Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Here.

Campus carry begins today in the state of Texas. If you click the map in the upper left corner of this post, you'll see that my university (UTA) has designated certain parts of campus "exclusionary areas." These areas are (or will be) marked with signs saying that no guns are allowed therein. How smart is this? All it does is tell criminals that if they enter these areas, they can kill as many people as they want with no resistance—at least until authorities arrive, which may be many minutes. Why not call them "Safe Killing Zones," for that's what they are? Also, pay attention to what happens if (when) someone with a concealed carry permit harms someone with a gun. Nobody will talk about the killings that were deterred by the presence of concealed weapons on campus. These are mere statistical lives, whereas the person harmed is a tangible, flesh-and-blood person. My point is that there are both costs and benefits to campus carry. You can't emphasize the costs (harm inflicted) without emphasizing the benefits (harm prevented).

To the Editor:

Re “All the Power of Cable News in Your Palm,” by Farhad Manjoo (State of the Art column, front page, July 14):

There is something very troubling about the prospect that Facebook Live or Periscope, Twitter’s live service, will replace the venerable institution of news. These snippets may be live, but they conflate live information with news, and streaming as-it-happens video with truth.

A live collection of videos reflects the perspective of the person streaming the video, and its truth value is a function of how that person positions the camera, what he or she displays, what is left out and what occurred before the incident that critically influenced the images that are shown.

This is particularly problematic in the case of streaming videos of highly charged incidents, like police violence against civilians, where the person taking pictures may have strong views that determine the images that are transmitted.

To the extent that Facebook or Twitter users infer that the streamed images reflect reality, the new news is as problematic as the breaking news of cable of yore, which in its prime also elicited perceptions of truth rather than nuanced appreciation of the limitations in news.

RICHARD M. PERLOFF

Cleveland

The writer is a professor of communication, psychology and political science at Cleveland State University.

Here. ("If I don't get to choose the candidate, I'm not playing.")

This is the first election in my memory to pit a globalist (Hillary Clinton) against a nationalist (Donald Trump).

Clinton is a free-trader from way back (her husband signed the North American Free Trade Agreement into law and she supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership); she supports international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Court of Criminal Justice, and the International Monetary Fund; she's an advocate of open borders; and she is in bed with international bankers and other powerful cosmopolitan types.

Trump, by contrast, is opposed to free trade (he wants to protect American industries, workers, and communities from unfair foreign competition) and wants to halt or slow immigration, especially from the Islamic world (which is exporting terrorism). Everyone knows about Trump's intention to build a wall on our southern border so that immigration from Mexico can be controlled, and everyone by now has heard the slogan, "Make America Great Again."

Come November, we'll see which ideology prevails. I'm rooting for nationalism.

Felix Hernandez has never played in a meaningful game (i.e., a postseason game), so let's see how he performs tonight under the glare of lights in Wrigley Field, against the best team in Major League Baseball, the Chicago Cubs. I expect the Bleacher Bums to chant "The King" derisively as he pitches. Will he rise to the occasion? Will he crumble under the pressure? Tune in to ESPN at 7:00 Central Time to find out. I, for one, can't wait.

Addendum: This game shows why Felix Hernandez has never been to the postseason and why he has won 20 games only once. Hernandez pitched just five innings. He threw 103 pitches in those five innings, so he was spent. When he left the game, he had a 6-2 lead. Seattle's relief pitchers frittered the lead away and the Cubs won the game in the 12th inning. So Hernandez gets no decision and his team gets a loss. This happens over and over and over again. Someone explain to me why Hernandez is considered a great pitcher. I honestly don't get it. To me, he's an absurdly overpaid dud.

One of the beautiful old buildings in downtown Glasgow. Click to enlarge.

Here.

Here.