Today in 1961, the Beatles made their debut as the house band of the Cavern Club in Liverpool, before they had recorded music of their own creation.
Birthdays start with Edward Pattern, one of Gladys Knight’s Pips …
… born one year before Doris Kenner of the Shirelles:
Earlier today I reported about the hysteria over the releasing of blueprints for guns that could be assembled with a 3-D printer.
A federal judge blocked the release of those blueprints. But, the Huffington Post reports via Yahoo! News:
Gun rights activist groups found a way around the temporary halting of 3D-printed gun blueprints by publishing another set of blueprints on a new website Tuesday, which they say is activity protected under the First Amendment.
“Through CodeIsFreeSpeech.com, we intend to encourage people to consider new and different aspects of our nation’s marketplace of ideas – even if some government officials disagree with our views or dislike our content – because information is code, code is free speech, and free speech is freedom,” reads a statement on the site, which was created by a variety of groups including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation.
The site features downloadable blueprints for a variety of firearms, including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, the AR-10 battle rifle as well as the Liberator, a single-shot handgun.
It went live the same day that U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik blocked a settlement that President Donald Trump’s administration had reached with digital firearms nonprofit Defense Distributed, which had been granted permission to relaunch its website on Wednesday with blueprints.
Attorneys general from eight states and Washington, D.C., announced Monday they were suing the federal government in an attempt to halt the settlement.
“There are 3D printers in public colleges and public spaces and there is the likelihood of potential irreparable harm,” Lasnik said.
Defense Distributed had been hosting schematics for seven different firearms from July 27 until the site’s founder Cody Wilson announced on Twitter Tuesday that the site was “going dark.” Thousands of the blueprints had already been downloaded by Tuesday.
Three comments on this story point out the silliness of this latest anti-gun controversy:
- MakerBot Replicator Z18 – 3D printer $6,499.00 MakerBot PLA Filament $160.00 per roll,Not cheep for a use and lose 1 timer.
- Even though this new era of 3D printable parts to manufacture firearms is in controversy, it may come as somewhat of a surprise that it is still completely legal to make and own a homemade gun.
- Anyone with minimal mechanical ability can build a zip gun from hardware store supplies in under 5 minutes…. Why is this such an issue?
Brandon Burdette added on Facebook:
Ghost guns only seem to terrify the political class. No average person I’ve met really gives a crap.
I wonder why that is.
David French on the latest hysteria over guns:
If you pay attention to the news, you know that the Internet is blowing up right now with claims that the Trump administration is “now” “permitting” individuals to share plans for 3D-printed guns, and that this move will “now” allow Americans to make guns at home — including plastic guns of the sort that can be used to penetrate airport and school security. Here’s a perfect example of the kind of coverage that’s rocketing around the Web, as shared by Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey:
Everyone needs to know how dangerous downloadable guns are.pic.twitter.com/SJ47ro6CSM
— Maura Healey (@MassAGO) July 30, 2018
Note the key claims in the video:
“Downloadable guns are a real thing because of the Trump administration.”
“Individuals will now be able to log on to a website and, if they have access to a 3D printer, print fully functional and totally undetectable firearms.”
“All of this is because the Trump administration quietly settled a lawsuit with Cody Wilson, a 3D-gun creator who had sued the federal government for being forced to take down his downloadable 3D guns back in 2013.”
The video then urges federal and state governments to mandate the placement of permanent metal components on guns and to “outlaw printable guns.”
Healey says she has sued to “stop the illegal distribution of 3D printable guns.”
There is so very much wrong with these statements that it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s start with some basic facts. The controversy revolves around a case brought by a company called Defense Distributed, together with an advocacy organization called the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs challenged the Obama administration’s decision to apply federal International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) in order to block Defense Distributed from distributing plans that would permit individuals with a 3D printer to manufacture a plastic handgun (called “the Liberator”) and a “fully functional plastic AR-15 lower receiver” — the indispensable portion of an AR that is considered the “firearm” and that typically contains the serial number.
The Obama administration justified its decision to prevent the plaintiffs from posting the files on the grounds that the files would be available for international download and international use. It also argued that the files at issue were not “expressive speech.” As the Fifth Circuit explained, printing a fully functional plastic lower receiver or Defense Distributed’s single-shot plastic pistol “is legal for United States citizens and will remain legal for United States citizens regardless of the outcome of this case.”
(The federal Undetectable Firearms Act makes it illegal to manufacture or possess a weapon undetectable by walk-through metal detectors.)
Indeed, the international-export aspects of the case were indispensable to court rulings at the district- and circuit-court levels that denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction that would permit it to distribute its files. Specifically, the district court relied on the “public’s keen interest in restricting the export of defense articles.” The Fifth Circuit held that the district did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, and it declined to address the question of whether the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
Despite these rulings, the federal government faced a difficult challenge on the merits. The plaintiffs’ case was fundamentally a speech case, not a gun case. The plaintiffs weren’t distributing guns, they were distributing information, and by blocking the flow of information, the Obama administration had placed a “prior restraint” on the plaintiffs’ speech. Prior restraints are among the least-favored government actions in First Amendment jurisprudence.
In fact, the Obama administration’s action was worse than the typical prior restraint in part because it was censoring further distribution of information that was already all over the Internet. That’s right, plastic-gun plans are but one Google search away for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Just before I wrote this piece, I typed a single phrase and found plans for multiple guns.
And, by the way, people have been making homemade guns since before the founding of the Republic. You don’t need a license to make a gun for personal use; you need one only if you make a gun for sale or distribution. Guns can be made at home easily and cheaply. Home manufacture is common (I’m close to someone who makes better ARs than any manufacturer). Oh, and technology for “undetectable” guns existed long before 3D printing — hence the need for the Undetectable Firearms Act.
What did the Trump administration actually do? Simply put, it entered into a settlement agreement that permitted the plaintiffs to post their designs and required the government to issue a letter indicating that the designs were not subject to the licensing requirements set forth by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. It did not alter in any way the underlying statutory or regulatory laws governing the manufacture, use, or possession of firearms.
So, let’s recap the claims above:
“Downloadable guns are a real thing because of the Trump administration.”
False. 3D-printed guns were legal regardless of the outcome of the case, and plans for 3D-printed guns were widely available online.“Individuals will now be able to log on to a website, and if they have access to a 3D printer, print fully functional and totally undetectable firearms.”
Misleading. The word “now” is deceptive. Individuals were able to do this before the Trump administration’s settlement, and they would have been able to do so even if the Trump administration kept litigating the case. Moreover, it’s important to note that possessing “totally undetectable” firearms violates federal law.“All of this is because the Trump administration quietly settled a lawsuit with Cody Wilson, a 3D-gun creator who had sued the federal government for being forced to take down his downloadable 3D guns back in 2013.”
False. As the Fifth Circuit clearly stated, manufacture and possession of a plastic pistol or plastic lower receiver (subject to the Undetectable Firearms Act) “is legal for United States citizens and will remain legal for United States citizens regardless of the outcome of this case.”Multiple states are now suing on their own, hoping to replace the Obama administration’s prior restraint with one of their own. Here’s Pennsylvania attorney general Josh Shapiro:
Tonight, I went to court to prohibit access to new 3D-printable guns in PA.
These downloadable firearms were just about to be widely available online. It’s an existential threat to our state & we stepped in to stop it. The site is – & will remain – dark throughout PA. pic.twitter.com/A1siKeAf5a
— AG Josh Shapiro (@PAAttorneyGen) July 30, 2018
I’ve got news for Mr. Shapiro: 3D plans are still widely available. They’ve been widely available. And it’s odd to refer to the plans as an “existential threat to our state” when the original justification for the Obama administration’s action was concern over arms exports.
Why does this keep happening? Why do media outlets and politicians continue to spread false information and then — when called on it — remain proudly ignorant and instead condemn so-called “gunsplaining”?
My own view is simple. For critics of gun rights, details don’t matter because the gun debate is less a policy debate than it is a cultural conflict. The Trump administration’s settlement isn’t so much an outrage on its own terms as it is a vehicle for a different argument — a broader argument against gun culture. And in that broader attack on gun culture, other essential American liberties must be sacrificed, including freedom of expression. Prior restraints on free speech are a small price to pay when gun control is at stake.
Today in 1964, the Beatles’ “A Hard Day’s Night” went to number one and stayed there for longer than a hard day’s night — two weeks:
If you are of my age, this was a big moment in 1981:
Eleven months ago Jake Gambino wrote:
As the left and right battle atop the D.C. throne, our country passed $20 trillion in debt. I wanted to take a little bit of time and put this number into perspective. Hopefully, it will become all too clear just how much this debt is and why the BS crowd’s strategy of taxing the 1% won’t come close to addressing the problem.
I should have clarified above, BS is the acronym for Bernie Sanders… potayto potahto, I guess.
According to Forbes (2017), there are 2,043 billionaires on the planet with a total worth of $7.7 trillion. That’s a whole lot of money. Let’s steal it-all of it.
If we seize 100% net worth of every billionaire on the planet, we can take our national debt down to $12.3 trillion. Now we are being responsible! But we still need more money, so what about those greedy millionaires?
In 2017, CNBC stated that there are 10.8 million millionaires nationwide. I’m already getting excited to take their money. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the total net worth of those millionaires. However, they stated:
“In 2016, there were 9.4 million individuals with net worth between $1 million and $5 million, 1.3 million individuals with net worth between $5 million and $25 million, and 156,000 households with more than $25 million in net worth.”
I’m going to calculate the numbers with something in the middle to give a basic picture.
9.4 million Americans X $2.5 million = $23.5 trillion
1.3 million Americans X $12.5 million = $16.25 trillion
156,000 X $100 million = $15.6 trillion (estimated low, because this would also include the billionaires in the US, some of which were counted in the billionaires’ $7.7 trillion)
Total = $55.35 Trillion + $7.7 Trillion = $63.05 Trillion
Now, let’s be good socialists and pay off all our debt with that $63.05 trillion (heh)-$20 trillion + $63.05 trillion = +$43.05 trillion
Like magic, America suddenly has a $43.05 trillion slush fund!
What do we do with this slush fund? Let’s do the socialist generous thing and divide it up evenly among all 320 million Americans. We could pay every American almost $135,000!
Socialists Economic egalitarians rejoice! We just toppled the bourgeois billionaire class, furthered our commitment to the “greater good,” and gave everyone in America a $135,000 paycheck.
Now, back to reality. The reality is that this tactic of seizing every dollar from every millionaire and billionaire is unrealistic and a “best” case scenario. It ignores several facts.
First, we don’t have the authority to tax billionaires outside of the US, yet (looking forward to the return of military imperialism).
Second, much of that wealth is in the stock market. It relies on combined and continual contributions to keep the value high. Once we start taking millions of dollars out, the value of the remaining pool decreases unless new money is coming in to keep it elevated.
Third, that $63.05 trillion was accumulated over many, many decades. This makes it a one-time deal. There is no continuing Utopia to be had.
Fourth, and most importantly, this doesn’t even address the hundreds of trillions (literally) in unfunded liabilities.
All that money has been stolen for a measly one-time payout of $135,000 per American.
Let that really sink in. That money sounds like a huge amount to a socialist college student, but now what? Good luck making $135,000 last more than a handful of years.
The reality is that we cannot just tax ourselves out of debt. We must address spending,sooner rather than later. Every time a budget is proposed in Congress that cuts spending, the status quo lose their collective mind. Or… at least I believe it would, it is hard to remember a budget that proposed any significant cuts.
Or… at least I believe they would lose their minds; it is hard to remember a budget that proposed any significant cuts.
Until we get a Congress bold enough and principled enough to stand for the future of our nation and generations yet to be born, we will continue to dig the hole deeper and deeper. The Republicans use a shovel, and the Democrats use a bulldozer.
Neither of those options appeal to me.
The publisher of The New York Times said Sunday he “implored” President Donald Trump at a private White House meeting this month to reconsider his broad attacks on journalists, calling the president’s anti-press rhetoric “not just divisive but increasingly dangerous.”
In a statement, A.G. Sulzberger said he decided to comment publicly after Trump revealed their off-the-record meeting to his more than 53 million Twitter followers on Sunday. Trump’s aides had requested that the July 20 meeting not be made public, Sulzberger said.
“Had a very good and interesting meeting at the White House with A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher of the New York Times. Spent much time talking about the vast amounts of Fake News being put out by the media & how that Fake News has morphed into phrase, “Enemy of the People.” Sad!” Trump wrote.
Hours after that exchange, Trump resumed his broadside against the media in a series of tweets that included a pledge not to let the country “be sold out by anti-Trump haters in the … dying newspaper industry.”
Sulzberger, who succeeded his father as publisher on Jan. 1, said his main purpose for accepting the meeting was to “raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.”
“I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous,” he said.
Sulzberger said he told Trump that while the phrase “fake news” is untrue and harmful, “I am far more concerned about his labeling journalists ‘the enemy of the people.’ I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.”
Sulzberger, who attended the meeting with James Bennet, the Times’ editorial page editor, said he stressed that leaders outside the U.S. are already using Trump’s rhetoric to justify cracking down on journalists.
“I warned that it was putting lives at risk, that it was undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and that it was eroding one of our country’s greatest exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press,” the publisher said.
Sulzberger added that he made clear that he was not asking Trump to soften his attacks against the Times if he thinks the newspaper’s coverage is unfair. “Instead, I implored him to reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I believe are dangerous and harmful to our country,” he said.
Trump reads the Times and gives interviews to its reporters. But the president — who, like all politicians, is concerned about his image — also regularly derides the newspaper as the “failing New York Times.” However, the Times’ ownership company in May reported a 3.8 percent increase in first-quarter revenue compared to the same period in 2017.
The president, who lashes out over media coverage of him and the administration that he deems unfair, has broadly labeled the news media the “enemy of the people” and regularly accuses reporters of spreading “fake news” — the term he often uses for stories he dislikes.
Hours after his tweet about the Sulzberger meeting, Trump renewed his criticism of the media in a series of posts in which he accused reporters of disclosing “internal deliberations of government” and said that can endanger “the lives of many.” He did not cite examples but wrote “Very unpatriotic!” and said freedom of the press “comes with a responsibility to report the news … accurately,” a sentiment that journalists share.
Trump also claimed that 90 percent of the coverage of his administration is negative, leading to an “all time low” in public confidence in the media. He cited the Times and The Washington Post, two favorite targets, and claimed, “They will never change!”
Last week, Trump told hundreds of people attending the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City, Missouri: “Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news,” as he gestured toward journalists at the back of the room.
He also told them to remember “what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”
Sulzberger said he accepted the meeting because Times publishers have a history of meeting with presidential administrations and other public figures who have concerns with the publication’s coverage of them.
After Sulzberger took charge, Trump tweeted that his ascension gave the paper a “last chance” to fulfill its founder’s vision of impartiality.
In the January tweet, Trump urged the new publisher to “Get impartial journalists of a much higher standard, lose all of your phony and non-existent ‘sources,’ and treat the President of the United States FAIRLY, so that the next time I (and the people) win, you won’t have to write an apology to your readers for a job poorly done!”
Tension between the administration and the news media was put on display last week after the White House told a CNN correspondent that she could not attend a Rose Garden event that was open to all credentialed media.
The correspondent, Kaitlan Collins, said she was barred because she asked Trump questions he did not like at a press event in the Oval Office earlier that day. The White House said Collins was barred because she refused to leave the Oval Office after being repeatedly asked to do so. Other journalists who were in the room at the time disputed the White House account.
Anthony Scaramucci, who spent 11 days as White House communications director last year before he was fired over an obscenity-laced tirade against other staffers in an interview, said he disagreed with the decision to put Collins in the “penalty box.” He told CNN’s “State of the Union” the order to bar Collins likely came from Trump because “he likes to be respected.”
Vice President Mike Pence, in a separate interview, said the administration believes in freedom of the press.
“But maintaining the decorum that is due at the White House I think is an issue that we’ll continue to work for,” he said in a taped interview broadcast Sunday on Fox Business Network.
Remember when reporters didn’t whine about politicians, or anyone else, saying things about them? Good times.
Today in 1964, a Rolling Stones concert in Ireland was stopped due to a riot, 12 minutes after the concert began.
Today in 1966, Alabamans burned Beatles products in protest of John Lennon’s remark that the Beatles were “bigger than Jesus.” The irony was that several years earlier, Lennon met Paul McCartney at a church dinner.
Other than my mother (who was a singer, but never recorded any records, unlike my father’s band, which released a couple of them), birthdays today include Kent Lavoie, better known as Lobo:
Bob Welch, who before his solo career was in Fleetwood Mac before they became big:
Karl Greene of Herman’s Hermits:
Hugh McDowell played cello for Electric Light Orchestra:
REM drummer Bill Berry:
RightWisconsin asks:
Is this the end of conservative talk radio on WTMJ-AM 620? The Milwaukee Business Journal reported Friday morning that Scripps has sold their radio operations WTMJ-AM (620) and WKTI-FM (94.5) to Craig Karmazin, the owner of Good Karma, the parent company of Milwaukee’s ESPN sports-talk station WAUK-AM (540).
WTMJ-AM is the former home to noted conservative author and media personality Charlie Sykes, a former editor of RightWisconsin. WTMJ-AM is currently home to two conservative talk radio personalities, Steve Scaffidi and Jeff Wagner.
In addition to Karmazin’s background in sports talk radio, putting the conservative talk radio format at WTMJ-AM at risk is the new owner’s political leanings. In a memo from Edge Messaging owner Brian Fraley to his clients, obtained by RightWisconsin, Karmazin’s ties to the Democratic party are spelled out.
“A quick check of FEC data indicates Good Karma’s owner, Craig Karamzin, is a major Democratic donor whose support for political campaigns include donations to President Obama, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Dan Kohl, the Democrat currently challenging Republican Congressman Glenn Grothman,” Fraley wrote to his clients. “A look at his record of donating to state candidates here shows he’s been a frequent contributor to Milwaukee [mayor] Tom Barrett and former Democratic Governor Jim Doyle.”
However, Fraley predicts that Karamzin will not try to create a liberal talk radio station in the Milwaukee market at WTMJ-AM.
“That format has not proved to be profitable and I would be very surprised if Good Karma would take this incredible asset that is WTMJ and fritter away its value with such a move,” Fraley said. “So while any forecasting as to the direction of the heritage radio station is pure speculation at this point, I would not be surprised to see WTMJ evolve into a 24-hour news station, that also broadcasts live sports as the flagship of the Brewers, Packers and Bucks. That would be a smart business move.”
An acquaintance of mine familiar with the Milwaukee media market — let’s call him Deep Voice — predicts that some of WTMJ’s current voices may be out the door because WTMJ apparently has a lot of high salaries. Deep Voice also thinks there miight be changes at WKTI, whose ratings haven’t been great since its change from its adult-hits format and name The Lake. WKTI was rated 10th in the market in June, and second among country stations.
Good Karma owns WAUK (540 AM) in Milwaukee and WTLX (100.5) in Columbus, branded as “ESPN Milwaukee” and “ESPN Madison,” respectively, along with WBEV (1430 AM) and WXRO (95.3 FM) in Beaver Dam. Karmazin’s thing appears to be sports, given the several ESPN affiliate stations he owns, and getting WTMJ, the originating station of the Packers, Brewers and Bucks, seems like an expansion of that concept. Karmazin’s statement on WBEV/WXRO’s website says:
“The heritage, prestige, and team at the stations, in addition to their incredible sports partnerships, fit our commitment to provide best-in-class opportunities for our teammates, content for our fans, and solutions for our marketing partners.”
Karmazin formerly owned what now is WRRD (1510 AM), which calls itself Resistance Radio, in Milwaukee, which is simulcasted on WTTN (1580) in Columbus. It’s not clear if Karmazin still owns WTTN.
Two thoughts come to mind. Good Karma might be hesitant to make wholesale changes given that WTMJ is the second rated station in the market, and is not really likely to be able to make format changes to get to number one. (Number one is a classic hits station, and WTMJ isn’t going back to music.) Those concerned about the possible loss of Scaffidi and Wagner still have a conservative-talk station, WISN (1130 AM), which has twice the conservative talkers in Jay Weber, Vicki McKenna (also heard in Madison), Dan O’Donnell and Mark Belling.
The number one album today in 1973 …
… was the number one selling rock box set until 1986, and remains the best selling four-album set of all time.
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 