I had to turn off the Brian Lehrer Show today because the entire premise of their “End of War” discussion was just so vile and hateful that I couldn’t stomach it. The series is aimed at logically discussing the idea of whether or not war is a necessary part of the world, or is it something – like slavery – that we could leave in history. Today’s show took off on a statement in the Guardian to the effect that war can never be left behind so long as men are in control of things. Only when women hold the reins of power will we know peace.

Not only is this offensive, but it has absolutely no basis in history or science.

Think women with power can’t be violent? Someone explain why Margaret Thatcher was willing to kill and be killed over the Faukland Islands. Nearly a thousand MEN died because a WOMAN thought the Fauklands were worth fighting over. By the way, the entire population of the Fauklands is just over 3,000.

Or how about Madeline Albright? She said that the deaths of half a million children was “worth it.” It was Colin Powell who refused to sacrifice troops needlessly, causing Albright to admonish him with: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

Very peaceful folks, these women with power.

What about Condaleeza Rice? Was she any less hawkish about going to war in Iraq than anyone else in the Bush Administration? To my memory, the answer is a clear, “No.”

The Lehrer Show, just before I turned it off, brought up the efforts of Senegalese women to stop electoral violence. Great. Shall we have a brief history of how men have tried to stop violence of all kinds?

And what about this concerning in-school violence?

1 out of 4 violent episodes are being perpetrated by teen girls, up from just a generation ago when it was 1 girl -10 boys. As can be seen, girl violence is increasing from 1-10 and now 1 out of every 4 violent episodes involves girls carrying it out.

Obviously, there are a large number of men who are responsible for their violence, both in power and out. I’m not disputing that. However, if we want to set “world peace” as a goal; then we need to get the silly notion out of our head that only men cause violence. Violence is not a “male problem.” It is a human problem…and the last I checked, women were human, too.

Today, the US Senate killed an amendment to a Highway Bill that would have allowed employers to cherry-pick what health procedures they would not want to cover for their employees, based on the morality of the employer. This amendment, which was purely symbolic because it had no chance of becoming law, demonstrates a lot of what is wrong with American politics, and also with American faith.

From the above article:

While Blunt’s amendment took a broad approach, the main issue involved whether religious employers should have to include coverage for contraception in health plans offered to employees at affiliated institutions, such as hospitals.

snip

Blunt’s amendment stated the president’s health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, imposes requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers and plan sponsors. While the law exempts some religious groups, it does not allow all those with religious or moral objections to decline providing coverage, the amendment says.

The short explanation of this is as follows: Federal law stipulates that employers must provide healthcare insurance, and, as part of that coverage, women must be allowed to have their contraception medication paid for exactly like any other medication prescribed by a doctor. However, some religious groups – those directly involved in ministry, I would say – are allowed to be exempt from this, based on the faith-based decision that contraception (or, at very least, contraceptives that are designated by faith, but not by science, as a potential abortifacient) is a morally evil action.

Personally, and based on my religious and political ideology, even this compromise should not be allowed. The Church claims spiritual dominion of humanity. It should be allowed unfettered opportunity to exercise its influence and its power in that realm – but that is its natural limit. To claim that the Church has the right to extend its power over the biological body of a human is to claim that the Spanish Inquisition was wrong on in the details.

It is helpful to refer to Marsilius of Padua’s masterpiece Defensor Pacis. The points I believe to be most cogent are as follows:
* The gospels teach that no temporal punishment or penalty should be used to compel observance of divine commandments.
Even if it correct that God hates abortion, and therefore contraception that may be used to induce abortion, or even all contraception; then it is still wrong to try and force individuals to adhere to that. A forced confession is no real confession. A forced faith is no faith at all. It may be true (from that perspective) that contraception is evil; but without the presence of evil, we cannot choose to follow God and eschew evil. If we are not given the choice between good and evil; then there is no evil, but there is no good. Without the possibility of damnation; there is no chance of redemption, no chance of salvation.

*It is necessary to salvation to obey the commandments of the new divine law [the New Testament] and the conclusions that follow necessarily from it and the precepts of reason; but it is not necessary to salvation to obey all the commandments of the ancient law [the Old Testament].
The New Covenant of Christ’s sacrifice means that humans are no longer bound to uphold every single scriptural law – a practice that was impossible from the beginning. The New Testament is entirely silent on the issue of abortion, and doesn’t even talk about contraception – and I’m sure that crude forms of both existed. Christ said, “Love one another as I have loved you.” This was after he had allowed his disciples to break kosher and to work on the Sabbath and all manner of things that conservative Judaism of his day considered evil. He gave his disciples a choice at every step of the way.

*No bishop or priest has coercive authority or jurisdiction over any layman or clergyman, even if he is a heretic.
Even in the case of direct ministerial employees, the Church has no authority or jurisdiction over their corporeal bodies, only their souls.

It is that last point that I have in mind when I say that the Obama Administration should not have compromised and allowed church employees who are not members of direct ministry to be exempted without their consent. If the church should have no coercive jurisdiction over the body of their clergy; then why should they then have that power over the clergy’s secretary or janitor?

There is a sort of argument that can be made that says that the Church should not have to pay for a medical treatment it does not believe is morally in line with its teachings. The problem with this argument is that it is stupid. Should we discharge the Department of Defense because the Quakers believe in pure non-violence? Should we prevent the American Red Cross from holding blood drives among those who willingly participate because the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that transferring blood is evil? Should we do away with highway spending all together because it utilizes the evil technology that the Amish find objectionable?

I think it’s apparent that pretty much any action is objectionable to some and seen as absolutely necessary by others. If the Catholic Bishops and Evangelical Christians have the veto-power over parts of the healthcare legislation; then what parts of other legislation do other churches have veto power over?

The problem is that the Religious Right in America does not want to live in a plural society. This is not a new problem, and, given that adherents of the Religious Right are intolerant to other Christians, not to mention other religions entirely, it should not be allowed to throw stumblingblocks before our secular government. This is, in fact, the Paradox of Tolerance as identified by Sir Karl Popper and John Rawls. Rawls, who believed there is a place for the intolerant within tolerant society, wrote this (from the preceding link):

While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.

I would argue that when a highway bill is held hostage for a pointless vote about religious interference in healthcare that “the institutions of liberty are in danger.” The Republican Party, increasingly aligned entirely with the Religious Right, has become ever more intolerant and willing to grind the wheels of government to a halt whenever some bit of their “social conservatism” – codewords for “religious dogma” – are not given top billing.

I used to write that “the Religious Right is neither religious, nor right.” While I like the catchiness of that line, it isn’t exactly true. They are, of course, highly religious. But in their self-righteousness; they have forgotten that faith in America requires tolerance. In our long history of not living up to the promises enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, we have continually strove for a society that more closely adheres to those ideas. While I respect political conservative ideology; the truth of the matter is that religious conservative ideology is patently un-American and wants to turn back the tides of time and the progress of human rights.

What they would take from us is the very spiritual promise that faith holds for humanity: that one can grow close to God as their spirit dictates and as directed by the voice of God, however it may be discerned. In its place, they hold up a hollow sepulcher of faith, filled with the bones of choices made in our “best interest” by people who have no concept of what the details of our lives might hold. They are the Sadducees and Pharisees of modern life, and they are deserving of our respect no more than their historical counterparts were deserving of the respect of Jesus and his band of disciples.

From Religion Dispatches.

The news out of Penn State is anything but good. But it does tell us a lot about ourselves culturally. Some of it is good. Most of it is not.

The facts are pretty straight forward. Several years ago, Mike McCreary witnessed Jerry Sandusky raping a boy in the shower room. McCreary, who was then a graduate assistant, reported the “incident” to Head Coach Joe Paterno. Paterno, in turn, reported it to his superiors. No one ever reported it to the authorities. No one.

Stop and think about that. A ten year old kid was raped by an adult. Another adult sees it, but does nothing. Then another is told, and he does nothing. Then another. How many adults does it take to report the rape of a child? The answer should be: One. But at Penn State, that was the wrong answer. (Wikipedia has a short blurb about this horrifying crime, but I haven’t had time to verify what is being said). Even more heinous is the Pennsylvania law that relieves everyone involved (except the guy at the top) from any legal responsibility.

Is there any way to tell a child who has been that they are less important than to shrug off what happened to them? Yes. By allowing those who toss their shoulders to escape any legal liability. This is not someone who was caught with questionable pictures on their work computer, after all…he was seen by an eye-witness in the act of abusing a kid.

Bill Phillips wants to understand why this total lack of concern for child rape happened. He thinks he may have stumbled across something to consider – the famous Milgram experiment:

“But male groups bond by suppressing shame and promoting the idea that their group is invulnerable,” [William Pollack, Ph.D., an associate clinical professor in the psychiatry department at the Harvard Medical School] continues. “So their focus is on one another and not—in this case—the victim.”

For me, this should be filed under the category of “Yes, so what?” It doesn’t change any of the actions that were perpetrated on any of the victims and it doesn’t in any way change the fact that multiple men, in positions of responsibility, said little and did less.

I think this is more about “football” than it is about “male bonding.” If it had been a graduate math assistant who walked into his mentor’s office and found him diddling a pre-pubescent child (male or female doesn’t matter – or shouldn’t), and if that assistant then reported it to his dean…I have a hard time seeing where this would have been shrugged off. You know why? Because no one gives out a national title for math. Hence, no one will overlook the fact of pedophilia being a quirk in the character of the best mathematician in the world.

But football?

When was the last time you heard of ANYONE rioting because a person who knew a child was raped and did nothing was fired? I’ve never even heard of Catholics have a RALLY in support of a priest accused of such a thing (of course, there HAVE been very few of them).

This is how I see it: Sandusky was excused from raping children because he was part of a winning football team. So…what other crimes have gone unreported at Penn State? What evidence is there that Penn State is any less willing to do this than any other college that has made football a national obsession and institutional priority?

The explanation given by Phillips basically says that the men at Penn State did this because this is the kind of things that men do. As a man, it infuriates me that a psychologist wants to explain this away as simply “how men think in groups.” It is, in my experience, true. However, it has long passed the time when we should ask why this is so. It has long passed the time when we should, as a society, consider this normal and accept it as an excuse for bad behavior. It puts our men at risk for being victimized and for being victimizers.

There is no inherent reason why men should act badly in the company of other men. If, as the psychologists that Phillips’ cites claim, male mentorship is so vitally important to men, and the survival of the group is so much more important than the well-being of one member…then why on would the group not purge itself of a self-destructive member who will drag them down into oblivion? In other words, groups of men SHOULD be able to hold each other to higher standards of behavior and push each other to achieve greatness while embracing their entire existence, rather than cutting off their emotional intelligence and moral compass.

Then there is this:

Also, female groups tend to connect around doing the right thing. “When women get together,” says Pollack, “they assess what the right or best thing is, and then decide as a group how to accomplish it.

I understand that Pollack is talking about data that describes differences in the way men and women behave. However, described this way, it makes it look like it is somehow inherently feminine for a group to determine what is morally and ethically right. By that line of thinking, we just need our men to be more feminine and they’d be okay.

We just need to get people to grow up. People need to re-learn what it means to be a good person. And then they need to be held accountable to that standard.

I think it probably says something about where I stand on 9/11 as a generational and national moment that I completely forgot that Sunday was the tenth anniversary. I got up, got dressed, got my boys up and dressed, we had breakfast, and we headed out to try on a new church.

We walked right into a candlelit memorial service. Several of the people there had been in Manhattan that day. A handful had lost someone dear to them. It was…painful to witness.

The experience helped me, however, to put things into perspective. 9/11 was not a personal experience to me. I didn’t know anyone in the buildings or on the planes. I didn’t know anyone who marched off to war in response. I didn’t live close enough to see the towers when they stood; I didn’t hear or smell them burning. Yes, it was a horrifying day and my psyche struggled to absorb the amount of hate it takes to perpetrate such an act.

But it wasn’t personal. And because it wasn’t personal, I can still acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice of the people who were killed without my emotional state disintegrating. Furthermore, because I don’t like to be moved to tears through sad and painful memories, it is easy to avoid them – and I think natural to want to do so. But that means it is also easy for me to believe that everyone should also be ready to move on.

So I came face-to-face with the human suffering that day caused. It was only a few people, but the depth of their continued suffering was evident. I wanted to turn away, but I could not. And then I decided that I would not, because if the people around me can bear their pain every day, I can share it for a few minutes. I don’t know if it helps them or not. But it reminds me that I am fortunate, in so very many ways.

What I still cannot find a way to bear, however, is the response of those who were not personally touched by that tragedy, but continue to bang the drums of war and hatred. I understand why someone who has lost someone might do that – anger is part of coming to terms with loss. But for those whose loss was minimal…why continue to nurse the hate?

I don’t understand it.

It is a bit of irony that a country founded on the belief that “all men are created equal” and maximizing individual freedom should still find itself so…unable to cope with issues involving race. And especially our history of racism.

I’m talking about this little story:

Officials in the rural Virginia city where Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson are buried voted late Thursday to prohibit the flying of the Confederate flag on city-owned poles.

I applaud the city for taking this stand. The Civil War was fought over one issue: slavery. Yes, a lot of Confederate men fought valiantly. But that flag stands for the inalienable right of one person – and all of that person’s offspring throughout history – to own another as property. Anyone who claims differently is either willfully stupid or ignorant about the history of this country (and the same would be said for anyone who wanted to fly a Nazi flag – yeah, German soldiers fought bravely…but the Nazi flag doesn’t stand for that, it stands for a madman’s obsession, ambition, and genocide [go ahead and invoke Godwin's Law, if you want...but this comparison is valid]).

I also applaud the city for not stupidly overreaching. Any private citizen or institution can continue to wave the Confederate flag as long as they want. This law only prohibits publicly-funded displays. Individuals retain their freedom to display their idiocy openly.

This includes, by the way, the former President of the Asheville NAACP H.K. Edgerton. From the above linked article:

But H.K. Edgerton, the former president of the NAACP chapter in Asheville, N.C., said he supported flying the Confederate flag because he wanted to honor black Confederate soldiers. Edgerton, who is black, wore a T-shirt emblazoned with images of those black soldiers.

“What you’re going to do in banning the Southern cross is wrong. May God bless Dixie,” he said, amid some gasps from the audience.

Here’s what he isn’t saying:

The impressment of slaves, and conscription of freedmen, into direct military labor, initially came on the impetus of state legislatures, and by 1864 six states had regulated impressment (Florida, Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, in order of authorization) as well as the Confederate Congress. Slave labor was used in a wide variety of support roles, from infrastructure and mining, to teamster and medical roles such as hospital attendants and nurses.

snip

The idea of arming slaves for use as soldiers was speculated on from the onset of the war, but not seriously considered by Davis or others in his administration. As the Union saw victories in the fall of 1862 and the spring of 1863, however, the need for more manpower was acknowledged by the Confederacy in the form of conscription of white men, and the national impressment of free and slave blacks into laborer positions. State militias composed of freedmen were offered, but the War Department spurned the offer. One of the more notable state militias was the all black 1st Louisiana Native Guard, a militia unit composed of free men of color. It was the first of any North American unit to have African American officers. The unit was short lived, and forced to disband in February 1862.. The unit was “intended as a response to demands from members of New Orleans’ substantial free black population that they be permitted to participate in the defense of their state, the unit was used by Confederate authorities for public display and propaganda purposes but was not allowed to fight.”

snip

In January 1864, General Patrick Cleburne and several other Confederate officers in the Army of Tennessee proposed using slaves as soldiers in the national army to buttress falling troop numbers. Cleburne recommended offering slaves their freedom if they fought and survived. Confederate President Jefferson Davis refused to consider Cleburne’s proposal and forbade further discussion of the idea.

snip

On March 13, the Confederate Congress passed legislation to raise and enlist companies of black soldiers. The legislation was then promulgated into military policy by Davis in General Order No. 14 on March 23, 1865. The emancipation offered, however, was reliant upon a master’s consent; “no slave will be accepted as a recruit unless with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as far as he may, the rights of a freedman”

snip

The number of African-Americans, both slave and free, that served in the Confederate Army in a direct combat capacity was minor, and was never official policy.

So…it’s good to remember that the Confederacy had some black soldiers. But we also have to remember that they were either free blacks that were conscripted into service or slaves that were promised freedom if they survived (and if their master’s were legally able to grant freedom – some states disallowed such practice). Most were used as cooks, musicians, and personal servants…but some were armed and put into battle, where they served with distinction. But when a free, white soldier could be killed for cowardice in battle, I think we should put a little thought into what the motivation for that distinction was.

Yes, let’s remember our history. But let’s remember history as it actually happened, and let’s not glorify racial supremacy. This country was founded on the genocide of one race and enslavement of a second. Despite that, we have made great strides towards equality. But we will never reach full equality if we insist in papering over the shortcomings of our ancestors.

About a month ago, I happened upon a site called “The Good Men Project”. Immediately both my interests and my hackles were raised. I was interested because I believe the common role of men in society is too limiting and the anti-emotionality, anti-intellectualism, and one-way sexuality messages given to men is actively dangerous. I was wary because…well, who, exactly, gets to decide what “good” means? And why is it a “project?” Cleaning out the garage is a project – it is dirty, hard work that no one likes to do. Is that the image we want to give to becoming a man – that no one likes to do it?

I’ve been happy to see some very good articles pop up on that website, though. I don’t always agree with them, but they are often thought provoking. A recent multi-day, multi-author discussion on pornography raised a lot of questions as did a similar discussion on race. Those are the days when I think the site is filling its vision, or at least reaching for it.

Then there are days like today. The first article I found was about being a good dad by making your pre-K son cry over wearing a hat. Hey, way to reach for Dad o’ the Year! This article, to me, screams about everything that is wrong with “guy-dom.” Hey, guys like sports! They pick favorite teams that they are passionate about! And then they make little kids cry because they picked up the wrong hat!

There is nothing good about that – not as a man and not as a dad. It’s sickening. Yeah, I get that it is supposed to be a humorous piece. However, humor has to contain a kernel of truth to be worthwhile, and there’s just too much truth in this article for that. The title should be “How to Be a Non-Nurturing A-hole to Your Kid and Make Him Dependent on Your Preferences for His Happiness.” At least it would be more honest, then.

Then there is this non-advice column that brings up the point that, believe it or not, men are not dogs. What does the author mean? I don’t know. He never explains. He apparently believes that everyone is treated like a dog (whatever that means) because he never gives a single example. Women treating men like dogs is just a reaction to men treating women in doggish ways, probably when she was young and innocent…instead of old and perverse like she is now.

This isn’t just insulting to both men and women, but it’s bad writing. Is it supposed to be humorous? It’s hard to tell. That’s generally a bad sign for anything.

Then there is the attempt to rebut the entire life-work of Gloria Steinem from a guy who admits that he has never heard of her and has no idea what she is talking about. What part of this shows a good part of male-ness? That a guy can jump into an argument, having watched only an interview with Stephen Colbert, make a complete ass of himself and finish up with a smug line about how a satirical role in a parody comedy info-news program shows that men can’t handle a powerful women? That’s good?

If it weren’t done in earnest, it would qualify as a scene from the blissfully short-lived “Men Behaving Badly” which sought to prove that men can, in fact, behave badly (as the title would imply).

Charles Krauthammer has a defense of politics-as-usual. And he is actually right about a couple of things – democracy is supposed to be messy and our government is supposed to be ponderously slow. But he’s very much wrong about several things, too.

When he talks about the debt ceiling theater, he writes:

But they did begin to turn the aircraft carrier around. The process did bequeath a congressional super-committee with extraordinary powers to reduce debt.

Um…no. We are still going deeper into debt. And even the “super-committee” is only looking to identify further cuts, not enhance revenues. When Standard & Poor’s downgraded American bonds (look at page 3), this was cited as reason for the downgrade – Congressional Republicans refuse to consider revenue enhancements. Other AAA countries have higher debt loads and their debts are continuing to rise…but they are willing to raise taxes to pay for their spending. It isn’t the debt, it isn’t that debt is increasing…it’s that Republicans are not willing to be responsible when considering debt reduction. They are ideologically driven and blinded from reality.

Moreover, without this long ugly process, the debt issue wouldn’t even be on the table.

Untrue. Debt was an issue during the budget debates, and is sure to be debated against next year. That’s because debt is a BUDGETARY issue and the standard way for dealing with the debt ceiling is to raise it as part of the budget. That is was pulled out separate is evidence that it was simply political theater. And everyone is still pushing the story line that this was politics as usual when the truth is that the debt ceiling has only been held hostage twice in the last thirty years – both times by Republican Congresses that were attacking Democratic Presidents.

Notice how the loudest complaints about “broken politics” come from those who lost the debate. It’s understandable for sore losers to rage against the machine. But there’s no need for the rest of us to parrot their petulance.

I guess Chuckles didn’t pay attention to the Republican debate last night. Or anything any of the “hopefuls” have said since they announced they were running. This is one thing that conservatives have turned into an artform – winning a debate and whining about how badly they were mistreated and ignored.

And it isn’t petulance to note that the new Republicans are simply refusing to handle their power responsibly. It’s a simple observation of fact. And it’s a fact that Standard & Poor’s used to downgrade our sovereign debt.

Newsweek’s cover of Michelle Bachman is causing a stir. Of course, there is no shortage of conservatives/Republicans who are blaming ideology for a bad picture. But how short memories are.

The problem is, apparently, Newsweek doesn’t know how to hire a photographer who knows how to take a decent photo of a woman. Is it sexist? Well, once is a mistake. Twice is a trend. Thrice is a pattern.

Yeah, it’s sexist. There is nothing in the photos that would indicate any of these three women are serious contenders for anything.

What about the captioning? That’s a little uneven. Hillary’s War versus Queen of Rage?

But then it is hard to see this photo of President Obama as anything but insulting (not only to the President, but to Hindus, as well):

So maybe the “problem” is that Newsweek actually tries to get people to react with faux rage because…well, because it sells.

With all the hullabaloo over whats-his-crazy-name shooting Congresswoman Giffords, I thought I’d say a few things – which will probably make people on all sides cringe. I’ve been trying to find the right way to do it, but I decided I’d just let it fall how it may.

First of all, it isn’t the fault of “heated rhetoric.” I can say to just about anyone, “I’d like to kill that jack-ass for cutting me off today!” And most people will understand that it’s just blowing off steam. Unless and until someone finds a sound-bite of someone saying, “We seriously need to kill _______” then it isn’t the language that’s the problem.

Look, I used to work at a State School for the Mentally Retarded and one particular person was committed there by his family because his father told him, “Go put the dogs on the fire,” at a family holiday cook-out. And he put the family dog on the fire. Perhaps the father was a little too loose with his words (well, obviously). But the communication was normal for normal people. The problem was that it was taken in by a brain that wasn’t wired normally and disaster resulted.

Having said that, it’s also true that the more heated “mainstream” rhetoric gets, the more likely such ill-thought comments are to fall on abnormally wired ears. Plus overblown hyperbole, if used too often, loses its effectiveness. See also: The boy who cried Wolf.

Secondly, it isn’t the fault of gun manufacturers, retailers, or gun rights activists. A gun is a beautiful machine meant to allow any person to protect their self against attack, and when used as intended, it is one of the most beneficial things ever invented. Guns are awesome in the truest sense of the word – they literally hold life and death in their bodies. Plus, we are guaranteed the right of gun ownership in the US Constitution, and I believe we must uphold every part of it, not just the ones that agree with our ideology. Yes, a gun in the hands of a madman is a tragedy waiting for a place to happen – but what isn’t? A knife? A car? An airplane? A length of pipe, a bag of nails, and some fertilizer?

Third, this demonstrates the very best of what makes us a great people. The man whose dying act was to shield his wife with his own body. The woman who reached out to knock the new magazine out of the shooters hand. The unarmed men who subdued the shooter. The intern who ran towards danger. The incredible woman who, upon coming out of a medically induced coma, reached out to comfort her husband. This is the face of God we are seeing.

Fourth, more guns would not have made it safer. The people who subdued the shooter and stopped his rampage did so without weapons. And, despite Arizona having relatively lax gun-carry laws, anyone who had returned fire would only have made the scene worse. People identify the direction from which bullets are coming very quickly and they hide. When fire is returned, they do stupid things – like trying to run away as quickly as possible right into the line of fire.

Fifth, the existence of people like this shooter (I refuse to use his name) only solidify how badly we need universal medical coverage. If, when his misbehavior showed up at Community College, he would have been sent directly to therapy, this tragedy could possibly – but not assuredly – have been prevented. There are alway signs, and usually people who see them – but without any way to direct the person to proper care, they remain a freight train on a one-way rail to destruction.

Finally, this should remind us all to be just a little kinder to those around us. We simply don’t know how fragile they are. I recently read a study that showed a near elimination of violence among baboon families if the females were taught to groom all males, and not just the dominant ones. I know we are more than baboons, but the study just shows that a little kindness goes a long way. That, also, is the face of God among us.