A gun in hand, continued.

Yesterday I wrote saying it could be dangerous to knock on the wrong door.

Today Nick Kristof wrote about it in the New York Times.

I am able to gift this article to readers, even if you don't subscribe to the NY Times.  Click here.

My post was framed as a warning to readers. Americans keep buying guns, now at the rate of about two million a month. The more Democrats talk about restricting guns, the more people buy them. An idea getting increased traction among Americans is that they should have a gun handy for "personal protection." I warned that they are using these guns if they are angry or spooked. Kristof, too, gave a warning. He warns potential new gun owners that having a gun makes a person more likely to be the victim of gun violence. He cited statistics that gun violence has now eclipsed motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death for children and teenagers. The drift of Kristof's post is to discourage gun ownership. 

I think this is a lost cause. My Democratic friends want to ban "assault rifles" and get guns out of the hands of the "wrong people." I think is a nice wish, but unrealistic, given the politics of guns, the current interpretation of the Constitution, and human nature. It is backfiring as a political issue. Americans -- a great many of them -- like their guns. Americans -- pretty much all of us -- don't like being told we cannot do something we were accustomed to doing. (Republicans are learning that about abortion and mifepristone. The issue is backfiring on them politically. Moreover, like people worried about losing access to guns, blue state health departments are stocking up on mifepristone, just in case.)

Many of the "wrong people" will have guns. I have talked with my own county sheriff about "red flag" restrictions. They are meaningless.

Sheriff Nathan Sickler

People are free to buy, own, and carry handguns [*** see note below] if they meet the minimal qualification of not being a felon, not having been convicted of a misdemeanor in the past four years, and not being the respondent in a current restraining or stalking order. That's it. Being "dangerous" or "crazy" is subjective. What constitutes a "threat" is subjective. Police departments aren't  staffed to do mental health examinations and then defend them in court. In my county one can be crazy as a loon shouting gibberish at strangers in public parks, a stumble-down drunk, or a person notorious for making statements wishing the early violent death of public officials, but that person can carry a loaded weapon. Be warned. 

Can Democrats do anything to stop gun violence? Possibly Democrats could make it less about the right to acquire and carry a gun and more about requiring gun owners to know the law and safe use of their guns. Kristof made the point that it is far more rigorous to adopt a dog than it is to acquire and carry a gun. 

We don't attempt to prohibit people from buying or driving cars, but we do require people pass a test on driving laws, pass a vision test, and pass a driving test. Would it be impossible to require gun owners to pass a test on the legal use of their gun? Is it too much to ask that people know how to aim and fire the gun and hit what they intend to hit? Isn't there a constituency for protecting bystanders from wild shots? 

Even the strongest abortion-rights advocates accept the idea that abortions should be performed by people trained to do them, not by just anyone. They accept that abortion drugs must be dispensed by licensed professionals and sold in pharmacies, not alongside candy in convenience stores. The fact that abortions are safe is part of why there is majority support for them.

If it is inevitable that Americans will own guns if they want them --and I think that is the case--then perhaps Democratic focus could be on gun safety, not gun possession. Let gun-rights advocates argue the position that citizens don't need to know anything or need to be able to hit what they aim at. It will not stop mass shootings. Bad people will get guns and use them. This is America. The guns are here. The attitudes are intrenched. It will be decades or centuries before that changes. But in the here and now it might turn the public debate from pro-gun or anti-gun into safe-gun or free-for-all. That is much stronger political space for doing something about gun injury and deaths.

It is a start. 

***Note: An earlier version of this post inaccurately included the word "concealed" handgun in my report that a person needed no instruction. People can purchase and carry a handgun freely, but people seeking a concealed handgun permit are required to take and pass a handgun safety course and pay a $60 fee.

[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

A gun in hand

"What the little boy shot at."

Nothing.

My father used to say "What the little boy shot at" to mean a zero score in some game, or when he came up empty on a fishing trip. 

You don't hear the phrase anymore. We don't make light of little boys shooting.

There is a new rule of behavior across all demographics: Don't startle people. Don't scare people. Their first reaction may be to shoot.

We have seen a burst of news. A Black teenager rang a doorbell on the wrong house. The man inside saw the unexpected teen, and as he later told police, he was "scared to death." He had a gun ready, and shot the boy twice. A group of girls in a car pulled into the wrong driveway. The homeowner came out, and shot into the back window of the car as it was leaving. A passenger was killed. A family was playing basketball in the street when a ball rolled into a neighbor's yard. The neighbor shot the child's father in the back. In Texas a group of cheerleaders were using a grocery store parking lot to exchange cars for carpooling. One girl accidentally started to get into the wrong car. She realized her mistake and was apologizing when the man in that car began shooting. She was injured but survived. Her friend in a nearby car was killed.

My father's expression about what the little boy shot had a premise. A boy with a gun will be alert for situations when the gun is needed. Maybe he saw something move. He has a gun, so he shoots--at nothing. There is another expression in current use: "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

We are learning no one is immune from being a victim of a stand-your-ground, shoot-first gun carrier. It is dangerous to be a combination of male, dark-complected, physically large, and between the ages of 11 and 70. Prudent people in that demographic learn to avoid frightening people. When I was a young candidate going door-to-door meeting voters, I learned to ring the doorbell and then to step eight or ten feet back from the door. 

But now I am 73. People call me "sir." I assumed I didn't scare anyone anymore. But this week I saw a short TikTok video, now circulating on YouTube. The woman says, "No male should ever approach a woman in a parking lot. Ever."  Watch.

Click here

I think she is over-reacting and unreasonable. She would disagree. Reasonableness isn't the point. People like her exist. She is a warning to accompany this week's stories about people with guns shooting on first encounter. Nearly anyone can buy and carry firearms. No permits or training are necessary and almost no one qualifies as a "red flag." Carry the gun on your hip or pocket. Have it ready. 

It isn't just young Black men who need to walk on eggshells. Realize everyone is at risk. A basketball, a rolling shopping cart, turning around in a driveway--anything might trigger someone. People are arming up. Some people spook easily. Their first instinct may be to use the gun they have been carrying around just in case.

They have a hammer. You might be the nail.

[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Culture of corruption.

Don't take gifts. Don't accept favors. Don't play favorites. Don't be unethical. Don't appear unethical.

The opposite of a government that does things "by the book" has a name: Corruption.

There is a silver lining to our complaints about stickler bureaucrats in the federal civil service. We don't have a culture of bribery, favor-granting, and self-dealing among career federal employees. But there is a growing divide between the rules for the civil service and the norms projected by people at the very top in the Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court. They are setting a bad example.

Jennifer Angelo understands the rules about ethics in government. As a federal employee, she lived under them. As a government lawyer she enforced them. She has now retired. She lives in Washington, D.C. She shared a comment.

Angelo

Guest Post by Jennifer Angelo

Peter’s April 14 piece about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was right on the money. It’s not just important for public officials to follow the letter of the law when it comes to ethics, they should avoid even the appearance that they’re violating ethical principles. Public service is just that. For most people it’s easy to stay on the right side of the line.

As a former federal employee, I find it ironic that Thomas is held to a lower standard than I or any of my colleagues were. Federal Agencies go to great lengths to make sure employees comply with ethics laws and regulations, which are detailed and specific. 

If you’re interested, here is the starting point from the Office of Government Ethics.  These rules cover reporting requirements, conflicts of interest, acceptance of gifts, and a host of other ethical issues. In addition to these rules, each agency has additional standards that cover situations specific to their mission. Much time is spent reviewing financial disclosures and advising employees on how to comply with the law.

I wore many hats as an attorney at the U.S. Postal Service, one of which was ethics advisor. I got calls daily from Postmasters who were offered meals or refreshments at meetings with big mailers, rounds of golf at events with vendors or personal hospitality at the home of a business associate who had become a friend. Most employees were scrupulous about following the rules, if only to keep from stepping over a line and getting into trouble. I gave dozens of ethics training classes, and I can assure you that every federal employee understands that “personal hospitality” includes such things as dinner or drinks at someone’s home, not lavish vacations on private jets to exotic locations. Gifts were limited to $20 per occasion totaling no more than $50 a year. I once returned a book sent to me by an expert witness because I was told, even though it was worth only $15, it might create an appearance of impropriety if I wanted to use that witness again.

Despite best efforts, ethical slip-ups happen. In the 1990s, Postmaster General Marvin Runyon, one of those Agency heads who comes in and shakes up the whole organization, found out the hard way that conflicts of interest are taken seriously at federal agencies. He came to USPS out of a lucrative career in private industry and owned lots of Coca Cola stock. One of the money-making ideas his marketing people came up with was putting Coke machines in Post Office lobbies. Runyon participated in meetings to discuss the idea, which never came to fruition.

Those discussions were enough to trigger the criminal conflict of interest law – a strict liability statute that doesn’t require criminal intent – and an investigation by the Department of Justice. It went on for more than a year; ultimately Runyon was not criminally charged but paid $27,550 to settle a civil case once the investigation was over. If you Google Marvin Runyon and Coke, you will see the stories in major news outlets. The Coca Cola incident also appears in every obituary of Runyon, who died in 2004. Not the kind of legacy anyone hopes for.

What Clarence Thomas has done is orders of magnitude worse than anything the typical ethics advisor sees over their entire career. He accepted – and didn’t report - gifts of lavish vacations, private jet trips and yacht voyages from Harlan Crow, a conservative activist, claiming someone had told them they qualified as “personal hospitality” from a friend. This is ludicrous and speaks very ill of his ability to research an uncomplicated legal issue. As if that weren’t enough, Crow bought the house Thomas grew up in, which his mother still lives in. Crow renovated the property and apparently is now Mrs. Thomas’s landlord. Thomas didn’t disclose any of that, and there is no ambiguity in the rules that required him to do so. Who knows what else Thomas is hiding?

Will Clarence Thomas be treated like any other public servant in this situation? Apparently not, because even though he violated the disclosure rules that every federal employee must comply with, there appears to be no one willing to enforce the rules when the violator is at the top of the judicial food chain. Right now, my only consolation is that when Clarence Thomas dies, this scandal will be featured in every one of his obituaries. It’s not much, but at least his legacy will be tarnished, even if he faces no consequences in the meantime.

[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Dominion settlement

I am disappointed. 

The Fox-Dominion settlement wasn't enough.

The settlement money wasn't enough. For Dominion, the lawsuit could be resolved with money. But for me it was only about the money insofar as the judgement might be large enough that Fox couldn't treat this as simply the cost of doing business. Fox will earn that money right back and they are sitting on $4 billion in cash. 

CBS headline

The settlement didn't square things with Dominion, not to my mind. I realize that a forthright admission by Fox that they misinformed the public may have been utterly impossible for Fox. There is the second lawsuit on deck, by Smartmatic. An open admission of guilt would mean Fox would have no defense. But the settlement did not contradict the Fox assertion that Dominion's machines rig elections.

Who believes that nonsense? Enough people that election clerks and county commissions all across America are on notice that choosing a Dominion vote tabulating machine is "controversial." Here in Jackson County, Oregon earlier this month a delegation of about 40 Republican activists met with the County Commission to demand that votes be hand-counted. The new Medford newspaper, the Rogue Valley Times, carried a story about this, quoting residents who said they doubted their votes were correctly counted. One resident was quoted saying, "I think we need to ban machines here. Stop using these. Hand-count the votes." The attendees had come from a presentation the prior night sponsored by the local Republican Party.

Most significant, though, was the comment by County Commissioner David Dotterer. This county's election office received this painted message shortly after the 2020 election: "VOTE DON'T WORK. NEXT TIME BULLETS."

Photo by Christine Walker, County Clerk

Dotterer didn't defend the county's voting system with its recounts and audits, nor its long-time County Clerk, a Republican. He was non-committal. He doesn't disagree or attempt to persuade them. Fox and Trump had laid a groundwork of doubt.  Dotterer was quoted:

I’m not gonna pass any judgment on it right now. I’m just absorbing information from various people, so I’m gonna leave it at that. I found the discussion very interesting and very forthright.

County officials all across America will face the same situation. In an arena where they would authorize updated election equipment, Dominion is tainted. Nothing but a clear, consistent message from Fox that they have no evidence that the Dominion machines were anything but trustworthy might change the story. That didn't happen.

The settlement did not repair the injury to truth. To facts. To reality.

Here is what Fox wrote in a statement:

We acknowledge the Court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX's continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.

"Continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards." Savor that statement. Read it a second time, mouthing the words and hold them in your mouth like a sour lemon. Own the reality of this moment in our history. Down is up. War is peace. 

The settlement reflects that they flouted journalistic standards to please their audience, but for their public statement Fox asserts the exact opposite. I am not cynical enough to have anticipated this moment. I did not expect to be lied to so brazenly and so immediately.

Yes, I am disappointed.

One last thing: There is a bright spot in this moment. We have a local news source again. The mismanagement and ultimate failure of my community's newspaper, The Mail Tribune, made space for a successor, the Rogue Valley Times, which reported on the county meeting. I am grateful to them. There is also a second newspaper, now covering some Jackson County news, The Daily Courier. I urge local readers to subscribe to both.

[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

"Reckless Disregard" of the truth

I erred in this blog a month ago. 

I had said readers should not be quick to hope Fox loses its lawsuit.

It can be financially dangerous for a publication to write something critical of others, including public figures. I was thinking like a publisher, not like a citizen, when I wrote on March 8 of this year:

The freedom to present a variety of ideas is a good thing for democracy. Readers ought not to be quick to hope Fox loses this. The next case may be the New York Times or the comment section of this blog.

That was wrong.

What was on my mind at the time was the vulnerability of people who write words that make powerful people unhappy. I have written about the poorly-run and self-destructive campaign for State Senate by the Medford mayor. He didn't like it. I have written about the campaign money that pours through the local Chamber of Commerce. They didn't like that. I published the obscene text messages of a local judge as she worked to undermine a colleague on the bench. She and her friends didn't like that.

I had written critically about the dishonest and abusive subscription policy of the Medford Mail Tribune, the century-old local newspaper. I published photographs of the wildly disparate billings they sent unknowing and trusting subscribers. My reports were unwelcome. The then-editor, Cathy Noah, threatened that they would be turning this over to their attorneys. The Mail Tribune publisher, Steven Saslow, had a well-deserved reputation for using million-dollar lawsuits to chill critics. 

The editor is long gone, the publisher is gone, and the newspaper folded. The Mail Tribune debacle is a case-study in mismanagement and wealth destruction, but at the time it retained credibility from inertia. I took comfort in one thing. I knew I was reporting the truth about the newspaper's sleight of hand. The truth would be my defense against a million-dollar judgement. America's laws regarding free speech and defamation get some things right for balancing competing interests. One is that the truth is a defense against defamation. The New York Times v. Sullivan Supreme Court decision refines that by ruling that publishers can make errors in reporting on public figures, so long as the publisher was earnestly attempting to tell the truth and isn't acting with malice.

At the time I wrote the blog post saying we should not be too eager to hope the lawsuit destroys Fox I was imagining myself and this blog in the position of being sued by a critic. I had the polarity of my thinking wrong in three ways. Fox was not the victim here; Dominion is. Fox is not the "little guy" in this dispute; Dominion is. And most important, Fox is not the truth-teller; Dominion is.

I hope Fox loses this suit. They weren't motivated by an effort to tell the truth about the Dominion's vote-tabulating machines. Fox was inaccurate and they knew it. There is a word for intentional inaccuracy. They were lying. They were bearing false witness. They had a motivation: Money They lied to satisfy their audience. Dominion was just collateral damage.

A devastating loss by Fox sends a message to politicians, to businesses, to media, and indeed to a political environment that is currently tolerating, indeed celebrating, cynicism. It treats bipartisanship as weak and disloyal to the highest priority, which is hurting the opposition. It is teaching cynicism. It is the opposite of patriotism. 

It is past time to revive the schoolboy chant the kids in my neighborhood used when we called out unsportsmanlike play in our games: "Cheaters never prosper."

[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Stop the Trans Panic: A Guest Post

Sometimes it takes an athlete to notice the condescension and hypocrisy.

Red-state legislators have moved quickly on two issues. One is abortion. They are taking away from young women the power to decide whether to stop a pregnancy, even a very early one or one that is a result of rape. Red states are making it illegal to offer abortion information to young women or for those young women to travel to acquire an abortion. The other issue is youth sports. Red state legislatures are passing laws to stop trans girls from competing in girls' sports. They claim to be protecting girls.

Jack Mullen brings an athlete's perspective to the issue. He was a standout high school athlete. Now, well into his 70s, he stays active playing sports. We are hearing from politicians and opinionated commentators and we are hearing from Riley Gaines, a swimmer who competes at the collegiate elite level against trans swimmer Lia Thomas, but we are not hearing much from high school athletes themselves. The fuss over the trans girls in high school athletics has been a top down issue, not a bottoms up one. It serves the purpose of the legislators--but what about the girls?

Jack Mullen isn't a girl and he isn't young anymore, but he is in better touch with the competitive spirit of young female athletes than most observers. Red-state legislation is condescending and misplaced. 

Guest Post by Jack Mullen

There is no easier punching bag these days than transgender youth, especially with the growing resentment concerning boys, transitioning to trans girls, playing women’s sports. With wages up, unemployment low, inflation taming, many in the nation have decided that what is eating away with America’s soul: Trans youth. How could anything be so unfair as trans girls playing sports against our sweet little daughters and granddaughters.

I never expected this resentment to reach the level expressed by Bill Maher and his guest, Piers Morgan, on Maher’s HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. Maher and Morgan see young girls as damsels in distress. These two gentlemen became apoplectic with just the mention of young girls competing against trans girls. Maher thinks much of the gain that Title IX achieved beginning in 1972, putting women’s sports on equal basis with men's sports is lost. He claimed women's sports is now being undermined by trans girls. And if it were not for his British accent, I would have thought Maher’s guest was a Tennessee state legislator. Morgan lost his British cool as he aimed his ire towards those who would dare allow trans girls to participate in women's sports. Morgan and Maher never allowed the third guest, Congresswoman Katie Porter, a chance to rebut.

If men like Bill Maher and Piers Morgan are so worried about young girls not being able to compete, I wonder if they ever tried standing toe to toe with a female athlete. I have.

As Peter Sage is wont to spice up his guest post with photos, he often uses the below photo of me when I laced them up at Medford High. Ever since high school, I have continued playing pick-up basketball games, mainly because I preferred basketball over golf, a sport I considered to be a little too bourgeoise for my taste.

Mullen, 1965, jumping to catch a pass from Bill "Earthquake" Enyart, a fellow high school senior.

I recall a certain pick-up game when I lived in San Francisco. Sharon worked at the front desk at a new gym on the campus of the University of California, San Francisco. She showed up and decided to guard me on one of our weekend games. Being a hot-shot male, I thought, good deal! I can loaf a little on defense and not go all-out on offense. Maybe take one or two easy shots. On my team’s first possession, I waited for the rebound when suddenly Sharon slipped in front of me, stuck out her rear end, and sent me to kingdom come. 

“OK, Sharon, game on!” 

As I was guarding her and had my head turned, Sharon backed doored me, received a pass. I thought I could recover enough to stop her at the basket. I did get to the basket, but Sharon went underneath and blindly threw in a reverse layup.

After the customary post-game fist-bump, I asked Sharon where she played college basketball.

“I did not play in college”.

“Ok, then, where did you play in high school?”

“I played high school in San Mateo, but never was a starter.”

Later that summer, at a family reunion in Medford, we had a pick-up basketball game. My niece Dinah, who played at Medford High, kept perfectly positioning herself for rebounds and bumping her poor 16-year-old son farther away from the basket than even Sharon had knocked me.

I recant these stories to say young girls are not the damsel in distress that the chivalrous Piers Morgans, Bill Mahers, and so many White male brethren worry about.

Hey! Piers and Bill, young girls can hold their own against men and boys. I put my money on the idea that they can hold their own against trans girls as well.

If anyone doubts me, just ask the girls who compete in sports if they are afraid of playing against trans girls. Go ahead! Ask them! Let them speak for themselves. They have as much a right to participate in this discussion as do the distraught Messers. Morgan and Maher and their ilk

There are gyms in most state legislatures and in the House of Representatives. In Washington, young Congressmen love to play ball at noon. If allowed, the likes of a Sharon could teach them a thing or two about women competing in sports. How I would love to see the looks on those congressional prophets-of- doom faces after a Sharon knocks them around like I had been in that UCSF gym. I dare say most female athletes would love to see it too.

[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Easy Sunday: Live and Learn

Let's talk about Chinese clothes sizes.

I realize this is a mostly-political blog and people don't expect to get shopping tips. But it's Easy Sunday and I have an up-close observation. 

I should have known better.

About ten years ago I ran in the Hong Kong marathon. It was 26.2 miles up and over bridges and freeways with extraordinary views of the city. The day before the run I realized I had underestimated the heat and humidity, so I went to a big-box-type athletic-wear store in Hong Kong. Imagine a superstore the size of a Best Buy. I wanted to buy a singlet to replace the tee-shirt I had expected to run in. (A singlet is a tank top.) Open arm-pits would be more breathable.  

I wear a size Large in America. Size Medium shirts are too snug, size Extra Large are blousy. Large fits. Nothing whatever fit me in the store. Literally nothing, from any brand, for a 180 pound American. Not Nike, Adidas, Reebok, Under Armor, or any of a dozen unfamiliar brands. Hong Kong "Extra Large" would fit American males weighing 150 pounds, tops. There was nothing larger than Extra Large in the store. 

Two weeks ago, back in America and on my computer, a pop-up ad showed me summer-weight yoga/beach-wear/lounge-about pants. They were so cheap I could not resist, $12, but only if I hurried and bought while the limited-time promotion clock ticked down the time. I hated the fake urgency, but marketers do that because it motivates buyers. The pants were SO cheap, so I hurried.

I bought a size up -- Extra Large -- to be sure they would be roomy. They arrived yesterday. They would be large enough for a ten-year-old American boy. I went back and looked at the size chart, now without time pressure. Extra Large is supposedly for men who weigh 132 pounds, and I think it would be snug on them. Extra Large equals 132 pounds. Wow. About 4% of American men weigh 132 pounds or less.

The photo makes it look like the waist expands, but it barely does. Apparently Chinese men don't have either stomachs or butts. 

None of this is of any great consequence. The pants cost me only $12. My wife has co-workers with elementary school children. It is cheap tuition for me for lessons on shopping on-line, on Chinese size labels, and on the girth of American men, including me. 

I don't take Chinese clothes-sizing as an insult about my weight. I take it as a health warning. 

[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]