Phrase of the Day: BACK TO SCHOOL

It is that time of year once again, when parents and students alike are preparing for the new school year.  No doubt the new school year ahead is invoking a myriad of emotions, from excitement to dread.  It is a time of both the known and unknown.

I remember when I was in elementary school, which included kindergarten, and what the end of August was like.  It was the annual trip to the store to get school supplies and, as I was in parochial (Catholic) school that had a dress code, any new dress shirts, dress pants, or ties I might need.  It was exciting for me, seeing all the new pens, pencils, notebooks -- they were called "composition books" with a black-and-white marble-looking cover -- and other supplies from which I could choose.  I wasn't crazy about the clothes part, however.  Having to try on pants, and maybe needing to get them hemmed, was my least-favorite part of this pre-school year ritual.

By the time I reached high school -- there were no middle schools then, just 1st through 8th grades, then on to high school -- this pre-school year time was still somewhat exciting for me.  Even though I knew my wish that Summer vacation would last longer would never come true, the shopping element was a reminder of new beginnings...including one final reminder that I had, indeed, made it through the previous school year.  (I needed that reminder.  More on that in a moment.)

By the time I had reached college, everything was much more "business-like" and matter-of-fact.  So, it was get this, this, and this...make sure I have that, that, and that.  College was the first time I was not attending a parochial school and the dress code was much more relaxed (i.e. no dress shirts or ties required, jeans were acceptable) than what I had known for the previous thirteen years. 

Now, back to what I mentioned earlier about my needing a reminder that I had made it through the previous school year.  When I began my postgraduate studies, and all throughout that time, I never imagined myself being able to finish.  Self-confidence has never been a strong suit of mine.  You would think, after my final paper was handed in, and my final class had ended that it would sink in.  It didn't.

I remember the commencement ceremony from when I finished my postgraduate studies.  While my fellow graduates and I were lined up, ready to process in, one of my fellow graduates, David, could see the look on my face and came over to me.  Here's how the brief exchange between us went.
David: "Are you all right?"
Me: "I'm just afraid."

David: "Of what?  Being in front of everybody?"
Me: "No.  That I'm going to wake up."
David: "It's real, brother.  It's real."

After all papers were handed in, all classes were finished, and even the commencement ceremony was over, I still didn't believe it until I received the diploma in the mail.

I cognitively knew that I had done the three years of study and had completed all requirements necessary to graduate, but I never believed that I could do all that.  At that moment, it was the known and the unknown converging.  (It was more like colliding.)  I cannot say that my self-confidence has risen dramatically to an enormously more constructive level, but it is far better than it was.  My decades of poor self-identity regarding how smart I was, at least in terms of formalized education, was finally shattered.

I remember the words of the woman who served at the time as Director of Admissions during her speech at the beginning of our time there: This is not the beginning of your journey; it is the continuation of your journey.  Very true.  To that extent, all of my time before my postgraduate studies, during my studies, and all of my time since then, including my sitting at my keyboard typing this, has been part of my journey. 

That reminds me of an old adage: "You learn something new every day."  While I cannot say that I am aware of learning something new every single day of my life, learning is an on-going, lifelong process.  To any readers of this who are younger and in the midst of their schooling, that might seem depressing.  It's not, though.  Going to school is formalized education and life is informal education, but both are education nonetheless.  I would also add this as advice: Be open to the lessons in the classroom as well as outside the classroom.  I have learned you need both.

I can remember telling a former neighbor of mine in the apartment complex where I was living at the time who was a med student -- and this was long before I ever entertained the idea of attending a postgraduate school -- that we both had classrooms.  Hers were in the school, and mine was outside my front door.  Learning can happen anywhere at any time.

One final thought: When I lived on campus during my postgraduate studies, I hung just a few things on my walls.  (Apparently, I was told that I was in line with bachelors who live alone...their walls are usually sparsely covered.)  One thing I had hanging up on my wall was a sign that really sums up my life.  Here's what it read:

"I am a full-time student in the course of Continuing Education at the School of Life."

Terry

Phrase of the Day: NATURE DOING WHAT NATURE DOES

A few months back, a rabbit had dug a nest in the front yard to have her babies.  I let cutting the grass go for several weeks so as to not disturb the in-ground maternity ward, as well as to help provide a little cover for momma bunny's young ones.  It was amazing watching the momma come and feed her babies and, when the time came, for the three of them to take their first steps (or first hops) out of their nest.  Finally, they had all left the nest, literally, and were on their way.  I did see one of the young ones several days later.

Nature doing what nature does.

Several days ago, we had the teenage son from next door, who regularly cuts the grass, finally give the front lawn a much-needed mowing.  About a week-and-a-half prior to that, I had noticed the momma bunny in the yard again a few times, but saw no new holes.  We have several wild animals in the area, including the usual birds and squirrels, but also chipmunks and even a groundhog (that I've nicknamed Gary the Groundhog), so seeing momma bunny again was nothing more than a pleasant surprise.  Around the time the neighbor's son had cut the grass -- I forget if it was just before or just after -- I had noticed a hawk was in the area.  (I first heard the screeching sound, which I initially thought was an injured bird, and then noticed the hawk high up in a tree across the street.)  The hawk was in the area for a few days, until one day, I look out the front window...and there was the hawk standing in the front yard!  I went to get my camera, but the hawk had flown off by the time of my return.

Several minutes later, the hawk had returned, but something was different.  As I readied my camera, I noticed the hawk looking down a great deal and standing somewhat oddly, more so than I thought it should on the ground.  It quickly snatched something -- it was so quick, I couldn't tell what -- and used its massive wings to whisk off airborne once again.  Many more minutes had passed and there was no return by the hawk.  The ground where the hawk had landed, however, looked different, altered, but somehow familiar.  Familiar...like moved dirt...as though a hole had been dug.  My heart sank.  I went outside and looked at the area more closely.  There was tufted grass and patches of fur.  The fur was also familiar; it was rabbit fur.  Just off to my right, a patch of displaced grass covered what was a fairly shallow hole, nothing like the one from several weeks earlier, not nearly as deep; it was not much bigger than the size of my fist.  The hole was empty.  My heart sank further.  The hawk had come to take the baby rabbits for itself to eat.

I felt so bad, especially after trying to leave the front yard alone weeks earlier so that the rabbit babies could be safe and secure until their time to go on their way arrived.  I felt good that I was able to do that.  This, however, was the opposite feeling.  Obviously, the momma bunny had given birth again in the front yard, and the mowing of the lawn had blown her young ones' cover.  A few days later, I mentioned this in a group setting and one person even mentioned that the hawk may have fed itself or perhaps some babies of its own.  The person echoed what I had thought to try and fully grasp the situation, "Nature doing what nature does."

Sometimes, as a human, it is hard to understand that phrase.  Add to the fact that baby rabbits are cute, increasing the "Awwww" factor, and the understanding is even harder to find.  Nature doing what nature does can seem harsh, even inhumane, to our eyes.  We may try to stop it or, if unable to do so, simply watch in horror.  We value life -- well, at the very least we do so cognitively -- and, granted, we value human life more so, thus we find this behavior shocking or saddening. I felt so bad for the baby rabbits, but my friend was likely correct: the hawk knew it or its offspring needed to eat, and that's all it knew.  It thought on a (surprise, surprise) totally animalistic level.  Hungry, get food, eat.

Humans tend to think of themselves as the protectors of...everything.  It's their job; it's their duty.  Sometimes, however, there are things out of our reach, or even not ours with which to tamper, that we cannot protect, correct, or fix....harsh, disturbing, saddening, upsetting, but true.  If I had known the momma bunny had given birth again, I may well have told to neighbor's son to hold off again and just done some weedwhacking around the yard, but leaving the grass surrounding that hole untouched.  Indeed, the hole's cover had been blown, and it was not my taking the baby rabbits out of the hole and leaving them exposed in the yard, but perhaps the hawk had not eaten in quite some time.  Perhaps the hawk babies, if there are some, may have not eaten for some time, or were screeching for their first meal.  Who knows for certain, but the fact remains that, as sad as that was, I needed to let it be. 

I briefly thought about what animals, if they possessed the same brain capacity as humans, would think about some of our behavior!  No doubt, they might see a lot of it as savage.  I did not struggle over this for days on end, but I needed to remind myself that life is very dangerous for wild animals.  When I drive around I see a squirrel or skunk or some other wild animal lying dead in the road, unable to get out of the way of an oncoming vehicle, I need to remind myself that such is the case with animals living in rural or suburban areas (and sometimes in cities, too).  This was, as sad as it was to see, a natural unfolding of the cycle of life for wild animals.  It was nature doing what nature does.

Terry

Term of the Day: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

[Something a little different today: a Term of the Day, instead of my usual Word/Phrase of the Day.]

In mid-July, the president and Chief Operating Officer of the Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain, Dan Cathy, took a public stance regarding same-sex marriage in an article in the Biblical Recorder, a weekly newspaper published by the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.  He opposes same-sex marriage:

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit.  We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives.  We give God thanks for that."

On the weekly radio program The Ken Coleman Show, Mr. Cathy further explained his stance:
"As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage.'  I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about."

For anyone who has ever eaten at Chick-Fil-A, or at least knows something about it, the restaurants are somewhat operated under religious principles, specifically Christian principles.  Its most obvious example of that is being closed on Sundays, the Christian holy day of the week.  It is not unusual to go to a food court at a mall on a Sunday and to see every restaurant in it open except for Chick-Fil-A.  I don't think it is such a shock to learn that Mr. Cathy -- or anyone else in the upper echelons of Chick-Fil-A management, for that matter -- has religious views.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Dan Cathy having religious views; that is his business.  I couldn't care less what his religious views are, since they are his and his alone; I have nothing vested in what he believes.  He did, however, decide to go ahead and make his business the business of others with his public statements.  That does change things a little.  What it does not change, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not anyone can openly air his/her beliefs.  That is his right to do so.  Period.  All of the outcry to shut down or ban Chick-Fil-A restaurants is silly; it wouldn't stop him, anyway.  I say that if you don't like what his beliefs are to a huge degree, then just don't eat there.

When he did make that choice to go public, albeit many will call it now open to "public scrutiny", he now must enter into public discourse.  Anyone with their own beliefs, religious or otherwise (but I'm focusing on religious here), who keeps them to him/herself is not doing anything that puts them in a position where they have to engage in public discourse.  (Not that any of them need me or anyone else as a "referee".  They certainly do not.)  Anyone who shares their beliefs with others, but on a smaller scale than nationally/internationally, must be open to public discourse between him/herself and others in those however-big-or-small circles.  Exponentially, sharing one's beliefs on the public scale as Dan Cathy has must be open to public discourse on an even larger scale.

Being open to public discourse does not mean he is required to change his position.  It means he must be allowed to say his piece and others need to listen, and others must be allowed to say their piece and he needs to listen.

The initial public response has included a "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day", put forth by former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, on August 1st.  Two days later, on August 3, gay rights groups around the country organized "kiss-ins" at various Chick-Fil-A locations across the country.  (Although, the Appreciation Day attracted more individuals than the Kiss-Ins.)  I do not believe Mr. Cathy's stance will hurt Chick-Fil-A financially, not one bit.

Mr. Cathy's stance is based on the Bible's definition of marriage: one man and one woman.  Okay, fair enough.  After all, the Bible does say that; there are no examples of men marrying men or women marrying women to be found within its pages.  If that is what he believes, then that's what he believes.  No one has to agree with it.  Most people know that, but does Mr. Cathy?  I think so, but is he okay with that?  I don't know for certain.  Only he can answer that.

If he is not okay with that, then I have a few questions for him.  One question I have is about the law.  You know, that thing under which marriages are deemed legal?  Now, the Bible says nothing about forbidding or shunning marriage from having a legal element to it.  However, if one man and one woman get married in a church, but do not obtain a marriage license (including getting it signed by all perspective parties and returning it to the relative authority for it to be properly processed), is the marriage legal?  No.  Is the couple married spiritually?  Certainly.  The spiritual aspect is irrelevant to the law and other pertinent matters, such as all marriage rights (i.e. access to medical information, visitation rights), just as the legal aspect is irrelevant to spiritual matters.  Thus, marriage, as we have it today, has both a spiritual and legal aspect to it, but only the legal aspect opens the couple to the benefits of marriage.  Anything in the Bible arguing against that?  Not that I'm aware of. 

That alone, tells me that any exclusivity of marriage being for one man and one woman only is Biblically-based -- thus, by extension, religiously-based -- and has no legal leg on which to stand.  Yes, I know that same-sex marriage is not an across-the-board law of the land -- and you have the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the majority of U.S. states defining marriage heterosexually -- but I, personally, do not see any legal basis for it.  Not all laws are religiously-based, even if certain religious understandings are in sync with those laws. 

Civil unions are a joke.  (I mean that with all deference to my gay friends and the gay community at large.)  It was supposed to be akin to "equal", but was more along the lines of "separate, but equal".  In reality, they are separate and unequal.  Let me be frank here: civil unions are not equal to marriage.  I know a gay couple who are good friends of mine who have now been together over thirty years.  When civil unions became legal in their state a number of years ago, they were joined at a civil union ceremony.  One of the two has been in the hospital a lot the past couple years.  Does his partner have the same rights to his medical information as a married spouse?  No.  In any legal matters, even though they are legally joined in a civil union, are they always recognized as a "married couple"?  Again, no. 

The argument that giving gay couples the right to marry will destroy the institution of marriage is also bogus.  It doesn't seem to me that heterosexual couples are doing the institution any favors.  How does Mike & Steve or Mary & Sheila getting married really hurt marriage?  What if you get divorced...do you think that hurts marriage?  Probably not.  (You're likely to be busy being angry at your ex-spouse, or at least just glad to get away from him/her, and figuring out who gets what.) 

Maybe those people are afraid that "the gays are trying to takeover everything".

With regard to the term "marriage" itself, I don't have any vested interest in it and I think getting hung-up on terminology bogs the process down.  If all of the rights and privileges that go with heterosexual marriage are also given to same-sex couples, does calling it "marriage" or "civil union" or even "mutually agreed upon same-sex couple conjoinment" really matter that much?  After all, this is not a religious issue, although there are religious angles from which to view it; this is a civil rights issue.  Same-sex couples do not have the same rights when it comes to marriage as opposite-sex couples do.  Period.  That's not doctrinal destruction...that's civil rights.

Here's my take:  If you really had no problem with gay couples getting joined together and sharing in the benefits of "traditional" marriage, but didn't want to call it "marriage", then call it something else and give them the same rights as heterosexual couples.  End of story.  However, if you do the proverbial "tossing a bone" to same-sex couples by saying you'll give them a legally-recognized rite, but that rite doesn't come with all the rights normally afforded heterosexual couples, then you really don't want gay couples to get joined together for life...and taking it a step further by using the Bible as your defense for your exclusion.  

Say, are there any homophobes in the audience tonight?

Terry

Word of the Day: MASSACRE [Part 3 of 3]

Thirteen years ago, I attended a special reception at the church where I belonged at the time.  The reception was really a thank you party for those of us who had participated as canvassers in that year's canvass campaign.  (The canvass campaign was the name for its annual pledge drive.)  A few days after, I received a note in the mail from one of my fellow canvassers, Jan.  It was a brief note; she said that she could tell I was upset at the reception, and that I could call her if I needed to talk.

What I was upset about was what took place just days before -- the shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.

Indeed, the news on that Spring day in 1999 out of Littleton had shaken me up.  It wasn't a case of one student taking a gun to school to go after another student who had picked on him, which is horrible enough on its own, but it was the cold and calculated nature with which the two boys carried out their horrific plan that got to me.  It was also that a high school -- well, any school, for that matter -- that should have tests and detention or any other disciplinary action as its greatest fears for students, was turned into a war zone...a place where lives hung in the balance.  It had been some time since I was in high school when the Columbine massacre took place, but I thought of my time in high school.  I thought of those students in Columbine experiencing such terror at such a young age.  I thought of how precious, and sometimes precarious, life is.

In addition to the tragic element, the irony is that the towns of Littleton (Columbine) and Aurora (Century 16 movie theater) in Colorado are only approximately sixteen miles apart from each other.  For those who mourned thirteen years ago over Columbine, the Aurora movie theater massacre must have seemed eerily similar and equally horrific.

As I mentioned in yesterday's post, overreacting is not helpful, although taking whatever necessary steps in the aftermath is appropriate.  I have heard people calling for metal detectors to be put in movie theaters.  Much like how it must have made students feel like they were in a military institution, or maybe even a jail, when metal detectors started popping up in schools across the country, I do not want to see moviegoers subjected to the same environment.  And let's be honest here: What good would metal detectors have done in this situation?  Holmes didn't have his weapons with him when he bought his ticket; he had them outside in his car.  Therefore, if metal detectors had already been in place at the Century 16 movie theater, he would have walked in like he did, walked out of the theater like he did, propped open the door like he did, suited up like he did, and reentered to kill everyone like he did.

Part of the human impact from this situation needs to be to respond in the future wisely, not in a reactive manner.  Changing gun laws to violate the rights of those who have them legally, use them legally, and never use them illegally is not a wise response.  Relaxing already-relaxed existing laws is not wise response, either, as is the case with doing nothing at all.  Having a statewide or national database that tracks purchases which, when looked at as a whole, are a warning sign, is one example of a wise response.  Admittedly, wise response is not always easy when emotions and wounds, both physical and emotional, are high. 

Eluding back to part one of this series, another part of the human impact is individual response.  It is natural to want to be safe.  It is natural to protect yourself when you can.  One response an individual can have is to not go into movie theaters...self-protection...and it is an understandable response.  Another response is to go into movie theaters with an uninformed air of bravado, as if to say, "I dare anyone to try that here."  That would be foolish.  Going to movie theaters now, or eventually, and being mindful and aware of your surroundings, but not overcome with fear is one example of a wise individual response.  It is important to remember that this particular kind of behavior isn't happening every week, even month, or even every year.  Individual response is up to the individual, of course, and "big ticket" matters, like gun laws and state/national databases, are for the larger scale. We can and should be part of that larger scale by adding our voices in calling for what responses we think appropriate.

Another human element in all of this is blame.  Who do we blame?  Just the shooter?  The shooter's parents?  School officials?  Friends?  Who?  Some are blaming the film The Dark Knight Rises because of the violence in it.  Really?  I thought an appropriate response by the studios was to pull a preview for an upcoming film, which included a scene of a shooting in a movie theater.  Blame a movie?  Okay, let me address that.  Have there been movies where people emulated acts in the film in their own lives?  Yes.  Have some of those acts been benign or likely to only hurt the person him/herself?  Yes.  Have some of those acts been to hurt others, intentionally or accidentally?  Yes.  And have some of those acts been to hurt others on the scale as what happened in Aurora or Littleton?  Yes.  Therefore, to blame movies, or video games, as solely or mostly responsible makes sense?  My answer is no.  However, ignoring that some individuals, by far the minority in their accumulative numbers, are going to see the same things that millions of others also see and slip a gear in their head is not wise response.

I have seen dozens and dozens of horror films and "slasher flicks" and there has never been one time that I even thought about doing what was done in Aurora and Littleton.  Why?  Because I'm odd?  Or is it because, like most persons on the planet, I do not have something going on inside my mind first that simply needs something, anything, to set it off?  That's it!!!  There is no preexisting condition, as it were, and that is key!  I'm not in favor of more violence in entertainment and other media, and I do think less of it would be a good thing, but I do not see a wise response in removing some things across the board because of the few who already have mental issues lacking that something inside of them that keeps the fantasy and reality separate.  

To make that across-the-board-elimination argument would also validate an argument that, for example, the war films of the 1940's (i.e. Prelude to War, Destination Tokyo, The Fighting 69th, etc.) inspired those who were young, but old enough to go to the movies, to go out and create more wars in their lifetime.  Anyone arguing in favor of that?  When's the last time you heard of someone pinning any blame on Frank Capra?

I almost wanted to subtitle this third part 'Innocence Lost' because another piece of this in terms of the human impact is just that, losing our innocence.  We have lost more and more of our innocence as time has progressed.  Look at how stunned we were as a nation of the events of September 11, 2001, and yet it was lost on many of us how we were attacked sixty years earlier (December 7, 1941) at Pearl Harbor.  Granted, Pearl Harbor was a military base (and Hawaii was not a state yet) and 9/11 was on civilian soil, but we lost lives in both attacks.  Our loss of innocence did not begin on 9/11, although that was the biggest blow in recent times, and it did not begin with Watergate, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, or even World War I.  Our loss of innocence has been an ongoing process.  Speaking of responses, as I was earlier, the important issue is how we respond to when some of our innocence is lost.

The oldest to die in the Aurora movie theater massacre was 51, one year older than I.  The youngest was just 6 years old.  Most of those killed were in their 20's, with the average age of the dozen persons killed being 26.  The youngest shooting victim who survived was only three months old.  This massacre, like Columbine, was a moment of innocence lost, for no one expects such horrors to happen in a movie theater.  (That is, no horror any worse than a really lousy movie that you paid to see.)  In addition to those in Colorado, we, as a nation, need to mourn.  We need to feel that shock of lives and innocence lost.  And we need to respond.  Wisely.

Peace, love, well-wishes, prayers, and good energies to all who lost loved ones on July 20, 2012.  Let us remember those who died in this senseless and terrible tragedy:
Jonathan Blunk, 26

Alexander J. Boik, 18

Jesse Childress, 29

Gordon Cowden, 51

Jessica Ghawi, 24

John Larimer, 27

Matt McQuinn, 27

Micayla Medek, 23

Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6

Alex Sullivan, 27

Alexander C. Teves, 24

Rebecca Wingo, 32

Grateful that my electric only blinked a few times during the storm while I wrote this post,

Terry

Word of the Day: MASSACRE [Part 2 of 3]

If you have been following the story of the massacre at a Colorado movie theater last week fairly closely, then much of what I will cover here will be repetitious.  In addition, much of what is known now will be added to exponentially between now and the time of trial, not to mention the trial itself.

It now appears that the alleged perpetrator, James Eagan Holmes, had been building his stockpile of weapons and bomb-making materials for approximately two months.  During that time, no doubt as he added to his collection of incendiary materials, he rigged his apartment with booby traps.  The intended purpose of the booby traps did not come to fruition, although they almost did.  Holmes' neighbor directly below him, Kaitlyn Fonzi, went upstairs when a timer in Holmes' apartment switched on very loud techno music exactly at midnight.  Even though her boyfriend had recommended that she let the police handle it, she went upstairs to Holmes' apartment.  Ms. Fonzi went so far as to try the door handle, which she said was unlocked.   In what can be called luck, fate, or divine intervention, something told her to not open the door, so she didn't.  (I don't think I'd be able to sleep well for a long time knowing that.)  His intended goal at his apartment building, based on initial reports of the materials found in there, was to not only kill whoever opened his apartment door, but to take out most, if not all, of the building.

Around the time he began to build his arsenal in May, Holmes' grades dropped to the point where the University of Colorado's Medical School was seriously considering placing him on academic probation.  Whatever was going to slip inside him had already begun.  In June, he had dropped out of college.  (Some reports say that he was in the process of dropping out.)  On July 20, the massacre took place.

Holmes had parked his car behind the theater, walked around to the front, bought a ticket to the 12:05 a.m. showing of The Dark Knight Rises, exited theater 9 through the exit by the movie screen after the movie began, propped opened the door, suited up, and reentered the theater.  He threw two canisters of what appears to be some sort of gas or pepper spray, which went off with an explosion and filled the theater with smoke, into the audience.  He first fires two or three rounds up into the ceiling.  Then...he begins to fire at audience members.  A number of surviving witnesses say that one of the things they noticed was how calm he was as he was shooting people randomly.  It appeared his goal was carnage.  The result, which may have been even worse if his first weapon hadn't jammed as it did, was fifty-eight persons injured and twelve persons killed.

However, I believe his goal may have been beyond carnage.  Here is what Holmes purchased in the months leading up to this tragedy...

The gear:

Ballistic (bulletproof) helmet

Gas mask

Throat protector

Ballistic vest

Ballistic leggings

Groin protector

Ballistic gloves

The weapons:

Two .40-caliber handguns (at least one or both, depending on the report, was a Glock)

One Remington model 870 shotgun

One Smith & Wesson model AR-15 .223-caliber rifle (some call this an assault rifle)

The ammunition:

3,000 rounds of .40-caliber ammunition [handguns]

300 rounds of 12-gauge ammunition [shotgun]

3,000 rounds of .223-caliber ammunition [rifle]

To this blogger, Holmes' goal was to kill every single person in that theater with no survivors. 

All of his arsenal were purchased legally.  That's right...he broke no laws in the purchasing of any and all of his one-man army stockpile, including all four weapons.  My question is How?  On one level, that can be answered with In stores and Online.  Fair enough, but my question is on a deeper level.  How was he allowed to amass all that he did with not a red flag, not a single warning sign going off to anyone, anywhere, in any way?  Not only is it appropriate to ask what in the world does anyone who is not serving in the armed forces (and while on duty) need with all of that, but to also ask how he was allowed to do it. 

Gun laws in the state of Colorado are very relaxed.  That is reason number one why Holmes was able to do what he did.  Another reason why he did it, more specific to why he did it in Colorado, is that the gun laws in California, where he was born and attended the University of California, Riverside, are far stricter than in Colorado.  They are considered some of the strictest gun laws in the country.  Harder to accomplish this in California?  Try a state where the gun laws are much more relaxed.

I, personally, am opposed to guns.  I have held them, but have never fired them.  I am no "anti-gun liberal".  Anyone who wants to hunt, there are weapons -- none of Holmes' stockpile are included -- that you can use.  If you want to defend yourself, there are weapons for that, too.  It appears that Holmes had no intentions of hunting (at least not wild animals) or of protecting himself.  I can find absolutely, positively, unequivocally no reason for him to have all that...and I can find absolutely, positively, unequivocally every reason to have methods, policies, procedures, etc., in place to take steps to try and prevent this from happening again. 

To the general gun-owning population and to any NRA members who are on the fanatical end of its spectrum -- those who'd wave the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in my face at the drop of a hat even if I said something like no one could own bullets unless they were colored pink -- I have this to say: If you think my last statement in the previous paragraph means that I am, in reality, an "anti-gun liberal", think again.  No one having any weapons, aside from those who use them for their work, would be ideal, sure.  (Not so surprising, huh?)  That, however, is unrealistic and, quite frankly, unconstitutional.  Yes, I get that. 

What you may find surprising is that I believe that you have the right to have the right weapons for the right reasons, absolutely!  The right weapons for the wrong reasons, however, is not, in my view, granted and protected by the Second Amendment.  Not having safeguards in place is a form of idolizing "freedom".  Not valuing it, but idolizing it.  Gun laws in Colorado, and in the United States, need to change.  They need to change not for the purpose of devaluing constitutional freedoms, but rather to value human life.  That can and must be done without even thinking about taking away people's guns.

Terry

P.S. -- Tomorrow, in part three, I will focus more on the human element and impact of this tragic event.

Word of the Day: MASSACRE [Part 1 of 3]

By now, you have probably heard of the terrible events of this past Friday, June 20, in Aurora, Colorado.  After four months of preparation and planning, a 24-year-old recently-dropped out Ph.D. student in neuroscience, James Eagan Holmes, booby-trapped his apartment in the hopes of someone detonating a highly-destructive explosion and fireball.  He goes to the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora for the midnight screening of the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, and commits one of the worst massacres in American history.  Timeline of events

Before I go further, let me offer a disclaimer.  While I will be discussing a different aspect of this tragedy in this post, I fully acknowledge that the most important aspect in all of this is the senseless loss of life.  That point is not lost on me, but I will focus more on that in subsequent posts.

My parents took me a couple of times to drive-ins when I was very young, but I wanted to go home as soon as I ate and saw the first feature.  My lack of interest in the second feature -- yes, you could see two features for the price of one at a drive-in -- which was usually a western, my dad's favorite genre, did not endear me to him on those two occasions.  Needless to say, those two trips were the extent of my folks taking me to the drive-in movies.  (When I was older, I went to them and loved them...and stayed for both features.)  So, the first time I went to the movies was not in a theater, but I tend to count my being a fan of movies beginning with the first film I saw in a theater, the original The Poseidon Adventure in 1972.

I have been an avid fan of motion pictures for forty years.  Peter O'Toole, when he received his honorary Oscar in 2003, captured my feelings in a couple of lines from his acceptance speech: "The magic of the movies enraptured me as a child.  As I totter into antiquity, movie magic enraptures me still."  While not tottering into antiquity (or even walking zig-zag, for that matter), movie magic has, indeed, enraptured me, too.  It is an art form in which I once aspired to work and has always held a very dear place in my heart.  In fact, in my movie-going heyday, I would see anywhere between 80 and 100 films in a year...not counting films I went to see again.  (And I did, from time to time, go to see films more than once back then.)

While having watched films on television, online, or by playing DVDs on my computer myself, and with many of my friends being technologically acclimated as to watch films via services and websites such as Netflix and Hulu, I am what I might call "old school" or a "movie purist".  Sure, the convenience of watching it at home on your computer means you don't have to get dressed and go out, but nothing, for me, beats the experience of going to the movie theater and watching films on the big screen -- the way they were meant to be seen. 

I have seen movies in theaters that have well over a dozen screens and those that had only one screen.  I have been in some rundown theaters (i.e. ceiling tiles missing, damp smell from a leaky roof, seats that were as comfortable as sitting on mattress springs) and some beautiful theaters (i.e. serving cappuccino, stadium seating).  I even remember an instance during wintertime when one cashier told me that the heater was out in the theater that the film I wanted to see was playing.  (I went in anyway.)  There was one time when I drove to see a film (for a second time) over forty-five miles one way because it wasn't playing anywhere else any closer!  I even worked for a while as an usher in a long-gone theater when I was still in high school.

Not that I think the movie theater is necessarily sacrosanct, as in sacred exactly like a church building, but I have an almost sacred affinity for the movie theater.  The word "sacrosanct" means "to not be tampered with".  I take that seriously.  I never have caused any disruptions and, like most people, I hate it when someone else does.  To me, while being a place where I have been happy and laughing, moved and inspired, deeply touched and crying, and even scared and creeped out, one thing has remained a constant...I have felt safe.  The movie theater was and is my kinda-sorta temple of entertainment where the worst harm I faced was tripping over someone else's feet while I slid past them in the row to get to an empty seat.  (Well, there was that time when I got someone's gum that I didn't notice on the seat stuck to my favorite jacket...which I never fully got out.)

Similar to shootings that took place in churches in Knoxville, TN in 2008 and in Ellicott City, MD earlier this year, which were indeed shocking, this shooting in a crowded movie theater on July 20th is almost like "breaking a sacred seal" that movie theaters are safe havens into which one can retreat.  Who would have seriously thought a shooting would take place in a church or a movie theater? 

Before continuing, it is important to note that July 20, 2012 in Aurora, Colorado, was not the first time violence broke out in a movie theater. Here's a list of notable events to that effect:

March 1991: A Brooklyn man is killed in a New York theater, and fights break out in Sayreville and Franklin Township (both in New Jersey) during opening weekend screenings of the thriller New Jack City.

July 1991: More than two dozen violent incidents, including a fatal shooting, are reported at theaters around the country showing Boyz in the Hood.

November 1999: (Here's an example from abroad...)  A gunman kills three people and wounds five others at a Fight Club screening in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

December 2008: A disgruntled movie fan in Philadelphia shoots and wounds a noisy audience member during a Christmas Day screening of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

January 2009: A security officer stabs an unruly moviegoer after a showing of My Bloody Valentine in 3D at the Green Acres Mall in Valley Stream, N.Y.

April 2009: An Oregon man commits suicide, shooting himself during a showing of Watchmen. [Source article]

It is clear to see that, while rare but not unique, the sheer scope of what happened in Aurora is what makes it so shocking on a such a large scale.  Keeping in mind how I feel about movie theaters, that this happened in a movie theater stuns me and breaks my heart.  Yes, it could have happened in a church or in a school or in an open field, but its occurrence in a place that I hold dear is heartbreaking, in addition to how my heart breaks for all who were killed and injured.  Keeping in mind how I feel about the magic of the movies, this is an example of how a place of escapism was turned into a place where you had to escape for your very life. That's not what a movie theater should be.  That's not what a movie-going experience should be like.

I admit, I am not terrified to go to the movies now, but I do have some pause.  Even after the events listed above, most of them I had read about when they occurred, I was not deterred from going.  I still believe overreacting is not helpful, either, but something like this is going to cause moviegoers and avid movie fans such as myself to have second thoughts.  I think that is only natural.  True, tragedies can occur at any time, when we expect it or not (usually when we don't expect it), but should we give in and not go?  Do we see not giving in as begging to be killed?  Or do we see it as something terrible that happened unexpectedly and choose to not live our lives in fear?  That choice is yours, mine, and anyone else's to make.

Instead of focusing too heavily on the endgame (the aftermath of the tragedy), put yourself in theater 9 on that fateful night and ask yourself this: How could you have prevented the perpetrator from doing this in the first place?  If your answer is like mine -- "I couldn't have done that." -- then we can try to accept that terrible things happen, to be alert, to hope that they don't happen to us or our loved ones, and to move on.  Or we could just stay home. 

Then again, how safe is that?

Terry

P.S. -- Tomorrow, in part two, I will focus more on the events leading up to that night and the night itself, as well as societal behaviors and gun laws.

Phrase of the Day: CONNECTING WITH THE PAST

I had the opportunity last weekend to go with a friend to The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia to see the Dead Sea Scrolls: Life and Faith in Ancient Times exhibit on display there.  The Dead Sea Scrolls are well over 900 scrolls of Biblical and extrabiblical texts first discovered sixty-five years ago and dating back 2,000 years. 

We both had mentioned an interest in going a little over a month ago.  We both arrived a little early -- they were doing timed entrances -- and we sat down a chatted a bit.  When our time came, we went straight in. After an initial presentation, we were ushered in...and we were not disappointed.

The entire exhibit was nothing short of amazing.  In addition to the scrolls -- more on them shortly -- there were artifacts dating back roughly 3,000 years.  There were coins (shekels, among others) that were smaller than the American penny.  My uneducated guess would be that some of them were the size of an old two-bit piece, maybe even smaller. 

There were clay jars -- some used for storing food, some similar to those inside which the Dead Sea Scrolls were found -- on display, some even four or five feet tall, that dated back to 1st century B.C.E.  (There were even some various kinds of pottery that were once possessed by kings, labeled "Belonging to the King", that were from the 8th century B.C.E.)  There were ossuaries (boxes into which families placed the bones of departed loved ones and were placed in family tombs) that dated back to the same time period as the clay jars.

There was even an example of an altar -- I'd say no more than a couple of feet tall -- that was used for religious rituals.  (You could even the scar marks where incense had been burned!)  I have seen pictures of excavations of homes in and around Israel that had altars inside of them for worshiping at home, not in the Temple.  There was a pair of sandals also dating back to the time of the clay jars I mentioned earlier (1st century B.C.E.), with one looking in really bad shape and the other looking more like a sandal than the other.

There were examples of weapons of the time: arrow heads and slingstones dating back to 701 B.C.E., during the Battle of Lachish (the Assyrian takeover of the Judean town of the same name).  There was even what they said was a three-ton stone from the Western Wall (Wailing Wall), although I have to admit that my first thought was when the floor was going to give way. 

There were all of these things and so much more.  Then there were the scrolls themselves.  Actually, there were ten sections of the scrolls.  The scrolls themselves, even though many describe how well they had been preserved...that is, considering the passing of thousands of years...are very fragile.  Even though I don't read any of the languages used in the writings of the scrolls (mostly Hebrew, but also Aramaic and Greek), I would have done myself a favor to have brought a magnifying glass because the print on them was so small.  The pieces of the scrolls were encased, of course, but I have to say it was truly awe-inspiring to be in the presence of something so important and from so long ago.  To be just inches away from the scrolls was an experience I will never forget.

My previous exposure to connecting with the past, save for videos of old television series and movies on YouTube, had been art museums.  In 2003, that changed during my trip to Romania, in which I not only got to see a book by Spanish physician and theologian Michael Servetus that dated back to the 16th century, but I actually got to hold it!  In addition, I got to visit churches which dated back centuries...one even dating back to the 12th century.  Needless to say, this exhibition far outdid all that.

It is amazing to me that people like myself can learn about people who lived hundreds and even thousands of years ago before I even existed.  (I'm sure it is even more amazing to those who study such things regularly and actually work onsite.)  It is truly fascinating and humbling to be able to connect with the past that way.  It is fascinating because it shows us from where we've come, as well as in what we have changed and in what ways we have stayed the same.  It is humbling to see items of war, royal pottery, religious artifacts, as well as something as simple as a pair of sandals to be covered by sands and forgotten in time.  As I not only learned about peoples of those eras, I thought about how the sands and time made everything the same...each item's purpose insufficient to elevate it above the elements and the passing of time.  I thought about how what we are, have, use, and possess, etc., can also be covered over by the elements and passed over by time.

It was then that I thought of connecting with the past in a different light.  It wasn't from where we are now looking back, but rather as though where we are now was the past that people 2,000 years from now would be looking back at to study.

And I wonder what those walking through that exhibit 2,000 years from now would learn about us.

Terry

P.S. -- If I wrote about everything there, even cursively, I might give War and Peace a run for the money.  Instead, what I will say is that, if you have the opportunity, I encourage you to see this exhibit which will be at The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, until mid-October.  (See link above, first paragraph, for more information.)