The Deimel Conjecture

I heard an interview with mathematician Thomas Hales on the radio yesterday. Hales is notable for having apparently proved the Kepler conjecture. The interview made me realize that I have devised at least two propositions that might be called the Deimel conjecture.

A conjecture, in this sense, is essentially a proposition one suspects is true (i.e., is a theorem) but which one has been unable to prove. A meaningful conjecture, as long as it remains a conjecture, is either very difficult to prove, false, or unprovable.

The first significant conjecture I posited involves my dissertation work in automata theory. It is not clearly interesting (i.e., important) and, in any case, is difficult to state concisely. What I will offer as the Deimel conjecture is not clearly interesting either, but it is reasonably easy to state. The conjecture is the following:

In every base b > 2, there is at least one nontrivial PPDI.

Base (or radix) is the value on which a traditional positional system of number representation is based. In everyday life, we use a decimal or base-10 system of representing integers. Thus, for example, 123₁₀ (i.e, 123 in base-10) represents

1 x 10² + 2 x 10¹ + 3 x 10⁰ = 100 + 20 + 3

Aside from base-10, the most commonly used systems for representing numbers are binary (base-2), octal (base-8), and hexadecimal (base-16). With a little arithmetic, one may easily verify that

123₁₀ = 1111011₂ = 173₈ = 7B₁₆

(Since base-16 requires 6 more numerals—number symbols—than the 10 we conventionally use, we employ letters to represent values greater than 9. Thus A = 10, B = 11, etc.)

 A number n is a pluperfect digital invariant (or PPDI) in base-b if it is represented in base-b by the digits

d_md_m-1d_m-2 … d₁

and

d_m^m + d_m-1^m + d_m-2^m + … + d₁^m =  n

We refer to m, the number of digits in the representation of n in base-b, as the order of the PPDI. By a nontrivial PPDI, we mean a PPDI of order greater than 1, since every 1-digit number representation in any base represents a PPDI. (Think about it.)

In case your eyes have glazed over, I will offer a couple of examples to clarify what PPDIs look like. For example, 407 is an order-3 PPDI in base-10 because

4³ + 0³ + 7³ = 64 + 0 + 343 = 407₁₀

Likewise, 1824 is an order-4 PPDI in base-9 because

2446₉ = 2 x 9³ + 4 x 9²  + 4 x 9¹ + 6 x 9⁰ = 1458 + 324 + 36 + 6 = 1824₁₀

and

2⁴ + 4⁴  + 4⁴ + 6⁴ =16 + 256 + 256 + 1296 = 1824₁₀

PPDIs are not common, but neither are they rare. In base-10, for example, there are 89 PPDIs of orders 1 through 39. (There are no base-10 PPDIs of order greater than 39.)

So let me return to what I will now call the Deimel conjecture:

In every base b > 2, there is at least one nontrivial PPDI.

By exhaustive search, it has been shown that there is at least one PPDI for every base from 2 to 1000. This certainly suggests that the conjecture might be true, but it doesn’t guarantee that there are nontrivial PPDIs in bases 1001 or 56000 or 2894361. In fact, however, we know more. I have proved the following, seemingly odd, theorem:

THEOREM: There is at least one nontrivial PPDI in every base b > 2, except possibly where b = 18k and all the following are true: (1) k is neither a perfect square nor twice a perfect square and (2) neither k-1 nor k+1 is divisible by 5.

The strange restrictions seen in this theorem result from the fact that it is possible to show that certain patterns of PPDIs occur in related bases. The simplest such result asserts that any number written as a 1-digit number in a given base is a PPDI. Several 2- and 3-digit PPDIs are the bases of theorems asserting the existence of PPDIs in related, larger bases. Such theorems fail to tell us about, for example, base-90. Using a computer, it has been shown that the smallest PPDI in base-90 is a 8 digits long. It is difficult even to form hypotheses about what PPDIs in larger bases might be implicated by such a representation. Quite possibly, no other PPDI is related to it in a simple way.

Although it is not clear how to prove the Deimel conjecture (or even improve on the theorem offered above), there is an obvious way of going about disproving it. All one has to do is consider all PPDI candidates in base 1001, 1002, etc. (Fortunately, it is easily shown that there is an upper limit to the magnitude of any PPDI in a given base.) In other words, the conjecture can be disproved by exhibiting a counterexample. This procedure has the disadvantage or requiring a lot of computer time, and, if the conjecture is actually true, a counterexample, i.e., a base without nontrivial PPDIs, will never be found no matter how much computing power is thrown at the problem.

I am inclined to suspect that my conjecture is indeed true, but the only evidence I have for that is the lack of a counterexample in light of a good deal of searching for one. I have no idea how to go about proving the conjecture. I challenge the mathematically inclined with nothing better to do to try to prove or disprove the Deimel conjecture. I must offer the disclaimer, however, that I know of no past, present, or future practical use for the result, whatever it may be. Do let me know if you resolve the status of the conjecture.

I treat PPDIs more formally on my Web site. You should go there if you are thinking of tackling this problem. Good luck!

Deconstruction?

The Anglican cathedral in Christchurch, New Zealand, has been damaged by two major earthquakes, and what to do with the building has become a controversial matter. The Diocese of Christchurch decided to build an architecturally unorthodox temporary cathedral and eventually to replace the damaged building, which is considered dangerously unstable.

I was surprised that a  recent story on the cathedral speaks of the “deconstruction” of the building. Erecting a building can be called construction, so it is not unreasonable to call tearing down a building deconstruction. Conventionally, however, the systematic elimination of a structure is referred to as demolition. The only definitions I could find for deconstruction relate to philosophical or literary analysis. Is a new definition for deconstruction coming into vogue or are people inventing jargon to replace a perfectly serviceable word, namely demolition?

The question is this: Is demolishing a building different from deconstructing it? Before I read the entire article, I thought that deconstruction might mean disassembling, the careful dismantling of a structure, preserving at least some of the pieces for future use. What is clear from reading the article (and certainly from reading the court opinion that is the subject of the piece) is that what is being referred to is stripping the building down to the level of about 2 meters. Apparently, the walls are unstable, but the foundation is not (or is not a hazard, in any case).

I am inclined to think that the use of deconstruction in the story (and in the court proceedings) constitutes an unnecessary and unwise neologism. The diocese was given notice “in accordance with Section 38(4) of the [Canterbury Recovery Act of 2011] that your building is to be demolished to the extent necessary to remove the hazards.” If deconstruction, as used in the New Zealand discussion means nothing more than tearing down, the word is unnecessary and pretentious. Demolition, dismantling, or tearing down would each serve as well. If deconstruction is intended to mean dismantling down to the sill, I suspect that the need for the word is insufficient for it to achieve widespread comprehension (and therefore acceptance).

Hope for the New Archbishop of Canterbury

Like many Anglicans around the world, I have been trying to figure out just what we have gotten in the newly named Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. I surely won’t aspire to writing a profile of him, but I would like to share a few thought on what I’ve found.

First, although Welby seems firmly in the Evangelical camp—I was not happy to read of his association with Holy Trinity, Brompton—I count it as encouraging that he has spent much of his adult life in the “real world,” namely, as an oil industry executive. He may be more sensitive to the effects that statements and actions can have on actual people and groups of people than academic Rowan Williams, who seems curiously lacking in that sort of perception.

For the sake of the Church of England—really for the sake of Anglicanism generally—I am pleased that Welby is supportive of women bishops. In his post-appointment news conference, he said, “I’m deeply committed to the ordination of women to the episcopate and believe that is key in the future of the Church of England.” It is perhaps unfortunate that the vote on the women bishops legislation to take place just over a week from now is not taking place under Justin Welby. Perhaps the legislation might not have contained the potential poison pill whose inclusion the incumbent archbishop championed. If the legislation does pass, Welby may have a benign influence on what becomes the code of practice regarding requests for male bishops.

In his news conference, Welby was asked about his work in reconciliation. He spoke of bringing people together where they can listen carefully to one another and recognize one another’s humanity and integrity. Even if the people do not come to agreement—this usually doesn’t happen, he said—people can go away with a sense that they can deal with one another. This sounds a lot like the Indaba process and not very much like the Anglican Covenant approach to dealing with conflict in which the “offending party” is not even guaranteed a hearing. Welby said that this sort of reconciliation is “something that will very much be a part of what I do.” I take this as a hopeful sign.

According to Fox News, Welby has described his thinking on marriage equity as “evolving,” though he has so far been an opponent of the idea. It is unclear whether Welby realizes how Americans will understand such a position in light of the fact that President Obama’s “evolving” views led him to support gay marriage. In any case, this is another hopeful sign, though perhaps just less so.

At the aforementioned news conference, John Martin, representing The Living Church, asked a pointed and actually rather nasty question: “Have you firsthand experience of the Episcopal Church USA, and what are your thoughts about how to contain its differences from other parts of the Anglican Communion within the body of the 77 million Anglicans?” Happily, Welby expressed no interest in putting the American church in quarantine. He noted that he had met with Episcopal Church bishops at their March 2012 meeting. VirtueOnline published his address at that meeting, where Welby said, in part:

I have found some myths demythologised. For example the myth that TEC is only liberal, monochrome in its theological stand, and the myth that all minorities of view are oppressed. There is rather the sense of a complex body of wide views and many nationalities addressing issues with what I have personally found inspiring honesty and courage, doubtless also with faults and sins, but always looking to see where the sins are happening. The processes are deeply moving even where I disagreed, which I did on a number of obvious issues, but the honesty of approach was convincing, the buy into and practice of Indaba superb. In summary, there has been a sense of calm confidence and expectation, and of facing the vast challenge of the next 10-15 years. You have a better pension plan too.

He also said, “What is clear too is that in in the Communion we need to fit our structures to the reality of our changing and complex relationships, not try and shape reality to structures.” Perhaps this presages an emphasis of what the churches of the Communion need as members of the Communion, rather than what roles should be played by the so-called Instruments of Communion. This is another hopeful sign. (I recommending reading Welby’s entire, though rather brief, address to the American House of Bishops.)

In completing his response to Martin’s question, Welby said this: “It’s not for me to tell them [The Episcopal Church] how to do their business, and I don’t intend to do that.” This is yet another hopeful sign, although Welby did refer to statements he made about homosexuality at the time and chose not to elaborate upon. I don’t know to what, precisely, he was referring.

On the whole, I am encourage by what seem to be the views of the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Of course, I had been encouraged by statements made by Rowan Williams before he was made archbishop. I have learned my lesson, will contain my enthusiasm, and will adopt an attitude of wait-and-see.

Facing the Republicans

I was returning home with a friend tonight after attending the first day of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh’s annual convention. We were riding a light rail train from downtown Pittsburgh. Ed and I were discussing Tuesday’s election and other matters around how Americans select their president. I made the mistake of repeating what I wrote in a post earlier today, namely that the Republicans had a bad candidate, bad policies, and bad supporters. At that point, the male half of a young couple sitting in front of us turned around and challenged me, specifically about the “bad candidate” and “bad policies” remark. This began a spirited exchange for which I has glad to have a supportive friend at my side. At one point, however, the female half of the couple chimed in.

I had been asked who would have been a better Republican candidate than Mitt Romney. I wanted to answer “Jon Huntsman,” but I couldn’t remember Huntsman’s name, so I described him as something like “the other Mormon who was in the race for the Republican nomination.” At that point, the woman in the seat in front of me accused me (as best as I could figure out at the time) of religious prejudice. She then asserted, rather inconsistently, it seemed, that Obama was a Muslim. I disputed that, but, at that point, I threw in the towel, letting Ed take over the argument, as my stop was next. I felt, however, that at least the last third of my assertion about the Republicans had been proven.

Two Language Observations

1. Outreach

I was listening to a radio interview of a couple of Republican Party operatives who were addressing the question of whether and how the party might have to change to perform better in elections. (This is the season of speculation about what went wrong in the recent presidential election. The obvious answer, of course, is bad candidate, bad policies, and bad supporters. But I digress.) One of the speakers said that the party needs “to outreach to minority communities.” This is a decidedly odd use of outreach as a verb, and it illustrates the ongoing jargonization of American English. Why not simply say that the Republican party needs “to reach out to minority communities”?

2. Democrats

In the same segment, I heard something that drives me crazy. It has become almost universal for representatives of the Republican Party to refer not to the Democratic Party but to the Democrat Party. One of the interviewees did that on the radio today. This usage is simply wrong. The name of the party of Barack Obama is not the Democrat Party, but the Democratic Party headed by the Democratic National Committee. How would Republicans feel if Democrats consistently referred to the Republic Party?

Why do Republicans do this? I think it is because democratic evokes strong positive emotions in Americans in a way that republican does not. And Republicans have adopted a take-no-prisioners attitude toward the opposition party. Apparently, it has not occurred to Republican leaders that, rather than indulging in casual, mean-spirited name-calling, they might attract more adherents by becoming a party of reasonable people who are at least as interested in good governance as they are in winning elections. Don’t hold your breath on that one.

The Dog That Didn’t Bark

ACC-15, the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council concluded yesterday in Auckland, New Zealand. The most representative body of Anglicans worldwide met for 12 days, listened to reports , participated in much discussion, and passed 41 resolutions. Those resolutions are, however, mostly unremarkable.

The big news from ACC-15 is what didn’t happen. Participants spent little time considering the status of the Anglican Covenant, and ACC-15 neither passed nor proposed any resolution concerning the Covenant. This is the dog that didn’t bark.

The roots of the Covenant can be traced to the emergency meeting of the Anglican primates unwisely convened by the inexperienced Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in October 2003 in the wake of the General Convention’s having given its blessing to the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. At ACC-15, for the first time since that unfortunate meeting, differences over sexuality did not play a prominent role in a Communion-wide meeting.

Alan T Perry has written a very helpful post, “Fallout from New Zealand,” about the Anglican Covenant and ACC-15. Alan remarks

I conclude from the ACC’s silence on the Covenant that it is moving on from the project. If it’s not important enough for the ACC to comment on officially, then it’s lost its significance for the Communion. I think it can be shelved.

Do read “Fallout from New Zealand.” I don’t want to dispute anything Alan says there. Instead, I want to expand on what he wrote.

First, it is instructive to see just how little discussion there was at the Auckland meeting concerning the Covenant, based on news reports, anyway.

According to Episcopal News Service (ENS), participants were presented October 30 with a report on the consideration of the Covenant by Anglican churches. It is not clear whether the report was prepared by the Anglican Communion Office or by the Inter-Anglican Standing Committee on Unity, Faith and Order, both of which have seemed heavily invested in the adoption of the Covenant. In any case, as I noted in a recent post, the report distorted the facts.

The report, which has not been made public, asserted that the Church of Ireland was one of six churches that have accepted the Covenant as is. According to Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS), however, the General Synod of the Church of Ireland made a point of “subscribing” to the Covenant, rather than “adopting” it, reserving thereby to the Irish church certain matters of interpretation of the Covenant. It is a stretch to suggest that Ireland therefore accepted the Covenant as is.

According to ENS, “the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia has subscribed to the covenant’s first three sections but said it cannot adopt section 4, which outlines a process for resolving disputes.” This characterization also shades the truth. According to a May 10, 2010, report, the General Synod/Te Hinota Whanui of the New Zealand church, acting on the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the Covenant, approved “in principle” provisions of the first three sections of the draft. It also referred the Covenant “to the Epsicopal units of this church for consideration and reporting back to the 2012 session of the General Synod/Te Hinota Whanui, with a view to the Synod/Te Hinota then making a final decision regarding its adoption,” and it asked for a legal opinion on parts of Section 4. The 2012 vote, which came on July 9, was characterized by Anglican Taonga this way: “As expected, the General Synod said a final: ‘No’ to the proposed Anglican covenant today.” The resolution adopted said, in part, that the General Synod

Is unable to adopt the proposed Anglican Covenant due to concerns about aspects of Section 4, but subscribes to Sections 1, 2, and 3 as currently drafted to be a useful starting point for consideration of our Anglican understanding of the church.

Being “a useful starting point for consideration of our Anglican understanding of the church” is not an endorsement of the Covenant (or part thereof) per se.

I also dispute that the Episcopal Church’s General Convention made a “partial decision” on the Covenant. What it did was to  avoid making a decision, an action that was an alternative to rejecting it outright. Never did the legislative committee considering the Covenant consider seriously adopting the document.

Perhaps the biggest distortion in the report, however, is placing England in the category of having made a “partial decision” on the Covenant. The Church of England flat out rejected the covenant, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. A majority of dioceses were needed to approve the Covenant in order for the General Synod to take a final vote on approval. A majority of dioceses rejected adoption, however. (See the tally by Modern Church.) Church of England leaders have been embarrassed to admit that the Covenant was soundly rejected by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s own church.

As for the Anglican Church of Korea, I cannot find documentation on its declaring the first three sections of the Covenant “excellent and useful” while postponing consideration of Section 4. The reaction of the Korean bishops to the St. Andrew’s Draft of the Covenant—this was all I could find on the Web about Korea’s dealing with the Covenant—was extraordinarily negative.

Bishop Victoria Matthews followed up the report with her take on where the Covenant stands. See my earlier post, “Living in Safety,” for my take on her tepid pitch for the Covenant. Matthews showed a video on “the history and detail of the Covenant”—the video is not available on the Web as far as I can determine—after which participants were invited to reflect on what they had seen in small groups. (See ENS story here.)

On November 5, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams touched on the matter of the Covenant, rather wistfully, I think, and, following Bishop Matthews’ lead, without a hard sell:

The hopes for an Anglican Covenant were in part hopes for a framework, a climate, in which some of those questions might be addressed by consent, not by coercion. We don’t as yet know how that project will finally work itself out. I still hope and pray, speaking personally, the Covenant has a future, because I believe we do have a message to give the Christian world about how we can be both catholic and orthodox and consensual, working in freedom, mutual respect and mutual restraint. Without jeopardising the important local autonomy of our Churches, I think we still need work on that convergence of our schemes and systems, and I say that because I believe we all need to wake up to the challenges here if we are not to become less than we aspire to be as a Communion. Let me repeat the phrase: we need to be aware of the danger of becoming less than we aspire to be as a Communion. I think that we do aspire to be a consensual catholic and orthodox family. I believe we do aspire to be a family that lives in mutual respect and recognition, and to step back from that simply into a federal model, as I’ve said many times before, doesn’t seem to me to be the best and the greatest that God is asking from us as an Anglican family.

News stories indicated that delegates were to return to the matter of the Anglican Covenant on November 6. I don’t know whether that happened, but there have been no news stories about any further discussion of the document.

ENS has run a story offering reflections of the Episcopalian participants in ACC-15. Those reflections are remarkably different from what we have become used to following Communion-wide meetings. Here is a sample. The speaker is Bishop Ian Douglas, who is also a member of the Standing Committee.

“I found that we have been able to go much deeper in conversations around how our churches are so different one from another and also what holds us together as the communion itself,” he said. “It seems like a lot of the old animosities and divisions—differences are absolutely still there; I don’t want to paper over them – but all of the old tensions, I’m just not experiencing at this meeting.”

Other quotations in the ENS story are in a similar vein

So what are those of us concerned about the Anglican Covenant to make of ACC-15?  At the very least, it seems fair to say that the steam has gone out of the drive for Covenant adoption. Perhaps delegates saw the handwriting on the wall. Perhaps no one thought it would be possible to agree on any resolution about the Covenant, no matter how bland. Perhaps no one really cared anymore.

Nevertheless, reports of the death of the Anglican Covenant are premature. Although there seems to be no enthusiasm for pursuing the covenant project, there is the remote possibility that the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby by all reports, might try to inject new life into the campaign to achieve widespread adoption. His corporate experience in the “real world” suggests that he will not want to die in that particular ditch, however. The Covenant will not be dead until those churches that have adopted the pact rescind their action or withdraw according to Section 4.3 of the Covenant itself. That is unlikely to happen until the ACC declares the Covenant a failed project and encourages churches to dump it. It may be a long time before that happens. In the meantime, we should all hope that no church that has adopted the Covenant actually takes it seriously.

Update, 11/9/2012. I added the link the the ENS story “Council considers status of Anglican Covenant in small groups.” 

Primer

How do you pronounce primer? I ask this because a promotional announcement on my local NPR station used the pronunciation pry-mer to refer to a brief tutorial of some sort. This pronunciation is apparently common in England, but the standard American pronunciation for a reader for young children or a short tutorial of some sort is prim-er. On the other hand, a primer (pronounced pry-mer) can be a paint applied before applying the top coat or a device intended to ignite an explosive charge.

Vote

Mendacious Mitt

Living in Pennsylvania, I have not seen a lot of Obama for President TV spots. My impression, however, is that the kind of spots I would like to see have not been made. I would like to see TV ads with clips of Mitt Romney expressing his many views on the same subject over the years. His views on abortion probably provide the most grist for the political mill, but his view of foreign policy would probably work almost as well.

The video below from Slate is clearly too long for a TV spot, but it suggests the kind of resources available to a willing political operative. It is easy to see why Mitt Romney’s position has been called “multiple choice.”



Politicians shade the truth all the time. That may not be right, but it is reality, particularly when there is a perceived need to communicate a message in 30 seconds. Never have I seen a campaign like the Romney campaign, however, in which not only does the candidate or his supporters flat out lie, but also, when the lies are pointed out, the American people get neither a retraction nor an apology. Instead, the campaign simply doubles down, continuing to run dishonest ads with impunity.

On the matter of its advertising, the Romney campaign has, in fact, been scrupulously truthful: “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers” [Romney pollster Neil Newhouse]. He certainly got that right!

If a presidential candidate will lie to get elected, do we have any reasonable expectation that he will level with Americans when he is president? Is the nation that venerates Honest Abe ready to elect Mendacious Mitt?

Campaign Rallies

To the surprise of many, Mitt Romney is visiting Pennsylvania today. Admittedly, I haven’t made a scientific study of campaign rallies, but I do question their value. Romney has visited Ohio about a zillion times, but has it won him more votes on Tuesday? I doubt it.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

To begin with, no one needs to attend a campaign rally to learn what the candidate has to say. These events are covered ad nauseam in the media. Whenever a candidate says something new or contradictory, we’re sure to hear about it.

Who goes to campaign rallies anyway? Not, I suggest, the undecided voters that we are told the candidates are trying so hard to influence. Not supporters of the opposing candidate who, at this point, are more likely to view the visiting candidate with a combination of hatred and revulsion, rather than curiosity. Not, I suspect, even causal supporters, unless doing so is very convenient. (A worker in a factory visited by a candidate is likely to show up, or else.) People who show up at a rally—coverage on television support this—are enthusiastic supporters who will vote for the candidate anyway, and campaign workers. Probably the biggest effect of a campaign rally in a particular place is on the folks who are already actively working to elect the candidate.

Does anyone really think that the Romney vote in Ohio will be proportional to the number of times Romney has visited the state? Does anyone think that Romney’s visit to Pennsylvania will really help deliver the state to the Republican candidate?

Living in Safety

Bishop Victoria Matthews

I was dismayed by the report from Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS) the other day about a talk given by Bishop of Christchurch Victoria Matthews. The good bishop is a member of the Inter-Anglican Standing Committee on Unity, Faith and Order, a relatively new Anglican body that appears to be the Anglican analogue of the Roman Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. She was speaking to the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, which is currently meeting in Auckland, New Zealand.

Bishop Matthews was addressing the Anglican Covenant, whose “reception”—one can only hope that there is more rejection than reception of the Covenant among Anglican churches—is not going well, even though its advocates are trying to put a smiley face on the matter.

The headline for the ACNS story came from this passage:

She [Bishop Matthews] stressed the point that it was not the work of IASCUFO to promote the Covenant, but rather to monitor its reception.

“As we have sought to do that,” she told delegates, “I have often thought that the document people discuss and the actual Anglican Covenant are two different documents

“One is the document that people have in their mind and the other is the Anglican Communion Covenant on paper. So I really want [people] to read the Covenant and be focused on that. Because often, when people start talking about the Covenant, what they describe in their mind as the Covenant is unrecognisable.”

It is curious that Bishop Matthews asserts that IASCUFO is charged only with monitoring reception of the Covenant. Doing that would only require an Internet connection and a spreadsheet. (The No Anglican Covenant is doing a fine job of monitoring reception of the Covenant and has avoided distorting the facts as the IASCUFO has done.) In any case, after declaring the limited role of the IASCUFO, the bishop proceeds to advocate for Covenant adoption, though this is unsurprising, as IASCUFO has already released material in this vein.

Those of us who have opposed acceptance of the Anglican Covenant are weary of  implications that we have failed to read the document, that we would love it if we only put aside our ignorant preconceptions and confronted the reality of the Covenant’s manifest virtues. In fact, opponents of the Covenant have often been quite specific about the faults of the document, whereas its advocates mostly praise the fantastic, not to say magical, covenant in their minds. (This is obvious from reading the material collected on the Web site of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.)

To Bishop Matthews’ credit, it must be admitted that she does not put on the hard sell. She freely admits that the Covenant has detractors that see it as either too permissive or too punitive. She implies, however, that, in time, people will come around.

What I found most interesting in the bishop’s talk was this: “I believe that in the original idea of the Anglican Covenant, there was a desire to allow the Anglican Communion to be a safe place for conversation and the sharing of new ideas.” The notion of safety occurs two other times in the ACNS report of Bishop Matthews’ address.

“Safety” is a familiar term to Episcopalians who have followed closely the reactionary insurrection within their church. Congregations who want to leave The Episcopal Church and take their parishes’ real and personal property with them often speak of a longing for “safety.” “Safety” has become a codeword for freedom from exposure to ideas that you don’t agree with. It is unclear whether Bishop Matthews was intending to use “safety” in this sense, but she might as well have.

I have often said that Sections 1, 2, and 3 set out what, going forward, the Anglican Communion will fight about, and Section 4 specifies how those fights are “resolved,” or, more precisely, how the winners will punish the losers. The Covenant is not at all about safe discussion within the Communion; it is about limiting discussion and punishing those churches with the audacity to advance unpopular ideas. Criticism of the Covenant has focused on Section 4 because half the Communion thinks it too draconian and the other half considers it insufficiently so. (The bishop got that right.) Safe discussion—in the commonplace freedom-of-speech sense—does not need the agenda of Sections 1–3 of the Covenant, but “safe” discussion, in the codeword sense, requires both a set agenda and a way of punishing “deviant” viewpoints.

The mistake behind the Covenant is the identification of the problem to be solved. Supporters of the Covenant believe the problem is conflict, and the way to eliminate conflict is to specify right opinion and exile any church that doesn’t get with the program. The real problem, however,  is intolerance of new ideas and an unwillingness to discuss them in a meaningful forum. The need is for the Communion to be a safe place for Anglican churches, not a “safe” place for them.

Don’t Show Your ID When You Vote in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania’s voter ID law, Act 18, might seem like a solution in search of a problem. The problem the law was designed to solve, however, is that too many people in Pennsylvania vote for Democrats, so the Republicans thought they could suppress the votes of the poor, the elderly, and people likely to vote Democratic by making it harder to vote, even if they’re already registered.

Fortunately, not all of the law has been allowed by the courts to go into effect. Although Pennsylvania voters will be asked to show a government-issued photo ID with an expiration date when they go to the polls on November 6, they won’t actually have to show one to vote.

I, for one, have no intention of showing an ID when I vote. To protest this partisan and unfair law, I plan to decline to show my Pennsylvania driver’s license. I encourage other Pennsylvania voters to do the same. If enough people refuse to show an ID, it will make a statement that the residents of Pennsylvania are not pleased with Act 18 or the party that pushed it through the legislature.

If you agree with me, feel free to use the graphic displayed above elsewhere. You can see a larger version of it by clicking on the graphic.

Support for Democrats: A Clarification

In my post “An Election Proposal,” I made a statement that has attracted some criticism. I wrote in an aside that

I will vote for the Democrat, rather than the Republican, even if he or she is revealed at the last minute to be an ax murderer.

Billy Ockham took this statement as an indication that I am not open-minded or accepting. A commenter on Ockham’s blog remarked

I thought that we had progressed beyond that type of bigotry.

My statement was, of course, hyperbolic, but it is certainly true that, in 2012, I cannot imagine voting for a Republican unless the Democratic candidate is loathsome and the Republican candidate is a saint, and perhaps not even then.

This attitude is not the product of unthinking support for the party of my parents and grandparents. It is instead the result of the realization that the Republican Party has run off the rails. It has become the party of the lunatic right, a party more interested in the final triumph of its know-nothing ideology than in the more prosaic business of participating in the governing of what they consider the greatest nation on earth. The Republican Party has truly become the Party of No (or, perhaps, the Party of Hell, No).

But surely there are good Republicans. No doubt. Crazy people do not get into office by running for president, however. Instead, they run for the school board or city council. They win in races for low-visibility offices and gradually rise in the electoral hierarchy, benefiting at each step from name recognition and voter apathy and indifference. Successful party members recruit new candidates holding views similar to their own.

By the time it becomes obvious that a political party has become captive of an alien and irrational philosophy, the feedback mechanisms that support its growth are firmly in place. The only defense against the triumph of such a party available to the average voter is to avoid voting for a member of that party, whether for dog catcher or for president.

And that is why I will vote a straight Democratic (not “Democrat”) ticket.

An Election Proposal

The day after the second presidential debate, I posted the graphic at the right on Facebook. (Actually, my Facebook graphic included a misspelling, but the version shown here has been corrected. You can click on the image to see a larger version.)

It has always bothered me that people submitting an absentee ballot have to make their decisions about candidates before the campaigning is over. This concern has been heightened by the recent explosion of early voting.

Perhaps I have cherished a naïve and romantic notion of a democratic community meeting at the polling places on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, but absentee and early voting do present significant problems. Whereas these procedures are not a problem for everyone—I will vote for the Democrat, rather than the Republican, even if he or she is revealed at the last minute to be an ax murderer—they are a problem for the so-called “undecided” voter. I have no doubt that some of these people decided to vote absentee or early for Mitt Romney after the first debate but experienced serious regret after seeing the vice-presidential debate and the second presidential debate.

How could we retain early and absentee voting without having some people voting without information to which people voting on the the standard election day have access?

Why not select a cutoff date, say, a week before the election, after which no political advertising or editorializing or release of government reports is allowed until after election day? Between that date and the official election day, early voting could take place and absentee ballots could be mailed. Absentee ballots mailed during this period would be accepted, even if received after “election day.” Government reports could be issued only with the permission of a judge certifying that national security required immediate release, so as not to favor incumbents unfairly.

Would this not be a better system than what we have now?

The Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship Agreement

Last week, a joint statement was announced by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and Shepherd's Heart Fellowship, a ministry to the homeless that claims membership in Bob Duncan’s Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. The statement describes an agreement between the parties that allows Shepherd’s Heart to continue its ministry under the aegis of the Anglican diocese. The fellowship, of course, was part of the Episcopal diocese before the 2008 schism.

Both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Tribune-Review covered the story of the agreement. The Tribune-Review article gives a good sense of the nature of Shepherd’s Heart’s ministry.

Some of the real estate occupied by Shepherd’s Heart is owned by the Episcopal diocese, and some of it is owned by the fellowship. Apparently, all the property is mortgaged. The agreement, which will have to be approved by the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, contemplates the diocese’s transferring its property to the fellowship. Shepherd’s Heart will then refinance at a more favorable interest rate.

The agreement assumes that the ministry of Shepherd’s Heart will continue, supported not only by the Anglican diocese, but also by Episcopalians and members of other churches. (My own Episcopal church periodically serves meals to the homeless at Shepherd’s Heart, for example.) The statement declares

The agreement sets this issue [of whether the fellowship validly withdrew from the Episcopal diocese in 2008] aside in favor of mutually serving the homeless, the poor, and the addicted. Both parties recognize the new relationship between the Episcopal Diocese and Shepherd’s Heart Fellowship is not of an ecclesiastical nature, such as would normally exist between a diocese and a parish, but one of cooperation and collaboration in a specialized ministry. Because of this unique use of the Shepherd’s Heart property, the parties have agreed that this agreement should not be interpreted as a model for resolving other property disputes.

Obversations and Questions

It’s true that Shepherd’s Heart is not just another church that broke away from The Episcopal Church. It is a unique ministry supported by Episcopalians, “Anglicans,” and people from other denominations, though it is being run by “Anglicans.” (I am using quotation marks here because, of course, Episcopalians are Anglicans, and, if membership in a church of the Anglican Communion is required by your definition of Anglican, the people of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh are not Anglicans at all.) Had the Episcopal diocese claimed the fellowship’s property, it would have disrupted an important ministry and, most likely, received very bad press.

I actually believe that the agreement is reasonable, under the circumstances, and it is clearly not meant to set a precedent for settling other property disputes between the Episcopal diocese and congregations that have left the diocese but retained their property. An important ministry is allowed to continue without disruption and without threat of future litigation. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, meanwhile, is relieved of a financial obligation, though at the cost of its equity in the property. Nevertheless, this is the first time the Episcopal diocese has released assets to a breakaway group without financial compensation.

Certain facts about the agreement have not been disclosed, however, and it is unclear as to whether certain matters are covered by the agreement at all. Inquiries to the Episcopal diocese did not yield answers to my questions.

Here are some questions to which Pittsburgh Episcopalians might want answers:

• How much is the Shepherd’s Heart property worth, and what assets does the fellowship have besides real estate?
• How much equity does the Episcopal diocese have in the property, and what is the current mortgage payment?
• Is the diocese renouncing its Dennis Canon claim to the property or only putting that claim on hold?
• In particular, might the Episcopal diocese assert its trust interest in the property should that property ever be used for another purpose, say, if the fellowship folded or intended to sell the property and move elsewhere?
• Might the Episcopal diocese assert its trust interest in the property should the ministry to the homeless ever become a minor use of the property, with its primary use being for some other purpose?

A full evaluation of the wisdom of the agreement would require answers to the above questions (and possibly to others as well).

Update, 10/15/2012, 3:30 PM: I will attempt to clarify the present financial arrangements, though I do not fully understand them. What I wrote above may not be totally correct. There is a mortgage on the main building of Shepherd’s Heart. The title to the property is held by the diocese (actually, the Board of Trustees), but the fellowship has been making the payments. There may be other outstanding loans, but I think there are no other mortgages. In refinancing the mortgage, it will be made clear to all parties what equity there is in the property, as it will have to be appraised. The Episcopal diocese views its role as investing in the Shepherd’s Heart ministry.

A Close Call

About a month ago, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek news report of how a bird died in my bird feeder. (See “Bird Feeder Claims First Victim.”) The post was intended to be humorous, but the bird in question was decidedly dead.

This morning, I went out on my deck to fill my feeders and discovered another bird whose neck had become trapped in the same feeder. The bird was well on its way to becoming the feeder’s second victim. The bird was still struggling, however, although it had not figured out that moving its neck to the center of the plastic panel under which it was trapped would provide sufficient room for it to extricate its head.

I tried pulling up on the seed bin wall, but the roof of the house-type feeder on the side where the bird was trapped is screwed to the walls of the feeder, and I could not get a good grip on the plastic panel to move it.

I returned to the kitchen to find a spatula with a thin wooden handle. With that implement, I was able to pry up the plastic seed bin wall and free the bird, which promptly (and mercifully) flew away. I guess animals freed by humans from threatening situations stay around to say thanks only in fairy tales.

I was happy that I was able to save the bird, but I now am seriously concerned about the design of what is generally a lovely bird feeder. The problem occurs only when the feeder is empty, but birds can empty the feeder quickly, and I cannot always be around to replenish the seed supply. If you own a similar Wild Birds Unlimited feeder, check it whenever you can for birds that may have become trapped.

Update, 10/13/2012. I wrote to Wild Birds Unlimited and received a prompt reply. The company had not previously received reports of the problem I identified, I was told, but it would look into possible manufacturing changes. The reply suggested that, if I could not keep the feeder filled, perhaps I should replace it with a platform feeder. Of course, platform feeders have their own problems, including their failure to protect seeds in the rain.

The obvious change that could be made to the bird feeder would be to change the curved shape at the bottom of the clear plastic feed bin walls. The curve, though, is probably intended to minimize the quantity of seed that falls out of the feeding station to the ground. An alternative might be to have a thick plate that sits on top of the seed and, when the seed is gone, covers the feed discharge opening. This would not be hard to design, though it would complicate filling the feeder, and a convenient mechanism for raising the plate once the feeder emptied would need to be devised.

GS 1878

In 2010, the General Synod of the Church of England referred the question of adopting the Anglican Covenant to the church’s dioceses. Adoption was reject by 26 dioceses and approved by only 18. These results are only now officially being transmitted to the General Synod. They are embedded in a report designated GS 1878 that will be put before the General Synod when it meets in London November 19–21, 2012.

Much of the 12-page report is unremarkable, since it presents information that is well known. (I doubt that any member of the General Synod will be surprised to learn that the motion to adopt the Anglican Covenant was rejected by a majority of dioceses.) GS 1878 does contain material that deserves comment, however.

Paragraph 6 summarizes the effect of the voting in the dioceses in this unsurprising sentence:

Thus the draft Act of Synod was not approved by a majority of the dioceses and it therefore cannot be presented to the General Synod for Final Approval. [emphasis in original]

The paragraph then concludes as follows, which certainly will be a surprise to many:

For the record, there is nothing in the Synod’s Constitution or Standing Orders that would preclude the process being started over again, whether in the lifetime of this Synod or subsequently, by another draft Instrument to the same effect being brought forward for consideration by the General Synod before being referred to the dioceses under Article 8. The Business Committee is not, however, aware of a proposal to re-start the process in this way.

Apparently, this statement is true, but it was widely thought that the Covenant could not be reconsidered until the next General Synod convenes in 2015. For example, Fulcrum’s Andrew Goddard, stated flatly last March, “The Church of England cannot reconsider the covenant until 2015.” Members of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition shared that understanding. Also last March, for example, Alan T Perry wrote on the  Coalition’s blog, “Four more dioceses will meet in April to have their say, but since last week the result has been clear: the Covenant cannot come back to the General Synod for adoption, at least until 2015.”

Covenant opponents have worried that supporters might have a plan to give the Church of England an opportunity to reconsider adoption of the Covenant before 2015. GS 1878 exacerbates that worry, though I suspect that nothing will happen before the next Archbishop of Canterbury is in place and then only if the new archbishop foolishly wants to risk dying in the Covenant ditch.

Somewhat gratuitously, GS 1878 comments on the distribution of votes in the dioceses and, in paragraph 10, offers this analysis:

The point can be illustrated in another way by noting that, if a total of just seventeen individuals spread across five particular dioceses had voted to support the Covenant rather than oppose it, a bare majority of dioceses would have approved the Covenant, whereas, if a total of just ten across five other dioceses had voted against instead of in favour, the diocesan voting against the Covenant would have been much greater at 31-13.

If you find this paragraph relevant to anything, let me explain how Americans could have elected President Gore in 2000. It might have been more insightful for the report to have noted the correlation between the suppression of anti-Covenant arguments and the votes cast in favor of Covenant adoption.

 Appendix B of the report summarizes “following motions” that were passed in a number of dioceses. These motions generally supported the Anglican Communion without reference to the Anglican Covenant. One rather different following motion was considered by the Diocese of Chester, a diocese that voted for adoption. The motion it considered proposed changes to Section 4 of the Covenant. The motion was defeated decisively.

Three bishops availed themselves of the privilege of putting a statement into the record on the Covenant, and these statements are reprinted in Appendix A.

The first of the episcopal statements is from the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu. The York diocese, of course, approved the motion to adopt the Covenant, but Sentamu felt a need to get his opinion on the record anyway.

Sentamu begins by asserting that his understanding of the Covenant differs from that of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition. “If the Anglican Communion is to say No to the current proposal, then what? The opponents to the Covenant need to come up with an answer,” he boldly proclaims. Of course, not everyone sees a problem where Sentamu does. He continues

If I may respectfully suggest, there is a widespread lack of understanding that exists in the Church of England about the nature and importance of the conciliar principle of Church governance. There seems to be almost no understanding that the traditional ecclesiology of Anglicanism, as reflected in the Anglican Covenant, is an expression of a tradition of  governing the Church by means of Councils that goes back to the New Testament itself—the Council at Jerusalem and the Council’s Letter to the Gentile Believers in Acts 15.

At issue, of course, is the extent one attaches to the word “Church.” Arguably, the Church of England is indeed governed by councils. Less ambiguously is The  Episcopal Church so governed. The Anglican Communion is certainly not governed by councils. If one believes it should be, why does the need for conciliar consensus stop at the border of the Communion? Why does it not extend to the Roman Catholic domain or the Orthodox or, for that matter, that of the Lutherans or the Presbyterians? There is, I think, no good answer to this question. Particularly, there is no good Anglican answer, as a seminal event—arguably the seminal event—of Anglican history is the assertion of the need for local autonomy by the English church. But the good archbishop laments the lack of “[s]omething akin to our Preface to the Declaration of Assent,“ which is “urgently needed throughout the Anglican Communion.” Why, one must ask. The Covenant, he says, “bridges this deficit,” but Sentamu has not really established that there is any deficit that needs to be bridged. The Communion is not now one big happy family, but it is hardly self-evident that putting it in the straightjacket that is the Covenant will produce peace, harmony, and mutual affection.

Sentamu goes on to say that the Covenant will help Anglicans recover their “true vocation.” He explains, “This includes growing more fully into the life of ‘mutual resourcing, responsibility and interdependence’ which the 1963 Toronto Congress identified and from which the Communion has since drifted.” This represents a distortion of the message of the Toronto Congress. In fact, the Communion has moved toward the goal identified in 1963, not away from it. (See “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence.”)

I will, mercifully, skip over much of the rest of Sentamu’s over-long essay, but I cannot let this paragraph pass unnoticed:

The Covenant would ensure that the Anglican Communion would not rest content with the sort of autonomous ecclesial units that favour unilateralism but would nurture organic interdependence that would make it possible for us to live together as the Body of Christ. This would enable us to take the Communion beyond the contexts in which current difficulties have arisen and help us to heal the breach that has sadly soured and fractured our fellowship as members of one body.

I admire the archbishop’s optimism, but he has hardly made a case for putting any credence in it.

A statement by Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester—the Diocese of Chester also voted to adopt the Covenant—follows that of Archbishop Sentamu. Like the archbishop, he has clear ideas of what the Communion should be like, and it is not a “fellowship” or “federation.” He writes

Does the Anglican Communion wish to retain any sense of being a ‘Church’, alongside the legal reality that its constituent Provinces/Churches are self-governing? It seems clear to me that if it does wish to retain a substantial degree of theological and ecclesial coherence as a distinct communion of Churches, then something like the Anglican Covenant needs to be adopted by its constituent Provinces/Churches.

Many Anglicans neither see nor want to see the Anglican Communion as an Anglican Church, so something like the Anglican Covenant is, for them, an unwelcome innovation.

In any case, Forster clearly sees the Covenant as a step in the right direction, though not as thoroughgoing as it might be. As it is, he agrees with the GAFCON crowd that it should be the primates who evaluate disputes. He notes, however, that the fact that churches are of different sizes “may distort the dynamics of the Primates’ Meeting.” Of course, the churches do not have the same resources, the primates are not all equally well educated, and some primates, such as the  Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, cannot make decisions that bind her or his church.

The final statement in Appendix A comes from the Bishop of Sodor and Man, Robert Paterson. Covenant adoption was defeated in the Diocese of Sodor and Man. Paterson’s argument for a covenant seems to be this:

When a community, a family, a communion has members who do not understand that ‘there is a time to keep silence, and a time to speak’ (Ecclesiastes 3. 7), a framework for our common life has to be developed. I think the Anglican Covenant is a reasonable instrument to achieve this.

Although this may seem perplexing, it is perhaps elucidated by this:

 The frameworks we have developed to date have worked satisfactorily, but, unfortunately, we have reached a point when opinions can be shared so easily, with too little thought for others, and actions taken which have unforeseen consequences elsewhere. The decision to act unilaterally in one place can have deeply serious effects in another. So, as a necessary means of requiring us to respect on [sic] another across the Communion, I will vote for the Covenant.

In other words, the Covenant is the solution to problems caused by (1) the Internet and (2) primates failing to explain that they aren’t responsible for what other churches do. Perhaps self-control, honesty, and charity would work at least as well. For some churches, the Covenant will clearly make things worse—they will no longer have credible deniability when asserting that they are not responsibility for what other Anglican churches do.

In any case, while admitting that Section 4 has its flaws, the bishop explains, “I simply do not recognise some of the criticisms made of it.” Perhaps he should try harder.

I suspect that the significance of GS 1878 will be minimal. The Covenant is dead in the Church of England, and the next Archbishop of Canterbury would do well to let it rest in peace. Perhaps Archbishop Sentamu’s view of the Covenant is one reason he is not going to be succeed Rowan Williams.

Is This Apostrophe Really Necessary?

I was watching the playoff game between the Oakland Athletics and the Detroit Tigers last night, and I saw something in the Oakland logo—see image at right—I had never noticed before. The apostrophe in the logo seems to makes no sense.

The Athletics, of course, are more commonly referred to as the Oakland A’s. No doubt, there are style guides that advise that plurals of single letters always require ’s, but neither common sense nor the style guide I usually consult, The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS), advocates such usage.

Apostrophes most commonly indicate either a possessive case (as in George’s) or the elision of letters (as, for example, in contractions like don’t). An apostrophe is also used to indicate a simple plural when the letter involved is lowercased (as in a’s), since, in the absence of the apostrophe, the combination of letters could be mistaken for another word (as, in the example).

Here is the main part of the entry on the topic from the 16th edition of CMOS (7.14, p. 353):

Plurals for letters, abbreviations, and numerals. Capital letters used as words, numerals used as nouns, and abbreviations usually form the plural by adding s. To aid comprehension, lowercase letters form the plural with an apostrophe and an s.

When referring to the team as the Oakland A’s, A’s acts as a noun, and there is no possession implied. Oakland A’s is the semantic equivalent of Oakland Athletics. This suggests a rather farfetched justification for the use of the apostrophe, namely, that A’s could be an abbreviation for Athletics, with the apostrophe standing in for the omitted thletic. This is not reasonable because A is itself an abbreviation (or nickname) for Athletic. Just as the Pittsburgh Pirates comprise players, each of whom is a Pirate, the Oakland Athletics comprise players, each of whom is an Athletic, or, if you prefer, an A. (One can find examples of players described as an Athletic or an A.) This usage for the Oakland team seems odd only because Athletic is not usually a noun, so the locution is usually avoided. The team traces its history to the Philadelphia Athletics and the athletic clubs of the late 19th century, whose members were apparently called athletics.

All of this is to say that the Oakland A’s should really be the Oakland As, but I don’t expect this little essay to change anything. I suspect that, when A’s was first used, use of the apostrophe in such situation was common. More modern usage has become simplified and more logical.

Interestingly, plural team names never seem to be used in the possessive case. One never sees anyone writing about the Pirates’ manager, only about the Pirates manager. Likewise, no one reads about the Yankees’ owner or, God forbid, the A’s’ owner!

Errors involving apostrophes are common. I recently received a mailing from Family Video that included the slogan “Home of the Free Kids Movies!” This seems to refer to movies about kids, but what is meant is movies for kids. The slogan should have been “Home of the Free Kids’ Movies.” Of course, we speak of “adult movies.” Should we not, by analogy, speak of “kid movies”?

Why Not Practice?

Photo by Pete Souza
The Obama-Biden
Transition Project

The consensus is that Mitt Romney “won” (whatever that means) Wednesday’s first presidential debate. Romney was articulate and confident, if disingenuous. Barack Obama’s performance was lackluster.

Administration apologists performed their expected job of putting the best face on the presidential performance, but stalwart Democratic commentators whose job description does not include praising the President no matter what he does were forced to admit that Barack Obama did not do a good job.

A unique opportunity was missed in the first debate. The Republican candidate was sinking in the polls, and the President’s numbers, particularly in swing states, were steadily climbing. With the proper strategy, effectively implemented, Obama could have delivered a knockout blow to the Romney candidacy, assuring re-election a month before the final votes are cast.

What were the people responsible for coaching the President thinking? I’ve wondered, for example, if the idea was to give Romney the opportunity to articulate clearly his positions, with the intention of attacking them with no holds barred in subsequent speeches and TV spots. The most credible explanation to emerge, however, is that Obama refrained from attacking Romney’s myriad vulnerabilities on the theory that doing so would not look “presidential.” Give me a break! In his nearly four years in office, Obama may have looked weak or indecisive, but he has certainly looked presidential!

My own theory is that the President and his coaches simply did not take the debate seriously enough. The polls were up, the opposition espoused unpopular policies, and the President was well-informed and a fine speaker What could go wrong? They ignored the fact that Romney’s Mormon upbringing had him giving public presentations beginning in childhood, and his confident and convincing presentation style was a key to his business success.

More than anything, however, Romney practiced. News reports day after day announced that he was preparing for the debate, and it was clear that he was able to insert well-rehearsed arguments into his responses at key points. We heard little about the President’s preparation, and much was made of the fact that he arrived in Denver only hours before the confrontation with his opponent. Only now, in the days after Wednesday’s rhetorical disaster, are the President and his surrogates mounting the attacks on the Republican candidate that should have been directed at Romney when the whole country was watching.

I am reminded of the words of the Flanders and Swan song “The English,” which includes the lines

They argue with umpires, they cheer when they’ve won,
And they practice before hand which ruins all the fun.

Does that describe the President’s attitude toward Romney in Debate 1? Were they thinking that the President would have an easy time of it? If so, their thinking proved to be wrong. Perhaps Obama will practice a bit more next time and enter the ring with the gloves off.

A Tribute to the Prices

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh’s provisional bishop, the Rt. Rev. Kenneth L. Price, Jr., will soon enter retirement with his wife Mariann. The bishop-elect, the Rev. Dorsey McConnell, will be consecrated at Calvary Church on October 20, 2012.

It has been four years since the schism that divided our diocese, and Bishop Price has guided us through much of the period of rebuilding that culminates with the installation of a new diocesan bishop.

Ken Price and his wife Mariann are being given a warm sendoff by a grateful diocese. Last Saturday, they were the guests of honor at a picnic given by Jill and Jim West in Blawnox, Pennsylvania. The event emphasized food and fellowship over ceremony, but a highlight was the singing of a parody of “Once in royal David’s city,” which was written by Joan Gundersen, Property Administrator and Archivist of the diocese.

Pittsburgh Episcopalians will appreciate the details of Joan’s lyrics. I won’t attempt to interpret every line for others, but I think all readers will appreciate the general drift. The text is below. I have copied the words from Joan’s song sheet, correcting apparent errors. I am responsible for any errors that may have been introduced in the process.

Once in Pennsylvania’s southwest corner
Came a Bishop charged to help us heal.
He arrived with Mariann to help him
Rebuild Church in this city made by steel.
West V-A, born and bred;
Three full years he was our head.

The Diocese of Southern Ohio
Shared him with us for the first two years,
As did Bexley Hall and Forward Movement
Plus secretary to his bishop peers.
Burdens past he let us shed;
Three wise years he was our head.

He released all the ACNA clergy;
Restored the two who said they changed their mind.
He ordained a gaggle of new clergy,
Scoured Ohio even more to find.
Pastor, friend, as he led;
Three bless’d years he was our head.

He helped us set goals and mission;
Then we a strategic plan did write.
Through appeals and talks he maintained balance,
Keeping the goals clearly in his sight.
’Twas the Gospel that he pled;
Three busy years he was our head.

Retirees they feted at good lunches;
They opened their home for many more to dine.
He was sold at Redeemer’s auction;
As a camper Bishop Price did shine.
Bodies and hearts the Prices fed;
Three fun years he was our head.

One new parish, others returning
Found a welcome warm and heartfelt too.
To the Lutherans we grew closer;
Our own transitions he guided us through.
Tactfully, his course he tread;
Three warm years he was our head.

Now he’s off to new adventures
In retirement with his wife.
We all send them warmest wishes
For this new page in their life.
In this ¹Burgh it will be said,
“Three great years he was our head.”