Make American Great Again—Really

Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” played on the prejudices and misperceptions of one segment of the American population. It implied that America was not great but had been great at some earlier time. In fact, America under Barack Obama was great—less great because of a Republican Congress, of course—and could look forward to being even greater.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump is destroying much of what has been great about the United States—its strategic and moral global leadership, its acceptance of minorities, its protection for our environment, its willingness to welcome oppressed foreigners, its commitment to the rule of law, its protection of the least of society, its embrace of science and truth, and its striving for economic justice.

Ironically, as Trump destroys the best of America, “Make America Great Again” becomes not a piece of cynical propaganda but a rational goal of our debased democracy.

Let us indeed make America great again by getting rid of Republicans in general and Donald Trump in particular.

The Future of Roe and Obergefell

I listened to the first hour of 1A this morning, where the possible repercussions of the president’s choice for the next Supreme Court justice was discussed. As usual, opinions among the guests were mixed. One of the panelists tried to reassure listeners that, with Brett Kavanaugh on the high court, neither Roe v. Wade nor Obergefell v. Hodges was likely to be overturned.

I would like to be comforted by this assertion, but, alas, I am not. The Supreme Court could decide that either of these cases was wrongly decided.

I won’t claim the title of prognosticator, but I suspect that Obergefell v. Hodges is indeed safe. It has created facts on the ground that cannot easily be dispensed with. Would the Supreme Court dare to un-marry gay couples or upend the plans of engaged couples eagerly awaiting their nuptials? Overturning Obergefell would create a citizen backlash that could severely damage the reputation of the court. That won’t happen.

On the other hand, even though the right to obtain an abortion continues to be supported by most Americans, I believe that the ascent of Kavanaugh endangers Roe. That decision, too, created facts on the ground, but those facts are invisible. One cannot tell by looking at an adult female whether or not she has had one or more abortions. Even if abortion were totally outlawed—not a likely outcome even if Roe is eviscerated—there is nothing for the court to undo. What is past is past, and those who have benefited from Roe cannot have that benefit taken away from them. The Supreme Court can repudiate Roe without the disruption of society that would be caused by doing the same to Obergefell.  There would be protests, of course, but they would likely be of no effect. A product of The Federalist Society such as Brett Kavanaugh would be overjoyed at the opportunity to overturn Roe, and we should not overlook that fact.

Although it is unlikely, Democrats might be able to delay confirmation of Kavanaugh, take back control of the Senate in November, and block any Trump Supreme Court nomination other than that of Merrick Garland. That would be a great outcome, but certainly not one to be counted on.

As a practical matter, as I argued in an earlier post, the greatest defense against attempts to strip away the right to an abortion is having large numbers of women admitting to having had abortions and being glad that they did so. Additionally, it would be helpful for older women to come forward who suffered from pre-Roe back-alley abortions, telling their stories of trauma and, in some case, loss of fertility. We also need to hear from family members who lost loved ones through back-alley abortions or whose loved ones wanted but could not obtain an abortion and died from complications of childbirth.

Not respecting the choices of women must be as unacceptable as sexual harassment and rape.

Two Complaints about Bishop McConnell

On the whole, I have been pleasantly surprised at Dorsey McConnell’s performance as Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh. Most especially, I was pleased with the way he handled moving the diocese to accept the blessing of same-sex unions. He created a process that allowed people of the diocese to discuss their views toward homosexuality in small meetings, after which he authorized priests to proceed with blessings. It was not transparent how the outcome of the meetings led to the bishop’s ultimate decision, but I think the fact that fewer people participated than had been anticipated suggested that, in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, the matter was less controversial than might have been thought. Of course, the exit of parishes supporting deposed bishop Robert Duncan altered the philosophical balance of opinion in the diocese.

Recently, however, Bishop McConnell has taken two actions of which I heartily disapprove. On June 27, he sent e-mail to “Diocesan and Parish Leadership” announcing that he had suffered a mild stroke and would have to reduce the burdens of his office. The body of the message was the following:

Dear Friends,

Recently I awoke in the middle of the night to find a numbness in my right arm and a confusion in my speech. (I could think of exactly what I wanted to say, but the words did not come out in any way resembling spoken English). The symptoms resolved within a few hours, and I have not had a recurrence.

It has taken some time for my doctors to find out exactly what happened, but in the last few days the picture has become clear. I am one of 24% of the adult human population walking around with a small hole between the atrium and ventricle of my heart, known as a patent foramen ovale or PFO. Ordinarily this would be of little concern; however, in extremely rare instances, a clot can travel through the hole and pass into the brain. This is apparently what happened to me, causing a small stroke in the left hemisphere, near the "language center,” briefly affecting the sensation in my right arm as well.

The source of the clot that caused it is still a mystery. There is no evidence of it occurring in my legs, my carotid arteries, or anywhere else in my vascular system. I have no history of stroke in my family, no evident plaque anywhere, and no other indication of risk. Since the event, I have been on a regimen of one low-dose aspirin per day, which— along with compression socks when I fly— will remain a part of my ordinary life, though my doctor may eventually recommend a prescription blood thinner.

All of this has come at some cost to my stamina. I am reviewing my calendar and work habits, and have asked for the assistance of my staff to help me achieve a more regular schedule. I will curtail my international travel, as well as my commitments to the National Church, and may limit the number of events I am able to attend within the Diocese on any given day. Please rest assured, however, that I generally feel well and energetic.

Betsy and I ask for your prayers. Please know you are always in ours.

Faithfully your bishop,

(The Right Reverend) Dorsey W.M. McConnell, D.D.
VIII Bishop of Pittsburgh
June 27, 2018

When a leader has a serious negative health event—if his schedule and life are being affected, the event described is serious—it is not only leaders who have to be told; so do ordinary citizens. If the governor or president suffers a stroke, people expect to know about it. This is not the first time Bishop McConnell has chosen only to inform diocesan leaders about matters affecting the diocese. The bishop asked for the prayers of the message’s recipients. Are the prayers of diocesan laity of no consequence? When diocesan news is distributed, the question to be asked is whether laity need not be told. Transparency should be the default, even when it is assumed that laypeople will not be interested. In fact, laypeople should be encouraged to care about the diocese, which is facilitated to letting them in on what is going on.

Mercifully, Bishop McConnell did not instruct diocesan leaders to keep the information in his message confidential. My own rector and other clergy I know about explained the bishop’s letter in church the Sunday after it was sent. Clearly, they thought the people needed to know about the bishop’s health.

My second complaint against Bishop McConnell is rather more complex, but I won’t attempt to give a full explanation here. Just days before the opening of the 79th General Convention, the bishop, along with Bishop Nick Knisely of Rhode Island and Bishop Lawrence Provenzano of Long Island, offered a resolution for consideration by the convention. Somewhat misleadingly titled “Marriage Rites for the Whole Church,” B012 was intended to be an alternative to Resolution A085, which had been proposed by the Task Force on the Study of Marriage. (The Living Church, prior to the beginning of the convention, offered a succinct review of A085 and B012. You can find that review here. Note that the links to the respective resolutions in that piece point to the resolutions as marked up by the convention as of the time they are accessed. A later Living Church article can be found here. As of this writing, the revised B012 has passed in the House of Deputies and is being sent to the House of Bishops for consideration.)

Essentially, A085 would have given same-sex marriage rites prayer book status and made the liturgy available to all congregations interested in using. B012, on the other hand, continued the trial status of such liturgies indefinitely. Significantly, it provided for bishops not approving of same-sex rites to require congregations wishing to use them to request DEPO (Designated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight), allowing same-sex marriage under the oversight of a more accepting bishop. (There are currently eight diocesan bishops who have disallowed same-sex marriages in their dioceses.) Such a procedure, which was invented by Episcopal bishops in a different context and never embraced by the General Convention, is ill-defined and cumbersome. Moreover, it makes same-sex marriage in The Episcopal Church less than fully embraced and makes diocesan bishops the princes who determine the religion of their subjects, a notion more feudal than democratic.

The Episcopal Church is, and should be, ruled by the General Convention, and individual bishops should not be able to veto procedures adopted by the convention. I was very disappointed by Bishop McConnell for his support of B012 and for that of Bishop Knisley as well. (I count Bishop Knisley as a friend; I do not know Bishop Provenzano.) Bishops out of step with the General Convention have been the source of much mischief in recent years, and B012 was an invitation to continued mischief.

As it happens, the matter of same-sex marriage collided with the other big topic at this year’s General Convention, namely prayer book revision. As a result, in a House of Deputies legislative committee, A085 was put aside and B012 was put forward with massive changes. The indefinite trial status remains, pending prayer book approval, but the diocesan bishop veto has been eliminated. It is to be hoped that the House of Bishops can accept this seemingly reasonable compromise.

Save Democracy

I have done my best as an ordinary citizen to oppose the ignorant, narcissistic, vindictive, and racist autocrat who has become president of the United States. One of my tactics has been to devise buttons that I and others can wear. Before the 2016 presidential election, I designed a button that asked: “How would Jesus vote?” I thought the correct answer was obvious, but other self-described Christians either had a different answer or failed to ask the question.

After the election, I designed another button that I expected to be wearing daily for four years: “Don’t blame me. I voted for her!” I convinced fewer people to wear these than I had hoped.

My latest button is shown here:

Donald Trump has been sabotaging democracy at home and abroad, wreaking havoc on the environment, favoring the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, destroying the goodwill and authority of the United States in foreign affairs, and enriching himself and his family at every opportunity. He now seems intent on destroying the world economy based on his own naïve mercantilist fantasies.

The only way to contain the pestilence that is the Trump administration and its congressional enablers is to mobilize citizens to turn out in large numbers in November and to vote for Democrats—any Democrat over any Republican. This is the motivation for the button shown above. At least until the midterm elections, I will be wearing one of these buttons every day.

I have only a few of the Save Democracy/Vote Democratic buttons left, although I can have more made if the need arises. If you are interested in having a button, let me know here.

Thoughts on A Highter Loyalty

Although I ordered a copy of James Comey’s book A Higher Loyalty before its publication, I didn’t begin reading it until Monday last, when I had jury duty. I was allowed to bring a physical book but not an electronic one. I read through six chapters or so in the courthouse and finished the book three days ago. What follows is neither a book review nor a book report. Instead, it is a somewhat random collection of thoughts I had while reading A Higher Loyalty.

Let me say at the outset that I recommend A Higher Loyalty. It is at times interesting, thought-provoking, instructive, and frustrating. Comey obviously wants to offer a public defense of his actions as FBI director, but the “good stuff” for which many will pick up the book begins far into the volume. The work is thoroughly autobiographical, and, if it is about anything but the obvious, namely James Comey, it is about leadership. As regards government service, at least in an organization such as the FBI, it is about non-partisan loyalty to the mission of the organization. Leaders in any situation can benefit from what the author has to say, however.

Democrats may be wondering if Comey is a self-righteous prick. I don’t think he is. Autobiography tends to be self-serving, of course, but the former FBI director comes across as genuine, honest, caring, competent, and committed to his work. But his unshakable commitment to protecting the reputation of the FBI led him to sabotage the candidacy of Hillary Clinton just before the 2016 election. He clearly recognized that a Trump victory would be a disaster, but he assumed, as did almost everyone, that Trump would lose. He gambled—though he never admits this—that he could save the FBI from criticism by announcing the re-opening of the investigation into Clinton without endangering the Republic. He lost. And the country lost.

Comey clearly believes that a President Hillary Clinton would have been a very different chief executive than the one we have now. About Trump, he writes, “Donald Trump’s presidency threatens much of what is good in the nation.” Most of it, probably.

As if Comey’s actions were not infuriating enough, his commitment to being non-partisan led him to not vote in the 2016 election, even though his family very much wanted to see a woman become president. I cannot understand this, just as I cannot understand journalist Katy Tur’s not voting, even after covering the Trump campaign and surely recognizing him for what he is. Citizens, particularly those who see a clear and president danger, have an obligation to not stand on the sidelines!

Besides being ignorant and self-absorbed, Donald Trump is nasty and vindictive. I was astonished by what this passage near the end of the book says about our president:

President Trump, who apparently watches quite a bit of TV at the White House, saw those images of me thanking the cops and flying away [from Los Angeles, where Comey learned that he had been fired]. They infuriated him. Early the next morning, he called [by then, acting FBI director Andrew] McCabe and told him he wanted an investigation into how I had been allowed to use the FBI plane to return from California.

McCabe replied that he could look into how I had been allowed to fly back to Washington, but that he didn’t need to. He had authorized it, McCabe told the president. The plane had to come back, the security detail had to come back, and the FBI was obligated to return me safely.

The president exploded. He ordered that I was not to be allowed back on FBI property again, ever. My former staff boxed up my belongings as if I had died and delivered them to my home. The order kept me from seeing and offering some measure of closure to the people of the FBI, with whom I had become very close.

Trump had done a lot of yelling during the campaign about McCabe and his former candidate wife. He had been fixated on it ever since.

Still in a fury at McCabe, Trump then asked him, “Your wife lost her election in Virginia, didn’t she?”

“Yes, she did,” Andy replied.

The president of the United States then said to the acting director of the FBI, “Ask her how it feels to be a loser” and hung up the phone.

It is worth noting that, although Comey is reluctant to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice, he makes it clear that he thinks that the president may be guilty of obstruction. Surely he is.

Kim: Another Admired Strongman

It is a good thing that the United States is now interacting directly with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Our reluctance to acknowledge and talk to communist regimes in the past has not been especially productive. It was years before we recognized the Soviet Union, and for long periods, we had no intercourse with the People’s Republic of China or Cuba. Like it or not, North Korea is a real country, with a real government, headed by a real ruler.

Whether a leader-to-leader meeting, especially one of such short duration, was a good idea at this juncture is an open question. Each of the participants in the just-concluded summit in Singapore had his own reasons for wanting a meeting. Each was looking for some measure of validation. Kim Jong-un wanted recognition as a world leader; Donald Trump was looking for a win that he could point to in anticipation of the mid-term elections.

One wonders if the “agreement” signed in Singapore is worth the paper it’s printed on. Its provisions are largely unremarkable and become important only if they are carried out. The jury will be out for a long time. I doubt that the president accomplished much of substance, but I am willing to withhold judgment. I would like to have seen a formal end to the Korean War and the exchange of ambassadors, neither of which would have been an immediate game-changer but which would have created a more favorable environment going forward. That denuclearization was neither guaranteed nor even defined by the agreement is unfortunate, but for it to have been otherwise would have been like winning the lottery on three successive days, i.e., unlikely beyond belief.

Generally, I refuse to quibble with the made-for-TV summit. I do have one complaint, however, and, although some may consider it trivial, I do not. Trump declared that he was “honored” to be meeting with Kim Jong-un. What sort of “honor” was that? A brutal dictator who demands veneration from his starving populace, mercilessly murders his political rivals, and achieves a summit meeting by threatening our country with nuclear missiles “honors” Trump with his mere presence? Of course, we should not be surprised, as Trump appears to idolize strongmen—Vladimir Putin most notable among them—and have little real respect for the leaders of Western democracies. Trump declared more than a year ago that he would be “honored” to meet with Kim. I could understand “pleased,” even “happy,” by not “honored.”

What sort of man seeks such an honor?

Michael Curry and Donald Trump

I have described myself as an Episcopal Church activist, though I must confess that my activism on behalf of my church has, for some time, been meager. Since the 2016 presidential campaign, and especially since November 8, 2016, my activism has been focused mainly on our democracy and on the Democratic party.

Donald Trump’s election to the presidency was a tragedy, or so I thought at the time. Little did I realize the magnitude of the catastrophe it presaged. On November 9, I felt incapable of fully capturing my thoughts. In “Post-Election Depression,” I wrote

I slept less than three hours last night and took a pre-dawn walk trying to wrap my mind around the tragedy that befell our nation last night. I had hoped to write something insightful this morning, but I am overwhelmed with dispair.

For now, I want to call your attention to an essay by New Yorker editor David Remnick. It is called “An American Tragedy.” This is all I can offer this Wednesday morning.

Five days later, feeling a bit more communitive, I wrote another post, “More on My November 9,” though even that was more about my state of mind than about what I thought was happening to the country.

Having been obsessed with politics for the past year and a half, I have paid little attention to the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, which meets next month, the Lambeth Conference scheduled for 2020, or ongoing property litigation. (It is worth noting, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a decision favorable to the church on that latter front today.)

I was recently buoyed by the royal wedding that took place a few weeks ago and at which our church’s presiding bishop, the Most Reverend Michael Curry, preached. Curry’s words were intended for the royal couple, of course, but also for members of the Church of England, for all Americans, and for Christians generally. Love was the subject of his sermon—not a surprising topic under the circumstances—but one that was advanced with unusual passion and with a plea for universal applicability. Curry said, in part,

Well, think and imagine a world where love is the way.

Imagine our homes and families when love is the way.

Imagine neighborhoods and communities when love is the way.

Imagine our governments and nations when love is the way.

Imagine business and commerce when love is the way.

Imagine this tired old world when love is the way.

When love is the way, unselfish, sacrificial, redemptive.

When love is the way, then no child would go to bed hungry in this world ever again.

When love is the way, we will let justice roll down like a mighty stream and righteousness like an ever-flowing brook.

When love is the way, poverty would become history.

When love is the way, the earth will be a sanctuary.

When love is the way, we will lay down our swords and shields down by the riverside to study war no more.

When love is the way, there’s plenty good room. Plenty good room. For all of God’s children.

And when love is the way, we actually treat each other—well, like we’re actually family.

When love is the way, we know that God is the source of us all, and we are brothers and sisters. Children of God.

My brothers and sisters, that’s a new heaven, a new earth, a new world. A new human family.

(Text and video of the full sermon are available here.)

The world described by Bishop Curry is not the world President Trump aspires to build. Trump’s world is one of hatefulness, vindictiveness, racism, mendacity, greed, and narcissism. It is the opposite of the Christ-centered world described by the bishop. It is the world desired by the Devil himself.

Bishop Curry has reminded us of the world to which we should aspire. His is the antidote to the vision of the so-called Christians whose approval of the president seems to rise with every obscenity and absurdity committed by the devil in the White House.

The world described by Bishop Curry is not going to arrive anywhere, either in the U.S. or elsewhere. As Christians—even as non-Christian humanitarians—we should work for the advent of such a world, however. We can begin by opposing Donald Trump’s policies at every turn and by voting for Democrats—any Democrats, this November.

Draining the Swamp

As a candidate, Donald Trump pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington. To my knowledge, the candidate never really explained what he meant by that. The federal government—and especially Congress—was not popular, and people, both left and right, read whatever they wanted into Trump’s promise.

In fact, Trump brought lobbyists, plutocrats, anarchists, sycophants, and incompetents into his administrations. His corrupt and destructive administration was further enabled by Republican leaders in Congress who seemingly lost any sense of independence or morality once Trump was elected.

The poster child for Trump’s team is EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has contempt for the mission of his agency, disdain for ethical norms and government regulations, and who spends taxpayer money with reckless abandon for his personal comfort and convenience.

Frustration with Donald Trump and his cronies, especially the likes of Mr. Pruitt, inspired the graphic below. Feel free to distribute it on social media and elsewhere. Click on it for a larger version.

Afternoon Cinema

I went to see Solo yesterday at our local cinema. Indiana Mall Cinema charges only $5 for a ticket on Monday and throws in free popcorn. This is a powerful incentive for seeing movies on Monday if it is at all convenient. It’s hard to pass up a good deal, and I appreciate the Monday movie package, something that relieves me of the need inveigh against the high price of movie popcorn.

The show time for Solo was listed as 12:15. I arrived just after noon, not knowing whether a summer movie in a popular franchise available at a discount would result in a long line of patrons. I needn’t have bothered; only a dozen or so people showed up, and I had my choice of seats.

That I had to wait to see the movie wasn’t a problem; I finished reading a New Yorker article on my phone and most of my popcorn before the advertised start time. Meanwhile, for much of the wait, I watched—could have watched, anyway—the Noovie “pre-show,” a collection of mostly ads from National CineMedia. Noovie tries hard to be entertaining and is at least a little informative. I saw promotions for Incredibles 2, for example, a sequel to a picture I found charming.

When 12:15 rolled around, I expected to see previews or perhaps even the movie itself. Instead, I was subjected to advertising for 15 minutes, including advertising for television programs! I felt like a hostage. One of the joys of going to the movies used to be escaping the barrage of television advertising. No more!

Finally, at 12:30, a more conventional program began—a succession of previews of coming attractions.

At 12:38, the actual movie began. By this time, both my patience and popcorn were long gone. And the movie was just so-so, not one of the better Star Wars efforts. Maybe next time, I’ll have more patience, skip the movie theater experience altogether, and watch Netflix.

In the meantime, why can’t movie houses advertise the time movies actually start? Some people value their time and do not appreciate being held hostage so they can be shown advertising.

Fair Offer or Discrimination

This afternoon, I saw a Ford advertisement during a baseball game whose narration included:

Ford thanks those who go further for all of us. First responders, all military personnel, veterans, and retirees can now get $750 appreciation cash on top of current offers, all from Ford, America’s best-selling brand.

The video included scenes of military and firefighters in action.

I suspect that most viewers respond positively to this ad, which seems to offer significant benefits to those who serve their community, often at great personal sacrifice.

My first thought, however, was whether such a discount is really fair. Why should an accountant or a grocery clerk have to pay $750 more for an automobile than a former Army bandsman like myself? Isn’t such a policy discriminatory?

What if, instead of Ford’s current policy, the company’s appreciation was for, say, white people:

Ford thanks all the white people who have helped make America a great country over these many years. All white people can now get $750 appreciation credit on top of current offers, all from Ford, America’s best-selling brand.

Ford’s offer seems less benign now, doesn’t it?

Auto dealers offer special deals to customers all the time, of course. These offers usually either apply to everyone—“shop our Memorial Day sale”—or apply to customers in particular automobile-related circumstances—“available to current Ford leaseholders.” The current Ford offer, however, applies to people that the company views as especially virtuous, irrespective of their relationship to anything automotive.

Honestly, I have sometimes benefited from small discounts for being a veteran and have not thought much about it. The Ford benefit (or discriminative pricing) seems extreme, however. If it is acceptable, why is it not acceptable to favor white customers, straight customers, young customers, or Republican customers?

Samantha Bee vs. Roseanne Barr

On Wednesday night, as I usually do, I watched Samatha Bee’s weekly show Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. It seemed like a typical episode of liberal feminist commentary with its usual seasoning of humor. On Thursday, however, I learned that Bee was being criticized for something she said about Ivanka Trump and that there were calls for her show, like that of Roseanne Barr, to be canceled.

I was perplexed that I hadn’t noticed anything outrageous on Wednesday’s show. I knew that Bee called Ivanka Trump “feckless,” but that was hardly in the same category as Barr’s asserting that Valerie Jarrett was descended from apes. I went back and reviewed the show. Actually, Bee criticized Ivanka for failing to be a moderating influence on her father, describing her as a “feckless cunt,” though that second word was bleeped out on TBS. Oh.

As it happens, the feckless asshole who is Ivanka’s father and who acts—“serves” seems like the wrong word—as President of the United States tweeted the following:

What got Roseanne Barr fired was the somewhat cryptic and ungrammatical tweet:

muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj

Valerie Jarrett

Apparently, an earlier tweet had suggested that Jarrett, who had been assistant to the president for public engagement and intergovernmental affairs in the Obama administration, had covered up certain Obama “secrets.” I have no idea if there was any truth in that charge, but, given her government position, it is unlikely that she disclosed publicly everything she knew. Whether she was “hiding” facts citizens needed to know is a matter of opinion and of facts not at hand. Whatever she may have done or not done, Barr’s tweet was something of a non sequitur.

Jarrett, though born of black American parents living temporarily in Iran, has apparently never been a Muslim. Her being black and having been born in a predominantly Muslim country apparently led, in Barr’s mind, to her now infamous tweet. The tweet was condemned as racist—and not merely stupid—as blacks have often been disparaged by being called apes or monkeys. Happily, doing so today is seen as beyond the pale.

What of Bee’s characterization of Ivanka Trump? Admittedly, “cunt” is flagged in various dictionaries as “extremely disparaging and offensive” or “obscene,” which is why, even on cable television, it was bleeped out. On the other hand, whether Ivanka is feckless or a cunt is a matter of opinion. That she is is certainly arguable with actual facts, and I have no doubt that Samantha Bee could make such an argument if pressed. (I intend to stay out of this argument.) Barr’s implicit characterization of Jarrett, on the other hand, is nothing more than an ad hominem—and, in fact, racist—attack. It is impossible to offer any facts to support the truth of Barr’s “equation.”

Honestly, I would not personally have used “cunt” as Bee did. In fact, I think I have never used the word to describe a woman however contemptible I thought the person to be. It is a nasty and socially unacceptable word. And yet, I cannot think of a single word that could have been substituted for it that would carry the same sense and power. “Feckless and contemptible woman” lacks the punch of Bee’s phrase. She could have substituted “bitch” for “cunt,” of course, but that word is only slightly more acceptable in polite society. Nonetheless, “bitch” might have been a better choice. Dictionary.com calls the word slang and offers as one definition “a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman.” That would not be my characterization of the president’s daughter, but I can see how someone might think it justified.

Donald Trump is no doubt happy that two sponsors, State Farm and Autotrader are, at least for the moment, withdrawing their ads from Full Frontal. I do not believe that TBS and ABC are applying different standards to the words of Barr and Bee, however. Their “offensive” statements are not of the same character. Bee’s sin is decidedly less blameworthy. True to form, while making a point that has a certain surface credibility, Trump attacked Bee as lacking talent—which is surely untrue—and as having a show with low ratings. I don’t know what Bee’s ratings are and whether they are getting better or worse, but I suspect that the president doesn’t either. (Cf. Trump’s referring constantly to the “failing New York Times.”)

Bee’s program is funny and insightful, and I hope that it remains on the air.

The Trump Doctrine

Clip on image for a larger version

Change in Comment Policy

Beginning today, comments will not be posted until approved by me. I will try to approve comments quickly, but the needed approval time will necessarily be variable.

I take this step reluctantly. Unfortunately, some visitors have used their comment privileges to post off-topic messages that include links to irrelevant commercial Web sites. Rather than removing such comments after the fact, I have decided to prevent them from ever being posted.

Your understanding and indulgence are appreciated.

A Pro-Choice Essay and Graphic

To someone who believes that women are not lesser creatures than men and should not lose the right to direct their own medical care the moment they become pregnant, the political fights over the right to abortion are maddening. The anti-abortion crusade was born of the Roman Catholic Church’s obsession with sex and male control over women. Catholics sold their obsession to evangelical Protestants, who bought it for political reasons of their own, rather than out of any abstract or biblical moral reasoning. It quickly became a widespread obsession that now even threatens to outlaw birth control devices.

The anti-abortion folks call themselves “pro-life,” which is ironic on many levels. The same people often seem unconcerned with quality of life, with child welfare, or with capital punishment. To many, a single-cell fertilized egg is worthy of more moral consideration than a one-year-old child. At best, this is illogical, at worst, outrageous. As a rhetorical slogan, however, “pro-life” sounds righteous and compelling. “Pro-choice,” by contrast, sounds selfish and uncaring. Calling the anti-abortion crowd “anti-choice” isn’t any better.

I got to thinking about how the pro-freedom forces can better advance their cause in the abortion wars by altering tactics.

As a rhetorical device, the term “pro-life” is very strong. The anti-abortion side has worked hard to encourage people to view the embryo/fetus (or even the zygote/blastocyst) as a human being. Human beings have rights, so the logic goes, and the developing human in the womb cannot advocate for itself. Implicitly, he mother, on the other hand, who is morally oblivious to the nature of the life she is carrying, can mistakenly act in what she sees as her own self-interest unless prevented by an enlightened and benevolent government.

There are problems with the “pro-life” rhetoric. Perhaps most importantly, is the identification of everything from a fertilized egg to a newborn as a human. In all cases, it is human, but it is not necessarily a human. By analogy, a severed finger is human but not a human. Clearly, a baby is a human just before birth, but months earlier, it has more in common with a fish or a frog. That it may have a heartbeat means little; so do adult fish and frogs. Whether it can feel pain early in life is likewise not dispositive (and is, in any case, debatable). So can fish and frogs. For many pro-lifers, the status of the unborn really hinges on the unstated assumption that the “baby” has a soul. Clearly, many people do not believe this, and the existence of a baby’s soul is hardly a valid consideration in the policy-making of a secular democracy. (No, the U.S. is not a “Christian” country and was never intended to be.) In any event, I find the argument to be made for my cats having souls more compelling than any for the souls of zygotes.

A case can be made—the Supreme Court accepted such a case, after all—that, at some point in a pregnancy, abortion should, in nearly all circumstances, be disallowed. I lack the wisdom to know where that point is, and so do the anti-abortion folks, irrespective of their claims. Save for egregious cases, I’m perfectly willing to leave the matter to women and their doctors.

Returning more directly to rhetorical concerns, pro-choice people necessarily need to place more emphasis on women acting as free and rational beings in their choices to abort their pregnancies. Probably, the most effective pro-choice tactic would be to have ordinary women who have had abortions explain their choices in public—on television, on social media, and in person with their friends. (Acceptance of homosexuality depended on people’s encountering actual homosexuals after all.) There is also a place for sloganeering, a consideration that led me to create this graphic:

This seems like an appropriate message in the age of #MeToo: women are to be respected and their medical choices assumed to be reasonable (or, in any case, ones they should have the freedom to make). The use of “choices” here subtly suggests choices related to abortion, since everyone is assumed to be familiar with pro-choice rhetoric.

I encourage others to use the above graphic freely. A larger version is available by clicking on the one shown here.

Postscript: I first posted my graphic on Facebook and decided that I should put in on my blog as well. I intended to write a short introduction to it but got carried away. I hope people find this essay interesting, perhaps even useful. I invite rational discussion and reserve the right to delete comments that do not qualify.

A Brief Look at Fox News

Yesterday morning, I recorded Fox & Friends on my DVR. I have never watched this program—if I’m not listening to Morning Edition while the program is on the air, I’m watching Morning Joe—but I thought that I should take a look at the guidance being given President Trump by his most influential advisors.

When I began to review my recording, it didn’t take long to be gobsmacked. The show’s introduction included the following teaser:

Fired FBI director James Comey slamming our commander-in-chief, attacking President Trump’s integrity and appearance, saying, “This president is unethical.”

What is odd here is the phrase “our [emphasis added] commander-in-chief.” Here’s why:

1. The “commander-in-chief” title is inappropriate in this context. Trump was Comey’s president, not his commander-in-chief, since Comey was not in the military chain of command.
2. Stranger is the use of “our,” rather than the more usual “the.”

What do I conclude from these observations?

First, conservatives have a fondness for, if not authoritarian structures, then at least hierarchical ones. 

“Commander-in-chief” suggests more authority than does “president.” The Fox morning team seems to prefer a strong president, as long as he is white and conservative.

It was the use of “our,” however, that really got my attention. In normal conversation among Americans, we tend to talk about the president, not my president or our president. Were we speaking with outsiders—were we having a conversation in South Africa, for example—we almost certainly would refer to our president. This usage is unusual on an American television program targeted to Americans.

The use of “our” on Fox & Friends has a conspiratorial air about it. The hosts are addressing the Fox News audience that sees itself as a tight-knit community assailed by liberal antagonists. Trump is our man, not theirs. Indeed he is!

I didn’t get much further into reviewing my recording. Doing so promised to be painful, and I will need to steel myself for the project. I did watch enough to notice that the hosts assume that Hillary Clinton did something illegal. Perhaps, when my blood pressure is lower, I will watch the rest of Friday’s show. Maybe it was Fox & Friends that gave Trump the idea of launching an attack against Syria on Friday night.

Goals for Syria

As I write this, the country is waiting to learn what, if anything, President Trump will do in response to the most recent use of chemical weapons in Syria by President Bashar Hafez al-Assad. This is tricky business, and it is difficult to be sanguine about Trump’s ability to act wisely. Were I advising the president, I’m not sure what advice I would give. If we are capable, destroying Assad’s ability to deliver poison gas would be a good place to start. I don’t know how to do that, and our military may not know either.

In any case, what the president does in the next 24 hours is a tactical matter. More important is our strategy in Syria, which seems nonexistent. What are we trying to accomplish there that could be considered a reasonable goal?

As we consider strategy, we must acknowledge that there are no good guys in the fight. Trump was not out of line in calling Assad an “animal,” and most of those opposing his regime are religious zealots. Even the Kurds have less than pure motives and, in any case, are hardly strong or numerous enough to rule Syria. Russia doesn’t want to lose an ally and certainly not a naval and airbase. Iran is seeking to achieve hegemony over the entire Middle East.

If I were God, I would probably break up Syria. Give the Kurds much of the country, as well as parts of Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. Let Iran and Iraq split up whatever is left over. I am not God, however, and none of this is going to happen.

If we are to be realistic, we have to choose between Assad and his enemies. There is no candidate to take over the country and to rule in a non-homicidal fashion. Frankly, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine why anyone wants to govern Syria; there isn’t much left to govern. Can a whole country be sold for scrap?

Since we clearly do not want a Syria run by religious extremists, Assad seems to be the only game in town. I suggest that our we should work for a stable Syria that includes the following:

1. Assad remains in power but is chastened by the international community and is disinclined to pursue genocide against his own people.
2. Russia retains Syria as an ally, retains a naval base, and withdraws all its airpower resources.
3. Iran is chased out of Syria.
4. Jihadists are decisively defeated.
5. Kurds work out whatever deal they can get, perhaps regional autonomy or even a homeland carved out of Syria and parts of Iraq. I wish them good luck.
6. Syria is at peace and begins to rebuild.
7. Syria is a democracy, in principle, if not in practice. (“In practice” is unlikely.)

A strategy that seeks a stable result that looks like the above might be achievable. I don’t think we can ask for more.

I don’t have a plan to achieve these goals, but I do think that devising such a plan is possible, though perhaps not be the current American administration.

Pray for Syria.

Regrets

We all make mistakes in life. Big decisions may turn out wrong, or, at the very least, we may for years question what might have happened had we made different choices. In reality, however, we can never know what our life might have been like had we chosen a different occupation, a different spouse, a different job, or a different place to live. Even if one choice leads to “bad” results, we can never know whether our having taken a different path—a seemingly wiser path—wouldn’t have resulted in even worse outcomes.

I sometimes think that the small mistakes in life—the actions that likely were not at life’s crucial inflection points—result in the most painful regrets. Little errors create long-lived regret, not because they were so important, but because they could so easily have been avoided—well, should have been, anyway.

The recent fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., got me thinking about this because some of my own small regrets involve Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement. Let me explain.

I grew up in New Orleans in a family that was not particularly political. In fact, I cannot recall my parents ever talking about politics, though some of my relatives on my father’s side of the family did. When I was growing up, virtually every voter in New Orleans was a Democrat. Louisiana was part of the Solid South, where an overwhelming Democratic majority was a racist legacy against Reconstruction and the Republican Party. (In defense of Louisiana Democrats, I should add that the party did have its factions, some of which were less reactionary than others.) My earliest political memory is of being at a party at the house of a great aunt when I was about six. Someone expressed the view that, if General Eisenhower were elected president, we would find ourselves in a major war within six months. Ironically, however, having been thoroughly involved in war very much inclined President Eisenhower toward peace.

I became interested in politics in junior high school. I’m not sure just how this happened, but, in junior high, I encountered Ayn Rand; an AM radio program on XERF that, in retrospect, I would classify as promoting Christian nationalism; and an English teacher who was the rare New Orleans Republican. In high school, my best friend’s family were big supporters of Barry Goldwater’s presidential candidacy. I bought the propaganda about “states’ rights” and became ever-so-slightly rebellious by considering myself a Republican in the Southern ocean of Democrats.

I left for college at the University of Chicago in the fall of 1964, excited at the prospect of discussing politics with fellow students. I was to be disappointed. Chicago was a very liberal, though not especially activist, campus, and it appeared that everyone considered Barry Goldwater a nut job and his candidacy a fool’s errand. No one seemed open to a contrary view on the matter, so political discussion was pointless. Nevertheless, I retained my Republican philosophy, but I didn’t have much of an opportunity to expound on it. I was a poll watcher for one election—I don’t remember which one—and the experience nurtured a certain cynicism regarding big-city machine politics.

Regret Number 1

I signed on to Cap and Gown, the University of Chicago yearbook, as business manager. Eventually, I became editor-in-chief. I did so thinking that joining the yearbook staff was my ticket to breaking into the student power structure on campus. As it happened, there was no student power structure, and there was little interest in a college yearbook. The yearbook office was in Ida Noyes Hall, a quaint, uninviting building that served as a student center in an era when student recreation was not considered much of a priority.

I once found myself in Ida Noyes in the company of a group of students sitting on the floor talking. I assume they were discussing politics, possibly about students who had gone South to register black voters, but I really don’t remember. I didn’t know any of the students and wasn’t participating in the discussion. At some point, the group began singing “We Shall Overcome.” I was immediately overcome by a painful ambivalence. There was a strong sense of community and purpose in the room that I found attractive, but I was still a Republican who, although I had no dislike of blacks, also had no sympathy for the Civil Rights movement. Sadly, I didn’t participate in the singing and eventually walked away. I am saddened that I could not bring myself to join the group in song, and I am sad that, for much of the Civil Rights era, I was on the wrong side. (On the positive side, I have since sung “We Shall Overcome” at an NAACP event.)

Regret Number 2

Studying physics at the University of Chicago left me little time for watching television or for keeping up with current events. When Dr. King was killed, however, everyone knew about it. My fraternity brothers were saddened by the shooting and concerned about immediate consequences. The university adjoined a black neighborhood, and rioting spilling over into the campus seemed a real possibility. I was largely oblivious both to the distress and to the apprehension of my housemates.

My concern was that, having been assassinated, Dr. King would become an instant martyr, thereby achieving recognition I felt he did not deserve. Unable to keep my politically-incorrect thoughts to myself, I wrote an essay expressing my disgust with this possibility and posted it publicly in the chapter house. Friends tried to convince me, though without success, that my actions were, at best, insensitive, particularly since one of the brothers was black.

In no way was the murder of Dr. King going to change my mind about the righteousness of his causes, but, in retrospect, I should have at least kept my counsel to myself.

For any reader who does not know, although I went through college as a moderately strong conservative, at some point—curiously, I don’t know just when—I became what Facebook calls me, namely, “very liberal.” I think Richard Nixon may have had something to do with my transformation.

Regret Number 3

After one term in graduate school, I enlisted in the U.S. Army, not out of a sense of patriotism but out of a sense of self-preservation. Graduate school draft deferments were being eliminated, and I wanted to minimize my chances of having to carry a rifle in the jungles of South Vietnam. Following an audition, I was able to enlist as an Army bandsman. After basic training, I was posted to Fort McPherson in Atlanta and, after that, to Fort Shafter in Honolulu. I considered myself a conscientious soldier who, despite the usual gripes of soldiering, was respectful of the chain of command. I was also grateful, of course, to be in Hawaii and not South Vietnam.

As a member of the 264th Army Band, I regularly spent time in rehearsals. playing concerts and military ceremonies, and marching in the occasional parade. Band members did have a fair amount of time off, however. One day, a couple of my fellow musicians and I decided to go on a hike. (Oahu has many hiking trails.) As I recall, the trail we decided to hike was on Fort Shafter, but I don’t recall much about it. What I do remember is that we were apparently missed—maybe we hadn’t shown up for dinner—and someone was sent to find us. That someone was an enlisted man who was not a member of the band and not someone we know. As we were coming off the trail, we saw him walking toward us. He said something that made clear why he was there and that he had then completed his mission. He did something unexpected, however; he saluted.

As you may know, in most circumstances, enlisted soldiers are obliged to salute officers. But we hikers were enlisted men and we didn’t require a salute. None of us—I know I didn’t—returned the salute. But to this day, I regret not having done so. The salute was clearly not the standard, obligatory show of respect; it was instead a sign of communal solidarity and perhaps an involuntary expression of relief. To have returned the gesture would have been to acknowledge the concern for our absence and the effort expended to find us. Also, a show of brotherhood.

Final Thoughts

With some reflection, I can think of other embarrassing situations over the years that I handled badly—for example, not recognizing or acknowledging that a person thought he or she was doing something special for me. Well, as I said earlier, we all make mistakes, don’t we? We can strive to be better people though. Certainly, I like to think I am a more sensitive person now than I was in my college days.

Let me, therefore, conclude this little confessional with a quotation from George Bernard Shaw:

As long as I can conceive something better than myself I cannot be easy unless I am striving to bring it into existence or clearing the way for it.

Bon-Ton and KitchenAid Give Me a Hard Time

Sometimes, the universe just doesn’t seem to be my friend.

The other day, I received a coupon from Bon-Ton of the sort the department store distributes from time to time. The coupon promised $10 off a $10 or more purchase. I didn’t have a pressing need to buy anything in particular, but the coupon represented an opportunity too good to pass up. I thought I might find something desirable in the clothing line or be able to augment my collection of miscellaneous Fiesta dinnerware pieces.

When I got to the store, I went straight for the Fiesta counter, which, distressingly, was not where it had always been. I feared that the store was no longer carrying the Fiesta line. I looked around a bit and then headed for the discount table that occasionally held Fiesta pieces but was usually not very interesting. To my relief, I spotted the relocated Fiesta counter on my way. I found a small bowl—I forget what Homer Laughlin China Co. calls it—to add to my scant collection of similar items. It was marked $10. This was perfect, I thought.

I proceeded to the service counter with my bowl, my coupon, and my Bon-Ton charge card, all of which I proudly presented to the clerk behind the counter. The clerk scanned the label on the bottom of the bowl and gave me good news and bad news. Fiesta was on sale for 30% off. (If there was a sign to that effect near the merchandise, I hadn’t seen it.) I could have the bowl for $7 but couldn’t use my coupon. I said no thanks and headed back to the dinnerware. There, I found a second bowl, identical except in color, marked, perplexingly, $11. Well, I thought, getting two bowls for $4.70 wouldn’t be too bad.

I headed back to the service counter, this time presenting my two bowls, my coupon, and my Bon-Ton charge card, not quite so self-satisfied as before. This time, I was informed that the $10 discount had to come from a single item, i.e., an item that cost, even on sale, at least $10. (The coupon clearly said as much, but I had not read it closely enough.) “Lots of people buy towels with the coupon,” the clerk suggested helpfully. “Or consider kitchen gadgets.” I didn’t need any linens, but, even before the clerk made his suggestion, I had thought of the kitchen department, my next stop.

My kitchen is filled with gadgets, but I scanned the wall of tools in search of something purchase-worthy. My eyes landed on a KitchenAid bulb baster. My ship, I thought, had come in. I had an old, cheap bulb baster whose tip had partially melted in some long-forgotten culinary mishap. I had tried to use it Maundy Thursday to baste a leg of lamb, but I gave up on it, threw it away, and used a ladle instead. In short, I was actually in need of a baster. This one had clear volume markers on it and was of obviously higher quality than my discarded baster. It was marked $18 but was on sale for, as I remember, $12. I bought it at the nearest service counter for $2 plus tax.

All this took place on Good Friday. For Easter dinner, I was preparing a ham, and the new baster was not only useful, but a joy to use. Moreover, the KitchenAid package had declared the baster to be “dishwasher safe.” After dinner, I put the bulb in the top rack of the dishwasher and the clear plastic tube in the silverware basket. Clearly, the tube couldn’t stand up in the top rack and wouldn’t get cleaned lying down. Therefore “dishwasher safe” must mean that it could stand up in the bottom rack. When I unloaded the dishwasher today, the tube had multiple cracks running its length.

Although I usually put warranty information in a file, I had thrown out all the packaging of the bulb baster. Happily, I had not disposed of the garbage, and I managed to fish the information card out of the garbage. It declared

One Year Hassle-Free Replacement & Lifetime Limited Warranty

This fine product is warranted to be free from defects in material and workmanship. For one year from date of purchase, under normal use and care, KitchenAid will replace the product free of charge, if it is found to be defective in material or workmanship. In addition, from year two through the life of the product, any piece found to be defective under conditions of normal use and care will be repaired at no charge or replaced with the same item or an item of equal or better value. Individual products should be returned postage paid to: KitchenAid Products, Consumer Service Department, P.O. Box 9750, Trenton, NJ 08650-1750. You May have other rights, which vary from state to state.

I really didn’t want to have to mail the baster to KitchenAid, so I called the telephone number listed on the packaging for the KitchenAid Customer Satisfaction Center. After a short wait, I was connected to someone who deals with kitchen appliances. That person gave me the number for the kitchen gadgets people—they were perhaps at lunch—and transferred my call. When someone answered, I explained the situation and was told, as expected, that I would have to mail in the baster. I said I could send a picture of the damage but was told that that isn’t the way KitchenAid does warranty satisfaction. I then said something rude and was told that the person at the other end of the line was going to hang up. I guess I deserved that, but I was really upset about the baster.

I found a padded envelope, addressed it, enclosed the baster, along with a memo I had to type, and set off for the post office. Postage cost me $3.75, and I was told the envelope would be delivered in two days. I made sure I had a tracking number, as I wanted to make sure the package arrived. (I once had a dispute about a warranty return that was said not ever to have arrived. The dispute ended amicably, but I wanted to avoid such situations in the future.)

I soon expect to see how good is the KitchenAid warranty. By the way, in my memo, I said that my faith in KitchenAid had been shaken, as indeed it has been. Because I didn’t want to request any more basters in my lifetime, I wrote that I “would appreciate being told what I can and cannot expect of this product.” How I wash my new baster will depend on what I hear back.

Assault Weapons

Today is the day of the March for Our Lives—technically, Marches for Our Lives, since, at last count, 844 protests were scheduled throughout the world—the Washington, D.C., protest organized by the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in response to the recent massacre at their school. Students are marching for stronger gun laws, especially the banning of assault rifles.

The now-expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1984, otherwise known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, banned particular weapons (as well as copies and duplicates). It also listed characteristics of weapons that would cause a weapon to be banned. It has been credibly argued that these lists are, on the one hand, too specific, and, on the other, too vague. A specific list of weapons invites litigation as to whether particular arms are effectively duplicates of banned ones. The lists of impermissible characteristics include properties that do not seem essential to making a weapon unsuited to be in civilian hands.

The problematic nature of the model list is fairly obvious. The enumerated properties that can result in a ban include such provisions as the following:

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Detachable magazine.

If I get shot by a weapon, it does not matter to me that it had a folding stock or a pistol grip. No one said that what the Army needs to kill people is a weapon with a folding stock. What makes a weapon one to which civilians should not have access?

The answer is that the weapon should reliable incapacitate and, preferably, kill an opponent. Moreover, in a combat situation, it may be necessary to kill more than one opponent quickly. Whether or not the weapon has a pistol grip or flash suppressor is just icing on the cake.

The most essential characteristic of a weapon for the individual soldier is that it fires a round that delivers a substantial amount of kinetic energy into an enemy body. It is not muzzle velocity or slug weight that matters; what matters is the total amount of energy available to tear through the tissues of a target. Therefore, any weapon that delivers a projectile at the muzzle having an energy of more than j joules should be banned. (Due to air resistance, less energy is actually delivered to the target.) Since I know little of weapons or physiology, I don’t know what j should be, but objective experts of good will should be able to come up with an appropriate number. Weapons that can fire a round with more than j joules of energy, as well as any device that allows an otherwise legal weapon to do so should be banned.

Next, an assault weapon should be able to fire many rounds in rapid succession. Therefore, any gun should be banned that can fire two rounds in less than s seconds. Again, I don’t know an appropriate value for s. Human factors are involved here. Weapons that can fire successive rounds at intervals less than s seconds should be banned, as well as any device that modifies an otherwise legal weapon to do so should be banned.

An effective weapon of war should be able to fire many rounds quickly. Any weapon should be banned that, even if it can fire n rounds (n should be 10 or fewer) spaced more than s seconds apart, cannot fire subsequent rounds until at least c seconds have elapsed. Presumably, c is the time required to change a magazine. This provision effectively limits magazines to n rounds. Devices and procedures that get around this restriction should be banned.

An ideal weapon for a soldier must also be lightweight, which not only makes it easy to carry but also allows the soldier to carry more ammunition. It is not clear that weight is much of an issue when considering a civilian ban if effective energy and rate-of-fire restrictions are in place. However, any legal weapon should be detectable by standard metal detectors.

Finally, an effective assault weapons ban should outlaw the manufacture, importation, sale, or possession of the weapons defined as I have suggested. If the weapons themselves are banned, it is probably unnecessary to ban their ammunition as well.

Yes, I want to take away your guns. The NRA be damned.

Pittsburgh Churches Settle (Sort Of)

After nearly a decade of secret negotiations, nearly all of the churches that left the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh for what became the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh in the Anglican Church in North America and have been in legal limbo since 2008 have made an agreement with the Episcopal Church diocese that stabilizes their status for the immediate future. The agreement was announced Wednesday, February 28, when it was posted on the Web sites of the two Pittsburgh dioceses. (I phoned the Anglican Diocese on March 1 to point out that the text of the agreement on its Web site ended in the middle of a sentence. The omission has since been corrected.) Bishop Dorsey McConnell wrote a letter to the Episcopal diocese about the agreement,

Background

Recall that, in October 2008, the convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted to leave The Episcopal Church. This grossly improper development was engineered primarily by Bishop Robert Duncan, who, by that time, had been deposed by The Episcopal Church. Although many parishes claimed to have left the diocese, a significant number remained. The leadership of the Episcopal diocese was rebuilt, and a new “Anglican Diocese” was created, ludicrously maintaining the fiction that it was the entity formed from the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania in 1865.

Although similar schisms have occurred elsewhere—in the dioceses of San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Quincy, and South Carolina—the legal context of the Pittsburgh split was unique. Calvary Church, the most prominent church of the diocese, along with St. Stephen’s Church, a decidedly less prominent church, had sued the bishop and many diocesan leaders over early skirmishes in Duncan’s takeover plot. This litigation resulted in a 2005 stipulation agreed to by all parties. The most important provision of this agreement—item 1 in the stipulation—was that, should parishes leave the diocese, property held by the diocese itself would remain with “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.”

It was never clear why Duncan agreed to the stipulation, though, after the schism, he vainly argued that the newly created “Anglican” diocese was the diocese referred to in the legal agreement. Predictably, he lost that argument, and Episcopalians retained endowments and real property owned by the diocese. This included a number of churches whose congregations left the diocese. (By all rights, Episcopalians should have been given all diocesan records and office equipment, but that didn’t happen.)

The stipulation further laid out—in its item 2—a procedure for negotiating the departure of a parish whose property was not owned by the diocese. This provision was never really put into practice. A number of parish properties have been returned to the Episcopal diocese voluntarily, both those owned and not owned by the diocese outright. A half dozen or so churches owned by the diocese but occupied by non-Episcopal congregations have been allowed to continue to operate with the understanding that they will maintain their buildings and keep them insured. The recent agreement covers nearly all the parishes that have title to their property that are members of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Agreement

What was published on February 28—available here—is an executive summary of the agreement between nine parishes and the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, along with an introduction to that summary agreed to by all parties (referred to as a “joint statement”). The actual agreement has not been published, and it may never be made public. It is unclear, however, why it should not be released.

A slight digression here: The introductory paragraph to the joint statement prefixed to the executive summary refers to “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church in the United States.” This is similar to the designation that appears in the 2005 stipulation, namely, “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.” Neither of these names is exactly right, and I cannot understand how lawyers cannot figure this out. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is part of  “The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America,” or, if you prefer, “The Episcopal Church.” Whether, in either case, “the” should be capitalized is disputed. I have written several times about the proper of the name of our church. See, for example, here. End of digression.

The joint statement explains how the agreement was negotiated regarding “the respective rights, obligations[,] and expectations of the parties relative to the historic real and personal property of each of the Parishes.” It goes on to say that we’re all going to be nice and Christian toward one another and not engage in lawsuits. (More on this below.) Bishops of each diocese contributed conciliatory remarks. It is noted that certain “court and administrative approvals” will be necessary to put the agreement into effect.

The executive summary, which describes the actual agreement, is divided into five sections. The first, “A Distinctively Christian Compromise Resolution,” emphasizes Christian charity toward one another and says that the agreement does not constitute an admission of guilt.  (Cf. fines levied on corporations for various non-admitted infractions.)

The next section, “The Real and Personal Property,” provides critical definitions needed to understand what follows. Specifically, it distinguishes “Historic Property” from “Subsequently Acquired Property,” both real and personal, held by or for the benefit of a parish. Historic property is that held prior to the October 4, 2008, schism, including anything “acquired under the terms of a will or trust executed before” that date. Subsequently acquired property is everything else.

“How the Parties Will Relate to One Another and the Historic Property” is the longest section, and its intent is self-explanatory. The section begins with the affirmation that (1) the parishes own legal title to their property, (2) that the Episcopal diocese has a trust interest in the historic property, and (3) that the diocese renounces any interest in the subsequently acquired property.

The section goes on to say that the parishes can continue to use their properties and that, under rather vaguely specified circumstances, the Episcopal diocese may do so as well. However, the parishes must maintain and insure historic property and may not “lease, sell, assign their interests in, alter[,] or encumber” church buildings without permission from the diocese. “The Agreement specifies several factors or circumstances to be considered in the event of such a transaction [i.e., request to effect an otherwise prohibited action].” The executive summary does not specify what those several factors or circumstances are. Conditions of historic endowments and bequests must be respected, and the diocese maintains control over income and principle use. Again, the actual agreement, but not the executive summary, offers more specific restrictions and procedures. The diocese has the right to obtain sufficient information to assure that parishes are meeting their obligations.

Significantly, each parish is to pay an annual fee to the diocese equal to 3.25% of its operating revenue for the next 20 years. Thereafter, this fee decreases to 1.75% annually.

The agreement has provisions—again unstated in the executive summary—for handling the case of a parish wishing to relinquish its use of historic property. If it continues to use historic property and remains separate from the diocese—most likely in the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh—the agreement remains in effect, potentially in perpetuity.

Annual meetings between representatives of the diocese and each parish are mandated, as well as a meeting with any newly called rector.

The agreement provides procedures for dispute resolution, escalating from friendly discussion to litigation. The executive summary describes such procedures in a very general way.

The next section, “A Collective Agreement But Separate Contract,” explains that the agreement is to be construed as separate agreements between the diocese and each parish. Thus, a dispute between the diocese and a single parish does not affect the relationship between the diocese and other parishes.

The final section is titled “What Remains to Be Done.” All the principals have signed off on the agreement. A letter will be sought from the Pennsylvania attorney general stating that that office does not object to the agreement(s). Also, Judge Joseph James, who oversaw the litigation brought by Calvary and St. Stephen’s, will have to approve the agreement(s) in light of the aforementioned stipulation.

Analysis

The agreement mostly resolves the property issues remaining from the October 4, 2008, schism. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that agreements have not been reached by an additional three parishes, I believe these are Trinity, Beaver; Grace, Mt. Washington and Edgeworth;  and Trinity, Patton. (A call to the spokesperson for the diocese to verify this was not returned.) These are relatively small parishes. The most significant parishes, both in terms of real estate and number of members, are covered by the agreement, namely Ascension, Oakland, and St. Stephen’s Sewickley.

The most significant aspect of the agreement is its recognition by all parties of the trust interest of The Episcopal Church in the historic property, that is, an acknowledgment, perhaps implicit, of the applicability of the Dennis Canon, Canon I.7.4:

All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.

The diocese does not own the property in question, but that property is held in trust for the church. Many of the restrictions set forth in the agreement also apply to parishes that are members of the diocese.  For example, a parish of the diocese cannot sell real property that it owns without diocesan permission. It seems unlikely that the Dennis Canon could be used to require that any of the parish parties to the agreement surrender their historic property. That annual payments to the diocese are to be made, however, clearly establishes that the properties are being used to the benefit of the diocese and wider church.

Although the diocese would, in some respects, have preferred that the parishes, including their parishioners, return to the diocese, it was clear that that was not going to happen anytime soon. Certainly  regaining the buildings without parishioners would have been something of a liability, even though some of the buildings (or the land beneath them) are quite valuable. The agreement essentially creates a repository of property that the diocese may be able to use sometime in the future. (Parishes may grow tired of paying the annual fee or may even decide to return to The Episcopal Church, particularly if the Anglican Church in North America fails to flourish.) Although the diocese would likely have received more money from the parishes in assessments had they remained in the fold, it should be able to cover administrative costs and perhaps receive some real income from the agreement.

What the diocese got, therefore, is a recognition of the Dennis Canon, preservation of the property, and some small amount of income. It avoided what could have been substantial and continuing legal costs, though some future legal costs are to be expected. The diocese no doubt will have earned some goodwill in the Anglican world for not having pursued litigation to a final conclusion.

It is something of a surprise that the parishes admitted the trust interest of The Episcopal Church, but that probably seemed a small price to conclude litigation and achieve some stability. Maintaining historic property is something the parishes would have wanted to do anyway, and the diocese has made no claim on subsequently acquired property. (That would have been a stretch, in any case.)  Presumably, the agreement will allow parishes to renovate, expand, and even sell property. It is not specified—at least in the summary—under what circumstances this will be allowed, but the diocese has indeed shown more forbearance toward those who left than has been shown elsewhere. (The diocese made it easier for clergy to return to The Episcopal Church, for example, and some have indeed returned.) The parishes, too, will save on legal bills. Their payments to the diocese are modest and will even be reduced after 20 years, at which point inflation may have made them insignificant.

The diocese had not insisted on being involved in the running of the parishes or the selection of its leaders. The provision to meet with new priests is only intended to assure that new clergy understand the ongoing agreement.

It is at least mildly interesting that the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh has no role in the agreement. From one point of view, this is not surprising, as the diocese no longer has a dispute with the Anglican entity. On the other hand, immediately after the 2008 schism, the Anglican diocese actively discouraged negotiations. The Anglican diocese has clearly given its blessing to this latest development, and it, too, gains stability from it.

One factor influencing the character of the agreement is the expressed reluctance of Judge James to countenance parishioners being ejected from their buildings. Additionally—I don’t know that this was considered explicitly—accepting congregations and their buildings back into the Episcopal diocese could have affected the theological orientation of the diocese in a direction of which most members of Episcopal parishes would not approve.

On the whole, I think the agreement is fair to all concerned. Of course, only time will tell if relations between the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and the parishes involved in the agreement will run smoothly. It will be interesting to observe what happens when there are disagreements, as invariably there will be. I do not think the agreement will have much influence over property disputes elsewhere, where circumstances differ from those of Pittsburgh.

An information meeting is being held tonight at the Church of the Redeemer, Squirrel Hill, to explain the settlement to interested parties. I will attend and report on anything of interest. Stand by.