What's in a name?

Eric S. Raymond has recently posted an intriguing idea on his blog, The Order of Defenders:

I wrote the above after thinking about Rudyard Kipling’s Ritual of the Iron Ring for newly-graduated engineers.

Rituals like this exist to express and formalize what is best in us.

The Order of Defenders does not exist. Perhaps it should.

 I found myself largely in agreement with the sentiments and intents I believed were being expressed by Mr. Raymond, with one rather large exception; who were the intended candidates for the role of Dedicant?

Rudyard Kipling was a more-than-a-little embittered proponent of Victorian Britain's Empire who frequently bemoaned the lack of manly forthrightness evidenced by his fellows in continuing expansion of said empire. While I can appreciate Kipling's frustration-inspired prose, and have little difficulty translating it to frustrating circumstances I find in my own time and place in the universe, I am also of the opinion that those of what can loosely be termed "the Harry Potter generation" (for the purposes of this essay, those born in the 20-odd year period of 1985 to 2005, give or take a half-decade either way) seem unlikely to share the requisite grasp of historical context to spontaneously do so for themselves.

With this difficulty in mind, I proposed re-naming Mr. Raymond's concept as follows:

 I suggest the title, Order Of Defenders, is too Teutonic and feudal in sentiment and therefore too easily vilified and de-contextualized. As an alternative, I suggest the following: The Proponents of The Practicum of Equilibertalious. The membership consisting of those who, through their considered statements and routine actions in the course of ordinary life, personify the beliefs codified in the Practicum they individually swore oath to. The word “equilibertalious” is literally a Harry Potterization of the sentiment: equal liberty for all of us. Thus, a Proponent of The Practicum (individually referred to as a Practicant) of Equilibertalious is one who has sworn an oath before witnesses to live life in compliance with the terms of the oath.

I crafted the admittedly silly-sounding word "equilibertalious" specifically to make use of the Potter-world habit of manufacturing words of power for spell-casting purposes by creating mouth noises that consist in large part of fractions of the words that express the intent of the spell caster. In this example, the intentions of the one seeking admission into the group whose existing membership exemplifies the ideals of equal liberty for all to pursue individual success in cooperation with like-minded others. Yes, that rather downplays the potential contingency of violent defense implicit to the fundamental concept.

It would seem that deliberately structuring a concept to attract the easy recognition of the intended audience is simply too silly an idea to merit more than the briefest of dismissal.

Well, I have been wrong before.

Still, I do wonder if Mr. Raymond hasn't crafted an elaborate troll, rather than suggested a serious idea. If virtue signalling the a priori propriety of one's assumptions regarding the validity of firearms ownership specifically, and one assumes violence-based socio/political stances generally (concepts I by-and-large share with Mr. Raymond, I believe), is the sole purpose of his post, then "Well Done, You!" Mr. Raymond. Once again, the error is mine own. For taking his words at face value. For attempting serious consideration of how such concepts might be enacted (because ideas such as these are never just the one thing they are predicated upon). For developing what I sincerely believe to be modifications to the basic concept that offer greater possibility of success for the idea becoming actual practice.

More fool me, it seems.

On the chance that the idea Mr. Raymond has proposed is a serious suggestion, of creating a fraternal organization that provides its membership with individual purpose and mission, that relies upon the cooperation of the membership with each other to achieve success, I encourage you to go and RTWT. It's an idea worth serious consideration that seems to have merit well beyond the foundational condition of individual gun ownership. You should go offer your thoughts as well.

A More Perfect Union?

It was bound to happen, given the utter lack of organization amongst the digital content creator class. Someone was going to have the bright idea and, more importantly, the ability to make the essential connections necessary to begin creation (there's that word again) of an effort to counter the often arbitrary (when not outright malicious) seeming behavior of the digital content viewing platforms. Right now it's You Tube under the gun, but Facebook and Twitter to name only two others can expect their turn soon enough. As of now the You Tube Union is mostly vaporware (and with that being so, I hereby suggest that the final name of such an organization be: The Creatives Union - there are more than just creators involved after all). There is a negotiated affiliation with IG Metall, advertised to be the single largest labor union in all of Europe, and there are efforts underway to bring You Tube management to the bargaining table, but beyond that little can be known as little has been accomplished in the copious spare seconds that remain. Yet. Now is the time for we the membership to speculate on what and how those expected accomplishments might take shape.

In traditional form, labor unions have an international level of organization for dealing with labor issues having origin in international agreements and organisations, and a You Tube Union (hereafter: YTU) necessarily would require the same given the (for now at least merely) planetary scope of its potential membership (looking right at you Elon Musk). Below that (or as an integrated component of the international part in a better designed organizational structure) is the national level of union representation of its membership. It has to be acknowledged that national governments are the only entities that have the inherent infrastructure (legal, financial and otherwise) to enforce their declarations at the lawful point of a gun; international agencies and organizations all derive whatever authority they claim as a result of treaties negotiated between nation states delegating such authority to them. This is why I insist that a well organized union considers national and international representation of its members to be one single level of union management, since "international law" is really just a hodge podge of convoluted, and surprisingly often actually contradictory, treaties between nations that are frequently being enforced by a third party (all of whom famously have their own set of priorities to bring to any negotiating table). The primary theater of contention for even the most expansive union has to be structured around successfully representing the individual membership within the constraints of the legal code in force in the jurisdiction of the nation state (levels within levels here) the individual members live and work in; international (and presumably extra-planetary) agreements between nations (and others) are, as a practical matter, enforced within the legal codes of the nations involved.

Beyond the "upper" management level, there is the Local. There are a variety of forms and functions associated with the phrase "the union local", but certainly one of those has to be organization. Any unions primary membership recruitment effort simply has to be centered around the various union Local offices, but now is not too soon to begin developing the necessary standards and practices guidance for stewards along with the membership information necessary for members to understand what they and their union can and can't expect of each other. In a traditional union arrangement, these offices are as close to the membership's place(s) of work as can be arranged; sometimes this is across the street from a factory, sometimes it's a centrally located address within a given geographical setting like a city or county, for instance. For a union serving a membership that "works" in a digital environment (in quotes only because that's where the product of so much labor appears to the critical other half of the membership), there will have to be a blend of the meat space aspect with the cyber space components. So to speak. I suggest a YTU Local might best consist of an online portal that principally provides a means of contact to one or more Stewards living and working in an identified geographical region, along with a business contact for the union office itself (even virtual offices have bills to pay and services to arrange for). Knowing where to identify who "your" Steward is and making contact with him/her (I ain't playing the pronoun game, this is complex enough) (now you know why I was considered a competent but not especially "good" steward myself :)) must be considered of primary importance in the design of any such web page. Advertising links and Local announcements would have their place too. Education is always a part of any good union; once again, now is the time for we the members to begin identifying what we want.

Another activity centered around a union Local office is that of "initial representation". Any member of a union is, by simple dint of membership, entitled to representation at need. This isn't always a union steward or representative jumping into a conflict between a member and some low-level member of company management (upper levels of company management start with the Arbitrators who, if they aren't trained lawyers themselves are accompanied by same, and who are the intervening level between the Stewards and the National/International level of union leadership); indeed, most frequently this involves being available to give advice and specific counsel to a member prior to a conflict arising, thus the common title given to Local union officers of "Steward" - that individual entrusted with the primary duty of providing good stewardship to the membership.

It simply has to be acknowledged here that often as not said good stewardship requires "counselling" said member out of being an idiot - if you can simultaneously convince them this is all their own idea, you're a very good steward.

Union Stewards have to be sufficient in number to assure availability to individual member's need, while not being an unnecessary financial burden on the membership (what? you didn't think this was all paid for by the "good steward fairy" did you? I didn't make a big deal about it above, but the primary duty of international management is to make sure everybody stays "paid in full" on the membership dues front; never think otherwise). The YTU doesn't have sufficient structure to even ask for dues yet, but never doubt that day is approaching as rapidly as can be contrived. And the sooner the better; without the financial means provided by membership dues there can be no legal representation aspect to membership representation during on-going negotiations with You Tube management, for only one example (lawyers are good people too - stop laughing! - but human generosity has its limits and being able to feed one's family is one of the more common and earlier limits known). My daughter has an MBA and my daughter-in-law is an accountant; both of them earn their living counting Other People's Money, and unions need to be able to pay people to do that too - not least in the role of Forensic Accountant of opposition company financial claims. Dues are coming, so now is the time to begin deciding what specifically you want in exchange.

So, examples of how all of this might take place in the future are limited only by the imaginations of You Tube creatives, but here are a couple examples that I as a member of the YTU can think of.

Podcasters don't necessarily also have You Tube channels, but many do and Joe Rogan has to be considered one of the most successful of those who do both. Film and television actor, stand-up comedian, ringside fight commentator for UFC and creator and host of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast and The JRE You Tube channel, the expression "Joe Rogan money" by rights ought to be much more commonly used by others than is actually the case, so it can be fairly said that of all the potential members for a YTU he is seemingly the one least in need of representation - obviously, he's doing alright all on his own. And Well Done to him for it; hard work deserves what it earns. Conversely, he is also the one You Tube creator who is most likely to want to be a member. Joe Rogan has made the point numerous times on the JRE podcast that he goes to considerable lengths to support up-and-comers in the stand-up comedy business - all of whom are arguably his professional competition. He does so "to grow the stand up world, and add to the list of people I can have fun with" or words to that effect. YT creator channels don't provide quite the same degree of spontaneity or personal contact that stand-up comedy seems to, but all of the other elements of professional growth and camaraderie seem to be present. If anyone is institutionally inclined to developing and supporting an organization that develops and supports people much like himself, that person has to be Joe Rogan. I'm not talking money here; yes, Joe Rogan can easily afford any annual dues any other content creator on You Tube can. What he can't do is afford is to fight alone against the mob come the day Kevin Smith and the Hollywood Vegan Mafia come after him at You Tube HQ over his hunting content or some other gaggle of special snowflakes people begin an organized rant about his "violent martial arts" content (and I'm only being slightly facetious here - since recovering from his heart attack last year, what began out of respect for his daughter's vegan beliefs regarding health benefits appears to have lately become something substantially else). Best wishes to Kevin Smith for his continued recovery of health and growth as a digital creator, but it's called "the dark side" for good reason and we're watching. As for Joe Rogan, any serious martial arts student understands the practical utility of allies, and if he is anything Joe Rogan is a martial artist.

Along with membership dues, YTU membership ought to provide organization, and not just in the Saul Alinsky model (although some of that will be involved too). There are several You Tube channels I watch regularly, among them the following three (four? not sure how to count this one): SRKCycles along with their second channel Bikes and Beards, Dr. Brent Binder's channel Chiropractic Medicine, and a really innovative channel featuring The Philadelphia Barber Co.'s Andy Fischer (among others) Beardbrand.

SRK Cycles buys and sells used motorcycles, and all the partners wear beards and still have full heads of hair. Now unlike driving a car, you have to ride a motorcycle and this involves using - and occasionally overusing -  its own set of muscles. Dr. Brent Binders office in Harrisburg PA seemingly isn't far from the SRK location, so arranging for both to create videos involving each other's respective audiences in their mutual experience of each other areas of expertise would seem a natural benefit for a YTU Steward to organize. If some is good, more is better amirite? Andy Fischer's barber chair is in Philadelphia, only a short drive down the highway from both of the other two PA-based You Tubers. The SRK guys need haircuts and beard trims periodically, Andy clearly needs to get away from that damn train; admittedly, Dr. Brent is going to pose a professional challenge for her, but he usually does wear a beard, so there is that for her to work with. Now our YTU steward has organized three distinct audiences into mutual appreciation (or at least awareness) of channels involving activities they might not otherwise ever come in contact with. YTU can further assist by providing the means to track distinct audience participation in cross-over channel efforts. By providing each channel with a code to include when audience members buying anything off any of the other participating channels, a percentage of the proceeds can be applied to the originating channel's coffers (with maybe a small taste to the YTU's as-yet hypothetical deep pockets?). This is a sale that couldn't otherwise be expected, and there may be advantages to be had through each channel's marketing budget come tax time (the sort of advice and counsel unions famously offer as member benefits - usually in the form of links to businesses like Turbo Tax, but you get the idea) (is there a tax preparation website for businesses like digital content creators? No idea).

There is a particular digital content creative market that I want to suggest we begin work to recruit into our union, Porn Hub (and you're going to have to provide your own link here :)). If there is any single player in the digital content creation market that is more secure from outside attacks to inhibit (never mind remove) it's individual content creators product than Porn Hub is, I can't think of it. It would be necessary to make sure that Porn Hub's more usual content isn't available to the YTU general membership (except in the established way, of course), but a partnership with Porn Hub would provide YTU content creators with a product outlet immune to the types of attacks and censorship those makers of icky gun content, hunting content, violent content, and quilting!?! content find themselves subjected to on You Tube currently. Members of a Creatives Union would probably always find it useful to continue publishing their content on You Tube, along with the other alternative sites, but having a fundamentally secure site like Porn Hub can provide is seemingly an option any union worth the name ought to vigorously investigate.

There are so many possibilities before us and now is the time for we members of the nascent You Tube Union to make our hopes and desires known and otherwise become involved in growing and developing our union. Will you join me in campaigning to ultimately change the name to The Creatives Union? What do you want to see from your union membership? I'm pretty sure it still works, so feel free to comment below.

Righting Gun Wrongs

Despite my exercise of Point of Personal Privilege in his comment section recently (see: here), I quite admire Kevin Baker's writing(s) on firearms, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, and human rights generally (a few days off escaping the day-to-day cares of life can be spent to good effect in his side bar :)), and I wish to take this opportunity to point out another of his essays: Universal Background Checks. As is usually the case with a Kevin Baker essay, there's a lot involved which makes summarizing challenging, but I think this captures the essence:

Everything you do in the U.S. (with the notable exception of VOTING) requires a state-issued photo ID.

• Alcohol? ID
• Tobacco? ID
• Buy or rent a place to live? ID
• Buy a car from a dealer? ID
• Travel by commercial air? ID
• Check into a hotel? ID
• Purchase Sudafed? ID

Anyway, you get the point. So here’s my suggestion:

Everybody who needs a state-issued ID gets a background check and a new ID. If you are a prohibited person, somewhere on that ID will be this symbol:

If you’re not prohibited, you get a green circle (don’t want to trigger the sensitive by putting an icky gun on their ID). Everyone that already has a driver’s license or a state-issued photo ID gets a new one with one of the two symbols. Any new IDs issued, the applicant gets the background check.

As he later acknowledges, this would entail some considerable added expense (and I think might come into conflict with already established Smart ID legislation now universal to all states in the USA), but I concur with his judgement that, "It’ll cost a lot of money and won’t prevent any crimes, but that’s what “gun control” usually does. But hey, we’re DOING SOMETHING!!"

I have an alternative suggestion to Kevin's and hope to read his (and your) thoughts in response.

Since the US Constitution, specifically to include all of the amendments thereto, is an empowering document to all legislation within the USA, I suggest that a national form of ID - while generally along the lines suggested by Kevin - would be the more constitutionally consistent approach to addressing the undeniable problems that are part-and-parcel of the individual responsibility that comes with American national citizenship and legal residence. 

The US Constitution already requires a decennial census of all US citizens and residents, which neatly provides Congress with an already established government function whereby unlawful gun ownership fears might be substantially addressed. The United States doesn't have any form of civil national identification (as opposed to US military or government employee/contractor identification) other than a US passport, which is intended for use outside the boundaries of the country. My alternative to Kevin's suggested state-level ID is the creation of a United States Voter Registration Card explicitly as a form of national identification card for all US citizens and legal residents, irrespective of their personal employment status, state of residence, or other demographic classification.

By making a standard background check (effectively identical to that already in use for firearms purchase) a part of the decennial census process, we create a national identification document that clearly states each person's status to vote and to lawfully participate in all other activities constitutionally guaranteed to a citizen of the United States. Or not. Making a distinction between eligibility to exercise the right to vote (or other constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, many of which are age or otherwise restricted already) wouldn't have to be nearly as garish as the means suggested by Kevin, wouldn't necessarily be all that much more expensive than the existing census function (I presume here that there actually is an existing effort made to verify the respondents statements made as part of the census process), and might even prove actually effective in helping manage the unintended consequences associated with citizenship and legal residence in our Constitutional Republic.

As Kevin noted in his blog post excerpted above, there are already established forms of state issued identification intended for a variety of applications. By requiring presentation of a valid Voter Registration Card as part of the background check process already in place, we create a national database against which to compare state documentation already required to prove eligibility to exercise the freedoms guaranteed to citizens by the US Constitution, in this example to purchase a firearm. Form 4473 (the .gov document used to itemize eligibility to purchase a firearm) already requires a statement of nationality from the purchaser under penalty of perjury, so requiring presentation of a national ID document that corroborates this declaration (also made under penalty of perjury) doesn't seem to me to be excessively abusive to exercise of one's rights. Such a system needn't interfere with the already established process whereby citizens and legal residents of the United States who go through the modest expense and effort required to obtain a state-issued concealed handgun license (or whatever your state calls such an ID) to be exempt from the background check process at time of purchase, and indeed would offer a means to regularly submit all citizens and legal residents to the background check process entirely separate from (additional to?) that required by any state's concealed handgun licensing requirements. An added layer of security protecting citizen's exercise of their rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution, as it were.

Gun writer and columnist Tamara Keel has made the point on her blog in times past that she requires display of a drivers license/ID issued by the state she resides in from anyone she sells one of her guns to as a matter of personal privilege (I hasten to point out that Tam is not a licensed firearms dealer and thus - like every other American - has no legal obligation to do so under existing US law, but has been buying for her personal pleasure a modestly impressive collection of firearms for some years now, which she upon occasion finds useful to turn some item from that collection into cash to subsidize other of her interests - demonstrating the blatant nature of the deliberate falsehood entailed in the phrase "gun show loophole" not coincidentally). I leave to the consideration of my fellow citizens whether, or to what extent, such a custom ought to be enshrined explicitly in law. Personally it is my opinion that making such an individual obligation (to assure ones self of the mutual legality of a private transaction) a legal requirement might be more usefully enshrined within existing laws enacted under the auspices of the 14th Amendment than otherwise, but IANAL (and aren't we all grateful for that?  :))

One final note from Kevin Baker, who has the well exercised habit of saying things so well:

You want to buy a gun, whether from an individual or a FFL dealer? Show your ID. If the red symbol is on it, no sale. If NO symbol is on it, no sale. If you don’t have ID, no sale. If you do something that makes you a prohibited person, you must turn in your ID for one that has the red symbol. If you don’t, five years in Club Fed on top of whatever sentence you got for the crime that disqualified you.

The state can’t build a database of gun owners, and everybody who wants to buy a gun gets a background check. That’s what I call “compromise.”

"The state can't build a database of gun owners", precisely because everybody (who isn't in some fashion a "prohibited person" due to age or whatever) is effectively licensed to be a gun owner as an explicit function of their citizenship. It is already against US law for the US government to require retention of firearms sales data beyond - three years? - by FFL's, and this particular prohibition shouldn't change as a result of these efforts.

Protecting the exercise of individual citizens freedoms as guaranteed under the US Constitution is of at least equal importance to protecting those same citizens from the illegal actions of those who choose to abuse the exercise of those guaranteed freedoms (far too many of whom sadly are also fellow citizens). Spending the money necessary to better achieve those two objectives rightly ought to take precedence as a national, state, and local legislative priority. A United States Voter Registration Card explicitly designed to function as a national identity card based upon the decennial national population census, is a mechanism whereby to achieve those priorities and is my suggestion of a "compromise" that all US citizens and legal residents can comfortably and (at least arguably more) securely live with.

How say you all?

Update: I see I've entirely failed to mention any possible time line for this process. How about something like this?

President Trump has famously said that citizenship will be one of the questions asked as part of the 2020 census. Beginning in 2023, all citizens and legal residents of the USA regardless of state of residence, may apply for a Voter Registration Card ID by including copies (Issuing state database links more probably) of their existing state-issued ID along with their 2020 census data as part of the application process. Such ID to be valid until two years after completion of the next scheduled decennial population census, whereupon issuance of replacement ID cards will be automatic.

That shouldn't be too hard to improve upon.

Yo! Dankula!

Hold my beer:

http://www.kimdutoit.com/2019/08/05/monday-funnies-70/

Comment #2.