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.