Did Putin favor Trump?

I can’t be the only one who has noticed that this whole Russia thing makes absolutely no sense.  Why is nobody in the media or even in political office asking some basic questions about the alleged “hacking” by the Russians? 

I don’t doubt the Russian ability to hack into e-mails and I don’t doubt they would use information to their advantage if they thought they could.  But there is the problem… I don’t see how the Trump victory is to the advantage of Putin.  We as Americans are being asked to believe this premise and I don’t buy it.

Putin is the epitome of a Machiavellian ruler.  His mastery of realpolitik is unrivaled.  He is without a moral code and operates completely in the world of the practical.  The man will use any advantage to improve the situation for Russia.  None of this is disputed.  It is why he is rightly feared by so many. 

With this being the case, let’s look at why he would want either Trump or Clinton as the leader of his biggest international rival:

Trump:  The only advantage for Putin is Trump's inexperience, but even that is of dubious value.  Yes, he is inexperienced with politics but that also makes him extremely unpredictable.  That lack of predictability makes him a frightening leader from the Russian perspective.  How will Trump respond to Russian aggression in the Ukraine?  How about the Baltics or Syria?  It is all a bit of a mystery.  Everybody has opinions and guesses but there is no track record upon which to base a decision. 

One could argue that Trump has business connections with the Russians that gives them an idea of what to expect but that is a weak predictor.  Clearly Trump’s business acumen was used to promote Trump’s businesses but how does that translate into how he would run the country?  In the case of Russia, it doesn’t mean a lot.  The only thing it means is that Trump enters office with at least a modicum of understanding about the individuals with whom he will be dealing but not much more.

Clinton:  Hillary is a completely different story.  She has a long track record upon which to formulate an opinion.  This is the woman who thought Bush did such a horrible job of dealing with Russia that she thought we needed to “reset” the relationship.  She showed up to her first meeting with the foreign minister with a plastic button that she held aloft and called the “reset button.”  It was one of the most embarrassing moments in US/Russian engagement.  She looked like a complete idiot.  If you want a chuckle, google search the video of this encounter and look at the Russian foreign minister’s reaction.

She followed up by failing at every foreign policy challenge during her tenure.  Clinton and the Obama administration were inept at recognizing what was happening in Egypt, Libya and Syria.  They didn’t understand the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They capitulated to Iran.  They still don’t know how to handle Chinese aggression in the South or East China seas.  They were inept at thwarting Russia in the Crimea and don’t know how to handle the Ukraine problem.  Under Clinton and Obama, Russian influence continues to grow unchecked.  Weakness, ineptitude and reliance on a misguided ideology defines US foreign policy under Clinton.  That is exactly what a man like Putin thrives upon.

But there is another reason Putin would have preferred Clinton in office.  That is his ability to blackmail her.  Remember those 33,000 missing e-mails?  Do you really think those were all about yoga classes and wedding plans?  Those e-mails have never been found and a lot of people think they exist in somebody’s server.  Is it the Russians?  It doesn’t matter.  The fact that they were ever on an unsecured server means they might have been hacked and could be released at any moment.

Think about that… let’s say Putin decides that he was unhappy with the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.  Those were part of the old Soviet Union and hold real strategic value today.  If Putin made moves upon them, he could have placed a call to President Hillary and remind her how terrible it would be if those e-mails suddenly were to appear on Wikileaks.  He could have held that card over her whenever he needed to.  He wouldn’t even need to have them.  Just the idea that he might is all that would be needed.  He would have had an awesome weapon to allow him to continue to expand Russian influence without serious opposition from the US.

If Clinton had won, Putin would have had a weak and inept leader who was susceptible to blackmail.  With Trump, he has an inexperienced but unpredictable counterpart.  Seriously… who do you think he wanted to win?

So why isn’t anybody in the media asking about this?  Why are they just taking at face value that the Russians interfered with the intent of helping Trump?  It seems shockingly obvious that the motive seems more than a little weak.  Did they do it in hopes of just further weakening Clinton but didn’t think she would actually lose?  Or maybe they didn’t do it.  Maybe it really was just poorly secured e-mail accounts that Wikileaks managed to access.  Maybe it was a variety of hackers who were successful against the DNC and Podesta but wasn’t state sponsored.  I don’t know…

All I do know is that the narrative pushed by the Obama administration and parroted without question by the media doesn’t make any sense.  It irritates me that nobody is questioning the narrative.  Even conservatives seem paralyzed by this and are afraid to ask real questions.  

2017 Prius

2017 Prius

This blog post is a draft of a training module I am developing for my Toyota salespeople. 

Fuel Economy

Let’s start with the obvious and then what is not so obvious.  If fuel economy is your number one issue, the Prius is the obvious choice.  The combined highway and city rating is 52 MPG (the Prius II Eco is 56 but you’ll see shortly why this isn’t as big a deal as it may appear).  Nothing without a plug comes close.  So far so good?

Fuel economy ratings that are displayed on the window of any car are deceptive.  The EPA has a set of criteria that manufacturers must use to put those numbers on the window.  The problem is, the criteria doesn’t really represent what happens in the real world.  To see how bad this is, do a Google search with the terms “Ford c max fuel economy lawsuit.”  The car did much better on the treadmill than it could ever do in real life.

The other side of this is what the real world is for the 2016/17 Prius.  The previous generation Prius had a combined MPG rating of 50.  Most owners get between 46-48 and some do get 50 MPG.  Some people use a trick called “hyper-miling” and get into the upper 50’s (very dangerous, don’t try it). 

The 2016/17 is completely different.  I have seen several cars that are getting into the low 60’s for MPG.  These are not the “Eco” models.  They are the trim level 3 and 4 which have lithium-ion batteries.  The 2 Eco has lithium-ion as well but has no spare tire and is lacking a rear window wiper.  Take a look at the web site www.fuelly.com and check out the 2016 Prius.  You’ll see most owners are reporting 56+ and a large number are in the 60’s. 

Why is the real world so different than the EPA rating?  Great question.  I have some theories but they involve the word “sandbagging” and the motive involves changing regulations, CAFÉ standards and politics.  They are only theories anyway and sticking with proven facts, there is ample evidence that the 52 listed on the window is considerably lower than most people will realize.

Other savings

While fuel economy is the most obvious source of savings, it isn’t the only one.  The next biggie is the brakes.  Every time you hit the brake pedal on a Prius, you feel like the pads are grabbing the disc.  In reality, what you are feeling is mostly “regenerative braking” which is where the car is slowed by converting kinetic energy into electric energy and sent back to the batteries.  You actually generate power by hitting the brakes.  As a result, not only do you save gas, you save your brakes.  Every car and driver are different, but most owners will get in excess of 150,000 miles out of their brakes.  Have you ever driven a car that will go even half of that on a set of brakes? 

How about maintenance?  Every Toyota comes with the first 2 years or 25,000 miles of maintenance included.  Every tire rotation, oil change and multi-point inspection is covered.  You also get 3 years of roadside assistance with no mileage limit.  Beyond that, the spark plugs and coolant are long life so you’re well over 100,000 before they need attention.  There are no belts on the car at all.  The power steering and air conditioning run off electric motors and there is no alternator.  There is just very little to do on a Prius to keep it in top running condition.

What about battery life and replacement cost?  The fact is, most Prius cars never need the battery replaced.  It is rare to see one and the ones we do see have well in excess of 200,000 miles.  The warranty on the batteries is 8 years of 100,000 miles (10 years or 150,000 miles in CA emission states). 

Now let’s talk about the transmission.  Do you know what is even more rare than a Prius that needs a new battery pack?  One that needs a transmission.  The way they are built and operate is unlike anything else in the industry.  It doesn’t have conventional gears that move in and out of engagement.  It also doesn’t have a belt and pulley system like most other CVT transmissions.  Toyota doesn’t even call it a transmission.  It is a “power split device” which takes power from two different sources and combines them into a single output.  The internal gears are always meshed together so wear and tear are almost non-existent. 

Safety and cool stuff

Toyota has been on the forefront of adopting some new safety technology.  They helped lead a coalition of auto manufacturers to voluntarily put pre-collision systems in every car sold.  The automotive industry has set a date of 2022 to make this happen but Toyota has committed to having it standard in every car and every trim level by the end of calendar year 2017 (with two exceptions of the 86 and 4Runner which will take a little longer). 

Toyota didn’t stop with adding just a pre-collision system.  They added lane keep alert, automatic high-beams and dynamic radar cruise control (DRCC).  The pre-collision and lane keep are nice features and certainly  great safety advances, but in terms of changing how you interact with your car, they don’t do what the other two features do.

Yes, automatic high-beams and DRCC will change the way you drive.  If you live outside the city limits, high beams are a critical safety feature but an underused one.  This is especially true on tight, curvy roads where oncoming cars can show up very suddenly.  This requires the driver to move their hand and attention to dim the lights.  In many cases, that happens so often that people will just stop using high-beams.  The Prius (and everything else Toyota builds by the end of 2017) has a camera that is smart enough to recognize the difference between oncoming lights and reflective road signs.  It also recognizes red tail lights in front of you.  The driver just sets it and leaves it.

The DRCC is just flat out amazing.  It uses millimeter wave radar to monitor the cars in front of you and adjusts your speed accordingly.  That means no adjustment on your part.  If you decide you would be willing to go 72 if you are able, that is what will happen.  If the car in front of you is going 65, that is what you will do.  If he slows down, so will you.  If he speeds up, so will you.  If he gets out of the lane, you will accelerate up to 72 MPH. 

You may say, “sure, but lots of cars do that now.”  Well… kind of.  It is an option on a lot of cars now but it is standard on every single Prius (and Corolla, RAV4, Highlander, Avalon and Land Cruiser).  The Prius is unique though because it will work at a complete stop.  That’s right.  It will work in absolute stop and go traffic.  It is the only Toyota that will work at all speeds.  The others stop working in the low 30’s as will most other cars on the road.  Like I said, it will change how you interact with your car.

Prius Prime

The Prius Prime, like the previous generation Prius Plug-in is one of the most misunderstood and underrated vehicles on the road.  The car has a plug which allows you to charge the car from an outlet (more on this later).  That charge will allow you to drive a certain distance before the gas engine is used at all.  The Prime is still a Prius and still uses a gasoline engine.  The battery can still be charged by the brakes and by the gas engine but it can also be plugged into a wall or charging station.

The first question most people ask is what is the range of the Prime and that is not a good question.  The range could be thousands of miles or it could be 640 miles (this is what the EPA claims the range to be).  The range on pure battery power is up to 25 miles, but the car is not limited to pure battery power.  Unlike a Nissan Leaf or Tesla, the car doesn’t die when the battery runs down.  There is no range anxiety that comes from dealing with an all-electric car.  You can drive across the country without planning how far you can drive before the car needs to sit for an extended period of time to charge the batteries. 

My in-laws own a previous generation Plug-in.  They live 13 miles from work.  The Gen3 Plug-in had a stated range of 12 miles but in the real world, it is more like 8 to 9.  That means when they leave the house, the car runs without the gas engine for roughly ¾ of their drive.  They then plug the car in at work and drive it home the same way.  They routinely get over 1000 miles on 9 gallons of fuel.  What would their “range” be with the new Prime?  I have no idea.  They might need to put fuel stabilizer in it to keep the gas from going bad unless they took a trip to visit their grandkids in Richmond.  The point is, the range depends on how often you can charge it. 

Charging doesn’t require anything fancy either.  Unlike most electric cars, you don’t need a 220 volt dedicated charging station and you certainly don’t need a 440 volt super charger like Tesla needs for a quick charge.  You can plug it into any 110 volt GFI outlet and charge it in 5 and a half hours.  If you find a 220 volt charging station, you’ll have a full charge in just over 2 hours. 

Incentives

There isn’t a lot of mark-up in the Prius so dealers don’t have a lot of “wiggle room” on the actual sale price.  That doesn’t mean there are not good deal though.  As of this writing (December 2016), the 2017 Prius and Prius Prime have $1000 rebates from Toyota.  That means Toyota literally gives you $1000 toward your down payment.

The Prime has something else.  The federal government likes electric cars and are willing to help you own one.  There is a $4500 income tax credit if you purchase a new Prime.  Many states have their own programs as well, but just the $4500 makes the Prime cost less than the equivalent standard Prius.  

Terror watch lists and gun buying

Have we lost our collective minds in this nation?  This whole idea of banning people on the terrorism watch list from buying guns is beyond insane on so many levels. 

Has anybody actually looked into what it takes to get on the terrorism watch list or no-fly list (they are different).  I did.  I found a Congressional Research Service paper on the matter dated from April of last year.  It turns out, it is VERY secretive.  In fact, there are no publicly available guidelines for who ends up on the lists.  Here is a quote from the CRS report:

“The precise guidelines and particular factors the government relies on to place individuals on terrorist watchlists are not made public. The criteria for placement on the No Fly list, as well as whether a person is on the No Fly list, are considered “Sensitive Security Information” (SSI) and have not been publicly released by the federal government.”

Here’s some more Orwellian stuff to consider from the report.  When figuring out whom to put on the “no-fly” list, there are some standards that DHS follows.  They get information from various methods and agencies and compile the list.  However, that standard is fluid and can change on a whim.  Take a look:

“This standard was not mandated by statute, but was “adopted by internal Executive Branch policy and practice.” In addition, a recent district court case indicates that there is a “secret exception to the reasonable suspicion standard,” but the “nature of the exception and the reasons ... for nomination are claimed to be state secrets.””

So the executive branch can arbitrarily change the criteria of who is included on the list.  Nice. 

Now for the fun part and the real point of all of this.  In the past two years, Hillary Clinton has publicly compared the following groups to terrorists:  The NRA, the GOP and anybody who disagrees with her on the issue of abortion.  I’m not kidding on this.  Do a Bing search (google is less helpful in finding the exact references… go figure). 

So in the opinion of the woman who might be the next head of the executive branch of government, anybody who disagrees with her is on the same level as terrorists.  She will have the ability to add any of them to the terror watch list and thereby, prevent any of them from buying a gun and there is no redress. 

Does this bother my non-gun owning friends?  Is it OK to restrict the rights of Americans based upon secret lists?  Is it OK to deny any right without some form of accountability or redress?  This is scary stuff.  

Trump Should Be Liberating to Conservatives

It is a bizarre election year.  "Establishment" Republicans are at a loss right now to figure out how to deal with the fact that Trump will be the party's nominee.  Some are reluctantly getting on board.  Others are holding back and others are openly opposing him.  A few are even contemplating the asinine idea of running a third party candidate which would guarantee a Clinton victory.

I think they are missing the boat.  A Trump candidacy may not be what is best for either the party or the country, but it is a reality.  So what does a person do when reality is in conflict with what we desire?  There are a few choices, but the only one that makes any sense is to make the best of it.  Reality will not change and flailing one's arms in protest just looks pathetic.

The thing that "establishment" Republicans should consider is just how liberating this election has become.  Everybody knows Trump does not represent very many traditions of the GOP.  Trump himself and his supporters know this.  The media knows this.  The liberals even know it.  Because everybody knows it, there is no harm in embracing just those positions with which they do agree.  They can criticize his non-conservative positions and even tear him apart on those things but still endorse his candidacy.

I've been having fun with this already.  My liberal friends don't know how to handle it.  They thought they were going to get to beat me up (figuratively of course) on a number of Trump positions.  I just listened to their derision and let them rant.  When they stopped, I got to say, " You're right.  That position doesn't make any sense.  I'm still voting for him and I'll do so enthusiastically."

It takes all the wind out of their sails when I do this.  They thought they had the "gotcha" moment, but because I have never been a Trump fan, I am under no obligation to defend those things with which I disagree.

The trick is to figure out one or two things you like about Trump.  In my case, I like his position on the 2nd Amendment and I'm pretty sure he would do things to the Federal bureaucracy that just could never be done by anybody else.  That, combined with the prospect of Hillary appointing Supreme Court justices is enough for me.  Any damage he does to trade policy, foreign affairs, or anything else can be fixed later.  To me, a Trump presidency is worth it even though I think he is an egotistical buffoon.

See what I mean by liberating?  With previous GOP nominees, I felt like I had to defend their actions, words and decisions.  I don't have to do that now.  I can agree with his detractors when he does or says something stupid.  It takes away their arguments.  They are left stammering because they can't  call me a brain-dead Trumpster.  They can't argue with me because on the few issues with which I agree with him, they can't say I'm wrong.  They have no answer.

The mainstream GOP needs to figure this out quickly.  Don't defend positions that you think are wrong.  Just say he is right on enough issues to earn your vote.  The Democrats can't do the same.  They can't seriously look at Hillary and defend the outrageous levels of corruption that she brings.  They can't even point to successful policy positions that she holds because everything she has touched has turned out poorly.  Even the minimum wage issue just got pulled out from under them by Trump's flip-flop (which was idiotic by the way).

In a strange way, this might be the best thing to happen to the GOP if they embrace it.  The have had to defend the likes of Romney, McCain, Bush and Dole for a generation.  Even when each of those took positions that were clearly pandering to the mainstream media, they had to be defended.  They had to defend them when they looked foolish.  They had to defend them when they strayed from conservative principles.  There is no need for that this year.

Don't worry about defending Trump... Let Trump defend Trump.  He's pretty good at it.  Focus only upon those issues with which you do agree and let the rest roll off your back.  Whatever damage he does can be undone in the future.  The damage he would do is nothing compared to the damage Hillary would do with a couple of Supreme Court appointments and the continued damage done by the criminal levels of corruption.

Transgender and "bathrooms."

The transgender bathroom debate irritates me to no end.  What is worse is that most Facebook and Twitter discussions are little more than oversimplified platitudes that usually end with somebody being called a bigot.  Very little discussion happens.

Last week, I was tagged in such a post and the friend who tagged me ended up removing it when she realized just how offensive it could be taken (I really believe she didn't mean it to be offensive but such is the nature of FB).  The thing is, her post really got me thinking seriously about what is wrong with the entire discussion.

It strikes me that there is something desperately missing from the debate.  What is missing is any discussion of boundaries.  Obviously, a man poking a camera under a bathroom stall violates every sane human's sense of boundaries, but short of that, where are we as a society?

The next thing that struck me is that both sides in the debate are not talking about exactly the same thing.  Those who favor transgender rights tend to move the discussion to public restrooms such as at ball parks, department stores and shopping malls.  They also bring up the success of current unisex restrooms in some establishments.  The clear fallacy here is that each of these places already have a modicum of privacy such as private stalls, and in the case of unisex restrooms, there is generally an entire locked restroom available to any sex.  That's all well and good but diverts attention from real boundary discussions and ignores a number of societal norms.  Plus, there are MANY places where, due to security reasons, doors have been removed and there is very little privacy.  It also ignores the legitimate privacy concerns of many women even in the presence of private stalls.

The other side tends to focus upon schools.  I have a lot of sympathy for this but I have come to discover that this is not nearly as cut and dried as I thought it was.  If my understanding is correct (and it may be incomplete), I believe a child who "identifies" as a sex other than the one they are born with must show VERY extensive psychological counseling and get sign-offs from medical and psychological professionals that they truly suffer from a mental condition for which there is no relief.  Further, schools are being required to provide certain privacy measures even when a biological boy is allowed into the girls rooms.  A boy can't just say he feels like a girl today and walk into the wrong bathroom.

-Edit:  It turns out that my understanding was VERY wrong about this at the time of the writing.  Under two letters sent from the Obama Justice Department to every public school in the nation, it is NOT required that a transgender student demonstrate anything at all.  There was no doctor's note, psychological evaluation or anything like it.  In fact, under the directives, schools were not allowed to even ask if the student's parents were aware of the decision.  A boy could literally walk into the school office and declare that he identified as a girl and he could not be challenged, questioned nor could his parents be called.  I'm not exaggerating about this one... I have copies of the letters.

So one side is saying what's the big deal and why are you being so closed minded and the other side is saying protect the children and neither is talking about the same thing.

I want to ignore both of these for a moment and see if there are any boundaries left in this society.  Let's not talk about schools or "restrooms."  Let's talk about health clubs.  Health clubs have public restrooms, but those are also locker rooms, showers and changing rooms.  How much privacy should a woman expect in such a setting?  Who should be allowed into these areas without the cops being called?  Let's be as realistic as possible and think about the right of a woman to go about her normal daily life and figure out how much male presence is allowed in such a place.  From that's we should be able to extrapolate appropriate privacy expectations wherever the sexes are segregated for privacy reasons.

For women, at what point are you comfortable finishing your work-out and coming in to shower and get dressed to leave?  Would you be comfortable with any of the following individuals sharing the changing and shower areas of your local sport club?

1.  Any random man.
2.  A gay man.
3.  A flamboyant gay man who may be wearing feminine attire.
4.  A man with a beard and hairy back but wearing women's clothing.
5.  A clean shaven man with feminine features wearing a wig and women's clothing.
6.  A stereotypical "transvestite" with heals, stockings a wig and looking very much like Tim Curry in Rocky Horror.
7.  A transsexual who has gone through years of psychological counselling, hormone therapy and truly examined and understands the process by which their brain and body do not match in terms of gender but has not had the penis removed.
8.  Same as above but has gone the extra step of surgical alteration.
9.  None of the above

My hunch is, most women would answer 7, 8 or 9, depending upon how "liberated" and accepting they are of the transgender community.

Here is the problem though.  No matter how accepting a woman is of the transgender community, how does one distinguish between number 7 with number 5?  For that matter, if we draw any line, why is one line somehow better than another?  Isn't any line arbitrary?

It's worse than that though.  Is it really anybody's business if a transsexual has gone thought adequate levels of counselling?  It is our business if they are undergoing hormone treatments?  Is it our business if they prefer men or women?

Do you see the problem yet?  We can't set up a sliding and nebulous criteria for who may enter a women's locker room.  How do you ask about a person's motivation for desiring to use the women's locker room?  Who is responsible for determining who's reason is based upon sound medical and psychological science and who's is based upon being a pervert who wants to satisfy voyeuristic or nefarious desires?

Women should never have to forfeit their privacy or modesty if they don't want to.  Men shouldn't have to either for that matter.

This isn't about fear of sexual assault.  It has nothing to do with the so-called "rape culture" or anything else.  It is simply a matter of personal dignity of women. Some women would have no problems with changing in front of men or those in "transition" and that is their prerogative.  But is also the prerogative of other women to say no to this.

Am I missing something here?  Bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms and lounges are segregated in order to protect the dignity and privacy of both sexes.  Are we really at a point in our society where we must end modesty for all in order to satisfy the "rights" of those for whom nature (or nurture) has played the cruel joke of giving the brain one gender and the body another?  Am I the only one who thinks the most compassionate and least judgmental response is to ask that those with a penis use one room and those without use another?

No Guns in God's House

On March 5^th of this year, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia will be debating a resolution to ban the carrying of guns in the churches within the diocese.  I am a lay member of this deliberative body and I will be arguing against this resolution.

For my non-Episcopalian friends, I need to start with an explanation of how our church is governed and how things work.  Every year, each Diocese (geographical area comprising a large number of parishes) holds a meeting to conduct business and set the direction for the coming year.  These are normally pretty tame events, dealing with budgets, discussions on increasing membership and sharing ideas on outreach.

There are votes on resolutions.  These are statements that are brought to the Diocese by just about anybody and they are debated and voted upon.  For the last several years, I have been watching these resolutions become more and more political and farther and farther to the left on the political spectrum.  Many of them are downright silly such as the one that called upon the church to lobby for a ban on “high impact ammunition.”  I have yet to hear exactly what that means and I bring it up to illustrate just how absurd they can be.  Most resolutions just call for the church to lend support to causes without actually forcing the individual parishes to alter their policies. 

Because my parish has stayed firmly outside of the political fray, I have been comfortable maintaining my membership.  The Episcopal method of worship, the approach to the Bible and the traditions of the church are very appealing to me and the people of my parish are just wonderful so I have been able to compartmentalize my feelings about the Diocese of Virginia and their political leanings.  My parish is very diverse politically and as such, we have chosen to just keep all politics out of the service.

This year, the Diocese of VA is doing something different.  This year, they have a resolution that forces a change in policy at all parishes within the Diocese.  Resolution 3 is listed here:  http://www.thediocese.net/Governance/AnnualCouncil/221st-Annual-Council-2016-/Resolutions/

It states that firearms will be banned at all churches within the diocese.  The only exceptions are for law enforcement purposes and animal control.  It doesn’t even offer an exemption for off-duty law enforcement personnel carrying concealed.

The resolution incorrectly characterizes VA law with regard to carrying in a place of worship.  The resolution correctly quotes the VA statue which references guns in church, but ignores how that law is applied.   Current law states that guns may not be carried in church without “good and sufficient reason.”

There is a legal opinion written by the former Attorney General that carrying for self-defense qualifies as “good and sufficient reason.”  The law is not intended to forbid legal concealed carry in a church.  It is intended to create an additional charge against anybody who brings a gun into a church to commit another crime.

It is possible however to ban guns in individual churches.  It would be done just like any other private property owner can forbid guns upon their property.  It entails asking those who are carrying to leave and if they don’t, call law enforcement and charge the person with criminal trespass.  That is the method by which the Diocese can enforce the resolution.

So what’s the big deal?  Who needs a gun in church, right?  We should be following the example of Jesus and not encourage violence, right?  Who really cares since nobody will ever notice a concealed gun anyway, right?

Let’s look at those:

Who needs a gun in church?  Hopefully, nobody.  I, like every other permit holder in VA, subjected myself to a background check and underwent a training course.  VA currently has over 420,000 permit holders and some of us have done considerably more than the bare minimum of training.  For the most part, few of us think we will ever “need” a gun for self-defense.  If I ever thought I would need a gun, I would find another place to be.  I don’t want to ever be in a gun fight and if one were inevitable and I had a choice, I sure wouldn’t bring a pistol (I’d bring a rifle and friends with more rifles).  The choice to carry a gun is to deal with things that are outside the realm of the likely.  It is a hedge against being wrong about the perceived safety of any setting. 

Ok, but what about the Christian belief system?  My view is that it would be un-Christian for me not to be armed.  This is not so much for the defense of self, but of others who are innocent.  Our Baptismal Vows call for resisting evil and striving for justice as well as respecting the dignity of every human being.  If I have the ability, training and means to defend the innocent who are in the process of being assaulted, raped, beaten or murdered, it is required of me to act with every tool and spiritual gift available to me. 

Yes, I said spiritual gift and I meant it.  I have a mindset of being my brother’s keeper.  I will defend without reservation to the limits of my training, the weak, the innocent and the oppressed.  It is what I am and is a part of the core of my being and my spiritual walk with God reinforces this.  I look at the parable of the Good Samaritan and ask myself how Jesus would have described the scene if the priest, Levite and Samaritan had witnessed the attack, rather than its aftermath.  How should they have acted in defense of the dignity and well-being of the victim? 

That is how I view my commitment to God and my fellow man.  I certainly don’t expect others to share this.  As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, we are all blessed with different spiritual gifts.  This resolution that will be debated on March 5^th insinuates that my gifts are unwelcome.  More than that, I am unwelcome at the communion rail.  The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia is announcing that if one chooses to be prepared to use that spiritual gift, they are unwelcome to worship in any parish in the Diocese of Virginia. 

Is it really that bad?  Since we’re talking about concealed pistols, who would know?  Couldn’t permit holders just keep quiet and carry anyway?  The answer is yes but not really.  With 420,000 permit holders in the Commonwealth, plus thousands of off-duty and retired law enforcement personnel, it is likely that few Virginia Episcopalians have not shared a communion rail with a legally armed person.  Under the language of this resolution however, they would run the risk of being found out and asked to leave under threat of a charge of criminal trespass. 

Keep in mind that permit holders are by definition, rule followers.  Were we not rule followers, we would not have bothered to get a permit in the first place. 

The bottom line here is that while this resolution may have a noble purpose of promoting a point of view that eschews all violence, it is intolerant of anybody who choses an interpretation of the Bible as something other than a call to absolute pacifism.  This intolerance is demanding all Episcopalians within the Diocese to conform to an inflexible doctrine and that is not how an open and accepting church behaves. 

We will be debating and voting upon this resolution on March 5.  I pray that reason and tolerance will win the day.