Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 280

Roger Stone calls on Trump to release JFK assassination files

(Credit: AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Roger Stone, the famous political adviser to Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Donald Trump, wants the public release of the remaining secret government records pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

“[The] last release of JFK assassination-related documents [included] a memo from Jay Hoover to the head of the FBI in Dallas instructing him to bring George Bush of the CIA [up] on activities of the anti-Castro Cubans in the Dallas area,” Stone told Salon. “Also clued in a memo from Hoover to LBJ informing him that the Russian KGB had conducted their own investigation into the Kennedy assassination and had concluded LBJ was the ringleader in the plot to kill Kennedy,” Stone claimed, implicating Kennedy’s successor in his murder.

“There is no telling what is in the unreleased documents, but at this point, I think the public has a right to know,” he insisted.

The effort to publicize these government records has bipartisan support in both the Senate (Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and former chairman Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont) and House of Representatives (Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina and Democratic Rep. Louise M. Slaughter of New York).

What Stone brings to the table, however, is a set of particularly controversial views on the Kennedy assassination itself. In his book “The Making of the President 2016″ (which I discussed in an interview with Stone), he repeatedly claimed that the father of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rafael Cruz, lied about his past as a Cuban immigrant. After summarizing accounts by blogger Wayne Madsen and the National Enquirer, which claimed that Rafael Cruz may have been connected to Lee Harvey Oswald, Stone argued that one Cuban man photographed with Oswald looked like the elder Cruz.

“The identity of the Cruz look-alike has never been established,” Stone told Salon. “In May, I went on record saying that I had spoken with a source who identified the mystery man as Rafael Cruz.”

Stone also added that he did not start or plant the Cruz story.

Conservative columnist: It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment

(Credit: Reuters/Brian Blanco)

In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre in which at least 59 people were killed and hundreds more were injured — in what is now the deadliest mass shooting in the country’s modern history — astonishing statistics unique to the United States have resurfaced.

In just the last 50 years, more American citizens have died from gunshots than in the entire country’s history of wars; more than 1.5 million people since 1968, NBC News reported, using data from the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

“What we’ve seen in Las Vegas is a uniquely American scene,” former FBI agent Ali Soufan told MSNBC. “The aftermath of such traumatic events have become an all too familiar scene in our society and in our politics, unfortunately.”

But along with the usual hyperpartisan and seemingly unbending gun control debate — which generally follows such tragic events in this country — a surprising consensus has emerged.

Some Republicans, including Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, have suggested taking some limited action on gun control. Curbelo said he would support a ban on “bump stocks,” which allow a semi-automatic weapon to essentially become a fully automatic one, and are completely legal. At least one bump stock was discovered by police in the hotel room of the Las Vegas shooter. Even House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., has said the legality of the devices should be looked into.

A mere 3 percent of American adults own half of the entire nation’s guns, according to a Washington Post article from Sept. 2016. And while the overall rates of gun ownership have declined, “the number of firearms in circulation has skyrocketed,” the Post writes.

“The implication is that there are more guns in fewer hands than ever before. The top 3 percent of American adults own, on average, 17 guns apiece, according to the survey’s estimates,” the Post reported.

These harrowing statistics tell a unique tale about a country that has long been obsessed with, and has fetishized, a culture of gun ownership. Reflecting this newfound shift in gun control views of conservatives, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens penned an op-ed on Thursday entitled “Repeal the Second Amendment.”

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.

President Donald Trump has been largely quiet on gun control, perhaps due to his close relationship with the National Rifle Association, and fear that taking action on guns in the U.S. would outrage his base. Most Republicans in Congress have issued hollow condolences and familiar platitudes, deferring any concrete talk of legislation that might prevent future tragedies.

Hence, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., blamed sanctuary cities and “permissive” laws for producing a culture which fosters mass shootings. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., punted on the issue as well, and instead offered “advice” to potential victims of mass shootings: “Get small.”

Notably, both Inhofe and Thune have received “A+” ratings from the NRA.

A widely circulated op-ed in The Washington Post this week argued that gun control wasn’t the answer and that research proved it. However, as German Lopez of Vox Media argued, the Post op-ed offered little research to support that viewpoint, and most of it was cherrypicked to fit a specific narrative:

Last year, researchers from around the country reviewed more than 130 studies from 10 countries on gun control for Epidemiologic Reviews. This is, for now, the most current, extensive review of the research on the effects of gun control. The findings were clear: “The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths.”

Watch Chris Cuomo nail Kellyanne Conway for trying to blame lack of gun control on Hillary Clinton

Chris Cuomo; Kellyanne Conway (Credit: YouTube/CNN)

CNN’s Chris Cuomo and White House adviser Kellyanne Conway have a history of heated exchanges. Thursday’s interview following President Trump’s visit to Las Vegas was perhaps the most contentious.

Cuomo asked Conway why now was not the appropriate time to have a gun control debate. Conway said the victims of the shooting have been the president’s focus, before she started railing against Democrats for politicizing the issue.

“This conversation wasn’t being had until tragedies like this strike by those who try to be the loudest voices,” Conway said. “You see Hillary Clinton talking about herself, not talking about this. You see her rushing to judgement the other day on Twitter, while people are still looking through the rubble, searching the hospital for their missing loved ones, trying to politicize it.”

She then accused CNN of letting the gun control debate fall by the wayside. “Your obsession with Russia has been to the exclusion of this conversation,” she said.

“Kellyanne, a lot of this just doesn’t wash,” a visibly tired and frustrated Cuomo responded.

Cuomo pointed out that Republicans would prefer to never have this conversation. When there is a tragedy, the GOP immediately asserts it is too soon to be talking about gun control, postponing the debate for a later date until, inevitably, another shooting happens, establishing a futile cycle that leads to nothing ever getting done.

Conway again insisted that the president was too busy caring for the survivors to bring up control.

“You can do both,” Cuomo countered. “You go and you comfort. You show moral agency. Then you take action as a leader to try to make it better.”

Watch the full interview below:

Harvey Weinstein bombshell exposé alleges decades of sexual harassment

Harvey Weinstein (Credit: Getty/Drew Angerer)

With his massive influence stretching over nearly three decades, producer Harvey Weinstein has remained one of the most powerful, respected and, yes, feared executives in Hollywood.

But also stretching over three decades is an alleged pattern of abuse towards women, reports The New York Times in a blockbuster exposé published Thursday through “interviews with current and former employees and film industry workers, as well as legal records, emails and internal documents from the businesses he has run, Miramax and the Weinstein Company.”

Containing direct quotes from alleged victims including the famous actor Ashley Judd, the exposé not only appears to imperil the standing of one of the industry’s heaviest hitters, it lends weight and credence to a long-lived cloud of whispers surrounding Weinstein’s behavior toward both actors and other industry professionals. As Judd told the Times, “Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time, and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly.”

The Times report by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey notes that research found that “Women reported to a hotel for what they thought were work reasons, only to discover that Mr. Weinstein, who has been married for most of three decades, sometimes seemed to have different interests.” From there, their report gets more graphic:

In interviews, eight women described varying behavior by Mr. Weinstein: appearing nearly or fully naked in front of them, requiring them to be present while he bathed or repeatedly asking for a massage or initiating one himself. The women, typically in their early or mid-20s and hoping to get a toehold in the film industry, said he could switch course quickly — meetings and clipboards one moment, intimate comments the next. One woman advised a peer to wear a parka when summoned for duty as a layer of protection against unwelcome advances.

Throughout this pattern of behavior, and throughout the industry, the story claims, “Mr. Weinstein enforced a code of silence.” Non-disclosure agreements at his various companies prevented employees from discussing his behavior with them, other employees or individuals outside those firms. “It wasn’t a secret to the inner circle,” Kathy DeClesis, Weinstein’s assistant in the early ’90s, told the Times.

Settlements and legal threats quieted alleged victims who were not under Weinstein’s employ, the Times reports. On top of discussing the alleged assault of a model that came to the attention of the NYPD vice squad, the article spotlights the payout given to then 23-year-old Rose McGowan following “an episode in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival.” The Times adds, “The $100,000 settlement was ‘not to be construed as an admission’ by Mr. Weinstein, but intended to ‘avoid litigation and buy peace,’ according to the legal document.”

Last year, McGowan said in a series of Tweets that a “studio head” had raped her. Responding to the #WhyWomenDontReport hashtag — a campaign created to highlight the difficulties women face coming forward with rape allegations — she said, “a (female) criminal attorney said because I’d done a sex scene in a film I would never win against the studio head.” She said that another reason was, “Because my ex sold our movie to my rapist for distribution” adding that “because it’s been an open secret in Hollywood/Media & they shamed me while adulating my rapist.”

McGowan has, at this point, not commented on the Times report. Following the story’s publication, she tweeted this message that appears to be directed at members of the industry:

Anyone who does business with __ is complicit. And deep down you know you are even dirtier. Cleanse yourselves.

— rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) October 5, 2017

For her part, Judd claims that after Weinstein brought her to his hotel suite for what was supposedly a discussion about work:

Mr. Weinstein soon issued invitation after invitation, she said. Could he give her a massage? When she refused, he suggested a shoulder rub. She rejected that too, she recalled. He steered her toward a closet, asking her to help pick out his clothing for the day, and then toward the bathroom. Would she watch him take a shower? she remembered him saying.

Said Judd, “I said no, a lot of ways, a lot of times, and he always came back at me with some new ask . . . It was all this bargaining, this coercive bargaining.”

In the buildup to the release of the Times’ piece, and another reportedly in the works at The New Yorker, Weinstein contracted lawyers Lisa Blood and Charles Harder, the attorney who represented Hulk Hogan in his suit against Gawker Media — a suit that eventually precipitated the bankruptcy and sale of that company. Following the publication of  Twohey and Kantor’s exposé, Harder announced Weinstein’s intent to sue the Times.

“The New York Times published today a story that is saturated with false and defamatory statements about Harvey Weinstein,” Harder said in a statement. “It relies on mostly hearsay accounts and a faulty report, apparently stolen from an employee personnel file, which has been debunked by 9 different eyewitnesses. We sent the Times the facts and evidence, but they ignored it and rushed to publish. We are preparing the lawsuit now. All proceeds will be donated to women’s organizations.”

This strikes a markedly different tone than Weinstein’s own, rather remarkable statement to the Times following the report’s release. “I came of age in the 60’s and 70’s,” he wrote, “when all the rules about behavior in the workplace were different. That was the culture then.”

Weinstein added, “I have since learned it’s not an excuse, in the office – or out of it.” He continues, “I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it.”

Weinstein then goes on to claim that Bloom is now his “tutor,” giving him tips on how to behave, that he is taking a leave of absence from work and that he is creating an endowment for women directors to study filmmaking at USC (though he claims the latter has “been in the works for a year”).

“I so respect women and regret what happened,” writes Weinstein, before committing to continue to battle the NRA. “I cannot be more remorseful for about the people I have hurt and plan to right by all of them.”

How to make the Electoral College irrelevant

We must make sure our democracy doesn’t ever again elect a candidate who loses the popular vote. That means making the Electoral College irrelevant.

Here’s how: As you probably know, the Constitution assigns each state a number of electors based on the state’s population. The total number of electors is 538, so any candidate who gets 270 of those Electoral College votes becomes president.

Article II of the Constitution says states can award their electors any way they want. So all that’s needed in order to make the Electoral College irrelevant is for states with a total of at least 270 electors to agree to award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote.

If they do that, then automatically the winner of the popular vote gets the 270 electoral college votes he or she needs to become president.

Already 10 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws to do this – awarding all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote, as soon as the 270 elector goal is met. Together, these states total 165 electoral votes.

So all we need now is some additional states with 105 electors to pass the same law, agreeing to reward all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote – and it’s done. We’ll never again elect a president who loses the popular vote.

The effort is known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If your state hasn’t yet joined on, make sure it does.

Three steps Congress could take to help resolve the net neutrality debate

(Credit: Getty/Alex Wong)

The public debate over how best to keep the internet open and free — and what exactly that means — has dragged on for more than a decade. The principle that internet service providers should deliver all online content without favoritism carries with it complex economic, technological and legal questions.

In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission issued its Open Internet Order, requiring transparency and banning blocking, throttling of content and paid prioritization — that is, offering higher-quality service at a price. Under its current chairman, Ajit Pai, the FCC proposes to revise and reverse some or all of these rules. Both in the run-up to the 2015 order and since this current proposal for reconsideration, many have called for Congress to step in for the first time.

Without legislating specific net neutrality rules, Congress could take three important steps to clear away irrelevant legal impediments and make the debate more productive for regulators and the public alike.

Separate classification from regulation

Some of the problems of devising net neutrality rules come from the fact that Congress defined legislative categories that had more to do with the 1984 breakup of AT&T’s telephone monopoly than the still largely nascent internet. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress classified communications businesses as engaged in either “telecommunications” or “information” services — either operating the wires that the data flow through or providing the data. Congress decreed that only the former were subject to regulation of prices, access and services — under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

That congressional decision is why the debate is laced with contentions about whether ISPs should be classified as either telecommunications or information service providers. Those contentions aren’t new; 15 years ago a relatively deregulation-minded FCC classified broadband cable service as an information service, not subject to regulation. And in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC could determine how to classify broadband internet. But Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, saying the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was clear that broadband internet was a telecommunications service — and that the FCC couldn’t decide otherwise.

The FCC’s 2015 Order “reclassified” broadband service as a telecommunications service, to give it the legal authority the D.C. Court of Appeals said the FCC needed to enact its net neutrality rules. The current FCC proposes, in effect, to “re-reclassify” broadband as an information service. The commission’s announcement of that move involves some excruciating legal contortions, not to oppose the economic substance of the FCC’s 2015 order but to come up with a convincing argument against Justice Scalia’s 2005 dissent.

Congress can fix this mess. The economic case for whether and how a firm should be regulated has nothing to do with what service it provides. Rather, the question should be about economic fundamentals: Is the company a monopoly? Or does competition from alternative suppliers impose reasonable market pressures on price and service quality? And can the regulator get demand, quality and cost information in a sufficiently timely manner to be able to set reasonable prices and terms of service?

Unfortunately, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ignored economics and relied on service classifications instead, precluding findings that an information service should be regulated — or that a telecommunications service market is sufficiently competitive to render regulation unnecessary. Returning regulatory determinations to their economic foundations is the first order of legislative business.

Restore a focus on the ‘public interest’

But is net neutrality really about economic regulation? While thinking clearly about net neutrality rules requires eliminating classification, looking at the issue solely in terms of regulating monopolies may be looking in the wrong place. In recent years, during both Republican and Democratic administrations, the FCC has tended to assess all communications policy issues in terms of whether internet sector practices violate antitrust laws. By and large, the arguments based on competition, or economics more generally, are not all that compelling.

Regarding net neutrality, a much better role for the FCC would be to focus on the public interest. One example comes from the observation, by open-internet advocate Harold Feld at the communications policy nonprofit Public Knowledge, noting how important it was for Arab Spring protesters to communicate on social media. While the FCC’s jurisdiction does not extend to Egypt, the ability for the public to freely share news and ideas through the internet is no less important in the U.S.

In retrospect, the FCC made a mistake by treating net neutrality as a competition problem rather than as a tool to protect speech. Because speech rights were never central in the FCC’s net neutrality review, there is no record of what, if any, policies would be necessary or effective to protect people’s rights to communicate. The current regulations might be sufficient or excessive, but until evaluated under a “public interest” standard, we do not know.

Congress should remind the FCC of its obligations to evaluate the public interest consequences — not just the economics — of its regulations.

Restore the role of antitrust in telecommunications

Focusing the FCC on the public interest would be easier if the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division or the Federal Trade Commission could guard against internet service providers engaging in monopolistic practices.

At present, the antitrust agencies may not have that authority. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that if a regulator has authority over a practice (in that case, the FCC’s authority over how telephone companies open their facilities to competitors, antitrust laws should not apply. That decision came despite an explicit clause in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserving an antitrust role for the FCC.

I do not expect that internet service providers following regulations grounded in the public’s rights to speak and be heard would violate antitrust laws. Congress should make it clear to the Supreme Court and the public that antitrust authorities do have the power to review the facts and remedy any competition problems or harm to consumers.

If Congress could enact legislation that removed the distinction between “telecommunication” and “information” services, reinforced the importance of the public interest in communications and restored antitrust enforcement power for regulators, the FCC would be better able to develop net neutrality regulations — whatever they may turn out to be — with solid substantive and legal foundations.

Timothy Brennan, Professor of Public Policy and Economics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Unfair trade is killing American aluminum and steel

(Credit: AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka)

Kameen Thompson started his workday Sept. 15 thinking that his employer, ArcelorMittal in Conshohocken, Pa., the largest supplier of armored plate to the U.S. military, might hire some workers to reduce a recent spate of overtime.

Just hours later, though, he discovered the absolute opposite was true.

ArcelorMittal announced that, within a year, it would idle the mill that stretches half a mile along the Schuylkill River. Company officials broke the bad news to Kameen, president of the United Steelworkers (USW) local union at Conshohocken, and Ron Davis, the grievance chair, at a meeting where the two union officers had hoped to hear about hiring.

ArcelorMittal wouldn’t say when it would begin the layoffs or how many workers would lose their jobs or which mill departments would go dark. The worst part for everyone now is the uncertainty, Kameen told me last week.

“If ArcelorMittal said they would shut down on a date certain, everybody could move on to something else or prepare. Right now, we are in limbo. We have a lot of guys with a lot of time, but they’re still not old enough to retire. The only thing we can do is ride it out. But the uncertainty is very, very hard on them. It’s difficult not knowing who and what departments are affected and how long we are going to run,” Kameen said.

Uncertainty from Washington, D.C., is a major contributor to the idling of the plant. ArcelorMittal and every other aluminum and steel producer in America are in limbo as they wait for a decision on import restrictions that could preserve U.S. capacity to produce defense materials – like the light armored plate that’s Conshohocken’s specialty – and to build and repair crucial infrastructure, like roads, bridges and utilities.

Initially, the Trump administration promised a determination in June. But June came and went. As the months dragged on, imports surged. That threatens the viability of mills like Conshohocken. Then, just last week, administration officials said they would do nothing until after Congress passes tax legislation. That compounded uncertainty.

The Conshohocken mill may not survive the delay. Kameen, Ron and the 203 other workers there could lose their jobs because Congress dawdles or fails to act on taxes. America could lose its domestic capacity to quickly produce large quantities of high-quality light-gauge plate for armor.

After work at other, non-union jobs, Kameen began at Conshohocken at the age of 25. He finally had a position that provided good wages and benefits. “That gave me an opportunity to plan for a future and build a family,” he explained.

Ron, the mill’s training coordinator, is 45 and has worked at the plant for 22 years. “This was my first true job that I could sustain a family with,” Ron told me.

He has five children ranging in age from five to 26. He needs a good job with good benefits. He knows jobs like the one he has at the mill are rare, but he’s not giving in to gloominess. “I am just trying to stay positive,” he said. “That is all I can do right now.”

Both Ron and Kameen are frustrated by the Trump administration’s failure to penalize the foreign producers whose illegal trade practices have killed steel and aluminum jobs, closed mills across the country and threatened America’s domestic capability to produce metals essential to construction of critical infrastructure and vital to the defense department to safeguard the country.

Since the Trump administration launched the national security probes into steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion of the Trade Expansion Act in April, imports have risen significantly. Steel imports are up 21 percent over last year. Countries like China, fearing impending penalties for predatory and illegal trade practices, dumped more than ever.

The administration has nine months to complete the Section 232 investigation. It could be January before the results are announced. Then the president has another three months to decide what to do. Instead of the two months the administration initially promised, the whole process could take a year.

A year could be too long for mills like Conshohocken.

“It doesn’t take that long to investigate this,” Kameen said. “We are losing jobs. They are dropping like flies. The administration needs to act now to prevent these unfair imports from killing more American jobs.”

Because of unfair and illegal imports since 2000, particularly from China, U.S. steel mills idled sections or closed, cutting the nation’s capacity to produce by 17 million tons a year and throwing 48,000 steelworkers out of jobs.

Now, there is only one surviving U.S. mill capable of producing grain-oriented electrical steel (GOES) required for electrical transmission.

The same decline occurred in aluminum, only it happened even faster. The number of U.S. smelters dropped from 14 in 2011 to five last year. That is the loss of thousands more good, family-supporting jobs. It happened because China expanded its overcapacity to produce cheap, state-subsidized aluminum, depressing the global price by 46 percent in just eight years.

Now, there is only one surviving U.S. smelter capable of producing the high-purity aluminum essential to fighter jets like the F-35 and other military vehicles.

While ArcelorMittal may contend that it can manufacture military-grade steel plate at its other U.S. mills, the loss of Conshohocken would mean a dangerous decline in U.S. capacity.

Capacity is crucial in emergencies. An example occurred in 2007 when U.S. military deaths were rising in Iraq and Afghanistan. In response, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ordered a 15-fold increase in production of mine-resistant, ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles. That meant the number produced each month had to rise from 82 to more than 1,100. The Conshohocken plant produced much of the steel needed to achieve the goal.

Without that mill, the nation’s ability to gear up in such an emergency is compromised.  Two weeks ago, 10 retired generals wrote President Trump warning: “America’s increasing reliance on imported steel and aluminum from potentially hostile or uncooperative foreign governments, or via uncertain supply routes, jeopardizes our national security.”

They also said of the Section 232 investigation, “Prompt action is necessary before it is too late.”

When Kameen started at the mill 11 years ago, he felt good about the work. Conshohocken was making a lot of armor for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that gave him the sense that he was doing something for his country.

Now, he’s concerned for his local union members, whose average age is 50.

As their president, Kameen, who is only 37, feels responsible to help each of them through the uncertainty and the difficulties ahead. “My members are looking at me for answers and leadership,” he told me. “So if I don’t stay strong and lead, then I’m the wrong man for the job.”

Every steelworker and aluminum worker in America is looking to President Trump for that kind of leadership. Their uncertainty could be relieved if the administration would announce the results of the Section 232 investigation now and act immediately to ensure the United States has the domestic ability to produce essential metals.

Gun control will not stop mass shootings

Police officers and medical personnel stand at the scene of a shooting near the Mandalay Bay resort and casino, Monday, Oct. 2, 2017 (Credit: AP/John Locher)

Forget that in the first 276 days of this year there have already been 273 mass shootings, killing 346 and wounding 1581. Forget that the shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday night, with 59 dead, was the deadliest mass shooting in American history, at least since the last largest shooting in American history, which was last year in Orlando, with 49 dead, which was the largest since Virginia Tech in 2007, with 32 dead, which narrowly eclipses the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut in 2012 with 28 dead.

Forget that the Las Vegas shooter had something like 49 weapons in his hotel room and homes in Nevada. Forget that some of the rifles are being described as “AR-15 type” fitted with “bi-pod legs” and a “magnification scope,” and that at least one rifle is described as an “AK-47 type” with a “stand to steady it and improve accuracy” according to the Washington Post. Forget numerous fully loaded “high capacity magazines” were found in the hotel room, and forget that one report, on Fox News no less, quoted a “law enforcement source” as describing at least one of the weapons as “automatic.”

All you have to know is these two words: “gas operated.” Because it is gas operated rifles that make these mass shootings possible. Gas operated systems are used in all semiautomatic and automatic weapons including the ubiquitous “assault style” rifles employed by the shooter in Las Vegas on Sunday night. What does “gas operated” mean? Well, it describes a mechanical process by which a small amount of the gas produced by the explosion of gunpowder used to propel a bullet is harnessed to power a piston which drives a mechanism which successively ejects the spent cartridge, cocks the trigger, and loads a fresh, unspent bullet into the chamber ready to fire. Usually the gas produced by the exploded gunpowder escapes through a port, or tiny hole in the barrel, under high pressure before the bullet has left the barrel. After this portion of gas has been used to eject the spent cartridge, cock the weapon and load another cartridge, the rest of the gas escapes out the end of the barrel and the gun is ready to fire again.

The words “semiautomatic” describe a weapon that fires once every time the shooter pulls the trigger. “Automatic” is the word which describes a weapon that fires continuously once you pull the trigger. In other words, the weapon fires, ejects, reloads, cocks and fires again and again and again as long as your finger depresses the trigger. Only after you let up your finger pressure on the trigger does the gun stop firing.

I listened closely to the sound of the weapons captured on cell phone video. The sound I heard was that of automatic gunfire, the very rapid high-pitched sound of an AR-15 style 5.56 mm rifle on full auto, and the slower, deeper sound of an AK-47 style 7.62 mm rifle. What I heard was an automatic weapon being fired until the shooter had expended all the rounds in a fairly large magazine and then either re-loaded or picked up another fully loaded automatic rifle and continued firing. John Cohen, a former undersecretary in the Department of Homeland Security, was quoted on ABC News as agreeing with this assessment. “Listening to the video, it sounds like the weapons were fully automatic,” said Cohen. “[The bullets] were coming out very quick, and you heard a large number of shots very quickly. That would be very difficult to do with anything other than an automatic weapon.”

Much has been made in the last day or so about how the Las Vegas shooter could have come by the weapons he used. He is said to have gone to a number of gun stores in four different states and bought rifles. The question remains, if some of them were fully automatic, how did he come such weapons? The answer is, he could have gotten them in any number of ways. He could have bought fully automatic rifles on the black market. While we have heard from several gun store owners who sold him weapons, we don’t know if he attended any gun shows, where if you know the right person, or pay off the right person, you can be directed to an individual willing to sell you automatic weapons illegally “under the table,” usually at a rather high price. No questions asked, no records kept. Since the Las Vegas shooter has been described by his brother as a “multi-millionaire,” this wouldn’t have posed much of a problem for him. He could have purchased semiautomatic rifles of the AR-15, M-4 or AK-47 variety and had them modified to make them automatic by someone with the equipment and knowledge necessary to accomplish the task. This, too, would not have been difficult. Conversion kits are available from shady sites on the dark and not-so-dark areas of the internet. It’s not that you would call common knowledge, but it’s out there. I have personally met several people who can obtain the equipment and have the knowledge necessary to convert weapons from semiauto to fully-auto.

The reason that the words “gas operated” are so important is because they are the only words the Congress of the United States needs to use in order to pass a law making these weapons of mass killing illegal. Forget the words “assault style.” Meaningless. All “assault style” describes is the exterior design of a rifle, usually to resemble a military M-16, M-4, or AK-47, but including many other designs and countless manufacturers. Gas operated rifles of the type used by the Las Vegas shooter are military weapons designed for and capable of being used in combat in war by soldiers. It’s not necessary on any level for civilians to own or operate these weapons of war. Oh, I can already hear the yelps and screams from gun owners and the National Rifles Association. But these are “sporting” rifles! We use them for hunting and target shooting and – wait for it – self-defense! Of course you do! You use them for those purposes because you can walk into any gun store or gun show in America and buy them. But they are not necessary. You can go hunting or target shooting with a rifle that cocks and shoots every time you work the bolt, or pull the lever action, or pump the ejection/reloading mechanism on the barrel. Then you can shoot the thing again.

You want to know why you don’t need a semiautomatic or automatic rifle to go hunting or target shooting? Because neither the deer or target is shooting back, that’s why. But what about self-defense, you ask? What I say is this: if you are a “good guy” and you are facing an armed intruder or a mugger or other type of “bad guy,” you’d better hit him the first time you shoot, because if you don’t, you’re the one who’s going to suffer, not him. Finding incidents wherein a civilian has used a privately owned weapon to either deter or shoot such a “bad guy” is like voter fraud. They say it’s out there, but nobody can find it. Using a gun for self-defense is largely myth. About 30,000 Americans are killed every year. That’s not a myth.

The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v Heller upheld the right of American citizens to own and bear arms, specifying that loaded firearms may be kept within the home, and in McDonald v City of Chicago, the Court affirmed the right to keep and use firearms for self-defense. But in neither of these cases did the Supreme Court specify the types or numbers of weapons permitted for ownership or use, and in subsequent cases, the court has refused opportunities to review laws against carrying concealed weapons.

The problem with gas operated weapons is that they are very, very dangerous. They are inherently dangerous, of course, because they are capable of killing people. But they are also dangerous because of the design of their rapid fire mechanisms and because of the nature of the humans who use them. In order for one of these weapons to be safe when it is loaded with a magazine full of bullets, two things must happen: the safety must be on, and it must not have a live cartridge in the chamber. But even if these safety precautions are taken, it’s still dangerous because dropping the weapon might chamber a round and knock the safety off, causing it to fire. The United States Military considers the gas operated weapons it issues to soldiers to be so dangerous that loaded firearms are not permitted on military bases here in this country, or even on bases in combat zones abroad. When I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, every time we entered an Army basecamp, our convoys had to pull over to the side of the road short of the camp entrance, soldiers had to dismount and walk over to barrels full of sand, and pointing the barrels of their M-16’s or M-4’s into the barrels, they had to remove loaded magazines from their rifles and clear the chamber of live rounds. Only when their weapons were completely unloaded and the bullets were put away were they safe.

I was on several small platoon and company-size basecamps in some very hostile territory outside of the outlaw towns of Tal Afar and Hammam Ali in Iraq, and even there, even surrounded on all sides by insurgents that were busy trying to kill American soldiers every single day and night, the American soldiers I was with had to unload their weapons and walk around with them unloaded the entire time they were at the basecamps. Only if they were standing guard on the perimeter of the basecamp, or after they had cleared the entrance and were outside the camp were they allowed to load their weapons.

At stateside bases, the restrictions are even more severe. The Army’s combat weapons like pistols and rifles are stored in locked weapons rooms when they are not being used at a firing range, during a training exercise, or being cleaned and serviced by the soldiers they are assigned to. When I was a Second Lieutenant platoon leader in an infantry company at Fort Carson, Colorado, one my additional duties was “Weapons Officer.” Every single day, it was my job to inspect the weapons room and make sure that all weapons and ammunition assigned to the company were present and accounted for. When this was done, I had to sign a Department of Defense document attesting that I had inspected and accounted for the weapons and ammunition. Falsifying this document, or lying about my inspection, was punishable by up to five years confinement in the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. That’s how seriously the Army took the safekeeping of its weapons of war.

That’s what these gas operated rifles are: weapons of war. I don’t care what is eventually revealed about the specific 23 weapons the Las Vegas shooter carried into his hotel room, along with what police described as “thousands of rounds” of ammunition. All of them will be found to be gas-operated weapons of war. The United States Army has always found it sufficient to arm one soldier with one weapon. You know things are fucked up in this country when a man with a grudge, or a mental illness, or simply a death wish can walk into a number of stores over a fairly short period of time and buy 49 guns, more weapons than were assigned to my infantry platoon in the Army or any of the platoons I was with in Iraq.

That’s all the Congress needs to know in order to write legislation that will make it far more difficult for mass killings to be carried out in the future. Ban the sale of gas operated weapons. Ban the importation and manufacture in the United States of new gas operated weapons except those for military or police use, and ban the sale or resale of currently existing gas operated weapons. The Las Vegas shooter apparently bought all of his weapons in contemplation of using them to shoot up the concert on Sunday night. If he had been unable to legally purchase his arsenal of gas-operated rifles, he would have been unable to kill 59 and wound over 500. Nor would the shooters in Orlando, or Newtown, or Virginia Tech, or Aurora Colorado have been able to so easily carry out their mass murders. If each of those shooters had to cock his weapon every time he fired it, far fewer people would have died.

So forget all the bullshit about “gun control.” Only if the Congress passes a law banning the manufacture, import, and sale of gas operated weapons except for use by the military and police will this be a safer country. The United States Army knows how dangerous these weapons are and controls their possession and use accordingly. It’s time the rest of the country followed the military’s example. One mass killing after another has proven that gas operated weapons are way too dangerous for civilians to own and use. Ban them.

The booming business of music festivals has a problem only gun control can solve

A security guard at the Bonnaroo music festival in Manchester, Tenn., June 13, 2008. (Credit: AP/Mark Humphrey)

Two days after the mass shooting at Las Vegas’ Route 91 Harvest Festival that killed 59 people and injured over 500 additional concert-goers, it’s still difficult to find any words — much less the right words — to talk about what happened. How do you even begin to grapple with the sadness and horror? First-person recollections of fans and journalists fleeing the shooting are harrowing; the fear and panic leaps off the computer screen. Photos and video from the concert are even more horrifying, as they underscore the chaos and confusion that quickly ensued.

The Route 91 Harvest Festival wasn’t a new event — this year’s model was its fourth edition — and, by all accounts, it’s a well-run festival helmed by Live Nation. Plus, Las Vegas itself is used to hosting music festivals and large-scale events: Yearly events include the electronic music behemoth Electric Daisy Carnival, pop-leaning iHeartRadio Festival, rock ‘n’ roll-leaning Punk Rock Bowling and Psycho Las Vegas, and even the Academy of Country Music Awards. And music festivals have increasingly become part of U.S. concert culture: In 2015, Nielsen’s Audience Insights Report on Music Festivals found that 32 million people attend at least one music festival in the U.S. each year, with 46 percent of attendees falling in the 18-34 age range.

There’s a certain amount of trust that goes into attending any concert (or, really, any event in a public place). However, a music festival especially requires a covenant between organizers and attendees. The event often takes place outdoors — sometimes in an off-the-beaten-path place, but other times in parks or green spaces tucked away within cities — and draws thousands of people. Logistically, there are so many things that could go wrong; everyone involved has to work hard and have faith that everything will turn out okay. That music festivals are becoming more common means they feel like safe bets for a fun weekend.

That Las Vegas turned into a tragedy is devastating on myriad levels — not least because being attacked while watching or listening to music feels particularly violating. Going to see a favorite artist perform is like entering a sanctuary, as it’s an opportunity for real-life worries or concerns to fade away for a few hours. In fact, the recent high-profile attacks at the Manchester Arena and Pulse Nightclub in particular were so shattering because they invaded physical sanctuaries for tight-knit communities — respectively, Ariana Grande devotees the Arianators and Orlando’s LGBTQ community.

Country music fans represent another loyal community, one populated by rabid music fans. In a Rolling Stone Country recap of a Nashville vigil, Keith Urban described how he explained the shooting to his daughter: “These were innocent people, horrifically taken. They’re like family. It’s the one thing about country music that’s always been at the center of it, and that it is [a] community, it’s about community. And so I did know those people in that way, and it just really hit me.” Reading about those who is wrenching: Many people had traveled great distances to attend the Route 91 Harvest Festival, no doubt because it would be a chance to have a blast in Las Vegas and hear some great tunes.

Thankfully, while the shooting itself has stirred up a hornet’s nest of political vitriol, most people have stayed away from disparaging the beliefs of country music fans. (In a notable exception, a vice president and senior legal counsel at CBS in New York was fired after saying she’s “actually not even sympathetic” to the victims “bc country music fans often are Republican gun toters [sic].”) On Monday morning, NPR music critic Ann Powers pre-emptively tweeted a plea to be mindful of the fact that country music fans aren’t a monolithic group. “Not all country music fans are right wing and a lot of people died so maybe we should wait on hot takes reading the cultural angle,” she wrote. “That said, in the wake of grieving I look forward to a vigorous open discuss within among country artists about gun violence.”

That conversation is starting already in certain circles. Roseanne Cash penned a no-holds-barred New York Times op-ed urging country musicians to stand up to the NRA, while Caleb Keeter, who performed at the festival earlier on Sunday, wrote on Twitter “I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was.” And Maren Morris, who performed at the music festival on Friday, released a song called “Dear Hate” to benefit the Music City Cares Fund and shared, “Hate is everywhere, and I’m sick of not doing enough. In the darkest tunnel, there is still love & music. That’s what it’s here for.”

But what’s even more frightening is that it seems like there’s no clear way the festival itself could have anticipated or prevented the mass shooting. “With this tragedy, I think the true reality of it is: What could have been done here? There’s nothing from a production of the event angle that could be done,” a promoter and talent buyer at a “large national agency” told Esquire. “We could get into gun control all day and talk about that and what could be done there. But at the event level, what do you do to stop that? You don’t.”

Later in the article, a festival promoter who wished to remain anonymous added, “You plan for as much as you can, you rely on the police, and local intelligence agencies, but nobody on the festival side really. . . . I don’t know of any festivals that run active shooter drills or things like that.

“If you’re in a field in the middle of nowhere and you’ve got a private security team, you’d do things one way, in a downtown urban setting with the amount of officers and police that most of us deal with, you have conversations, you usually have plans in place if the worst happens.”

It’s human nature to want to know why something horrific happened, or what drove someone (in this case, Stephen Paddock) to deliberately try and assassinate thousands of people, so these tragedies can be prevented in the future. However, it’s sobering to realize there’s no clear-cut, failsafe solution — short of increased gun control — to ensure Las Vegas never happens again.

There’s no need to rehash America’s complicated history with the Second Amendment and gun regulations (after all, Twitter has plenty of examples and arguments for anyone interested), and legislators are long overdue to take concrete steps to address the root causes of mass shootings. But it’s also true that festivals aren’t going away because of the Vegas shooting: A 2016 study with survey data commissioned by ticketing platform Eventbrite found that avid festival-goers are huge reasons for the ongoing success of these music events. Overall, the concert industry is also a behemoth. Pollstar’s 2016 year-end report found that North America’s top 100 tours grossed $3.34 billion on the strength of 43.63 million tickets sold, both records.

It’s far too soon to speculate on what long-lasting changes will come from the Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting. However, the resilience, strength and fellowship shown by fans and artists alike illustrate that country music won’t be cowed or deterred by the murderous actions of one man.

Dan Savage knows a great sex story when he hears it

Dan Savage (Credit: Getty/Nicholas Hunt)

Dan Savage started out and continues to have a career with his Savage Love column and its companion podcast, in which he gives often salty advice to people writing or calling in with sex and relationship problems. So now he’s trying something new: Stepping aside and letting people tell their stories without quite so much editorializing about how they’re getting it all wrong.

With his new show “Hot Mic,” Savage plays host and referee while a series of often hilarious story tellers share their most embarrassing, strange or sexy experiences. The show features both high profile guests like Rachel Bloom from “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” or Cheryl Strayed of “Wild” fame but also stories from underground artists working storytelling venues around the country.

I interviewed Dan about his show and why storytelling about sex continues to hold so much fascination.

I like to listen to stories about peoples’ sex lives. I know you do. We can already get that through “Savage Love Cast,” so what makes “Hot Mic” different?

Well, these aren’t people asking for my help; these aren’t people asking questions. A lot of these people have figured their own shit out or just have a great story to tell. One reason people read advice columns is to not just vicariously experience shit or rubberneck at shit that they wouldn’t do. One reason we read stories is to vicariously learn from other people’s experiences, examples, problems. That is at play with “Hot Mic”: You learn from other people’s experiences, what they went through. Instead of me drawing the conclusion for the listener, it’s the storytellers themselves who work through it and have usually a lesson to draw from it.

I feel like storytelling is having a moment in our culture right now. There’s a lot more storytelling podcasts, series and efforts. What do you think is causing that?

Ira Glass.

There’s a lot of storytelling shows and podcast radio shows out there. “This American Life” is embedded in their DNA. Podcasting that made more space available for more people to share their stories. People like to hear other people’s stories. Particularly other people’s stories about sex and romance and relationships and disasters or successes. Those are particularly entertaining. Desire, heartbreak, heartache, a loss: These are all experiences that we share. Under whatever makes us different, gender or sexual orientation or tastes or interests, all that stuff is the frosting on a much thicker cake. What makes us different is minor and what unites us is major.

We’re in a time of a lot of divisiveness in this country, and I don’t mean to make everything political, but it’s nice to be reminded that we’re all human beings underneath all this and we kind of share certain things no matter what.

We like to share these stories because we all feel a bit helpless and out of control when it comes to sex and desire and lust in relationships. Because we are a little helpless and out of control, we like to pretend that we’re in charge of sex and we’re not. Sex is in charge of us. We’re responsible for our choices, but what we want is dictated to us. It’s not something that we choose.

We’re helpless, often, in the face of the independent actors that are other human beings, who may betray us or who we might betray. We all feel so vulnerable when sharing those stories.

It’s not just important for the story teller. It’s important for the listener to hear that other people are often just as hurt, just as vulnerable, just as nervous, just as lustful as you are. You really aren’t in this alone.

You mentioned Ira Glass and “This American Life.” This podcast is a little bit more in that vein, unlike “Savage Love Cast,” which has a more caustic, rowdy tone. Why did you decide to do a kind of different format and a different tone with this?

Well, it’s drawing on the best of storytelling shows out there about sexual relationships, but it’s the storytelling shows that couldn’t be on the radio. These people are telling truth about their sexuality and their sexual experiences and their romantic lives.

With “Savage Love” the column, I allowed people to use the language they actually used when talking about sex and relationships with their friends when they were drunk, as opposed to having [to] just slip into some sort of newspaper Sanskrit medical jargon.

That’s what these stories offer. People get up in front of a mic and tell their stories and be just as honest and just as vulgar at times and just as scolding or self lacerating or other lacerating as we are when we share our stories.

You do have the format of “This American Life,” but because it’s on Audible [as opposed to broadcast on radio], you can be a lot bolder in the language choices than they would be. And you know, it’s a funny show. 

Well, yeah, I’ve always said about sex, that we need to laugh about it, because we behave in ridiculous ways in pursuit of it. We look ridiculous feeling it. We feel ridiculous immediately afterwards. Then we get horny again and start all over.

Just in the same way we have to laugh about politics. The political situation right now could not be more dire, and yet we are turning to Colbert and we are turning to Samantha Bee and other comedians who are helping us get through this traumatizing political time. In a way, our sex and romantic lives are often traumatizing and we have to laugh.

I have to say the very first episode, which the theme was marriage proposals, left me kind of fucking traumatized.  The story the woman tells about going on a date, and her date proposed to another woman during the date.

I think the right attitude is to feel the fuck out of your feelings and have your sad and have your wallow. Then at a certain point, pivot and go, “At least I got a great story out of it.” She can dine out on that story for the rest of her life. Sometimes even [in] the worst experiences of your life you can find that silver lining.

The second episode that you’ve got is about ghosting. You come out pretty strongly against ghosting as a way of dumping somebody. Is this like a hard and fast rule for you, or is there a permissible amount of ghosting?

There are permissible amounts of ghosting. If you had a one night stand with someone and never heard from that person again. They were ghosted and they were really hurt. Well, it was a one night stand, how invested were you emotionally in that relationship? And if you’re so invested in it that you’re devastated to never hear from that person, the fault is yours. You made too large an emotional investment in someone that you just met and really don’t know, even though you wrapped your genitals together.

Still, I think people are cowardly when it comes to ending a relationship. Nobody wants ghosting done unto them. Well then, don’t fucking ghost on people. How hard is it to send a text? If nothing else to say, “Look, it was nice to know you and I wish you well, but this isn’t something I want to pursue.”

Some story tellers talk about just truly dressing someone down. Are you a fan of just dressing somebody down if they’ve done wrong, or should you just leave it alone?

I was a fan in my youth and childhood. I had a couple of epic breakup scenes, including once where I waited for the elevator doors to close and then broke up with this guy in college in a crowded elevator full of people, where he literally couldn’t escape while I dressed him down in front of people.

But ultimately no good comes of that. Eventually I grew up a little bit and thought well, I wouldn’t want that done to me or done unto me either. I got a little kinder.

I think at those moments when you’re going to dump someone you need to try to tap into just a little bit of what you liked about them in the first place. Because you don’t want to pull every edifice down and salt the earth on your way out.

One of the weird mysteries of human life is the way that the people that make us the happiest and excite us the most can also end up often being the people who piss us off the most too.

Everything you need to know you learn listening to musicals. [From] “Avenue Q”: “The more you love someone, the more you want to kill them.” So true and so wise.