The Import of the Facts that Can't be Reported

The mainstream media in this country have sucked up the ideological Kool-Aid to the point of being completely worthless. They aren't pressing Grandpa Blinky on his border fiasco, or even his efforts to hide the truth via controlled access policies. Many days after the shootings in Atlanta and Boulder, the media persist in their idiot game of "don't ask, don't tell" on the issue of whether both of those shooters in fact underwent, and passed, background checks. This, because the answer does not fit the narrative of the media-backed gun control bills that posit extended background checks as a solution. As the nation watches videos of black people randomly attacking and beating Asian Americans, the media reporters can't mention the fact that the sidewalk stomping or subway beat-down were inflicted by hateful, violent black people, committing hate crimes. That would be inconsistent with the paternalistic stereotypes fostered by Grandpa Blinky, the kinder, gentler racist, who knows that most black people would never engage in such conduct.

Now, today, we have a new round of stories about "Major," the most spirited canine in the Bitin' Administration, attacking his second federal employee. As in every media account of the first attack, every media account of this second attack conspicuously omits virtually every detail about the victim. In both instances, we are essentially told only the agency with which the victim is employed, and some fluff about how minor the wounds were and what a great dog Major is. No mention of the victims' names, no photos or videos, not even a few light-hearted interviews wherein the victims brush off the significance of the bites or minimize the attacks.

What are we covering up for Grandpa Blinky this time? Do the victims of the dog attacks have any common features that might be problematic, or an embarrassment for Blinky? Or more simply asked, are the missing data fields in the media reports concealing that Blinky's dog attacks people of color?

Biden, Biden,what are you hidin'? Who on Earth has your dog been bitin'? Looks suspicious, stinks like Hell, why won't you let the media tell?

Inquiring minds want to know. I want to know. However, as with everything that doesn't fit Blinky's propaganda narrative, we can't ever expect to learn the truth about this from anything reporters say. At best, we can only try to figure out what ideological redactions left the gaping holes in the reporting.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/30/politics/major-biden-dog-white-house/index.html

    

Sheet music, piano lessons and teaching orchestra conducting skills all racist, to be banned from Oxford University

 Via Turley

According to The Telegraph, the proposal at Oxford would remove sheet music from the curriculum because such music notation has not “shaken off its connection to its colonial past” and shows complicity in “white supremacy.” The staff further argue that such training to read music is a “slap in the face” for students of color. They also argue that any requirements on learning how to conduct orchestras or playing piano serve to “structurally center white European music” and cause “students of color great distress.”

Another Gun Control Debate

This past week has proved again that "thoughts and prayers" are neither bulletproof nor comforting.  Another set of tragedies, another renewed gun control debate, another round of sound and fury signifying nothing.  I've seen way too many calls to "OMG, BAN THE AR-15 - IT SAYS AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE IN ITS NAME!" on Twitter and Facebook and have seen the predictable counterarguments of "criminals don't follow the laws!"  Nobody seems to have any realistic ideas on how to move forward.  Seeing as how California has tried to ban the sale of new "assault weapons" and that the entire statutory scheme has been thwarted by a $30 part, I'd like to offer my thoughts about how we <i>might</i> save a life or two.

As a center-left gun owner (and I do have an AR-15-type rifle in my collection), the calls to ban the "AR-15" make my blood boil.  First off, "AR" does not stand for assault rife or automatic rifle.  It comes from Armalite, the original manufacturer of the rifle.  It shares a significant part of its DNA with the military M-16 and, now, M-4  service rifles.  The biggest difference, though, is that the military versions have a "select fire" mode, which allows the rifle to fire in bursts (usually 3 rounds per trigger pull) or full-auto (as many rounds as are in the magazine per trigger pull).  The AR-15 is now, and always has been a semi-auto rife (one pull of the trigger = one round fired).

The problems with "BAN THE AR-15" are legion.  First and foremost, "AR-15" is a name of one specific rifle.  The name "AR-15" originally belonged to Armalite and is now owned by Colt.  Banning the "AR-15" would only take one specific model from one specific manufacturer off the market and the Colt AR-15 amounts for, at most, maybe 10% of the AR-15-type rifles out there.

So, if banning the "AR-15" won't accomplish diddly shit, we have to go after a larger class of "assault weapons," right?  Not so fast.  There is no magic definition of "assault rifle," so the law will have to create that definition.  Usually, these laws are championed by legislators who have never held a gun in their lives and stir fear about <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/01/21/anti-gun-senator-is-being-mocked-relentlessly-after-he-warned-of-30-caliber-clip-in-embarrassing-video"> ghost guns firing 30 magazine clips in half a second</a>, so they will inevitably fuck up the wording and those who actually know how guns work are usually from the other side of the aisle and have no motivation to help correct the wording of the laws.

We tried this in California.  It utterly failed.  California defined an assault weapon as a semi-automatic, center-fire rife with a detachable magazine* and one or more of the following features: 

A. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

B. A thumbhole stock.

C. A folding or telescoping stock.

D. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

E. A flash suppressor.

F. A forward pistol grip.

So, prior to this law becoming effective (January 1, 2017, IIRC), it caused a massive run on what would soon become "assault weapons," significantly increasing the population of "assault weapons."  After the ban went into effect, the gun industry began offering "featureless" rifles, which were the same basic rifle, but with a traditional "hunting rifle" stock and no flash suppressor (which makes no difference in daytime anyway).  Still capable of firing the exact same bullet at the exact same velocity at the exact same rate.

Another way the gun industry took the piss out of the new California law was to create a product that makes the magazine non-detachable.  See, the law defines "detachable magazine" as one that cannot be removed without disassembling the action of the weapon.  So, creative types made an easy-to-retrofit product which rendered the magazine incapable of coming out unless the action of the rifle was opened just a teeny-weeny bit.  This product, one of which is called the "hellfighter kit" and sells for about $30, makes this process just as fast as changing a magazine on a prohibited "assault weapon."  So, because the rifle no longer has a "detachable magazine," it can have a pistol grip, grenade launcher, velociraptor launcher, or a freaking chainsaw bayonet. 

So, does that mean we just have to live with things the way they are?  I don't think so.  Most all mass shooters are male.  Many states allow anyone 18 and older to buy guns.  However, Schizophrenia (which is blamed in many mass shootings) doesn't always develop by age 18.  Also, let's face it, 18 year-old dudes are dumb as hell.  As far as I know, both the Atlanta and Boulder shooters were under 25 and bought their guns legally.  Both could have been prevented - or at least made more difficult - if we restrict the sale of semi-automatic rifles and pistols to persons 25 and over.  Bolt-action, lever-action, or break-action long guns and revolvers could still be purchased by younger people.  A mental exam would be nice as well, but that probably toes the line of violating the 2A.

Thoughts?  Anyone have better solutions?

Surprise! Weirdo shut-in will miss the pandemic

The latest column from our (non-)roving correspondent on all things intersecting law, race, and candy:

I’ve said, here and elsewhere, that one of the principal benefits of the pandemic is how I’ve been able to exclude racism and whiteness generally from my day-to-day life. 

 There's no denying that the pandemic has severely curtailed nearly everyone's interactions with other humans, but can you really say the pandemic has reduced racism in your life if your "job" and generally sedentary lifestyle never require you to leave the home anyway?

White people haven’t improved; I’ve just been able to limit my exposure to them. I’ve turned my house into Wakanda: a technically advanced, globally isolated home base from which I can pick and choose when and how often to interact with white people.

 Like a lot of kids transfixed by the film Black Panther, Elie enjoys pretending to be the ruler of a fictional kingdom. But it's not clear how "white people" pre-pandemic were keeping him from arranging his action figures on the rim of the tub during bath time. Oh, the adventures he's had during lockdown!

Still, we can all agree the pandemic hasn't all been positive. But Elie doesn't mention the fact that black and Latino people have been dying of Covid at twice the rate of white people. Why should Elie talk about that when the pandemic has exacted even greater inequities? Like the time he was sitting in a car outside the CVS while his wife ventured inside to buy Easter candy and he saw an elderly white woman ask a black teenager if the store was administering Covid vaccinations -- but his rhetorical skills had deteriorated such that he couldn't think of anything devastating to say to put the elderly woman in her place.

Pre-Covid, I’d have been ready with some witticism which both answered the lady’s question and made clear that I disapproved of her haranguing a young person. But I’ve been living in my white-free castle for a year.

Indeed. When your "white-free castle" is rarely "White Castle-free," it tends to make you slow on the draw.

 And then I was left with the other side effect of racism that people don’t always see: the shame. Did I fail to show solidarity with this young Black stranger?

 So, his failure to "show solidarity" with his fellow black person is white people's fault. Which would have to mean that Elie needs white people to be racist so that he can always, as he claims, "be ready with some witticism" to remind them that they are racist.

 Such is the toll the lockdown has taken on our cognitive abilities. Time for it to end.

Anyone Care to explain this BS?

 Now, I’m all for following the science. For that reason I have not been to my office in over the year, and I wear masks when in public. Even signed up to get the Sputnik V jab. 

But can anyone explain this BS?  Why is Florida not swimming in dead people?  Is it because Floridians are so much younger and healthier than average?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/17/politics/ron-desantis-covid-florida/index.html

Glawker's JoPa blasts Pepperdine for closing on-line comment on an upcoming guest speech by Eugene Volokh (who used the N-word once)

 

In an Above the Law post entitled "Law School Invites Professor Who Uses Racial Slurs To Encourage ‘Dialogue,’ Then Shuts Off Comments" JoePa makes some pretty astoundingly off-the-wall statements against Pepperdine and its upcoming guest speaker Eugene Volokh, even playing the "he clerked for Kozinski" card. But a few of his literary gems speak for themselves.

Rewinding to last year, Volokh was asked specifically not to use the n-word given that it’s a racial slur and there’s no academic justification for it in a world where everyone fully understands the expurgated form. Volokh took this earnest student request as the green light to immediately use the n-word, because that’s what libertarians do when confronted with an invitation to live in a civilized society with basic respect for other people. UCLA’s administration put out a general statement about tolerance — in response to another professor blaming Chinese students for COVID — prompting Volokh to launch into a public tantrum about how he refuses to apologize for using racial epithets.

Now in 2021, Volokh is appearing at a Pepperdine event. A coalition of 11 student organizations and a number of protestors petitioned the school to withdraw the invitation given the school’s purported commitment to creating a more inclusive environment. Volokh is an insightful scholar with interesting stuff to say… but so are a lot of people. Rewarding Volokh despite the publicity, a lot of generated by him, surrounding racial slurs seems sickeningly transactional. As though one can get out of all manner of offensive behavior by just being good at their day job. Apropos of nothing, Volokh clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski.

Setting aside the irony of Glasker railing against shutting down on-line comment (without Glawker doing just that, we wouldn't be here), and the gratuitous dig at the Kozinski clerkship, insightful scholars with interesting stuff to say make poor guest speakers because they might exercise free speech and be actually interesting-- especially since the professor in question teaches first amendment law. 

WARNING: sharing Oprah interview memes is ‘digital blackface’

 https://nypost.com/2021/03/12/organization-says-sharing-oprah-interview-memes-is-digital-blackface/amp/

 

Glawker's Rubino has cow over LA Times' use of Kozinski opinion referencing disgraced toxic torts lawyer's past misconduct

 

Rubino has a lengthy Glawker post on the even lengthier  Los Angeles Times investigation of now-disgraced toxic torts lawyer Thomas Girardi, implying that Girardi's cozy relationship with Bar officials and investigators (whom Girardi lavished with parties, perks, and free legal work) allowed him to offend for decades.

But what Rubino simply cannot abide is the Times' use of "disgraced" former justice Alex Kozinski's statement that a Girardi sleight of hand in his court  was "about as serious a case of misconduct as I had ever seen.”

How dare they? I mean (sputtering) the man had cow porn on his server!

Yes, the LA Times cites disgraced former judge Alex Kozinski opining about legal ethics with ZERO sense of irony or even acknowledgement that Kozinski retired amid a sexual harassment scandal that rocked the legal world. They go further, using him as the moral authority expressing his shock when the state bar declined to impose further sanctions on Girardi:

Bye Bye Belo

For those of you who aren't lawyers in Dallas (I think that's everyone except Pol Pot), let me first explain what the Belo House is.  It's a large classical revival mansion located in the middle of downtown Dallas.  It was built in 1888 by A. H. Belo, the founder of the Dallas Morning News.  Mr. Belo was also a veteran of the Confederate States Army, attaining the rank of Colonel (of course) during the Civil War.  Mr. Belo died in 1901 and the house was occupied by the Belo family until the 1920's.  It spent fifty years as a funeral home until it was bought by the Dallas Bar Foundation in 1976.

Since then it's been the headquarters of the Dallas Bar.  I've attended scores of events at "the Belo."  I knew vaguely that it was related to the Belo family who had started the Dallas Morning news, but that was about it.

Today I received what looked like a hastily thrown together email from the DBA saying that they're in the process of re-naming the building.  The email didn't mention any specific complaints that had been made regarding the name of the building, but simply said that the DBA was doing so to further its "steadfast commitment to diversity, equality, inclusion, and belonging."

I don't really care if they decide to rename it, but strikes me as being somewhat silly for a number of reasons.

1. Changing the name won't change the fact that the building was originally built for and  lived in by a racist old white guy.   If the DBA really cared, they'd find a new home that's untainted by the past.  Of course, if you scratched every building that was once occupied by a racist off the list, you'd have a lot fewer options in Dallas or anywhere else in the South.

2. Changing the name won't make a single person's life better.  

3. Lawyers like me have been referring to it as "the Belo" for a really long time and changing the name won't stop that.  I'm too old to pay attention to new names for shit.

4.  It doesn't sound like anyone was actually complaining about the name.  It sounds like the DBA started getting worried that somebody MIGHT make a big deal about it and try to cast the entire DBA as a bunch of racists.  

5. It's a historically and architecturally significant building.  I can't possibly see how trying to erase it's history (even the unsavory parts) will help anyone.  

Is anything like this going on where the other members of the Commentariat live and practice?

Is Meghan Markle our Wallace Simpson?

 https://www.hulu.com/watch/74e78364-237d-4e81-81f7-2b2aa4604490

Texas tech mogul who failed to report $3BILLION in income to IRS has perfect defense: “I forgot”.

 

Robert Brockman, the software executive charged in the largest-ever tax case against a U.S. individual, is facing progressive dementia that will render him unable to help in his defense, according to a legal filing citing his doctors.

Brockman, 79, was indicted on tax evasion and money laundering charges that accused him of using a complex trust structure in the Caribbean to hide $2 billion in income over two decades. His lawyers want his case moved from San Francisco, where he was indicted on Oct. 1, to Houston, where he lives and his doctors treat him.

If you don’t remember doing it, is it still a crime? 

Unrealized capital gains tax, its not just for the rich or for stocks

 

If Democrats get their way the taxman cometh, for 40% of the growth on your retirement savings every year in excess of $3M, on 40% of the gain of the equity in your home with a FMV in excess of $2M every year and 40% annual tax on the unrealized gain on every tradable or nontradable asset you own if you have a net worth of $10M or more.

If you think that math will never apply to you, think again.

What do you think a $3M retirement fund will get you if you plan to retire in 2040 or later? A lot less than you think. 

What do you think average home values in your area are going to be in 10 or 15 or 20 years?

Educate yourselves on this plan to destroy all hope of real wealth accumulation, now that this folly is back under serious consideration.

RELATED: https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2021/01/25/beware_of_a_biden_tax_on_unrealized_capital_gains_657597.amp.html 

2021 Golden Globes the worst award show ever?

 In answer to my own question, yes. 

Bad jokes, bad format, and how many black actors who speak incoherent English do we need to hear from in one award show anyway? Many, apparently. 

The Price of Prevention vs. The Cost of Cure

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or so they say.  I've found this especially true in the legal field.  Too often business partners opt to use Legal Zoom to organize an LLC or incorporate with the goal of "saving money on lawyers."  It's true that Legal Zoom is cheaper but it won't point out the wisdom of a shareholder's agreement or operating agreement which spell out things like what happens when a member/shareholder dies, gets divorced, or simply wants out or what happens when there's not enough money to keep the lights on.

I estimate that, over my career, I've personally billed over $1,000,000 to help resolve shareholder/member disputes that could have easily been prevented by spending a few thousand dollars up-front on an appropriate shareholder/operating agreement.  While I'm sure there are plenty of businesses which incorporate/organize without legal assistance and don't have financially-crippling meltdowns, I don't see those as a litigator.  I only see the broken ones and, cynically, those are a good source of revenue.

Yesterday, I ran into a new example of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound (or, in this case, several million GBP) of cure.  This one stung.  Eccentric rich guy has long time female companion.  They never marry but are in business together.  Eccentric guy has the skills but no business sense, so he relies on the companion to actually run the business.  They drift apart, but he needs her to stay afloat, so they continue to reside together.

Beginning in or around 2002, rich guy falls in love with another woman.  She's younger but not that much younger and is far from a trophy wife.  Their connection is based on shared eccentricities.  I'm convinced the connection was authentic.  Rich guy, who had no prior estate plan, has his business attorney draft him a pour-over will and a trust which leaves the business, a residence, and miscellaneous property to the companion and slightly more to the new love.  

Over the next ten years or so until his death, rich guy decides he wants to increase the gifts to the new love on a couple different occasions.  However, instead of going back to an attorney, he asks new love to retype the existing estate plan and make changes.  She does exactly what she's told but, because she never married the rich guy (despite being intimate for 17 years) and because rich guy continued to sleep at the residence he shared with female companion, some quirks in the law created a presumption that all gifts to new love in the trusts she retyped were the product of undue influence.

You can see where this went after the rich guy's death.  It was not pretty and I'm convinced the rich guy would not have wanted to leave such a shitbomb after his passing.  Had he spent a collective $5,000 on attorneys (and his estate was worth 8 figures), all of this would have been avoided.

This was, by far, the most expensive, unfortunate prevention v. cure botched analysis I've seen.  What about you all?