Yesterday, the radio opera was “Capriccio” by Richard Strauss. It addresses the age-old questin of whether the music or the words are more important in an opera. It does this theough the mechanism of featuring a poet and a composer both in love with the same woman expecting her to choose between them, In the end, she can’t. Some people think that Strauss hid the answer in the scoring of the final scene. But those people don’t always agree in which choice they think she made. So I don’t believe that. Operas have succeeded with strong music and weak libretti, and also the other way around. And some have failed in both of those categories. But a strong libretto with strong music is also no guarantee of success – and a weak libretto with weak music may be a hit for a while (though it’s unlikely to be remembered long. But good ones can be forgotten also. Welp, I’m off to see Virgil. I will check in in a comment when I get home.
This is late for Thanksgiving, I grant. But Andy Borowitz‘s tips may give you a SUnday smile or at least a Sunday snicker. nd Christmas is coming. And there’s always next year. And, speaking of Andy, there’s a video here – it’s about 15 minutes and is very funny, though just at the very end you may want a tissue.
This also appears to be good news, although Republicans seem always to find ways to take the joy out of everything. The F* News is snarky, of course. But it appears to be baseline true.
I am going to give the Furies a long-overdue Sabbatical (OK, technically only 6 months overdue but they’re exhausted) and work with some of their relatives for a while – not weekly, but when I run across something which deserves attention.
And, just now, it looks as though Ares is taking some time away from Venus, or how else to you explain what is happening with weapons of war? Any veteran, even those who support the Second Amendment in general, will tell you that weapons of war should only be kept or used by the military, not least because the military knows far more than any civilian about how to keep them safe – and how to keep innocent people safe from them. They absolutely should not be in the possession of illicit gangs, above all. And who would know that better than the god of War?
Certainly, if Ares had recently had a little heart-to-heart with Andrés Manuel López Obrador – or possibly one or more members of his cabinet, that could explain what is going on here – which has been going on for some time, has achieved some successes, and now appears poised and able to press, in a United States court, a suit which could be a game changer.
=============================================================
Mexico is suing US gun-makers for arming its gangs − and a US court could award billions in damages
The lawsuit seeks US$10 billion in damages and a court order to force the companies named in the lawsuit – including Smith & Wesson, Colt, Glock, Beretta and Ruger – to change the way they do business. In January, a federal appeals court in Boston decided that the industry’s immunity shield, which so far has protected gun-makers from civil liability, does not apply to Mexico’s lawsuit.
As a legal scholar who has analyzed lawsuits against the gun industry for more than 25 years, I believe this decision to allow Mexico’s lawsuit to proceed could be a game changer. To understand why, let’s begin with some background about the federal law that protects the gun industry from civil lawsuits.
Gun industry immunity
In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prohibits lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for injuries arising from criminal misuse of a gun.
Importantly, there are limits to this immunity shield. For example, it doesn’t protect a manufacturer or seller who “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm. Mexico’s lawsuit alleges that U.S. gun-makers aided and abetted illegal weapons sales to gun traffickers in violation of federal law.
According to the lawsuit, the manufacturers intentionally design their weapons to be attractive to criminal organizations in Mexico by including features such as easy conversion to fully automatic fire, compatibility with high-capacity magazines and removable serial numbers.
Mexico also points to industry marketing that promises buyers a tactical military experience for civilians. And Mexico alleges that manufacturers distribute their products to dealers whom they know serve as transit points for illegal gunrunning through illegal straw sales, unlicensed sales at gun shows and online, and off-book sales disguised as inventory theft.
In short, Mexico claims that illegal gun trafficking isn’t just an unwanted byproduct of the industry’s design choices, marketing campaigns and distribution practices. Instead, according to the lawsuit, feeding demand for illegal weapons is central to the industry’s business model.
In response, the gun-makers insist that Mexico’s attempt to hold them legally responsible for the criminal activity of others is precisely the type of lawsuit that the federal immunity shield was designed to block. They argue that merely selling a product that someone later uses in a crime does not amount to a violation of federal law that would deprive a manufacturer of immunity. Additionally, the gun-makers assert that, even if Mexico’s lawsuit were not barred by the immunity law, they have no legal duty to prevent criminal violence that occurs outside the U.S.
The next legal steps
In January 2024, a federal appeals court in Massachusetts decided that Mexico’s allegations, if true, would deprive the gun-makers of immunity, and it sent the case back to trial court. Mexico now needs to produce evidence to prove its allegations that the industry is not only aware of but actively facilitates illegal gun trafficking.
Additionally, to win, Mexico will need to convince a Boston jury that the manufacturers’ design choices, marketing campaigns and distribution practices are closely enough connected to street crime in Mexico to consider the companies responsible for the problem. This is known as “proximate cause” in the law.
For their part, the gun-makers have asked the trial judge to put the case on hold while they pursue an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to weigh in on gun industry cases until they have reached their conclusion in the lower courts, where most of them are dismissed and a few have settled.
High stakes for the industry
If Mexico does win at trial, its demand for $10 billion in damages could drive several of the nation’s largest firearm manufacturers into bankruptcy. Even if the case were to settle for much less, a victory by Mexico would provide a template for a wave of future lawsuits that could change the way the gun industry operates.
Similar theories about dangerous product designs, irresponsible marketing and reckless distribution practices in opioid litigation have transformed the pharmaceutical industry. Civil lawsuits have forced the drugmakers to take public responsibility for a nationwide health crisis, overhaul the way they do business and pay billions of dollars in judgments and settlements.
Mexico’s lawsuit holds out the prospect that the gun industry could be next.
==============================================================
Give it all you’ve got, Ares! Or, wait, please save aome energy to build up Ukraine and help them permanently and decisively preserve their independence. Thank you.
