Book Bin

[SloopJonB]

What surprises me is that Putin manages to survive - he's just a gangster thug and even Mafia heads get assassinated.

Does he pay off the military biggies to keep him safe?

[Orestes Munn]

What surprises me is that Putin manages to survive - he's just a gangster thug and even Mafia heads get assassinated.

Does he pay off the military biggies to keep him safe?

I'm barely informed on the subject, but I think Putin plays well to the fears and prejudices of his population and the military there has been pretty docile since the days of the Streltsy. I'm sure Putin pays well...until he doesn't.

[Ish]

What surprises me is that Putin manages to survive - he's just a gangster thug and even Mafia heads get assassinated.

Does he pay off the military biggies to keep him safe?

I'm barely informed on the subject, but I think Putin plays well to the fears and prejudices of his population and the military there has been pretty docile since the days of the Streltsy. I'm sure Putin pays well...until he doesn't.

I don't think you get a notice that you're off the team. 9mm severance.

[Tim OConnell]

FWIW, I'm a fore-reach in a storm sort of guy. But, I don't like using a jib alone. Most boats won't head up in a big puff with only a jib flying. This is a BIG deal. I prefer a storm trysail or heavily reefed main so the boat will round up in the big puffs or (and this is really important) if the sails get filled with solid water. SAGA would round up nicely when a big wall of water hit her heavily reefed main. She'd bear off if it hit the storm staysail and lay on her side.

Beau, he would stick with a third or fourth reef in the main as long as possible.

I also wonder about a 100 sq ft of sail in a 47+ ft boat with a tall mast, etc. It is not much sail for the windage, but never been there, never done that.

Coming back from Hobart on a Beneteau 47.7, in a storm that got up 70+ knots, we had three reefs and approx. 200sqft of main up, no jib. That was enough to push that heavy boat into the mid teens of boat speed on average, and high teens/low twenties surfing not far off DDW. 100sqft would have been a more comfortable sail versus the white knuckle one we had.

[cap10ed]

Summer 2016 is almost here and I need some new book listings for those off watch spells. What have you read that has left you with a notion this book needs to be shared. Fiction or non fiction.

[Orestes Munn]

Summer 2016 is almost here and I need some new book listings for those off watch spells. What have you read that has left you with a notion this book needs to be shared. Fiction or non fiction.

Robert Caro's biography of Robert Moses, "The Power Broker", or any part of his series on Lyndon Johnson.
Tony Judt's "Postwar." Just prepare to be depressed.
Andrew Roberts' biography of Napoleon
"The Way We Live Now" by Anthony Trollope or anything in his Chronicles of Barsetshire series
"Middlemarch" by George Elliott
"Middlesex" by Jeffrey Eugenides

[SemiSalt]

Currently reading "Greenpeace Captain" by Peter Wilcox with Ron Weiss. I was given a copy by Ron's father Bernie. Tales of the damn fools stunts done by Greenpeace. Not really an autobiography, more autobiographical incidents. Light reading unless worry about global warming and ecological harm trigger deep depression.

[Tucky]

When people include fiction, I always want to give a mention to Neil Gordon. He wrote two books I really like. First "Sacrifice of Isaac" is the post WW2 history of Israel told in the form of a mystery thriller, and the second "The Company You Keep" is the history of SDS told in the same form (it actually was written in the early days of the internet and is told as a long series of emails). That one was made into a lousy movie, but I liked both books a lot. I'm not a mystery/thriller reader generally.

[Bull City]

Good mystery series:
Inspector French mysteries by Freeman Wills Croft, set in England between the wars, with emphasis on method.
Commissario Brunetti mysteries by Donna Leon, set in present day Venice

[Bull City]

Napoleon was a much better general than Hitler.

Both invaded Russia with similarly disastrous results, although Hitler should have learned from Napoleon.

[Jamie]

I'm reading J.D Sleightholme's The Trouble with Cruising. It's a collection of his disasters or near disasters over 40 years of cruising in post war UK. Very entertaining and some valuable lessons. The first chapter is titled "Every Sin in The Book" and recounts how they almost ended up on Goodwin Sands and set to boat on fire. Hilarious.

[Tim Ford]

The topic of surfing on another thread reminded me, I just finished this, from New Yorker writer William Finnegan. Great read, with nostalgic descriptions of a now-lost California (along with quite a few other spots) -- not just for surfers!

barbie days.jpg

[Orestes Munn]

Listening to a biography of Thomas Lipton, the second half of which is about his repeated Americas Cup challenges. It's OK, but disappointing to me as a history buff and a sailor. Much, much, better was my last listen, Other Powers, by the late Barbara Goldsmith. It's loosely hung around a biography of Victoria Woodhull, but really a tragic and insightful examination of the early women's movement and Victorian sexual politics. The biggest character in the book ends up Henry Ward Beecher, who was really a horrible man.

[Tim Ford]

Don't tell me, yet another preacher involved in some sordid affair?

I thought the whole clan were abolitionists?

[Orestes Munn]

Don't tell me, yet another preacher involved in some sordid affair?

I thought the whole clan were abolitionists?

They were. It wasn't just an affair, it was a series of sexual relationships with female parishioners, which he hid with icky histrionics, perjury, blackmail, financial manipulation, bullying, and explicit collusion with the male members of the congregation, including the women's husbands.

[TheOffice]

Too busy reading your posts to read an actual book. Unless referencing Nigel Calder's book counts.

[BeauV]

I've been reading a book called "GRUNT: The Curious Science Of Humans At War" by Mary Roach. I think OM would be particularly interested in this. It's a science look at what we do to protect, equip, and generally bother our troops; with nothing but the best of intentions. The chapter on "filth flies", a technical term from the military, and the use of their larva (maggots) is fascinating.

https://www.amazon.com/Grunt-Curious-Science-Humans-War/dp/0393245446

[Orestes Munn]

I've been reading a book called "GRUNT: The Curious Science Of Humans At War" by Mary Roach. I think OM would be particularly interested in this. It's a science look at what we do to protect, equip, and generally bother our troops; with nothing but the best of intentions. The chapter on "filth flies", a technical term from the military, and the use of their larva (maggots) is fascinating.

https://www.amazon.com/Grunt-Curious-Science-Humans-War/dp/0393245446

I would find it interesting having been involved in that sort of thing for years. I have heard about maggots being used occasionally where I work. Nothing debrides a poorly healing wound as thoroughly and gently, they tell me.

[BeauV]

OM,

The descriptions of debriding with maggots are amazing. I hadn't realized that it started in the Civil War and has continued ever since. It makes a lot of sense, except that some in the world can't deal with the "yuck factor". What I was amazed by was that when there is a land mine or IED, they typically drive a great deal of soil, clothing and other crap into the wound. The maggots are perfectly happy to crawl into all the cracks and openings and eat the dead tissue. They appear to have no desire to eat live tissue if there is dead stuff around. They clean wounds better than anything yet found and don't mind eating antibiotic resistant bugs either. Really an interesting book.

Beau

[Orestes Munn]

OM,

The descriptions of debriding with maggots are amazing. I hadn't realized that it started in the Civil War and has continued ever since. It makes a lot of sense, except that some in the world can't deal with the "yuck factor". What I was amazed by was that when there is a land mine or IED, they typically drive a great deal of soil, clothing and other crap into the wound. The maggots are perfectly happy to crawl into all the cracks and openings and eat the dead tissue. They appear to have no desire to eat live tissue if there is dead stuff around. They clean wounds better than anything yet found and don't mind eating antibiotic resistant bugs either. Really an interesting book.

Beau

I think it goes back to the inception of dirty wounds and flies. Was the Civil War when military surgeons started using them? ERs see the occasional street person with a naturally maggoty leg ulcer.

War wounds are intentionally nasty, not lethal. A lethal wound takes one combatant out. A non-lethal one takes out three.

[SemiSalt]

OM,

The descriptions of debriding with maggots are amazing. I hadn't realized that it started in the Civil War and has continued ever since. It makes a lot of sense, except that some in the world can't deal with the "yuck factor". What I was amazed by was that when there is a land mine or IED, they typically drive a great deal of soil, clothing and other crap into the wound. The maggots are perfectly happy to crawl into all the cracks and openings and eat the dead tissue. They appear to have no desire to eat live tissue if there is dead stuff around. They clean wounds better than anything yet found and don't mind eating antibiotic resistant bugs either. Really an interesting book.

Beau

I think it goes back to the inception of dirty wounds and flies. Was the Civil War when military surgeons started using them? ERs see the occasional street person with a naturally maggoty leg ulcer.

War wounds are intentionally nasty, not lethal. A lethal wound takes one combatant out. A non-lethal one takes out three.

Yeah, but the army doesn't teach you to shoot to wound.

[LarryHoward]

Generally, soldiers point and spray. It's one reason that snipers are so feared. They aim carefully and generally hit their targets. Ordinary soldiers not so much. It's actually pretty impressive how low the bullet fired to target hit ratio is.

Full auto from the hip looks good in movies but generally doesn't hit many targets.

[BeauV]

Generally, soldiers point and spray. It's one reason that snipers are so feared. They aim carefully and generally hit their targets. Ordinary soldiers not so much. It's actually pretty impressive how low the bullet fired to target hit ratio is.

Full auto from the hip looks good in movies but generally doesn't hit many targets.

My Marine son says that their rifles do not have full-auto anymore, they haven't had it for a long time. The Marines use semi-automatic weapons, exactly like the ones you can purchase at your local gun shop. In addition, he says that they regularly do training with folks firing life rounds over your head, air spray popping out of the dirt around you so you believe that there are rounds landing nearby, all while you are to squeeze off one shot at a time at targets. As son John says: "When you're carrying every single round for miles across the desert, you shoot them one at a time. We grunts are trained to hit the other guy with the first shot. Even if he shoots a dozen shots at you in full auto you'll get him every time while he's waving his gun around like some guy in a TV show."

Someplace I've got a video of a comparison between Iraqi soldiers and US soldiers firing their weapons. I can't find it at the moment. The Iraqi ally is holding his weapon over a wall and spraying bullets all over the place, the US soldier puts his head up with his weapon and fires shots one or two at a time. The video claimed that the hill ratio was about 30:1 in favor of the US soldier. I'll keep looking for the video, it's a training bit done by the US Army.

[Orestes Munn]

Generally, soldiers point and spray. It's one reason that snipers are so feared. They aim carefully and generally hit their targets. Ordinary soldiers not so much. It's actually pretty impressive how low the bullet fired to target hit ratio is.

Full auto from the hip looks good in movies but generally doesn't hit many targets.

My Marine son says that their rifles do not have full-auto anymore, they haven't had it for a long time. The Marines use semi-automatic weapons, exactly like the ones you can purchase at your local gun shop. In addition, he says that they regularly do training with folks firing life rounds over your head, air spray popping out of the dirt around you so you believe that there are rounds landing nearby, all while you are to squeeze off one shot at a time at targets. As son John says: "When you're carrying every single round for miles across the desert, you shoot them one at a time. We grunts are trained to hit the other guy with the first shot. Even if he shoots a dozen shots at you in full auto you'll get him every time while he's waving his gun around like some guy in a TV show."

Someplace I've got a video of a comparison between Iraqi soldiers and US soldiers firing their weapons. I can't find it at the moment. The Iraqi ally is holding his weapon over a wall and spraying bullets all over the place, the US soldier puts his head up with his weapon and fires shots one or two at a time. The video claimed that the hill ratio was about 30:1 in favor of the US soldier. I'll keep looking for the video, it's a training bit done by the US Army.

Sounds like what my father was taught in 1942 or 3.

[BeauV]

Generally, soldiers point and spray. It's one reason that snipers are so feared. They aim carefully and generally hit their targets. Ordinary soldiers not so much. It's actually pretty impressive how low the bullet fired to target hit ratio is.

Full auto from the hip looks good in movies but generally doesn't hit many targets.

My Marine son says that their rifles do not have full-auto anymore, they haven't had it for a long time. The Marines use semi-automatic weapons, exactly like the ones you can purchase at your local gun shop. In addition, he says that they regularly do training with folks firing life rounds over your head, air spray popping out of the dirt around you so you believe that there are rounds landing nearby, all while you are to squeeze off one shot at a time at targets. As son John says: "When you're carrying every single round for miles across the desert, you shoot them one at a time. We grunts are trained to hit the other guy with the first shot. Even if he shoots a dozen shots at you in full auto you'll get him every time while he's waving his gun around like some guy in a TV show."

Someplace I've got a video of a comparison between Iraqi soldiers and US soldiers firing their weapons. I can't find it at the moment. The Iraqi ally is holding his weapon over a wall and spraying bullets all over the place, the US soldier puts his head up with his weapon and fires shots one or two at a time. The video claimed that the hill ratio was about 30:1 in favor of the US soldier. I'll keep looking for the video, it's a training bit done by the US Army.

Sounds like what my father was taught in 1942 or 3.

Yup, and it's one of the reasons that when the guys in Iraq and Afganistan find out that a convoy is made up of Marine Corp drivers, they rarely attack it. The drivers are armed and trained to attack when fired upon. The civilian contractor drivers leave their trucks and run away, the local bad guys collect the loot. One convoy of fuel trucks was attacked by about 100 Afganistan irregulars and the 12 Marine drivers ran them off killing a lot of them.

I think the major difference is that in some cultures fighting is all about looking good, showing your pals that you're brave, and trying to hit a few of the other guys before going home for dinner. Marines aren't like that. They are there to kill people. It took me a while to get used to that when my son first said it. He's in the job of being ready, willing, and able to kill people as effectively and efficiently as possible. That's a massive difference between the two sides.

[SemiSalt]

Don't tell me, yet another preacher involved in some sordid affair?

I thought the whole clan were abolitionists?

They were. It wasn't just an affair, it was a series of sexual relationships with female parishioners, which he hid with icky histrionics, perjury, blackmail, financial manipulation, bullying, and explicit collusion with the male members of the congregation, including the women's husbands.

The Reverend Henry Ward Beecher,
Called a hen an elegant creature,
The hen, pleased with that,
Laid an egg in his hat,
And thus did the hen reward Beecher.

[Jamie]

I just finished Bruce Catton's trilogy on the Civil War. All I can ask is how did I miss this?

Worth a re-read in these days of much talk about divided America. US politicians have not changed that much - nor has our (mis?) management of our armed forces.

[cap10ed]

I just finished Bruce Catton's trilogy on the Civil War. All I can ask is how did I miss this?

Worth a re-read in these days of much talk about divided America. US politicians have not changed that much - nor has our (mis?) management of our armed forces.

Jamie "The Coming Fury" is book one of 3 what are the other titles. Looking at Kindle and it shows volume one. Thx for the lead. ed

[Jamie]

I just finished Bruce Catton's trilogy on the Civil War. All I can ask is how did I miss this?

Worth a re-read in these days of much talk about divided America. US politicians have not changed that much - nor has our (mis?) management of our armed forces.

Jamie "The Coming Fury" is book one of 3 what are the other titles. Looking at Kindle and it shows volume one. Thx for the lead. ed

Book 1 should be Mr Lincoln's Army.

https://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Army-Po ... bc?ie=UTF8

[Bull City]

Has anyone read or seen the new book, Herreshoff: American Masterpieces by Maynard Bray and Claas van der Linde? If so, how did you like it?