You Can’t Handle the Truth

I find the NBC coverage of the long jump at the Rio Olympics frustrating. The landing area is clearly marked off in meters, but the announcers report distances in feet and inches. I can estimate the length of a jump in meters by simply watching, but I have to engage in mental gymnastics to make sense of a reported jump of, say, 23 feet, 5½ inches. Reporting 7.15 meters would make more sense and make the results more intelligible.

Does NBC really believe that Americans as so wedded to the English system of measurement that they can’t be trusted with lengths measured in meters, which, after all, are so much easier to compare with one another?

Another PPDI

Yesterday, I updated my list of base-12 pluperfect digital invariants (PPDIs) on my Web site. An order-9 PPDI had been omitted from the original list:

[11][11][7][3][3][2][2][9][5]₁₂

which is 5,145,662,993 in decimal notation.

I had corrected this omission earlier, but, as any programmer knows, correcting one error often introduces another, and it did so in this case. In the unlikely chance that someone reading this blog post is relying on my list, please be sure that you have examined the revised list for order-9 and order-10 base-12 PPDIs.

I apologize for the error(s).

I am compiling a list of base-13 PPDIs, but this project will take a long time.

The Greatest Man in the World

Originality can be an elusive thing. I had been planning to write an essay about the candidacy of Donald Trump and the James Thurber short story “The Greatest Man in the World.” A preliminary Google search, however, uncovered an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times along the lines of what I had planned to write. The Patt Morrison essay, titled “Donald Trump and ‘The Greatest Man in the World’”—imagine that—was published nearly a year ago, on September 16, 2015.

James Grover Thurber

The Thurber story appeared in the February 21, 1931, issue of The New Yorker, nearly four years after Charles Lindbergh’s famous solo flight across the Atlantic. (The story was reprinted in The Middle-Aged Man on the Flying Trapeze and The Thurber Carnival.) It concerns a boorish loudmouth pilot, Jacky Smurch, who flies around the world nonstop. When Smurch lands, he is whisked away by what we might today call members of the Establishment, who proceed to cajole the loutish pilot into acting the part of a gentleman hero. Finding this project untenable, the secretary to the Mayor of New York City, with the tacit approval of the President of the United States, pushes Smurch out the window, resulting in his untimely death. Smurch is given an elaborate funeral and buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
 
“Why is this story about Trump?” Morrison asks. “Because for the Republican establishment, Trump is a better-class Jacky Smurch.” Not much better, I would argue. The question posed in the L.A. Times is whether the GOP establishment will figuratively (I assume) throw Trump out the window or whether Trump will do the same to the GOP establishment.

In September of last year, of course, the threat of Trump’s actually becoming the Republican nominee was only theoretical. The need for the party to act is now even more urgent. I don’t expect Reince Priebus literally to defenestrate Donald Trump, but the RNC could withdraw its support in the hope of saving the hides of down-ticket GOP candidates. At this point, however, it is really unclear whether pretending that Trump is a reasonable candidate or admitting that he isn’t will do the party more good.

Morrison suggested that the country may no longer prefer civilized—my word, not hers—candidates. I sincerely hope that this isn’t the case. We cannot afford a Jacky Smurch President of the United States.

How Would Jesus Vote?

The 2016 presidential race is certainly unusual. Both major candidates are widely disliked. One is distrusted by many, though the other seems to be a pathological liar, a fact that would seem to discourage trust. One has a strong résumé, but the other has no obviously relevant experience. One fails to excite voters; the other excites voters rather too much.

For good or ill, many Democrats will vote for the Democrat, and many Republicans will vote for the Republican. But more voters than usual seem to be conflicted this year. No doubt, many votes will be cast against one of the candidates rather than for the other. Some people will be tempted to vote for a third-party candidate.

A relatively small number of people will vote for the Green Party or the Libertarian Party candidates out of true sympathy for what those parties stand for. A much larger number will likely vote for a third-party candidate as a “protest.” I can respect the former view, though I am not in sympathy with their political philosophy. The protest voters, on the other hand, need to realize that their candidate will not win and their and similar votes could have an unpredictable (and perhaps disastrous) effect on who, of the serious candidates, will actually win. Delivering a protest vote is simply an abdication of one’s civic responsibility.

I am pleased that a woman is running for president, though I am not completely happy that that woman is Hillary Clinton. Nonetheless, Clinton is certainly qualified and is a compassionate and sane human being. The same cannot be said of her Republican opponent. Voting for Hillary Clinton is, I think, the only responsible action a citizen can take on November 8.

It is distressing that so many people who call themselves Christians, particularly Evangelical Christians, are supporting Donald Trump. To these people I ask, “How would Jesus vote?” Can any Christian honestly answer “Donald Trump,” the man Senator Elizabeth Warren rightly described as caring only about himself, “a small, insecure money-grubber who doesn’t care who gets hurt, so long as he makes some money off it”? Does The Donald exemplify any of the virtues Jesus extols in the Gospels? Clinton, on the other hand, has led a life of public service with a particular emphasis on child welfare. She is not a saint, but she seems to be a sincere Methodist, whereas Donald Trump appears to be a Presbyterian (and, indeed, Christian) in name only. For whom do you think Jesus would vote were he a U.S. citizen today? It wouldn’t be Trump, and it wouldn’t be a third-party candidate. The Kingdom of God would not be advanced by any of those votes.

Because I believe that “How Would Jesus Vote?” is a devastating question, I have had buttons made with that legend. I plan to wear one of the buttons every day from now until November 8. If you would like to buy one or more buttons, send me a message to that effect. I’ll need to order more, and, since this is not a profit-making enterprise, I don’t want to order more than I need to. I invite you to wear one of these buttons proudly (well, perhaps modestly).

First in Freedom

While driving around town today, I found myself behind a car with a North Carolina license plate. For many years, North Carolina plates have carried the legend “First in Flight,” a reference to the Wright brothers flight experiments near Kitty Hawk. (Whether the Wrights were the first inventors to fly a heavier-than-air vehicle is an issue I don’t want to get into.)

The license plate on the North Carolina car I saw did not carry the “First in Flight” logo. Instead, it proclaimed “First in Freedom.” What was less visible while driving in traffic were two dates at the top edge of the plate. The dates were May 20, 1775, and April 20, 1776. The North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles explains that these are the dates the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence and the Halifax Resolves, respectively, were signed.

I have to admit that the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence and the Halifax Resolves were not the first things that popped into my mind when I saw “First in Freedom.” What I thought of was the gerrymandering by the North Carolina General Assembly and the various laws it has passed recently to make it harder for people (especially people would don’t look like the white folks in the North Carolina General Assembly) to vote or to use the most logical public restroom.

North Carolina may have been first in freedom chronologically, but it is at the back of the pack when it comes to actually delivering freedom to its citizens. Apparently, the irony was lost of the state’s legislators. Now, North Carolina should have a “First in Discrimination” license plate. Or a new General Assembly.

Language Oddities on NPR

I’ve heard a couple of odd locutions on NPR in the last few days. One of these was on Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me!. The odd phrasing was part of an underwriting announcement. I can’t be too specific about what I heard because I wasn’t taking notes when I heard the program on the radio, and the podcast doesn’t include underwriting announcements. Anyway, the announcement warned against someone “pretending to impersonate” someone else.

Roger Ailes

To impersonate someone, of course, is to pretend to be that person. It isn’t clear what “pretending to impersonate” someone is. Presumably, if you are only pretending impersonation, you aren’t impersonating at all. Or maybe you’re just doing so badly. Actually, I don’t know what you’re doing. I suspect the warning was about actual impersonating, and the copy, which I’ve heard multiple times, is just poorly written. That I cannot remember the sponsor certainly suggests as much.

On today’s Diane Rehm Show, Gabriel Sherman used an odd phrase, though not really an incomprehensible one. The topic of the morning was sexual harassment at Fox News, particularly on the part of former Fox News head Roger Ailes. Writer Sherman reported having heard stories from many women who had worked under Ailes over the years. Although the women had not spoken to one another, Sherman described their stories of harassment as remarkably similar. “And so,” he concluded, “I find their stories incredibly credible.” Although “incredibly credible” seems oxymoronic, it is clear that Sherman simply meant that the stories were exceedingly believable. (It is almost unbelievable how believable they are, under the circumstances.) He should have said something more straightforward.

Three More Episcopal Church Advertisements

My original 16 proposed Episcopal Church advertisements have proven popular. Readers have suggested copy for additional ads. Although I linked to advertisements with the suggested texts in the comments of my original post, I thought it would be helpful to put them into a separate post as well. The resulting advertisements follow. As before, larger versions are available by clicking on the images.

1. Agatha Nolen suggested this one.
   
   
   
   
   
2. Mark Riley suggested this one.
   
   
   
   
   
3. The idea in this one is related to some of my original advertisements, but it is somewhat different. It is based on another suggestion by Mark Riley.
   
   
   

Trump Ain’t No Ronald Reagan

Gritting my teeth for over an hour, I listened to Donald J. Trump’s acceptance speech last night. It was notable for what Trump pledged to do, without hinting at how it might be accomplished or how the candidate might be qualified to effect it.

Oddly, the Donald’s speech followed an introduction by Ivanka Trump, which could have more easily introduced Hillary Clinton. After her speaking of helping new mothers, Donald Trump said nothing about what was in her remarks. Instead, he painted a dystonian picture of America and how he is the only person who can fix everything wrong in our country. Ronald Reagan’s Morning in America was but a distant memory as America entered the dark night of our discontent.

Postscript: Andrew McLaughlin provided a moment of dark humor for the night. In a tweet, he wrote “Trump’s speech sounds better in the original German.

Update, 3:10 PM: William F. Hammond suggested a variation on the above graphic using the first logo that the Trump/Pence campaign quickly abandoned. This is shown below. Larger views of each of these graphics may be had by clicking on them.

Never, Never, Never Ever Trump

Three days ago, I wrote the post “Never Trump” after reading Jane Mayer’s New Yorker piece about Tony Schwartz, who ghostwrote the bestselling The Art of the Deal. Based on his extensive observation of Donald J. Trump in the course of his daily business, Schwartz has attempted to warn America that, irrespective of any policy the Republican candidate for president might or might not articulate, his personality is totally unsuitable to leading the United States of America.

As if to prove Trump’s meanspiritedness and lack of ordinary perspective—he is about to become the presidential candidate of a major political party after all—Jane Mayer reported yesterday that, through his lawyer, Trump sent Schwartz a cease & desist letter that, among other outrageous demands, requests the return of all royalties earned by Schwartz on the book that helped make Trump famous. Mayer’s story is “Donald Trump Threatens the Ghostwriter of ‘The Art of the Deal’.” Mayer includes the letter from Trump’s lawyer and the dismissive reply from Schwartz’s lawyer. Trump is clearly trying to suppress all the negative things Schwartz has been saying about him, both in The New Yorker and on television.

One characteristic trait of Donald J. Trump that is indisputable, given to the overwhelming evidence of the public record, is that he brings lawsuits against people at the drop of a hat. This is clearly not because Trump is the target of the world population out to persecute him. It is instead evidence of a deep insecurity that someone, somehow, in even the most minor fashion, might gain something—anything—at his expense.

Trump has a serious anger-management problem. It is one thing to sue a writer for having a well-supported, if unfavorable, opinion of the New York tycoon. It would be quite another if Trump had control of the nuclear button. If Vladimir Putin slighted a President Trump, would the Donald start a nuclear war to protect his delicate ego? The answer is not clearly “no.”

As for the present situation, the threat to Schwartz is negligible. As a public figure, Schwartz can say outrageous and demonstrably false things about Trump and not liable the Donald. Trump has done nothing more than publicize his petulance.

That said, there is another concern here. There seems to be a trend of billionaires suiting anyone who has displeased them and, if not winning in court, at least ruining the object of their ire. This is yet another way our legal system is unfair, and it is something we should be doing something about.

Tooting The Episcopal Church’s Horn

When I matriculated at the University of Chicago as a physics major, I had no thought of joining a fraternity. Had I considered it, I would have thought doing so frivolous. When rush began, I found it easy to resist the promotions of most of the fraternities on campus. The advertising of one fraternity, though, was different. It was quirky and intriguing. A couple of my close friends and I had to check out the source. I am now a brother of Alpha Delta Phi.

It seems that my church, The Episcopal Church, is in a position similar to that of the Chicago fraternities. There are many denominations vying for attention. Many people have a hard time distinguishing one from another, and others are indifferent to the whole lot. I don’t think that we have been successful, either locally or nationally, at promoting our church.

And yet, I believe The Episcopal Church has much to offer. I admit that it is not for everyone, but I think it is the perfect Christian church for some folks, including some who aren’t looking for a church at all. On the other hand, if someone finds a comfortable spiritual home in, say, a Southern Baptist church, both God and I can rejoice.

Maybe The Episcopal Church could learn from the recruiting strategies of the Chicago Chapter of Alpha Delta Phi in the mid-60s. The chapter had not been too successful at attracting new brothers, and it was thought that only by trying something completely different could a seemingly inevitable decline be averted. Hence, the campaign that lured me in.

Does that situation sound familiar? Perhaps we can raise the profile of The Episcopal Church and draw in new people for whom our church is an attractive spiritual home, even if they are not actively looking for such a home.

With this thought in mind, I constructed some proposed Episcopal Church advertisements that highlight what I believe are some of our church’s special strengths. I worded these with the intention of contrasting with the “Christian” positions often seen in the mainstream media. I tried to be intriguing in the same way that Alpha Delta Phi advertising was intriguing when I was a Chicago undergraduate.

What you find below is my third set of advertisements. Episcopal friends on Facebook have my sincere thanks for helping me eliminate ill-conceived items and improve those that survived the bad-idea filter. I had intended to include additional advertisements involving liturgy and music, but my attempts resulted in arcane text or text of questionable generality. Readers are invited to help me out, on these or existing topics.

Until now, my advertising project has essentially been academic. However, I would be delighted if churches actually used what I have produced. I am even willing to customize advertisements for individual churches, substituting, for example, “St. Swithin’s in the Swamp Episcopal Church” for “The Episcopal Church.” If you’re interested in using these advertisements, please contact me (see contact link in the sidebar at the right).

Sixteen proposed advertisements follow. Click on any one for a larger version.

1. This is one of my favorites. The Episcopal Church has avoided developing confessions of faith, remaining content with the most ancient ones.
   
   
   
   
   
2. This combines a notion popularized by former Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning and the familiar “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You” sign. One hopes that it is true of most congregations.
   
   
   
   
   
3. This is meant to contrast The Episcopal Church with those churches that read the Bible literally or believe it to be inerrant.
   
   
   
   
   
4. Some seem to think Episcopalians don’t really pay attention to the Bible. I originally asserted that we read four Bible passages at each service, but this is not technically true. Hence, what follows.
   
   
   
   
   
5. This idea is taken from Robin Williams, though I don’t know that he was the first to articulate it.
   
   
   
   
   
6. Too many Christians, of course, show up in church only on Christmas (or Christmas Eve) and Easter.
   
   
   
   
   
7. It is easy to get the impression that the “Christian” doctrine on homosexuality is that it is a sin and that homosexuals and should not be ordained by the church. This is not the position of The Episcopal Church, which welcomes LGBT people, ordains, and marries them. (See also #16.)
   
   
   
   
   
8. Many Christians are obsessed with getting to heaven once they’re dead. Most Episcopalians aren’t too sure about what happens when we die, but they know that we have a mission to pursue before we die. This is another of my favorites.
   
   
   
   
   
9. Unlike some Christian churches, The Episcopal Church has no problem with science. You can accept evolution with a clear conscience.
   
   
   
   
   
10. Episcopalians don’t claim to have all the answers. Maybe some us do, but, on the whole, we are modest about what we know. The suffering caused over the years by differences of opinion on religious issues that cannot be definitively resolved or that ultimately don’t matter is appalling.
    
    
    
    
    
11. Not every Christian needs to be an Episcopalian, which is something of an acquired taste. We can even respect non-Christian religions. (See #10.)
    
    
    
    
    
12. I was very impressed with James Adams’ book So You Think You’re Not Religious. Adams argued that church rituals such as baptism and marriage can celebrate life’s milestones even in the absence of real faith. In any case, The Episcopal Church does a good job with these rituals.
    
    
    
    
    
13. The most important ritual of the church is probably the Eucharist. The idea for this advertisement came from Eucharistic Prayer C. See my hymn, “Holy Eucharist,” and related commentary.
    
    
    
    
    
14. This was inspired by the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the fact that we are admonished to love our neighbors as ourselves.
    
    
    
    
    
15. How can we require uniformity of belief if we acknowledge that we don’t know everything? (See #10.) We can still work on building the Kingdom of God. (See #8.)
    
    
    
    
    
16. The Episcopal Church had gay and lesbian clergy before we began performing same-sex marriages. It took us a long time to get where we are, but we’re glad we made it.
    
    
    

Update, 7/25/2016. In the comments below, readers suggested additional copy for advertisements, and, in my own comments, I included links to ads using those suggestions. To make those ads easier to find, I have also put them in a separate post, “Three More Episcopal Church Advertisements.”

Never Trump

The Republican Party officially nominated Donald J. Trump as its presidential candidate last night. Reasonable, well-educated people thought this would never happen, but it has. Either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be elected to lead the Free World (as we used to say) this November by the people of the United States.

In The Episcopal Church, we also hold elections. Bishops are elected by the people of our dioceses. Before candidates are put forth, however, nominating committees investigate possible candidates for their suitability for the job. One mandatory element of this vetting is a psychological evaluation. A potential candidate who shows little concern for others, for example, would normally be eliminated from consideration.

Illustration for The New Yorker
by Javier Jaén

Regrettably, we have no such test for presidential candidates. In the case of Donald Trump, however, I think we have the information we would want from a formal psychological evaluation. The July 25, 2016, issue of The New Yorker, contains a revealing article by Jane Mayer titled “Trump’s Boswell Speaks.” The tagline at the head of the piece is “The ghostwriter of ‘The Art of the Deal’ says that Trump is unfit to lead.” (Note: The story is available on the Web here, where it is titled “Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All.” The tagline is “‘The Art of the Deal’ made America see Trump as a charmer with an unfailing knack for business. Tony Schwartz helped create that myth—and regrets it.” I can’t say why the article has a different title on the Web from what appears in the magazine. I suspect that the Web title makes better click bait.)

Mayer’s piece explains how ghostwriter Tony Schwartz had to manipulate Trump in order to extract enough information to write the book that became a bestseller. Because Trump seems incapable of self-reflection, Schwartz was forced to shadow the mogul throughout his day, even listening in on all his phone calls. For the sake of a good read, Schwartz made Trump seem engaging and clever. In fact, he saw Trump as a narcissistic sociopath with the attention span of a gnat. Schwartz is remorseful for the part he played in advancing Trump’s career and presumably consented to be interviewed as a means of atoning for his sin.

Anyone with even the slightest thought that voting for Trump might be a sane thing to do needs to read and reflect on Mayer’s article.

Black Lives Matter, Too

Black Lives Matter is a fine slogan, born of a spate of murders of young black men, largely at the hands of white police. The slogan was never intended to mean that non-black lives do not matter, but it invariably led to the currency of the counter-slogan All Lives Matter. Some offered this alternative innocently enough, seeing it as a logical corrective to the original slogan. Others, however, used it as a racist put-down of blacks.

Slogan-making is a tricky enterprise, and there are many opportunities for it to go awry. African-American Lives Matter, for example, is clumsy for shouting, and its adoption would have been a big mistake. The conciseness of Black Lives Matter is a real plus. Better, not much longer, and without any words longer than two syllables, is Black Lives Matter, Too. This delivers exactly the right message, especially to the white population: not only do white lives matter, but black lives also matter.

Alas, an opportunity was missed.

The Wisdom of George W. Bush

No, the title of this post isn’t a mistake, though it is true that I am not a big fan of the last Republican president. Both President Obama and President Bush spoke at yesterday’s memorial service for the five police officers killed by a sniper last week. Mr. Obama’s thoughtful and moving speech rightly got more publicity, but Mr. Bush, too, had some helpful words for Dallas and for the nation. This inspired me to design the graphic below. The message is one we all should hear. It is one that Donald Trump, especially, needs to hear and digest.

Click on image for a larger view.
Please share freely.

Note: An earlier observation from yesterday’s event is here.

Rethinking the National Anthem

I’m listening to (and sometimes watching) the interfaith memorial service being held in Dallas, Texas, for those police officers who died last week at the hands of a gunman.

The service began with the singing of The Star-Spangled Banner by the Dallas Police Choir.

I have always found our national anthem stirring, but I have felt a bit queasy about its association with warfare. I have even written my own candidate for a national anthem, “Out of Many, One,” which I thought better characterizes our nation. My text ends with

To our Republic, this we pledge:
For every challenge that awaits,
Free men and women will come forth
Whose work a better world creates.
With banner raised, with grateful hearts,
We honor these United States!

Today, however, I can see The Star-Spangled Banner in a new light. I can excuse the line of the third stanza,

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

because it does not capture the overall spirit of the text. The second verse offers a positive assertion to the question ending the first:

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
’Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The theme of the anthem, then, is not conquest, but victory over adversity. It is about carrying on against overwhelming odds.

That is an appropriate theme for this afternoon in Dallas and, perhaps, an appropriate theme for the Republic as it enters its 241st year.

Time to Study Gun Violence

Gun violence in America has reached epidemic proportions. All Congress has been able to do is to offer prayers and moments of silence. Not only that, but Congress has prevented the CDC from collecting gun-related statistics and doing research into ways of decreasing the toll that guns have taken on Americans and the American psyche. It is time for Congress to say “no” to the NRA and do what is logical and right. After all, good public policy is impossible to craft when we insist on not knowing the relevant facts. If acting responsibly costs a few Republican seats, it will be a small price to pay (not to mention poetic justice).

Feel free to copy the image below or the larger version of it available by clicking on it.

More on Gun Control

I had not intended to embark on a campaign for gun control, but, since the massacre at the Pulse nightclub on June 12, I have written two essays on the subject: “Gun Control” and “I Do Want to Take Away Your Guns.” Two days ago, I posted a graphic on Facebook that has been shared more often than any contribution I have ever made there.

That graphic is shown below. (Click on it for a larger version.) For years, Congress has been in the pocket of the NRA, but change may be coming. Americans are clearly fed up with gun violence in America, though the average citizen is still not as passionate about the subject as the average NRA supporter. The recent sit-in by House Democrats, however, is an indication that gun control may be moving up the list of legislative priorities.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan complained about the flagrant disregard of House rules that the sit-in represented. That is a fair criticism, but the encouragement the event gave to people who think our gun laws are crazy was worth the inconvenience and lapse in decorum. Besides, Republicans shut down the whole government in 2013 for no rational purpose. Shutting down the House, which hasn’t accomplished anything useful anyway, for a single day, doesn’t seem like a big deal. Write your senators and representatives.

On the Revolution in the House

I cheered the sit-in in the House of Representatives led by Representative John Lewis yesterday. I was particularly delighted with the DYI live streaming done by the Democratic protesters after the C-SPAN cameras were ordered shut off.

I am normally a proponent of playing by the rules, and the House rules, for good or ill, put the agenda in the hands of the Speaker of the House. That said, Americans are overwhelming in favor of tighter gun controls and are tired of the House of Representatives reacting to gun massacres with nothing more than moments of silence. Speaker Paul Ryan, however, showed that it was more important to Republicans to allow financial advisors to fleece their customers than to do anything about gun violence in America.

It isn’t clear that, in the end, the sit-in will have achieved votes on the two issues pressed by the Democrats. Even if there are votes, the measures will surely fail, with all, or nearly all, Republicans voting against change. Welcome to a government run by the NRA. Some great Democratic campaign spots will be made from the House revolution, however.

Stepping back, I must admit that denying guns to people on the no-fly list or other terrorism-related lists is problematic. It is unclear how one gets on these lists, and it is even less clear how one gets off. The lists call to mind Minority Report, in which people are apprehended for crimes they are expected to commit. This has more in common with Soviet Union justice than it has with traditional American justice. Although denying gun sales to “terrorists” on the no-fly list is a popular idea, it is, sadly, a bad one.

Universal background checks are another matter. There is no reason why one needs to pass a background check to buy a gun at a gun store but can purchase a gun without such a check at a gun show or from someone in a back alley. Americans are behind this measure, and Congress should be, too. Unfortunately, Republican legislators (and even some Democrats) have been bought and paid for by the terrorist organization known as the National Rifle Association.

Republican congressmen and -women should be ashamed of themselves. (The Senate hasn’t covered itself with glory, either.)

Note: I recently wrote two essays on guns, which you can find here and here.

Where Is Bishop McConnell’s Signature?

The Pittsburgh-Post Gazette carried the full-page ad shown below on page A-12 of this morning’s newspaper. (Click on the image for a PDF version of the page.) The ad was paid for by the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Readers are asked to pledge to end gender violence, specifically to

• Not use violence of any form in my relationships.
• Speak up if another man is abusing his partner or is disrespectful or abusive to women and girls. I will not remain silent.
• Be an ally to women who are working to end all forms of gender violence.
• Mentor antd teach boys how to be men in ways that don’t involve degrading or abusing girls and women. I will lead by example.

Signatures in the ad include those of Pittsburgh Pirates, the mayor of Pittsburgh and governor of Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh business leaders and leaders of key Pittsburgh institutions. Among the other signers are five college and university presidents, presidents of two Jewish organizations, and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Pittsburgh.

Certain signatures one might have expected to see are absent, but I do not know who was asked to sign and who was not. I am sorry, however, that Bishop Dorsey McConnell, Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh, is not represented. Perhaps the Episcopal bishop was not considered important enough to be part of this effort, or perhaps Bishop McConnell did not respond to a request for an endorsement. Pity.

I Do Want to Take Away Your Guns

Gun control advocates regularly assure gun owners that they only want to tighten gun laws; they do not want to take people’s guns away. This assurance has seemed necessary, particularly in light of the disinformation campaign to convince people that “Obama wants to take away your guns.”

President Obama does not want to take away people’s guns. More’s the pity. I most certainly do want to take away your guns, particularly military-grade weapons, and I suspect that many Americans, in their heart of hearts, would like to do so also.

Australia has shown that substantive gun legislation is possible. (See “Here’s the deal with the Australian gun control law that Obama is talking about.”) That country instituted new controls on firearms after a 1996 massacre of 35 people in Tasmania. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons were banned and, most significantly, a mandatory buy-back program was instituted. The country has not experienced a mass-casualty shooting since.

Admittedly, as long as any guns remain, certain people will use them for nefarious purposes. Absent guns, those same people will find other weapons. Nevertheless, the assault rifle has become the weapon of choice for mass murder because of its ease-of-use, lethality, efficiency, and specificity. It is tautological that removing such weapons from circulation cannot but eliminate the sort of tragedy experienced in Orlando a week ago.

The right to bear arms, like any right in the Constitution, is not unlimited. We do not allow individuals to purchase Stinger missiles, howitzers, or nuclear weapons, all of which are “arms.” There is no reason the government cannot draw the line between lawful and unlawful arms somewhere other than where it is currently drawn.

A few days ago, I suggested what I consider reasonable gun laws that seem meet and proper in light our our nation’s experience with gun violence. (See “Gun Control.”) In that essay, I did not consider implementation. Obviously, a buy-back program would be a fair way of implementing certain provisions of my program.

I found myself curiously undisturbed by the Orlando tragedy. I should have been seriously upset, but mass shootings have simply become business as usual in America. What has followed has been totally predictable, including moments of silence in Congress, followed by a lack of legislative action.

It’s time to make mass murder rare again by changing our gun laws. Express your outrage to our politicians, and pray for the souls of those gunned down in Orlando.

Sincere Bigotry

Click on image for a larger view.
Permission is granted to use this image elsewhere.