Black Lives Matter: We All Deserve Better

July 8th, 2016

This group has been a problem since its inception.  It is a leaderless, anarchical mess.  Their juvenile shock tactics have dismayed established civil rights leaders, and their constant drumbeat of hostility towards law enforcement has now inspired outright murder.

That's it.  We need to be done with them as a country.

It's hard to write that because I'm well aware of the sources of their anger.  The unconscionable killings of Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, and countless other black men by law enforcement are unacceptable.  The disproportionate prosecution, ridiculous mandatory sentences, and deficient legal representation black men receive in our justice system is a travesty, and it is utterly unAmerican.

Of course, to hear representatives of Black Lives Matter tell it, I don't get to have an opinion because I'm white.  That's preposterous and dishonest.  I don't need to be abused by a rogue police officer to tell that there are elements of our system that are terribly broken and in need of reform.  The implication that I somehow lack compassion because of the color of my skin is, succinctly, racist.

And that's the paradox.  Who's in charge of the movement?  Poor, inner-city folks?  Nope. Their founders are well-heeled, suburbanite intellectuals who probably enjoy a higher standard of living than I do.  They can shut the hell up about that.

In fact, they can shut the hell up, period.  They have screwed up in every possible way a fledgling activist group possibly could.  They came to prominence by hyping the "hands up, don't shoot" meme following the Michael Brown shooting.  That very slogan turned out to be an utter lie, the "eyewitnesses" supporting the narrative were shown to have perjured themselves, and the physical evidence overwhelmingly supported the officer's version of the event.

The result?  The officer's life is ruined, and Ferguson burned in subsequent riots.  And it only got worse from there.

Besides media attention and social media validation, exactly what is it they want?  I couldn't tell you.  Their message is muddled and seems only to unify around hatred of law enforcement.  They have no professional spokespeople in the media.  They have no competent litigators.  They have no lobbyists to propose or guide legislation.  They're a hashtag that inspires people to break things.

In short, they exist to gripe about the problem and assign blame, but they have no solutions.  The issues they're protesting are real, but these are not the right people to address them.

I would wholeheartedly support a professional, civilized group wishing to address these issues, but that isn't Black Lives Matter.  The brand is too tainted at this point.  They have only themselves to blame, and they deserve only our scorn.

Hollis, Again

July 7th, 2016

Less than two years ago, a guy named Jay Hollis brought a case to the Texas District Court challenging several aspects of the 1934 National Firearms Act and 1968 Gun Control Act. Long story short, he wanted to build a machine gun for personal use, and the ATF said no. He then filed a rambling, poorly argued case, despite knowing that his actions were illegal before he began this whole endeavor.

I predicted then that it would fail on the District level.  I was correct.  I predicted he would appeal to the 5th Circuit, where he would also lose.  I was correct on that as well.

Well, yay for me, I guess.

He needs to put a stop to this right now, before he causes us all serious harm.

If this case goes to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer owns it.  He'll have Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg in his corner.  Without Scalia to act as a counterweight, Kennedy will swing to the other side.  Roberts will probably waffle since this involves machine guns, which are pretty much the third rail in the gun debate.

That leaves Thomas and Alito, who I'm sure will write eloquent (but futile) dissents.  Even if the world's most pro-gun associate Justice gets confirmed in time, he won't have the clout Scalia had.  That's the important part.

We'll be stuck with a majority opinion that machine guns are "dangerous and unusual," and that "weapons of war" or somesuch do not deserve constitutional protection because public safety and think of the children.  That leaves the door open to the constitutionality of bans on high-capacity magazines and semiautomatic "assault weapons."

This is the sort of case Breyer and Ginsburg have been waiting for.  They've both gone on record extensively, saying that Heller was deficient and they'd like to see it rolled back.  The Hollis case doesn't quite do that, but it does let them box the right to keep and bear arms into exactly what Heller said and not one bit more.

Does Hollis care?  No.  Judging from his statements on the matter, his only concern is that he be allowed to build a machine gun.  He seems to be under the impression that if he loses, the only thing that'll happen is that he can't do that.  He doesn't understand, or he just doesn't care, about the horrific long-term consequences he could leave us stuck with.

The aspect that bothers me the most?  The younger generation of gun owners won't listen to our warnings.  They think the courts work like a retail transaction, and the only reason the NFA is still in existence is that us old fogeys haven't bothered to challenge it.  They have no sense of scale or history, and this is where that naivety and unwillingness to listen to reason becomes a real problem.

False Flags, Part 641

June 27th, 2016

There's a website up today asking that gun buyers "share the safety" by sharing guns with people in "impoverished" areas. The shared guns will supposedly go to "locations with highest incidences of police, security guard, and vigilante violence against unarmed citizens."

Yes, it apes the NRA's website design. Yes, the links all take you to legitimate sites. No, it's not real.

Both the NRA and Smith & Wesson have denied knowledge of it. I don't see how it doesn't constitute libel.

The bigger question is, why stoop to this? That site cost money and effort. It isn't a weekend project by some college student. It's obviously fronted by one of the major groups, but the whois information for the site is redacted.

This isn't the first time they've done something like this, even in the recent past. The question remains: if the arguments of gun-control advocates are so compelling and (they claim) resonate with a vast majority of the public, why do they have to resort to these sorts of deceptions?

EDIT: Fake spokesman Hensley Cocker is actually Jacques Servin in a fake Santa beard. No, really. Among Servin's many endeavors was the fake gunshop ad starring an actor from Grand Theft Auto, which he did in cooperation with States United.

Lies, More Lies, and the Liars Who Tell Them

June 24th, 2016

This has been a tough week for gun-control advocates.  We had the worst mass shooting in American history, and they just couldn't seem to exploit it.  They had a cute filibuster in the Senate, and they got the vote they wanted.  Problem is, it didn't go the way they wanted.

The plain fact is, the general public doesn't consider gun control a pressing issue.  We all grieve at the horrors of Newtown, Aurora, and Orlando, but gun-control advocates would have us believe they grieve even more.  The rest of us just don't feel it as much as they do, and anyone who suggests their hasty "solutions" might be defective gets labeled as stupid, bigoted, or lacking in conscience.

And let me tell you, nobody has more conscience than a bunch of progressives craving attention.  So, this week, John Lewis decided to stage a sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives.

This isn't a soda counter in Montgomery in the 1950's.  We're not talking about the dehumanization and marginalization of a whole race of people.  No, Mr. Lewis feels slighted that he hasn't had enough of a chance to show us how much he cares about gun control.  So, he and his friends parked their butts on the floor, had Starbucks and catered food delivered, and took a bunch of selfies.  Look how much fun he's having with Elizabeth Warren and some guy who looks like Andy Warhol.

Oh, and they also used the event as a fundraiser, because it's expensive to care more about things than the common folk.  That doesn't diminish it at all.  They promise.

There's an underlying irony that can't be overstated.  They law they want?  The source of all this angst?

Oh, this is good.  It would make people on secret government watchlists ineligible to own firearms.  They want to exploit one of the most vile aspects of the PATRIOT Act, a law they claim to abhor, signed by a President they despise, in order to abrogate the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right.  I guess it's copacetic as long as it suits their agenda at the time.

But that's not all, folks.  There are cakelike layers of irony here.  The crumbs at the bottom?  The fact that John Lewis himself is on the no-fly list, as was the late Edward (Ted) Kennedy.  Who else is on it?  Who cares!  It's something they can use to get what they want.

After all, the logical endpoint of the gun-control agenda is a total ban on civilian gun ownership.  They can't get that through legislation, at least not directly.  However, this works even better.  Consider:

  • make a secret list, over which nobody has oversight
  • ban people on the list from owning guns
  • put everybody on the list
  • profit!

If I have any of this wrong so far, by all means correct me.

The Sanders Con

June 9th, 2016

Bernie Sanders has made history, but not in the way the media tells it.  In short, he's committed what may be the largest and most brazen piece of fraud in, well, ever.  He managed to raise $208 million, and he did so by convincing a huge number of gullible children that politics is a retail transaction.

They actually believed his promises of a $15 minimum wage, single-payer healthcare, and free college education.  They deserve to be parted from their money.

Let's start with the minimum wage thing.  It's not going to happen.  The last time it was raised was in 2009.  Even that was the product of a very contentious process that had begun in earnest two years earlier.  Despite having an unassailable majority in Congress, Democrats still had to shoehorn it into the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act.

And that was only to get it to $7.25/hour.  Doubling it in a Congress dominated by Republicans?  Really?  It was never going to happen.  Anyone with the most cursory grasp on political reality would know that.

And Sanders has been in politics for almost three decades.  He certainly knows that.

Repeat after me, kids:  the President isn't a god-emperor.  He can't wave a magic wand and make legislation happen.

(Unless that's what the Millennials want, in which case we have cause to be truly afraid for this country's future.)

Second, single-payer healthcare.  How was he supposed to get that?  Progressives have been pushing for it since the 1930's, and it's never come close to happening.

What's that?  The Affordable Care Act?  Nope.  In fact, the PPACA is the exact opposite.  The whole idea of single-payer care is that the government foots the bill, eliminating the need for expensive, predatory private insurance.  What is the core tenet of the PPACA?  A mandate that we have to buy private insurance.

You know, I'm not even going to bother with the idea of free college.  There's simply no way the logistics could be made to work.

At this point, I'm going to throw temperance to the wind.  How utterly stupid are his supporters?  Do we not have civics classes in our schools anymore?  How did nobody see through this?

So, here it is.  They wasted the party's chance to get someone nominated who might have actually gotten something done while they threw their money at a man who was all too happy to take it and tell them what they wanted to hear.  Now they're left with a scary lady who is most likely one of those lizard aliens from V in human makeup.

Well, they deserve it.  Hopefully, they'll either get smarter or just not participate in the political process in the future.

One last thing:  there won't be refunds.  People actually believe they're going to get their money back because they didn't get what they wanted.  How adorable.  How unsettling.

Unless Sanders wants to declare the remainder of the donations as income, he'll be shoveling it over to the DNC.  That means it goes into a war chest to be used by Clinton and Wasserman-Shultz.

(I will resist the temptation to use the pun "you got Berned."  That would be petty.  Besides, look at what Republicans have representing their interests.)

Even the Libertarians Are a Sideshow

May 30th, 2016

If I were to sum up my personal politics, I hew most closely to the Libertarian platform.  The problem is, they can't put forth a candidate worthy (or likely) to be elected dog catcher.

Gary Johnson is this year's nominee for President, same as 2012.  Failing to secure the Republican nomination, he went to the Libertarian ticket as a consolation prize.  Johnson isn't bad; he's just uninspiring.  Still, he has more mainstream name recognition than anyone else in the party, so they might as well nominate him in 2016.

The big problem is his pick for Vice President.  William Weld was governor of Massachusetts for two terms in the 1990's.  During his tenure, he supported very strict gun-control measures and government seizure of private property under eminent domain.  Both of those positions run absolutely counter to Libertarian ideology.

Weld claims to have dialed back on some of those positions, but when pressed on his support for gun control, he gave Jake Tapper a response I find far less than convincing.

I'm a lifelong hunter and gun owner (…) I distinguish between, you know, hunting guns and guns that don't seem to have any hunting purpose or potential purpose.  That's an area where Gary and I can find common ground.

The "hunting purposes" rhetoric has long been a strategy of the gun-control lobby.  The idea is to drive a wedge into the gun-rights camp, separating the "hunters" from the supposed nutjobs who don't want to give up their "military" weapons.  Advocates of this approach usually resort to craven emotional manipulation about "compromise."

Notice that Weld spoke in the present tense in those comments.  He hasn't changed, and if Johnson can find "common ground" with that, he'll be selling out one of the central planks of the Libertarian platform.

It's sad to see the party decline from largely irrelevant to utterly surreal, especially when the mainstream choices are a dangerous blowhard with impulse-control issues, a serial liar who may find herself under indictment, and a socialist progressive whose own rhetoric makes him incompatible with the current political landscape.  With better nominees, Libertarians might have actually had a chance this election.

Autechre: elseq

May 28th, 2016

The last couple of years have been busy ones for Autechre.  Exai was an album of staggering scope, made even more audacious by the fact that it was uniformly good.  Not many musical acts in any genre can still turn out solid material with such consistency three decades into their career.

The group has always been known for its live shows, but they've never seemed keen on releasing recordings of them.  Then, without notice or fanfare, they released nine different live sets on the same day.

The marketing and distribution were interesting.  No physical copies are available.  The music can be downloaded off their website.  Grab whichever sets you want; they've said there's no specific order in which they're to be digested, and the sum of them is 8 hours of listening.

Needless to say, it was a huge surfeit of material.  Most artists would be content to sit back a couple of years while the audience digests that much.

Now they've released another dump of what is essentially five studio albums.  I really have no idea how or why they're suddenly working at such a pace, but the biggest surprise is how consistent it all is.

Essentially, elseq is broken down into five records.  Each one has its own character, but they all fit together as a whole.

I suppose going in numerical order is the best way to start.  The first record opens with "feed1," which sounds a bit timeless for them.  It could have fit in well on 1997's Chiastic Slide just as well as 2001's Confield.  It's grimy and largely amelodic without being abrasive.  Having set the tone, "c16 deep tread" flies in the other direction, feeling like a more playful track from the hip-hop influenced Untilted.  Ever wonder what the fractured melodies of Oversteps would sound like over the skittery beats of Quaristice?  "13×0 step" is just that.

"pendulu hv moda" may be the most melodic and openly emotional thing they've done in ages.  Sure, things are glitched out and smeared, but there's a real sense of drama and beauty.

The second and third records each contain three tracks, several of which are over 20 minutes long.  I still think "Sublimit" is the best long-form track they've done, and none of these quite matches it in terms of structure.  Still, "c7b2" is a fun romp in 6/8, and "mesh cinereaL" is a gorgeous track that makes excellent use of its 25-minute run time.

The fourth record is my favorite so far.  "acdwn2" starts a bit like Richard James doing acid house, but where James would play it straight, Autechre completely destabilize it and tear it apart.  It reminds me of L-Event a bit, and I'm pretty sure that's the bassline from "Calbruc."

"foldfree casual" is actually pretty.  It sounds a bit like Eno's work with Cluster in the 1970's, but with asymmetrical percussion towards the end.  The way the melody in "latentcall" turns melancholy and disintegrates makes me think they've been listening to Tim Hecker lately. Not a bad thing at all.

"7th slip" got on my nerves until it didn't.  I had to listen to it twice before I got what they were doing. It's like a broadcast of a 1930's swing radio station, intercepted and remixed by aliens.  Or Philip Jeck.

"freulaeux" is, I kid you not, an almost straightforward house track with a 4/4 beat.  The overlying textures sound like something from Draft 7.30, but there's no denying how…well, it's optimistic and sunny in a way that doesn't seem the least bit out of character.

I could go on, but it would defeat the point.  I get two impressions from the record(s).  The first is that there's a certain syncretism going on here.  I'm hearing elements from just about every period in their history.  Listen closely and you'll hear a bassline that wouldn't have been out of place on one of their Basscadet remixes.  In other spots, the melodic framework feels like something from Tri Repetae.  Structures and rhythmic elements from Chiastic Slide and Confield pop up from time to time.

That brings me to the second impression.  This feels like an improvised set.  Sure, it's obvious these tracks all had a general plan, but there's also a very loose feel to everything.  Despite its broad sprawl, Exai still felt tight and controlled.  This time around, things are much less formal.  I don't think I'd ever accuse Autechre of being sloppy, but I get a playful, relaxed feeling from this batch of material that's never really been apparent before.

I can't confirm it, but this all feels like they've taken the methods and software they use for their live shows and used it to create material in the studio.  I've always held the view that every Autechre record has a theme of sorts, and I'm going to venture that the theme for this one was studio improvisation.

So, is it good?  Yes, very.

Should you drop the money for 4 hours' material?  If you're a fan, yes.  There are a few so-so tracks, but this is solid work overall, with more than a few pleasant surprises.  If you're not, I'd suggest the first or fourth records to start.

Low Energy, Totally Uninspired

March 6th, 2016

At this point, I can't see the math working out any other way.  Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee for President this fall.

That scares the living bejeezus out of me.  It should frighten any reasonable person.  Apparently, "reasonable person" excludes a large portion of the American electorate.

Let's be clear:  Donald Trump doesn't care about you.  He only cares about himself.  This is all a game to him, and one in which the most uncouth bully wins through sheer force of will.

The obvious retort is, "well, that's politics as usual."  It's not untrue, but this guy claims to represent a repudiation of politics as usual.  Right.  If anything, he represents an amplified version of it, filtered through the worst kind of populism I've seen since, well…

I'm going full Godwin here.  It's the worst kind of populism since Hitler.  There.  I've done it, and I'm not sorry.

I'm not making a direct comparison between Trump and Hitler as people.  That would be woefully inaccurate, and it would downplay the monstrosity of the latter.  The actual similarity is in how each man gathered power.

Like Hitler, Trump is pursuing political power by tapping into vein of powerful and largely generalized anger.  He's exploiting an unsettling undercurrent of xenophobia to scapegoat entire ethnic groups.  I'm still at a loss to explain how his candidacy survived the suggestion we ban people from entering the country based on their religion, but here we are.

Hitler abridged or suspended numerous civil liberties to serve his agenda.  In a way, Trump is worse:  he wants to do the same thing to suit his own whims.

When he decided he didn't like what the press was saying about him, he responded with this:

One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws.

Read that again.  He wants to gut the 1st Amendment so he can get an easier payday.  It doesn't stop there.  He believes Apple should be forced to engineer a backdoor into their products so the government can more easily access private information.  There goes the 4th Amendment.  How about the insistence that he'll bring back, and even expand, torture for "terrorists?"  There goes the 6th Amendment.

His fans claim he supports the 2nd Amendment, but that's revisionist lip-service at best.  In his 2000 book, he supported waiting periods and a ban on so-called "assault weapons."  Prior to the beginning of his campaign, there is no record of him belonging to any pro-gun organizations or even giving them the most perfunctory nod.  He has given repeated monetary and political support for Charles Schumer, one of the most longstanding and ardent advocates for gun control in the Senate.

This guy wants to trample the Constitution, and he's not coy about it.  In spite of that, people love him.  What does that say about us?

Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite, I suppose.  I really wanted to think we were better than this.

Is the Gun Industry Really Free of Liability?

January 24th, 2016

Over the last couple of years, the Democrats have decided that gun control is no longer a toxic political issue.  In fact, they seem to consider it a vital imperative, and support for new restrictions has become something of a litmus test.  Presidential candidates Clinton and Sanders have both been strident in calls for new legislation.

One of their primary targets is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.  The claim is that the PLCAA exempts manufacturers and retailers from any sort of liability for their actions.  As Clinton put it,

So far as I know, the gun industry and gun sellers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior. Nobody else is given that immunity. And that just illustrates the extremism that has taken over this debate.

This isn't just wrong; it's an utter lie.

During the late years of the Clinton administration, the Mayors of Chicago and Bridgeport decided to sue gun manufacturers for the damage inflicted by the criminal misuse of their products.  The whole mess culminated when Smith & Wesson, eager to avoid lawsuits, struck a bargain with the Clinton administration with a wide-reaching set of restrictions on the manufacture and sale of their products.  The provisions of the agreement were to be, oddly enough, enforced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo (yep, one and the same) declared triumph and used the threat of costly litigation to intimidate manufacturers, gleefully warning of "death by a thousand cuts."

The problem is this:  they weren't suing the manufacturers for making defective products or for irresponsible marketing.  They were suing companies for making guns.

In 2005, the PLCAA was passed to clear this up.  It's not a blanket protection.  There are still provisions under which suits can be brought for design or manufacturing defects, transfer of firearms in violation of existing law, breach of contract or warranty, or illegal marketing.

What isn't allowed is suing manufacturers for the unforeseen criminal misuse of their products.  I can't sue Glock because someone stole one of their guns and shot me with it any more than I can sue Chevrolet because a drunk driver hit me with one of their vehicles.

This whole issue has nothing to do with removing a supposed extralegal protection.  It's about being able to bypass the legislative process via punitive lawsuits.

Executive Power and Gun Control

January 1st, 2016

The President has announced that he's seeking to enact new controls without the cooperation or consent of Congress. I understand how this could be worrying on the surface.

The thing is, he really can't do that.  I've written about this before.  Whatever murky construct they may be, executive orders can't be used to enact or alter laws.  The chief executive doesn't have that power, and for very good reason.

It's unsettling that this President has repeatedly and publicly stated a desire to bypass our system of checks and balances.  Regarding economic relief in 2011, he said,

We can't wait for Congress to do its job. So where they won't act, I will.  We're going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress.

Statements like that should be chilling to anyone, regardless of political affiliation.

With that said, we haven't seen the actual orders yet.  The main one rumored will redefine or tighten the definition of a "dealer" in firearms.  The existing definition under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11)(A) is a bit ambiguous:

as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms

Principal objective and occasional sales can be hard things to clarify.  Are twenty guns a year occasional?  Ten?  Five?  One?

The President must know this will trigger a legal challenge, and I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding it as constitutional.

So why is he doing it?  My best guess is that he wants to be seen as doing something near the end of his term.  A court challenge could take a couple of years, by which time he'll be out of office.  It's a cynical sort of political calculus, but it will appease the gun-control lobby in the short term, and he thinks he'll be fondly remembered for it.

The real historical lesson here should be his eagerness to abuse powers the Constitution never meant for him to have.

Weekend in the Commonwealth

December 26th, 2015

I've been playing Fallout 4 obsessively over the Christmas layover. Of course, there's really no other way to play it, but I digress. Anyhow, here are a few screenshots I took during my stroll through the ruins of 23rd Century Boston.

One Way Around the Legislature

December 22nd, 2015

State Attorney General Herring has announced that he's cancelling reciprocity agreements with 25 states.  Those agreements allow permitted nonresidents to carry concealed firearms in Virginia.  The justification is that those 25 states have more "lax" gun laws than Virginia and that the measure will keep dangerous criminals from bringing guns into the Commonwealth.

Right.  Because dangerous criminals go through the trouble to get carry permits.  Essentially, he's punishing the people who've done nothing wrong, which is pretty much the central tenet of the gun-control approach.

Worse yet, he doesn't need the approval of the legislature to do this.  It just takes a pen stroke.  Hopefully, state lawmakers will intervene, but that remains to be seen.

It's not a novel strategy.  The President himself has threatened to bypass Congress in a similar fashion, though his legal authority to do so is questionable at best.  On one hand, the reluctance of lawmakers (who represent the wishes of their constituents) shows that the public doesn't support gun control.  On the other hand, it makes things difficult for gun owners while such measures meet legal challenges.

The dishonesty and pettiness isn't surprising, but it's certainly annoying.

« Previous PageNext Page »