Gun Runner submitted!

Gun Runner, the action-packed, science fiction novel Larry Correia and I have been working on, has been delivered to Toni Weisskopf at Baen Books.

It was a blast to write.

This song was played, as was appropriate, in celebration.

The seed came from Larry’s eleven-year-old son. When we sat down to develop an idea for a sci-fi con presentation a number of years ago, Larry asked: “Joe, what’s cool?”

The answer: “Giant robots, bandits, and murderers.”

We looked at each other and said, “That IS cool.”

And thus was a story born.

The current description Baen has goes like this.

“Once, Jackson Rook was a war hero. Raised from boyhood to pilot an exosuit mech, he’d fought gallantly for the rebellion against the Collectivists. But that was a long time ago, on a world very far away.

Now, Jackson Rook is a criminal, a smuggler on board the Multipurpose Supply Vehicle Tar Heel. His latest mission: steal a top-of-the-line mech called the Citadel and deliver it to the far-flung planet Swindle, a world so hostile even the air will kill you. The client: a man known only as the Warlord. Rook has been in the smuggling business long enough to know that it’s best to take the money and not ask questions. But Rook cannot stand by and watch as the Warlord runs roughshod over the citizens of Swindle, the way the Collectivists did on his homeworld. For all his mercenary ways, Rook is not a pirate. And deep within the smuggler, the heart of a warrior still beats.”

The book should be available February, 2021.

Share

Similar Posts

  • I’m done being Amazon’s fool

    Do you see this picture? This is Jeff Bezos laughing at John Brown. Because John Brown was a fool.

    Let me explain.

    When I sell my ebooks on Amazon for $2.99 to $9.99, Amazon charges me 30% of the price. I keep 70%. That’s a decent deal. I’m happy to do business with them as a partner with my ebooks.

    But Amazon’s got some alter ego going when dealing with folks selling used books. When I sell used books, Amazon somehow thinks it’s a swell deal for all of us little guys if they take a huge chunk of the pie. Look at the numbers below.

    Order date: 04/08/2017
    Price: $3.98
    Shipping: $3.99
    Amazon fees: -$3.99 (100% of sale price)
    Your earnings: $3.98

    Order date: 04/05/2017
    Price: $5.50
    Shipping: $3.99
    Amazon fees: -$4.21 (77% of sale price)
    Your earnings: $5.28

    Order date: 03/23/2017
    Price: $3.50
    Shipping: $3.99
    Amazon fees: -$3.91 (112% of sale price)
    Your earnings: $3.58

    Order date: 03/15/2017
    Price: $1.49
    Shipping: $3.99
    Amazon fees: -$3.61 (242% of sale price)
    Your earnings: $1.87

    You might think, hey, John, you’re making a few bucks on each. But no, what you see above is what I get from Amazon. I still have to ship the product. And if I purchased the book somewhere, I have to cover those costs as well.

    For example, look at the last one. Amazon feels that not only do they need to charge me the total sale price of the book, they also need more than half of the shipping costs. That book cost over three dollars to ship plus a little for a bubble mailer because I actually care that the book is in great shape when the buyer opens the package. So I lost money. But Amazon did just fine.

    And Bezos was laughing because John Brown, the fool, was paying Amazon for the pleasure of taking time to list the book, shelve the book at his house, package it, and then post it. It was as good as going to Disneyland!

    The fees used to be lower.

    Order date: 06/26/2014
    Price: $3.59
    Amazon fees: -$2.88 (a mere 80% of the sale price)
    Shipping: $3.99
    Your earnings: $4.70

    I hated the fees they were charging then, but after postage, we could still make a buck or so on books priced at this level. Not anymore.

    So adios Amazon. I’m done being your fool. And shame on me for taking so long to recognize it. I’m moving all my used book stock to Half.com because they actually have a good thing going. Look at what they charge for their services.

    $0.75 – $50.00: 25.0%
    $50.01 – $100.00: 22.5%
    $100.01 – $250.00: 20.0%
    $250.01 – $500.00: 17.5%
    > $500.00: 15.0%

    That means on that $1.49 book, they would have charged me a whopping 37 cents.

    Hey, profit for them AND me. And a great price for the buyer. Win-win-win.

    How nice.

    Share
  • Harry Reid’s Chickens

    Are we all wearing Coke bottle glasses with this government shut down?

    First, it seems silly to me when reporters ask Americans who is causing the shut down. It’s like, duh, if either party just gave into the other party’s demands, we wouldn’t have the issue. Which means that BOTH parties are causing the shut down.

    Second, it seems a lot of folks have forgotten that this is precisely what should happen.

    What?

    Yes, our government is designed to allow these types of things.

    But, John, isn’t that just asinine?

    No. It’s not an oversight. I think it’s smart. Even if it causes some pain.

    Let me explain what it seems some in the media and elsewhere are forgetting.

    This is not a nation that belongs to a government. It’s not a nation owned by some lord or entity. This is a nation of individuals who decided to band together because we thought that banding together would allow us to protect our lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness better than if we stood alone individually.

    This is a nation of individuals who said, you know, we think we can figure things out better together ourselves than having someone dictating to us what we’re going to do. We’ll get together and talk. We’ll argue. We’ll persuade. We’ll try to convince each other of our individual ways of thinking. And when enough of us are convinced that we should do something, we’ll act.

    We’ll set up a process for talking and making decisions that ensures everyone can be heard. It would be great if we could get 100% agreement on everything, but we know that’s not realistic. At the same time, we don’t like the idea of forcing our will on others. So we’ll make a compromise; we’ll set up the rules for making decisions so it requires that a good majority of us are in agreement before we can take action, especially on matters that are important to a lot of us.

    Finally, we’ll make sure no individual or group can take control and deprive us of this way of living. We did the monarch thing, and we’re done with that. We will not bow to any king ever again. We’re going to be very careful about this one item because a lot of bad things begin to happen when any one person or group gets too much power.

    So we set up the rules and started working together this way. And the basic premise under all of this is that we would respect each other’s free will. We’re a land of liberty. We’re a land where we get together and agree on a course of action. Not one where we impose our will on others.

    One of the main methods we used to ensure that no individual or group could take control of the rest of us and that a good majority of us must agree before taking a course of governmental action was to distribute the power to make and enforce rules. We did this in a wide variety of ways. We did this because power’s a slippery thing and easily abused. Furthermore, because we knew no system is perfect, we also set up a system of checks and balances so that if one person or group abused their power, we could stop them and force them to remember to respect the freewill that the rest of us have.

    So what has caused this shutdown?

    It’s very simple.

    A lot of Americans do not agree with Obamacare. By most polls, it’s a majority of Americans. They were not listened to when it was being developed. They were not listened to when it was made law. They feel it was passed, not with open discussion, but a lot of chicanery. They feel it’s not some minor regulation, but a very big thing that will infringe on their rights to live how they want to live.

    Now, it might be that all their fears are unfounded. It might be that Obamacare is going to usher in utopia. Many signs suggest it’s not going to do anything of the sort. But let’s just say it is the finest piece of legislation ever. Let’s say is a celestial piece of governing.

    That isn’t enough.

    It’s not nearly enough.

    Because this is not a nation that belongs to any group. We are a nation of individuals who have banded together, agreeing that we will talk things out amongst ourselves and only act when a good majority of us agree on a course of action. This is a nation that tries to tread lightly on each other’s liberty.

    But many of the folks in Washington back in 2009-2010 forgot this and forced this thing called Obamacare upon the rest of us; in doing so, they violated one of the basic agreements of our compact. If they had followed the underlying intent of our union, they would not have done what they did. They would have crafted legislation that a good majority of us could get behind.

    In 2010, those of us who protested this use of power voted in new folks into the House of Representatives to deal with the matter. In fact, when given the chance, Americans (both Republican and Democrat) in the heavily Democratic state of Massachusetts voted Republican Scott Brown into office, hoping to stop this legislation in the Senate before it became law. But Harry Reid didn’t listen. He didn’t care. He and Pelosi and Obama weren’t interested in allowing a full national discussion. He and the others were more concerned with getting their way. And so he used a parliamentary trick to force it through.

    This shut down is about one group of people forcing their will on the rest of us. It’s about using the checks and balances designed into the system to correct such errors. It’s about the chickens of some poor decisions coming home to roost.

    I know the shut down has caused issues. It’s a partial shutdown; 13% of the government. I think 87% is still funded and running. Still, I know it’s causing some pain.

    But none of that pain needs to occur. Everyone wants to fund cancer research. Everyone wants to help poor single mothers. Those things aren’t the issue. The issue is that not everyone agrees with Obamacare.

    If you’re a supporter of Obamacare, let me ask you this: if the tables were turned, what would you do?

    Would you not stare at the folks trying to force their will on you and say, hey, come on. We’re adults here. We all agreed that we wouldn’t do anything unless a good majority of us were convinced it was the right course of action. Let’s get together and come up with something a good majority of us can get behind.

    If you’re an opponent of Obamacare, you too should recognize that a good portion of your fellow citizens are clamoring to change the way things are. They’ve been clamoring for some time. Should you force your will on them? Or should you sit down and listen and try to come up with something that addresses the points we can agree on?

    I don’t know if the folks many of us voted to go to Washington will stick to their guns and correct this. I hope they do. And I hope that those on both sides who have forgotten one of the basic tenets of our social compact will wake up and remember we are banded together, not to game the system to get what we want, but to act on only what a good majority of us want.

    Share
  • The Profiler, Almond Milk, and Uncle Sam

    Real crime 

    It’s 1990. You’re a housewife, homeschooling your children, and renting a room upstairs to a young man to make ends meet. There are a few odd things about the young man, but you overlook them. Then one day a woman is strangled on a jogging path near your home, and your first thought is that the young man living in your house has something to do with it.

    What do you do?

    Pat Brown found herself in this exact situation. She voiced her suspicions to her husband, but it was all too farfetched. However, the nagging thought wouldn’t let her go, and she soon uncovered evidence that made the young man a strong suspect.

    She took the evidence to the police, but they dismissed her as a bored housewife with an overactive imagination. She evicted the young man, but it would be six years before the authorities would finally bring him in for questioning.

    Dismayed and frustrated, Brown started down a path that would lead to her become a professional criminal profiler, assisting police departments and victims’ families by analyzing both physical and behavioral evidence to make the most scientific determination possible about who committed a crime.

    In The Profiler: My Life Hunting Serial Killers and Psychopaths Brown tells about what happened with that young man and her journey to becoming a profiler, then she opens a number of other cases she’s worked on, giving the reader a behind-the-scenes look at how profilers work, and how their methods bring new investigative avenues to light. She also brings home very clearly just how many murders go unsolved. It’s an absolutely fascinating read.

    Milk that doesn’t moo

    I used to think soy milk was either for the lactose intolerant or hippies. And so I always avoided that milk section of the grocery store. But, having embarked on a new way of eating that I’ll explain in another column, I was induced to approach the alternative milk shelves. I purchased a carton of soy milk, but then I saw cartons of something even more strange: almond milk.

    Puzzling. I knew, of course, that almonds did not have udders. So nobody was out there hooking them up to tiny milking machines. And they were nuts, so it’s not like you can squeeze them to make them release their tasty juices. Instead, I learned that almond milk is made by finely grinding almonds together with water. I thought this was something new, invented perhaps by a Californian who’d had too much weed, but it appears many Medieval European recipes called for almond milk, and it has always been a popular beverage in the Middle East. So almond milk has been around for some time.

    But I didn’t know any of this. I just knew I loved almonds and that they provide all sorts of goodies for the human body. Besides, I have a hard time resisting adventures. So along with the soy, I picked up a carton of Silk’s PureAlmond regular, vanilla, and chocolate milk.

    The soy was okay, but it left a weird zingy taste in my mouth. Furthermore, soy contains estrogen. I’m sure it’s a fine product, but I live with four daughters and don’t need any more estrogen. And I certainly don’t need it mutating me in any, um, feminine ways. So I put the soy aside and gave the almond milk a go.

    It was delicious. I love the vanilla and regular flavors the best. In fact, I like it so much I only drink cow’s milk when the last drop of almond milk is gone, and I try to make sure that never happens. Some might worry that I’ll deplete my calcium stores, but not so. Almond milk actually has MORE calcium than cow’s milk along with vitamin D that allows the body to absorb the mineral. It also has 50% of the RDA of vitamin E, of which cow’s milk has none. But that’s all technical vitaminy stuff. It wouldn’t matter if the milk itself didn’t taste so dang good.

    The American breakfast

    I love cereal. We have our standard favorites as a family, but I also like to get a box of something new when we shop. I recently saw, perched up on the top shelf at Wal-Mart, boxes of  Uncle Sam.

    What the heck? Was this a Tea Party product? I know Utah is conservative, but come on. And what kind of nut sings “The Stars and Stripes” for breakfast?

    Well, I might.

    So I promptly snagged a box and read that it’s been around since 1908, thus making it politically neutral. Then I read the ingredients. It’s a simple cereal made of wheat berries that are steamed, rolled, and toasted to provide killer whole grain nutrition. Those wheat flakes are then mixed with flax seeds (omega 3’s anyone?). That’s it.

    I purchased a box, felt patriotic, and then gave it a try when we got home. I’ve been buying it regularly ever since. It’s slammed with 10 grams of fiber and 7 grams of protein, and goes great with Silk’s vanilla almond milk and a piece of fruit.

    Share
  • |

    The book trade is a . . . trade

    James Dawson, YA author, feels it’s somehow wrong to hold back on cussing in his fiction. He wrote an article about this in the UK Guardian called “Why Teens in Books Can’t Swear.” He thinks it’s unrealistic. He thinks it’s about gate-keeper censorship. You know, parents wanting to steer their children towards certain experiences and away from others.  

    People.

    Dawson’s approach to the whole problem is wrong-headed. This isn’t about the virtues and vices of fiction. Or about gatekeepers, especially in today’s ebook world.  Or what experiences parents want to provide their children. And it’s not about art reflecting reality. Reality includes trips to the toilet, and yet we somehow fail to include realistic bum wiping in so many of our tales. Good heavens, have we betrayed our artistic integrity? No. We’ve just naturally chosen to include things that appeal to us and leave out others that don’t. Every book is an exercise in hundreds of such choices.

    The fact is that Dawson’s forgetting that a fundamental aspect of the book trade is the trade.  The buyer trades his or her money for a product (the book) that provides a service (the entertainment, thrills, chills, etc. of the reading experience) he or she values.  A customer preferring one kind of experience over another isn’t censorship (the horror, the horror).  It’s choice.  

    As an author, you make your offer. If folks like it, they buy it. If not, they don’t. Nobody owes you a purchase.

    This means that in any business, and selling fiction is a business, the most sensible way forward is to offer your intended buyers something they are likely to value.  Something they’re going to like.  Something they want.  If your buyer is thirsty and wants water, offer him a cold glass of water, not a waffle iron.  And if you can’t bear to develop anything but waffle irons, then, by all means, develop waffle irons.  Just make sure you offer them to the folks looking for . . . waffle irons. 

    This business of making offers also means that we package our products and services so that customers can easily tell what’s in the box. You don’t want someone to purchase your box thinking it contains breakfast cereal when in reality it’s a bunch of bolts.

    Yeah, writing is an art. But offering it in trade to others is also a basic economic act.

    Share
  • The Surprising Truth About Militias and the Second Amendment

    When the founding fathers spoke of “militias,” they were not referring to a bunch of yahoos running around in the woods with paint on their faces outside of state control.

    They were referring to a citizen army under state control.

    So is “militia” just the old-time word for what our army is today?

    No.

    A standing or “regular” army is one made up of professional, full-time soldiers like the US Army, the Marines, the Navy, and the Air Force. And it’s permanent, meaning you don’t disband the army when the fighting is done.

    A militia back in those days was something completely different.

    The problem of a standing army

    The founding fathers knew they needed to provide for the common defense, but they saw standing armies controlled by a central government as an immediate threat to the liberty the new union sought to preserve.

    Why would they think that?

    Easy. History was littered with case after case where standing armies had become a law unto themselves and oppressed the populace. One glaring example is what happened to the Roman empire. It suffered centuries where this faction and then that faction of the army was in control, and it brought nothing but a continual procession of civil wars and bloodshed.

    History also showed that even if the military didn’t take over, kings and queens were happy to wield standing armies to impose their will and oppress the people. Remember: the world then was ruled by monarchies. The founders had never seen a standing army wielded by any other type of power.

    So the founders didn’t want to give a president or any other central authority that power. They feared doing so would only pave the way to the ruin of the new nation they sought to form.

    So if you don’t have a standing army, how do you defend your country?

    The fyrd

    The founding fathers thought they saw a solution in a tradition of duty that went back hundreds of years in England. In the days when the Saxons ruled England, the kings and dukes would muster and deploy the fyrd to help them fight their wars.

    The fyrd was made up of all able-bodied free males between certain ages, regardless of their vocation. It was their duty to provide their own arms and defend the land when called by their leaders. So this was an army made up of farmers, tanners, smiths, tailors, etc.

    But the fyrd wasn’t a standing army. Nor was it populated with full-time soldiers. This citizen army was to be called out when needed, and when the crisis was over, it was disbanded, and the men went back to their vocations.

    The militia scheme

    The founders took this idea and tweaked it. Back in the Saxon days, the king controlled the fyrd. In this new scheme, the United States would rely on a fyrd (which they called a militia), but the powers to control it would be split between the president, Congress, and the States.

    First, Congress, not the president, was the only authority that could declare war and summon the state militias. So the president would be the commander in chief when the militia was active. But the minute Congress decided to end a war and disband the militia, that army dissolved, leaving the president as commander in chief of only the tiny number of troops that had been authorized as the regular army (less than 1,000 at the time).

    Second, while the Federal government would provide the weapons the militia would use when it mustered them for war, the state governments would be the ones to appoint the officers and train the soldiers. You can’t run an army without officers. So this would prevent the Federal government from taking control by stacking the army leadership with those loyal to a despot president or Congress.

    So the militia was supposed to be the main force that fought our wars, and it was supposed to be temporary. It’s true that Congress did authorize a standing army, but it was tiny. And with this setup, the founders figured we’d have the army we’d need, but we’d avoid the problems standing armies had posed in the past.

    So militias, as thought of by the founders in the 1700s, were not groups outside the government’s control. They were temporary citizen armies. And power over them was broken up between the president, Congress, and the States so no one group or person could wield them tyrannically.

    1791 and The Bill of Rights

    Accordingly, the founders wrote the articles and sections of the Constitution in 1787 to set all of this up. However, many anti-federalists were concerned that the Constitution didn’t go far enough to protect the rights of individuals and limit the power of the Federal government. In fact, many of the founders were so concerned about the issue that they refused to ratify the Constitution as it was.

    The only way they’d sign on is with the promise of the Bill of Rights. When they knew that bill was forthcoming, delegates from nine of the original thirteen states ratified the Constitution. The delegates of two other states waited until the document was produced. The final two (North Carolina and Rhode Island) waited until 1791 when the Bill of Rights, which includes the second amendment, was passed.

    So let’s look at the language of the Second Amendment in light of what we know about the fear the founders had of standing armies.

    “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

    Why did they include this? It was not because they wanted the citizens to be able to hunt or protect themselves with guns. They figured that was a given. They included this amendment because they concluded that an armed citizenry would make it impossible for tyranny to arise.

    Noah Webster, a Federalist, stated the idea this way when trying to persuade Pennsylvania to ratify the Constitution:

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive”

    So the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because enough of the founders feared that the Constitution could be read in a way that would allow the Federal government to disarm the populace. Disarming the populace would open the way to a standing army under Federal control. And that would open the way to tyranny.

    When all was said and done, the founders separated the power of the military in this way:

    • Only Congress could declare war and muster the militia
    • Only Congress could finance it
    • There would be no standing army to speak of
    • Only the states could appoint officers to the militia
    • The government was forbidden to infringe on the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms

    So what happened?

    Militias didn’t work

    The problem is the militia didn’t work well enough to actually provide for the common defense.

    It didn’t work during the Revolutionary War. The republic had to create the Continental Army. That army was supported by the militias, but the colonists found they couldn’t rely on the militias alone. They had to have the regular army to fight the British.

    After the war, the Continental Army was disbanded, but the militias simply weren’t good enough to face the threats the new nation faced, and George Washington himself openly lamented it. The troops took a licking in 1791 at the battle of St. Claire’s and then time and again during the War of 1812.

    Heck, militias didn’t even work in the days of the fyrd. In those days, the Saxon and Norman kings relied on their house warriors (their standing army) and mercenaries for most of the work. They only supplemented with the fyrd.

    1792

    After the defeat in 1791, the early leaders concluded they needed a regular army with the training and skill it possessed. So in 1792 Congress authorized the creation of the First Legion of the United States, a standing army of 5,190 men. The legion was renamed “The United States Army” in 1796.

    In 1792 Congress also passed the Militia Acts. The acts were written to expire in two years. But Congress wrote another in 1795 to replace them. These laws authorized the president to called out the militia “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion” and “whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act.”

    So a mere five years after the Constitution was first ratified, and a year after the Bill of Rights, Congress dramatically increased the size of the nation’s standing army and gave the President the authority to call out the militia! It’s clear that right from the beginning the militia scheme started showing some cracks.

    Today

    The First Legion was small. But it grew again in 1808, and then again during the war of 1812. And it continued to grow slowly, then ballooned in the 1900s until we now have more than a million troops in the armed forces of the US.

    The National Guard is what the militias of the 1800s transformed into in the early 1900s, but, wouldn’t you know it, the National Guard is now mostly under the control of the Federal government too.

    What does this mean?

    It means we now have the most powerful standing army the world has ever known and almost no militia. It means our military is a complete 180 of what the founders envisioned.

    I’m not saying it’s bad. I love our military.

    I’m merely pointing out that militias back then meant a certain thing and the founders wanted them for a certain reason. And that we have completely replaced that arrangement with the exact opposite.

    As for tyranny, we still have armed citizens. Maybe this is enough to deter tyranny as Webster claimed. Although the disparity between what the citizens can arm themselves with now and what the regular army has is nothing like it was in the 1700s. So maybe there are other laws and aspects of our culture that have prevented it. Maybe it’s both.

    Either way, it’s important to understand what the original militias were, why the founders wanted them, and what the second amendment was all about.

    More

    Helpful articles

    US Constitution – Provisions for the military

    Here are all of the parts of the original seven articles of the Constitution that deal with the military.

    Article 1 – The Congress
    Section 8

    This section gives Congress seventeen powers. Six of these have to with the common defense. Those military powers granted are:

    • To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    • To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    • To provide and maintain a Navy;
    • To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    • To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [notice there are only three cases that warrant the calling forth of the militia]
    • To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    Section 10

    This section prevents the States from doing thirteen things. Three of these have to do with the military.

    “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

    Article 2 – The President
    Section 2

    “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”

    Article 4 – The States
    Section 4

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”

    Share

2 Comments

  1. Congratulations to you and Mr. Correia. I’ll pick it up when I see it on Amazon. Will there be notice from the e-mail list?
    .
    I love that band – the Hu Band. Never heard of them until I saw them here. Did a Youtube search, and these guys are all over the place – music videos, cooking videos (you read that right), and they did a song for a Star Wars video game. Very cool.

Comments are closed.