Raccoon-Proofing

 In addition to my downstairs feeding station for birds, I have both plants and a bird feeder on the deck upstairs. I have resigned myself to squirrels eating some of my birdseed. (At least squirrels are neater eaters than mourning doves.) The squirrels jump from trees to the roof next door onto the deck.

Unfortunately, a resourceful raccoon has occasionally gotten onto the deck. It has both eaten birdseed and damaged one of my planters of Oxalis. My assumption is that the raccoon has been climbing up the post that supports one corner of the deck.

Assuming that my theory of raccoon access is correct, I have attached steel flashing to the post. My hope is that the raccoon cannot reach above the top of the flashing even if it can climb up to the bottom of it.

Time will tell if my raccoon-proofing actually works.
 

Raccoon-proofing on post

Human 1, Animals 0 (maybe)

I have a number of bird feeders and buy birdseed in bulk. It isn't convenient to store the seed inside, so I have stored it outside, where it is conveniently close to my feeders. Storing the seed securely outdoors has been a problem, however. The problem has persisted for a long time, but I think I may have finally won the battle to protect my seed stash from non-avian predictors.

Plan A: I first used a large plastic bin to store birdseed. The bin had a large capacity, closed securely, and was easy to open. The bin did not last. Animal or animals unknown chewed through the plastic and put a large hole in the side of the bin. I don’t know what animal had gotten into the bin, but I suspected a raccoon. I see raccoons frequently under my feeders.

Plan B: Clearly, a metal container was needed. I found a small trash can that was large enough to hold at least 60 pounds of seed. The can had the usual hinged handles on either side and a tight-fitting lid with a handle in the middle.

Plan C: My memory gets a little foggy here. Whether it was part of Plan B or later, I used a bungee cord to fully secure the trash can lid. This was a short-lived experiment. Some animal—the same one that chewed through the plastic bin?—chewed through the bungee cord. This is also about the time I experienced the bear attack. A bear damaged three feeders and knocked over the trash can, whose lid came off.

Plan D: The bear made it clear that the can needed to be prevented from being tipped over, and the lid needed to be better secured. I came home from Tractor Supply Company with two lengths of strong chain and an assortment of maillons (quick links).  I connected a chain from one handle to the other and around a post. The other chain connected the handles on the side of the can and ran through the handle on the lid. That chain was a little tricky, as it was difficult to arrange the chain and tighten the maillon so as to make the lid impossible to lift.

This seemed to work well for a while. Not too long ago, however, I got a bit lazy and replaced one of the maillons with a carabiner, which, of course, didn’t need to be unscrewed to get into the seed can. Opening the carabiner was a little tricky, but the task was less time-consuming than opening the maillon. The carabiner made it a bit harder to lock down the lid tightly.

On various occasions, I noticed that the lid had been tilted so as to offer access to the birdseed. Twice, I caught a perpetrator inside the can in the act of eating seed. That miscreant was neither a racoon nor (thankfully) a bear. It was a groundhog! (Groundhogs also are frequent visitors. A groundhog once chewed through a telephone cable and disrupted telephone service.)

Plan E: I headed back to Tractor Supply. Security was more important than convenience! I returned home with a turnbuckle having a hook on one end and an eye on the other. The eye could be attached to the chain with a maillon and the hook could be clipped to a link of the chain. The turnbuckle could then be tightened to make lifting the lid impossible.

Plan E is newly implemented, so its long-term viability has yet to be established, but I think it is going to work. Getting seed out of the trash can is now harder than ever, but I hope it is a task that only I will be performing. (See photos below. Click on photos for enhanced views.)
 

Trash can. Note chain around post.

Turnbuckle in place atop trash can.

Presidential Goals

I don’t usually post material on my blog that I didn’t create. I am particularly disinclined to post a meme I found on Facebook. The graphic below, however, makes a very significant point, and I thought I would pass it along. It is not totally clear who is responsible for it, but that person has my thanks.

Condos and Infrastructure

 NPR ran a story this morning about how condo maintenance fees should cover not only ongoing routine maintenance but also build a rainy-day fund for predictable but occasional expenses like replacing a roof. Unfortunately, condo associations like to keep maintenance fees low and seldom set aside the funds necessary for big-ticket repairs needed in the indefinite future. The NPR story, of course, was inspired by the deferred maintenance problems at Florida’s Champlain Towers South that threatened owners with special assessments of a hundred thousand dollars or more.

Unfortunately, it is not only Florida condos that have not prepared for large and inevitable maintenance expenses. President Biden’s infrastructure proposals have drawn most attention to new expenditures that the federal government has not funded before. But much of the standard infrastructure bill—the roads and bridges part—is for deferred maintenance and predictable replacements.

Like condo associations, governments should plan for predictable maintenance. When a bridge is built, for example, there will be an ongoing need for inspection and routine maintenance. Eventually, there will be a need for a major rehab or even a replacement. These expenses are not unexpected, but politicians are willing to pay for the bridge, cut the ribbon when it is completed, and leave maintenance to future politicians. This is why the U.S. is perceived to have a crumbling infrastructure.

As do the most responsible condo associations, when government builds a highway, bridge, tunnel, or dam, it should create a special maintenance fund for the infrastructure and, likely, pay into the fund every year. The fund should be set aside for that piece of the built environment exclusively. Such a plan will increase perceived construction costs, of course, but it will make trillion-dollar infrastructure bills a thing of the past. When maintenance, rehab, or replacement is needed, the money needed will be available.

Is there any chance politicians will begin to take such a forward-looking approach to infrastructure? Probably not. They love to cut those ribbons. Repairs only cause traffic delays.

Back to Church

 I attended church today for the first time since early last year. This was only the second Sunday since the pandemic shut down much of the country that Christ Episcopal Church in Indiana, Pennsylvania, offered an in-person Eucharist at 10:30. I was out of town last Sunday, so today offered my first chance to attend an almost normal principal service.

Our 8:00 a.m. service has been conducted in the church with a congregation for a while, but the 10:30 service has mostly been Daily Morning Prayer: Rite Two streamed over Facebook. The early service began with a mask requirement, but both services now allow fully vaccinated worshipers to go maskless. Only alternate pews are used to keep people well separated. For the foreseeable future, the 10:30 service will continue to be streamed.

I used to view myself as a competent Rite Two Eucharist worshiper who seldom opened a prayer book in church. I felt a little less certain of myself this morning, however. I consulted my prayer book and bulletin more often than I have done so in a long time. The Passing of the Peace was largely an exercise in waving, but I did throw caution to the winds and indulged in one fist bump.

Communion was a new experience, one unlikely to change any time soon. We employed no common cup and did not distribute the host directly. Instead, the rector placed small glassine envelopes on a table in the front of the center aisle. Each envelope contained a wafer moistened with a drop of wine. Five people at a time picked up their envelopes and distributed themselves along the communion rail. We then consumed the wafers on cue and saved the envelopes for disposal at the back of the church at the end of the service. This was only slightly weird.

In addition to finally being able to partake of the consecrated bread and wine (sort of), I was especially happy to sing hymns in a group. The Vestry had talked of singing softly, but no one insisted on that, and it felt really good to sing normally.

I look forward to a return to a more thoroughly normal service, but today’s experience did seem like a significant milestone.

Question: How are other churches that have employed the common cup handling communion?

Jab

 I’ve noticed that British news stories concerning COVID-19 vaccinations generally refer to such shots as “jabs.” Until very recently, I had never encountered this term’s being used by American reporters.

Merriam-Webster offers this definition of the noun “jab”:

chiefly British, informal: an injection of something (such as medicine) into one’s body with a needle

Cambridge Dictionary offers a similar definition:

UK informal: an injection

Because of the pandemic, I have heard “jab” used in this sense frequently. (I often listen to the BBC World Service at night.)

I was startled recently when a reporter at my local NPR station used “jabs” to refer to vaccinations. She now has done so more than once.

The use of “jab” for “vaccination” seems un-American. I hope this is a usage that does not catch on. Being a single-syllable word, “jab” is “efficient”—“vaccination” is four syllables—but it is actually non-specific, its exact meaning only clear from context.

Additionally, “vaccination” seems to imply a benign, medical operation. “Jab,” on the other hand, seems unpleasant and somewhat hostile—and very British.

Pittsburgh Episcopalians Elect Black Female Bishop

 It is not breaking news that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh elected the Rev. Dr. Ketlen Solak on June 26 as the ninth Bishop of Pittsburgh. I have not seen details of the election published anywhere, however, and I think that more information should be publicly available. Also, it is interesting to compare the dynamics of the most recent episcopal election with those of the last one.

Somewhat to my surprise, the diocesan Web site has largely been scrubbed of most information concerning the election of six days ago. As a result, this post may be more helpful than I anticipated.
 

The Nominees

The Nominating Committee announced three episcopal candidates. (We are being discouraged from calling these people candidates rather than nominees, but persons standing for election are, in conventional parlance, candidates.) Somewhat surprisingly, all three were women. Two were black, and one was a white lesbian. I had been hoping that Pittsburgh would select a woman, and the initial slate seemed designed to make that dream come true. However, Pittsburgh allows candidates to be nominated by petition. There is reason to believe that at least some members of the Nominating Committee were hoping that their slate would not be augmented by petition nominations. Perhaps the all-female slate made the nomination of one or more white males inevitable. Not everyone was so excited about a female bishop.

Nominees from the Committee

The Very Rev. Kim Coleman, Rector of Trinity Episcopal Church in Arlington, Virginia, since 2002. Coleman earned B.A.s in both Political Science and Economics from The Pennsylvania State University. Her magna cum laude M.Div. is from Virginia Theological Seminary. She is single.

The Rev. Dr. Ketlen A. Solak, Rector of Brandywine Collaborative Ministries in Wilmington, Delaware, since 2014. Solak came to the United States in her late teens from her home in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. She is a pianist with bachelor’s and master’s music degrees from the Catholic University of America. She earned both an M.Div. and D.Min. from Virginia Theological Seminary. She is married with no children.

The Rev. Diana L. Wilcox, Rector of Christ Church in Bloomfield & Glen Ridge in Glen Ridge, New Jersey, since 2014. Wilcox has a Liberal Arts B.A. from Fairleigh Dickinson University. Her M.Div. is from Drew University. Wilcox had a substantial career in the financial world and is the author of a children’s book. Her female spouse died. She has no children.

Nominees by Petition

The Rev. Canon Scott A. Gunn, Executive Director of Forward Movement, Cincinnati, Ohio, since 2011. Gunn has a Music/Religion B.A. from Luther College. He holds an M.A. in Religion from Yale Divinity School, from which he also earned his M.Div. He is married to an Episcopal priest and has no children.

The Rev. Jeffrey D. Murph, Rector of St. Thomas Memorial Church in Oakmont, Pennsylvania, since 1994. Murph received a B.A. in History from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His M.Div. is from Virginia Theological Seminary. Murph is the only candidate from the Diocese of Pittsburgh. He is married and has adult children.

Some Random Personal Observations

To the best of my knowledge, only Gunn has been an episcopal candidate in the past. I was surprised that the diocese did not disclose the ages of the candidates. Age is a relevant consideration, of course, since bishops are subject to a mandatory retirement age. (The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Solak’s age as 59.) I suspect that Murph was the oldest candidate; he certainly has been a priest the longest and has been in his current position the longest.

Coleman was assuredly the most effusive of the candidates. That her eyes seemed perpetually half-closed, however, was somewhat off-putting. (I hesitate to mention this, but more than one person mentioned the fact in discussions in which I participated.)

People in Pittsburgh had many opportunities to view the candidates in videos and in person. Everyone acquitted him- or herself well in these venues. In my one opportunity to experience the candidates in person, Gunn seemed the most articulate and thoughtful. Murph offered the most concrete plan for the diocese, as might be expected from someone who has been in it for so long and who played a significant role in helping the diocese recover from the schism of 2008.

When I first saw a Solak video, I was perplexed by her accent. Only later did I come to understand that it was the product of having grown up in Haiti. I found her affect very reassuring. I thought she would be good at talking someone off a ledge. As a musician myself, I was pleased to learn of her musical accomplishments. Although she did not do it in the group I was in when I met her, instead of offering an opening prayer in other groups, she led the group in song. People liked that.

I was not quite sure what to make of Wilcox’s experience in the financial and consulting world. She assured people that her experience made her a better communicator. Apparently, the nature of that environment led her to abandon it for a more spiritual life. I have to admit that I was somewhat put off by typos in her résumé. (I cannot be sure that the errors were hers, and the matter did not affect my candidate preferences.)

I don’t know all the details of how the nominations by petition came about. I do know that Gunn was being considered by the Nominating Committee but bowed out of the process due to unexpected duties in his own diocese. His nomination was submitted after the Nominating Committee made its choices public and, presumably, after Gunn felt free to pursue the episcopate.

Apparently, Murph was also considered by the Nominating Committee, but his name was not put forward by that body. He is generally well-liked in the diocese, however, and his nomination seemed not inappropriate. I never thought “he should be a bishop,” but I haven’t thought that about any other priest of the diocese either. As a general rule, I believe that electing someone from within one’s own diocese is not a good idea, as such a person necessarily comes with baggage not brought by other candidates. (I confess that I celebrated the selection of Gene Robinson from his own New Hampshire diocese, however.) In any case, the last priest elected Bishop of Pittsburgh from the Diocese of Pittsburgh was Bob Duncan. That did not work out well.

Convention Mechanics

Due to the pandemic, the electing convention was held virtually over Zoom. The 2020 annual convention had also been a Zoom affair, so most people involved had some experience with such an event. But the fact that clergy and lay deputies had to vote separately made demands on Zoom that it was incapable of satisfying. As a result, voting was done using a Web-based application called VPoll. This meant that deputies had to switch between using Zoom and voting via VPoll.

The diocese did an excellent job of preparing deputies for their participation in the convention. I had only one complaint. Deputies were encouraged to use two devices, one for Zoom and one for VPoll. I was ready to do that when I realized that this was both unnecessary and unnecessarily cumbersome. Zoom runs in its own window, and VPoll operates on a Web page. I experienced no difficulty switching between the Zoom window and VPoll loaded into my Web browser. It appears that few people had difficulty participating in the convention on account of the software being used.

I was surprised to learn that the chat function in Zoom was to be disabled once balloting began. I will have more to say about that below.

Deputies to the convention logged into Zoom and VPoll. Visitors could monitor the proceedings through Facebook.

The Voting

The convention elected a bishop on the third ballot. The schedule called for three ballots before a 1 pm lunch break, so the break became unnecessary and the convention could end early. The results of the three ballots are shown below. Note that, just before 10 am, it was established that there were 86 lay deputies and 55 clergy deputies present. Either intentionally or because of difficulties in casting a vote, not everyone voted on each ballot.

BALLOT 1	Clergy	Lay
Coleman	5	9
Gunn	13	24
Murph	14	9
Solak	15	23
Wilcox	7	21
TOTAL	54	86

BALLOT 2	Clergy	Lay
Coleman	1	1
Gunn	16	26
Murph	12	7
Solak	23	34
Wilcox	3	16
TOTAL	55	84

BALLOT 3	Clergy	Lay
Gunn	21	31
Solak	30	46
Wilcox	3	9
TOTAL	54	86

Note that after the second ballot, Coleman and Murph dropped out. Solak was announced as the new bishop before the results of the third ballot were announced, and the tally was given in a somewhat different form from what was used for the first two ballots. I believe the numbers above are correct, however.

Analysis

My choice for bishop was Ketlen Solak. (I voted for her three times.) In talking to others in the diocese, both lay and clergy, she was frequently named as first or second choice. I expected that Gunn would prove to be a strong candidate, as he has a high profile in the Episcopal Church generally. I couldn’t predict how Coleman would do. Her enthusiasm could be infectious. Wilcox appeared to be the most liberal—I won’t try to define liberal or conservative here—and I assumed that she would be perceived to be too liberal for Pittsburgh, particular by the clergy. Murph was likely the most conservative candidate. I expected that he would do well in the clergy order on the first ballot by drawing votes from long-time colleagues. He is less well-known among the laity, though I can attest to his pastoral skills and assume others can as well. I did not expect him to be elected.

I was concerned that there would be little time between the announcement of the results of one ballot and the casting of votes for the next ballot. This, combined with the disabling of the Zoom chat function, largely precluded consultation among deputies between ballots. In the last episcopal election, there was definitely some electioneering taking place between ballots, and some lay deputies seem to have gone along with perceived clergy preferences as a way of getting the whole thing over with so they could go home. As it happens, I probably should not have worried about this, as the votes converged to a preferred candidate faster than I thought possible.

The first ballot was gratifying and a bit surprising. Solak was the top vote-getter in the clergy and was barely second in the lay order. Murph did well among the clergy but, as expected, was less popular among the laity. Coleman did surprisingly poorly. Wilcox was predictably more popular in the lay order.

In the second ballot, the contest began to converge on a Gunn/Solak contest. Support for Coleman virtually disappeared, and she predictably dropped out. Murph and Wilcox both lost votes. I was surprised that Murph dropped out but Wilcox stayed in despite decreasing clergy support. At this point, Gunn had 29% of the clergy vote and 31% of the lay vote. Solak had 42% of the clergy vote and 40% of the lay vote.

With Coleman and Murph out of the race, Gunn gained a few votes. Wilcox lost lay votes, and Solak picked up votes in both orders. On the third ballot, Solak had 56% of the clergy votes and 53% of the lay votes, enough to become bishop. Gunn, in second place, had 39% and 36%, respectively. Wilcox earned 6% and 10%,

Candidates had suggested that, although Pittsburgh had experienced substantial healing after the 2008 schism, additional reconciliation was needed. There is surely some truth in this; I know people who are still traumatized by the split engineered by Bob Duncan. Nevertheless, the voting on our next bishop was reassuring in that both clergy and lay deputies shared similar preferences. I think the diocese is ready to move forward with Bishop Ketlen A. Solak

After the voting was over, bishop-elect Solak gave a brief address to the convention in which she declared, “I am looking forward to becoming a Pittsburgher for Jesus.” She, too, is ready to move the diocese along.

Thanks be to God.

Bipartisanism

In a recent column, E. J. Dionne Jr., observed that “Republicans have made democracy a partisan issue.” This statement concisely identifies the current state of American politics: Democrats are seeking to reinforce and enhance democracy; Republicans are working to undermine democracy as much as is necessary to obtain power and to retain it indefinitely.

This situation is a difficult one for President Joseph Biden. As a candidate, he spoke often of bringing the country together, and his desire that legislation be bipartisan is well known. So is his reluctance to weaken or abolish the filibuster, the Senate rule that gives enormous power to its minority members. Can the Democrats win any significant legislative victory if they insist that the accomplishment must be “bipartisan? Likely not. Senator Mitch McConnell has made it clear that he has no intention of letting his Republican colleagues help the Democrats govern.

The value to the Republicans of McConnell’s stand is clear. Republicans are no longer a party of policy; they did not even adopt a platform for the 2020 presidential campaign. They are interested only in laissez-faire capitalization and enjoying the perquisites of power. If they can prevent Democrats from implementing the Biden agenda, they can run in future elections on a platform that accuses the Democrats of doing nothing, without having to articulate policy preferences of their own. The GOP is willing to eviscerate the legislative branch of government to gain power for itself.

Ironically, many of Biden’s objectives are widely popular with citizens generally, including Republicans. There is a certain bipartisanism here, if not in Congress. The president should accept support where he can get it.

Republicans benefit not only from the filibuster but also from structural advantages conferred by circumstances and the Constitution. Because Republican strength is greatest in rural states, the party enjoys an undemocratic advantage in the Senate. Although the voting strength of the two parties in that body is nominally equal in 2021, Republican senators represent significantly fewer citizens than do Democratic senators. Little can be done about this undemocratic representation. Adding D.C. and, perhaps, Porto Rico as states could diminish the Republican advantage, but, of course, that would require legislative action Republican senators will oppose.

Republicans do not now control the House of Representatives. They are nevertheless over-represented in the House, largely because of gerrymandering by Republican-controlled state legislatures. Ten years ago, the GOP won control of many state legislatures and was able to redistrict their states to favor their candidates. They are in a strong position to again create undemocratic districts when redistricting is next done. It is widely believed that this will allow Republicans to retake control of the House in 2022. The Biden administration would like to put an end to this unfair advantage and have districts determined by independent commissions. This, of course, would require legislative action Republican senators will oppose.

GOP treachery is on display on two election-related fronts, both of which are being justified by the bogus claim by Donald Trump that the 2020 election was stolen. (I don’t understand why anyone should take the word of someone who lied or shaded the truth more than 30,000 times while in office, but Republicans do or pretend to. “Stop the Steal” should not have been applied to Democrats but to Trump’s own supporters.) On one hand, Republican state legislatures are passing laws ostensively crafted to “protect the integrity” of elections but actually designed to make voting, particularly by minorities thought likely to vote Democratic, more difficult. On a second front, we are seeing a clownish, seemingly interminable “audit” of Arizona votes sponsored by the Republican-controlled Arizona legislature. It is unclear what the outcome of this bizarre political theater is going to be, but Republicans are determined to replicate it in other states. Whether or not this will facilitate election stealing by Republicans, at the very least, it devalues democratic elections in the public mind.

Republicans exhibit no shame whatsoever. Although not a single Republican senator voted for the most recent Covid-19 relief bill. Senators have been singing the praises of its various provisions to their constituents without, of course, pointing out that they opposed the bill and voted against its passage. This is a perverse version of bipartisanism—vote against a popular bill but take credit for its passage.

The Biden administration has an extensive agenda, and it would be unfortunate if much of it remained an unrealized hope. Parts of that agenda, however, are vital—vital to preserving our democracy and vital to preserving life on this planet as we have come to know it. The protection of voting rights and, at the very least, making a down payment on the task of avoiding catastrophic climate change are existential concerns. And they are matters that Republican senators have no interest in addressing. What are Democrats to do?

Lucy with Charlie Brown

To begin with, President Biden needs to be disabused of the notion that anything of significance will pass in the Senate with genuine bipartisan support. Many of us thought that, as vice president, Biden had learned the lesson of Obamacare: President Obama kept negotiating with Republicans and offering concessions to attract Republican votes only to garner no GOP votes and pass a weakened bill because of his negotiations. This is exactly what is going on now with the infrastructure bill. Republicans are enticing the president repeatedly to lower his objectives. In the end, he will likely attract few if any GOP votes for a bill that is the shadow of its former self. Biden is playing Charlie Brown to Senator McConnell’s Lucy. We all know how that works out.

It is unlikely that Democrats are going to pass any significant legislation in the Senate except possibly using reconciliation, a tool of limited scope, or by eliminating the filibuster. (Despite whatever Pollyannaish view of the filibuster Senator Joe Manchin may hold, it is both undemocratic and does not work the way the senator thinks it does. See “End the Filibuster” and “More Thoughts on the Filibuster.”)

It is time that the Democrats realized that Republicans are playing for keeps, and they have no scruples. Republicans are playing to win, and Democrats must do the same. The filibuster must be ended and legislation passed, at least to protect democratic elections. If recalcitrant Democrats obstruct this legislation, Democrats must remember that classic nugget of political wisdom: when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. Fellow Democrats must make uncoöperative Democrats an offer they can’t refuse. The survival of our democracy depends on it.

Episcopal Elections (Essays on Ranked-Choice Voting: Chapter 2)

 Some time ago, I wrote an essay on ranked-choice voting that was intended to be the first of a series on what I consider a better way of voting when more than two candidates are involved. I had not intended to be writing about episcopal elections and ranked-choice voting, but, as it happens, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will be voting for a new bishop later this month, and I fear that our usual method of voting will not identify the person most desired by the deputies to the electing convention. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will be guiding the deputies, but I suspect that the Holy Spirit needs a little help.

On June 26, 2021, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will select the ninth Bishop of Pittsburgh. A slate of candidates was identified earlier this month by the Nominating Committee. I was pleased that three women were being offered for election: The Very Rev. Kim L. Coleman, The Rev. Ketlen A. Solak, and The Rev. Diana L. Wilcox. I have often said that I hoped the diocese would select a woman as its next bishop.

My enthusiasm about the slate of episcopal candidates was short-lived. Even before I had time to research the offerings of the Nominating Committee, two additional candidates advanced by means of petitions. Diocesan rules provided for additional candidates to be added in this fashion, but many in the diocese—including, I have reason to believe, at least some members of the Nominating Committee—were hoping that no more candidates would be forthcoming.

The added nominees are the well-known executive director of Forward Movement, The Rev. Canon Scott A. Gunn, and The Rev. Jeffrey D. Murph, the long-time rector of St. Thomas Memorial Church, the Episcopal church of the Pittsburgh Diocese in Oakmont, Pennsylvania. Although I am unfamiliar with the women nominated by the committee, I am quite familiar with the men nominated by petition and, at least in the abstract, consider them suitable candidates. On the other hand, I cannot shake the idea that there was uneasiness among some Pittsburgh Episcopalians over the prospect of being under the care and authority of a female bishop.

Episcopal Church elections for bishop divide voters into two categories—clergy and lay. Individual parishes are entitled to two or more lay deputies, depending upon the size of their congregations. Priests and deacons vote in the so-called clergy order, and laypersons vote in the lay order. Elections are by secret vote, and the election of a bishop requires a majority vote in both orders. Voting continues until a bishop is selected, but candidates often remove themselves from consideration if they perceive that their support is weak. Bishops are sometimes chosen in the first round of voting, but this is hardly the norm. Sometimes so many rounds of voting are needed that the election spills over into a second day.

It should not be surprising that clergy and laypersons tend to have different views of the candidates. Both groups are voting for someone who will set the tone for the diocese, but the clergy are, in a sense, voting for their future boss. The different orientations seldom lead to a first-round victory for anyone, and the perceptions of those voting in one order of the vote in the other order tend to have some influence on succeeding votes. Clergy have an intrinsic advantage in voting. They are surely not all of one mind, but each member of the order knows and can easily discuss the candidates with one another. This process tends to build consensus. Laypeople, coming as they are from many churches, lack the ability easily to discuss the relative strengths of the proposed bishops.

Because the election of Pittsburgh’s seventh bishop was such a disaster—the winning candidate, Robert Duncan, eventually left The Episcopal Church and took many whole parishes with him—nominations from the floor were eliminated in favor of nominations by petition far in advance of the election, and a meeting prior to convention day was established to facilitate discussion among all deputies, both clergy and lay. It is not clear that this really led to the election of the most desired candidate. Clergy had ample opportunities to confer; lay deputies did not.  (Read my analysis of that election, Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory: How Not to Elect a Bishop, and related posts.)

This brings us to the episcopal election scheduled for June 26. This event promises to have all the defects of the most recent election, as well as some unique new ones. To begin with, the meeting to discuss the candidates has not become a tradition, though the failure to encourage frank discussion limited the utility of the meeting anyway. Of greater significance, the convention to elect the next bishop will be held over Zoom. The most obvious deficiency of such a convention is that it discourages consultation even more than usual. Additionally, voting is to be done electronically, with results announced almost immediately and with one round of voting quickly following the previous one. This discourages not only consultation but also careful, individual discernment. The new rules will, however, get the whole matter over quickly.

Could ranked-choice voting (RCV) improve the diocesan convention voting in some way. I think so. In RCV, voters rank as many candidates as they like in order of preference. The system is sometimes described as instant-runoff voting. Instead of having multiple elections, the same votes are tabulated multiple times. In the first round, every first-place vote is counted. If a candidate earns more than 50% of the first-choice votes, that candidate is elected. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and those who voted for that candidate have their second-choice votes tallied instead. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes. (I described this system and offer a concrete example in “The People’s Choice (Round Two).”) A big advantage of RCV is its obviating the need for multiple rounds of voting to achieve a winner with a majority vote. The system is increasing popular in local elections. It is being used in the upcoming election for mayor of New York City, for example.

Of course, an episcopal election is complicated by the need to achieve majorities in both the lay and clergy orders. RCV could be used in a number of ways in this situation. For example, the two orders could vote using RCV.  If the same candidate wins in both orders—this is unlikely—a new bishop has been selected. If not, a conventional episcopal election could be conducted between the winner in each order or perhaps the top two vote-getters in each order. In the Pittsburgh case, this could result in a runoff election having two, three, or four candidates, with a four-candidate runoff being least likely. Alternatively, candidates achieving at least some threshold voting strength could be advanced to the runoff round. (Since the winner in each order must have at least 50% of the votes, a threshold of, say, 30% might be enough to advance to the next round.)

Why would such a system be desirable? First, it speeds up the voting process. This is not an insignificant advantage. Deputies sometimes leave the convention if it goes on too long. A more significant advantage is that everyone votes his or her conscience, at least initially, and is not influenced by other voters. In particular, laypeople cannot be influenced by what the clergy seem to want. (Clergy, on the other hand, seem largely impervious to lay desires.) Assuming the initial vote does not identify a winner, the resulting runoff voting will be among the candidates most desired by the two orders. Another advantage is that weak candidates are eliminated automatically; they can save themselves the embarrassment of having to remove themselves from the process.

In the upcoming Pittsburgh election, I am concerned that deputies who would like to elect a female bishop will split their votes among the three women, thereby giving an election advantage to the two male candidates. (It could also work the other way.) This is not to say that gender is the most important factor in the selection process, but it is surely a significant one.

It is too late to change how the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh votes on June 26. I hope that Episcopalians here and elsewhere will consider whether some form of RCV could help in the process of electing bishops. Here’s a suggestion, however, that informs but does not replace the conventional election process: Begin the convention with RCV votes in each order and announce the results, probably showing the votes at each stage of the tabulation process. Then, with a clearer idea of which voters favor which candidate, proceed as in a conventional election. I suspect that a bishop will be selected more quickly this way. The choice may even better reflect the true desires of the diocese (and the Holy Spirit).

Improving Musical Notation

 Invention is a fickle enterprise. The identical thing or idea can be created or discovered independently in different places and at different times. Its first appearance may not be the one that enjoys the most influence. If multiple things are devised for the same purpose, the “best” one may not be the one that is universally adopted. For example, there is general agreement that the Betamax videocassette recorder was, by various measures, better than its VHS rival, yet VHS machines dominated the consumer market.

This is by way of introducing a variation on the conventional way Western music is notated. I don’t expect to change music notation, but I do want to suggest that a slightly different convention might have achieved at least a minor advantage.

Piano and vocal scores are typically represented using two staves, one above the other. Each staff comprises five horizontal, equally spaced lines. The lower (bass) staff serves as an extension of the upper (treble) staff with an imaginary eleventh line between them. Notes lower on the page within this system are lower in pitch.

In this scheme, a note on the bottom line of the treble staff is a fifth above a note on the top line of the bass staff. So-called ledger lines are used to indicate notes on one staff or the other that are above or below that staff. For example, middle C on the upper staff is represented by a note below the staff with a short horizontal line through it (the ledger line). The same C on the lower staff is represented by a note above the staff with a ledger line through it.

Because of the relationship of the staves to one another, notes in identical positions on their respective staves are not only different in pitch but are also different notes. For example, a note on the middle line of the top staff is a B, whereas the same notation on the lower staff is a D in the next lower octave. (The respective pitches are sometimes designated B4 and D3 in the system in which middle C is designated as C4.)

I suspect that beginning piano students learn the notes on the bottom staff as easily as those on the top. As a clarinetist, I learned the notes on the treble staff long ago but had no use for the bass staff. That is, until I began as an adult to sing bass in church choirs. I still have not learned notes on the bass staff cold. I mostly identify them using a cumbersome mental transformation that sees a note and mentally increases its pitch by a third. For example, what looks like an A were it on the treble staff becomes a C on the bass staff. This is slow and error-prone. It is particularly dysfunctional when I’m trying to pick out a part on the piano. (In no way am I a pianist.) Wouldn’t it be easier if a C on one staff were also a C on the other, albeit in a different octave?

Figure 1 shows the location of Cs on the two staves. Figure 2 shows the location of Cs on the two staves were the staves to be separated not be a fifth but by a seventh. Instead of there being one imaginary line between the staves, there would be two. This would make all the notes on the treble staff the same as those on the bass staff, albeit two octaves higher. Seemingly, this would be an easier system to learn and to play from. The only drawback of this hypothetical system is that music would require slightly more vertical space on the page.

Alas, the time for this innovation is past. No one who has learned all the notes already would want to change to the revised scheme, and learning the new system would make use of existing sheet music difficult. I don’t know just how the current notational convention was codified, but I think its designer or designers missed an opportunity.

Figure 1. C notes in conventional notation

Figure 2. C notes in revised notation

A Terrible Terrible Book

Being a fan of Stacey Abrams generally and having read an excerpt of her new thriller While Justice Sleeps in Vanity Fair, I will probably buy the book. To help me make a purchase decision, I read the comments offered on the Barnes & Nobel Web site and scanned the comments left by (presumed) readers. The comments left were mostly positive. One writer, however, gave the book a single star (out of five). This reader, self-reported as being from Atlanta, Georgia, left his or her comments anonymously. The review was the following:

One has to doubt that Anonymous actually read While Justice Sleeps. Moreover, Anonymous failed to capitalize “marxist,” lied about spoilers in the review, and offered questionable descriptors.

The review, of course, is not a review at all, but a gratuitous attack by a nasty right-winger eager to display hatred of the author and all she stands for. It is sad that this “review” is a sign of our times. So many people have lost the ability to be objective or even to agree to disagree and only want to demonize and destroy anyone who does not believe as they do.

I had hoped that the end of  Donald Trump’s term in office would decrease the hostility of public discourse that we had recently come to expect (and, reluctantly, endure). How wrong I was!

Can’t Eat Just One

Herr Foods Inc. Logo

I am excessively fond of potato chips, particularly sour cream and onion potato chips. I try not to buy this snack too often, as I often consume the contents of a 9-ounce bag in a single day, though not necessarily in a single sitting. Sometimes, it takes me a bit more than 24 hours to polish off a bag. I wouldn’t say I’m addicted to potato chips, as I can go weeks without eating any. But occasionally, in a moment of weakness, I throw a bag of potato chips into my grocery cart. If a bag of chips is in the house, it is hard for me to resist snacking—a few chips here, a few chips there, and, suddenly, the bag is empty. This is surely not a healthy habit.

Two days ago, I bought a large bag of Herr’s sour cream and onion potato chips. I resolved to summon more than my usual willpower and make this bag last. In magic marker, I wrote the purchase date on the package. I began my snacking eating just two chips at a time. Since then, I have been snacking more expansively, but the bag is still about half-full. (I may be kidding myself, but I think that’s an honest estimate.)

I am determined to make my potato chip stash last for a while, though without becoming monkish about it. There is something comforting simply knowing that a bag of chips remains atop my refrigerator. The text of my willpower continues.

Who You Gonna Believe, Me or Your Lyin’ Eyes

 Initially, Republicans denied that Donald Trump instigated the insurrection of January 6. Lately, some Republicans are denying that anything of consequence happened on that date. Citizens simply entered the Capitol as though they were tourists, according to this latest GOP story. This assertion, of course, is ludicrous. The strategy, however, is distressingly familiar.

Just as, in his trial, Derek Chauvin’s attorney tried to convince the jury that what they saw was not what they thought they saw, the Republicans are now trying to convince us that what we saw on January 6 was not what we thought we saw.

Just as Derek Chauvin was convicted, so should be the revisionist Republicans. Although we do not actually know first-hand that Biden was legitimately elected—we have no rational reason to believe otherwise, of course—we saw first-hand what happened at the Capitol on January 6. Do not let the GOP tell you that you didn’t see what you certainly saw.

Defending Benjamin Franklin, Round Four

It now seems inevitable that the building housing Benjamin Franklin High School, from which I graduated in 1964, will be renamed by the Orleans Parish School Board. (See my posts about the NOLA Public Schools Facility Renaming Initiative here, here, and here.) My classmates and I have been trying to head off the name change and discourage altering the name of the charter school itself. (Franklin was once a public school housed in the old Carrolton Courthouse. It is now a charter school in a modern building designed as a high school.) We have been making the case that Benjamin Franklin, despite having once owned slaves, is nonetheless someone whose name can proudly be attached to a college prep high school.

I have not addressed the nature of the NOLA Public Schools Facility Renaming Initiative itself. A classmate, Thomas J. Wagner, has done so, and, with his permission, I am reproducing his letter to the editor of The Advocate that he titled “New Orleans Public School Board Flawed Standard for Facility Naming.” Although this letter addresses the situation in New Orleans, its principles are sound and should be applied in other circumstances where the names of public assets are being reconsidered. (Note that I added a link to the Isaacson essay referred to in the first line.)

___________________________________

Two weeks ago, the Advocate published Walter Isaacson’s clear and compelling defense for retaining Benjamin Franklin as the name of two New Orleans public schools. Mr. Isaacson forcefully argues that this decision should be based upon the “moral arc of [Franklin’s] life and his [lifelong] quest for improvement.” No one can credibly gainsay Mr. Isaacson’s defense of Franklin nor justify the removal of Franklin’s name in light of his overwhelming accomplishments and contributions to our country and to mankind at large. 

The Board’s misjudgment in calling for the removal of Franklin’s name stems from its flawed negative standard: “The School Board is fundamentally opposed to retaining names of school facilities for persons who were slave owners, Confederate officials, and segregation supporters.”

This negative standard dispositively eliminates naming facilities for numerous honorable and worthy persons whose lives and careers have contributed immensely to our community, city, state, nation, and beyond. This flawed standard requires a myopic focus on the negative to the exclusion of the positive. It limits decisions regarding naming and renaming as a choice among a list of “who is left?’ after disposing of the names of many greater and more honorable persons.

Ever worse, this negative standard is extremely divisive. The current standard focuses on racial issues, and nothing else. Others can rightfully argue for eliminating persons on the basis of other failures, flaws, and faults, such as issues involving gender, sexuality, abortion, anti-abortion, spousal and child abuse, non-support, perjury for profit, and so forth. 

Instead of this negative approach, Mr. Isaacson’s comments should guide the School Board to set a positive standard, focusing upon a person’s entire life while allowing consideration of those negative aspects that are relevant to the institution, community, country, and beyond. Such a focus is most appropriate for the School Board as it is better grounded in the truths and realities of human imperfection while recognizing the betterment of individuals and mankind through education, experience, and understanding. 

Thomas J. Wagner
Franklin alum, 1964

Defending Benjamin Franklin, Round Three

Benjamin Franklin High School, New Orlenas, Louisiana

 As I explained in earlier posts, the Orleans Parish School Board is engaged in a process of renaming school buildings bearing the names of people who owned slaves, were officials of the Confederate States of America, or who promoted segregation. I earlier wrote to the school board and composed a letter to the editor of The Tiimes-Picayune about this process. It now appears that the renaming of the building in which Benjamin Franklin High School is housed is inevitable. What I hope is not inevitable is the renaming of the charter school itself, something that the governing board is contemplating, perhaps even advocating. In the hope of derailing any change of the name of the school, I wrote the letter below to the Head of School, Dr. Patrick Widhalm. (I have no idea why Dr. Widhalm is not called a principal.) I wanted also to address the President of the Board of Directors, Ms. Alea M. Cott, but I did not have an e-mail address for her.

___________________________________

Dear Dr. Widhalm,

I attended the April 15 AAEE board meeting via Zoom. It was not a comforting experience. Parliamentary procedure was lax, allowing vague motions and unstructured and prolonged debate. But it was the board’s apparent indifference to the name “Benjamin Franklin” that was most upsetting.

I would have liked the board to have voiced opposition to the renaming of the building, but circumstances suggest that it would have been to no avail. Perhaps silence was the wiser course.

But the suggestion that the name of the program should be revisited if the building is renamed, as it seemingly will be, seems a cowardly response to the foolishly inflexible policy of the OPSB. This craven notion was in evidence in the letter sent to school stakeholders on April 26: “Moving forward, Benjamin Franklin High School will implement a plan for engaging our community in a robust, meaningful dialogue about our charter school’s name, independent of OPSB’s process.” I cannot imagine what constituency such a plan is intended to placate. Such a “dialogue” can only increase the anger and anxiety of legitimate school stakeholders, who have overwhelmingly expressed their support for the school’s traditional name.

I admit that I never thought deeply about my high school’s name while I was a student. Reluctantly, I must thank the OPSB for motivating me to investigate the life of Benjamin Franklin. What I discovered is that Franklin, surely an imperfect human being, as are we all, accomplished more in one lifetime than most “famous” or even admirable” people. One can hardly find a better rôle model for curious and motivated New Orleanian adolescents than Benjamin Franklin, who was equally interested in personal self-improvement and in that of the body politic.

Although I would prefer that the school’s building not be renamed, I care less about that than I do about the name of the charter school itself. If the only criteria for an appropriate eponym for the building are that the person so chosen not have owned slaves, helped run the Confederacy, or promoted segregation, many of history’s greatest scoundrels will qualify. Let the school board pick one of these or, better still, name the building without reference to any person at all. Call it, for example, the Lakefront Academy Building.

Irrespective of the actions of the OPSB, there is no reason to rename Benjamin Franklin High School. Its name is ideal, and I am disappointed that the board of AAEE cannot see that this is so. No public dialogue on the matter is called for. Instead, the board should acknowledge the school board’s right to choose the building name, while concurrently reasserting the propriety of the charter’s present designation.

Best regards,
Lionel E. Deimel, Ph.D.
Class of ’64

Defending Benjamin Franklin, Round Two

I recently wrote about the proposed renaming of my high school by the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB), one element of what is officially called the NOLA Public Schools Facility Renaming Initiative. The objective of the project is to rename facilities bearing the names of slaveholders, Confederate States of America officials, or segregation proponents. It was never clear how absolute were the board’s criteria, but the involvement of professional historians suggested that other considerations might be taken into account. Additionally, public comments were solicited on the project,

Because Benjamin Franklin once owned slaves, the OPSB had put the name Benjamin Franklin High School on the chopping block. In my own citizen comment on this matter, I defended Franklin, arguing that he was much more than what is now seen as his one unforgivable sin. (That contribution may be read in the blog post referenced above.)

What had not been clear when the renaming process began was that the school board was not proposing to rename the school, a charter school with its own governing board, but the building in which the school is housed. That building is owned by the school system. Only the governing board of the charter, Advocates for Academic Excellence in Education, Inc. (AAEE), can rename the school itself. There is no bar to a school’s having a name different from that of its building. It has become obvious that even the members of AAEE did not originally recognize the limits of the OPSB initiative. In any case, renaming the building honoring a well-known patriot and ideal rôle model for New Orleans adolescents seemed gratuitously stupid.

The public comment period was scheduled to end on April 30. However, the OPSB voted tentatively on April 20 to rename 20 school facilities, including Benjamin Franklin’s. The board took a final vote to move forward with the renaming on April 22. Both votes were 6–1. Remarkably, the board argued that the name changes were obligatory, given the policy adopted in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd. Apparently, modifying an inflexible policy that demands outrageous acts by the very body that adopted the policy was not considered an option.

On April 27, in response to the OPSB action, I wrote the letter below to the editor of The Times-Picayune. To date, it has not been published.

___________________________________

The Orleans Parish School Board’s desire to purge the names of known racists from its school buildings is commendable. That it has chosen to do so in the case of Benjamin Franklin High School and to make that decision before the end of its own declared public comment period, however, illustrates that the board is operating in bad faith and using bad logic. It clearly does not care what the public has to say in this matter.

Benjamin Franklin, a scientist, diplomat, philosopher, founding father, and civic activist, could hardly be a better inspiration to New Orleans students aspiring to both academic and personal excellence. But according to the board’s inflexible criteria, Franklin’s having once owned slaves justifies the excision of his name from any Orleans Parish school building. That Franklin repudiated slavery and worked to eliminate it, eventually becoming president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, apparently is irrelevant to the board. As I wrote in my own public comment, “[t]o deny Franklin’s value as a rôle model because he once held views we today find odious, despite his eventually repudiating those ideas, is to deny the value of repentance and rehabilitation, perhaps even the value of education itself.”

It is to be hoped that the Orleans Parish School Board will review its ill-considered decision regarding Benjamin Franklin High School. And, should Franklin’s building be renamed, the board of the charter school housed there should proudly retain the school’s name.

Gun Control

 

An Immediate Reaction to the Chauvin Verdicts

 When I learned that the Chauvin jury had reached a verdict that was about to be announced, I turned my television to MSNBC. I listened to about an hour of commentary, with none of the speakers predicting what the verdicts would be. Someone noted that a quick verdict—the jury deliberated for about 11 hours—usually favors the defense.

My own expectation—certainly my hope—was that one or more of the verdicts would be guilty. Although it formally is the job of the prosecution to prove the defendant guilty, this trial was unusual. Because the whole country had seen videos of the police incident that was the subject of this trial, the commonsense conclusion had to be that Derek Chauvin caused the death of George Floyd. Despite its formal task to provoke reasonable doubt, the defense, in practice, had an uphill climb. The eyes and ears of most people led them to believe that Chauvin was guilty.

I am relieved by the verdicts, which are certainly the verdicts I would have subscribed to were I on the jury. On the other hand, conviction of white police officers on murder charges, particularly when the victim is back, is rare. In this case, the evidence for conviction was overwhelming and transparent. Not guilty verdicts would surely have been unjust, but, given the judicial history of the United States, not completely surprising.

We can hope that this trial represents a turning point. It was a trial in which police testified against police and one in which justice was serviced. It remains to be seen whether the next police killing whose trial involves less evidence and police testimony will also serve justice.

Today’s verdicts are no consolation for George Floyd, of course. We can but hope that his murder will inspire more justice to be served in future trials of errant cops. That would, perhaps, be a compensatory legacy. 

Thoughts as Prosecution in Chauvin Case nears the End

 As I write this, the state’s case against former police officer Derek Chauvin is nearing its end. The last prosecution witness is use-of-force expert Seth Stoughton, a criminal justice law professor, who apparently has analyzed the last minutes of George Floyd’s life instant by instant.

In light of my last post, “To Protect and to Serve,” the most interesting thing Stoughton has said concerns the concepts of threat and risk. Threat, he explained, necessarily involves the ability of a person to cause harm to an arresting officer, the opportunity to do so, and the apparent intention to do so. Police officers often justify shooting civilians by saying that they felt threatened. But Stoughton defined risk as simply a situation involving a potential threat. “While threat can justify use of force, risk can’t,” he said. Too often, I think, officers react not to threat but to risk they find uncomfortable.

In the case of Derek Chauvin’s handling of the arrest of George Floyd, it is impossible to see a prone, handcuffed, and weighted down George Floyd as representing a threat. He doesn’t even appear to represent any sort of risk to the officers on the scene.

The questioning of Seth Stoughton clarifies what happened to Floyd. He did not resist arrest, but he resisted being placed in the back of a squad car. He was, he claimed, claustrophobic. He was then removed from the squad car and placed on the street. This raises the question of what the arresting officers were intending to do. Were they trying to convince him to get back into the car? Were they eventually going to order a more spacious vehicle in which to place Floyd? Or were they just intending to kill Floyd to get him off their hands?

If Derek Chauvin is put on the stand—this hardly seems a good strategy by the defense, but it might be done as a last-ditch effort to avoid an inevitable conviction—I would hope that the prosecution will ask him what was his intended end game.

To Protect and to Serve

Watching the Minneapolis trial of Derek Chauvin, it is natural to ask what Chauvin’s defense can possibly be. The prosecution has offered witnesses to George Floyd’s life and his final day. Floyd was hardly a perfect human being, but he has at least been portrayed by witnesses as a sympathetic character. We have heard from his girlfriend. We have heard from bystanders appalled by the treatment he received at the hands of the Minneapolis police. We have been told that Chauvin’s behavior was unauthorized and uncalled-for. And, of course, we have seen the horrible videos.

Unless Chauvin’s defense team can pull an unexpected rabbit out of a hat, only three arguments appear available:

1. Police have a difficult job, and civilians cannot fairly second-guess them. Their actions are beyond question.
2. George Floyd had medical problems, used drugs, and succumbed to treatment that an ordinary (i.e., healthy) person would have survived.
3. George Floyd was a big strong man—a man much larger than Derek Chauvin—and therefore a threat to the policeman. Extraordinary means were required to subdue him.

That we shouldn’t second-guess police actions is a conventional argument that is wearing thin in this age of Black Lives Matter. Too many unarmed black males are dying at the hands of police. The argument that the police must be given license to do anything they believe necessary in the line of duty simply won’t fly with the public these days, and I suspect it will be similarly unpersuasive to the jury. The defense will likely bring out this argument anyway, on the theory that it can’t hurt. (But it actually might.)

Blaming Floyd’s health and lifestyle is likewise a stretch. Yes, he was a drug user with a heart problem, but we learned last week that he worked out regularly and showed no evidence of being at death’s door in the videos from his last hour of life. Moreover, it is not hard to believe that one can die from being handcuffed on the ground with a knee on one’s neck for nine minutes. One’s general state of health is not likely to be particularly relevant in such a circumstance. Although EMS personnel and a cop tried to resuscitate Floyd, at least one of the first responders assumed that he was dead before he was loaded into the ambulance. It will be difficult for jurors to conclude that George Floyd’s death was not the direct result of the actions of Derek Chauvin. Nonetheless, expect the defense to blame the victim for his own demise.

The defense is probably going to offer the explanation police who kill most often trot out—that the defendant felt threatened and did what he—always he—had to do to protect himself. We are seeing the jury being prepared for this argument: George Floyd is big—and, implicitly, black and threatening—and Derek Chauvin is small and white. But the usual logic doesn’t work here. Floyd was immobilized on the ground and handcuffed. Anyone can see that he posed no credible threat to Chauvin or anyone else. Chauvin did not appear to be afraid of Floyd; instead, he seemed indifferent to his fate and in no hurry to conclude that enough force applied to the supposed miscreant was enough. But Chauvin or an attorney on his behalf will, no doubt argue that he felt threatened and did what he needed to do for his own safety.

Many police departments have adopted the slogan “to protect and to serve” (or “to serve and protect”). These infinitives indicate neither a subject nor an object. We are expected to infer that the police force exists to protect and serve civilians. Too often, however, the police protect and serve their own interests. When a cop is threatened or, more importantly, feels threatened, rightly or wrongly, the inclination is not to protect the public, perhaps even a perpetrator, but to protect him- or herself. This is a perfectly understandable impulse, but it is one that training should eradicate. Being threatened comes with the job. Police on the street need to recognize that and understand that even sacrificing their own safety or life may be necessary to protect those they are supposed to serve. Derek Chauvin cannot reasonably argue that he was protecting his prisoner or himself. In the various videos, he seems simply to be a self-satisfied sadist, and, one suspects, a racist. 

Police unions nearly always defend their members, irrespective of how outrageous their behavior may have been. It is gratifying that, in the Chauvin trial, police officials are actually testifying against a police defendant. We can hope that this is the start of a trend. Nonetheless, it is hard to get twelve Americans to agree on much of anything these days, and the verdict of the jury is very much in doubt.

Pray for justice for George Floyd.