one of the towers of the WTC. He said he would bring in a television during our break so we could all see the news as it unfolded. Not long after, and before our scheduled break, the officer came in again and told us of a second plane hitting the other large tower. A few minutes later and we were all watching on a TV in the classroom. John, that is my cousin, and I left and headed back to NYC. We must have shaved at least 45 minutes off our earlier drive time to CT on our return trip to NYC. The roads were empty, that is except for emergency vehicles like ambulances on the shoulders of the road, hundreds of them all lined up, and I flew. When we got back to the city we headed to Kennedy Airport office of Customs Office of Investigations. One of those asshole supervisors I told you about above asked me what we were doing there. Heck, I had the smarts to call our sector communications to see what needed to be done, and they told us, ordered us, to go to JFK. By the end of a long day, we had accounted for all of our NYC personnel.

With that day, the changes had begun. For about two weeks I helped carry out the resupply of our office, more admin duties but important ones. During the first week after 9/11, I went down to the WTC rubble piles and helped out on two shifts, the first on a bucket brigade as firemen dug for survivors/bodies, and I helped throw the rubble they dug onto a pile to keep it out of the way. The next shift I spent retrieving evidence from a customs vault wherein the wall had been breeched. It was scary stuff. Then I received word that no one from Customs was to go to the WTC unless specifically selected to work there, and that included a bar on anyone volunteering to help out. Well during the 2nd week after 9/11, while I was still doing admin duties, a call for volunteers came around, they were asking for agents to volunteer as temporary Federal Air Marshals. Out of hundreds of agents in the NYC, JFK, and Long Island Offices of Investigations for the U.S. Customs Service, there were two volunteers and one of them was talked out of doing it by her supervisor. Guess who that left.

I flew as an air marshal for about 5 months. It was not easy, especially for the first three weeks when I just about started to cry each time the plane started to roll down the runway. As silly as it may sound, I was literally so scared I almost peed myself a few times thinking that whatever flight I was on would be the next. For those of you who think that even stupider than silly, and who think it would not possibly be able to happen again, allow me to remind you that we were aware of intelligence that the public has not yet heard about; and then there was the shoe bomber attempt later on. The possibility of getting on that plane and never again seeing my family was all too real for me, so yes I was terrified. The possibility that some piece of turd Islamic extremist was going to get away with it again was also too real for me, and with the help of a dear friend who urged me on because he knew I was doing the right thing, I was able to go to work each day and fly on several flights on most of those days, to try to prevent even one more single American's life from being lost. It was the absolute scariest thing I have ever done over any period of time lasting more than a few seconds, maybe minutes, or maybe even hours at most. All the other scary things had come and gone in flashes; this one lasted 5 months of nerve wracking red alert levels for every minute I was flying. I lived through it unscathed, at least physically. Not even a thank you from the FAA or the TSA for that one, but then again, I was not in it for thank yous. Besides that, I sure got enough of em anyhow from flight attendants and flight crews, and from the savvy passengers who figured out I was the FAM in their game of 'Pick Out The Air Marshal' - a game that took place on each and every flight on which I flew as a FAM.

Another thing that happened after 9/11, was the dissolution of the United States Customs Service, the oldest law enforcement agency in the USA. It was done without fanfare, it simply disappeared after hundreds of years of service. You would think the U.S. Government would have had some pop and ceremony, but maybe the president and other officials were a bit ashamed of what it was they were about to do to us. They combined us with the by then defunct Immigration and naturalization Service, and put us under the new Department of Homeland Security. What a farce indeed, take it from me. Since the I&NS was primarily found responsible for allowing all of the terrorists, who attacked us on 9/11, into the USA in the first place, the I&NS was actually done away with, as I understand, by an act of Congress. I don't believe any mention was made of the Customs Service in that act of Congress. We were in effect being punished because of another's inadequacies. The Customs Service was split, as was the I&NS, into two basic parts: Investigations, and regulatory branches, although the I&NS also had the Border Patrol for patrol functions. Under DHS, new agencies were formed to perform the old duties. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) basically took all of the Customs Inspectors, Immigration Inspectors, and Border Patrol under its command. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took the investigative branches of those two other services, and of a few other agencies such as the Federal Protective service, and FAMs (for a short while anyhow as far as the FAMs went).

We, all Americans, heck all of the world, were told told by the administration (which I faithfully still serve but can disagree with) that the DHS with CBP and ICE was the primary department to deter terrorism, to combat terrorism, to investigate terrorism. Then our first secretary, that ex- governor who should have stayed in Pennsylvania as a town clerk, handed over all investigative authority related to terrorism to the FBI. As it turned out the now defunct Office of Investigations of the now defunct U.S. Customs Service, one of the best investigative branches of U.S. law enforcement, the one with the largest ever money laundering investigation against terrorists, and countless other high quality investigations, was now basically turned into an arm of the now defunct Immigration Service. Yes, once we were combined with I&NS investigators under ICE, it seems most of our duties have been geared toward finding illegal aliens and not toward: Money Laundering Investigations, not toward Strategic Arms Smuggling Investigations, not toward Narcotics Smuggling Investigations, not toward Fraud and Smuggling of contraband across the U.S. Borders, not toward almost anything we had dome before. Yet we keep all those investigations, but it has become apparent to even the door knobs in my office, that our main duties are those of less importance than those of a dog catcher. Don't get me wrong, I want to see all the illegals out of our country, but not at the expense of a terrorist being able to finance his operations because of his money laundering activities that we no longer look into.

So right now, after about 3 1/2 years of being part of ICE under DHS, I can say without a doubt the job sucks big-time. Those who have retired just before and even since all say how lucky they are to be out. Those still here gnash their teeth in despair, I kid you not, it sucks that bad.


The job sucks, and that comes from just about everyone on it, from both the Immigration and the Customs sides of it. Of course all the I&NS folks that came to ICE as agents got promotions out of this, so it may not be quite as bad for them, but I think they are just as demoralized by it all as are the ex-customs people. I guess I, as had many others, always wanted to do something important for our country. No that is not a joke. I always had a great amount of pride in my work and in the work of others in my agency who did good work. We made a difference, I believe we made the USA a safer place for all to live and enjoy their lives. Now I believe we are little more than an agency being set up beforehand as the scapegoats for the next 9/11 type of attacks; I believe it and so do many other ICE agents. Record numbers apparently are trying to bail out to other agencies, or retiring almost as soon as they can retire.

If it happens again, no that should be when it happens again, because it most surely will happen again that the mainland USA is attacked by terrorists, the U.S. government will need a scapegoat to deflect blame. They have it in the DHS, and in the agencies under DHS like ICE. Is it a disgrace for me to believe this? Maybe it is, but not because of my belief, but rather because ICE and DHS are set up to make me and others who serve believe just that. , and many other federal agents (not those just from ICE) are in utter disbelief that the government formed DHS as it did by destroying other effective agencies to combine them in a mega department with no to little direction. Sure you hear it on TV news and read it in the papers about how Chertoff brags we are the best, how the president tells you we are the frontline against terrorism, how we will prevent the next attacks. The truth is, I believe, we are given almost no authority to investigate anything related to terrorism. Lots of talk, more bragging, about what we will do when the time comes, and almost no authority or leadership that will actually get us to the point where we do it. ICE is, in my opinion, a straw man agency, little more. There is a better way to do this all, it is a crying shame it is not being done even though many suggestions have been made.

By now maybe you have forgotten why we are here - but I have not, and hopefully you are starting to see it again. Why is it that I have ambivalent feelings about retirement when my job, the job of any ICE agent for that matter, has turned into one of the lousiest jokes in law enforcement! I want to go, heck I counted down my days until my first eligible retirement date for 6 years because of those problems I had with the one boss I mentioned above. Yet I still strove to do my best at my job. I kept on volunteering for temporary things like flying as a FAM, for Secret Service assignments, for assignments to near the southern border to investigate illegal aliens, and even for a temporary assignment to the FBI's JTTF (which wound up being a sham to get me into an immigration group that had virtually nothing to do with real JTTF work). Heck volunteering for that phony JTTF assignment had me do work in an Immigration group for over 3 years, and the only arrests I made in three years were all administrative, all BS as relative to anything that would matter. Then I got placed into yet another BS groups, my current assignment, that even my Assistant Special Agent in Charge admits to me is pure window dressing.

Yet now, now that I am eligible to retire, I keep looking for excuses not to go too soon - why is that? Sure I may want to wait a little while to get more money into my pension, heck I am still paying off my mortgage, my daughter's college bills, and I'll have to pay for my son's college too. But I don't know if that is the half of it. So, I have to wonder am I insane, or is it because I have a need to do something that I have not yet done that needs doing. Heck, maybe if that is what I am thinking, then I am nuts. No - I do not want to play the avenging 9/11 hero, but yes I should would like to get some type of really important work done again before I retire, instead of being relegated to the rubber gun squad of near to retirement dinosaur agents. I think I owe it to my country to retire after having given all that I could within reason job-wise, and the current job is just so much balderdash as to make me want to puke. I guess I just keep wishing to get back into something that has some merit to it, real honest to goodness merit, instead of retiring as a do nothing from a do little to nothing agency. Something tells me that ain't gonna happen, and I will just have to accept that what I have accomplished in my career is all that I will accomplish in it. If so, then so be it, it is just a hard fact to accept when I know it could have been better than that.

If I do accept it, I may retire a lot sooner than my wife thinks, heck I could get a job flipping burgers at Mickey D’s and it might be more important that what I do now. How sad, let me tell you, after 27 years plus of service to m7y country, how sad, especially considering the work that needs to be done; and not just by me but by all ICE agents.

Zimbabwe baffles me...

...or should I say the white farmers who wish to return there baffle me. Not too many years ago, about 5 or 6 as I recall, Zimbabwe - under the rule of Robert Mugabe - started to redistribute land owned by whites by giving that land to black Africans. This was supposed to have the effect of reversing, and compensating, black Zimbabweans who had lost land to white colonialists throughout the history of Zimbabwe and Rhodesia (the former name of the country). Many of the white farmers who were forced off of their lands did not obtain their land through any actual direct effect of European colonialism. Instead, they got their land by purchasing the land legally after Zimbabwe had gained its independence, and after the government officials of Zimbabwe were primarily black Zimbabweans. I am not saying they did not have an advantage in acquiring land over black Zimbabweans, they did. After all, they had been in power, and the center of wealth in Zimbabwe for many, many years; but they did buy and own it legally. Then the redistribution project was started by Bugbane’s government.

The first step of the redistribution of the land essentially was accomplished by the government of Zimbabwe forcefully evicting whites from their farms. This was often accompanied by violence and death of white settlers. Not many white farmers were allowed to keep their land, but some did. According to an article at CNN: Zimbabwe may let whites farm again, found at http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/10/15/zimbabwe.farmers.reut/index.html, it appears there had been about 4,500 white farmers in Zimbabwe. Out of those about 400 of them had been allowed to keep their farms. Not many whites percentage-wise, yet maybe a fair number remaining history/ethnicity-wise, but also apparently very foolish economy-wise, and even more foolish production-wise. It evidently has become apparent that white farmers were a great boon to both the economy and agricultural production of Zimbabwe, and removing them was a mistake that has cost Zimbabwe marked decreased agricultural production.

You may wonder why it is that production decreased when white farmers were thrown out. Well, let's face cold hard facts folks, the white farmers knew what they were doing as far as commercial farming went, they had the desire to farm the land, they had the desire to make money legitimately by doing so, and therefore they had the desire to feed the population of Zimbabwe and surrounding countries in order to have profitable farms. I guess though, that only partly gives you an answer as to what was and still is going on in Zimbabwe. You see, now that there are many fewer white farmers, and the land it has been given over to black Zimbabweans, there has been more of a negative effect than just that of losing white farmers. The other negative effects are these: people who now own much of the land do not know how to farm it commercially, even if they did know how to do so they probably would not want to be as successful as had been the white farmers, many blacks who actually own land are high ranking government officials or in the military see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe#Demographics_.26_Ethnicity

You see, in the 1980's, England forked out millions of pounds to allow black Zimbabweans to purchase land. Despite that, only those who were apparently in with Mug Abe’s government got any of it. That kept tensions high among the black have nots. So what did Mugabe do? Instead of giving less land to government officials, instead of taking it away from them (remember they are all black and in his favor) he decided to take the land away from white farmers, by force if necessary, and then redistribute this land to blacks of less means. Remember also that Zimbabwe had once been referred to as the breadbasket of Africa, and this was when white farmers were farming it.

Maybe now you are getting the picture. Out of 4,500 white farmers, 600 remain. If all the land of the 3,900 white farmers who lost land was redistributed to black Zimbabweans to farm maybe that would be great. Some of it went to those in politics and the military who have no desire to farm it and to allow the population of Zimbabwe to grow to its former size. Heck, a lot of those folks could become the opposition to Mugabe's government, one which has coerced at least some voters to vote for him in every election he has ever won (see the same Wikipedia article). In addition to having a starving population, it is estimated that at least 10 percent of Zimbabwe's reported population will require food assistance next year, the population of Zimbabwe has one of the highest, if not the highest HIV infection rates in the world. Other diseases run rampant. It sort of makes me wonder, was the current food shortage from which the people of Zimbabwe are suffering, a preplanned thing to help reduce the population even further, to make it more manageable for a guy like Mugabe?

There are, or were, media claims that the food shortages in Zimbabwe were getting close to cataclysmic as in starvation and famine. So what did Mugabe first do to counter that. He threw the news media out of Zimbabwe, or at least most of the western media. I guess though, the starvation and famine thing may be getting g to a point where those remaining alive are beginning to realize that something radical is needed to feed the people, and to keep them fed. How radical a plan do you think they could come up with in Mugabe's government? Let me tell you it is pretty far out in light of past things that same government has done. Mugabe is now trying to get white farmers to return to Zimbabwe to farm the land again, to feed the people. maybe he figures that feeding the starving masses will help to prevent a revolution in which his head is lost much as was that of Marie Antoinette, who knows! At least, unlike Marie A., he has not told his people to eat cake when they ran out of bread.

Okay, I am finally back at the original point of this rant, the fact that white farmers who wish to return to Zimbabwe baffle me. I'll tell you why, I know you have been waiting a long time by reading through the above. They baffle me simply because of their stupidity (as I see it) or their outright greed (again as I see it). Two hundred (200) white farmers have expressed interest in returning to Zimbabwe to farm the land, to feed the people of Zimbabwe, and quite possibly to attempt to return Zimbabwe to being the breadbasket of Africa. Why would they do this. Maybe because they have been offered some great deals on land, as in free, if they agree to return; and maybe those land deals consist of them getting more land than they had before. Remember 3,900 lost land, only 600 remained, and only 200 asked to return. If those 200 are given the land that has belonged to, let's say for the sake of argument and these figures are just chosen at random by me, land that had belonged to 1,000 white farmers, they would likely have pretty big land holdings and pretty big farms. This could leave the land of 2,900 for the black Zimbabweans. It would in effect probably increase farm production greatly, because the whites knew what they were doing, they were professional commercial farmers. The black Zimbabweans would probably be okay with this, because now blacks would still own the majority of the farms, and the whites would be producing enough to at least just satisfactorily feed the nation.

It does not sound to bad a plan; but I think there is a tsetse fly in the ointment. You see the government of Zimbabwe is still taking land away from white farmers. They are not training anyone, that is any black Zimbabweans to commercially farm the land, as far as I am aware even though they have a good literacy rate. Even if they are training them to be farmers, the plan has not succeeded in getting folks to be successful commercial farmers, therefore the hypothesized famine and starvation, and the reported food shortages requiring return of white farmers. So where would the continued seizures of white farmer’s land leave the economy and agriculture? What kind of a plan is it when they invite whites back to farm the land on the one hand, yet take more farms away from other whites while doing so?

Do you see it? Can you imagine as I do what kind of plan it is. As I imagine it, it will be one full of corruption, with only a goal of keeping Mugabe in power. This is how I guess it will work: 200 white farmers return. They are given a lot of land, maybe even a lot of land on which current white farmers are still farming; that is those 600 who were able to keep their land at least until now. Mugabe only gives land to whites in the future when it goes to those who agree to be loyal to him, and to his plan to remain in power. He gets a big percentage of the rake-off of the profits. The farmers, the white ones who actually are allowed to farm, also get a sizable amount of the profits, and they get a large amount of land - enough to make it so that the people of Zimbabwe have enough food to keep them happy enough not to revolt. So who gets the remaining land? My guess would be those blacks in government who support Mugabe without question. This, in my opinion, has been how Mugabe has stayed in power all along - though corruption, coercion, and diabolical planning that benefits him over all others.

There is one other tsetse fly in the ointment, this one for the returning farmers. I have to wonder, how is it that they are so stupid as to believe anything this guy Mugabe tells them, or to believe they will be allowed to profit or keep any incentive offered to them to return to Zimbabwe? Are they that shortsighted, that stupid, that they just don't realize that once Mugabe no longer feels a need for them he quite possibly will seize their land and oust them again?

I just don't understand how they think! These white farmers who would return to Zimbabwe under Mugabe who took their land in the first place, they just baffle me, and that stands even if they are just do gooders who want to actually make things better for the poor folks of Zimbabwe (which I do not believe for a minute). I admire people who want to help others, but am baffled by those who bite the hook, line and sinker of a fisherman like Mugabe when it is rotten bait he uses to attract them in the first place. But so too do most exceptionally greedy and otherwise crazed people baffle me, and that would in my opinion, be any others than actual do gooders who would return to Zimbabwe under Mugabe.

As for the people of Zimbabwe, you know the ones I mean, the regular people, the working man and woman, what do they get? They continue to get an education, but no means of implementing it in order to produce for themselves. They remain dependent upon the government for food. They wind up with a bit more food, enough to satisfy them to the point they think things are going well under Mugabe; or in other words enough to make them believe, in my opinion, that a revolution to kill of this scumbag Mugabe is not in order.

I hope they do not fall for it. I think it is far overdue for him to leave the scene, and for Zimbabwe to become a true republic ruled by its own people, with duly elected officials. It is, I think, about time the black Zimbabweans get over their own form of racism, and realize not all blacks are their friends, not all whites their enemies, and it currently is time they do something to help themselves; the number one thing being the ouster of Mugabe, and his kind, to be replaced by legitimate leaders under a true republic.

All the best,

Glenn B