Mass Killings and Our Insanity Plea

I first rejected the idea of writing about the mass killings and scores of wounded in Colorado last week. There was already so much being said, and emotions were running high in the country, as we tried to come to grips with yet another mass killing. This horrible incident is another in a line of killings that seem to confound reason, and leave us all wondering why this happens. In just the few years alone, we have seen the Columbine killings, the Virginia Teach massacre, the Fort Hood rampage, and the mass shooting in Tucson  that left six dead and a sitting Congresswoman terribly injured. Each time this happens the nation weeps, the nation angers, and the politicians bluster- fearful of saying anything meaningful. The news reporters spend about two or three weeks speculating about the crimes and the criminals. Many of us are caught up in the water-cooler conversations or the earnest talks at family gatherings. We digest each new bit of information about the killers or their childhoods, then apply our best analytical thoughts in search of the reason why it happened. I thought I had nothing new to say, so why get in the conversation? Then it struck me- the reason to comment now is that in a few weeks we will have forgotten about this, like most of the incidents that came before it.

We have adopted an attention span so short that even the most horrific, shocking, and despicable acts fade from our consciousness very quickly. I would guess that most of us (me included) can't remember the name of the young man who shot Gabrielle Giffords and killed the folks in Tucson. You see, once the shock has passed, the dead are buried, and the survivors have resumed their lives, all we are left with is the disturbed young man who shot them and the cold comfort that he will never be free again. We have decided (as a culture) that anyone who can commit such a crime must be insane. We can only cope with these acts by saying they represent insanity- while at the same time loathing the "insanity" defence because we want accountability and punishment. We cannot understand such crimes, so we place the perpetrators in some other-worldly category that allows us to pass it off as too bizarre and impossible to fix. Because we've given these crimes this label we have, in a way, given ourselves permission to do nothing about it- and the mass killings continue.

I contend the insanity of these acts is more useful to us, than it is useful to the perpetrators who commit these awful crimes. As long as we believe that the people who commit these crimes "are so crazy" that no law or no regulation could have possibly stopped them, we can take comfort in never really examining aspects of our society that might have contributed to these events.

Lets step back for just a moment and look at the recipe for these mass killings. They all have the same ingredients. They are mostly committed by young, white men from middle or upper-middle class backgrounds. These young men are social outcasts- most with undiagnosed mental health problems. Others around them note bizarre or unusual behavior, but little or nothing is ever done about it because they stay just on the fringe of functioning. They all have some sort of delusional thinking, but are seen as being bright. And they have access to firearms that are legally obtained. So that's the recipe: Mentally deranged young men with access to massive amounts of fire-power. A friend of mine noted that "crazy is everywhere". In a complex society of over 310 million people such as ours, with so much personal freedom, the odds are good that "crazy" is just about everywhere. There is very little we can do to change that part of the recipe- so it makes sense to change the other part of the recipe. We can limit the availability of the other ingredient: firearms.

Guns in this culture are the sacred cow- Untouchable! The National Rifle Association has used incredible amounts of money and political influence to create the false notion that guns and freedom are completely synonymous and inseparable. There was a time when the NRA actually promoted gun control laws that were reasonable and appropriate. Those times are gone. The NRA is now so "absolutist" that they now promote the idea that any restriction (no matter how reasonable) is unacceptable. Once we get past the actual event- the most disturbing thing about the incident in Colorado is that James Holmes did not break any laws until he pulled the first pin on the gas canister and fired the first shot in that movie house. He was able to arm himself with a military assault rifle, semi automatic handguns, thousands of rounds of ammo, explosives and full tactical gear without ever breaking a law, or even coming to any one's attention. All the ingredients for this recipe were there -and they were all legal. Any lawmaker who dares to inject, even the slightest bit, of common sense into this debate (i.e limiting access to any weapon) will be targeted for defeat by the NRA. The promoters of this gun culture even have many of our fellow Americans convinced that we need more guns on the street in order to curb gun violence. There is not one legitimate bit of data that even remotely suggests that more guns will reduce gun violence- because "law abiding gun owners" will shoot the bad guys. That argument is child-like in its simplicity and it's incorrectness. We train police officers for years to respond to gun violence and they frequently make mistakes- yet we are told to believe that "some guy" with a concealed carry permit can just coolly and proficiently "take out" a crazed gunman with military weapons and body armour in a crowded, panicked, public setting. That is nonsense and it is dangerous thinking.

Every time one of these mass killings happen we have a fleeting conversation about limiting access to firearms. But then the NRA reminds us that "guns don't kill people- people kill people." This time we should actually have the conversation. But not just about the sensational killings that grab the national headlines- we should talk about all the gun killings. On 9-11-01 we lost 3000 people to terrorists. As a result we waged two wars over the last ten years-spent a trillion dollars on homeland security- and gave up a number of personal freedoms. Last year alone over 9000 people were murdered with guns and we can't even have a rational debate on this topic. (in Great Briton the number was 39 last year). The data is clear that every country in the western world that has strict and reasonable gun control laws has many times less gun violence incidents and gun fatalities than we do. The truth is that these are free and democratic societies too. The numbers and the raw data prove this point beyond doubt- but our culture ignores these facts in favor of false beliefs about the necessity of guns. That is our insanity plea. They say that doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Doing nothing (in the face of overwhelming evidence) over and over again while expecting a different result- is also insanity.

We must re-think the propaganda that "guns don't kill people....." In fact "people with guns kill people." Again the evidence is absolutely clear. In America we are eight times more likely to be killed by gun violence than any other developed country. In States with the highest gun ownership rates we also see the highest rates of gun fatalities from assault, and suicide with guns. There is a direct correlation between the easy availability and ownership of firearms and the deaths associated with them. In the sensational cases the "gun people" will tell you that the killer was so bent on killing-so disturbed, they would have found another way. Statistically that just doesn't hold up. Even if it did, we have to ask: why make it easy?

I am not arguing for abolishing all gun ownership in our country. There is a place for limited ownership of firearms. But our sensibilities about guns have been so skewed by the NRA, and the politicians they own, that we have lost our reason on this topic. When Ted Nugent has become the spokesman for American culture, and the authority on our safety- we have indeed accepted the insanity plea.

Gun ownership needs to be limited. Legitimate gun ownership cannot include assault weapons, extended ammo clips and magazines, and the host of other gun industry inventions, whose sole purpose is to kill as any PEOPLE as possible in the shortest time possible. I know there will be those who read this or other similar opinions and disagree entirely and very strongly. I only ask that those who hold those views do the research. Look at the options and weigh the consequences for a society such as ours. Getting rid of the assault weapons is a good place to start and a good first step on the road to a safer country- not a more dangerous one. Remember we lost 3000 on 9-11, but we've lost 99,000 since then to gun violence. Now compare our national responses. Reasonable people have to know that the numbers tell us we must start limiting the availability of guns and begin a cultural change that makes sense. If we can't- then we have accepted "insanity". We can be shocked - angered- or saddened when the next shooting happens- but we can't be surprised.

Thanks for looking in.

Now What?

Last November I wrote a piece called “High Priests and Football Coaches”. It was an essay about the Penn State scandal involving retired Assistant Football Coach Jerry Sandusky, who had just been arrested and charged with a series of sexual offenses perpetrated against young boys. The charges went back many years, and showed a clear pattern of predatory sexual behavior towards children. I went on to discuss the issues involving people who knew, or should have known, that this behavior had been going on for years- much of it right at Penn State facilities. I pointed out that in this case there was even an eye witness to one event, a rare occurrence in sexual abuse cases. I discussed how the worship of football clouded the judgment of people who chose to protect the prestigious Penn State Nittany Lion football program and their legendary coach, rather than protect children from horrific sexual abuse. At the time I was fairly sure I was on firm ground about the facts, or at least, what I thought were the facts. In truth, at that time the case had not been tried, and the jury was quite literally “still out”.

Well, that has changed. The jury is back, and they delivered an overwhelming guilty verdict on nearly every charge brought against Sandusky. If you followed the news during the trial, you heard heartbreaking testimony from many of the victims who are now young adults. Every one of these young men were asked why they didn’t speak up more forcefully to stop their abuser. Each had the same answer. They were convinced that no one would believe them because Sandusky and those who harbored him in the world of Penn State football were too powerful. This is much the same reason given by the legions of children who could not defend themselves against the abuse they suffered at the hands of scores of Catholic Priests. The children were right!

Another jury, of sorts, has also rendered a verdict in this case. About two weeks ago a law firm hired by Penn State released an exhaustive report on this entire sordid matter. The University was essentially forced into conducting this investigation of itself due to the public outcry, asking the question: how could this happen? So they hired the law firm headed up by Louis Freeh. Mr. Freeh is the former Director of the FBI, and by all accounts a reputable man, with the ability to conduct this investigation and have it go where it leads. Of course Mr. Freeh’s report laid out in plain language the answer as to how this could happen. It was the answer we all knew was coming.

The report made several major findings. I won’t list them all here, but the major indictment was that the most important men at this institution knew of Sandusky’s crimes and purposely decided not to do anything about it for fear it would reflect badly on the legendary football program and the god-like coach Joe Paterno. The very first finding in the report says there was “a striking lack of empathy for the child sex abuse victims”. This report isn’t about the crime- it’s about the cover-up. Mr. Freeh and his team documented how this cover-up was orchestrated by the University President, Vice President-Provost, Athletic Director, and Joe Paterno himself.

The story is very similar to the story we saw played out around this country and several other countries when the crimes of Catholic Priests were knowingly covered up by the Bishops under the winking eye of the Vatican. The very last finding in the executive summary of Freeh’s report says this all happened due to the “reverence for the football program”. All the details are in the report, and can be accessed on the internet. The next question is : Now what?

Admittedly, I have a biased point of view. My bias is the result of many years in close proximity to child abuse cases through my career. I also possess a moral and political bias against those with money and power who can victimize the helpless with impunity- those, who when caught, just commission a report then walk back into the comfort of their self-made kingdoms while the victims are left to suffer. So here’s my suggestion about what to do now. In my view the NCAA should impose the “Death Penalty” on the Penn State football program. In NCAA parlance, the Death Penalty means that Penn State should not be allowed to have a football program for certain number of years. No team. No games. No football scholarships. No Football.

If that seems a harsh position, it is. However, I can think of no better reason to impose this harshest of penalties than to make the point that football (with all the money and cultural hoopla it engenders) became more important than the welfare of children being violated and victimized.  Given what we knew (instinctively) back in November, and what we know now without doubt- it is a matter of our values as a society. The power and influence of this sport and the institution that profited from it turned those who, were otherwise good and learned men, into criminal shills who sacrificed children to protect their empire, their status, and their money. What is truly sad is that a modicum of good judgment and decency some years ago would have been better for them, better for Penn State, and infinitely better for the victims who came later because the leadership at Penn State turned their eyes from a monster in their midst. If they had just acted on their knowledge at the first report of it, they could have been heroes and honorable men. But they chose to cover it up instead, just as the Catholic Church did. The consequences are tragic- and the punishment needs to be equally as harsh.

I can hear the cries now. “What about the young athletes who are there now?”” They had nothing to do with this- why should their lives be changed?” “What about all the people who make a living from Penn State football? They didn’t do anything wrong.” (Penn State football is an $83 million enterprise annually- with a $53 million profit for the school). Ordinarily, I’m not one to suggest punishing the innocent for the sins of the fathers. But in this case it must be done! The NCAA, (and, in fact) all of us must send a message loud and clear that football and the power elite in sports are not more important than our values as a people. It’s easy to hide behind the notion that this was just an anomaly- a weird, one-time case. But we know it goes deeper than that.  We know that the power of this idol we’ve come to worship can change our character and cause us to do things we would not normally do- like sacrifice children. So, in spite of the fact that many people who had nothing to do with these events will suffer, we have to impose a penalty so awful, that this will never happen again. I’m not suggesting this will stop the Sandusky’s of the future- but it will stop the coaches, Athletic Directors, and University Presidents from sacrificing children (or any victim) to protect their golden sports calf.

Right now the Regents of Penn State are deciding about continuing to display a statue of Joe Paterno.  This goes well beyond a statue- it should be about the idolatry of football in our culture that allowed this to happen. We can still have our sports and enjoy the great things that sports give us, provided we don’t give up our decency as a people along with it.

Thanks for looking in. 

Good Willy

Anyone my age, or close to my age may remember a familiar image from a series of television ads that ran in the mid-sixties. It was a time when television sets were a piece of furniture with fine wooden appointments and great workmanship on the cabinet of the set, like the old black and white Zenith at our house. Some of you will remember the era. If you do, then you probably also remember a cartoon image of a young boy named Good Willy. Good Willy was pictured as a boy in a wheelchair, all smiles, in overalls, wearing a cap on his head and holding a lunch bucket- eager to get to work. This animated character appeared in public service ads from Goodwill Industries. The ads encouraged the hiring of “handicapped” people. There were also some live-action ads (again featuring people in wheelchairs), but the real poster boy for Goodwill Industries and their campaign to “hire the handicapped” was Good Willy.

If you remember that time, then you also know that the sixties weren’t the kindest of times for the disabled, the disenfranchised, or minorities. It was a time when the social consciousness of the country was just beginning to come alive- but it wasn’t the tidal wave of change we eventually ended up with. At that time the handicapped were more pitied than valued, and certainly never considered a viable part of the workforce. Then, we used words like “cripples” or “shut in’s” to describe those who weren’t up to the physical perfections the powerful Madison Avenue types were convincing us defined “All-American”. If you don’t believe me, just check out an episode or two of the great television series “Mad Men”. The less than perfect were hidden away and devalued in every way. That is, until Goodwill Industries pioneered the effort to bring disabled people into view, and convince the business world that the disabled could be a valuable part of the national workforce. Goodwill’s efforts, and the living proof offered by millions of disabled workers over the decades since, have changed the complexion and nature of the modern workforce. Today we think nothing of seeing, or working side-by-side, with people of all sorts of abilities and disabilities. The image of Good Willy helped make that happen. 

About a month ago I began working for Goodwill Industries of the Inland Northwest. I took a job as the Regional Manager for Workforce and Family Services. That job is essentially managing the programs and staff that assist Goodwill participants to find work, or connect with other services in the community. I have to admit that when I accepted the job my image of Goodwill was largely informed by that old concept from my days as a kid, seeing Good Willy commercials on daytime TV, and occasional forays into Goodwill stores. Then too, I’m sure most of us have had the experience of donating our old household items and clothing to Goodwill- and perhaps doing a little shopping in the stores. The Goodwill name is synonymous with the second-hand store model. I won’t recount the origins and history of the Goodwill model, but it’s fascinating and easily researched via the Internet.

I must also admit that my new experience of working for Goodwill Industries has been a true eye-opener. I was shocked to see how the organization has changed, evolved, and grown compared to my antiquated notions from Good Willy’s day. Today Goodwill Industries continues to perfect the retail and production models they’re known for. But that’s just a piece of the overall picture that makes up the organization. To be sure Goodwill is still a leader in providing employment to people of all abilities, but they have widened their scope to include services to a whole range of other folks in the community, going well beyond the days of Good Willy. 

Today Goodwill uses a modern corporate structure to support a wide variety of services in the community most of us aren’t aware of. The image of the eager boy in the wheelchair is still alive, but now that image would include potential aero-space industry employees doing technical testing for high-tech job placement, U.S. military veterans seeking employment after their service, young kids from our neighborhoods involved in Mentoring Programs and partnerships with businesses (large and small) seeking qualified workers . Goodwill Industries is one of the leading contractors with government (Federal-State-and Local) to fulfill their mission of putting people back to work. You see, Goodwill doesn’t just take in your used goods to provide work to a few disabled people, fixing and re-selling that old lamp- Goodwill reaches well beyond those stores and collection centers to the very heart of the economy.  Last year Goodwill Industries placed over a 189,000 disadvantaged or displaced people in good paying jobs nation-wide.

If I sound impressed and a bit proud- that’s because I am. I also want to emphasize again how private enterprises like Goodwill Industries are part of a very intricate web combining government and private non-profit organizations to meet the needs of so many of our neighbors. Those who endlessly clamor for huge cuts to government programs aren’t telling you the whole story. That’s because the whole story is complicated and interwoven with services most of us value, and want to see continued. But those notions don’t fit nicely into a political ad. The truth is that many of the folks you assume are beneficiaries of great organizations like Goodwill could not be served unless those agencies partnered with government. Even a model as time-tested and well known as the Goodwill model still needs to affiliated with government to do the work they do. There are many similar agencies, like Volunteers of America and Catholic Charities all working together to create a fabric that helps our country and helps those in our country who just need a hand to join the mainstream. Thinking back to the days of Good Willy is a great reminder that we can’t go backwards in our efforts to include all of our neighbors in the effort to spread human dignity.

Thanks for looking in.

The Declaration of Inter-Dependence

Last week we celebrated another national birthday. That makes 236 since the original 4^th of July, Independence Day.  I took the occasion to go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Since so many of us, and so very many politicians, are fond of referencing this marvelous document, it is good to remind ourselves of what’s actually in it. It is a truly remarkable document. Thomas Jefferson was the chief author and he was masterful in laying out the case for independence from the Crown of England. The first part of the document sets out the philosophical basis under which people form government and why it is justifiable to form new governments when certain conditions exist. In doing so, Jefferson laid the foundations of our values as a people. 

The next part of the Declaration is a long, specific list of grievances against the King of England and his treatment of the people living in the thirteen colonies. I noted that none of the list of particulars mentioned (the lack of) democracy per se. They were specific indictments based on particular wrongs that usually accompany the treatment of people by a dictatorial leader. The last sentence of the declaration is the one I paid the most attention to. It reads in part, “…we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”  The Declaration was then signed by fifty-six delegates, representing the thirteen colonies. Many of the signers did indeed lose their fortunes and/or their lives. The men who signed this Declaration were taking a tremendous risk in order to secure a form of government based on the consent of the governed. These were brave men taking a bold step to form a government made of laws and based on the good of the people.

No doubt the times were contentious, and there was serious political rancor and debate. What could be more serious than to stand against the most powerful nation in the world and declare yourself free of them?  However in the final analysis their pledge was mutual. They were taking an oath to each other to stand for the right of the people to govern themselves.  They were declaring their independence from Great Britton, but just as importantly they were declaring their inter-dependence on each other. They knew they must stand together against the British, or they could not prevail. They knew that no matter what their differences they had an obligation to come together in the end to accomplish their goal of forming a new nation. What a contrast to the political leaders we see today.

The idea of mutually pledging our efforts towards the governance of our founding father’s idea of a great new nation is lost. Political divisiveness has taken the place of a mutual pledge to serve the people. The Republicans in the Congress, almost to a person, have taken a pledge to Grover Norquist that seems to supersede their oath of office. Under threat of a primary challenge to their precious congressional seat, these Republicans have vowed never to vote for a tax- even when they privately admit we need revenues. Our founders risked far more than a political contest- and I believe they would be ashamed of those who are now in charge of living out their legacy of a representative Republic.

This issue was even more keenly brought into focus last week as the debate over health care and the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Health Care Act was boiling over in State capitals and on the news.  The gist of it was this: The Supreme Court announced its decision UPHOLDING the law passed a few years ago. In response several Congressmen, all R’s- and several Senators, all R’s have publically stated that a Supreme Court decision doesn’t make something “constitutional”. Actually that’s exactly what it means. Again I invoke the founders, and the framers who authored our Constitution. Today’s political leaders will say anything with no regard for truth. I suggest you read Leonard Pitt”s column from last week on the topic of truthfulness in government. Pitts does a great job of explaining this problem.  I have to believe that those who risked everything to form this nation would not approve of what our government has become. 

In the ultimate act of disregard for governance- or mutual support of our nation’s laws, several Republican Governors are now refusing to implement the law. I’m not sure what authority a Governor has to unilaterally decide, for political reasons that they stand above the laws enacted by Congress, signed by the Chief Executive, and upheld by the Supreme Court. In truth, they don’t have that authority and they will never be able to deny their states’ citizens the same laws and protections the rest of the country will have. But, they can sure sound tough. All this posturing is over the argument that the Affordable Health Care includes a “tax”- as opposed to a “penalty” if people choose not to have insurance. It seems a silly distinction, since the financial burden is the same either way. It’s like arguing whether a traffic fine is a tax or a penalty for speeding. Either way you pay, and either way there is a way to avoid the cost-follow the law!

It’s easy to get ourselves lost in the weeds of the political debate over tax vs. penalty, during this contentious political season. Our politics have become so bitter and polarizing that we have truly lost the idea of inter-dependence the founders had. Only four years ago most Americans saw health care reform as the top domestic priority for the country. Why? Because our system doesn’t work well, and it is crippling our economy, and our personal financial security. Last week Senator McConnell again said we have “the finest health care in the world.” Not true- we have the best medical practices, but not the best system. We have the most expensive health care, we have highest percentage of citizens without coverage of any major nation- but we are way down the list of good health care outcomes as a nation. About 45,000 Americans die prematurely every year because they don’t have health care coverage. If foreign terrorists killed 45,000 of us every year we would go to war with the whole planet to stop it. Now we are arguing over tax vs. penalty- while the 45,000 continue to die per annum and nobody even mentions why this got started in the first place. The real debate should return to the issue of improving the health care of the nation. Obama Care was a start- now we should get on with the business of improving it.

Americans pride ourselves on our Independence but refuse to acknowledge our inter-dependence on one another- an unfortunate cultural trait. Part of that inter-dependence is the relationship between the citizens and the institutions of a government that exists by the “consent of the Governed”. The founders new that. The framers of the Constitution knew it by saying in the preamble of the Constitution “in order to form a more perfect Union”. Our citizens need to demand that our elected leaders stop pointing the finger of blame at the other party and begin honoring the heritage and traditions of those who formed this country, by acting together to govern in the interest of the People.

Benjamin Franklin said: “We must all hang together gentlemen, else we will assuredly all hang separately”

Thanks for looking in. 

Molly"s Story: Part 3

Self-determination. Independence. Self-control. Taken to the extreme- control freak.  No matter what we call it, most of us want to believe that we have control over our lives. It is that part of personal freedom that we value because it means that we are in charge of ourselves, and we need that. I’m beginning this part of Molly’s story on the theme of control because this issue struck me very squarely the last time I visited with her.

My friend Molly is a 34 year old woman.  She is married and the mother of a six year old daughter. Molly has breast cancer. She learned of her cancer last September. She went through the screening and testing at an unusually early age, because her mother had just gone through breast cancer treatment. That made Molly a high risk candidate.  So the news that she actually had breast cancer was a severe blow to her and her family.  The early events included months of tests and planning to determine just how the battle would be fought. Molly has a disadvantage in this battle that most cancer patients don’t have. She is also a type 1 diabetic. Diabetics have a very complicated life without the issue of cancer to deal with. Imagine how complicated it is to deal with both.  Added to that, Molly’s husband lost his job due to his employer’s wish to rid themselves of a high-cost insurance liability. Nonetheless these young parents have persevered.  Jeremy got a new job almost right away and Molly set about the business of starting her cancer treatment. She began a very rigorous course of Chemo therapy in early January.

I visited with her in March after she had been through about two and half months of Chemo. As we talked about her experiences with cancer treatment she explained how the Chemo therapy had robbed her of control in her own life. It was the treatment and the disease itself that determined her daily schedule. She no longer had the power to decide on the events of her days. She was required to be at the treatment center almost every day- she was required to stay for hours each time- and she was required to endure the horrendous side effects from the Chemo. Among the side effects she was forced to accept were the changes she had to make in the time she spent with her daughter, disruptions in patterns of meals, and sleepless nights-followed by days of fatigue. She experienced bone-crushing pain in her joints at first, along with many other small but annoying ailments as her body reacted to the poison she took in. And, of course she lost her hair.

Then a few weeks ago I had the chance to see her again. I had been trying to contact her for a while and hadn’t gotten a response. I never get upset when I don’t hear right back from her. I know that when that happens, it’s because she’s doing what she needs to do, and she’s entitled. Nonetheless I was very pleased when she called and we had a chance to share a lunch together and get caught up. Incidentally, the reason I hadn’t heard from her was that over the previous few weeks, the last of her side effects was a dangerous drop in white blood cell count- making her weak and unable to expose herself to any potential  infections.

As we talked I learned that Molly had just come to the end of this most rigorous course of treatment. From now on she will be engaging in a much less demanding (and less painful) schedule of Chemo.  As our conversation went on it became clear that Molly is all about regaining lost control in her life. Her spirits were much better and we talked about many things. Most of what we talked about were not directly connected to her cancer-but strangely were all indirectly connected to her condition. For instance, she has a new hobby. She has taken up target shooting with hand guns, and is now totally taken by it. I think a friend first asked her to go shooting a short time ago, and she has since gone a few more times, including once or twice with her dad.

I thought about why this might be such an appealing activity. I concluded that the act of firing a gun is one that conveys total control to the marksman. I’m not a gun person myself, though I have fired many weapons before, and I can attest to the sense of power and control that comes with firing a handgun or a rifle. I must confess I get a similar charge from shooting my bow. But in Molly’s case, I believe she must relish the feeling of having a powerful instrument in her hand, that only she controls. This must be such a contrast to the lack of control associated with cancer treatment and the endless hours of suffering consultants and medical experts.

Molly also talked about how she is re-exerting more control over her own body. She talked about slowing regaining energy and how she plans to deal with her hair as it starts to grow back. These are all aspects of reclaiming one’s self from the slavery of invasive medical treatment. I felt very happy for her. I felt like she was coming back into her own. 

There will more parts to this story to come. It is not over. The next phase of treatment will now involve the surgical procedures. She let me know that as early as next month she will likely undergo a double mastectomy. After that she will start the reconstruction phase of surgery. But in a way these parts of her treatment won’t have the same sense of lost control that the first horrible round of Chemo had. The shock has been experienced and she lived through it. This is still a long haul to finish this journey. She still appreciates support from family and friends- some who have risen to great heights of friendship and love, while others have waned into their own lives and don’t call much anymore. There is no long-suffering self-pity in her. Her attitude and resolve are defiant, determined, and full of grit. She is back in control.  As always, I marvel at her determination to win this battle and come out the other end with a new lease on a long life as a mother, a wife, a friend, and a truly unique woman.  To be continued…….

Thanks for looking in.