Toward a Real Conversation about Guns

We are long overdue for a serious conversation about guns in this country – not just a debate over their regulation, but a meaningful discussion of their place in our culture. There is much research to analyze, many policy considerations to weigh, and many stakeholders with different interests in the outcome of this conversation. But it is a conversation we need to have, and we should begin by clearing away some of the obstacles to doing so.

In the past 48 hours, I have seen the same old NRA talking points making the rounds on the internet, dressed up with catchy phrases and mocking graphics. These talking points do not contribute to the conversation, but are designed to distract us from it. They are poor substitutes for reasoned argument, and the people who parrot them only make it harder for us to solve one of the most complex and important problems in our society.

One popular talking point paints gun control advocates as stupid or naïve for believing criminals will obey gun control laws. While this may give opponents of gun control the childish satisfaction of feeling superior to those with whom they disagree, it is so unmoored from reality as to be entirely meaningless. First, the underlying premise is wrong – no one believes that even the strictest gun control regime will entirely prevent criminals from obtaining and using guns. Beyond that, the implied conclusion – that regulating guns will not reduce gun-related crime – is wrong.

This talking point is meant to conjure up the specter of innocent American families cowering helplessly before roving gangs of armed thugs, after having been stripped by their government of the only means they had to protect themselves. Strange, then, that this scenario is not playing out in countries with stricter gun control regimes than ours. In fact, what we see in those countries is – surprise! – lower rates of gun-related crime.

There are 270 million guns in the U.S., or roughly 88 guns for every 100 people. That makes us the country with the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world. War-torn Yemen comes in a distant second, with roughly 55 guns for every 100 people. Among “developed” countries, second place is more or less tied between Finland and Switzerland, with roughly 45 guns for every 100 people.

The U.S. also has the second-highest gun-related murder rate in the developed world (second only to Mexico with its drug war). It is close to 20 times higher than that of most other developed nations. We cannot pretend this has nothing to do with the fact that we are swimming in a sea of guns. And we cannot pretend that taking some of these guns out of circulation will not reduce our gun-related murder rate.

A second popular talking point builds on the absurdity of the first, and claims that gun-related violence has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with the absence of God from our society. In other words, pay no attention to the obvious connection between high numbers of guns and high levels of gun-related violence – we can prevent mass shootings by encouraging more regular church attendance!

The U.S. is the most religious industrialized nation in the world, with about 85 percent of Americans believing in God and 75 percent attending religious services at least once a week. If high rates of gun-related violence are attributable to godlessness, one would expect the U.S. to have lower rates of such violence compared to countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, where 54-85% of the population identifies as atheist or agnostic. This is not the case. In Sweden in 2010 – likely the most secular country on earth – there were only 18 gun-related homicides. This, despite its relatively high gun ownership rate of 31 guns per 100 people. Clearly, people can restrain themselves from shooting each other to death without religion, and religion does not keep people from shooting each other to death (see, e.g., all religiously motivated violence ever).

A third popular talking point asserts that reducing the number of guns will not result in fewer murders because would-be murderers will simply use other weapons. One right-wing graphic notes that the 9-11 terrorists used box cutters, Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer, and the Nazis used gas. But so what? Those grossly oversimplified facts offer no support for the underlying claim that reducing the number of guns will not reduce the overall murder rate. They are meant to distract people from recognizing the obvious logic that reducing access to guns will result in a lower overall murder rate. The vast majority of homicides in the U.S. are committed using firearms. Imagine if, overnight, half of our guns disappeared. We'd be down to maybe 44 guns per 100 people – still toward the high end of the spectrum for other developed nations. Can anyone honestly believe that our murder rate would stay exactly the same? Can anyone seriously think that every future gun-related murder would be perpetrated using some other kind of weapon and not a single death would be prevented?

What these talking points boil down to is the fact that some opponents of gun control are more concerned with maintaining unfettered access to the weapons of their choice than with the people who die from gun-related violence. They will cry crocodile tears over the deaths of 20 beautiful children this week, and then fight like mad to keep us from thinking about the guns behind those deaths. We cannot afford to be fooled into thinking guns have nothing to do with gun-related violence. We need to come to grips with the fact that they do, and we must consider the possibility of accepting some restraints on our ability to have them so that fewer people die in the future.

We don't have to go as far as the U.K. did after its own tragic school shooting, the 1996 Dunblane massacre, prompted it to ban most private handgun ownership. But we need to consider all of the possible solutions to the problem of gun-related violence in our country, including tighter gun control regulations. Ridiculing gun control advocates and falling for fallacies only makes the problem worse. I hope we are capable of a more intelligent dialogue about what is, in the end, a matter of life and death for all of us.

Kraftwerk at MoMA...

Last night I attended Kraftwerk's performance at the Museum of Modern Art. It was the sixth of eight consecutive shows in which the group is presenting a chronological survey of each of its albums. Last night's show was for 1986's Techno Pop, though we were treated to a two hour performance that included so much more. Kraftwerk played all of its most famous songs, remixed, re-imagined, and accompanied by 3D animation (awesome glasses included). 

I could say the performance was remarkable, transcendent, and once-in-a-lifetime. And it was indeed all of those. But it was, above all else, really, really fun. Kraftwerk was excellent. The venue was obviously great. The crowd wasn't too pretentious. Most of us were dancing. I drove twenty hours to see Kraftwerk with 450 other people and it was damn fun. 

Here are some pictures from the show. 

An Open Letter To Representative Allen West

Dear Representative West,

In light of your comments about possible Communist members in Congress, I urge you to look into another group of elected officials. I believe that roughly 65 members of Congress are openly advocating fascism. They call themselves the “Tea Party Caucus.”

This group believes that diversity of opinion, at least that which strays from its ideology, should be condemned as disloyal. It views increased diversity of culture, ethnicity, and gender as a threat to national strength. It will stop at nothing to purge opposing views and groups from the mainstream in its effort to establish an all-encompassing political hegemony.

Violence is at the heart of the Tea Party Caucus' ideology. It believes that militarism and imperialistic ventures are fundamental to forming national identity. It uses military power to promote both its ideology and its preferred economic system, unfettered capitalism. The Tea Party Caucus is fiercely anti-liberal and anti-democratic, and advocates violence against individuals who champion values contrary to its own. Its rhetoric has incited the fire bombings of women's health clinics, attacks on government agencies, and murderous plots against rival political figures. No tactic is off the table for this fascistic group. Rule of law is merely an obstacle to its obtaining power.

I'm sure that you will find the actions of the Tea Party Caucus reprehensible and contrary to the traditions of our Nation. I look forward to you shedding light on the imminent threat that this group poses to our Democracy.

Best,

Last Throes

On Health Care Reform, The Court, And Power

The Supreme Court appears poised to sound the death knell for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). This landmark piece of legislation is now in the hands of five conservative Justices who seem reluctant to extend the full protections of our Constitution to causes other than corporate power and empire. In other words, the survival of this Act looks increasingly unlikely.

Many of the Court's conservative Justices, most notably Antonin Scalia, are continually praised by people all along the political spectrum for their brilliance. But brilliance doesn't produce the radical decisions of this Court. Rulings like Citizens United, and potentially the striking down of health care reform, are the products of deception, partisanship, and intellectual dishonesty. Whether or not they form the majority opinion, the views of Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas will undoubtedly influence future litigation and scholarship for decades to come. These Justices inject ideas that, with the right makeup of the Court, become the law of the land, and allow miscarriages of justice against the powerless to triumph. These Justices routinely pervert the rule of law under the pretense of impartial adjudication.

Such actions by the Court are by no means unprecedented. During the Lochner era (1897-1936), the Court continually struck down regulations in its effort to promote unfettered capitalism. The case that defined the era, Lochner v. New York, was spurred by the 1895 Bakeshop Act, which was passed unanimously by the New York legislature. The act limited bakers' hours to 10 per day and 60 per week, and mandated improved working conditions in bakeries. The law was passed in response to the fact that most bakers worked more than 100 hours per week in unventilated bakeries, and suffered from severe respiratory and skin ailments as a result.

The Court, however, held that such regulations were violations of substantive due process. It held that employers had the fundamental right of contract under the 14^th Amendment, and regulations like the Bakeshop Act ran afoul of that right. Writing for the majority, Justice Rufus Peckham stated,

There is no reasonable ground for interfering with the liberty of person or the right of free contract by determining the hours of labor in the occupation of a baker. There is no contention that bakers as a class are not equal in intelligence and capacity to men in other trades or manual occupations, or that they are able to assert their rights and care for themselves without the protecting arm of the State, interfering with their independence of judgment and of action. They are in no sense wards of the State.

In his dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. lambasted the majority for basing its decision “upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain." He further stated,

Some of these laws embody convictions or prejudices which judges are likely to share. Some may not. But a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire.”

Lochner was not passed in a vacuum. The Court struck down over 300 labor and employment laws in the late 19^th Century as unconstitutional under the guise of freedom of contract. Much like the current Court, the Supreme Court during the Lochner era invoked a method of constitutional interpretation that sought to expand the power of business interests, disempower workers, and restrict the government's ability to regulate business activities.

The current Supreme Court's decisions follow a similar theme to that of the Court during the Lochner era. It seeks to expand the power differential between the classes. The current Court interprets the Constitution narrowly when it reviews legislation or litigation that attempts to curtail the interests of the powerful or promote the interests of the powerless. Yet, as we saw in Citizens United, it has no qualms about deciding cases in a manner that can simultaneously curtail the rights of the lower classes while expanding those of the most powerful. 

How did the Lochner Court justify such naked transfers of power to the dominant class? Liberty, it claimed, prevented regulations that protected vulnerable workers from the exploitation of employers. And the Justices who will decide that the PPACA is unconstitutional will most certainly invoke a similar interpretation of liberty to justify the denial of health care to millions. We are, in many ways, witnessing a return to the Lochner era. 

History has shown us by now that the Constitution simply isn't tailored to promote justice. But what it can do, quite well in fact, is prevent injustice. By striking down the health care law, the Court will continue to deny us even this small consolation. It will solidify the power differential in America between the haves and have-nots, and, in the process, send a clear message: your rights are dependent upon power. Justice is reserved for the few, and certainly not for the lower classes.

In Memory Of ...

"In speaking of lies, we come inevitably to the subject of the truth. There is nothing simple or easy about this idea. There is no 'the truth,' 'a truth' -- truth is not one thing, or even a system. It is an increasing complexity. The pattern of the carpet is a surface. When we look closely, or when we become weavers, we learn of the tiny multiple threads unseen in the overall pattern, the knots on the underside of the carpet.

That is why the effort to speak honestly is so important. Lies are usually attempts to make everything simpler -- for the liar -- than it really is, or ought to be.

In lying to others we end up lying to ourselves. We deny the importance of an event, or a person, and thus deprive ourselves of a part of our lives. Or we use one piece of the past or present to screen out another. Thus we lose faith even with our own lives."

Women and Honor: Some Notes on Lying

- Adrienne Rich

A Song ...

Air's "People in the City."

R.I.P. Bert Sugar ...

Legendary boxing writer and historian Bert Sugar has passed away at the age of 74. He was one of the most unique figures in sports history and will be sorely missed.

In Solidarity ...

#TrayvonMartin

A Song ...

Björk's "Hollow."

American Gun Culture And The Murder Of Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Martin's death was the byproduct of the US gun culture. George Zimmerman lived out the fantasy that so many other gun fanatics in America share: chasing down a young black male when, as he perceived it, law enforcement had failed. And because of Florida's revolting, NRA-inspired "stand your ground" law, prosecutors will have a hard time proving the obvious: that Zimmerman gunned down Martin in a cold-blooded act of murder.

Americans are obsessed with the right to bear arms. Their obsession, however, comes at a time when gun ownership is nothing more than a recreational activity. It is a hobby. We don't live in the wild west. We pay for police officers, at least until the same people who are the most fervent "gun rights" advocates undermine the public sector to the point that state law enforcement becomes a thing of the past.

Our nation's obsession with guns is a symptom of America's collective arrested development. We're a country of overgrown children thinking we're playing cops and robbers. We can disguise it as a "constitutional right" or "self-defense," all we want. But let's not fool ourselves. We think guns are fucking cool, consequences be damned.

Blame the NRA. Blame the Tea Party. Blame the Republicans. They've made advocating for gun control an untenable position in politics. And blame the people who support these gun policies that lead to tragedies like the killing of Trayvon Martin. We should be ashamed. 

This story, however, won't prompt any changes in policies or a substantive discussion about our gun laws. Trite slogans like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" will rule the day. Compassion and common sense, once again, will be cast aside. The powerful interests and petty individuals obsessed with their constitutional right to a hobby will prevail. Trayvon's story will be gone in a couple more news cycles. Yet the threat from individuals like George Zimmerman will remain.

Sign Of The Times ...

Bob Englehart, Cagle

Don't Request A Cover From Bradford Cox ...

I saw Atlas Sound in Cleveland last week. There was certainly some playful interaction between Cox and the crowd, but nothing like this. At a show in Minnesota, an audience member requested 'My Sharona.' Cox obliged by performing a twisted one-hour rendition of the song. It was a memorable performance, to say the least.

Via Pitchfork

Election Results Forthcoming ...

Mr. Fish, Truthdig

Breaking News ...

If elected, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum vows to outlaw dancing. Shrewd move, considering what happened last time someone tried that.

Atlas Sound Was In Cleveland Last Night...

A Song ...

Nicolas Jarr's 'Space Is Only Noise If You Can See.'

On Andrew Breitbart

Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart represented the worst in American politics. During his short time in the national spotlight, Breitbart managed to poison our country's political debate and ruin people's lives solely for his own benefit.

The self-described "reluctant culture warrior" was most famous for publishing misleading films that appealed to a mainstay of our country: racism. Breitbart published a video by conservative "filmmaker" James O'Keefe that eventually led to the collapse of Acorn, an organization that worked in underserved neighborhoods and assisted poor people and minorities. Breitbart also published a video that led to the firing of Shirley Sherrod, an African-American official from the USDA. The unifying theme of these videos was simple: race baiting. And, in the conservative media sphere, this can only garner one more support.

Which alludes to the real reason for Breitbart's provocations: His devotion was more to himself than the causes that he championed. Breitbart would say anything to cause a stir. His right-wing contrivances were simply the vehicles that allowed his star to shine the brightest.

Regardless of his motives, Breitbart's left an impact, however temporary, on American politics. In his brief window of fame, his actions created a culture of fear which prompted knee-jerk reactions by government officials in order to avoid being accused of "reverse racism." He succeeded in restricting the scope of public discussion and, in the process, bringing a dimwit version of conservatism even further into the mainstream. With his passing, American politics is a little better today.

What I Witnessed Last Night ...

I made the pilgrimage to New York City to witness Bjork's 'Biophilia' at the Roseland Ballroom. Simply put, it was phenomenal. Here is a video of 'Thunderbolt,' performed last November, similar to what I saw last night. 

Putting The Saving American Democracy Amendment In Perspective: A Look At Ratification And The ERA

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court of the United States held that political spending by incorporated entities is protected speech under the First Amendment. The Court held that the government may not limit such expenditures, so long as money is not given directly to candidates. Thus, a corporation may spend unlimited amounts of money to “indirectly” support its candidate of choice.

The Supreme Court's decision created a seismic shift in the American political landscape. We've witnessed wealthy donors single-handedly propping up the flailing campaigns of their candidates of choice, and bombarding the airwaves with attack ads. Super PACs have proliferated. In the last two years, these groups have raised almost $200 million. Demos reported that “[m]ore than half of itemized Super PAC money came from just 37 people giving at least $500,000.” Furthermore, a substantial amount of Super PAC money is untraceable.  

Citizens United has strengthened the worst elements of American politics. This decision threatens to hasten the unraveling of our democracy by further marginalizing the average voter while expanding corporate dominance in our elections. It all but guarantees that a handful of individuals will have more power than ever to decide who is elected to office. 

Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) has issued one of the strongest responses to Citizens United. He introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Court's decision. This is, after all, the only option opponents to Citizens have, aside from waiting for a new Court to overturn the decision. Sanders sums up his amendment as follows:

• Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.
• Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.
• Corporations may not make campaign contributions or any election expenditures.
• Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.

Amending the Constitution is, obviously, no simple task. Article V governs the process. It lays out two methods of proposing amendments. Congress may propose an amendment to the states with two-thirds approval of both houses. All of our amendments have been proposed this way. Alternatively, two-thirds of state legislatures may call a constitutional convention to propose an amendment. This has never been done. 

Ratification must follow proposal and, as with proposal, there are two ways to do it. Three-fourths of the states must ratify a proposed amendment either by way of their legislatures, or by holding a constitutional convention. Only the 21st Amendment, which abolished prohibition, was ratified by way of convention.

To illustrate the difficult path that Sanders' amendment will have to travel, it's worth revisiting the battle over the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The ERA was written by suffragist Alice Paul in 1921, and first introduced in Congress in 1923. Its introduction followed the 1920 ratification of the 19^th Amendment, which extended equal voting rights to women. It wasn't until 1970, after concerted actions by women's groups that included the instrumental Women's Strike for Equality, that Congress began hearings on the ERA. Two years, Congress passed it with two-thirds majorities and presented the amendment to the states for ratification. The text of the amendment is as follows:

• Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
• Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
• Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Congress imposed a seven-year deadline for the states to ratify the ERA. Even after Congress extended the deadline for three more years, the ERA only received 35 of the 38 states necessary to ratify the amendment. Some of those states have since rescinded their ratification, while others have amended their state constitutions with language similar or identical to the ERA. The ERA has been introduced during every session of Congress since 1982.

If the states couldn't even agree on an amendment that affords women basic formal equality under the law, they are unlikely to agree on the obviously contentious Saving American Democracy Amendment. It's certainly not impossible. We have, after all, amended our Constitution seventeen times since the initial ratification of the Bill of Rights. Yet in a highly polarized political climate, let's not expect much progress in the near future. Stay tuned for an upcoming post on what we can do in the meantime.

On The Prop 8 Ruling ...

In light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling on Proposition 8 (unconstitutional), it's worth considering the case's outlook if it finds its way to the Supreme Court. I wrote about this last November when the California Supreme Court ruled on the case. Here is the link to that entry, "Proposition 8 and Justice Kennedy's Legacy." Bottom line: Justice Kennedy will likely cast the deciding vote which, for Prop 8 opponents, isn't a bad thing.

The Deficit Of Truth And Collectivity In Our Democracy

 Many Americans believe that we are all entitled to our opinions, no matter how uninformed, incorrect, or immoral they may be. That's democracy, love it or leave it. 

The problem with that line of reasoning is that isn't how democracy works. In a democratic system of government, citizens have a duty to be well-informed and make decisions that benefit not only themselves, but the public as a whole. Self-government does not mean selfish government. And when citizens act in their self-interest, they should consider their interests not only as individuals, but as members of a community.

Many believe that things will simply come out in the wash, that democracy is a self-correcting system, and popularity of ideas is somehow tied to their validity. Yet they adopt this perverted version of the "marketplace of ideas" and use it as a way to abscond their civic duties. When people or politicians make decisions based on ignorance, selfishness, laziness, or bias, they affect the entire community. It is this faulty correlation between popularity and validity that allowed some of the worst injustices in American history to transpire.

Elected officials have been able to pursue the policies of slavery, segregation, imperialism, internment, McCarthyism, and the “war on terror” only with the support of the citizenry. Despicable viewpoints continue to serve as valid sides of “debates,” and sometimes result in formal policy. Consider some of the issues that have taken center stage over the past few years: Whether waterboarding is torture; whether global warming is real; whether Barack Obama is an American citizen, and; whether the 14^th Amendment should be repealed. We should be alarmed that any significant percentage of the population takes these ideas seriously enough that they dominate our national dialogue. These are not issues upon which reasonable minds can differ. The fact that Americans have adopted such deficient opinions illustrates their inability, or indeed unwillingness, to consider the facts or other viewpoints, much less put them into a context that extends beyond their own existence. 

In our world of moral relativism, the concepts of truth, justice, ethics, and morality carry little weight. Gays can be persecuted and marginalized because of "religious convictions" or "traditional sensibilities." Laissez-faire economic policies prevail because people cling to the beliefs of pseudo-intellectuals like Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan; that everyone acting in their unfettered self-interest somehow creates the best outcome for society. The concept of freedom, in fact, no longer relates to individual liberation, but economic activity. People think the right to choose which big box store they shop at, or the right to smoke in restaurants, or the right to bring their guns into Starbucks are liberties that merit defending. Advocating for universal notions of justice merely inhibit their childhood fantasies and hillbilly indulgences. Never mind that they think access to affordable health care is a luxury, but their right to use incandescent light bulbs is a freedom worth fighting for.

A growing number of uninformed, yet politically active, citizens are advocating positions and supporting candidates based on falsehoods, hatred, or no information at all. This poses a direct threat to our democracy. The “marketplace of ideas” isn't self-correcting, if it exists at all. The citizenry must acquire the information necessary to make informed decisions on matters that affect the community, and base their decisions with regard to the welfare of the community. A democracy is a collective undertaking, not simply a collection of people motivated by self-interest. If we fail to embrace the basic concepts of truth and collectivity, we will continue to bolster the anti-democratic elements of our society, and pave the way for demagogues and dictators.

In American Politics, Who Represents The Interests Of The Poor?

As President Obama delivered his State of the Union speech, he made a rather obvious omission: confronting the issue of poverty in America. This is, in fact, one of the great tragedies of the day. As Democrats and Republicans vie for control of Washington, their failure to address the plight of the poor has created a deafening silence.

More than 49 million Americans, 16 percent of the population, lived in poverty last year. Nearly the same number of Americans received SNAP benefits (food stamps). One in four mortgages are expected to be foreclosed by the end of the housing crisis. These numbers illustrate the obvious: poverty should be a top priority for our elected officials, and a defining issue for the coming election. So why won't either party use the p-word?

Given the sad state of our country's affairs, politicians are focused more on deflecting responsibility for the mess than providing solutions that reflect the reality of the situation. They've chosen to devote their energy to maintaining power, rather than assisting the most vulnerable members of our communities. This is an unforgivable dereliction, given that, at this exact moment, fighting poverty is one of the only acts that is truly in the public interest. 

The poor are pushed to the peripheries of society where they are left to be forgotten. They live in violent urban areas or neglected rural slums. Children attend schools segregated usually by race, but always by class. With their stories untold, the plight of the poor remains an abstraction to the vast majority of Americans. We take solace in our superficial participation in food and clothing drives, so long as we avoid actual contact with the recipients of our donations. Politicians offer the poverty class scraps. They virtually ensure the poor will remain dependent upon anemic social programs and socially immobile, while the underlying policies (or lack thereof) that created such extreme inequalities are left intact.

The presidential candidates from both major political parties, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, certainly hope to see benefits from their policies trickle down to the poor. Their platforms are, however, tailored for distinct classes, and essentially ignore the destitution that one in six Americans face. While President Obama alludes to the issue of poverty, he and his fellow Democrats devote their attention to the middle class. Both Obama and the Democratic Party's websites continually refer to "strengthening the middle class," and "middle-class security." The final paragraph on the Democrats' "Economy and Job Creation" page is especially telling: 

Democrats stand for the values of hard work and responsibility, and we know that as a country we are most successful when we invest in our people—middle-class families and small business owners—who can grow our economy from the bottom up (emphasis added).

Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, on the other hand. advocate on behalf of the wealthiest Americans. They are utterly indifferent to the poor, much less the middle class. Case in point: on his official website, Romney refers to workers as "human capital." 

Thus, we are left with a party that advocates for the rich and a party that advocates for the middle class, yet no party that represents the interests of the poor. Instead of acting on the moral imperative to eliminate poverty, our elected officials have turned a blind eye. After all, in a political system where donations determine representation, what do the poor have to offer?

A Song for the Evening ...

'MmmHmm,' by Flying Lotus.

Is The PIPA Battle Really A Lesson In Activism?

Amid public backlash, the Senate and House have postponed votes on controversial anti-piracy legislation. The Senate was expected to hold a procedural vote on the Protect IP Act (PIPA), while the House was supposed to do the same with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). As opposition mounted, congressional members began to withdraw their support of the bills, and ultimately delayed any action on the legislation for the time being. Elected officials were inundated with calls and petitions in opposition to the acts, while dozens of prominent websites participated in an internet blackout to protest the bills.

Many credit Americans' activism with the shelving of the bills. The narrative has it that the little guys beat back media conglomerates and prevented the passage of legislation that would stifle free speech and expression, and alter the core functions of the web (which the acts would in fact do). Indeed, SOPA and PIPA are the products of massive lobbying efforts by the Motion Pictures Association of America and other traditional media outlets to protect their business interests. And the millions who voiced their opposition to the acts have likely influenced the debate to a certain degree. Let's not, however, forget the influence that major players from “new media” have had.

Google, Facebook, Amazon, Yahoo, Twitter, AOL, Wikipedia, YouTube, and eBay were some of the most prominent organizations to voice their opposition to SOPA and PIPA. They collected petition signatures, disseminated information on the bills, persuaded Americans to call their elected officials, and generally helped bring the debate about the anti-piracy bills to the forefront. And they have every interest to do so. Their profits are in many ways dependent upon the defeat of these acts. They had to take action for the survival of their companies, much less the championing of free speech. This was a fight not only between traditional and new media, but for the survival of many tech giants. 

The fact that numerous members of Congress withdrew their support for SOPA and PIPA may, in fact, not be due to the outcry of the American people, but the media conglomerates, juridical "people," who have money to contribute and influence to wield. Deep-pocketed companies like Google and Facebook, and politicians gearing up for re-election, may have found a shared purpose in defeating these bills: self-preservation. 

In our post-Citizens United world, the individual takes a backseat to the corporation, especially when it comes to the functioning of our political system. While the outpouring of millions of Americans in the PIPA fight was certainly heartening, it may not be the testament to civic engagement that so many hoped it would be. Politics operates within a closed system. Influence is dictated by money. Legislation is written by industries. Agencies are controlled by the entities they are supposed to regulate. In modern American politics, the average citizen is becoming increasingly irrelevant. 

The fight over SOPA and PIPA is far from over. As the drama unfolds, the best way to get to the truth is simple: follow the money. The outcome will likely not be dictated by the body politic, but the industry that proves it is more important to the re-election bids of our politicians.

To Elaborate ...

You can get with this...

Or you can get with that...

Technological Advancements Pose New Challenges For DJs

DJing isn't what it used to be. Vinyl and CDs are nearly dead. They've been replaced by DJ controllers, DVS systems, and digital interfaces. These devices have improved significantly since their introduction, and made converts out of even the most stubborn of DJs. Such technological advancements, however, create serious questions about the future of DJing. From the death of tried and true mediums, de-skilling of the craft, changes in performance expectations, to rampant planned obsolescence of equipment, the DJ space is in flux. And that has left many DJs, including myself, pretty nervous.

I began DJing in 2001. I maxed out my credit card to buy my first equipment: a Stanton STR8-80, a Stanton SK-6 mixer, and a Boss drum machine. I stayed in my bedroom practicing for hours. I dug in the crates of local record shops, practiced routines from how-to vhs tapes (and eventually DVDs), tried to mimic scratches routines from my favorite songs, and scoured internet chat boards for tips. I upgraded my rig when Numark released the TTXs, and began beat juggling, mixing, and developing DJ sets. 

I was heavily invested as a scratch DJ. I was on my decks for at least 40 hours a week for six straight years. I began DJing in a band, at weddings, and performing solo gigs as well. In the spring of 2007, I sprang for one the most amazing products: Rane Serato Scratch Live. I was making pretty good money and wanted to be able to access my digital music collection. It was a perfect fit. With the digital vinyl system (DVS), I could embrace technology while staying true to my roots.

Then came reality. I was able to continue DJing through my undergrad years without much interference. But I made the decision to go to grad school. I scaled back my setup and sold my DVS. I temporarily retired from DJing, save for the sporadic sessions that helped immensely with stress release during exam periods. 

After graduating, I decided to get back in the game. I began surveying the DJ landscape, and found that Traktor Scratch Pro had become a formidable opponent to Serato. When I first observed Traktor, I felt completely lost. I didn't understand, nor particularly enjoy, the methods, sounds, and equipment that the DJs who were demoing the products were using. I was used to the old way of mixing, in which you had two physical decks, transitioned between songs by mixing them together, and added a few scratches and beat juggles throughout the set. That was essentially it. The DJs in the videos (extremely talented, to be sure) had external controllers, drum machines, instant cue points, effects, loops, and samples, all running through a single interface. They hardly needed their decks. I was very confused. 

But I kept reading. Eventually, after about a month, I got it. In fact, I loved it. I figured that I would just use the software in concert with my traditional techniques, and all would be fine.

My plan failed. For the record, I bought Traktor Scratch Pro 2. One "optional" feature of Traktor, and a controversial one at that, is the sync button. This button has caused much debate among the DJ community. Some say it allows DJs to push boundaries now that they don't have to beat match by ear. Others say it allows anyone to become a DJ with the press of a button. And still others say that it is merely a feature that DJs don't have to use if they don't want to. The problem with that last argument is that the sync button is located next to the software's primary visual cue: the sound wave. It is nearly impossible to ignore. And I've begun to use it. In fact, I've hardly beat matched by ear since I bought Traktor. And, frankly, I'm ashamed of that. Yes, I use cue points, loops, effects, and push the boundaries of my song selections. But the sync button serves as a safety net that allows me to do so. I'm definitely not doing the old A to B routine. But I'm still torn over my use of sync. 

With my Numarks getting a little long in the tooth, I decided to look into replacing my turntables. I was shocked to find out that Technics had stopped making its infamous 1200's. And now I've been pondering whether turntables, and scratching, are going the way of the dinosaurs. I've also found virtually no blogs or dedicated sites for turntablism. Could the art that I've invested countless hours into eventually be replaced by (gasp!) dinky controllers with jog wheels and buttons? 

Perhaps the transformation of DJing is just a sign of the times. The world moves at a faster pace than it did when I began, and people are under constant sensory overload by media, television, and the like. Thus, they naturally demand more from a DJ than simple mixes. We also live in a culture of instant gratification. People want everything to be accessible, and to become proficient at tasks without much effort. The sync button, then, seems an inevitable development. Moreover, in an era where corporate power is at its peak, and the drive to push down prices is of utmost importance, is it any wonder that the unbreakable 1200's are being replaced by flimsy plastic controllers and software that requires continuous (and expensive) upgrades? 

None of this is, of course, news to DJs who have been around for the last decade. Yes, we can "vote" with our purchases and provide feedback to the hardware and software producers. We can also continue to support the old mediums of vinyl and even CDs. Yet odds are, whether we like it or not, we'll be beholden to the new technology, or left behind.

Interesting Statistics From The Iowa Caucuses

 

Here are some numbers that should help to put last night's caucuses into perspective. Three quick observations: First, not many people participated. Second, Mitt Romney made virtually no progress with voters in four years. Finally, the only people who truly scored victories were Ron Paul, who more than doubled his votes from 2008, and Rick Santorum, who nearly won despite being a deplorable human being. Even then, they had strong showings in a fairly unrepresentative event. See for yourself:

• Population of Iowa: 3,046,355
• Number of eligible voters in Iowa: 2,250,423
• Number of 2008 Republican caucus voters: 118,696
• Number of 2008 Democratic caucus voters: 236,000
• Number of 2012 Republican caucus voters: 122,255
• Number of 2012 Democratic caucus voters: 25,000
• Number and percentage of votes received by Mitt Romney in 2008: 30,021; 25%
• Number and percentage of votes received by Mitt Romney in 2012: 30,015; 25%
• Number and percentage of votes received by Ron Paul in 2008: 11,481; 10%
• Number and percentage of votes received by Ron Paul in 2012: 26,219; 21%
• Number and percentage of eligible voters who voted in caucuses in 2008: 354,355; 16.1%
• Number and percentage of eligible voters who voted in caucuses in 2012: 147,255; 6.5%

 

A Song for the Evening ...

Darondo's 'Didn't I.'

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself ...

Via the Star Tribune, San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich on T-Wolves' Ricky Rubio and other international players adjusting to life in America: 

"These guys, they travel around the world. They're more cultured than we are. Everyone acts like Americans are the ones. We have sort of an arrogance about us. Like we're the cultured ones? Are you serious? Have you watched TV lately? Have you seen what Americans do? How many languages do you speak? And you wonder how they're going to adjust to our culture? I hope they avoid it and keep their own!"

Sign The Petition In Support Of Sen. Sanders' Efforts To Overturn Citizens United

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a constitutional amendment that will overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and prevent corporate money from flowing freely and anonymously into our elections. Below is the link to the petition, a link to the PDF version of the amendment, and video of a speech by Senator Sanders explaining the amendment. 

Link to the Petition

PDF of the Resolution

Republican Nomination Process A Triumph Of Collective Amnesia

Today Iowa Republicans will choose the winner of the state's presidential caucuses. They, as well as voters in the upcoming Republican primaries, will cast their votes in support of not only their preferred candidate, but a counter-narrative of recent American history that seeks to conceal the injustices that have been carried out against millions of Americans. The nomination process is a triumph of collective amnesia, whereby voters ignore self-evident truths in an attempt to absolve themselves of any responsibility that they have for the country's downward spiral.

Republican voters will go to the polls and disregard their complicity in the American-led wars that have raged over the last decade. They will, in fact, likely vote for a candidate who advocates a new war with Iran. They will ignore their support for the Bush Administration, and the "war on terror" that projected unbridled state power inward and against American citizens. They will disregard the causes of the financial crisis, and beg for more of the same. Most importantly, they will ignore the plight of millions of Americans who fell victim to these policies.

Republican voters have adopted a collective identity of disremembrance. They will cast their ballots steadfastly, yet irrespective of history, and vote to solidify the denial of justice that has come to symbolize America. They will choose the candidate best-suited to promote their counter-narrative, enable them to dispose of all guilt and, above all else, forget.

Great Conversation With Chris Hedges

C-SPAN goes in depth with Chris Hedges, covering his body of work, the failure of American liberalism, and the decline of the U.S. empire. Click on the link below to watch the full interview.

C-SPAN In Depth with Author and Journalist Chris Hedges