Social Media and Mass Murder

Important conversation between Bob Mann and me on his Bob Mann Hot Media podcast about the role of social media in the mass murders that continue to erupt in the US.

 

Review of Rob Sheffield's Dreaming the Beatles 22 of X: The 70s Till the End

It's a testament to how good a book is that you seem to say every chapter is the best.  I'm not going to go back and read my 21 previous reviews of Rob Sheffield's Dreaming the Beatles - right, I'm reviewing this book just about chapter by chapter - because I'm more in the mood to write this review than do even a modicum of research, but it sure feels like I've said that lots of times in the past nearly year.  And each time I say that, I usually put in the proviso that this chapter really is the best in the book.  Which is exactly how I feel about this one, which is about The Beatles in the decade of the 70s, not individually (the focus of some of the other chapters in this book), but, somehow, as a group, typified by Capitol's release of their Rock 'n' Roll Music double-vinyl album in 1976, and kindred releases, and lost chances, all culminating with the Dakota in New York City in December 1980.

Sheffield brings his customary intensity and light touch to the subject, getting us to twist and shout and just about everything in between and before and beyond as we read this chapter.  We learn that even Ringo felt used by the album - "When Ringo feels degraded, you know things are out of hand" - and how John's line to the effect that one can be a "delinquent" by buying a "rock and roll book" empowered Sheffield.  As is clear from the first page of Dreaming the Beatles, this is as much Sheffield's autobiography as it is The Beatles biography, and that's key to why it's such irresistible reading.

We hear again about what we already knew - John and Paul, in New York at the Dakota, almost went down to Rockefeller Center for an impromptu appearance on Saturday Night Live in response to Lorne Michaels' running gag - and some things we didn't, like Lennon's statement (in a sworn affidavit) at the end of November 1980 that The Beatles had "plans to stage a reunion concert".  Lost opportunities, which just an excruciating month later became impossible to ever recover.

Sheffield importantly mentions that Lennon was murdered by someone with "a legally purchased handgun".  I don't have to tell you the sick synchrony of that with the legally purchased semi-automatic that took the lives of 17 people,  many of them students, at Parkland High School in Florida last week.  Not only is the legal age (18) at which someone can purchase a firearm lower in many states than the age at which someone can buy a drink (21), it is easier to purchase a more deadly long gun than a handgun in many states as well.  This insanity has to fucking end, beginning with voting out of office all the NRA-whipped Republicans who stand in the way of sensible gun reform.

The murder of John Lennon didn't get that reform, and so far neither have the subsequent mass shootings at schools, concerts, and houses of worship.  But the murder of John Lennon did extinguish a part of our innocence - at least, my innocence - in a way slightly different but related to the awful eradications of innocence that attended the murders of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Bobby Kennedy.  Dion's "Abraham, Martin and John" (written by Dick Holler) captured part of this in 1968.

The end of 1980 also brought the loss of Marshall McLuhan (who actually had been interviewed by John and Yoko a few years earlier).  McLuhan died of natural causes - a stroke - but his death was as traumatic and life-changing for me as Lennon's.  Tina and I went up to Toronto for Marshall's funeral (I'd worked with Marshall at the end of the 1970s), and I've written half a dozen books either completely or mostly devoted to explicating and expanding his work since then (Digital McLuhan, McLuhan in Age of Social Media, etc).

I've written no books about John Lennon or The Beatles, but he and they have figured in my science fiction novels and stories.  One nice thing about time travel is you can have a chance to undo some terrible event, like the murder of John Lennon, by traveling back to the past.  But that's fiction.   In the world of reality, the best you can do is read Rob Sheffield's book.

And I'll be back soon with a review of one of the dwindling number of remaining chapters in this one of a kind book, Dreaming the Beatles.

See also Review of Rob Sheffield's Dreaming the Beatles 1 of X: The Love Affair ... 2 of X: The Heroine with a Thousand Faces ... 3 of X: Dear Beatles ... 4 of X: Paradox George ... 5 of X: The Power of Yeah ... 6 of X: The Case for Ringo ... 7 of X: Anatomy of a Ride ... 8 of X: Rubber Soul on July 4 ... 9 of X: Covers ... 10 of X: I. A. Richards ... 11 of X: Underrated Revolver ... 12 of X: Sgt. Pepper ... 13 of X: Beatles vs. Stones ... 14 of X: Unending 60s ... 15 of x: Voting for McCartney, Again ... 16 of x: "I'm in Love, with Marsha Cup" ... 17 of X: The Split ... 18 of X: "Absolute Elsewhere" ... 19 of X: (Unnecessary but Brilliant) Defense of McCartney ... 20 of X: "All Things Must Pass" ... 21 of X: Resistance ... 22: The 70s Till the End ... 23: Near the Science Fiction Shop ... 24 of 24: The Last Two

And here's "It's Real Life" -- free alternate history short story about The Beatles, made into a radio play and audiobook and winner of The Mary Shelley Award 2023

"Ian, Isaac, and John" and "Saving Lennon" in this antho

Republicans At It Again in the House

Yesterday brought the news that Republicans in the House of Representatives are proposing a change in the House rules which would fine members of Congress thousands of dollars for unauthorized broadcasts - audio, video, even photographs - and live streaming from the House floor.

The background, in case you missed it this past summer, was that Democrats were frustrated by Republican refusal to consider new gun control legislation in the wake of the most recent mass murder.   As the Democrats sought to keep talking about this, the Republicans adjourned, and then shut off the CSPAN coverage of House events.   The Democrats responded by employing Periscope to send a video of what had now developed into a sit-in to America and the world at large.  CSPAN joined the effort by broadcasting the Periscope feed.

This is what the Republican saber-rattling about hefty fines is designed to prevent from ever happening again.   In other words, they're concerned not about weapons that kill innocent people but about letting the public know about debates to limit those weapons.  If Republicans are so confident about their position on gun control, why are they so afraid to let the world know about it, and the Democratic opposition?

Indeed, in their concern about protecting the Second Amendment to our Constitution, Republicans seems all to ready to violate the First Amendment, and its prohibition on Congress making any law that abridges freedom of speech or the press.

Apparently, the GOP is not only ignorant or uncomprehending of the First Amendment, but the lessons of history, and what they tell us about totalitarian attempts to crack down on new communications media. Whether The White Rose and their courageous use of primitive photocopying against the Third Reich, or samizdat video in the Soviet Union, the new media always win in the long run.

See also Periscope Sticks It to House GOP on Gun-Control Sit-In


more on social and democracy

Why Due Process is a Red Herring When It Comes to No Fly/No Buy Gun Control

Republicans have been expressing concern that extending the terrorist no-fly list to purchase of guns - the eminently logical idea that no one deemed too dangerous to board a plane should be able to buy a gun - will deprive law-abiding citizens of "due process" if they're placed on the no-fly list and then not allowed to purchase a gun, in violation of their Second Amendment rights.   This is not surprising about the Republicans.

What is surprising is that usually sensible commentators such as Chris Hayes on MSNBC also have expressed such concern, as has the ACLU.   Let's, therefore, unpack this issue.

Placement on the no-fly list indeed happens with no due process.  Anyone placed on this list can of course protest the placement, and be removed from the list, but this could certainly result in months or longer of the inconvenience of not being able to fly.   So why do we do this?   Because we think the danger of a someone flying a plane into the equivalent of the World Trade Center is so grievous that it merits this placement on a no-fly list without a trial or hearing.   And, again, such placement is not permanent, because it can be removed.   John Lewis, who led the brave sit-in the House of Representatives last night has himself been mistakenly put on the list and been removed, as has Yusef Islam aka Cat Stevens (who recorded "Peace Train").

As we've seen most recently in Orlando but tragically in too many other places in the past few years, an assault weapon may not be able to do as much damage as a plane flying into a building, but it can kill dozens of people in almost the blink of an eye.   Surely the keeping of such weapons out of the hands of terrorists and other suspected potential killers is a worthy and reasonable goal, which is what the suggestion of preventing people on the terrorist no-fly list from buying guns is all about.

If denial of due process is the concern, than the terrorist no-fly list itself can be examined, with an eye to how and why people are placed upon it, and what they can do get their names removed.  Certainly making that process much efficient and accurate is a goal that everyone should support.

But tying gun control into it makes no sense and is a red herring.   A no fly/no buy list may indeed be a case of shooting first and asking questions later - metaphorically.  But it's the least we can do to put a dent in terrorists and other maniacs horrendously actually shooting first and authorities asking questions later, which seems to be happening almost every day now.

Periscope Sticks It to House GOP on Gun-Control Sit-In

A great example of the power of social media has been going on all day today:  House of Representative Democrats have been staging a sit-in to get the NRA-whipped Republicans off the dime in enacting new gun control legislation.   The Republicans control the House, and with it the ability of CSPAN to carry House events live to the nation and world.  Unsurprisingly, the cowardly Republican leaders of the House refused to let CSPAN do its job, and cut off its cameras.

But the United States and the world have been seeing what's going on just fine, thanks to CSPAN picking up feeds on Periscope.

This is a big victory for democracy, as well as what social media can do on behalf of freedom. Unregulated by any authority other than the conscience of people who point their smartphones in the right direction with an app like Periscope, social media can bring people the truth when political authorities think it would be better to suppress it.

This is exactly what I've been saying for years, especially in New New Media.   Ultimately, the people are more important than their elected representatives in a democracy, and when the elected representatives do the wrong thing, social media allow the people to correct that.

The Republicans are wrong not only in trying to shut off coverage of the House sit-in, but in saying no to sensible gun reform, which is the reason that House Democrats are sitting in.  The Republicans have a big majority in the House of Representatives, and would no doubt be able to easily defeat any Democratic proposal for gun control.  So why won't they even allow a gun control bill to come to a vote? The answer: the Republicans don't want to be on record as opposing such life-saving legislation. That's why having a video record of what the Democrats want to do - have a vote on a gun control bill - is so important.

We all should vote this Fall for people who want to safeguard our lives as well as our freedoms.

The Difference Between the First and Second Amendments

You often hear well-meaning arguments in favor of gun restrictions and limits on the Second Amendment, that no rights granted under the Bill of Rights are absolute, as evidenced by the fact that, even with the First Amendment, you can't "shout fire in a crowded theater".

Aside from incorrectly citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s 1919 opinion in the US Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States which offered "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" as the kind of speech the First Amendment should not safeguard - after all, if there really was a fire, it might be a good idea to shout about it - the example when used in support of gun control suggests a false equivalence between words and bullets.

Words, whether spoken or written, do not kill.   Bullets when fired from guns often do.  Words can of course incite to riot or other criminal activity, and, if so, should be punished if there is clear criminal intent. But otherwise, the First Amendment's providing that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" should indeed be taken literally and as absolute. When that fundamental principle is violated - as when Schenck was arrested for distributing anti-war leaflets, or Nixon tried to prevent The Washington Post and The New York Times from publishing The Pentagon Papers - those violations should not be upheld by the US Supreme or any courts (which is why I thought Holmes' decision was wrong, and the Burger Court's in favor of the publication of The Pentagon Papers was right).

But bullets are not words, and the Second Amendment never provided any absolute wording about what Congress cannot do in regulating weapons. The Second Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law" regarding possession of firearms.  What it does say is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and that's something quite different.  Surely that wording does not guarantee the right of the people to bear any arms they choose.  We all would agree, presumably even the NRA, that the Second Amendment does not give people the right to bear rocket launchers with nuclear-tipped weapons.   Where we draw the line can and should be debated.   But assault weapons that can kill and injure hundreds in a few minutes seem manifestly way over any sensible line.

The bottom line of all of this is that we can insist on limitations of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment without incursions of our absolute rights under the First Amendment.  Such an approach would maximize our effort to safeguard both life and freedom.

The Myth of the Hero with a Gun Stopping a Maniac with a Gun

In the debates about gun control which are always going on but which understandably come to the surface whenever a massacre such as what happened in Orlando occurs, the point is always made that if only one or more sane, decent people had been at the scene and been armed, the murderous shooter might have been eliminated sooner and the number of innocent victims reduced.

This argument certainly seems to have some logical merit.   But the facts say otherwise, and indeed, even in places in which there were armed security - such as outside the Pulse Club in Orlando - the murderous devastation ensued.

Perhaps, if we had a world in which every person had a weapon, and carried that weapon just as we all carry our smartphones - that is, everywhere and all the time - a good person with a gun might be in the right place at the right time and stop the killer.   But to get to that point of universal armament and carrying, we would have to have vastly more guns in circulation than there are right now, and this pitches us right into the other side of this argument, which is:  how can we better control who is able to get a gun, with the goal of making sure a terrorist, psycho, or hater isn't able to obtain a weapon?

Without such better control, a move towards more not less armament in the populace would inescapably lead to more not fewer guns in the hands of killers.  That's basic math and logic.  So why not adopt better standards of who can and who cannot legally purchase a gun right now?

Given how well we've done in regulating who can get a driver's license, putting in stronger regulations about who can purchase a gun shouldn't be that difficult.  It's the logical first step to a safer society, whatever our ultimate views about the availability of guns in our country.

The Path to Better Gun Control

Hillary Clinton gave an excellent talk in Connecticut earlier today about her commitment to sensible gun law reform.   I'm hopeful that, with Hillary as President, our country will finally be able to do this, starting with closing the loopholes to our current laws, including the so-called "Charleston loophole," which the allowed the young killer in Charleston to buy a gun even though his background check had not been concluded.

Closing these loopholes has been vehemently opposed by the NRA, which is why someone with an "F" from the NRA, which Hillary has, is desirable (in contrast to Bernie Sanders' D-).   She promised in Connecticut to search for ways of tightening our gun laws every minute of her Presidency.  That's what we need.

Passing effective gun control laws will be more difficult than the Affordable Care Act, due to the Second Amendment.  New laws will require not only Hillary as President, but a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives, which is what it took to pass Obamacare.  But in order for the new health care law to stand, it needed to also pass Supreme Court muster.  And the country got lucky. The Republican-appointed Chief Justice Roberts decided to join the progressives in support of the law.

A new, strong gun-control law will not need such luck if Hillary is President, owing to the vacancy now on the Supreme Court with Antonin Scalia's passing.   If the Senate confirms Obama's appointment Merrick Garland, which seems highly unlikely, there will be a moderate progressive fifth justice on the Court.   If not, and Hillary wins, and the Senate goes Democratic, we'll either get Garland or an even more progressive new nominee from Hillary.

The possibility of a reliably progressive Supreme Court and a sensible, no-nonsense approach to gun control is one of the main reasons why the election of Hillary Clinton is so important.   Just as Obamacare got us on the road, at long last, to universal heath care, gun control laws under Hillary Clinton could finally put America on a path away from the deaths by guns that daily ravage our country.

Bernie Sanders Sources of Support in New Hampshire from Gun Owners

MSNBC reported the following biggest sources of votes for Bernie Sanders in his victory in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary over Hillary Clinton:




The third line - "gun owner" - should stick out like a saw thumb for anyone interested in a better, safer America - a country not riven by bullets in big cities, school, and sometimes even fired by police officers against innocent people, all too often African-African.

This is - or certainly should be - the key reason for Democrats in other states, and independents, too, to vote for Hillary not Bernie.   Bullets that kill people and destroy the lives of their families are surely a more important issue than what Hillary said in her speeches to Wall Street.

As I've said before, I actually agree with Bernie on some important issues - including his call to abolish capital punishment and establish higher public education for all.  But these issues also pale in comparison to the death daily meted out by guns gone wild in America.

I hope the Clinton campaign moves this issue to the front of its discussion points in upcoming primaries, especially in South Carolina, which has suffered so tragically in the past year from the gun epidemic.

Why Hillary's F from the NRA is Preferable to Bernie's D-

Gun control came up again in last night's Democratic Presidential debate in South Carolina - as indeed it should.   Doing something, anything, to reduce the epidemic of death by guns in the United States is about as urgent as it gets.

To be clear, Bernie has an excellent record of doing something to reduce gun violence.  But it's also clear that his record on this is not as good as Hillary's.

The NRA's grading of Bernie and Hillary reports this accurately.

Bernie received a D- from the NRA, a grade indicating the NRA's evaluation of Bernie's support for the NRA's pro-gun positions, or their staunch opposition for any stronger limitation on sales and use of guns in the United States than what we have now.   As a professor, I know full well that D- is a poor grade, a terrible grade.  But it is a grade that is a PASSING GRADE.   If a student gets a D- in a course, he or she has passed the course, and receives credit for passing the course.  The course is listed on the transcript, and the credits are applied towards graduation.

In other words, Bernie passed muster with the NRA - minimally, the most minimally, but he passed it.

In contrast, Hillary received an F from the NRA.   An F is a failing grade.  Students who receive an F do not get credit for the course.  And if they need the course for graduation, or want to get credit for the course, they need to take the course again.   An F is thus obviously a lower grade than a D-, and there is no grade lower than F.  There is no F-.

As to why the NRA gave Bernie a D- rather than an F, the facts are out there: Bernie voted five times against the Brady bill, voted to allow guns on Amtrak and in national parks, and indeed at times was graded C- by the NRA (and at other times, F).  Here's a complete run-down by Politifact.  The gist is that the NRA's grading of Bernie is not incorrect.   The NRA is horribly wrong in its ceaseless efforts against gun control, but it is capable of accurately keeping track of votes on legislation to limit gun use.

I can understand, completely, why some people might prefer Bernie to Hillary as President.  Perhaps they think cracking down on Wall Street and its abuse is more important than cracking down on the proliferation of guns in this country.   And Bernie's D- from the NRA, again, shows that he is excellent in his opposition to the NRA and their efforts to limit gun control.  I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat against any Republican, and the A and A- grades they have received from the NRA.

But because I see guns as the single biggest violent threat to life in this country, I'm supporting Hillary in the Democratic primaries.  I want the very best person on this daily lethal issue - or, in the NRA's view, the very worst.

The Front-Page Editorial in The New York Times

I was just interviewed on "Breakfast," New Zealand's top morning radio program, about the context and impact of The New York Times' front-page editorial - first since 1920 - urging gun control.

Marshall McLuhan, as his work does so often in our age, captured the importance of the front page of a newspaper when he observed, in The Mechanical Bride in 1951, that you can get a sense of the world just by looking at the front page, as if it were a picture, before and without even reading any of the content.  The front page in effect is a figurative landscape of what's going on, which can be grasped at a glance.

The content of the editorial - which the layout calls such justifiably dramatic attention to - is crucial.   I would like to see, as starters, the government start a buy-out program of all semi-automatic weapons, paying twice their purchase price, after declaring these weapons illegal.  Yes, terrorists and psychopaths can still do plenty of damage with hand-guns and knives, but getting rid of a semi-automatic killing machines would be a good way to save some lives.

So the content of the editorial matters, big time.  But placing it on the front page was a masterstroke. Just glancing at the front page shows that there is a sombre, stark importance to what the words are saying.

Lots has been written, including by me, about how paper newspapers are fading away.  But anything on paper still has advantages not seen on any screen, especially the little ones on our phones. Newspapers left on tables and desks can be seen by anyone who passes by.  The editorial on the front page of a newspaper is thus an intrinsically powerful public statement.

It's good to see The New York Times leading the fight on finally getting something done to limit the deaths by guns which are the scourge of this country.

Cruz vs. Feinstein on Gun Control: A Better Answer to Cruz

The exchange between Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) about the constitutionality of gun control has been getting a lot of coverage today.  Cruz asked Feinstein how, given the Federal authority to outlaw certain weapons as provided for in her bill, and the violation of the Second Amendment which he saw that entailing, would she feel about a law that outlawed certain books, and the violation of the First Amendment that such a ban would entail?

Feinstein told Cruz not to lecture her on the Constitution, Cruz said he respected her passion, and there has been a lot of commentary in the media about how well Feinstein stood up to Cruz's questions.  Be that as it may, there was no constitutional answer given to Cruz, so here's one now:

First, here are the texts of the First and Second Amendments:

• First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

• Second Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Cruz in his exchange with Feinstein pointed out that "the right of the people" is used in both Amendments - true - and that restrictions or control of guns (or arms) under the Second Amendment therefore should be no more allowable than restrictions of books under the First Amendment, because in both cases "the right of the people" would be infringed.   Not true.

Here's why:  the First Amendment associates "the right of people" to "peaceably" assemble and petition the government.  But before that, and before the phrase about "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," the First Amendment reserves the phrase, "Congress shall make no law" - a phrase that appears nowhere in the Second Amendment.

Had the Founders wanted the Federal government to make "no law" regarding possession of weapons or arms, they easily could have used that phrase in the Second Amendment.  Instead, they used the far weaker "shall not be infringed," which obviously leaves lots of room for reasonable laws that do not infringe.

And that, obviously, was a very smart distinction, because guns can kill and cause physical harm, but the worst that words can do is anger and aggravate.  The Founders had it right, and Cruz has it wrong.

Perhaps the Most Important Speech of Obama's Presidency

Barack Obama's speech to the bereaved in Newtown tonight, to the bereaved across America, and his insistence that we have to do something to control or lesson this gun violence, that he will use the power of his office to do this, may be the important speech of his Presidency.

Guns - which exist for the purpose of hurting or killing some living being - have to be stopped, have to be taken out of the hands of people who use them to kill innocent people, in the case of Newtown, including little children.

Yes, we have a Second Amendment.  But nothing in that Amendment mandates the availability of guns so efficient that they killed 26 people, 20 of whom were little children, in mere minutes.  Some may interpret the Second Amendment as saying it does prevent the government from limiting the sale of any kind of firearm.  Good for them, they're entitled to their interpretation, but the President doesn't have to follow it.

Let the Supreme Court ultimately decide.   Governments violate the First Amendment every day, and its preclusion of any government interference on speech and press.   Those cases are ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.

Let the government start taking a chance with possible violations of the Second Amendment.  Congress should pass a renewed and extended ban on automatic weapons.  The President should immediately sign it.  And if Congress declines to pass such legislation, the President should use the power of his office to take those guns away from the people, anyway.   And if the Supreme Court ultimately decides that such actions are unconstitutional, at least some lives will have been saved in the interim.

But I think the Supreme Court will support such action.   As Obama rightly said, there are many things that led to the horrendous tragedy in Newtown.  But one thing is clear: a brutally effective killing machine in the hands of a lunatic meted out those bullets.   It's way past time we finally moved to put those killing machines away.

Stopping the Next Tucson: Suggestion about Gun Control Consistent with the Second Amendment

The individual who pulled the trigger in Tucson is clearly a disturbed person.  He was likely stirred up by intemperate, toxic talk on television, radio, and the Web.  But what is the most effective way of making such crimes, which tear the very fabric of our democracy, less likely to happen from now on?  Surely, keeping weapons out of the hands of such disturbed people is the most direct way.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but not by criminals and people in mental institutions.   How difficult would it be to add to this list of reasonably excluded people those who have shown signs of mental unbalance and propensity for violence?

Jared Loughner showed such signs - to his teacher and by his own postings online.   How difficult would it be to get teachers and readers on MySpace and Facebook pages to report such indications of unbalance, such troubled individuals, to a central clearinghouse, that all gun dealers would be obligated to consult before selling a weapon?

This is far from a perfect solution.  But surely it would help.   The toxic talk could be reduced, too, not by law but by a public which turns off such talkers and walks away from online sites that traffic in the metaphors of violence.    But since there is no telling just what can set off a sick person, a better way of reducing the likelihood of murder of public and private citizens for political reasons is to do more, much more than is done now, to keep guns out of their hands.

A nine-year old child killed, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition, four other people killed - we as our society can't continue doing business as usual when it comes to the gun that did this.  And while we're at it, how about banning automatic clips - the most lethal kind of ammunition - which the Second Amendment says nothing about at all.

Remembering John Lennon

I just heard John Lennon's "Woman" on the radio, and, as always, it brought a tear to my eyes and soul.

It's impossible, on one level, to compare assassinations, the murders of public figures. They are all horrendous. But the murder of John Lennon on this date in 1980 is in some ways the worst for me, and I can't speak for my generation.

John was a singer, a songwriter, for God's sake, not a President or someone running for office. His murder was fueled by a sick thirst for fame, pure and simple. That's why I never mention the sicko monster's name.

But this day - and public murders in the quest for fame - also makes me think about gun control. The killer in Omaha this week was looking for fame, too.

I know about the Second Amendment. And as an absolutist on the First Amendment, which I think should be followed literally, with no government restrictions on speech or press, all of the time, I want to do the same for Second Amendment.

But I can't help thinking that John Lennon might have survived a knife attack, and fewer people might have succumbed to the killer in Omaha had he been armed with only a knife.

I'll think more about those issues tomorrow.

Today, let me just say, John, I always loved your music and always will. It brings me joy to this day to hear anything you wrote or sang - from "Dr. Robert" to "Jealous Guy," just two of my all-time favorites.

And Yoko - thank you, too, for being so strong and dignified and unswerving in your commitment to peace all of these years. John would have been very proud of you.

I write about time travel in my fiction. If only it were real, and I could employ it, I think the first thing I would do is go back and save John, and warn him not to go into that alley....

I can't do that, but at least his music doesn't need saving. It will be here forever on CDs and MP3s and whatever new forms of music media invented by our species.