Why Did You Decide......

Why did you decide to write about Sue Klebold?

Question #2 in the series of questions posed to me by a high school student from Medellin Columbia!

This one was supposed to be easy. Or so I thought. Well, perhaps a little easier than the others. That's not how it turned out to be, though.

Reality can sometimes pretty much kick one in the rear. This is one of those times.

In that vein, I never really made a conscious decision to write about Sue Klebold. That decision was, quite literally, made for me by the Colorado Attorney General's Office when they put out the Tweet regarding the 20/20 interview Sue Klebold did with Diane Sawyer. The fact Sue was a target of this Tweet made me angry....very, very angry.

I previously shared this screen shot in another blog post entitled "Sue Klebold, what WERE you thinking?" That title may have given potential readers a kind of misleading impression that I was going to castigate Sue for doing what she was doing. It was intentional on my part to mislead in that regard.

The run up, or dust up as it were, to Sue's interview on 20/20, arguably one of the more anticipated television events in quite awhile especially given the timing not too far ahead of the 17th anniversary of Columbine, was destined to be a doozy in more ways than one.

After all, the mother of one of the shooters of Columbine was finally going to open up and take full responsibility for being a failure as a mother, right?

That's the impression I got of expectations by a wide range of those anticipating what she might have to say. And therein lies the reason, if you will, for the title of that previous blog post.

I believe far too many people were gearing up to lambast her if she didn't 'fess up' rather than try to listen to what she might have to offer. I know this to be true because in the aftermath, I had several conversations with folks who were pretty, shall we say, pissed off at what Sue didn't say, much less what she did say. Plus, if one takes a really close look at the Tweet from the Colorado Attorney General's Office, well.....

I must admit to a bit of anxiety about what she might have to say, as well. But my anxiety wasn't founded in an expectation she'd 'fess up' about anything. I can't really even explain the basis for that anxiety, really. It was just there.

The thoughts, the questions, the anticipation? They were all there. Those were the things I was looking forward to. Not an expectation for an admission of guilt. Not in a million years.

What I saw and heard from those anticipating this interview, however, left me agog at the sheer cognitive dissonance of some folks, especially some folks having no direct experience whatsoever with the event, itself.

Soon after April 20, 1999 a hue and a cry figuratively calling for the heads of the Harris and Klebold families on a platter was heard far and wide. It built over time. It never really reached a tipping point, but it certainly remained in the background....that is up until the 20/20 interview.

At that point in time, the media frenzy began in earnest once again.

Speculation. Obfuscation. Condemnation.

Some chose to welcome the interview. I certainly did. For me, it represented an opportunity of sorts to learn something new. Whether that experience would be positive or negative remained to be seen, but it was an opportunity nonetheless.

Some chose to forgive Sue Klebold. That's one I'm still struggling with because there was nothing to forgive her for....she did nothing wrong. Nor did she ask for forgiveness. That wasn't what the interview was supposed to be about.

Some chose to get on the bandwagon of engaging, once again, in the blame game. This one, too, baffles me.

For example, just the other day a gorilla in a zoo in Cincinnati, Ohio was killed in order to save a child's life...a child who apparently got away from his mother and fell into the gorilla enclosure. The blame game reaction from armchair quarterbacks was immediate and it was brutal.

"The mother should face criminal negligence charges" was just one of the many claims made by those who watched in horror as that child was dragged around the enclosure in the water by the gorilla.

Seriously? The mother...should...face...criminal...charges.

What does this have to do with Sue Klebold? How does it tie into the tenor of this blog post?

I daresay the blame game also applies just as much to the families of the shooters of Columbine as they do to the mother of the toddler in Cincinnati. Yes, I went there. I included the entire families of the shooters of Columbine. It's far too easy for armchair quarterbacks to sit in judgment of others they think and believe are at fault for something.

Conflicting emotions aside, there are no clear cut answers.

Biases? Yup!

Prejudices? Aplenty!

Judgments? Oh, yeah!

And, arguably the single most slippery slope of them all...opinions? HELL yes!!!

Following the massacre that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut December 14, 2012 one of the parents whose child was murdered that day was told by someone they just couldn't imagine. The response from that parent was beautiful if, for no other reason than it was simple, straightforward, and heartfelt. What they said was, "Try. Try to imagine".

That's why I write about Sue Klebold. In a roundabout way, I've already asked the Colorado Attorney General's Office to 'try to imagine'. There were a lot of other things I asked them to do, too, but trying to imagine is first and foremost on my to do list requests for that office and for others to engage in, as well.

Try to imagine if everyone actually did try to imagine. Just imagine the possibilities!

The thing is, I never blamed the parents of the shooters of Columbine. They didn't commit that massacre. Their sons did. Their sons, and their sons alone, were and still are responsible for what they did that fateful day.

So, when the Tweet came out from the Colorado Attorney Generals Office I knew I had to say something.

Saying something wasn't a defense of Sue Klebold. Saying something was really nothing more than calling out a really, really stupid remark made by someone in a state office at the Executive Branch level of government here in Colorado.

To me, there is nothing more irritating than a blatant exhibition of willful ignorance, and that is exactly what was on public display via the Tweet shared at the very beginning of this blog post.

A long time ago, this Calvin and Hobbes cartoon came across my desk. I thought it was painfully apropos in this situation.

Learning from something....or not. Our choice to make!

What a novel concept!

My two cents....

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

What Would You Say.......?

What would you say to Sue Klebold's son (remaining nameless)
if he were still alive today?

This is the very first question in a series of questions asked of me by Maria Paula Castaño, a young student from Medellin, Columbia, South America. Because this person asked me what would I say to Sue Klebold's son, but didn't mention the Harris's son, I won't be talking about the Harris's son in this blog post even though he's the one who shot my daughter.

Honestly, wow! How should this get answered? Seriously, how would anyone even come close to being able to wrap their head around something like this, much less be coherent, concise, analytical, and realistic in any answer they might come up with?

Seriously, how would you answer this question?

That's the dilemma I'm faced with in this. You see, I'd wager many of us having gone through Columbine as the adults in the room, so to speak, would approach answering this question from a more 'adult' perspective. Or, at least we would try to. Same applies to any person having gone through any mass shooting, school or otherwise.

What does that mean, exactly? Well, to me it means we, as adults, would tend to lecture, or rant, or scream if, and it's a really big if here in this discussion, we're dealing with a child --- in other words, someone under the age of 18. One of the shooters had turned 18 and the other was 17 at that time.

That's what adults do with children, right? But this conversation with this individual isn't taking place 'at that time'.

What about getting physical? Would that enter into the equation? Fact is, at the time this conversation is taking place two things factor in:

1. He's gotta be in jail which would mean there are guards watching for any sign of a physical altercation....you know, that reality thing?

2. He's bigger than most folks to begin with. Would it be a good idea to try and attack him, then? Seriously?

Or, what about doing as Sue Klebold tried to do with her son, this shooter of Columbine....reason with him, care for him, nurture him? Perhaps even be firm with him?

Children's reactions, on the other hand, often times result in an eye roll accompanied by a stomp or six with the foot and an abrupt turning on their heel with multiple very heavy and exaggerated stomps as they exit your presence in a snit because we're being so condescending toward them! Boys and girls. Young women and young men. They ALL do it. Don't even try to tell me they don't!

All one need do to see how any of that might work is to watch the interview with Sue Klebold and how she talks about her son leaving for school on that fateful day, April 20, 1999. Or how she talks about their interaction with each other in the days, weeks, and months leading up to this massacre for that matter.

We, as adults, are supposed to be the more mature ones in these types of situations. The children, by their very actions, often times demonstrate they aren't mature enough to actually hear what is being said to them. They are forced to listen, but do they really, truly hear what's being said?

Why, then, would a conversation with this individual be any different, really? The only thing I can think of is that he's older....an adult, at least an adult age wise. Reality might even dictate that to go into such a conversation with an expectation that he will just sit there and passively take anything and everything I might have to throw at him without.....well, you get the picture. At least I hope you do.

If this shooter of Columbine were still alive, and any of us were given the chance to say something to him, would we take into consideration this individual is now an adult in the room, too --- that perhaps over time he's had time, lots of time, to contemplate his life and come to realizations and discoveries of his own that have led him to regret what he and his accomplice did on April 20, 1999?

Or, perhaps he's used that time to revel in it, and is now taking some perverse pleasure in watching his protagonist squirm? Think about that....no, really. Think about it as a possibility.

You see, this isn't just about me or you getting a chance to let this individual know how we feel. Not at all. It's also a chance for us to listen, and to actually hear, what he might have to say. Does that make any sense at all?

Would we even want to hear what he has to say? After all, he's the monster in the room, isn't he? Or are we going to be the monster in the room toward him? It is our choice after all. That is another one of those simple realities that we sometimes don't really want to be forced to confront in ourselves or in the persona we seek to show to others.

Would we go off on him? Would we yell and scream at him in our own effort to try and get him to realize, to comprehend, and to accept responsibility for what he's done and the heartache and heartbreak he caused so many to endure?

I'd wager there are some of us who would do this....in a heartbeat. But, taking into consideration the fact this individual is not a child, this individual is likely behind bars for the rest of his life, and this individual conceivably may not have any remorse whatsoever for what he and his accomplice did, would our rant or rave or screaming make even one little iota of difference to him?

The original question asked of me was to express what I might have to say to this shooter of Columbine. That's really tough because I'd have questions to ask, too. After all, I am an individual in search of answers; answers to questions that, in all likelihood, this shooter of Columbine will be more than reluctant to even try and answer. I'd even go so far as to posit he would have a great deal of difficulty providing any coherent logical answers that made any sense to anyone, much less to me, even if he were willing to try and do so.

So, this is a one...on...one scenario. I'm purportedly there to say something and to have something said in return.

I know, I know. The original question didn't pose that last part, but I think it's incredibly important to include it in any imaginary meeting that might take place. After all, conversations are supposed to involve two way dialogue, are they not? Remember, this is not a media interview. It's a one on one conversation. That, by its very nature, must involve allowing this individual to speak, too, does it not?

With that in mind, what should be said to start off the conversation?

Perhaps nothing should be said....nothing at all.

Yes, you saw that right.

Perhaps nothing should be said. Perhaps just sitting there in silence waiting....waiting for this individual to say something instead might be the best way to go.

Perhaps the onus for saying anything, anything at all, should rest upon this individual's shoulders instead of mine.

By approaching this one on one sit down in this way, perhaps it might just be possible to call out the BS from this individual when he opens his mouth to say something, whether it's an excuse or a rationalization for what he did to somehow justify his and his accomplice's actions when they made the conscious decision to wreak such havoc on so many people that day....or perhaps it'll be something else entirely that he has to say.

I indicated what comes out of his mouth could very well be BS.

But, there's also the possibility it might not be....that he might actually have something personal and introspective to share.

In the end who knows, really, what he might have to say? Sad thing is we'll never know.

Because we'll never know, then I can't really say with any degree of certainty at all that one singular method in approaching this individual one on one might be better than another.

I do, however, know the simple reality is this individual, by taking his own life after having done the deeds he did, took away any opportunity for those directly affected to experience even a modicum of closure. By taking his own life, he also prevented any modicum of an answer as to why he and his accomplice did what they did.

Regardless of what we see in the incident final reports, books that have been written (and they are many), the news media, rumors and speculation, or any other plethora of viable sources on this issue, the simple reality is we'll never truly know why the two of them did what they did.

Would it be safe to assume many of us would go into such a conversation with that singular question....that question of why first and foremost on the tip of our tongue and at the ready? Would that be first and foremost in our minds? That's the burning question I've been struggling with for so very many years now....why? Why did you do it?

However, given the fact I do not have a single clue as to where this individual's mental state might be at that particular moment in time, I'd have to seriously look at another possibility, as well: Might he break out laughing at that singular question....that question of why?

I'm being totally serious here. Would it be out of the realm of possibility? If you doubt this for one second, just think about the so-called 'Basement Tapes' and the lunatic fringe the two shooters of Columbine were trying very hard to personify!

If that were to happen, if I were to be laughed at for asking that simple question of why, and he were to laugh at me, I do not honestly know how I would react. It might be safe to say, the conversation might not end all that well.

The reason I say this is because just talking about Columbine is still visceral, raw, emotional. If the chance presented itself to be able to confront this individual one on one and he chose to laugh at me, which cannot be ruled out, those emotions might result in me going for his throat if I were to allow those emotions to dictate my behavior. But what would that accomplish, really?

So, I choose to go about answering the original question in as rational and emotionless a manner as is humanly possible....for me.

Please don't get me wrong here. The visceral anger, the raw emotions surrounding this trauma are still there. They are deep seated in my psyche. I acknowledge that fact. I also accept that fact. That's also why, when I saw the graphic I'm sharing below, I chose the path outlined in the quote presented as my answer to the original question asked by Maria instead of allowing that anger, that raw emotion to dictate how I would interact with this individual shooter of Columbine.

Some may find this answer to be fluff. Some may find it unrealistic. Some may find that it resonates with them.

Ultimately, what matters to me is that it most closely represents how I choose to try very hard to view both what this particular shooter of Columbine did and what I would share with him, not say to him, if we met one on one....face to face.

To be very clear, I say share with him because that's what I would try very hard to do. The reality of saying something to him would be like talking at him. He, like most people, would listen, but he probably wouldn't hear what's being said. He'd be listening in order to respond.

Bottom line is if I were to approach him as if he were a child to be lectured, I have no doubt whatsoever that he would simply tune me out or argue vehemently with me.

With that, and after a very long narrative to get to this point, here's my answer to the original question as taken from a Caroline Myss quote:

That....that right there, speaks more to me, personally, than anything I've seen so far in all my random wanderings in search of answers to questions that simply cannot be answered.

In reality, answering the original question posed by Maria is a way for all of us, you and me, to approach our own issues with this singular event that altered so many lives irrevocably and forever.

And, probably even more importantly, it goes directly toward how we choose to actually address those issues....

* Comments in this blog are moderated.

On Willful Ignorance

 Joseph Duplessis

Portrait of Benjamin Franklin

Wikimedia Commons

“We are all born ignorant,

but one must work

 hard to remain stupid.”

Interestingly enough, my previous post castigating the Colorado Attorney General's Office for their incredibly ignorant and insensitive Tweet regarding the 20/20 interview that Sue Klebold participated in has generated nothing but silence from that office. Perhaps they could have at least thought twice about what they were saying before they said it? I don't know. You'd think an office this high up in the state government hierarchy would have the common sense to do so, but.....

Make no mistake: the white hot anger I felt while generating my response to that Tweet has abated somewhat in intensity, but it has not gone away. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

There will be no rehash of things said in that post. There will, however, be a bit of clarification as to why I went off the way I did.

In the arena of school safety (and, yes, I do have a modicum of professional experience therein), to very blithely state that "talking" doesn't somehow "prevent school shootings" displays a remarkable lack of not only sensitivity, but also a remarkable lack of what it takes to reasonably, analytically, and professionally plan and prepare for such events prior to their occurrence. In other words, the statement by the Colorado Attorney General's Office is a prime example on display in the public forum of willful ignorance.

The massacre known as Columbine is fraught with mental illness issues. That's only one of the topics for discussion that Sue Klebold was trying to address in her interview on 20/20.

Mental illness isn't something to be bandied about lightly by anyone, much less an office of the Executive Branch of a state government. That's effectively what they've done; they've diminished and, for all intents and purposes, devalued the issue of mental illness pretty much by dismissing what Sue Klebold had to say about it and how it affected herself, her son, her entire family, and the Columbine community at large.

Truth be told, the Tweet from the Attorney General's Office should be taken as an insult not only to everyone's sensibilities, but also to their intelligence.

The Tweet, once again:

If, or until, a public clarification and apology are made by that office, I stand by this assertion and hope the Colorado Attorney General's Office will step up and make things right.

The thing is, far too many people have this pervasive perception of mentally ill people as being crazy, especially when it comes to shooters in a school environment.

Would it be too much of a stretch for me to assert the majority of people who've seen the videotaped crazed rantings and ravings of the two shooters of Columbine kinda sorta transfer the mental image they've gotten from those rantings and ravings to others suffering from mental illness? I mean, really think about that.

What's the first thing that comes to mind any time we see something on the news about a mass shooting anywhere? Cogitate on that for awhile. Take all the time you need.

That transference may not go immediately to ALL people suffering from this malady, but, if it doesn't, why even use that label at all? Could it possibly be because those who perpetrate these atrocities on others suffer from a form of mental illness so hideous in its modality it is virtually impossible to comprehend, but because most people do not fully understand or comprehend the complexities of mental illness in general, they transfer their own oxymoronic terminology to anyone exhibiting signs of something not being 'right' by labeling them as 'crazy'? I don't know....I'm simply asking the question, and hoping for some answers here, especially from the Attorney General's Office.

The reality isn't that shooters are crazy, necessarily, but, rather, that this label, this very derogatory, demeaning label, is applied to those suffering from this malady pretty much across the board.

Sue Klebold's son was mentally ill. His mental illness manifested in such a way as to wreck havoc on the lives of others in a virtually unimaginable way. When those 'others' become 'ourselves', that's when mental illness seems to take on another level, another sense of urgency entirely. Up until that point, I'd wager most people pretty much live their lives in a state of complacency, content in the knowledge 'it can't happen to me' or some such fantasy Utopia.

After virtually every single disaster, no matter the type, people say something along the lines of 'I never thought it could happen here', or 'I never thought it would happen to me', or any number of other catch phrases one wants to apply.

We all fill in those blanks when it happens to us. To deny that fact would be to also engage in willful ignorance as far as I'm concerned.

When it comes to school shootings and the perps who commit those atrocities, it seems the angst is magnified exponentially as a direct result because we, as a society, simply cannot wrap our heads around why anyone in their right mind would, or could, do such a thing. Hence the jump, if we're honest with ourselves, to labels being applied, labels that include the term 'crazy'.

Statement of FACT: The vast majority of those who suffer from some form of mental illness will never pick up a gun, go into a school, and shoot it up.

Statement of FACT: The vast majority of suicides in this nation are carried out using a gun.

Statement of FACT: A gun provides the most lethal, most effective means to carry out the act of suicide quickly and immediately. Remember, my first wife's first attempt was via drug overdose which was unsuccessful. Her second attempt...

Statement of FACT: Most people suffering from some form of mental illness have a much higher risk of having violence perpetrated upon their own person than the other way around.

All the above are verifiable, plain, and simple statements of fact.

So, why then are so many who believe themselves to be free and clear of any craziness themselves so quick to blanket label the entire community of those who suffer from mental illness as being crazy?

Don't believe that's happening? Guess again.

I participate in many social media network discussions and message boards. It's something I encounter all the time. The first solution to gun violence offered, especially by more pro-gun advocacy groups is inevitably along the lines of "keep the guns away from the crazies"; invariably, without fail, with no exceptions.

That's my truth. That's my experience. This isn't meant to be, nor should it be construed to be, an advocacy position I hold for more gun regulations. That's not what this is about. Rather, it's about mental health stigma.

When I say I try very hard to discuss how the 'crazy' assertion doesn't apply, it's almost universally to no avail.

So, it is, in fact, a valid question in dire need of being answered simply because it's a stigma those suffering from this very pervasive malady are forced against their will to live with all day, every day of their lives.

Because of this stigma, my first wife, who eventually turned out to be 'terminally' mentally ill, denied her illness throughout her ordeal. That she hallucinated, was delusional, had some of the worst paranoia I've ever had the misfortune to see manifested in anyone anywhere, and took all of that out on others in ways few have any knowledge of besides me was completely lost on her. It wasn't on me, but it was on her.

So, when I see statements being made and directed at someone such as the one made by the Colorado Attorney General's Office toward Sue Klebold, I do tend to get my shorts in a knot very quickly.

The message they sent, if one wants to call it that, is "talking" doesn't "prevent" something from happening which is akin to the oft repeated mantra of those who advocate that gun free zone signs don't prevent those intending to do harm to others therein from doing so.

Both the examples above are what I call 'logical fallacies' in the very strictest sense.

"Decision to talk now doesn't prevent school shootings"

That's what the Tweet said...verbatim.

Let's do a little parsing, shall we?

Does a "decision to talk" by someone actually and physically "prevent" a school shooting, regardless of when that "talk" takes place? 

If so, how does it, or how can it be reasonably expected, to do that? 

Would that "talk" physically have prevented any of the ensuing school shootings if that "talk" had taken place earlier on?

Words have meaning. There's no doubt about that. But can spoken words actually physically prevent something from happening? Simple analytical thought and reasoning should lead us to an obvious conclusion in that regard; an obvious conclusion that the assertion is a logical fallacy, a distraction and nothing more.

Why has this conclusion not been obvious to the Attorney General's Office? I mean, these folks are attorneys, right? Legalese notwithstanding, common sense should enter into this equation at the very least, shouldn't it?

Let's apply this to the gun free zone issue, an issue that's a bit more nebulous.

While it is true that gun free zone signs cannot physically prevent anyone from doing anything if the intent of the perpetrator is to do harm to others, why does it seem to be such an unscalable wall, an impenetrable obstacle for people to understand that gun free zone signs are there for something other than physically preventing someone from doing harm to others?

The sign is for the purpose of letting people know there will be consequences for their actions. That's the purpose of laws, after all...to provide consequences for illegal actions.

Do laws actually prevent someone from doing something illegal? Hardly. If that were the case, there would be no illegal activity in this world at all. That's something those legal beagles in the Attorney General's Office should already know as well, but....

All of this boils down to a simple truth: Talking about things, even if they are after the fact, is a basic premise, a basic standard procedure, a basic necessity following every single tragedy and/or trauma each and every one of us experiences as we go through this sometimes dystopic experience called life. In emergency management, this is what is called 'doing a hotwash'.

The hotwash for Columbine is arguably still going on to this day. Proof? Just take a look at all the blow-back associated with the 20/20 interview with Sue Klebold as prime example number one, both before and after the interview took place.

A hotwash is wherein people talk. They communicate with each other. They listen to each other. They commiserate. They evaluate. And, hopefully, they cooperate in the hope that something positive and constructive might just come out of those discussions even if it happens down the road and far, far into the future.

Life lessons are something we need to look at, listen to, and learn from. Otherwise, we are all, every single one of us, doomed to flail around in the very same confused and willfully ignorant boxes we construct for ourselves until we personally, up close and personally, experience the next tragedy and trauma in our lives.

Colorado Attorney General's Office, you owe it to each and every one of us, your constituents, to explain what you meant by your Tweet. If you somehow realize and accept your Tweet was incredibly insensitive at the very least, then issue a public statement accompanied by an apology acknowledging your lack of sensitivity and lack of good judgment.

Climb out of that hole of willful ignorance you've dug for yourself unless you want to keep working hard to remain stupid, as the venerable Benjamin Franklin put it.

That's my challenge to you.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

Sue Klebold, what WERE you thinking?

With all the hoopla preceding Diane Sawyer's SILENCE BROKEN: A Mother's Reckoning with Sue Klebold, the Mother of one of the killers in the atrocity known as 'Columbine', it is incumbent on all of us to sit back, to take a collective breath, and to breathe a sigh of relief that it's over; that we can now move forward once again after having put all of this behind us.

Or is it, really? Should we really expect everything to once again go back to the way it was before this interview? Should we really expect everything to once again go back to the way it was before each and every anniversary? Should we expect anything different to even come out of what Sue Klebold has to say? Really? Should we?

What did YOU expect? Anything? Were you looking for something extraordinary? Perhaps some closure? Perhaps some revelation? Perhaps an epiphany?

Were you appalled by what she had to say? Comforted, perhaps? Maybe even a bit sympathetic? How about empathetic? What?

All these questions swirled through my psyche over and over and over even before watching the interview. Should I be appalled? Comforted? Sympathetic? Empathetic? Truly, I did not know. I know I had some anxiety, some angst over what she might say. That'd be true in any situation anyone might be in if they had no knowledge beforehand of what to expect.

Then I saw this, and had to start all over.

Shocked. Dumbfounded. Incredulous. At a loss for words at the complete and total idiocy of this Tweet, especially because it came from the Colorado Attorney General, an office of the Executive Branch of the state of Colorado, after the fact, after the interview. No, really...I had to start all over with how I was going to write this piece because I was once again going to try and be nicey nice with my approach to a very sensitive, very controversial topic that involved an obviously still grieving Mom. That went in the toilet as soon as I saw the piece of crap above! I wasn't going to start this blog post with this kind of crap. Really, I wasn't. But the more I thought about it, the more angry I became.

What arrogance! What....I don't know. Again, I'm at a loss for descriptors adequate to the task.

I really don't know what I expected from people...any people...in response to Sue Klebold's interview, but this....this was NOT it, and it came from an office of the Executive Branch of our very own state! I won't say it...tempted, but must restrain myself. Must maintain decorum. Must...

What did YOU expect? Did you expect something like this? I left my two tweets in the image on purpose. The rest of the comments thus far are pretty similar to mine. The actual Tweet is here if anyone wants to read the rest of the comments for themselves: Shooter's mom doesn't get it.....

Shooter's...mom...doesn't...get...it. Really? Seriously? If the shooter's mom doesn't "get it" who does, exactly? The Office of the Attorney General? WOW!

What are we to believe when they say "Decision to talk now doesn't prevent school shootings"? What the ever loving HELL! What is Sue Klebold...a gun free zone or something? You know, those zones that don't prevent mass shootings? Those magnets for mass shooters? Those signs that are just standing there hoping that shooters won't go past them? Oh, wait! They're inanimate objects. They can't stop anyone with ill intent because they have no heart, no soul, no feelings. Is that what's being implied by the Colorado Attorney General's office...that Sue Klebold has no heart, no soul, no feelings?

I expected blow-back. I did not expect this. Not at all. Honestly! These freaking (in deference to maintaining decorum) people!

Before and during the interview, my thoughts and emotions ran amok. I really didn't even want to watch the interview, but I did. As I watched, I set aside, or tried to set aside, all the crap in the dust-up beforehand. I even tried to set aside Diane Sawyer and to focus on Sue Klebold the person. What would she be like? Would she open up? What would she have to say? And then it began.

The more I listened to Sue, the more I let go of the angst, the trepidation, the concern for what kinds of triggers she might engender in me as she laid bare her soul. All the crap from beforehand faded away and disappeared. All I saw was a kind of mirror image of myself as she spoke. Seriously, a mirror image of myself, of my life, of my experiences, of my own ongoing story.

I don't really even know how to explain that statement in words that anyone will understand other than to say I think I'm kind of getting a little bit pissed off....not at Sue. Oh, no! Not at all at Sue. Rather, I'm getting pissed off that people who've not experienced something like this have no freaking (decorum, must maintain decorum) clue as to what she's going through. How do I know this? Because I lived it myself! And yet, those very same people sit in judgment; condescending, all-knowing, superior. They...have...no...clue. But they judge. They say there must have been warning signs, something that should have been seen and acted upon.

Warning signs? You want warning signs? I had them for four years prior to the massacre at Columbine High School! You want more warning signs? I had them aplenty following that massacre, too. Those warning signs did NOT go unheeded as they did NOT go unheeded by Sue with her Son. Mine were slightly different in that the suicide of my first wife was preceded by an unsuccessful attempt by drug overdose. The second attempt was successful with..wait for it...wait...a GUN!

Warning signs? Even with all the warning signs I saw, even with all the warning signs I took to heart and acted upon, my first wife was still able to plan out and execute a very detailed plan to kill herself.

So, I really must ask everyone, including you the reader, what good are warning signs, really? What purpose do they serve? How do 'warning signs', in and of themselves, prevent an actual outcome that is deviously planned by the perpetrators of those warning signs if those perpetrators are hell-bent on doing what they want to do no matter what? That...that right there, is the conundrum I was faced with in trying to 'prevent' my first wife from putting a gun to her temple and pulling the damn trigger. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say Sue Klebold was also faced with virtually the same conundrum just in trying to deal with her Son's illness (yes, it IS an illness) of depression. The only question I have in all of this regarding her Son's illness is along the lines of whether or not any other symptoms manifested in his behavior besides what she talked about specifically in the interview; things like delusional behavior, for example.

Don't even think about telling me the two suicides, my first wife's and Sue's Son's, were dissimilar. Both were by gun. Both were in public settings. The only difference is that my first wife didn't shoot anyone else. She could have. She had the method. She had the targets. She had the wherewithal. That she didn't....that right there, is the ONLY difference as far as I'm concerned.

Sue's Son committed an atrocity. My first wife committed an atrocity. How so, you ask? Sue's Son shot others before shooting himself. My first wife shot herself after making veiled threats to others before shooting herself...something that kept me on edge for months, kept me preparing for what I believed was to be an inevitable violent act on her part that could involve someone else besides herself whether it be me, one or both of our kids, or someone outside the nuclear family. Yeah, that veiled threat was made...by her...on more than one occasion.

I've not shared much previously of what I'm saying now in any forum, public or private. It's time. It needs to be said. It needs to be heard by others, especially given the emphasis on mental health issues associated with acts of violence in which guns are used.

My first wife was diagnosed with severe depression in 1996. That's pretty much public knowledge. What many do not know, however, is that the severe depression was accompanied by delusional paranoia and psychotic episodes. Yeah, you read that right...delusional paranoia and psychotic episodes. Look it up. Study it. It ain't pretty what that can do to a person's psyche, their emotional well-being. It was a shitty thing to have happen to her. She didn't deserve anything even remotely close to the hand she was dealt. But the reality is she descended into a place of darkness, of madness, so deep and impenetrable by anyone else, even me, she became someone I really no longer 'knew' in the sense of the mutually loving relationship that once was our marriage. The love simply was not reciprocated by her. It wasn't that she didn't necessarily want to reciprocate the love. The simple truth is she couldn't. She no longer had it in her. She said she did, that she loved me and the kids, but her eyes said otherwise. They were vacant, empty, devoid of feelings and emotions.

When I heard Sue talk about the deteriorating relationship she had with her Son, my heart ached, literally ached for her. At least I had the benefit of knowing beforehand how mental illness might play a role in the affected individual's behavior toward themselves and others.

In my profession, one of the all time favorite catch phrases was "begin with the end in mind". In Sue's case, she didn't even know she had to begin, much less know what the potential outcome, the end result, might be. I saw it in her eyes. I heard it in her voice. I felt it in my heart of hearts.

I wrote another blog post awhile back that kind of went into some detail on what it was like to live with someone suffering from a debilitating mental illness. I eventually took it down for several reasons not the least of which was condemnation by some who believed it to be demeaning to my first wife's memory and her 'good name'. Today I don't really care what anyone thinks any longer. I make no apologies for anything, either her illness or my caregiving treatment regimen that went along with it. We were married for over 22 years. For most of those years, I never knew she was ill....until symptoms began to manifest in ways that were like a proverbial 2x4 up alongside my head.

All throughout my first wife's illness, there were emotions I had that some would call warranted if they knew what was truly going on. Problem is that some people went off half-cocked and labelled those emotions as being part and parcel of what they saw as narcissism in me, especially in how I handled this mental illness simply because they had no freaking (decorum, once again) clue as to what was truly going on. How is any of that any different, really, than what Sue Klebold has had to endure as a result of what her Son did?

Yes, I had anger. Yes, I had a lot of passion in trying to help my first wife to the best of my ability which eventually evolved into helping her to the best of HER ability. Yes, I had a LOT of compassion. Yes, I had a TON of sympathy. And, yes, I had a TON of frustration in that nothing I did seemed to help, to make a difference that actually mattered to her. Narcissism? I'd say these emotions are more akin to 'errors of omission', not narcissism. Those would be my only regrets in not being able to successfully stop a suicide that devastated me and my entire family.

But most of all, I had love....love for someone rapidly becoming incapable of returning that emotion. There was NEVER a sense of leaving, betrayal, or anything even remotely similar; all the very same things I saw in the eyes of Sue Klebold as she tried so very hard to put those emotions into words that 'fit' her own Son, words that everyone might be able to grasp, to understand. She wasn't asking for forgiveness. She didn't have to. She didn't...do...anything...wrong!

Just as my first wife virtually destroyed her own family as it was at that time, Sue Klebold's Son destroyed his family. The repercussions are still being felt. They will never go away. As it was with my first wife, Sue's Son destroyed lives. As it was with my first wife, Sue's Son was old enough and smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong.

I did nothing wrong. Sue Klebold did...nothing...wrong! By all standards I've seen, Sue Klebold in fact did everything right in raising her Son. I have regrets. I'm sure Sue has regrets. Those regrets, however, revolve solely around what more I could have done to prevent my first wife from putting that gun to her temple and pulling the trigger. I suppose those regrets will haunt me until my dying day. But here's the kicker: the decision to do so, to put that gun to her temple and to pull that trigger? That was her decision, not mine. I had no control whatsoever over that final, desperate, decisive act...an act so imprinted in my own mind, even though I wasn't there when it happened, that it haunts me in ways I cannot even begin to describe without invoking emotional trauma in myself of a very different kind.

Condemn Sue Klebold for what her Son did? Not me. I'm not about to go down that rabbit hole...not one little bit.

I'll be the first to admit that Sue Klebold coming forward now after all these years revisited a modicum of trauma on those affected, either directly or indirectly. That's pretty much a no brainer. That recurring trauma manifested itself on victims and survivors simply by virtue of the fact those victims and survivors know who Sue Klebold is and that she was willing to put herself out there for the world to see in the spotlight of public opinion related to what some are calling one of the most heinous, notorious, malevolent, evil incidents in our Nation's history; a watershed moment of sorts when it comes to mass shootings in schools.

But, is Sue Klebold the actual cause of that recurring trauma? Think about that. Is Sue Klebold the actual physical and emotional cause of that recurring trauma?

It didn't stop there. Some questioned her timing. Some questioned "why now" after all these years. Some even "forgave" her. Some said she had no right to even talk about her experiences in this massacre. Others were anxious to hear what she had to say. Truth? Sue Klebold got caught up in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario whether she knew that going into this interview beforehand or not.

Just possibly we should.....what? Care? If so, care for whom? Sue? Should we care what happened to her nuclear family? Should we care she and her husband of 30+ years divorced because they each chose different paths in grieving? Should we care that her other Son had his life irrevocably shattered by what his own Brother did? Should we care that Sue was diagnosed with breast cancer; that she was, and perhaps still is, in the fight of her life? Should we care she thought she was a good Mom to the monster her own Son turned out to be? Should we care she maybe missed something along the way that might have helped prevent the atrocity now almost universally known as 'Columbine'? Should we care she loved her Son? Should we care she also wished he would die during his rampage?

See, the thing is all those questions in the paragraph above are questions I had to ask myself over and over and over throughout my own family's dysfunction revolving around my first wife's mental illness. Even the question regarding cancer is relevant because my first wife's Mother succumbed to that disease during that time, and it wasn't easy to deal with. Truth and reality - that's something more of us should try to face head on. Trying to deny Sue Klebold this opportunity on some ill-begotten perception that she somehow doesn't deserve the platform to do so is....well, it's pretty despicable. At least it is to me.

If any of us had an empathetic bone in our bodies or in our soul, the answer to the question of caring should be obvious. It is to me.

Trauma is complex. Trauma is made up of layers. Each layer is intertwined and woven into the fabric of the whole....trauma of any kind. Put that trauma into a mass shooting incident, especially those that take place in a school environment, and maybe, just maybe, things will be easier to look at, to digest, if all the layers are eventually peeled back and the core of the trauma is ultimately revealed. That's what I believe Sue Klebold was trying to do; to help peel back another of the layers in the obviously ongoing aftermath of Columbine.

Sue Klebold mustered up the courage and fortitude to do the unthinkable really. She aired her family's dirty laundry on national television. She tried very hard to reconcile and rationalize everything that happened for a very long time. Does waiting this long make her any less of a person than it would have if she'd come forward at any time in the interim? I doubt it. In fact, if anyone has the temerity to suggest as much, I'd argue with them until they were either beaten down in defeat or I'd go off on them in a way I wouldn't be proud of after doing so.

Parallels can be drawn with everything Sue Klebold said with events and incidents in my very own life. With every single layer that Sue has tried to peel away, my own layers, the layers I believed I'd been able to peel away, came back to me in tidal waves of emotion. I'd say that's probably true of just about every single one of us as parents including those survivors who were there that awful day of April 20, 1999 and are now parents themselves.

Few outside my nuclear family knew of my first wife's condition prior to Columbine. Even my kids knew very little about it. Few outside my nuclear family knew of her condition during and even following this massacre. I share this family tragedy now not out of any vindictiveness or sense of anger, guilt, or any of the other things commonly associated with the suicide of a loved one. Rather, I do so out of a sense of empathy for Sue Klebold based in part on what she revealed in her interview. I can, and do, relate to what she went through and is still going through regarding the dysfunction in her own backyard, so to speak.

Following my first wife's suicide, a newspaper article said she'd left a note apologizing for what she was doing. I say WHAT? I've never shared the contents of her note with anyone anywhere except my own children, and that didn't happen until a few years after the fact. I didn't hide it from them. I thought it might just be better to leave things alone until they might be better able to handle what she said to be able to better rationalize that with what she did to end her own life. Just so everyone knows, my first wife did NOT apologize for what she did, and I'll leave it at that.

I bring the aforementioned up to try to wrap up a very long diatribe I didn't intend to have go on this long by bringing it back around to the very beginning in which the Colorado Attorney General's office put something out there basically condemning a still grieving, struggling Mom...a Mother who...did...nothing...wrong. I repeat, a Mother who did NOTHING wrong. She had no legal requirement to offer her soul on camera. She had no moral obligation to do so, nor did she have an ethical obligation to do so. I believe she did it in an effort to try and help somehow, to give back somehow even though all she had to give was herself.

If you are one of those looking for some kind of answer, some kind of reckoning, some kind of request by Sue for forgiveness, some kind of acceptance of responsibility by Sue for what happened at Columbine, or for something...anything at all...that might help you in your ongoing journey toward a modicum of healing, perhaps you should consider reaching out to Sue Klebold and asking for her help in doing so. That's what the Amish did with the wife of the killer in the Nickel Mines school shooting. You might just be surprised at what Sue Klebold ultimately has to offer.

So, Sue Klebold, what WERE you thinking? I think I now have my own answer to that question.

I admire Sue for her courage, her honor, and her integrity in reaching out to 'us'. Thank you, Sue.

The Colorado Attorney General's Office? Well, that's a whole 'nother story.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

Of Sandboxes and Cemeteries

“Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing.” (Konrad Lorenz)

Keeping the quote above in mind, I offer the following:

Given what is going on right now near Burns, OR, might it also be said at least the second part of this quote applies to those from "outside" that specific area regarding what is actually going on? I mean, there are all KINDS of people weighing in with their perspectives on what's going on, what precipitated it, and what needs to be done.

By the same token, perhaps it should also apply to most of those "inside" the area, as well, especially those holding the Wildlife Refuge in their "standoff" with the government even as we speak? After all, those folks have their own "unique" perspectives on what's going on, what precipitated it, and what needs to be done.

But I digress.....already? Really? Damn! Get yourself back on track!

There's a map going around on Social Media Networks that shows the amount of Federally owned land in the U.S.

Very interesting map, to be sure. 

Taken at face value, it would appear there is a disproportionate level of Federally owned lands in every single state in the West. The quote that accompanied this map:

Percent of land owned by the federal government. No wonder Westerners think this is a big issue and Easterners can’t understand why this is a problem.

The implied message, from what I could gather, is that Easterners don't understand the problem because they aren't as "affected" by Federal land ownership as Westerners are, thereby also implying that these lands are "closed off" to the affected states and their citizens. Even more insidious is an underlying current of resentment based in a conspiracy mentality held by more than a few people that the government is trying to expand its land ownership by taking away land from private owners. This one kind of gets my shorts in a knot! Really? Seriously? Can anyone, anyone at all, realistically believe this? I mean, c'mon. The Federal government has a hard enough time managing the public lands they ALREADY have oversight over with the budgets they get that keep getting SMALLER almost every year! Taking over MORE land? Give me a break!

But, once again, I digress....Gotta stop doing that.

From what I've been reading, and based in large part on that conspiracy mentality, Federal landownership is at the crux of the Bundy Bunch's takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, the sentencing controversy over the Hammond family convictions notwithstanding. The more I research the issue of Federal landownership, the more a conclusion must be drawn that the Bundy Bunch cannot withstand the litmus test of accuracy and veracity in how they're approaching this issue. In fact, they fail it miserably!

It's easy to blame an entity, in this case the Federal government represented by that villainous Bureau of Land Management, for perceived wrongdoings, especially if we don't understand, much less have only a rudimentary knowledge of, how and why public lands came to be in the first place.

It's much LESS easy to actually learn something about the history and development of how something comes to be the way it does because that, necessarily, requires work. Not physical labor, but, rather, mental labor, critical thinking, and (probably most important of all) assessment of circumstances the evaluation of which is devoid of personal bias. That's not an easy thing to do.

For example, we all engage in comparisons, equivalencies of a sort, to try and help illustrate points we are trying to make. Some are pretty good. Others, not so much. Some are even ferreted out as being "false equivalencies".

My point being we ALL do this at certain times in our lives. Yeah, even me.....

I don't know how good a comparison either of my equivalencies that follow might actually be, whether they are "false" or not, but here's my first comparative example: "Sandboxes".

Many of us had sandboxes as we were growing up. We played in them. We invited our friends to play in them. We also denied others from playing in them, especially if we didn't like those "others". In other words, there were boundaries. We established them. We enforced them to the "best" of our individual abilities.

Taking it a step further, there were also parks in a lot of towns, both large and small. Those parks were open to the public. They were owned, operated, and maintained by the towns, themselves. They had boundaries, too. However, those boundaries were there not to keep people in or out, but to denote where the park was and to let people know how big it was.

Some parks were larger than others. Some had playgrounds with all kinds of structures intended for children to have fun and play. Many of them had sandboxes in which children could play. 

The boundaries of these sandboxes were to keep the sand in, to kind of "protect" it in a way, not to keep kids out. No one child was excluded, at least they weren't supposed to be.

The park provided for multiple uses, including the sandbox. The sandbox was more narrowly focused on providing a place for children to play in the sand within a smaller boundary......together. 

The sandboxes were geographical areas within those parks. Neither the park boundaries nor the sandbox boundaries were mutually exclusive of each other. They both served a purpose. Think about that. Entities within entities, both there for public use albeit one more focused use than the other.

Yeah, I know....now I'm waxing philosophic. Nope. I don't claim to be a philosopher, but I'm kind of thinking this may reflect the first part of the quote at the beginning of this essay. Does that mean I know "nothing about everything"? I hope not, but I digress....again.

Focus Dude....Focus! Narrowing the scope a little: 

Sand, ownership, and operational maintenance..... 

The sand in all of those sandboxes, whether those sandboxes were private or public, was there to be used, in this case by children. 

Kids will be kids, will they not? They don't really understand the limitations of the boundaries of the sandbox. If they want to throw a handful of sand at someone else, they'll do it. Unless, of course, their parents are watching. Then they might have second thoughts about that kind of behavior....or not.

Let's say, though, some children engage in a sand fight. Sand is flying everywhere especially outside the boundaries of the box.

Questions ensue. Many questions ensue.

Who's going to put all that sand back in when the fight is over, and the kids get taken home to get cleaned up by their parents?

How much sand is left within the boundaries of the box?

How's it going to get replaced?

How much of the sand got "contaminated" by dirt the sand got mixed in with outside the sandbox?

How much will it cost to replace the sand that was lost?

Is there enough sand left in the box to keep it functional for other kids coming to play tomorrow?

How much sand will need to be added to make it functional again?

And, probably most important, who is responsible? No, really....who is responsible for all of this? Every item? Every aspect of damages caused by one person, or group of people? Who...is...responsible?

If the sandbox is privately owned, the parents have a few options at their disposal. Replace the sand at their own expense. Replace the sand and make their kids pay for it out of their allowances. Don't replace the sand and teach those kids a lesson they'll never forget! There are more, but you get the picture.

If the sandbox is publicly owned, it's a whole different ballgame. The town is made up of its residents, all of them. Some might be willing to overlook the "crime" that was committed and just make the repairs necessary and take those costs out of the budget...somehow. Others may decide that signs should be posted saying "NO SAND FIGHTS ALLOWED - VIOLATORS WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRS", or some such. There are more, but, again, you get the picture.

Do you see where I'm going with this yet? I hope so.

The comparison to public lands should be obvious to even the most ardent opponent of Federal ownership of public lands for multiple uses including, you guessed it, ranching. One of the primary reasons, and there are many more than just this one, for setting aside "public lands" is because ranchers overgrazed and abused the very arid lands they turned their livestock loose in. These are lands whose ecosystems really aren't well suited to ranching operations for the most part. Add to that the fact there are competing species vying for the little forage there is, and, well.....

Truth is, all those sandbox considerations for operations and maintenance factor into the public lands scenario. ALL of them!

There's a widespread movement in western states to wrest control and management of Federally owned public lands from the Federal government and cede it over to the individual states to do with as they see fit. Once the land is ceded over, it's gone, irrevocably lost to the rest of us. And, to be clear, no it isn't going to be sold to those states if those states have their way. It'll be ceded over.

Once it's gone, it's gone. There's no going back. There's no "putting the sand back in the sandbox", metaphorically speaking.

Those lands will be re-purposed. No, you say? Think about it. States are, like most government entities, "cash strapped". They think they can manage things better than the Federal government, and perhaps they can. That does not, however, belie the fact their funding sources are more "limited", shall we say, than are Federal coffers simply by virtue of the fact their constituent base, also known as their tax base, is much smaller.

Unless Federal grants are available to "help" those states manage what are now considered to be "state lands", those states will seek ways to lessen the financial burden imposed by virtue of the fact they, and they alone, are now responsible to operate and maintain those new state lands, to put the "sand back in the sandbox", so to speak. This nation has a hard enough time agreeing with "block grant" programs to states for welfare programs without adding this into the mix. 

So, what's the alternative? 

They'll do so by, dare I say it, raising taxes on state residents......oh, NO!

Or they'll do it by opening those lands up to....you guessed it....ranching, logging, and mining.

Anyone see even a modicum of irony here?

If states open their own public lands up for ranching, logging, and mining does anyone think for one second they aren't going to charge fees for these uses?

If fees don't work, if fees don't raise enough revenue to do required operations and maintenance, would selling off those state lands to those private entities be an option? That goes for state parks, too. There are costs associated with operations and maintenance. Those costs must be offset somehow. On Federal public lands, those costs have been documented to be far greater already than revenue being realized from all sources of land use.

What's lost in all of this kind of rhetoric is the fact, and yes it is a fact, that you and I will have lost any and all access to those lands if this specific scenario plays out unless, of course, we get permission from the private owners....a hit or miss proposition, at best.

Cemeteries:

Now I bet you're wondering how "cemeteries" fit into all of this, right? Sit back and hold tight because here we go! My second comparative example for purposes of this essay: "Cemeteries".

Most municipalities have cemeteries. We honor those interred in all of them. We tend the grounds in which our loved ones are interred. We keep them neat. We keep the grass trimmed, and we make damned sure no weeds are allowed to grow. 

Some cemeteries are out in rural areas. Most of them do not get the same care those in towns get. Some of the more rural cemeteries do, in fact, sometimes get overgrown and neglected.

But here's the thing....how many cemeteries, urban or rural, have no fences? There are some, to be sure. I'd wager there are far more that do have fences than do not. Even with that being said, the boundaries of a cemetery are distinct; marked either with gated entrances or by some kind of marker(s) somewhere to let people know this is a place for solemnity, honor, and respect.

Now, imagine, if you will, people riding ATVs through that cemetery, tearing down the fences, riding over the grave sites, doing donuts and wheelies, ripping up the landscape, making all kinds of noise. 

That happened. Only it wasn't in a municipal cemetery. It wasn't in a rural cemetery. No sirree. It happened in a remote area of public lands in Utah. Yep. It happened. It happened in direct defiance of rules, regulations, and prohibitions on recreational use for that specific area. Those rules, regulations, and prohibitions on recreational use for that area were put in place because that area was sacred ground....for Native Americans. It happened to Native American sacred ground. Sacred ground. Remember the Bundy standoff in Nevada? Remember Recapture Canyon in Utah? 

I guess the question we should be asking ourselves is along the lines of why should municipal and rural cemeteries, those we consider to be sacred grounds receive any more special treatment than those of Native Americans, the Indigenous Peoples of America? In remote areas of public lands? Public lands that are designated off-limits to recreational use? Public lands that are sacred grounds? Solemnity? Honor? Respect? Where were any of these in Recapture Canyon? Seriously, where...were...they? Anyone? 

Finally, there's a movie documentary called "Unbranded" ya'll might just want to watch. It's available for free on Netflix. I haven't seen it anywhere else unless a fee is paid.....go figure! There's also a Facebook page of the same name, "Unbranded". No spoiler here. All I'll say is this movie addresses multiple land uses as they relate specifically to the wild mustang population on public lands. The rating system on Netflix went to 5. If I could, I'd rate it at 10! It's that good! So, just do it!

Finally, there's a very good publication titled America's Public Lands: origin, history, future. This publication was put together mostly by U.S. Bureau of Land Management retirees. Yep, those folks. Who better, really, to talk about management of Federally owned public lands than those tasked with doing so. Sorry, rhetorical question. Doesn't even merit a question mark in the overall scheme of things. And, therefore, I did not give it one. This publication goes into detail on operational costs and maintenance of Federal public lands versus revenue brought in from multiple uses intended to offset at least some of those costs. If that doesn't help increase awareness of what it would require of anyone else to do the same thing the Federal government does in managing our public lands, I don't know what will.

And that, folks, brings me right back around to the original quote I shared in the hope that we, you and I, are never at that point where we, any of us, basically get to a point in any of this where we learn more and more about less and less until we know everything about nothing.

Truly....the more we know......

Until next time......

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

When All Is Said And Done...More Will Be Said Than Done

Are things really as bad in this country as the Bundy Bunch out in Oregon is making them out to be? Think about it. Government BAD! Bundy Bunch GOOD! That's what we're hearing, at least from them. There's even a County Sheriff, the 'People's Sheriff' no less, who appeared on a radio show on The Blaze Network (Glenn Beck sound familiar?) advocating his insanity. Don't believe me? Here it is:

The Siege in Burns, Oregon - The People's Sheriff 01/09/16

This guy is from Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, to be exact. That, in and of itself, should pretty much disqualify him from having any say whatsoever in how this incident is being handled in Oregon. But there's more. Oh, yes, there is much more. His 'opinion' (anecdotal evidence - more on that later) in this ongoing debacle disparages his professional colleague on-scene for his handling of this incident. You heard that right. He disses his own colleague....one of his own. Add to that his views are arguably and virulently anti-Federal government, and, well, you get the picture...at least I hope you do. Enough of that, though. Well, perhaps not.

What do these people want? No......really, what do these people want? Do they want the Federal government to be overthrown? No?

Ahhhh, now I get it. They want the Federal government to be reined in. Yup. That's it. Rein it in and make it function under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.....a document many of them profess to have intimate knowledge of because, don'tcha know, they carry a pocket version in their shirt pocket so they can be the actual Patriots they claim to be.

So, folks like these basically want to start over, to essentially go back to a time....how long ago was the Constitution signed? Well, I know it was over 200 years ago. Let's do the math. Ok, this year is 2016. Well, then, when was the Constitution signed? Bet you thought it was signed July 4, 1776 didn't you? Gotcha if you did.

The Constitution was signed September 17, 1787. Big gap there between July 4, 1776 and September 17, 1787, eh? But wait! It gets better.

The gap we're talking about saw a Revolutionary War for Independence and the establishment of a government that, by virtually all historical accounts, failed to work....the Articles of Confederation ring a bell? What happened in the interim? What went wrong, you ask?

Well, those Articles of Confederation vested almost ALL of the power with the states, not the central Federal government. Why is that important, you ask? Because nothing, nada, zip, zilch could really get accomplished because those states...the original 13 states, really couldn't agree on anything.

And some folks arguably want us to go back to a very similar time? A time when the central Federal government was severely limited in what it could do? By a strictly interpreted U.S. Constitution that was written a very long time ago? A time where most of the power in this country is vested with the states? What's that you say? The Constitution doesn't do that? Read the damn document, then. You're the folks that want the power of the Federal government to be limited to rein it in! But I digress....

Back on topic. How many times do I have to tell myself that in this essay?

The Constitution did not become the Law of the Land until it was ratified by nine of the original 13 states (Article VII of the Constitution, itself). So, it became the Supreme Law of the Land March 4, 1789 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it.

Ever hear of the Declaration of Independence? Now THAT document was actually signed July 4, 1776. That was the document I was playing gotcha with earlier when I asked about July 4, 1776. Yeah, that document....the one that was actually signed July 4, 1776! Yes, THAT document!

That's the document, the Declaration of Independence, the idiot 'People's Sheriff' above cited in his idiotic diatribe to justify his rant against the way the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is being handled by his colleague, one of his own. an elected official just like him, a County Sheriff just like him, someone with law enforcement authority WITHIN HIS OWN JURISDICTION TO DO WHAT HE DEEMS NECESSARY AND RIGHT to fulfill his duties and enforce the LAW!

Sorry, got a little carried away with the caps lock there.

Back on topic!

That's also the document, the Declaration of Independence, the idiot 'People's Sheriff' cites right around the 4 minute mark in the audio as giving the people the authority to overthrow the Federal government even though the Declaration of Independence is a formal list of grievances directed at the ENGLISH CROWN! Don't believe me? Listen to the DAMN AUDIO! And that 4 minute mark is when I STOPPED LISTENING TO THIS IDIOT!

So, in reality, those people really DO essentially want to overthrow the Federal government after all? Wait a minute! Hold that thought, DAMMIT!

The Declaration of Independence does not, I repeat, does NOT give anyone the authority to overthrow the Federal government! It's not even a 'legal' document giving anyone any authority to do anything. It's a LIST OF GRIEVANCES, nothing more....a list of grievances directed at the English Crown, not the Federal government of the United States of America! Sheesh!

Likewise, the U.S. Constitution does not, I repeat, does NOT give anyone anywhere at any time the authority to overthrow the Federal government of these United States of America, misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding! It's a legal document spelling out authorities of the Federal and state governments, but authority to overthrow those governments? Not so much.

Look it up in the Constitution, itself, if you don't believe me. Seditious Conspiracy? Yup. It's in there. Treason? Yup. It's in there. Overthrow? I dare anyone to find that authority. I DOUBLE DOG DARE ANYONE TO FIND THAT AUTHORITY ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION!

Sorry, caps lock got away from me once again. I'll try and refrain in the future. Blood pressure is slowly returning to a semblance of normal now. Deep breaths. Phew...sigh of relief.

Back on topic again.

Anyway, how many years does that add up to (or, more appropriately, subtract from)? Let's see.....2016 minus 1779....mumble, mumble....take from the 1, add to the 6, subtract the 9, that's 7. Oh, what the Hell....that's about 237 years ago that the Constitution took effect.

Has anything changed in this country in the interim? Anything at all? Seriously. I'm being very serious here. What has changed? Any changes in technology, perhaps? What about size? Does size matter? Oh, yeah....size matters, alright! Let's talk about size for a sec.

Being the ardent, passionate, and sometimes wannabe student of American History that I am, I sat down and asked myself some questions:

How many original states made up the U.S., and how far west in the North American landmass did they extend? Curious? Here they are:

But, wait! They're a lot bigger than they are today. Well, kind of. Some of those areas were actually claimed by those states as part of the Northwest Territory and other areas.

Next question:

What were the Northwest Ordinances United States [1784, 1785, 1787]? Well, this is where it gets a little more complicated. Some states ceded their claims to the central Federal government. Others, like Connecticut, held onto their claims for quite awhile before finally ceding their claims over.

Bottom line, this is westward expansion. Yes, indeedy, it is. It's been going on for a very long time.

What happened in 1803? Anyone? Louisiana Purchase ring a bell? More Westward expansion. Did the states buy all that land? Nope. Feds did it.

Alaska? Seward's 'Folly'? Who made that purchase? I don't think those states did, now did they?

Quite a few more 'acquisitions' in our history of Westward expansion beyond those listed here. How about the Gadsden Purchase (Tea Party Flag, anyone)? Maybe the Pacific Northwest (kinda where the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is located, methinks)? And then there's all that land ceded to the U.S. by Mexico (actually kinda, sorta forced to cede it, but hey....just a case of semantics, right?).

My point being the Federal government 'acquired', by hook or by crook, all that land. The individual states did not. Hell, they didn't even exist when those lands were incorporated into the nation as territories.

So, when someone advocates 'giving' these lands back to the states, the only thing I can say is what the HELL are you thinking? I mean, what the HELL are you THINKING?

There I go with the caps lock again. Sorry. Well, maybe not.

Back to the issue at hand: Either overthrowing the existing Federal government and starting over, or just throwing out everything, and I do mean everything including all the territories 'acquired' by the Federal government over the years of existence of this great nation and just 'giving' it to the states so they can sell it off to the highest bidder? To me, that's....well, that's insanity!

Advocating throwing the baby out with the bath water (the government being the baby, figuratively speaking, of course) kind of goes counter-intuitively, does it not? Hold that thought, will you.....

The people of this great nation enjoy some of the most envied freedoms of any nation in the world. Many of those freedoms are at the largess of the Federal government. And, yet, the so-called Patriot Militia groups, and many on the more 'conservative' side of the aisle rail against all things Federal government all the while accusing those of a more middle of the road persuasion of wanting more government intrusion in our lives. America: Love it or LEAVE it! I thought that one left the train station back in the 60's during the Vietnam War. Apparently not. Now it seems that phrase applies to anyone who dares to speak up for policies and programs of the Federal government that actually work for ALL of us.

Where does this animosity toward government come from? What's the genesis? And, even more to the point, what did the Federal 'government' do to those who rail against it specifically to cause this animosity?

We hear nebulous and vague accusations and allegations all the freaking time.

Them: Unconstitutional!
Me: What, specifically is unconstitutional?
Them: What's being said is unconstitutional.
Me: How so?
Them: It just is.
Me: How so? Is someone breaking the law?
Them: IMPEACH!
Me: On what grounds?
Them: Obama's a criminal!
Me: Has he been charged with a crime? Is the House of Representatives considering Articles of Impeachment?
Them: Get him out of office!
Me: On what grounds?
Them: Silence

Them: Our rights are being taken away!
Me: Which ones?
Them: Our guns!
Me: Have your guns been taken away?
Them: No, but Obama's coming for them any day now!
Me: He's had 7 years to do that. Don't you think it would have actually happened by now if he was serious about it?
Them: Silence.

Them: We gotta take our country back because we love it so much!
Me: Back from what? Back TO what?
Them: What it was under the Constitution.
Me: You mean the U.S. Constitution that's still in effect today?
Them: That Constitution has been bastardized over the years and doesn't mean anything anymore. The Federal government has nullified it over the years.
Me: You mean the Federal government that still has three branches of government, and a time tested and proven system of checks and balances?
Them: Obama is a dictator!
Me: How so?
Them: He bypasses Congress all the time, and he's coming for our guns!
Me: You mean he bypasses Congress via Executive Orders? And the gun thingy? I think we've already discussed that one.
Them: Yes, Executive Orders. That's it. They're unconstitutional.
Me: Like those Executive Orders issued by every single President preceding Obama all the way back to George Washington?
Them: Prove it!
Me: Ok, here's a link: Presidential Executive Orders
Them: Well....well....bluster, bluster.

Are we starting to get a picture here, to be able to detect a pattern?

I've had these conversations.....many times.....over and over. I think I'm getting tired, maybe even exhausted.

You know, ignorance isn't a derogatory term. No, it isn't. It's a descriptive term to describe a situation where there's a lack of knowledge on a particular subject. It doesn't make one stupid. If someone is ignorant, it means they just don't know about something. That's not a bad thing, necessarily. What IS a bad thing, though, is something called 'willful' ignorance. That...that right there...can be, and often times is, dangerous, the Bundy Bunch takeover in Oregon notwithstanding.

The issue at hand is that, even when presented with factual data and evidence based on factual data, some absolutely refuse to accept it. Instead, they feel compelled to rely on anecdotal evidence presented by those 'in the know' somehow.....the talking heads, the pundits, the 24-hour news (or should I say 'entertainment') outlets. Radio talk show hosts. Their 'contributors'. Am I leaving anyone out? I'm sure I am. But, the thing is, nobody seems willing to go directly to the source for their info. They'd rather rely on someone not directly involved, those talking heads in the media, to get their information from. Or they cite things coming straight from the horse's mouth, or ass depending on which side of the fence that horse might be on, for their 'factual' data. That's anecdotal, folks. Anecdotal is NOT factual. QED. Have you ever wondered why the media seek out those on-scene for their sound bites? It's because those sound bites are sensational. They're the news that makes the headlines, the news that keeps those media talking heads in the business of selling their stories. The more sensational the sound bites, the more people have a tendency to get sucked in, one side or the other.

Ever wonder why those media folks seek out the emotionally traumatized victims following a mass shooting? I'll give you three guesses and the first ten don't count.

On the ground reporting, and on the ground participants in whatever is going on do not, I repeat, do NOT an accurate picture portray!

My point on this being far too many folks have a rudimentary, basic knowledge of what goes on, but when presented with factual evidence, they choose to continue their diatribes against the Federal government wherever and whenever they can. Does that make them a 'Patriot'? Is their 'Patriotism' more 'Patriotic' than my 'Patriotism'? These are legitimate questions, folks.

Do those who post this kind of animosity toward the Federal government truly love our country? Our Constitution? Our way of life?

It's been said (earliest quote on this has been attributed to Sinclair Lewis):

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

Think about that. No, really.....think about that and how it might just apply to the good old U.S. of A. right here, right now.

Folks, the Internet is our friend....until it's not. 'Google that shit', or GTS for short, may necessarily become our means to an end. It's been said the world is our oyster. Maybe that should be changed to the Internet is our oyster. Search and learn. Learn and then search some more. That's the only way to gain a better understanding in all of this. Remember, the Internet is our friend.

When I back out of a discussion because it's getting too hard to remain civil to the author (just happened recently), does it mean I've thrown out the baby with the bath water? Or did I just throw in the towel? It all just seems so.....well, so counter-intuitive sometimes.

A wise person.....well, it was really a whole bunch of wise people, a class of students, actually, a roster of students from an adult education class I was teaching in, a lot of students in possession of a lot more experience in the field than I had, the one I was an instructor in and was teaching them (oh, the irony).... once told me:

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".

I don't want to believe that is true, but when it comes to what's going on in this country, I sometimes gotta wonder. Truth is, I think those students were trying to tell me something, something that might help me better understand how the world related specifically to my profession works in the real world. I'd just started my new job with the agency I worked for after my promotion, and I was idealistic to a fault. That book learnin' I'd gone through myself didn't exactly make me a practitioner of what I was trying to teach....not at that time anyway. Later on in my life? Oh, yeah! So when those students presented me with a sign with the above quote written on it at the end of the class, it left me wondering if I'd done my job, if what I tried to impart meant anything to them....anything at all. It wasn't until everyone was saying goodbye and parting ways to go home that one of the class participants came up to me and told me he would take as many classes that I was willing to be an instructor in. Turns out, the participants in that class gave me that sign to try and let me know I'd hit the nail on the head for them; that, finally, they'd participated in a course where more was done than was said....a difference had been made. I'll never forget that moment, that class.

Thus far, the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has pretty much been bluster from the Bundy Bunch....provocative bluster, to be sure. But bluster nonetheless. I'm hoping it stays that way. Not sure that it will, but there's always hope, eh? More will be said than done? Somehow, I don't believe this is the last we'll be hearing from the Bundy Bunch, or groups and individuals like them.


* Comments on this blog are moderated.