Raising the DebtCaffeine Ceiling

I'll begin with the morning ritual: Coffee. Definitely not any brand or type advertised on American television — let alone the UK (foreshadowing seven years of fighting against demons while seriously undercaffeinated).

• Stealth branding efforts continue to be problematic, whether unopposed but later challenged or distinctive only to monolingual boors. But that's nowhere near as confusing as figuring out what conduct, or who, is actually regulated by copyright principles from afar.
• If there's an underlying theme to the preceding link, it's that being a special snowflake isn't good enough to evade generally-applicable, well-settled restrictions on overreaching bullying. Claiming that it's all the users' fault doesn't seem to be much more successful. Means used need to be consistent with ends desired, or one ends up subverting both — especially when the special snowflakes are the ones already in power, unable to tolerate any criticism whatsoever. It's neither "pro-democracy" nor "the rule of law" if what really matters is whether anyone who might object knows about it. (Yes, that's a hint for the incoming administration.)
• Throwing the bastards out is only the first step, of course. The Romanovs were bastards, but what followed was worse. Violent revolution followed by vengeance against those perceived/labelled as the former oppressors seldom makes it a decade without descending even farther — and especially so when religion is involved (just look two nations to the east… or at any of the neighbors to the southwest). (Yet another hint for the incoming administration.)
• That danger is perhaps more obvious with governments than with dominant business entities, whether in large or niche "markets." Indeed, the "business as usual" can be even more repulsive in the niches, because blacklists are a lot more effective — and pervasive.

Caseless Link Sausages

Since I haven't finished what little holiday shopping I'll be engaging in, I'm not going to wrap these link sausages either.

• So the rich want to buy into nobility (semi$wall) despite the American prohibition on titles of nobility, do they? Well, that's certainly not the only benefit of an original position advantage. Nobel prizes appear to be directed that way, too. Not to mention the irony-free criticism of a "nepo baby" by another "nepo baby".
• That last note leads to a few musings on the meaning and strategy of President Biden's pardon of his son Hunter.

  First, let's clear something out of the way: So far as I can tell, President Biden did not criticize any action or decision of the judge(s), so the judicial faux outrage is unwarranted. What he instead was criticizing was misuse of prosecutorial discretion — and choosing to elevate these charges to criminal (instead of the ordinary assessment of civil penalties on both the tax and firearms charges) should raise eyebrows, because it certainly presents the appearance that a Drumpf appointee with a history of vindictiveness in his prior Drumpf appointment may have failed to consider the complete context. Anyone who tries to pretend that there's never any pressure on individual prosectuion decisions coming from institutional loyalty concerns has never been there, or at least never had misgivings about a particular matter. Let alone any regrets.

  Second, consider the timeframe. This is both legally sophisticated and a slight error by President Biden and his advisors. What he has essentially done is cut off the ability of a new administration to continue prosecution on purportedly "new" charges that are similar to those already raised. It's not just that extending backward to 01 January 2014 includes the entire period during which Hunter Biden was on a Ukrainian board of directors; it's that it extends three years backward from 20 January 2017, slightly over three years — that is, the statute of limitations for federal offenses for all except RICO (four years), continuing conspiracies, and outright murder. In turn, that means that in order to get a subpoena, a newly-appointed special prosecutor is going to have to demonstrate probable cause that something over ten years old by the time Drumpf is in office (another, obscure evidentiary-value issue that would force a judge reviewing a warrant application to at least pause). It's a slight error because going back 11 years, instead of 10, would also have related to RICO charges (four years prior to the prior Drumpf Administration initiation — it's a bad argument, but one that can be made in camera with a straight face for political purposes). Of course, this analysis is coming from the outside, without any inside knowledge of what was actually being considered… but in light of some previous frustrations with statutes of limitations.

  Third, this is intimately connected to Drumpf's own past and future conduct regarding pardons. Past, in that he pardoned his brother-in-law (cousin-in-law?) and now proposes to appoint that convicted felon individual to an ambassadorship (for which he's manifestly unqualified, but that's a half-century tradition that crosses party boundaries, I'm afraid — but at least it's only to France); how this differs from Biden pardoning his son will be a tale told by a fool, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. Future, in that criticism of Biden for pardoning his son as a white-collar criminal and for technical regulatory violations that (so far as is known) are unconnected to any substantive offense will underly any conversation about prospective pardons for insurrection. One might suggest that the holier-than-thou of all politico-personality loyalties ponder hoisting by one's own petard, but that sort of goes off the rails once one says "ponder," doesn't it?

  And, frankly, this is a lot more verbiage and consideration than the topic deserves. Don't kid yourselves: Pardons have always been politically dubious, if only because they necessarily involve second-guessing specific decisions by the judicial branch, the legislative branch, or both — not to mention depend upon finding third-party advocates (especially visible/prominent/powerful ones) more than the underlying facts, however those facts have been determined.

• Unfortunately, this just leads into other contexts and considerations of prejudice in action. (n.b. These examples have been carefully selected to offend as many unthinking doctrinaire assumptions as I can conveniently stuff into a single sausage. OK, maybe that's an eyebrow-raising assertion after the preceding one, but a foolish consistency is for small minds — and this is surely about foolishness.)
• Or, I suppose, we could just ponder yet more inaccurate, inadequately considered assumptions about large-language generative Eliza. It's not "intelligence" if it doesn't enable actual, defensible (even if incorrect) reasoning by analogy — and the "teachers' assumptions" built in deserve a lot more consideration than they've gotten. It's not even particularly insightful, however convenient.

Grinch-Approved Link Sausages

These are just the basic sausages. There's plenty of garlic in their souls, but you'll have to bring your own sauerkraut and toadstools.

• If we had an effective national health assurance system, we wouldn't be talking about the CEO of the insurer with the highest rate of claim denial among major insurers (except maybe for the VA, but that's a different issue entirely) getting shot in an apparent targeted assassination — and then seeing teh internets explode with schadenfreude over an act of vigilante violence.

  The legitimate use of violence in pursuit of policy objectives is the exclusive province of the State. It can't be tolerated from private citizens, whether we're talking about a single targeted assassination or a much larger atrocity. Sure, States (and quasistate actors) make mistakes about it — like, say, the assholes on both all sides of the disputes in the Levant — but they're not unaccountable bullyionaires (well, not supposed to be). <SARCASM> Like the proposed cabinet for the incoming administration, some of whom clearly have no clue about how government officials are supposed to act.¹ Oh, wait, maybe that explains why so many bullyionaires want to be in the new cabinet where they can direct violence, or at least the power of the State, against their personal enemies. </SARCASM>

• I did mention unaccountable private citizens as a problem. Their power is especially problematic when it arises from accounting dodges in the first place, whether individuals or entire businesses.
• It's the holiday season so there's lots of dubious intellectual property news. The newly formalized reach of EU designs is highly technical and mostly concerns what we (over here) call "industrial design." But that doesn't — indeed, can't — make "Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй" on t-shirts protectable (for trademark purposes) on behalf of the Ukraine border guards; it's just not distinctive. Katy Perry had only a little bit more success in Australia.
• But that was better luck than the Kahlebros² have had: They decided not to petition the Supreme Court to overturn their abject loss in the Second Circuit. The IA's attitude is extremely common among techbros (and too common among other activists) — "the law already must be what we want it to be to advance our interests, regardless of what that does to anyone else." Admittedly, the law is often ossified, stuck in assumptions (not to mention precedents, and poorly-worded legislation and constitutional provisions) that are overtly out of date, and frequently ignore problems never imagined. The public statements by the IA, however, reflect an almost theological arrogance, an unwillingness to conceive of personal error, an utter disrespect for those whose interests are not completely aligned with those of the techbros — even when the techbros proclaim that they know what those interests are better than do those who have them. This is especially so when what the techbros demand is theirs as of right is totally unencumbered use of what the law treats as someone else's property (literal copies here, creation of derivative works for the egregiously misnamed "generative AI" that has almost zero chance of passing the Turing Test in the next decade, let alone now). The law can certainly do better than it does with science — but one must also remember that the applications and self-interest of techbros are not a congruent set with "science." Or "invariable right."

---

1. Or, for that matter, what "treason" is in the first place; one thing that it's definitely not is "providing testimony on personal knowledge in support of a complaint properly filed in the right place," or "filing a complaint regarding conduct that appears to violate clearly-established law." But then, that individual has a track-record with his own whistleblowers, so we shouldn't be surprised.
2. What to call the advocates of conversion of printed books to electronic books without authority from either the publishers or the authors/successors, while the works are still in copyright, is itself an interesting question of deceptive labelling. Making it an even more interesting conundrum, none of the "groups" actually have unified interests in themselves. For example, the authors of mainstream novels have different interests and perspectives on how this conversion might matter to them than do, say, journalists employed by a periodical who knowingly signed an employment agreement containing a clear work-made-for-hire clause; and even within distinct segments, there is legitimate disagreement among members. And that's just the authors; the assumption that publishers' interests coincide with authors leaves me ROFLMAOing (because, well, I know too many of both). This is a problem, similar in nature to whether one wants to be called a "liberal" in today's political environment. So, because this group largely insists on insulting the interests of everyone else, the intelligence of those actually involved in creating original expression, and me rather personally, I'm going to be snide. Get over it.

A Few Words on Behalf of the Leadership

Words that they can't say, due to fear of being seen as disloyal, and Article 88 (for at least some of them), and frequently lack of prior opportunity to reflect on the full scope of their duties as members of the leadership. Sometimes they've been so coopted that they don't know, or in extreme instances have lost the ability, to think about them. But none of those limitations apply to me any longer, so:

Those "duties as members of the leadership" point to another part of the owner's manual, a part that reminds the leadership — all of whom have taken that oath and continue to be bound by it; an oath almost unique in world governments, proclaiming as it does ultimate loyalty to a linguistically-bound abstraction rather than an anthropomorphized one — that they are all social justice warriors by definition. They have sworn to

…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter… (5 U.S.C. § 3331)

when that Constitution includes these:

…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (U.S. Const. Art. VI cl. 3)¹

No State shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (U.S. Const. Amd. XIV § 1)

It doesn't get much more directive to be a social justice warrior than demanding that all holding "positions of trust" support and defend the equal protection of the laws for everyone. Even people they don't particularly like.

It's not 1948 any more.² Even if a substantial proportion of the incoming government would rather it were 1785, the true high point of "states' rights." Neither is it the Republic of Korea, a nation that has been under a military dictatorship in my lifetime (hell, during my adult lifetime) and really would rather not go back. It's not just the military, either: The oath applies to every federal, every state officer.³

So go out and do your jobs, to the best of your ability, supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The hard part is determining who is the enemy at any one moment; blaming someone's parents for having the wrong skin color, wrong religion, wrong nation of origin, wrong social class, wrong whatever, is always suspicious, however. After all, on September 16, 1789, there was not one natural-born citizen of the United States; the once-and-future President is only a second-generation natural-born citizen of the United States; a not-so-long-ago Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was an immigrant — from Warsaw by way of Peoria.

---

1. Those of you who persist in religious nationalism, or in perpetuating the mythic propaganda that the US was formed as a christian nation, should consider this carefully. And if still not convinced, I suggest a careful reading of Matthew 5, Numbers 30, and Ecclesiastes 8 — among others. The only reason the Devil can cite scripture for his own purposes is that someone wrote down scripture intending it to be cited…
2. Cf. Executive Order 9981 (26 Jul 1948) (Truman's order desegregating the military, applying only to "race, color, religion, or national origin"; all else came later, or remains yet to come).
3. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution… U.S. Const. Art. VI § 3 (emphasis added).

The 2024 Turkey Awards

An annual tradition for a quarter of a century! This is my list of ridiculous people from 2024 (so far). Pass me one of those rolls, please:

• The Greasy Gravy Award for oily publicity that makes the main dish inedible goes to advocates of "open AI" who are carefully ignoring that they're running Eliza on processors, memory, storage systems, an peripherals from displays to input devices all considerably more advanced than real AI conceived at roughly the same time — with the same sort of hallucinations and bullshitting, like in the clip.
• The Red-Tide Oyster Stuffing Award for carelessly poisoning an otherwise tasty dish goes to the major-party candidates for President — not excluding the last-second replacement. My generation needs to get off the ballot (and doubly so for its predecessors), and especially out of the smoke-filled back rooms that act as gatekeepers on who can get a party endorsement in the first place. During an era of accelerating change, "old and wise" is usually PR bullshit for "decrepit, ignorant, and slow to adapt."
• The Broken Wishbone Award for shattering dreams goes to everyone excoriated here on 23 May. Unfortunately, it's probably too many miscreants to actually get a grip on that wishbone.
• The Golden Gristle Award for assertions far too difficult to digest (and usually stuck in one's teeth) goes to McZorgle's for its latest trademark overreach (with an unexpectedly delicious result).
• The Conspicuous Consumption Cranberry Relish Award for the most-outrageous example thereof goes to the 0.001% with their purchase of politicians everywhere. This isn't exactly new — politicians have always been for sale, or at least long-term lease — but, surprisingly, it's even more outrageous than overpriced artwork "originals" this year.
• The Crabapple Pie Award for marketing something sour as something sweet goes to Moms for Theocracy Liberty and their demand to be treated like and have the powers of the government while ignoring core limitations on government (like accountability).
• The Wilted Salad Award for the one part of the meal that's supposed to be "good for you," but is instead rather past its sell-by date, goes to Robert F. Kennedy… Junior. His only apparent qualification for office is his surname (and even that family of loyalists has repudiated him). Not to mention fluoridation, Mandrake — and he's just as well-balanced and fact-oriented as BG Ripper (and equally likely to attack the wrong target for the wrong reasons).
• The Brussels Sprout Award for stinky, slimy, overcooked, gentrified little cabbages goes to everyone involved in the struggle to control Paramount, none of whom actually have had a damned thing to do with building that monstrosity (let alone with any creative decisions).
• The Dried-Out Breastmeat Award for overcooking the books goes to my friends across the lake who are convinced they can speed up publishing by naming their new imprint and process after a microprocessor suitable primarily for primitive games. At least they didn't name it after the processor that was foundation of their company's operating-system success — a processor that was intentionally crippled. Meanwhile, it wasn't the processor at all that ultimately mattered (the Motorola 68xx and 68xxx series were both considerably superior to their Intel counterparts), but the software, peripherals, price points, and above all the documentation and training. Why, no, of course I'm not suggesting any parallels there.
• The Rancid Drumstick Award for something that should be edible, but isn't, goes to state-level bar regulators whose (inept) efforts destroy public confidence in the courts and legal system. Do you need a few more examples? Damn, there are more legs stuck out than on a terducken made of a cuttlefish stuffed inside an octupus stuffed inside a squid — hiding behind a cloud of ink…
• The GMO Tofurkey Roast Award for a main-dish item that's supposed to be more wholesome, nutritious, and/or ethical, but merely hides something that's perhaps worse under that veneer of virtue, goes to the Heritage Foundation, which begins the deceptions with its very name (if nothing else, by denying the role of slavery and plutocracy in America's "states' rights" heritage).
• The Unwanted Obligatory Guest Award for the guest at the banquet that you had to invite (but wish you didn't have to because you knew would spoil everything) goes to El0n Mu5k for more reasons than I can list here. His immigration to the US as an opportunistic draft-dodger from a shithole country (without respecting admittedly ridiculous visa restrictions that by their nature select for anyone but the tired, the poor, the wretched refuse of teeming shores) is just the start.
• Special Limited Time Offer! The Uninspected-Produce E. Coli Baby Carrot Medley Award for discrediting an office goes to Matt Gaetz, whose only qualification to fulfille the duties of the office he was nominated for (and, for that matter, the office that he had) was undue familiarity with the concept of "barely legal" (see 18 U.S.C. § 2421 et seq.; see also Fla. Stat. § 794.05). Notwithstanding his denials, there's enough other evidence to infer squickiness, regardless of whether that evidence meets the criminal standard of proof (that is, beyond a reasonable doubt). It's pretty obvious that the individual who nominated him prepared this dish didn't wash the produce or his hands, and I'm afraid this contaminated dish is making me sick to my stomach.

Looks like there wasn't enough room on the buffet table this year for pets from Springfield, which is probably just as well — we're going to be stuck with that guy for a loooooooooong time, maybe even long enough to move up from the kids' table. Maybe next year he can be the Unwanted Obligatory Guest… almost certainly by 2028.

Today's Group W Bench

Satire warning (slightly updated from six decades ago.¹):

•  •  •

"Kid, I want you to go over and sit down on that bench that says Group W. Now, kid!"

And I walked over to the bench there — and Group W's where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the government after committing your special crime. And there was all kinds of mean, nasty, ugly-lookin' people on the bench there. Atheists. Genderless-lovers. Border-crossers!²

Border-crossers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest border-crosser of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean and ugly and nasty and horrible and all kind of things. And he sat down next to me and said, "Kid… what did you get?" I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay fifty thousand dollars and pick up the textbooks." He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?" and I said, "Literature." And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and gave me the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, 'til I said, "And creating a nuisance," and they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin' about crime, atheism, border-crossing, an' all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.

It's not really all that implausible, is it? Notice, though, that nobody on the Group W bench is there due to a white-collar crime conviction… either in the original of six decades ago or now. I'd make some snide remark that Ali's Restaurant is, these days, probably in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but certain Ivy-League-"educated" ignoramuses (whose "American mind" was obviously closed before attendance) would probably object a bit too loud… and Cambridge has a helluva lot more than three police officers.

---

1. With no apologies whatsoever to Arlo Guthrie. And definitely none to EMI Music, Inc. and/or Appleseed Music, Inc. This does not qualify as a "parody" under the mistaken definition found in the 2Live Crew matter (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994)) — a definition that would have absolutely appalled Founding Father Benjamin Franklin and his near-contemporary François-Marie Arouet a/k/a Voltaire. Because its target is not the talking-blues piece but the attitudes surrounding it, it is "only" satire and therefore outside the ordinary bounds of fair use.

   Which is wrong. But understanding why requires "doing literature," and perhaps "doing history and legislative intent." But the current rightsholders can, nonetheless, bite me.

2. <SARCASM> No reference to either Our Once and Future Dear Leader's family background, or the DOGE of Venice (floppy hat and all), is unintended. </SARCASM>

The Sound of One Shoe Dropping

A very floppy clown shoe, as the first — and almost certainly not the last — of Our Once-and-Future Dear Leader's nominees¹ for Senate-confirmable offices of the United States² ignominiously, and rather ungracefully, withdraws before there's even a schedule for a potentially embarrassing Senate committee hearing. This leaves the rather frightening question of whether the next DoJ clown nominated will be Pennywise. Who, at least, dressed the part.

This is even worse than last time around. That (IMNSHO eminently unsuitable) individual actually went through the hearings, actually got confirmed, and actually served a whole 22 days in office! Which beat my prediction by about 75 days or so.³

It almost certainly won't be the last utter "failed nomination." I bet that some casino in Vegas already has a betting pool with multiple side bets equivalent to whether the first kickoff of the game will be run back for a touchdown. Fortunately, Teh Orange One has already telegraphed one potential replacement; if the current nominee for HHS withdraws, or fails of confirmation, or resigns quickly, there's already been mention of an eminently suitable replacement. Plus, as a bonus, Boomers and Pre-Boomers probably remember mom's demand to "eat your liver, it's good for you," so there's already an "improve public health" aspect of that nomination! Unfortunately, the appropriate accompanying wine would be subject to the promised tariffs on imported goods; nobody really likes fava beans; and if we tried to avoid import duties, extra rare is usually a poor choice with American lamb chops (which generally are best between rare and medium rare).

One wonders how many floppy clown shoes dropping will begin to echo like the heels of jackboots; we'll probably get a hint when we see who is actually nominated in Gaetz's place. For the present, though, one wonders if Herr Garbitsch is in charge of vetting nominees…

---

1. Technically only "designees" because no nomination can actually be submitted until at earliest Congress reconvenes on 03 January 2025, and arguably not until 20 January 2025. But everyone is using the shorthand "nominee," so objecting is a lost battle; and however fond of those I've been over the years, I have to prioritize them and this one just isn't important enough. Besides, "windmills" are themselves non-fossil-fuel alternative energy, and thus disfavored by the incoming administration…
2. Cf. 5 U.S.C. § 3331.
3. I have witnesses to my reaction upon the announcement of his designation that he wouldn't make it past April; I had my reasons…

Offshore Assets

Taking a break for a moment from US partisan politics (at least while gathering the ingredients for this platter), the last few weeks have seen some significant IP decisions, mostly overseas. But it's not 1930 any more: Especially with intellectual property, both "legal precedent" and "legal reasoning" for IP (which is essentially borderless anyway) squeeze their way past all borders — all too often without adequate (or honest) inspection at the border.

I am not suggesting — yet! — that Perry Rhodan is an undocumented immigrant. Neither, however, am I ruling out such consideration at a later date… especially if the West Germany of 1961 might well be called a "shithole country." (I did say "for a moment.")

• Since this is a platter of link sausages, let's start with whether the shape of a sausage is an enforceable-to-exclude element of a registered mark (in Europe, anyway). This just seems like one of those amusing bits of overreaching, but…
• …that seems almost like a standard business strategy these days, whether in Europe (and the UK) or in the US. Memories of discussions on this blawg of limp cockiness about an IP-related mark are more than "AI" hallucinations.
• That's about exploitation of IP, though. Before one gets to exploitation, one must produce the IP in the first place. This can be rather squicky in concept, and the result of a team effort that often involves dubious claims of "ownership" of the output. This last item has interesting implications for the enforceability of the US copyright law work-made-for-hire enforced statutory transfer in Europe (a doctrine that was always a bad idea anyway, and rested on the necessary condition that Congress has the right and authority to redefine a word in its relevant grant of power to mean nearly the opposite of its ordinary public meaning, either in the eighteenth century or now).
• Determining the kind of IP that's at issue in a particular dispute (especially once the lawyers get involved (third paragraph)!) is at least equally frustrating — and can be outcome-determinative. Consider, for a moment, whether this dispute would have reached this result under either trademark or more-generic "unfair competition" law. The key point to remember is that the natural-person creator is seldom, or at least seldom accurately, thinking about "the kind of law that will apply when I'm done" during the throes of creation… and that's before considering any "statutorily-enforced transfers of ownership"!
• After production, IP must be packaged for the consumer — especially when it's only words, words, and more words. I have always found CMS helpful, but not definitive, especially when it reaches outside its core competency in the humanities and nonnumeric social sciences. For example, for all of the foolishness of "signal priority" and "canonical abbreviations" found in The Bluebook (for American legal writing) — foolishness that never made sense, let alone a century later when about a third of the canonical abbreviations are entirely new and substantively overrule earlier but unchanged ones, not to mention show utter disdain for conflict-of-laws analysis of the actual weight of some abbreviations — CMS-compliant citations have always discounted essential information for legal materials (like full-and-adequate identification of which court issued many opinions). Bluntly, there cannot be an effective "uniform system of citation" that reaches all kinds of citations and all kinds of writing… and that's before getting into the distinction between "grammar in the real world" and "grammar in Mrs Grundy's sixth-grade classroom" underlying much of CMS's proscriptiveness. (Can you spot the seven items in this sausage that CMS would characterize as "improper" that actual real people and writers would characterize as "style for teh Internets" that actually has a substantive basis?)

Phew! That's exhausting if not necessarily exhaustive, to intentionally and ambiguously overload two terms of art that are themselves less than artful: Those initial rights are not truly "exhausted" if the parties can legitimately argue for years (with considerable attorneys' fees to be paid by someone) about them without regard to any disputed facts.

Something With Poison in It

…I think. With poison, but attractive to the eye — and soothing to smell. Poppies. Poppies.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to separate the casualties of "soldiers" from those of "civilians." Maybe it shouldn't matter; maybe remembrance should be extended to those who died from acts of war. Unfortunately, there are nowhere near enough poppies for that… and it's going to get worse before it can possibly get better, or mere maiming (visible and otherwise) gets much recognition.

Bonfire for the Vain

Since someone has both relevant precedent of incitement and stated intent of recidivism (illegally), a reminder from 419 years ago:

Remember, remember, the 5th of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, 'twas his intent
To blow up the King and the Parliament
Three score barrels of powder below
Poor old England to overthrow
By God's providence he was catch'd
With a dark lantern and burning match…

I hope to be wrong, at least regarding "gunpowder [and] treason" (I'm already correct about "plot," I'm afraid). I am not optimistic.

Enemies

The best thing about Tuesday at 2000 PST will be that there will be no more election commercials (around here, anyway; Honolulu will have a few more hours of suffering). The worst thing about getting my hour stolen by Midwestern agricultural interests from this morning's end of Daylight Savings Time back is that it added an hour for more election commercials. Even the attack ads don't actually attack real vulnerabilities or manage to be even mildly entertaining.¹ So how about a story? I'm not promising much entertainment value, though…

Once upon a time, a US president had his list of enemies — which should not have been surprising, as two decades before he had been a HUAC member who repeatedly lamented its failure to go far enough. There was enough disdain for that… foul-mouthed bigot… that a position on that enemies list was for some a badge of honor.

Not today. Today, being on that enemies list has an undercurrent of fear, with a crescendo of historical echoes from across the world. It should not escape attention that the true echo of each of these suppressions has been economic disaster, both short and long-term. But it will.²

No matter. I volunteer (I don't have much left to lose). I volunteered in the 70s to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I don't see any reason to stop. Put me on the damned enemies list. <SARCASM> Admittedly, I'm nowhere near prominent enough to merit such individualized attention, but then that's true of about 2/3 of Nixon's list, too. Give me the ego boost of being an "enemy" of the despicable, of the deplorable. C'mon, man, you understand the importance of ego boosts with little or no relationship to actual achievements, to reality, right? There are exactly fifty-seven childless catladies in the Special Counsel's office at this time!³ </SARCASM>

Oh, wait, the "enemies list" will consist largely of people who can't, or won't, fight back — just like a third-grade playground bully. Go ahead. Try me. Just don't throw me in that courtroom, Brother Rat… and perhaps remember that those who would silence and demonize dissent and dissenters⁴ are the un-Americans lacking any sense of decency. We've been here before.

---

1. For example, one initiative around here wants to eviscerate a small payroll tax, based on employees… but it's being sponsored by a hedge-fund manager and his cronies, almost all of whom get the majority — or even entirety — of their incomes from activity that isn't subject to a payroll tax, like "stock options" and "capital gains" and such. There has been not one word in counter-ads, or in the local media, regarding the disjuncture of interests — or actual motivation — of the sponsors. No speculation in non-mainstream outlets. Not even any obvious comedy routines.
2. It's also worth remembering that widespread economic disasters often leave the pre-disaster ultrarich and upper classes with an even firmer grip on power than they had before, but that's the sort of thing that requires actual scholarly concentration to pick out from the background noise.
3. As proof that I'm either a fellow traveler (despite my strong canine preference) or a bad influence on future generations, on the first trip to the grocery store after I showed him this movie, my son pointed out the "Commie Sauce" on the shelf as we passed…
4. For many, many senses of dissent, dissenters, and just plain Other. This is just a few examples that didn't even reach childless catladies and dogloving parents.

Indigestion

It's what's for election season.

• So Uncle Jeff thinks blocking his editorial staff from making an endorsement in this election cycle is appropriate, that what "presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias — a perception of non-independence" [punctuation from transcript corrected], does he? Really? Perhaps he might have had some ground to stand on if he had announced this as a "new policy" when he bought the paper over a decade ago. In the same interview, he admitted that the timing was wrong. The current-events moment to have made this announcement was in the days after Harris was selected as the Democratic nominee, at which time that itself (a major-party nominee who was a last-minute substitute) would have been appropriate cover. But noooooooo, he had to wait until his editorial board had already prepared the endorsement and was only hours from actually announcing it.

  Bluntly, media moguls are corrupt assholes with massive conflicts of interest. Virtually all of them — even those with whom I (occasionally or even largely) agree. At least Bezos isn't starting a war, right? Well, maybe lending credence to a potential civil war — because he's wrong. Some undecided voters will "go[] with Newspaper A's endorsement," and even those who don't will get further education because in this media environment, "source reliability and verification" really does matter. Once upon a time, the WaPo stood for being a civic fucking watchdog; I can't say that any more. (And get rid of the paywall on the front page — if you aspire to being "the paper of record," you've got to be of record.)

• Over the weekend, I snidely remarked on whether A Certain Candidate is a fascist, concluding that the evidence of significant personality disorders may indicate otherwise. That doesn't exclude anything regarding his "friends," however; some of them almost certainly are fascists (or at least fascist-adjacent), in a way that should inform your vote. Any rumors that Leni Riefenstahl was the program director for last weekend's Four Hours of Hate are only implausible because she's long dead.
• Phew. That bloated sausage sure requires a palate cleanser! How about arts stuff? Like my natural habitat: Libraries. Turning more to intellectual property, chair designs from outside the EU must be given full copyright protection, and it appears that at least in France there shall be no market for second-hand "licensed" computer games. A little closer to home, it looks like I was right but for the wrong reasons about the Copyright Claims Board: Right that it wouldn't prove helpful to "small" claimants, but because it's largely not being used (not, as I had predicted, because it was inundated by porn purveyors). But away from IP itself, consider toxic fandom as described by a leading object of mindless fanboy worship (and fandom for Alan Moore has a very distinctly male aspect). OK, OK, that still leaves a rather nasty aftertaste…
• … so let's try a different palate-cleanser. While driving to the pharmacy in Seattle rain after lunch today, I was listening to the local NPR station's broadcast of the BBC News Hour. The main story was about climate-change-caused drought/flood alternations. The announcer plugged BBC's new Life at 50 Degrees series — just as I passed a bank's time-and-temperature display flashing "Temp 50". They're both right: Neither of them designate units…