In Which We Wait to Hear a Reasonable Reply

So President Obama made an emotional speech about guns yesterday, and Republicans predictably lost their minds.  From what I can see, the president's proposals essentially amounted to making sure that current laws are properly enforced--which, by the way, is exactly what gun enthusiasts say should be done any time there is a suggestion that the country needs stronger gun regulation: "We don't need no more laws!  We just need to enforce the ones we've already got!"  I guess that sounds good until Obama says it, at which point it becomes an unconscionable power grab.  Of course, enforcing the laws also requires resources that Republicans in Congress are unwilling to provide, but let's not quibble.  Still, in response to yesterday's speech, the Republican presidential candidates are screaming about a "gun grab" and that Obama's a-comin' for your guns!

I live in hope of one day hearing a cogent, reasonable argument against ANY of the standard suggestions put forward by gun-control advocates,  For example, one of the most popular proposals put forward is to close the gun-show loophole, which allows people to purchase firearms at gun shows without going through the same background checks they would need to go through if they bought guns at a store.  The NRA and others would have you believe that this is some sort of insane left-wing proposal that must be resisted at all costs.  And I would truly like to understand why--why should anyone have a problem with this?

Before you reply, let me say that the following are not valid arguments:

"This is the first step down the road to tyranny!"  No, it's really not.  This is an example of a "slippery-slope" argument, a well-known logical fallacy: "If A happens, then it's only a matter of time before B happens."  This argument seems to rest on the premise that a crypto-fascist government will become so giddy at its success in passing modest gun legislation that it will quickly move to seize all weapons and throw us all into concentration camps.  Anyone who truly believes this (as opposed to just saying it to score political points with the likes of the Birdbath Liberation Army) is suffering from acute paranoia and/or delusions and should probably not be armed.  And at any rate, this response fails to address the merits of the proposal.

"Forcing people to go through background checks at gun shows wouldn't do anything to stop crime."  Again, not a valid argument, for the simple reason that there is no way to know this unless and until we try it.  I can acknowledge that those who make this argument may be right: It is possible that we could impose these new regulations and see no decline whatsoever in the numbers of people killed by guns.  But we won't know unless we try, right?

I'm seriously looking for a reasonable argument--I would really like to understand.  I suppose some would say that requiring background checks at gun shows places unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens, but I truly don't see that.  I mean, if I want to buy a gun, I could presumably do so with no trouble: I am a law-abiding citizen, no criminal record, no history of mental illness, etc.  If I went to a gun store, I am certain I would pass any background check, so the only inconvenience would be that I would need to wait a little while to complete my purchase and take home my shiny new gun.  I honestly have no idea how long a background check takes.  Let's say it takes a week, though--and I suspect it takes less time than that (and could, theoretically, be completed instantaneously with the proper technology)--well, so what?  If I buy a suit, I need to wait to take it home until alterations are done.  I can wait.  And minimal safeguards designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them are, frankly, worth a little inconvenience.  The only people who would truly be inconvenienced by requiring background checks at gun shows would be the people who would fail a background check outside of a gun show.  And guess what?  I don't care if those people are inconvenienced.  They should be!

So, to conclude: No one is coming to take away your guns.  And based on what President Obama suggested yesterday, largely nothing will change.  Now, can someone offer me a reasonable, logical answer as to why things shouldn't?

In Which We Apostrophize about Apostrophes

I've noticed a curious, not to say disturbing, trend in the recent online behavior of several correspondents.  When discussing activities conducted on a regular, weekly basis, many people now include apostrophes where, as far as I can tell, none are required.  For example, someone writes, "On Monday's I take my sloths to the sloth-washing facility for their weekly sloth-wash."  There's no reason for that apostrophe 's': The writer is not saying "On Monday is I take. . .," nor is she describing something in the possession of Monday.  The right word is "Mondays."

(I note, by the way, that when I typed "Mondays" above, I was not even chastised by Microsoft's famous red squiggle, further proof that the pluralization is perfectly acceptable.  Although, "pluralization" is apparently not, but that's another story.)

I hasten to point out that the people engaging in this random apostrophizing are generally well-educated and, indeed, skillful writers.  Whence, therefore, this unnecessary punctuation?  Answers are welcome.  Write me any time.  I can be reached on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays. . . .

In Which We Ponder What Is and Isn't Tyranny

In Oregon, a group of armed militiamen have occupied some federal buildings at what is essentially a birdwatching venue.  They are doing this in support of Dwight and Steven Hammond, local ranchers who have been ordered to report to federal prison to complete sentences they received for setting fires on federal land.  Interestingly, from what I've read about the Hammond case, the protesters have a point: It sounds like the fires were set by accident, and the Hammonds have, in fact, already served jail time--they are being ordered back to prison because "a federal judge ruled that the sentences they had served were not long enough under federal law"--which I must admit sounds a little sketchy.  That being said, the Hammonds have apparently agreed to surrender as ordered, which makes the actions of the Birdbath Liberation Army seem somewhat disproportionate.

People like this often claim to be resisting the overreaching authority of a tyrannical federal government.  To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word [tyranny].  I do not think it means what you think it means."  Because despite what may well be a miscarriage of justice in the Hammonds' case, there is ample evidence that the federal government is not, in fact, a tyrannical dictatorship. For one thing, under a dictatorship, I suspect the BLA would find themselves bombed out of their enclave long before they could speak to the news media about how they are being repressed.

I'm reminded of a little throwaway gag George Carlin did on one of his concert albums.  Carlin, in the voice of an earnest reporter, informed us that someone had barricaded himself inside his home.  He went on to say that the person "is unarmed and nobody is paying any attention to him."  Of course, the BLA is armed, which makes this situation significantly less funny.

In Which We Fix Homeland Security

Whatever their politics--whether left-wing liberal, right-wing conservative, or Trump idiot--most people, including your not-so-humble correspondent, would agree that keeping track of visa holders in the United States would be a good idea--sort of a basic element of the whole visa system.  After all, if a country can't keep track of who has overstayed a visa, it kind of defeats the purpose of issuing the documents in the first place.  I was surprised, therefore, to read this morning that the Department of Homeland Security has no idea how many people with expired visas remain in the US.  And this despite the fact that Congress mandated such a tracking system over twenty years ago.

This is by no means to suggest that people who overstay visas do so for nefarious reasons.  I'm sure the vast majority of such visitors are gainfully employed or pursuing higher education or just happily backpacking across the Appalachians.  What I don't understand is why this is apparently such a difficult mechanism to create.  When someone enters the country on a visa, I assume this information is entered into some kind of database.  It seems to me that a tracking system could basically consist of a large Excel file: Visitor's name, date of entry, date of visa expiration, and--I don't know--ideal first date.  Don't tell me that this technology doesn't exist.  If Amazon can keep track of the fact that I once clicked on a Hello Kitty foot massager (by accident, I swear!), then the Department of Homeland Security can keep track of who legally comes into and goes out of the country!

In fact, the technology does exist.  The main sticking point--or one of them, anyway--is that building the necessary infrastructure would cost about $3 billion, and the airline industry has balked at picking up the cost.  Of course, considering the fact that $3 billion is a rounding error in the federal budget--and that politicians never miss an opportunity to pontificate on the threat of terrorism--one would humbly suggest that the Feds could just build the system themselves.  But that would require an embrace of common sense seldom seen at the national governmental level.

In Which We Ring Out the Old Not With a Bang But with the End of the World as We Know It

KFOG, a San Francisco rock station, does a regular feature every weekday morning at 10:00 AM, "Ten at ten": "Ten great songs from one great year," as the tagline says.  It's a fun show.  The year is always a surprise, and between the songs, the DJ's play audio clips of significant news events or cultural milestones from the year in question.  Warm fuzzy nostalgia ensues.

In honor of New Year's Eve, today's theme was different: Instead of focusing on just one year, the segment featured one song from each year of the 1980's.  So my short car ride this morning began with "Girls Just Want to Have Fun," segued into "You Spin Me Round (Like a Record)," moved on to "Walk Like an Egyptian," and culminated, as I reached my destination in "I Wanna Dance with Somebody."  Now, I defy you to find a happier, more feel-good medley than that!  Until that moment when you realize that these songs were popular thirty years ago!  And then you feel old.  And then it just goes back to being chilly New Year's Eve 2015.

*************
Remember 16 years ago when we all braced ourselves for the technopocalypse that was the "Y2K virus"?  How we worried that all our electronic devices would mistakenly believe that it was 1900 and, I don't know, send us back in time to the days of horses and buggies and bubonic plague?  Remember that?  As you will recall, nothing happened.  But that didn't stop any number of fearmongers and fraidy cats from declaring the end was nigh and stocking up on canned goods and ammunition.

I mention this because today a massive solar flare is headed towards earth, and, while the most significant effect is likely to be greater visibility of the aurora borealis, there is at least the possibility--admittedly remote but definitely present--that electronics could be fried and we could, I'm guessing, be plunged into the oft-discussed zombie apocalypse that you just know is coming soon.  And yet, from the major news outlets?  Nary a peep!  All I'm saying, folks, is that you might want to party like it's 1999.   

In Which Boats Suddenly Sound a Lot More Interesting

Everybody's heard of repo men, those guys who snatch back cars from owners who have fallen behind in their loan payments.  Not the most noble profession, perhaps, but arguably a necessary evil.  And back in the 1980's, someone thought the job interesting enough to make an Emilio Estevez movie about it. . . .

That someone might well have been Emilio Estevez, now that I think about it, but still. . . .

Anyway, today I read an article about maritime repo men, people who repossess boats.  At first, I thought, well, who cares?  Boats are boring.  They're basically just floating cars, right?  But then I started reading the article: These aquarepo guys don't just grab up boats from people who've neglected to pay their bank notes; they frequently grab up boats from boat thieves, which adds a nice Omar Little-type wrinkle to the whole enterprise.  To accomplish this, they devise all kinds of ruses and shenanigans to get themselves on board the boats--forging IDs, hiring prostitutes, casting voodoo spells, etc.  Once they manage to get on board, they have to dash for the 12-mile limit of international waters to escape whatever jurisdiction the boats are being held in.

My question: How has George Clooney not optioned this for a screenplay?

In Which I Slipped Myself a Rickey

I was shocked this morning when, browsing through Facebook, I saw a notice that Oakland A's legend Dave Henderson had died at the age of 57. Then I realized that I was mainly shocked because I was confusing Oakland legend Dave Henderson with Oakland legend Rickey Henderson who is, in fact, still alive. So I guess I'm...relieved?