Molly's Story: Part 4

Mastectomy. Double mastectomy. I cannot imagine what these words must mean to a woman who has been told that she has breast cancer. I cannot image what feelings these words might evoke for any woman. In late September of last year my young friend Molly (age 34) told me that she had just been diagnosed with Breast Cancer. Over the next several months she went through the relentless gauntlet of medical tests to determine what her treatment plan would be. I was fortunate to maintain contact with her during that time, and to hear first-hand about her experiences. For a while last fall she, and the various specialists she consulted with, weighed the options and the ramifications of treatments and surgeries she might have to face. As she and I talked about these things during our occasional visits, I tried my very best to imagine the feelings she was having. I tried to place myself in the emotional space she was occupying, so that I might develop a type of empathy that would help me understand her better. I never wanted to go down the road of sympathy- because she refused herself the luxury of that emotion, but I did want to understand it all better. Fairly early on in the planning for treatment she knew that would have a double mastectomy. As hard as I tried, I could never imagine how it must have felt to know this surgery was imminent, and what could be going through a young woman’s mind at the thought of it. I think that is something only a woman can feel.

Though we try to understand- and I think there are plenty of men who care about the women in their lives and want to understand and help them in a time like this- this particular surgery has a special significance for the women who are afflicted with this awful disease. I thought about what this would be like for my wife or my daughters, and wondered if I would have the ability to be empathetic and as supportive as I should be. I honestly don’t know. But having Molly share her experience with me, and allowing me to write about it is a gift. It’s a gift because she’s giving me a new depth of understanding about this disease and a new depth of understanding about how we all deal with it. I accept this new knowledge and understanding with gratitude.

About a week and half ago I saw Molly for the first time following her double mastectomy. I have to admit to my own emotional frailty, because as much as I wanted to see her I was privately a bit apprehensive about seeing her following this radical surgery. After all, I’ve known her since she was twelve when she played softball with my daughters and my nieces. I reconnected with her many years later quite by accident. I needed a quick haircut and just by happenstance, I ended up in her chair at Super Cuts. She’s been cutting my hair and being my friend ever since. My wife and I were at her wedding, and I photographed it for her and Jeremy. I did the first photos of her precious daughter and taken many other pictures of her and her family along the way. Intuitively I knew what to expect when I saw her, but still…… . I was even a bit more nervous when she asked me to bring the camera when I came to see her. “Oh god, does she want pictures of the surgery site? Am I up to that?” Well, she didn't exactly want that -but the photos she wanted were just what she and I both needed. I’ll explain.

After about two minutes with her I was just elated. Molly’s story about the week she had surgery, and how she is feeling in the aftermath was truly amazing, and I might even say inspirational. In my earlier stories about Molly I tried to capture some aspect of her experience that doesn’t often get told. She has been pretty open with me about her fears, her anger, her frustrations, and her pain. I’ve written about her loss of control through the six-months of hard chemo therapy, and how she was regaining herself after she ended the rigors of chemo- only to face the double mastectomy. She told me that when she did her last pre-op visit with the surgeons she “lost it”. I’m not exactly sure what that was like, but I know Molly is an emotionally demonstrative person and I’m guessing that if she “lost it” it was probably kind of loud and out there for the world to see. She told me, “I just needed to do that.” After 10 months of anticipation, worry, and anxiety waiting to have your breasts removed, I get that- at least the anxiety part. She went on to say that after that little breakdown, she got herself together and just went through it.

Here’s where it gets amazing. She told me that when she woke up from surgery she felt really at peace with the surgery and herself. She said she knew it was going to be OK, and that she could now really concentrate on getting better- and she was looking forward to the reconstructive work. It was almost like the terroble burden of fear and anxiety was lifted. I’m sure she feels some loss, but she seemed genuinely happy that this phase was over. I didn’t see sorrow or grieving. Everything about her was forward looking- everything was about the future. She even joked about being able to “shop for some new boobs”. She talked about the light-hearted negotiation going on between her and the plastic surgeon over size. She’s always said, “go big- or go home”. We’ll see who wins that battle- but my money is on Molly.

She wanted me to get some pictures of her at this time because she finds it important to “document” her journey. Now that the most radical aspects of her treatment have occurred (The Chemo and the surgery) she truly sees this as a journey. I think she knows that because of all she’s gone through, she able to look down the road towards the rest of her life. She’s still in a lot of pain but she removed her top to reveal a tightly wrapped ace bandage around her chest. The drainage tubes have been removed and she is healing. She also showed her head to me for the first time since January. Her hair has just begun to grow back. I couldn’t help but just feel happy for her- and with her. I did not see a ruined body- I saw a saved life. After all that talk about her surgery, I asked about the Cancer itself. She said the pathology report indicated they have removed it all. She can’t say just yet that she’s totally free of cancer- but it’s looking pretty good! And that’s the best news of all. I have been honored to help her document her journey in both pictures and words. I can't thank her enough for allowing me this view, and for giving me  permission to share it with you.

I’m not sure if I’ll do another installment of Molly’s story. If so, there will probably be only one more article- but no more than that. If there is one more, it will likely just be about a brave young woman who has put this terrible year behind her for good, and is now looking forward to resuming a life with her husband, daughter, family and friends. The happiest part of this road so far is seeing that the end of this strange and painful trip through cancer is near- and that she has survived it.

Thanks for looking in.

The Forbidden Subject

It has been quite a week for politics, hasn’t it? Last weekend Mr. Romney announced his choice for a running mate, in Rep. Paul Ryan. Quite a few pundits chimed in with the observation that this was a ”bold” move. I suppose it was bold because Mr. Romney broke his usual pattern and went for someone (or something) that reflected a defined position. You have to admit he has a history of being pretty wishy-washy. Even when he ventures out to a clearly defined position, either he or one of his close aids ends up “walking it back”, as the news guys say. At least Rep. Paul Ryan has helped define this race a little more clearly. There is nothing ambiguous about where Paul Ryan stands on the issue of the economy. He’s a committed fiscal ultra-conservative who went way out on a political limb last year with the “Ryan Budget”. He’s a devotee of the Ayn Rand philosophy, and he is willing to back it up with an actual proposal that reflects that philosophy.

I have been saying for some time, in several of these articles, that this election cycle is going to be a cultural crossroad. It is about clear choices, and the selection of Paul Ryan just adds some bright lines to the choice. I think that’s a good thing. For too long our Government has been too timid to actually govern, creating perpetual gridlock. Those in the Congress have failed to tackle the big issues that face our country. We do have fiscal crisis. We do have a health care crisis. We do have a government confidence crisis. We do have a leadership crisis. We have major issues to address including climate change and the environment, our evolving and complicated international relationships, better educating our youth, violence, entitlements, and the role of government in our lives. In short we are at the crossroads, and we have to do something soon. We have entered this millennium unprepared to deal with the world as it is. This election and the choices we make in November will be the start of a new direction. I doubt the ultimate course will be decided by this election, but I believe it will begin an awakening about the need to really address our future with intelligent thought- not just the political motives that have stagnated progress until now.

That being said, I began to think about the one subject that no one will even mention. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that we can’t have a meaningful discussion about any of our pressing problems, unless we talk about “it”. I haven’t heard President Obama mention it on the campaign trail. Mr. Romney and Rep. Ryan haven’t said a meaningful word about it. There is no desire in either Party, or among any current member of Congress to even speak of it- unless they use it for some self-serving platitude- or use it to cloak themselves in patriotism. The forbidden subject is: Our Military. 

Shhhhhhhhh! Oh my god! We can’t talk about our military or someone might think we are un-American, unpatriotic, weak, or just plain stupid. Can you imagine trying to get elected by questioning anything about our military? Social Security used to be the deadly “third rail” of politics- now it’s the military. But, I contend that as we begin to have serious debate about how to actually solve our problems, the time is long past due to include our military in the discussion. In case anybody gets the wrong impression right off the bat, let me make this clear from the start: this discussion has nothing to do with my regard, or anyone's regard for the men and women in uniform. It’s NOT about those who serve. It’s about our policies, and the way we view our military might as a nation. We should never again confuse the two issues like we did during, and after, the Viet Nam War.

As each of the contenders shout back and forth at each other about our economy, they talk about the aspects of the economy that make up this complicated and intertwined system.  They selectively talk about entitlement programs, deficits, taxes, discretionary spending, trade policies, job creation, Medicare and Medicaid, and welfare. But they never, ever talk about 25% of the Federal Budget that goes to the Department of Defense- over $700 billion a year. There seems to be some unspoken assumption that we can talk about every other aspect of government spending, but the military can just magically go untouched or unexamined. This may be an outgrowth of the attack we suffered on 9-11-01 by terrorists. You will recall our immediate response was to create a whole new bureaucracy in the Department Homeland Defense, and wage two wars in the Middle East- for the last eleven years. The costs of these responses were enormous in both money and lives. Even though our war death toll was relatively low (though even one unnecessay death is tragic), the number of wounded and maimed is staggering, along with the cost of caring for them. But we have still failed to come to grips with the reality that our enemies are no longer nation-states with standing armies. Our enemies are small bands of disaffected religious zealots, and political outcasts who don’t wage wars in conventional ways. The old enemies of the past are now our trading partners. At worst, they are economic adversaries. Nonetheless we pay 25 cents on every tax dollar to maintain a military that may not be needed in its current configuration.

I grant you that I’m no expert on military needs, but I am aware that we spend more on our military than practically all other countries combined (including our allies). Intuitively that doesn’t make sense to me- particularly considering the crisis we’re facing, and the needs we have as a country that are going unmet. We are the only western country that does not have universal health care- our schools rank low in the list of academic achievement world-wide, our entire infra-structure has been neglected and deteriorating for 30 years with no real investment for the future, and we have a huge promise to keep to citizens who will need old age pensions and health care. The political debate is all about the “other” spending, and never about the military elephant in the living room.

Our penchant for military spending is about more than self-defense. Defense spending has become an all-consuming corporate monster that sucks up government contracts by having us believe we are still in the cold war with the Soviet Union- or something like it. The times have changed but the military spending binge continues. President Eisenhower warned us that this would happen in 1961 as he was leaving office, but we did not heed his warning. He said in part, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” The entire section of that farewell speech goes on to eloquently describe in more detail how unchecked military spending and corporate influence could actually threaten the nation. He was right and we are living it. Military spending with defense contractors (spurred on by an “’army” of lobbyists) has become the golden-calf of corporate welfare. And to question our worship of this idol inevitably brings howls of “being soft” on America’s defense, and casts the questioner as an abettor to our enemies. That’s why the mere mention of military expense reductions falls on deaf (and very frightened) ears in the halls of Congress and the White House.

My hope is that if we are to have serious debates about our future and how to rationally decide on the use of precious resources, we will acknowledge and rightly include our military spending as an important part of the discussion.  At this crossroad it might be a good time to put all our issues on the table for consideration. The fix needs to include all the elements that make up our society, our economy, and our way of life, or it will never be a real solution.

Thanks for looking in.

Passing Judgment in 5 Seconds

Perhaps I got up on the wrong side of the bed. Maybe I’m a bit cranky from the heat. But I found myself feeling a little upset over some things I’ve been seeing on the social network sites lately. After thinking about it for a while, I decided I needed to say something. I also decided I needed to say something that was more measured and thoughtful than my initial reaction. I suppose a bit of “cooling off” is a good thing to do where an emotional reaction is quick to surface. If some of this sounds a little too much like a scolding- I apologize in advance. My goal here is to give some serious consideration to the way social media and our political discourse have melded into catchy, fast-as-lightning, phrases that sound good, but promote some dangerous, and horribly inaccurate stereotypes.

I have a Facebook account. I use it. I enjoy it. Facebook provides me with a way to do a number of things I likely wouldn’t be able to do otherwise. I even get this blog out to people with Facebook. It’s a great way to keep up with friends and associates, as well as learn about current events my Facebook friends find important. I think that’s kind of cool. As with anything so wide ranging as the reach of Facebook, and other social media sites, there are always going to be those items and issues where people disagree. I like the fact that we can disagree- and I like the fact that social media sites give us a place to exchange ideas and offer different points of view. With the heat of the political season upon us, it’s only natural that these social media sites will be jammed with pre-packaged ads and placards that so easily get shared on our networks with just a click of the mouse. I have done it myself- though I always try to be careful to avoid those that offer a slogan without some accompanying well-reasoned thought.

I’ll be the first to admit that my way of thinking doesn’t reflect the majority of other people’s thinking. I know my leanings are way to the progressive left of most people. But, I also recognize that there are some conservative and moderate thoughts that are legitimate and deserve respectful debate. The problem I’m having is the way we go about disagreeing, or even debating the issues of the day. The discourse has become so narrow, personal, and divisive that it is becoming nearly impossible to ever rationally examine an issue. The idea of applying critical thinking to the important issues of the day has given way to name calling and innuendo. It seems all sides are guilty of abandoning rational debate in favor of sloganeering and name calling. The other day President Obama called Mr. Romney’s tax plan –“RomneyHood”, the reverse of Robin Hood. So naturally Mr. Romney had to come back with “Obamaloney”. These are two very smart men who want to be leader of the free world. Come on! The real issue is their respective tax policies, but nobody will hear the actual debate on those tax policies. They’ll only hear the name calling. Of course we are still going round and round on Mr. Romney’s tax returns with Harry Reid making claims he won’t back up, and the Romney camp calling Senator Reid a “Dirty Liar”- when the whole thing could be resolved by just disclosing the returns like every other candidate has done since 1968. Like they used to say on The X-Files- “the truth is out there!” But we are all stuck in a bumper sticker mentality and never pursue the real truth, or get to the real issue.

I shouldn’t be too surprised by the lack of critical thinking. There is no premium placed on it anymore. In spite of the obvious reasons all of us should aspire to, and employ, higher thinking skills in this complicated world, our leaders don’t promote it- or practice it by example. Last month the Texas State School Board decided to specifically delete “critical thinking” skills from all public school curriculum. This may explain why so many employers these days complain they can’t fill jobs because many applicants just don’t have problem solving skills and abilities.

It is so demoralizing to find a lack of critical thinking skills combining with widespread social media to encourage stereotyping, along with the political junk-thinking we get every day. It is bad enough when inaccurate notions get spread around. But it borders on tragic that they can be spread so quickly and without much thought about the consequences. Case in point: A placard posted on Facebook showing a woman in a grocery checkout line with the caption “wish I could afford a nice iPhone like that woman using food stamps.” The point is clear- people on food stamps are all cheaters. That is an incorrect stereotype- but politically convenient. I can think of several legitimate reasons a low-income person might have a smart-phone, that don’t include the inference that they’re just out to cheat the tax-payer. (I’m happy to detail some reasons upon request) But in these divisive times it is comforting to blame others- to find a bad guy who is an easy target. These days there is no easier target than the poor (including low-income working people). President Reagan was the master of this tactic when he made popular the notion of the “welfare queen”. There was no evidence to back up this stereotype, but it was an image that became popular and allowed us to pass judgments about people in five seconds- just like that inaccurate placard I saw on a number of Facebook pages.

I don’t necessarily blame some folks for gravitating to these quick and easy judgments about people (particularly in this hot political climate) because it’s so easy to do, and our technology gives us ready-made materials to do it with. The truth is that everyone has their own story and we can’t possibly know the facts of a stranger’s life. We can’t know their history, and the events that got them where they are at that one moment we see them. Yet, that first impression often has us jumping to a conclusion or a judgment. Even though there are so many inducements to make quick judgments and to categorize people on very little information, we must refrain from doing it. I can see why the politicians want us to stay uninformed, and reject critical thinking. It makes us much more susceptible to any old crap that fits in a 30 second commercial, or a quick ditty from the Internet- but we can be smarter than that. I doubt any of us would want to be judged on any one incident, or one tiny slice of information about us, so we should not be so quick to judge others based on so little knowledge- in spite of how easily it can be done in this climate of social media.  In the writings of the Christian faith, the faithful are urged to “judge not- lest ye be judged” (Mathew: 7). We all make judgments; and, we should make sound judgments about people who matter in our lives. But I think the real admonition in Mathew’s Gospel is to refrain from making uninformed (and therefore) unfair judgments. One way to do that is take a moment to consider other possibilities before jumping to conclusions, most especially about people we don’t know. It can have a real impact on the way we see, treat and act towards others. It also has very real implications in public policy and the continuing formation of our culture.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Perhaps so many years of working with people on the fringes of society, and those who have suffered real trauma early in their lives, has influenced me to take a deeper look at people in order to really understand the story of how they got where they are. And perhaps I’m just a little frustrated when so many leaders (or would-be leaders) we look to for an example of thoughtful consideration of the day’s events, tend to let us down. Let’s hold them and ourselves to higher standard.

Thanks for looking in.

Married To A Stranger

Our relationships with one another take on many different characteristics, depending on the type and intensity of the relationship. On a person-to-person basis we set standards for the level of knowledge and familiarity we expect from others we’re involved with. The level of knowledge varies quite a bit depending on the nature of the relationship. For instance, a casual acquaintance is a person we don’t need to know much about. This might be someone we chat with at the gym or see occasionally in a familiar setting. That sort of relationship doesn’t normally cause us to inquire about very private aspects of their lives. People with whom we share casual relationships just don’t have much real impact on our lives.

As we get more involved with people who have different roles in our lives, the “need to know” about them increases. I just started a new job. I found myself spending the biggest portion of my waking hours with a new set of people. I wouldn’t say they are friends, but I still need to interact with them, and rely on them to work with me as a team. I have sought out a higher level of information about them because that knowledge informs me on how I can best work with them. I also supervise almost all of them, so information about their history on the job and some of their personal characteristics is important. Still, I won’t seek information about their personal lives or any private information at this level of interaction.

Then we move on to our friends. These are people who have genuine impacts on our lives. We choose our friends because of common interests, or some personal connection, or because we meet people we just “click” with. We become close to our friends and the more intimate details of their lives do matter, and the sharing of those details actually helps us form the strong bonds of friendship. Honesty and openness are prime characteristics of friendship. Now we move on to our closest relationships. This is the relationship we have with our mates- spouse- partner- etc. There are many terms to describe this relationship. No matter what we call it, I’m referring to the strongest of our personal bonds. In this relationship we expect total honesty and openness. We expect a sharing of our lives on every level-because these are the relationships that impact us the MOST. That’s not to say that sometimes the impact isn’t negative- it surely can be. But this is our most important adult relationship. (I know I’m leaving out the parent-child relationship in this discussion. That happens organically, and is not a relationship both parties choose.) My point is that the closer we are to a person and the more they matter in our lives –the more vitally important it is to have the most complete knowledge of them as people, and  their life story. We wouldn’t want to wake up one morning married to a stranger.

The issue that got me thinking about how much we know about others in our lives is the crazy conversation going on over Mitt Romney’s personal tax returns and his personal wealth.  I was watching some of the coverage on this topic and I started to think about the whole notion of what we know about people, and why it’s important to know it. You can tell from the paragraphs above that my sense of this issue has to do with how much a person impacts our lives. In the description of personal relationships I used above trust, openness, and transparency in our relationships are key factors. But what about a President? We don’t know them personally- but they certainly have a huge impact on our lives- and, the lives of everyone we know, love, or care about. 

Up until now Mr. Romney has, by almost any one’s standard, been pretty secretive about his personal finances. He has only released one year of his tax returns and that one wasn’t complete- as it did not include the form on his foreign bank accounts. He said he’ll release one more return- but hasn’t done it yet. He has never given a full accounting of his wealth and where it came from. Maybe it isn’t fair or proper to ask- but it is a strong tradition. In an age when everything is questioned, examined, and analyzed this should probably be fair game. I’m pretty sure he’s got those returns in some old shoe box at one of his homes. He gave 27 years-worth of returns to John McCain four years ago. I’ll bet you he kept a copy. And most candidates traditionally release multiple years of returns. I’m also quite sure he will require more from his Vice-Presidential choice than he is showing us about himself. Ironic isn’t it? Let’s face it, Mr. Romney asking us to trust our lives and our futures to him- with some pretty high stakes on the table.

Here’s my take on this matter. I don’t think Mr. Romney is an evil or crooked fellow. In regard to his money, I would guess that he has operated in a mostly legal fashion. My best guess is that he took full advantage of every loophole in the law. He probably hid some money in secret bank accounts. Why? Because that’s what super-rich people do. They have legal (and sometimes “slightly” illegal) ways of doing things the rest of us can’t do. They make the rules, so they take advantage of the rules. He probably has a great deal more actual wealth than he owns up to. OK – people lie about their money all the time. It doesn’t make him a crook. On the other hand, it doesn’t make him honest and open with the American people either. If Mr. Romney is asking for the public trust- perhaps he ought to be more open with the people he’s asking. In any relationship where the consequences are important, we would expect more openness. But, he’s chosen to be more secretive than any other candidate in the modern era.

Conservative columnist and pundit George Will may have said it best. To paraphrase Mr. Will: Mr. Romney is making a calculation that the damage he will suffer from not releasing his taxes is far less than the damage he would face if he did release them.  I don’t agree with George Will much- but I think he’s dead right on this one. There must be something there he doesn’t want us to see. There is now a chorus of other conservatives who have urged Mr. Romney to just release the damned tax returns- because they know this won’t just go away. I don’t think he’ll do it. I suspect if he did release them, we would see that there were some years when this ultra-rich guy paid little or no taxes at all. Lots of rich guys (and corporations) legally pay no taxes at all- but that doesn’t look so good when you’re running for President, and trying to sell the point that you’re for the middle class.

I’ll say it again! I don’t think Mr. Romney is an evil guy. But I think he’s one of those rich guys who can’t relate to the working people. His riches seem to have insulated him from the real world we live in. He sure doesn’t have the populist appeal of an FDR or a JFK.  This aloof, rich-guy thing just seems to be Mr. Romney’s world view- and since he doesn’t have much of a platform other than recycled Bush policies, that’s all we have to go on. Because he won’t be open and really share his past with us, it’s hard to trust that he’s the guy he says he is. He’s asking for a relationship with us-an important relationship. I wish he would be respectful enough to just be honest and open with us.  Wouldn’t it just be easier to release the taxes? Knowing as much as you can ahead-of-time is a way to make sure you don’t someday discover you’re married to a stranger.

Thanks for looking in.

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.