AN UNFORGETTABLE KID

Today I met an old soul.  A tough, amazing, capable old soul.

His name is Axel.  Axel is probably 9 years old if not a bit younger.

He lives on his family ranch on the Front Range south of Denver. He is 8^th generation on that Homestead.   After getting home and looking it up – I found that they homesteaded in 1871 and have been there ever since.

Setting the scene.

As you pull into the yard you will see old and newer structures scattered around. Mature trees are clustered around buildings.  All the buildings in fairly good condition; none recently restored and decorative but all still in use and highly functional.  Also, you will be greeted by a menagerie of vehicles – vintage, 1950s and 1960s cars and trucks and a scattering of old tractors.  All vehicles are in fairly good condition but sweaty, not restored.  I notice two late 50s Ford trucks – one 4x4 and the other 2x4 – I learned to drive in a 1957, 4x4 Ford pickup. I knew that in 1957 that truck didn’t come 4x4 – it was an aftermarket, modification.  Both these trucks were in solid condition – again not restored but solid, good tires and obviously “drivers.”

I went there to buy rough cut lumber from these folks, some 2x4s and 2x8s.  I had called another lumber yard and they referred me. When I pulled into the yard a thick, squat black and white pit bull with a wide smile came out of an open shop door and greeted me enthusiastically.  The shop was filled with various pieces of equipment and more vehicles.  I didn’t see any people so I hollered a few “hellos”.

A 30-something man came out of the shop wiping his hands with a red-rag.  Then out of an inner, side door came another man about the same age and with him was Axel.  Axel was no taller than 4’, in a worn, green ball cap and a plaid cotton, button up, untucked shirt and faded Wrangler Jeans. 

I told them what I was there for and they remembered my email from the week before asking if they had what I needed. The one working on the truck asked for the other’s help and they asked if I could wait a few minutes.  I said, sure.  I walked out to admire the Ford trucks and a wicked-cool Fairlane.  They had a Ford-thing. That was clear.  I asked about the Ford 4x4 and the boy said it was a 1957.  I said, “Oh yeah, I learned to drive on one of those! Who made it into a 4x4? I remembered that the truck I learned on was “pre-factory-Ford 4x4?”  He said, Yeah it didn’t come that way. The first year Ford made a 4x4 was 1959.  Yes, was impressed! LOL this kid knew Fords the way my cousin Hugh knew Buicks when he was a kid.

The 2^nd man came out, shook my hand, again, the little guy at his side – I didn’t know anyone’s name yet.  The man told me that the mill was across the pasture and over the hill and I could follow them.  Axel yelled, Ruger!  Get in truck!  And the black and white pit bull hopped into the bed one of the two Ford Trucks. Axel put up the tailgate – he could barely reach. This truck was the sweatier of the two Fords but it was very much “all there” and the body was super-straight.

The man, who I now knew as Chad hopped in the truck – but wait, he hopped in the passenger side.  Maybe the driver’s side didn’t open?  Nope Axel hopped behind the wheel and off they went, down the road across the pasture, across the creek and up to the mill and gravel pit.  I watched the two “men” talked and turn their heads toward each other and back forward in conversation.  I could barely SEE the back of Axel’s little head!

He parked the truck at the mill yard and they all tumbled out – Ruger included.  Axel ran off with Ruger and I HAD to ask about him!  I asked Chad if he was his son and he said, “No, he’s my brother’s kid.”  I commented on him driving on the ranch and thought it was great!  Chad said, yeah that is his truck.  He bought it from a junkyard with his own money.  He rebuilt the motor with his dad.  Axel and Ruger scampered back to the truck and he said, “Ruger, let’s go swimmin” and off they went back over the hill in that kid’s truck.  A tiny driver with an exuberant pit bull hanging his head (and tongue) over the tailgate.

Chad and I loaded lumber and let me tell you a REAL 2x4 and a REAL 2x8 is a REAL piece of lumber!  You would not believe how different they are from what Home Depot sells. How can they even call it a 2x4?  He liked that I had worn gloves and a REAL truck.  He told me of an urbanite gal who had recently bought a single 1x4 from him for a “project.” She came in her Hyundai and wailed when she got a splinter – if you don’t use gloves with rough cut lumber you deserve a splinter.  He was clearly not enchanted with City-folk.  It was then I learned Axel’s name.  Chad told me that Axel had been driving that truck all over the ranch for a couple of years.  I asked about the ranch and how big the place was. Chad said that family over the years had carved out chunks – so…and mumbled about it as though it had become small.  I asked how many acres they had left with a sympathetic tone; thinking it had gotten “small.”  He said, “Oh we still have about 3000 acres left. 

I exclaimed, WOW, and we are fat, dumb and happy on our 35!”  He also told me that he was 7^th generation to live and work on that land – as Axel was his nephew I did the math. I was floored.  These guys sell rough cut lumber, gravel and hay.  They USE their land and the way it looked they loved it too.  Not pristine like a rich man’s land – but so clearly cared for.  I told him that I thought Axel was pretty amazing – I asked again, “That is HIS truck and HE rebuilt the motor?”  He said, “Yep he did most of it and yep it is HIS truck.  He picked it out at the junk yard.”

I said, “That kid is going to do just fine in the world.” 

Chad responded, “Yeah, but he has a hard time relating with other kids his age.” That didn’t surprise me.  It made me a little sad.  Not for Axel but for the kids who would never “get” him and who would never learn 1/10^th of what this kid already knew about the world.

After we were loaded Chad hopped on my “running board” (nerf bar) and said, “Let’s go.” We talked more across the cab through the open, rear window.  He petted my dogs with his free hand holding onto my roof rack with the other.  As we topped the hill we saw Axel and Ruger down at the creek romping with each other – his truck parked in the shade.  Chad said, “This is good” and they all hopped back into Axel’s truck and headed back to the shop. Ruger now an even MORE ecstatic, WET dog on a hot day.

We all went into the office together to figure up what I owed them.  I was sitting on a chrome and “leatherette” stool. Axel clambered up beside me on his own stool.  He just quietly watched us do business.  Then neither Chad nor I knew the date (I was writing a check) and Axel jumped up on another stool to check the calendar.  It was “Proud to Be American” flavored calendar and after giving us the date, Axel exclaimed, “Hey, today is Donald Trump’s birthday!”  It was pre-printed on the calendar.   He hopped back down and took his former seat.  We talked general politics, stupid laws and city-slickers. Axel was as much a part of the conversation as any of us.  He had opinions on electric cars, what was used to charge them and then we talked about the marginal benefits of the use or DEF in new diesel trucks.

I gave Chad my check, he gave me a receipt written out on lined, binder paper.  I thanked them both and headed for my truck.  Axel, Ruger and Chad all stood in the shade of the shop door and waved good bye.

If I could have, I would have stayed just to talk to Axel.  I wanted to learn so much more about him!  I told them both that they would see me again – hey they sell gravel – we need gravel.  They sell hay – we need hay.  But for sure, I am going to see that kid again.  And they don’t take credit cards but they will take a “good check.”

What a kid he is. I wish there were a lot more of him.

Suicide, Present Day -- Depression or Choice?

The suicide rate for people of middle age has gone up in every state in the US.  My question is this.  Does suicide, always have to mean the person was depressed?  I don’t believe it does.  I do not believe in today’s world that “not wanting to live” always equates to “being depressed”.   In some cases without doubt it does stem from depression.  I ache for people who hurt so badly that ending their life looks like relief. This hits very close to home for my family with tragic results. At the same time, to better understand what is going on in our society, to think about what else might be going on is valuable.

Could suicide be a pragmatic decision that an individual has a right to make?  I believe for this population, middle-aged Americans, the increased suicide rate could in part be an illustration is that they just aren’t at all interested in what their future, those remaining years, looks like.  Maybe sort of a “tap out”.  And in a world where so many of our liberties are being taken from us, could it be the ultimate “I control this” we have left?  This is not meant to be a political statement at all.  It is much deeper than that – because I would argue that the most recent celebrity deaths probably are not people who were concerned about their “loss of liberties” the same way the conservative right defines them.  I do NOT pretend to know however if these losses were or were not directly related to depression; these events however prompted thought.

If as a nation this trend concerns us, I recommend that we look to the much lauded, socialist utopias of Scandinavia.  These nations, while touting high rates of “national happiness” also have higher suicide rates than the United States.  So how can a nation be “happiest” and also have a high suicide rate?  Might suicide not always be connected to “depression?”  It is worth pondering and even worth study.

The following are A-political ponders.  Nothing more. Nothing less.  I do not have any judgement here – they are just like I said, ponders.

• As the nation becomes less and less religious, we have no religious pressures around suicide – it isn’t a sin if you don’t believe in sin.
• This generation has grown up in a world were abortion has been nothing but a political issue – it isn’t a “life”.  It is just a “procedure” or “a choice.”
• We have legal channels through which we can commit suicide if we are faced with a low quality of life.  We have fought for this right based on our right to choose.  

So now life – is a choice – based on both abortion and assisted suicide.

Is life sacred for this generation?  Or has life simply become somewhat of an idea of “energy in a vessel” – is it just a choice? Can life be sacred without faith anyway?  Is life sacred for any generation after?

I know that I cannot be the ONLY one who ponders this topic this way.  That would be impossible because I am simply not that “special.” Personally, I have a DNR; even 30 years ago they were uncommon. Fifty years ago - unheard of.  I have very deliberate and well thought-out directives about the perpetuation (or non-perpetuation) of my life under certain conditions. If faced with certain things I do NOT want to live. "Quality" for each of us is different but if a person sees that “quality” is highly improbable then why should we be surprised when they opt out?  Even a celebrity who seems to “have it all” might see their future as unappealing for their own personal reasons.  Their standards are uniquely their own; no one of us has the same standards of what is or is not “quality” and I don't believe that those "standards" always include depression.  I argue too that “quality” is directly connected to liberty and freedom in the most basic, NON-political sense -- whatever their interpretations of liberty and freedom are.

The mere idea that people can HAVE almost clinical-type thoughts about this and not be shocked by it tells me that something has changed in our culture.  I do not believe that a culture that sees abortion as a choice and also embraces assisted suicide can expect that this disconnection with “life” would not also affect the suicide rate.  In effect, “Life is a choice and I have the right to choose.”  That is the message from conception to old age.

I believe there is something that runs DEEPLY in each of us, that most don’t even know they have that screams, “I MUST BE THE MASTER OF MY OWN DESTINY.” That is why young men run bravely into war. Freedom, whatever that looks like to a person, is worth dying for. If that freedom (quality) seems impossible then ending their life is not a surprising response. 

As we insidiously lose personal liberties and the things that make our lives have “quality” does our unconscious mind struggle to find ways to offset that loss?  Couple that with laws that support the ending of life – both at the beginning and at the end – is it any wonder that people who are not depressed consider taking their own life into their own hands?

Is there something inside us that screams for personal freedom and is some suicide an expression of that?

A CHILLING THESIS ON SCHOOL SHOOTINGS

I read an outstanding but disturbing article the other day (link to article at the end).  It framed the “school shooting phenomenon” differently than I had ever seen it framed.  And you know what?  It makes sense!  PROFOUND sense. I dug in an read additional articles that debated this analysis; I found their arguments lacking. The serious and dismaying downside to this “making sense” is that there is little to be done, it has already started… And since it occurs over time it is impossible to predict the “end.”

Let me explain.

We hear arguments about too many guns, guns in the wrong hands, moral decay, mental illness, drugs that treat mental illness, bad parenting, bad schools, lazy law enforcement, blah, blah, blah.  All are tiny parts of this to a degree, but removing or increasing any one of these things or all of them WILL. NOT. CHANGE. ANYTHING.

We have been looking at each shooter as though he is an individual and acting alone. What was going on with HIM?  Was HE mentally ill?  Was HE deranged?  Did we miss the signals HE was sending?  We have to pull back and look at them in a collective, as a singular event spread out over time. Much like the creep of a glacier, if put into time lapse photography over 10,000 years, it would look like an ice flow careening down a mountain.  This is a single event just spread out over time. The writer of the article describes the school shooter phenomenon as a “Slow-Motion-Riot.”  From Columbine, as has been identified by many as the trigger event for the modern phenomenon, forward, each shooter, save a scant few, has been a rioter in the SAME riot.

Yes “riot” is an odd way to describe this – let me explain.  When studying this as a singular event, this event’s epicenter was Columbine.  Everything changes after Columbine. It became a performance, a mission, a manifesto…none prior had been as captivating to those affected by it. Instead of a “riot”, this event could be described as a “movement” or a “revolution” but the riot analogy better explains why each successive shooting happens. A movement or revolution tends to have some reason behind it, even if weak. A riot doesn’t need one…and this “slow-motion-riot doesn’t really have one. That adds to the scary part of it.  There is no motive – just every reducing thresholds.

Many of you don’t remember the Rodney King Trial.  Without rehashing the whole thing it sparked riots in Los Angeles, California.  That City, or parts of it, were literally taken OVER by rioters – the riots lasted weeks; news footage of it made it look like a war zone.  Freeways in and out of the city were closed.

During the riots widespread looting, assault, arson, and murder occurred and estimates of property damage went over $1 billion. LAPD was totally overwhelmed. Then California Governor Pete Wilson called in the National Guard; George Bush deployed the 1^st Marine Division.  It was bad – Ferguson was a birthday party in comparison.   I recall on-the-street interviews and watching video of stores being EMPTIED because no one was there to defend the store or its merchandise.  

Some of the interviews were of “normal people” who decided to join in the looting; they actually talked to the camera because they had ceased being an individual – there was safety in numbers; they were one of many.  It was a weeks-long-free-for-all. It is safe to say a large portion of the people who looted would NEVER have shop-lifted on their lunch break or thrown a rock through a plate glass window on a Tuesday because they liked the leather jacket in the window display.  If they had been prone to that behavior already then the crime rate of LA on a normal day would have been magnitudes higher than it was. These normal people though became “looters” in this case because the guy next to him (or her) was looting, it was less of a crime, or less bad… However you frame that – the fact that others were doing it made it easier for the next guy to do!

The “slow motion riot” article said, “Social processes [like riots] are driven by our thresholds—which he [Stanford sociologist Mark Granovetter] defined as the number of people who need to be doing some activity before we agree to join them. In the elegant theoretical model Granovetter proposed, riots were started by people with a threshold of zero—instigators willing to throw a rock through a window at the slightest provocation [Eric Harris & Dylan Keelbold had a threshold of zero – neither had “cause” to do what they did; psychopaths can start a riot just to do it]. Then comes the person who will throw a rock if someone else goes first.

We all remember being a kid and saying, “I’ll do it if you do it.” Even as an innocent child we had a threshold that could be fairly easily reached and we would be willing to do things that were at the least unwise and at worst wrong. Someone doing it 1^st is more powerful than a “double-dog-dare” to a young person.

The article goes on.

The “I’ll do it if you do it kid” (or adult) has a threshold of one; he was the 1^st shooter after Columbine. Next in is the person with the threshold of two, the 2^nd shooter after Columbine. His qualms are overcome when he sees the instigator and the instigator’s accomplice. Next to him is someone with a threshold of three, who would never break windows and loot stores unless there were three people right in front of him who were already doing that—and so on up to the hundredth person…[the shooter in Florida or Texas or…]” [inserts mine].  And pretty soon so many have done it before him it is a very low threshold and the next shooter hardly needs a reason at all.  At this point they don’t even need a “why.”  There is no “motive.”

The most ominous part of this thesis of Gladwell’s is “low threshold” shooters are motivated by angst and deep anger but as the riot spreads, the justifications are often manufactured, they are self-created and the shooters more and more “normal.”

A real-time, normal-speed riot generally runs out of energy, things to burn and loot and gets descended upon finally by law enforcement to put an end to it.  How do you end this sort of “riot”?  It is moving so slowly, like that glacier that it is imperceptible.  In the short term, law makers have discussed ideas like “firearms restraining orders” to be levied against individuals KNOWN to have tendencies and the ones who ARE sending screaming messages. Most of the shooters aren’t supposed to have any of the weapons they use anyway.  Another “law” isn’t going to change things. A firearms restraining order might have stopped Parkland – impossible to speculate; but Parkland should NEVER have happened. Local law enforcement is culpable, the school is culpable, the FBI is culpable – the gun didn’t drop the ball on that one.

What is true is that the lion’s share of shooters since Columbine DO in fact have a history, a disturbing one.  Most states have laws already requiring weapons in the house to be locked up if minors also live there and most have a criminal code as well as a civil code assigning liability if an owner allows his or her gun to fall into the wrong hands and it is used in a crime.  The first lawsuit against the Santa Fe, Texas shooter’s father has already been filed; more to follow and rightly so.  That man should NEVER have allowed his minor child access to his guns.  EVER.  Now that we know that there was some disturbing stuff about the kid, even MORE so.

A cultural return to morality might quell the riot but not for at least a generation or even the one more after that.  I don’t see that happening anyway, so not much point pondering the possibility. We aren’t allowed to impose morality on people anymore or stigmatize bad behavior.  We have told these kids they have a right to self-expression regardless of how abnormal it is. Hell, even implying that there is a “normal” is taboo and “passing judgement.”  Well, some of these boys are expressing themselves alright!  What did you expect would happen?

I DON’T believe that “guns” are the issue.  Guns are a vehicle of “expression.”  Each successive shooting gets easier and easier and the threshold lower.  I honestly think the only thing that is going to affect this, not stop it but affect it, in any immediate way is to SHOOT BACK and make sure that every kid knows (to misquote a misquote) that there may be a gun behind every text book or desk inside a school and that no one will hesitate to take him out. Yep, harden the target and it might become less of one.  No wonderful, ah-ah! solutions though…

Article URL: www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-do-mass-shootings-happen-best-explanation

Chappaquiddick and the Borg

I have not yet seen the movie, but I will.  For those of you too young, this is an example of the might and power of rich, politically connected families and of even then, the Washington Establishment protecting itself.  From what I have heard, and I listened to a lot of reviews of the movie, it is true to the story and it is a-political. The movie just tells the story – as all movies should.  No editorializing, no political bent – because sometimes, oftentimes, the truth is enough.  Did any of us really learn of this in-depth in high school history? Not hardly.  It was that well controlled and information is always controlled.

I urge people to see the movie for two reasons.  One, it is said to be an excellent movie with excellent acting.  It is just supposed to be darned good.

The second reason is to help open our eyes to the awesome, almost incomprehensible might of money and power.  This sort of thing DOES happen; it DID happen and yet this man was allowed to go on to become even richer and be one of the United States’ longest serving senators.  It is said because of this event Ted Kennedy was unable to run for president.  What? That is a loss? That is suffering? He lived off the American tax payer his entire life and lived quite well I might add and never once had to answer to leaving a young woman to die in dark, cold waters.

Cover ups for self-protection happen every single day in Washington.  These people – from both, nay ALL sides of the aisle, will do EVERYTHING in their power to retain power.  This fraternity that is the “Washington Establishment” is ensconced, protected and lives in an utterly separate world from you and me. We are not a nation “of the people, by the people, for the people.” All decisions they make are for them and the perpetuation of their power. Period. 

What is true too is that ALL humans are fallible.  We are not Gods after all.  If our electeds served a term or two or even three, they could probably manage to get through that period without a scandal.  But these people are staying for LIFE – there is NO HUMAN who can live, while in the public eye, without some falling from grace, some human failing.  Ted Kennedy fell from grace big-time and yet he never had to hit the pavement. Some of them crash into the hard ground never to rise again; some seem to live through insane scandal and flourish. It is the Establishment that chooses who lives and who dies.  Not us.  Who lives and who dies is only related to how much the "death" would upset the establishment.  No other reason.

Political leadership in this nation was designed to be carried out by us, people like you, me, your neighbor, your son or daughter; regular people representing regular people.  There is NOTHING regular about any person who has been in office for a decade or more of their adult lives.  How would they even KNOW what it is like to walk a mile in your shoes, army boots or tennis shoes as you run for orders in the window as the cook is banging his bell? How would they have any idea the long hours behind the wheel of the trucker who delivered that fresh, organic produce they love so much?   Or the software engineer whose eyes blur by 3 AM when he is looking at code to find that one error he knows is there? People who know nothing of what it is to BE you are making decisions FOR you.

Until we, as a people, are willing to truly take this in, that our “leaders” are not “one of us” and demand that leadership in Washington have regular turn-over, nothing is going to change.  I think the best way to contemplate this is consider that Washington DC has been invaded by aliens from outer space.  They are the Borg and the survival of their "Collective" is above all else.    

“The Borg are a fictional alien group that appear as recurring antagonists in the Star Trek franchise. The Borg are a vast collection of "drones", or cybernetic organisms, linked in a hive mind called "the Collective" or "the Hive". The Borg co-opt the technology and knowledge of other alien species to the Collective through the process of "assimilation": forcibly transforming individual beings into drones by injecting microscopic machines, or nanoprobes, into their bodies and surgically augmenting them with cybernetic components.” [Wikipedia]

It doesn’t matter who is in the White house, Trump, Hillary or Kermit the Frog.  Until both the House and the Senate are purged of “lifers” and we begin voting them out and demanding some sort of limits on their time, we will get the same results over and over and over.  Every time a young newcomer arrives he or she is injected and infected and will become “one of them” or they simply will not survive.

The relentless attacks on Trump are because the hive, the collective, cannot control him and cannot sufficiently infect him…yet. Whether they will succeed remains to be seen.  You can think that “the people” are attacking him all you want – it is the Establishment, all sides, who want him gone and who are feeding the machines of attack. And they are LOVING watching us go at each other, just LOVING it.

Nothing changes if nothing changes.

The Boogeyman and Mommy-Dearest: A Deliberately Ridiculous Title

March 14, 2018 – In the predawn hours of the "17-minute walk out demonstration day", which we, having BEEN high schoolers, all know will turn into a full ditch day, I want to stress again some perspective. This is NOT to be shared with your small child.  This is to YOU people who are supposed to be grown ups.

The Boogeyman is Real: That is What They are Told

I will be as generous as I can be while still being honest and accurate. The fear being hammered into young people today is not honest and it is not in any way accurate.  It is horribly misguided at best and undeniably cruel. For this perspective, let's not just focus on the fatalities and not even the injuries but let's consider ALL the young people who are affected by a school shooting in their school -- even if they weren't anywhere near the actual trauma; even if they saw nothing at all. I know, had I been a high school kid when it happened at MY school, even if I SAW none of it, I would be deeply affected. I do not dispute that for one minute.

Lacking 2018 data I will use 2014 data for a count on how many young people are enrolled in school grades K-12 In the United States. We can presume that there are at LEAST that many in 2018. So using the 2014 numbers there are 55 MILLION students enrolled in schools grade K-12. An ongoing Washington Post analysis has found that 150,000 students attending at least 170 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999.

Doing the math, dividing 150K by 55 million we find that less than 1/3 of one-percent (0.2727%) of all students in the United states have been affected by school shootings since Columbine in 1999. It is horrific ANY time it happens. And yet it is NOT an epidemic in any way, shape or form. We have GOT to have perspective on this.

These young people are being damaged by the horrible fear tactics that they are being pummeled with; that are being hammered into them. Seven year olds are writing desperate letters to the president begging to be kept safe from a woefully overblown “threat.” That 7 year old has been lied to. These kids are not different from the kids of the 1950s who lived in constant fear of nuclear attack. That was a more likely reality than a school shooting.

Do you know what is TRULY insane? In the United States, about 500 instances of a parent killing one or more offspring happen every year, a fairly consistent pattern in the past 50 years, said Phillip Resnick, a psychiatry professor at Case Western Reserve University. Roughly 200 of the killers are "mommy." So on average 500 children are murdered by their parents EVERY YEAR. Going all the way back to 1982 an average of 31 people die every year in mass shootings (this is verifiable data source: MotherJones.com) -- this is all mass shootings, not just school shootings.

Should we tell young people to be deathly afraid of their parents the same we they are being told to be deathly afraid of the possibility of a school shooting? Should we tell that terrified 7 year old who wrote to the President, "Ah kid, you don't need to fear being shot at school, but now your MOTHER, she is another story! SHE is MUCH more likely to kill you!" No, that would be cruel and crazy.  It is our responsibility to support their feeling safe at home.  Why have we robbed them of the safety of school when it really IS exceptionally safe?  A child is safer at school than she is at home.  Let that sink in. The odds of them dying at the hands of a parent are substantially higher than at the hands of a school shooter.

These young people are being told TO BE VERY AFRAID when the risk is PROFOUNDLY low that they will ever be AFFECTED by a school shooting much less injured or killed by one.  The ONLY reason these young people are even affected NOW is because they hear about it and see it over and over and over.  If I see the same photo of one tragedy 100 times – I am much more traumatized by that one tragedy than I would have been had I seen it once or even a few times. Remember Saving Private Ryan’s opening scene? It was a half-hour crucible of hell on Omaha Beach.  I felt physically beat up after enduring that scene.  Had it lasted 3 minutes instead of 30, my reaction and visceral response would have been vastly different.  These kids see school shootings as this never-ending stream of violence when it is far, far from it.  At least Private Ryan was "only" 30 minutes; for these kids it is every single day.

How they are being hammered with "fear messaging" has got to be a huge source of damage to these young people. Young people are safer today than in ANY time in human history. I will go so far as to say this targeted fear-mongering is abusive for political gain; these kids are expendable pawns in a grown up game. I would be livid where I a parent of a school-aged child. Living in CONSTANT FEAR is no way to live and it sure as heck isn't an environment to learn in! The media and the extreme anti-gun lobby is conditioning these kids to be fearful. This truly is tantamount to convincing a whole nation of school-aged kids that the boogeyman is real.

It is tragic. It is cruel and it is 100% dishonest.

SPRING IS SPRINGING IN COLORADO! PRIVATE LAND STEWARDSHIP & RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT

Spring is springing in Colorado.  Mother's Day is coming and gardens are being planned and landscaping ideas are being discussed.  It made me think about responsible gardening, that lead to looking for information and it ended with writing about responsible small acreage management.  That is how my brain works over coffee in the morning.

A South Carolina friend posted a story on Facebook about the evils of the “Bradford Pear.”  I thought, “How can a pear be evil? Pears are yummy!” Having never lived further east than I do now on the Front Range of Colorado, the "Bradford Pear" didn't mean a thing to me; I had ever heard of it. The story was an ever-more-familiar one of “landscaping gone bad.” The story from Greenville.com (SC) actually said that the pear was worse than kudzu; I KNOW what kudzu is and it is really bad! I loved learning and hope that little by little folks "get it". It is amazing that once I learn the truth about something that is outwardly beautiful (as in pretty flowers or trees in bloom) it loses its loveliness. What is true though is that this story can be repeated across the nation; just different plants in different places.

On the Central West Coast, where I lived so much of my younger life, you can pluck out "Bradford pear" and plug in "Scotch broom". It is beautiful with bright, yellow, tiny flowers and the aroma is sweet and amazing. Until you learn it is invasive. Then it becomes a vast sea of "yellow hell" with a sickly-sweet, worse than church-lady perfume. It is hardy as a Scotsman. Some municipalities now require that a land owner fully eradicate all Scotch broom on their land before they will issue a building permit.  This is a tall order for some and can cost in the 1000s to 10s of thousands of dollars.  It can be negotiated as part of the closing when you buy land; you can ask for allowances for it much like carpet that needs replacing or an aged roof.

Scotch Broom

In Colorado it was once the Russian olive tree. Note these names “Scotch”, “Russian”? Pretty clearly non-native! People did get wise of the olive trees long ago and do not plant them like they once did; they also make a mess. Colorado is that we are not Greenville, South Carolina -- we are "High Desert-Ville.” Even the stuff that you really WANT to grow, is hard to grow. So when you destroy the native environment on your land it is very hard to regain.

The bane of our existence on the Front Range are not so much trees but noxious weeds. Most of the proliferation of these weeds stems from poor small, farm/ranch acreage management. Folks come to Colorado for a "lifestyle". Some are “townies” or urbanites who pick Denver as their new urban stomping-grounds surrounded by a playground. It is definitely an up-and-coming urban experience and it has become wildly expensive to live there. These tend to be younger, professional folks sans kids. Then of course mountain ski folks who can live 10 people to a condo just to ski! There are some are hard core athletes who relocate here to train and then lots are pseudo-farm/ranch dreamers, “let's raise the kids in the country" folks. It is laudable and I wish more kids grew up in the country -- even though where these folks live isn't really the country it still has some of the great country experiences. If you can buy a latte within 15 minutes of home it isn’t really “the country” but I digress!

Some of these ranchette subdivisions seem a far sight better than the scrape-the-ground, postage-stamp-lots with-cookie-cutter-clutter where there are four styles of home, with a slight orientation variation and 6 shades of beige paint. There they are allowed to call their drainage system and retention ponds “open space”.  Developers are getting much better about creating real variation and designating meaningful open space but the massive growth that Colorado experienced in the last 20 years moved far faster than planning regulations did. The five-acre ranchette subdivision is financially unsustainable but what is already here is here to stay.  These developments cost far more to support than they ever pay in property taxes – there are too few tax payers per mile of roadway. This sort of development sprawls down the Front Range from Fort Collins to Pueblo – there is rural sprawl on top of rural-sprawl. I have seen some of the worst land planning policies ever here in Colorado. In planning there is a balance of private property rights and jurisdictional planning regulations.  We are all “in this together” to a certain extent.  You don’t have to stray very far from city limits to find a free-for-all environment when it comes to county planning. People think they live in the sticks if they don’t have curb and gutter…but they don’t and what they do does affect the native environment greatly.

Now back to invasive species. So these people buy their little 5 acres on the Front Range; they get 3 horses and maybe a 4-H critter or two. I love the idea of kids raising animals – the life lessons are valuable and profound. They fence their 5 acres and turn them all out. They look so pretty and pastoral out there grazing! They think they have grass. They do not have a CLUE.

On average in Colorado it take 40 acres of ground to support a SINGLE cow-calf pair or a SINGLE horse. Some places a little less -- some a LOT more. There are years we are so dry that you can't rely on grazing stock much at all unless you have big, BIG land.  So often people graze their 5 - 35 acre "ranchettes" to the point that it looks like a bomb went off. In the livestock world this is called “dry-lot.” No grass. No grazing. Just dirt. If left on the ground unchecked horses will eat the slow-growing, native bunch grasses and leave the weeds alone. Now there is far less competition the next year for the noxious weed seeds that blow in, come in with the Kansas hay or that drain off the dirt road when the county last put imported “gravel” on it. The next year less grass, more weeds and so on and so on... It is awful. You can see it from space. Use Google Earth and scroll around some of these ranchette subdivisions in Elbert and El Paso Counties and without knowing a thing -- you can see who does and does not manage their ground well and you can see exactly where the fences are.

Grazing Patterns -- Colorado

If someone wants to trash their own ground in some ways it is none of my business (although I am so passionate about soil, native foliage and ground that it hurts my heart). It IS their land. BUT when what THEY do with their land adversely affects me and MY land? We gotta talk. If my neighbor has a glorious crop” if Canada thistle, musk thistle or toadflax, it will plunder my property and become quickly my problem. Once you leave the more dense areas and get into a county just outside the metro area you will find there is little over-site and even less education.  It is nearly impossible to “patrol” these vast, scattered counties. The little university extension offices in the counties have no meaningful way to reach all of the residents with the small land, ground management information they DO have. The fact that these developments already don’t pay their way, makes the county budgets where they exist even tighter.  There is no revenue stream tied to code or weed enforcement so it goes undone.  The miles involved in patrolling these areas is also prohibitive.

ABOVE: Canada Thistle RIGHT: Yellow Toadflax

 
Real estate brokers in Colorado are often, clueless about land management and zoning regulations.  A broker from a city just 10 miles away may know nothing about rural land use. Some don’t care; they simply want to make a sale. I know only a handful of truly brilliant brokers.  As a former county planning director I was often stuck being the “bad guy” when a new land owner came in to talk about their plans for their land.  I would be rich if I had a dollar for every time I heard “Well my real estate broker TOLD me I could.”  I always told brokers how much I appreciated them when they came in to do research for a client. They would apologize for taking so much time and I will tell them it was time well spent for both of us!

  

I believe that part of the land buying process, of ANY land that is zoned to have equine or livestock of ANY kind, should require a visit to the local planning department for a “land buyer” meeting.  It would be a requirement of the broker due diligence and it would mandate a sign off from the designated authority. The buyer and/or seller would pay for this meeting so the county tax payer did not.  It could even be a conference call with the broker and buyers reading the regulations online together with the county staff person. After the call, the county could email a certificate for closing to verify completion of that requirement. Part of that would also include a willful and specific sign-off from the buyer stating that they understood their land use rights and land management best practices. It is a buyer beware state. If we did this, the buyer would not buy something that wasn’t going to work for them and would not destroy his own land and damage the lands around him.

The stories I have heard brokers tell to make a sale are mind-blowing more sad really. I don't mean to vilify all brokers; I too have been a broker!  I just find that some brokers are willing to represent clients when it would have been more appropriate to refer them to a regional expert.  Even I know that is a hard thing to do. What I have also found is that even when a buyer learns after the fact that they are not allowed to have 27 horses on 5 acres, they do it anyway – since their broker told them they could – and we end up in a “watcha gonna do about it?” situation.  If everyone is fully informed prior to closing, it makes enforcement a lot more possible and it sets expectations appropriately.  It also educates brokers and that is a good thing. We are stewards of our land and while I am an ardent defender of private property rights, it is part of the fabric of this nation. I am also passionate about land stewardship and defending my own property rights from being damaged by my irresponsible neighbor. 

Just an idea.

THE TALE OF TWO DEMS – THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF COLORADO DEMOCRATS

A Colorado state Democratic lawmaker was expelled on March 2, 2018 amid allegations by female colleagues about sexual harassment and abuse. Rep. Steve Lebsock was expelled by a 52-9 vote after five female state House members took their turns at the podium to come forward as victims of sexual harassment or abuse. His abuse was not physical – his was “hitting on them” and making unwanted advances even after he knew they were unwanted. I don’t believe there is any doubt that Lebsock is a creep. What must be made clear here is that Lebsock had NO DIRECT authority over any of the women who accused him of his lecherousness.  As a state representative he was “one of many” in his elected role and had NO singular authority.

Lebsock of course contested the claims, saying his accusers were lying and accusing an independent investigator of bias in concluding that the claims were credible. This case was 100% “he said-she said” and there was no documented proof against him; these were interactions that no one can prove.  He “lost” because there were five women who accused him and we must assume they were highly credible.

So to sum up Lebsock: There is no documented proof against him.  There has been no trial. No sworn testimony. No judge, no jury. Nothing.  BAM! He is gone by a vote of his peers.  Mr. Lebsock may or may not be a complete creep; I don’t know the man.  It is true that the Colorado Dems in office never really liked him.  He was one of those law makers who bucked his party from time to time and he wasn’t a “team player”. In fact 10 minutes before the vote to oust him he changed his party affiliation to Republican. Why? Because when someone leaves office prior to his term being up, that person’s party gets to appoint his replacement for the remainder of the term.  It was his last jab at his party.

NOW WE HAVE THE BELOVED DEMOCRATIC MAYOR OF DENVER…

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock is the Dem party’s darling.  He is liberal, he is smooth, he is “likeable”, he is black, he is young, he is handsome…  They simply love him to pieces!  He is ALSO accused of sexual harassment and intimidation.  The accusations against him came out at nearly the same time as those against Lebsock.  In this case however we have proof against the accused.  We have the text messages that he sent to his head of security – a stunningly, beautiful woman.  He was very clear about his feelings toward her in texts. After spotting her on TV while watching a Denver Nuggets game he texted: ‘You look sexy in all that black.’

Another time, he complimented her haircut and said: “You make it hard on a brotha [sic] to keep it correct every day.”

Another text asked her about pole-dancing classes: ‘So I just watched this story on women taking pole dancing classes. Have you ever taken one? Why do women take the course? If not have you ever considered taking one and why? Your thoughts?’

When she didn’t respond, the officer said, she received a follow-up text from Hancock: ‘Be careful, I’m curious. LOL!'”  So what is a direct-report to think when your boss says, “Be careful, I’m curious?”  Are you serious dude?  Be careful of what? 

She sought a transfer to be away from him.  She, at the time, feared retaliation so she just decided distance was her best solution; after being told to “be careful” I would have feared retaliation too. Considering that he had already proved to be a bit “Teflon” during the election (more on this later), her concerns were reasonable. Hancock and his team somehow got out in front of these allegations and went into a multi-day lock down to work out the PR plan to save Mayoral face.  And the smooth Mayor executed it perfectly.

In this case we have seen the texts; there is irrefutable proof of Hancock’s misdeeds. We have heard directly from her and she is highly regarded and credible. At the time of his advances, Mayor Hancock was her DIRECT boss, she was the head of his security detail -- oh and yes, he was married at the time. 

A Mayor has a great deal of SINGULAR power.  He is NOT one of many; he is THE boss. While he may not be able to fire everyone on his own, he has a great deal of power to influence the lives of City and County employees (Denver is a City-County). 

These allegations against Mayor Michael Hancock came out within DAYS of the Lebsock ordeal… and the Dems are doing nothing to force this Mayor out of office.  Because he got out in front with his ARMY of PR professionals coaching him – he is somehow being given a pass.  It might be important to note that prior to his election, while just a regular councilman and just the “mayor-elect”, his name and personal cell number were found in the appointment book of an escort service that was later busted as a prostitution ring.  So we have some sort of character inkling?  Maybe?  We also got a very clear message, early on, that Mr. Mayor was somewhat untouchable, that he would be protected. He went on to be sworn in as the Mayor of the largest City in the Rocky Mountain Region despite appearing to have been a married customer of a prostitution ring.  Not quite “Marion Berry” but still…

In closing, it is interesting to have these two events perfectly timed with one another and stunning to see how differently they are being handled by the Colorado Dems.  The double-standard is PROFOUND and can’t help but slap one in the face.  I have heard that local Democrats are feeling a bit disillusioned – they are not happy with the way their elected leaders are handling, or MIS-handling this issue. I don’t blame them.  The double standard is THAT glaring. In addition to all of this against the shining mayor is a 2012 cover up involving lawsuits, the same officer, settlements and the firing of a one-time good friend of the Mayor’s for his inappropriate behavior.  The shenanigans of that time certainly stimulate the notion of “cover up”, “smoke screen,” “diversion” and “fall guy.”  None of that debacle makes any sense.  But as it is a messy, convoluted story, I shall not go into it.  This simple story of double-standards doesn’t rely on it anyway.

The Colorado Fraternal Order of Police has demanded Mayor Hancock’s resignation and a rally was held at the Capitol, organized by Lisa Calderon, co-chair of the Colorado Latino Forum. Their rally cry was “"Time's up" in a direct message to Mayor Michael Hancock.  But still the only sound we hear are crickets from the party…