Any Politicians Being Recalled in Your State?

 If not, what are you waiting for? Recalls rule!

In sunny California, our annoying Governor will be on trial in the fall, and while he'll probably survive, I look forward to hearing his many, many crimes recounted in juicy detail, accompanied by lots of cheesy, low-budget campaign ads from all the loons who want to replace him.

In non-recall news, Lat is "winding down" his job as a headhunter to work full time on his newsletter, so if you're secretly planning a lateral move, now is the time to act!

Anything Good on TV?

 Seeing as we apparently won’t have a riot on our hands since the jury voted the politically correct way, anyone have recommendations on what to watch on TV?

Anyone Release The Kraken Lately?

 At FR’s Request:

“ Somebody make a quick article about our favorite Kraken (not cracka) lawyer. I got lots of funny advize. Surprised she hasn’t plead “immunity” since Trump made her a special person counsel”

Show of hands: Anyone here NOT on Biden's SCOTUS 'reform' panel?

 President Biden has created his promised blue ribbon panel on the Supreme Court, with its chief mandate of producing within six months of its inaugural meeting an analysis of "the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform." 

 The EO does not identify any extant problems that necessitate "reform," but it does say it's a job requiring input from thirty-six "distinguished constitutional scholars, retired members of the Federal judiciary, or other individuals having experience with and knowledge of the Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court of the United States." A full roster with bios can be found here.

If I'm being honest, I don't recognize most of the names. (A few ring a bell, such as Democratic Swamp creature Walter Dellinger and Laurence Tribe, a Twitter loon who moonlights at Harvard Law.) But to my admittedly untrained eye for all things blue-ribbony, 36 seems like a number you'd pick if you secretly wanted your "reform" commission to come up with a ten-page report from a plurality of milquetoasts and two dozen conflicting minority reports -- all to be read by few people of influence and acted upon by none.

I suppose that will have to be good enough for me.

Biden’s CDC director declares racism ’a serious public health threat’

 “What we know is this: racism is a serious public health threat that directly affects the well-being of millions of Americans,” Rochelle Walensky, the CDC director, said in a statement. “As a result, it affects the health of our entire nation.”

No word on when a vaccine will be available.

Back to the Office?

 

I wanted to see what everyone's office situation is currently looking like and where you see yourself officing later this year.  As I've mentioned before, I'll be working from home permanently.  Most of the people I know who are in BigLaw are already back in the office.

My overhead is around 25% of what it was when I had a physical office.  I'd much rather work from home and get paid more.  I'm curious how many other firms are going to scale back on office space to cut overhead.

Today in Wokeness: Fonts are now RACEIST

 Until yesterday, I didn't even know that Tom Hanks had a son named Chet.  I mean really, Chet?  

Apparently Chet has a line of clothing known as White Boy Summer.  People are getting very upset because his line of clothing includes a raceist font.  I'm not making that up.  Apparently news outlets are so spooked about being called raceist, most of the stories don't even include the font.  I finally found it and it looks like some sort of variation on Gothic.  I saw one person who went on to call the font "aggressively racist."

Apparently the font is considered raceist because some white supremacist groups use it.  It's also claimed that it was the font that was on the cover of Hitler's original edition of Mein Kampf.  However, I couldn't independently verify that as true.

It's ridiculous that once a white supremacist uses something, it's automatically raceist.  I think that it gives those idiots way too much power over our culture.  Also, this sort of outrage is completely counterproductive.  There is no reason that I ever should have known who Chet Hanks is.  He looks like he's a complete idiot (and a terrible aspiring rapper).  He's now gotten way more publicity than he ever deserved thanks to the woke mob.

Chet Hanks criticised for using ‘racist’ font on ‘White Boy Summer’ merchandise (msn.com)

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?