Grasping Thorns

At Grace’s memorial service in Easley, her husband John read a lovely tribute; this part, in particular, struck me: he said, “When I first met Grace many years ago I thought she was tough, serious, and impervious. She seemed very powerful to me. But when I really got to know her I learned she was timid, scared, and self-conscious. She wanted so much for people to like her and she was always afraid they didn’t despite the obvious.”

I was only beginning to understand this about Grace. Whenever I saw a hint of it, I was surprised. Hint #1: Soon after meeting her, she came to my office to make sure she understood the course goals for the 101 class she was teaching, and admitted that she was having trouble wrapping her head around the syllabus. I had been approached, at this point, by probably half the class; but hearing from Grace surprised me. I think I just blinked at her. In my mind, she was such a natural teacher; Grace of all people could teach anything, could make anything work. I remember thinking to myself: doesn’t she know that?*

Hint #2: I came home from work Friday, August 19th, to a Facebook message from Grace. She said, “I don’t want to be ‘that guy’ by pestering you, but do you think we’re going to hear about the AD positions today? I’m ready to be put out of my misery either way.”

Grace had interviewed for an Assistant Director position earlier that week; we were overly optimistic to say we’d let applicants know our decision by Friday and were behind schedule. Of all the people who interviewed, 11 in all, I was surprised to get the “please-put-me-out-of-my-misery” email from Grace. Because of course she was picked for an AD position. Of course she was. Didn’t she know that? She had interviewed brilliantly once before already. The only reason she didn’t get it the first time was that the positions are so competitive; those TAs who have gone through the interview process more than once often have a bit of an edge.

It was Graces’s turn. She was perfect for an AD position focused on technology. The second half of her interview was nothing short of a love fest, in which I reminded Chris and Graham that Grace volunteered to help with First-Year English orientation last year, even though she was teaching undergrad classes. Who comes to FYE orientation when they don’t even have to?

Grace.

Didn’t she know she was going to be an AD?

Apparently, she didn’t. I made her pinky swear over the computer, and she took it up a notch to “super pinky swear,” so I told her that we petitioned for her hire and were in the process of working out the financial details.

Sorry Bill and Chris. Please don’t fire me.

I trusted Grace completely. And I was right to trust her. She didn’t even tell Mary Fratini. And she was so happy. She changed her Facebook profile photo to a storm trooper singing in the rain; and, lest anyone doubt her current mood, she changed her cover photo to read:

I messaged, “Dream Team 2013!” And the last thing she messaged me was “it’s gonna be AWESOME” — awesome in all caps.

Grace was high on life. She had just married the man of her dreams, she was on the path to motherhood (she had already talked to me about both adoption and pregnancy — she was keeping all options open), and she was going to be a FYE Assistant Director.

One of my first thoughts after hearing she had passed was of a ghost Grace, shaking her fist at the universe and saying, in true Grace-fashion, “Oh for fuck’s sake. You’ve got to be kidding me!”

But then I imagined ghost LB, one of Grace’s good friends who passed away last fall — yeah: it’s been a really tough year — being so very excited to see her. In my imagination, LB says “this is so great!” and Grace responds “No! This sucks!” before settling in for a nice, long catch-up chat.

When I shared this little interchange with Will Garland, he said, “I really love these ghosts.”

I said: “Yeah. Me too.”

Because I’ve always loved the interchanges between Grace and LB. A few of my favorites from Facebook are as follows:

1) Grace to LB: “So, what do you want to be called? Half the people at school know you as Hotspur anyway, if that’s what you prefer.”

LB: “I call myself Hotspur, but I’m wary of using it as a public name because it’ll be ruined the first time someone uses it in anger or disappointment.”

Grace: “When I’m disappointed or angry, I promise to call you ‘hon’ or ‘babe.’ Cool, right?”

LB: “I’ll accept Lieutenant Commander, bitch, bastard, and instructador de muerte.”

Grace: “Is that like instructor of record?”

2) Grace to LB, discussing their new office: “Which desk did you take? Refrigerator desk or filing cabinet desk? I took computer desk because I’m a greedy bitch.”

LB: “I took file cabinet desk b/c I need magnets to keep me amused”

Grace: “Sweet! We’re gonna have an awesome office.”

3) LB: “I brought in a jar of agave so I can eat waffles in my office, but it looks like a jar of pee.”

Grace: “Please label your jar so it is not confused with the actual pee that I store in the office.”

LB: “I just saw your comment. Love.”

Grace: “You’re welcome! I’ll be here all week. Tip your waitress.”

LB’s mother, Lindell, told me that after LB died, she won $25 worth of books from the library book sale within the week. After Grace died, she won another $25 worth of books within the week. So, now I imagine ghost Grace and ghost LB being funny, as they flit around and rig contests for free books.

When I read at LB’s memorial, I closed with a Victor Hugo quote that I thought was perfect. For Grace, I’m going to read a comedy piece, because fun and laughter and a dash of “inappropriate” humor is our Grace. Thanks to Stephanie Boone-Mosher for sending this to me . . . it’s even more perfect, because Stephanie read this in reading group when both Grace and LB were there. She was so proud when she read it, because she made Grace *crack up* and usually it was the other way around.

So, to close:

I’m Sorry I Didn’t Write A Comedy Piece

by Wendy Molyneux

The other day while sounding out the words on a Web site called The Rumpus, I saw this article asking for women to submit more comedy pieces. So I put down my giant chocolate bar, stopped crying, and thought, yes, that is what I will do.

I will write a comedy piece. But just as I sat down in my bay window (filled with pillows that I knitted myself while waiting by the phone for potential husbands to call) and opened my pink Mac laptop, I happened to see a lady walking down the street with a baby of her very own.

So then I started crying again because I don’t have a baby. I cried big rolling tears that fell down onto my “Mrs. Stamos” T-shirt that I purchased off of eBay and photographed myself in for my eHarmony profile. I always say, “Dress for the job you want,” and the job I want is being Mrs. John Stamos! So, once my shirt was soaked, I had to go change it. I walked into my closet, which is gigantic because women love to wear lots of expensive clothes and shoes all the time, and I thought, “I know what will make me feel better! I will feel better if I try on all my clothes and shoes to the tune of an upbeat Motown song such as ‘My Girl.’”

And so I did that. I tried on all my clothes, and I felt better until I tried on one pair of pants that didn’t fit me anymore. And then I totally started to cry again, because I am so fat.  I cried for a little while on the floor while my cats crawled all over me, purring and being symbols of how lonely I am. My cats love to be symbols of my loneliness. Sometimes, I have to be like, “Stop signifying so loudly guys, I’m watching Grey’s Anatomy!”

At this point I still had not written my comedy piece written by a woman. So I went back to the window, opened my pink computer again and looked at pictures of cute baby ducks for awhile until I felt like writing. But then I remembered that I hadn’t made anything for dinner! Every night, I like to make an elaborate dinner. Then, I set it on the table and open all the windows. My fondest hope is that the wafting smells of a home-cooked meal will lure men who are passing by to come inside and eat dinner. And then after they eat dinner, I hope they’ll eat something else. If you know what I mean. Get it? Eat something. I mean dessert. I want them to eat dessert. Because the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. Also, they are always leaving the toilet seat up! Am I right?

Anyway, twelve hours later after I had cooked, baked, cried, sewn a blanket for my hope chest, called a telephone psychic, had all my favorite Cathy comic strips laminated, and then stayed up all night trying on all my clothes and shoes again, I finally felt ready to write my comedy piece. I decided to start by asking myself, “What’s funny?” That is a tough one for me because I have no sense of humor. I mean, I assume that I have no sense of humor because all of the funny things that are made especially for women like me, such as Sex and the City, 27 Dresses, and yogurt commercials don’t even make me laugh. But I guess my humor deficiency is one of those womanly crosses I have to bear, along with P.M.S., making seventy cents on the dollar, and paying for my own rape kit. You know what they say though, you can’t make the willing pay for their own rape kits! I think they say that. Probably somebody said that. God knows I didn’t say it myself! I only say things like: “What are numbers?”

Oh, there I go again on one of my tangents. I guess it’s time for me to get serious about writing this comedy piece. Emoticon. I mean, I probably shouldn’t even try to write a comedy piece since Christopher Hitchens wrote an article in Vanity Fair saying that women just aren’t funny. He’s probably right. And even if he isn’t, I think it’s great that we live in a country where you can say anything you want, like that women aren’t funny or that Christopher Hitchens is a huge douche who runs a successful child pornography business and has an inability to get an erection unless he’s reading Nazi literature.

Well, would you look at that? I’ve totally run out of time, and now instead of writing a comedy piece, I have to go report to my regular day job knitting tampon cozies and being best friends with everybody.

Oh well, I probably would have been terrible at it anyway.

*Note #1: I realize, of course, that meeting with me about the syllabus was, also, quite possibly Grace’s indirect way of telling me: “Oh for fuck’s sake. This syllabus is bullshit.” But, I maintain that Grace Hagood Downs could. teach. anything.
**Note #2: All images are from Grace Hagood Downs’s albums on Facebook, expect for LB’s desk, which is one of LB’s photos.

To the US Senators who voted down universal background checks, and to the supporters who urged you to do so:

Yesterday, while the US Senate was voting down the Manchin-Toomey gun amendment, which was already an extraordinary compromise on behalf of gun control advocates (i.e. it would have required background checks on all commercial sales of firearms — like those purchased at gun shows and via the Internet), I was teaching Kwame Anthony Appiah’s “What Will Future Generations Condemn Us For?” in my English 102, Rhetoric and Composition class.

Although Appiah, currently the Lawrence S. Rockefeller University Professor of Philosophy at Princeton, suggested in 2010 that future generations will condemn us for our prison system, industrial meat production, the institutionalized and isolated elderly, and the environment, my students (two of whom are from Boston and were visibly shaken by the Monday bombings) used his “three signs that a particular practice is destined for future condemnation”  to discuss our seeming inability to quell what can only be described as domestic terrorism.

Although the most recent incidents (the 4/15 Boston bombings in which 3 people were killed, hundreds injured; and the 4/9 knife attack in a Texas college classroom, in which 14 people were injured) did not involve gun violence, my students focused on gun violence in particular, because of the highly publicized string of mass shootings over the past few years . . . Tuscon, Aurora, Oak Creek, Newtown.

(1) Appiah’s first sign that a particular practice is destined for future condemnation: “First, people have already heard the arguments against the practice. The case against slavery didn’t emerge in a blinding moment of moral clarity, for instance; it had been around for centuries.”

So, have we heard before some version of:  ”we-don’t-sell-firearms-to-criminals-and-the-mentally-ill”?

Here’s one example of a plea for universal background checks in 1999, after Columbine, via NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-oqfPojhec.

2) Appiah’s second sign that a particular practice is destined for future condemnation: “Second, defenders of the custom tend not to offer moral counterarguments but instead invoke tradition, human nature or necessity. (As in, ‘We’ve always had slaves, and how could we grow cotton without them?)’”

I give you Sarah Palin’s celebratory tweet after the Manchin-Toomy amendment failed to pass: “Politicians’ expanded gun control effort fails in the Senate today. Count this a victory for the 2nd Amendment and law-abiding citizens.”

To suggest that thwarting universal background checks is a “win” for tradition, as established in 1791 by the 2nd Amendment, fails to take this into account: click here for a 30 second video totally worth your time. Thank you Upworthy.

3) Appiah’s third sign that a particular practice is destined for future condemnation: “And third, supporters engage in what one might call strategic ignorance, avoiding truths that might force them to face the evils in which they’re complicit. Those who ate the sugar or wore the cotton that the slaves grew simply didn’t think about what made those goods possible.”

What does strategic ignorance in the gun control debate look like? Here are only a couple of examples, making the rounds on Facebook:

When there is a bombing, we blame the bomber. But, we also do what we can to make it more difficult for people to kill others with bombs. Case in point:

When there is a drunk driving accident, we blame the drunk driver. But, we also do what we can to make it more difficult for people to drink and drive. As Jon Stewart explains, we “enact stricter blood-alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement and penalties, and charge bartenders who serve drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question; and, we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down — I don’t know — by two-thirds in a few decades.”

Facebook meme #2:

Obviously, this meme reveals a misunderstanding of why we make laws in the first place. In “The Gun Lobby’s Dumbest Argument,” Michael Tomasky explains two reasons we continue to make laws, despite the fact that criminals do not always follow said laws (note: this is why they’re called criminals) and despite the fact that said laws won’t prevent all violence. We make laws:

“One, to have a ready statutory means by which to punish the chiselers and sociopaths. And two, to make a statement as a society about what sort of society we are. As it happens, we passed the Clean Water Act of 1972 in part simply to say: whatever sort of society we are, we aren’t one in which we will watch as our rivers catch fire and not try to do anything about it.

Only four short months ago, I recorded the experience of telling my 8-year-old daughter about the Sandy Hook shooting, here. And here I am again, telling her about the Boston bombings.

The discussion was similar to the Newtown one, except for one thing. Normally, Arina is full of ideas. But, today, she shook her head after reading some of the coverage over my shoulder, sighed and said, “I don’t even know, Mom.”

I didn’t tell her that we’re talking about this on the day that, six years ago, 32 people died in the Virginia Tech shooting. I don’t know why. I’m brutally honest with her most of the time, but talking about Virginia Tech after Sandy Hook and after the bombings just makes the world sound so, so dark.

But I did tell her that we’re talking about this on the day that, fifty years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. penned his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” I read it again, with Arina reading it over my shoulder.

I shared with her a couple of my favorite quotes, and she repeated them back to me in Arina-speak:

(1) MLK Jr.: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

Arina: “So, we’re all in this together?”

Me: “Right. So, when bad things happen — like bombings and school shootings and people not being treated fairly — it’s an injustice that affects us all. So, it’s our job to think about how to make the world kinder, a more inclusive and less violent place.”

(2) MLK Jr: “ Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”

Arina: “So, we need to be annoying? Like flies?”

Me: “Right. But like nonviolent flies. So, no biting.”

Arina nodded. She has heard our firebrand of a pastor tell us to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight, so she seems to understand the idea of being persistent (even annoyingly so) while searching for light or goodness in dark, dark places.

Dr. Ray tells us to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight all of the time, but Arina and I talked about how it’s especially important when things seem so bad.

“So, what are you going to do?” I asked her.

Arina: “Well . . . I’m really glad I saved that polar bear.” [She donated to a "save the polar bears" fundraiser recently and has pinned a photo of her "adopted" polar bear to a board in her room.] I agreed that saving polar bears makes the world a kinder place.

“So what are you going to do?” she asked me.

I sniffed. “Well, I was going to call Senator Graham today,” I explained, “because it’s supposed to be National Call Day for new gun legislation” [in the form of expanded background checks for gun show and Internet purchases]. But President Obama canceled it.”

Then and there: I decided to call anyway, since it seemed to be a nonviolent gadfly thing to do, and I was happy to see the Brady Campaign still urging people to do so — even though, as my friend Natalie pointed out, the wording of their email could possibly be interpreted as exploiting the Boston tragedy.

For me, though: I wanted to make it clear to my daughter and to my representative that an America plagued by acts of violence is one that I want to change. Calling for expanded background checks on gun purchases had nothing to do with the Boston bombings, and everything to do with the Boston bombings.

Nothing: because regulating materials for bombs is a totally different beast than regulating firearms, clearly. I remember talks of regulating ammonium nitrate fertilizer after the Oklahoma City bombing, but as Natalie points out: materials for bombs are, essentially, available for purchase at any local hardware store. No one is suggesting that expanded background checks on firearms would have made a difference in the Boston bombings.

Everything: Grieving and processing the violence in Boston feels too similar, too familiar to other recent moments of terror. There comes a point, I think, when the tragedies snowball to such an extent that every call attempting to stem the tide of gun violence; or rape culture; or bombings; or bullying becomes an indistinguishable refrain of: I do not approve; I do not condone; I kick for change.

Saving polar bears; or acknowledging that gun ownership is a grave responsibility; or running past the finish line in the Boston Marathon to donate blood: all are attempts to make little cracks in a darkness that seems both overwhelming and penetrable at the very same time.

Dear Senator Graham,

I’ve been meaning to write you again, since receiving your response to my letter. I asked you to support the common sense gun laws advocated by Moms Demand Action, which are detailed on their Web page as follows:

1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
2) Require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases.
3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF, and ban online sales of ammunition.

In response, you wrote, “As we continue to grieve the untimely loss of so many innocent lives, we must not react in a manner than is contrary to what makes this nation so strong. We must not let evil acts of violence defeat the foundations of the United States. Instead, we must find strength in our faith and community, and protect the rights of law-abiding Americans.”

Your response annoyed me, as you can tell from the cherry juice stains in the above photo. Whenever I’m annoyed, I get the bag of chocolate chips and the jar of cherries out of the refrigerator and indulge.

In three sentences, you manage to be both patronizing and wrong.

I am not, as you say, “react[ing] in a manner that is contrary to what makes this nation so strong” — partly because a nation with 32,000 gun deaths a year is not strong. It’s a flimsy, easily damaged mess and needs to be made stronger. That’s what we’re trying to do.

I agree that we “must not let evil acts of violence defeat the foundations of the United States,” but voting for common sense gun laws does not equal defeating the foundations of the United States, as you seem to imply — especially since a foundation of the United States is that we have the right to life. When the liberty (of, say, Nancy Lanza to own military-style assault weapons) infringes on the lives of 6- and 7- year old children (as. it. did.), there is a problem. And we let it happen. As Ravital Segal writes, “Our insufficient mental health services and weak gun control laws embody our society’s passivity — and resulting culpability.”

In your response, you give three “solutions” to the problem that is mass shootings: we should (1) find strength in our faith; (2) find strength in our community; and (3) protect the [2nd Amendment] rights of law-abiding Americans. Our faith is nonviolent and peace-loving, which is antithetical with such weapons of war; our community is damaged and continues to be damaged every day by gun violence (2728 gun deaths since Newtown); and, again: the rights of law-abiding Americans to their lives is more important than what is ultimately, for many, a hobby. As Dianne Feinstein points out: an assault weapons ban would exempt 2,271 types of guns that law-abiding Americans may use for hunting, protection, recreation, etc. But it would not allow the manufacture and distribution of weapons solely designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.

Your solutions are unsatisfactory.

I want you to know, Senator Graham, that the students in my college composition classroom have done a better job understanding, discussing and reaching reasonable compromise on this issue than has the United States Senate. And that’s just sad.

Some things to note:

1. We started the discussion around the same time as the Senate — in January.

2. Like the Senate, the students who comprise my class are a mixture of both liberals and conservatives. On one extreme, a student argued that nonlethal pepper spray is a more valuable weapon for self-defense than a lethal firearm, since you only have to aim in the direction of the attacker to incapacitate him; on the other extreme, a student (a soldier and gun enthusiast) shared his experiences with and love for the AR-15. Unlike those in the Senate, we all seem to genuinely like each other.

For the gun control unit, we read “Am I My Brother’s Keeper?”, a transcription of the interview between Richard Heffner and Elie Wiesel, which argues for social responsibility. We agreed that this is an issue worth discussing, a problem worth solving. We read and/or discussed positions articulated by Paul Barrett (author of Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun) and Wayne LaPierre and President Obama, among others. Each student brought in both articles and political cartoons of their choice, investigated the claims presented, and offered their research and subsequent assessment of the arguments.

By the end of the unit, we had discussed a wide range of possible Wayne LaPierre-type solutions, including:

1. Increasing armed guards/police presence in schools (unsatisfactory, the group researching this option concluded, citing examples of both Columbine and Fort Hood; there was an armed guard at Columbine, and lots of armed soldiers at and around Fort Hood).

2. Allowing concealed weapons on campus (unsatisfactory, the group researching this option concluded, citing the Tuscon shooting, where a bystander with a concealed weapon decided, wisely, not to fire in the chaos for fear of hurting an innocent bystander; the bystanders who eventually subdued Jared Lee Loughner were unarmed).

And we discussed the solutions articulated by Moms Demand Action:

While my students agreed unanimously on universal background checks and record-keeping, the assault-weapons ban continued to be a sticking point. Then, my most conservative student offered a compromise: smart gun technology.

In “Newtown Parents Push Silicon Valley Leaders for Tech to Curb Gun Violence,” Josh Richman explains: “The new partnership between the tech community and Sandy Hook Promise — a nonprofit supporting families affected by the massacre and working to make the nation safer from such acts — involves a pledge from about 30 venture capitalists and angel investors to support companies developing technology that can help curb gun violence . . .

Some money might go to firms developing the smart-gun technology — firearms that won’t work without their rightful owner’s biometrics, such as a finger- or palm-print, or perhaps a radio-frequency identification (RFID) chip in the owner’s ring or wristband — said Jim Pitkow, chairman of the newly formed Technology Committee to Reduce Gun Violence, which will identify and vet ideas worthy of support.”

Brilliant. 

So, Senator Graham: you don’t support an assault weapons ban. I ask, then, that you advocate for smart gun technology on all firearms. I ask that you advocate for buyback programs, through which firearms without smart gun technology can be recycled. And, finally, I ask that you draft a new form letter that actually engages with the debate thoughtfully (e.g. as my 18-year old students have learned to do), instead of wasting paper with “faith/community/rights” gibberish.

Over the weekend, my husband and I took our 8-year old daughter to see the musical Les Miserables. I debated whether she was too young, with songs like “Lovely Ladies” and “Master of the House,” not to mention [spoiler alert] . . .

. . . Gavroche’s death — which was one of many, of course, but I wondered what she’d think about witnessing the imaginary violent death of a boy her age.

Then, I remembered that I was listening to the music at 8 years old and didn’t think about it again. (My parents went to see The Phantom of the Opera when I was in 3rd grade and brought back cassette tapes of the music; an avid lover of books, I remember being entranced by the idea of story in song and started collecting the soundtracks from every musical on Broadway and piecing together the stories).

I decided that 8-years old is the perfect age for Les Mis. At eight, Arina still values our opinion. Mom and Dad are still cool. Arina was actually impressed to hear the two of us sing the soundtrack back and forth to each other the week before the show, while making dinner. So, she took the opportunity to go very seriously. She nodded solemnly when Scott told her that the experience would be magical, that afterward she’d feel more deeply ["right here," he had said, pointing to her heart]. And, happily, she sat transfixed, mouth agape, for the entire 2 1/2 hours.

Saturday was my fifth time seeing Les Mis, but this time was special, because I thought, throughout, about what I hoped Arina was learning. Without further ado, and in no particular order, my top three list is as follows:

1) Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert represent the best and worst of religion, respectively. Sometimes, my mother bemoans the fact that we have yet to find a church we feel comfortable attending, now that we’ve moved to such a small town. Our church is currently in Springfield, Missouri, since we tune in each Sunday to CCCSpringfield’s youtube channel and have struck up a friendship with the minister there, Dr. Roger Ray. We’ve decided to attend when we can, at least twice a year; we joke with Roger that we’re like those families who only come to church at Easter and Christmas, but since we’re of the progressive Christian variety we visit instead (1) after a tragedy, in order to be part of a sympathetic community and plan acts of social justice (we decided on our first visit after the Sandy Hook massacre); and (2) whenever the academics are in town (a conference is currently in the works for August, and hopes are to bring in John Shelby Spong as keynote speaker).

Until then, I reminded Mom that taking Arina to see Les Mis is worth a month, and more, of Sundays — since Valjean represents the best religion has to offer.

(Note: I haven’t seen the film version yet, but I don’t have to see it to know that Hugh will be my favorite Valjean ever.)

It’s no coincidence, I think, that some version of “love your neighbor as yourself” appears in so many religious and philosophical traditions; see the lovely slideshow: “The Golden Rule in World Religions.”

The musical/film/story opens with Valjean. Cliff notes version: V. steals bread, is imprisoned for 19 years, is unable to obtain work b/c he was imprisoned, is apprehended by the police for stealing something worse than bread (i.e. silver) from an aging, hospitable bishop.

The Bishop covers for Valjean, telling the police that he not only gave him the silver in his possession, but silver candlesticks as well that Valjean “forgot” — a literal example of “if someone takes your coat, give him your shirt as well.” Touched, Valjean becomes ridiculously good afterward: rescuing a prostitute; adopting her child; waltzing into the middle of a battle to save his daughter’s boyfriend, etc. He is, in effect, the embodiment of the Golden Rule, and is symbolic of a Christianity that is compassionate and generous, self-sacrificing and brave.

If Valjean is the embodiment of the Golden Rule, Inspector Javert is the embodiment of the Ten Commandments, all “Thou Shalt Not,” and if you do . . . well, you’ll get jail or hell, whichever comes first. And, yet, as Nathan Newman explains in “The Enduring Radicalism of Les Miserables,” Javert isn’t bad: 

“It is not just because the hero Jean Valjean is a good man that he saves Javert’s life, but because Javert on his own terms is a good man as well — just dedicated to protecting a very bad system.  Instead of personalizing politics in a bad guy the hero can kill, this is a movie where a Javert defending the system is instead confronted with the system’s own failings — and can’t live with having dedicated his life to defending a lie.”

Javert is, in effect, the embodiment of the Law, and is symbolic of a Christianity that is judgmental and unyielding, literal (with no room for interpretation) and sure (with no room for doubt).

I was thrilled to discover that Jean Valjean is Arina’s favorite character, even above the ones I expected her to pick (e.g. the little girl Cosette, with whom I assumed she’d most identify). When I asked her why, she said: “because he makes things right.”

2) We must both recognize and speak the fact that “she needs a doctor not a jail.”

Valjean’s empathetic imagination not only gives him insight about the plight of those around him but also inspires him to speak up for those too weak to speak up for themselves — despite the fact that, by doing so, he puts himself in jeopardy, because the Law (i.e. Javert) is always trying to capture him. This is nowhere more dramatic than when he steps out of the darkness and argues with Javert, who is in the process of carting off the prostitute Fantine to jail; Valjean uses his position as mayor to insist on mercy, saying “she needs a doctor, not a jail.”

When looking at Fantine, Javert sees someone breaking the law; when looking at Fantine, Valjean sees someone in pain. To Javert, she is worthless; to Valjean, she has value beyond measure, despite the broken state in which he finds her. I hope that Arina will see through Valjean’s eyes rather than Javert’s. I think she must, since her story has its own Fantine, a birthmother who was addicted and homeless and died young and alone.

I came across a cringe-worthy status update on Facebook this week: “A homeless man outside the grocery store asked me for a dollar. UGH! Get a JOB like the rest of us!” I thought of Fantine and Oksana and wondered what Arina will think when she’s an adult and hears such comments. I thought of Victor Hugo, who penned the novel Les Miserables in the mid 1800s and who, despite being a national hero, asked to be buried in a poor man’s hearse, to be given a pauper’s funeral — because he understood something in the mid 1800s that many fail to understand in 2012: that everything worth knowing is found among “the least of these.”

3) Families have little to nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with the loving connections we make to others.

At its core, Les Mis is one of the best portrayals of the bond between adoptive parent and adopted child that’s out there, because the little known fact it brings to light is that the bond could not be stronger if biology were involved. Valjean meets Cosette, a child in need, and provides for her; they become a family immediately, because they choose to do so and because it’s the right, the natural thing to do. The child becomes, as Valjean explains, “the best of my life.” Cosette is Valjean’s and Valjean is Cosette’s — and more. At the end of the musical, Fantine’s spirit ushers Valjean’s to the next life, because Cosette and Valjean and Fantine all belong to each other, inextricably and wonderfully bound not by biology but by love. Just like Arina and Oksana and I belong and are bound to each other.

I’ve realized, in this fifth viewing of Les Miserables, that it is a nearly perfect production. The only criticism I have, the only way it falls short of what I believe was Victor Hugo’s vision, is in its limiting view of heaven. Hugo believed in love and grace and redemption for all. So, in the last scene, when Fantine takes Valjean to join the heavenly song, and we see Gavroche and Eponine and all the young revolutionaries holding hands and singing together, we notice that Javert is missing. He shouldn’t be. I think that Valjean would expect, and even look forward, to seeing him.

Nothing puts me on my high horse as quickly as disingenuous behavior. In the gun control debate that is still raging fiercely on social media sites like Facebook, I find that I am less annoyed (still annoyed, but less) with those Wayne LaPierre types who make their stance known than I am by those who flirt with the issue, posting something now and then to support whatever they see as the conservative standpoint and then immediately hemming and hawing as to their intent.

Example: This week, a video of Obama from 2008 showed up on Facebook pages. To introduce this video, one Facebook poster wrote:

“Obama: I Will NOT Take Your Guns away

I’m not a huge 2nd amendment activist, but I do believe in honesty. I only like flip flops on my feet!”

Curious, I watched the video, only to hear a version of nearly the exact same thing Obama said in his recent gun control speech: that he is not looking to take away handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. (Instead, he is asking Congress to ban military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines as one of many measures that may make mass shootings like the Sandy Hook massacre less likely to happen.)

Although I normally stay away from conservative Facebook pages like the plague, I admitted in a comment that I didn’t understand the post, since Obama has continued to say the same thing in more recent speeches. The poster replied: “I’m just saying I hope he was honest in his campaign speech and his current intentions. That’s all.”

Disingenuous.

Still, satisfied that my question had at least been acknowledged and addressed, I gave the poster a “thumbs up,” much to Natalie’s chagrin:

“I wouldn’t let that fly for one second. I’d ask, ‘You said, “I only like flip flops on my feet!” So, who flip-flopped? Your implication is that Obama did. Your next post implied that Obama did not. So . . . the only flip-flopper I see is you.’”

But I was eager to move on and away, although the thread seemed loathe to let me do so. Another commentator addressed me by name and informed me that our 2nd amendment means we must have the same weapons our military does to defend ourselves against the government.

When I pointed out that we have long ago lost the ability to defend ourselves against the government (as the graphic below illustrates), he cried straw man and moved into argument #2, which was my apparent “skewed” understanding of the 2nd amendment.

When I pointed out that I had recently read the 2nd amendment in preparation to teach a section on gun control in my Rhetoric and Composition class (more recently I suspect than anyone on the thread had done, if at all), the original poster cried red herring! He proceeded to assert that just because I teach critical reading and rhetoric doesn’t mean I understand it, which explains — of course — his eagerness to cry fallacy. I listed my qualifications, which only prompted him to say that he wasn’t challenging or even referring to my understanding and teaching.

Disingenuous, again.

The conversation continued to devolve, but not before reminding me of the following five truths:

(1) For some conservatives, change in any form is “bad:” The original poster’s implication, that Obama would be “bad” if he reneged on comments made four years ago reflects why the conservative party may be headed, as House Speaker Boehner lamented recently, “for the dust bin.” Change is sometimes necessary to address current problems. Obama did not flip flop on the particular point in question, but even if he did: to reexamine previous assertions, to consider changing in response to a string of mass shootings (Tuscon, Aurora, Oak Creek and Newton), is more noble, not less.

(2) There seems to be both a worship of and fear of the US military: How many times have I rolled my eyes over discussions of reducing the deficit, when the GOP has refused to give an inch on military spending, despite the fact that the US spends a ridiculous amount compared to other countries? Because of the GOP, we have an unmatched military and arsenal of weapons; and, now, in the gun control debate, some conservatives are insisting on keeping their assault weapons and high capacity magazines so that they will stand a chance against the “monster” they created, should it turn monstrous. See the above graphic, again, and realistically evaluate that “chance.”

(3) “Literal” interpretation, whether of the Bible or the Constitution, is problematic: At one point, a commentator insisted that as a “CITIZEN” for whom the Constitution was written, he has a right to teach me the 2nd Amendment. I think he must be mistaking me for Piers Morgan.

As Natalie pointed out in private discussion: “No, he’s not the citizen for whom the Constitution was written unless he’s MUCH older than he claims. The Constitution was written pre- these sorts of weapons.” This reminded me of the following:

It also reminded me of a New Yorker article I read back in December, about the fraught history of both 2nd Amendment interpretation and the NRA. As Jeffrey Toobin explains, “For more than a hundred years . . . according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.” Then, a powerful group of conservatives “pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms,” and ultimately won.

Toobin concludes, “Conservatives often embrace ‘originalism,’ the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a ‘living’ constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century . . . In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is.”

Recognizing historical/cultural context is important, as is the willingness to change when change is needed (see, again, point number 1).

(4) Higher education is desired, but also dismissed and scorned: Most of my conservative peers with young children will mention the college funds they’ve started for them while simultaneously dismissing and even ridiculing college instructors.

In this Facebook interaction, both the original poster and a commentator attacked my reading and argument, and then seemed particularly offended when I mentioned that I’ve been trained on a professional level to do both.

I’m no Constitutional scholar, so the 2nd Amendment isn’t my expertise — but critical thinking and language is. I don’t presume to know about accounting or nursing or any range of other professions. In fact, I often poke fun at my utter lack of knowledge in any field other than the one I practice.

My trade is words. I read them; I interpret them; I write them; I live them.

I caused quite the stir when I corrected a sarcastic remark addressed to “ms. Fisk” by saying “Dr. Fisk.” The original poster implied this was a “high horse” thing to say. But, after 10 years of higher education and a dissertation, I’ve earned my title.

(5) Facebook is sometimes like a return to high school: One of my more brilliant, entertaining Facebook friends (Jonathan Alexandratos: I’m looking at you) said the following after several people challenged one of my Facebook posts about gun control:

“I think I’m having flashbacks to, like, Middle School gym class! And I don’t want to be mean to anyone, naturally. (People this underemployed aren’t allowed to be mean.) But after a while it just sounds like the prison is telling me all the other wonderful uses for the electric chair. ‘Lots of us use it to cook eggs on!’ ‘It’s a stunning example of Bauhaus art…’ ‘Sometimes? It’s just a nice, warm place to sit.’”

I was indeed teased in middle/high school and never imagined that the teasing would continue by many of the same people (now in their 30s, for God’s sake) with the advent of social media sites like Facebook, but here we are. During the past few days, I’ve opened my news feed to thinly veiled references about needing a “Dr,” in quotation marks, for this or that.

Here are the differences, though, between Facebook and high school; and they’re important ones: First, I’m not bothered by the teasing, as I was in middle/high school. I’m transfixed by it at times; it’s a curiosity, for sure, to think of how little some people change with the passage of time, how easily they fall into the same habits.

Secondly, you may call it a “high horse,” if you will, but I prefer to think of it as being confident enough not to be demeaned and, instead, to assert both my worth (something I was too shy to do in high school) as well as the worth of others unfairly forgotten or ignored.

Some of these “others” are Sandy Hook parents whose testimonies in the gun control debate are given second fiddle to people like Bill Stevens, a Newton resident who channeled Charlton Heston in an address to Connecticut lawmakers. As a last word, the Facebook poster heretofore referenced tagged me when posting Stevens’s video, one entitled “Sandy Hook Father Owns Congress,” and commenting “Wow and Amen.”

Two things:

(1) To say “Amen,” to add a religious dimension to an argument against any additional gun control and in favor of the proliferation of military style assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and hollow point bullets (weapons of mass murder, if you will) is to blaspheme the “Prince of Peace” you claim to follow. I continue to be amazed that the very Facebook acquaintances who post devotionals and gospel songs on a near daily basis also post arguments that are so clearly a perversion of the life and example of Jesus.

(2)  Bill Stevens neither owned Congress, since he was not on Capital Hill, nor has a right to the title of “Sandy Hook father” solely because his daughter goes to another Newton school in the Sandy Hook district.

When I said as much, the poster corrected the former (the bit about Congress) but refused to correct the latter, saying, “He is from Newtown, daughter went to school a mile or so down the road . . . close enough to a Sandy Hook father to me!”

Saying that Stevens is a “Sandy Hook father” is a disservice to the actual Sandy Hook parents, like Veronique Pozner, speaking out for change. Veronique (mother of 6-year old victim Noah), also, was at this event. She insisted on seeing her son’s body, despite the fact that the coroner warned her against it (his jaw and left hand were mostly gone), and she insisted on both an open casket (with a cloth below Noah’s closed eyes) and on the governor seeing the body. She explained “If there is ever a piece of legislation that comes across his desk, I needed it to be real for him.”

Neil Heslin (father of 6-year old victim Jesse), also, was at this event. He said, “I tried to think of a reason why we would need guns and weapons like that for hunting, and the only thing I could think of is maybe deer management . . . I ask that we ban those weapons and I ask that we look more into mental health, education and the people who have those weapons. There should be strict background checks.”

Bill Wheeler (father of 6-year old victim Benjamin), also, was at this event. He said, “Thomas Jefferson described our inalienable rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I do not think the order of those important words was haphazard and casual. The liberty of any person to own a military assault weapon and high-capacity magazine and to keep them in their home is second to the right of my son to his life.”

Peter Paradis (father of 29-year old victim Rachel), also, was at this event. He said, “I am a gun owner; Rachel enjoyed shooting as well. We don’t need 30-round clips to kill a deer, we don’t need AR-style rifles to go target shooting. We need action.”

As Saki Knafo writes about this particular event, “As with the earlier hearing on gun violence, opinions were mixed on whether the legislature should pass stricter gun control measures, like a ban on semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines. But none of the speakers whose children died in the shooting opposed such measures, and some vehemently argued in favor of them.” Of all the Sandy Hook parents, Mark Mattioli (father of 6-year old victim James) focused more on mental health than gun control, although even he addressed the necessity of more strictly enforcing existing gun control laws (the NRA has weakened the regulatory ATF agency to the point that it can, at best, “recommend” gun sellers do such things as keep records and not sell to drunk people).

In short, there is a difference between Stevens’s designation as “Sandy Hook parent” and Veronique Pozner’s, et al, and I said as much. The poster’s response: “In your OPINION. I have my own opinion.”

No. That Pozner is a “Sandy Hook parent” and that Stevens is not is a matter of fact, not opinion. There is a body of a six-year old boy to prove it. To suggest that there is no difference is: at best, disingenuous; at worst, morally bankrupt; and, in either case, a very definitive third strike against the Facebook poster in this week’s debate.

I have some catching up to do. I’ve been hard at work on a writing project, and my normal administrative and teaching duties, so I’ve neglected my advocacy work, or at least the advocacy work that pertains to blog writing. Teaching critical reading and rhetoric in freshman English has become a type of advocacy work in itself, especially with its new information literacy focus, as illustrated in the example below (from class this week):

I told my students to bring in an article or political cartoon on either side of the gun control debate, and then I asked them to identify a claim and check the info to make sure it was legit.

I said again, as I always do, that the classroom is a safe place for a variety of viewpoints, so they can argue whatever they choose, but they must make sure that they’re making a responsible argument based on fact.

One student, who I happen to like very much (great contributor in class discussion and always walks me back to my office from class) brought in a political cartoon with an image of President Obama using an “executive action” pen to sign into law an assault weapons ban, and insisted that the President did this. When he went to find proof, he pulled up this “factual statement” on an NRA member’s blog.

I explained that he needed to go to whitehouse.gov and read the actual speech, as the primary source.

He was shocked. “Huh!,” he said, “but I did find something on the Internet saying ‘the executive action against assault weapons’ thing was true . . .”

Me: “Dude: you can buy unicorn blood on the Internet.” [see above]

Teaching day: successful.

Blog writing (as a form of advocacy via the Internet) is important too, though, since the entire world, it seems, sometimes needs a lesson in critical reading, rhetorical analysis and information literary. To that end, here are the top five anti-gun control arguments I’ve come across the past two weeks that are despicable, sad and just plain wrong:

5. (in order of least to most despicable): Thomas Sowell’s “Gun-Control Ignorance” published in National Review.

I’ve used articles from National Review before, when I teach current issues, because the articles are for the most part well-written. In this particular piece, though, Sowell makes a number of irresponsible and misleading claims, such as:

(a) his insistence that there are “many factual studies” suggesting that gun control laws do not decrease gun violence, despite the fact that he only mentions one: the Washington DC handgun ban which was largely ineffective, because it worked on a state rather than federal level (i.e. people unable to buy handguns in DC simply crossed over to Maryland and Virginia — we have increased handgun sales records to prove this);

(b) his attempt to draw direct links, such as: “The rate of gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas.” Dear Mr. Sowell: perhaps the murder rate is higher in urban areas . . . because there are more people. He tries to draw other direct links between race and gun violence, which ignores socioeconomic status, and crime in Britain vs. the US, rather than gun deaths in Britain vs. the US (sorry but I’m more concerned with mass shootings than theft);

(c) his use of the trite “Guns are not the problem. People are the problem,” to which he adds, “including people who are determined to push gun-control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.” Dear Mr. Sowell: here are a few examples of you ignoring or defying the facts in this particular piece . . . you move into a vague discussion of murder rates in a few other countries (Mexico is one) with stricter gun control laws than the US without considering how well those gun control laws are enforced . . . nor that Mexico (to continue with that example) is in the middle of a drug war. So, Mr. Sowell, you may find a (questionable)  exception or two, but as Max Fisher says, “[M]ake no mistake: For a rich, developed country, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is very, very high.” We’ve already tried the “more guns” solution; let’s try the less.

4. The guns and hammers meme: This meme was highlighted on several of my more conservative friends’ Facebook pages, and it tries really, really hard to be credible (e.g. “FBI 2011 crime reports verify the numbers“).

This ad is persuasive, maybe, until you actually click on the link to the FBI 2011 crime report statistics. The 323 gun deaths are lower than hammers, because there are *so* many firearm deaths that the FBI breaks the statistic into subcategories (i.e. types of guns): handguns, rifles (which the # above indicates), shotguns, and even “other guns or type not stated” (which, no doubt, also includes rifles). The total number of gun deaths according to the FBI source is 8,583: way more than hammers.

3. The guns and abortion meme: I’ve seen at least two different versions of this, the one below and another that features what claims to be a 12 week old fetus that is instead a sculpture, since (among other things) a 12 week old fetus does not have the same skin tone as we do (i.e. a 12 week old fetus does not look like your newborn, only in miniature).

An obvious problem is, of course, that there are pro-gun control conservatives as well as liberals and pro-life liberals as well as conservatives. There is even a majority of conservative support (85% of Republicans) for closing the gun show loophole by requiring background checks.

And you know what else? There are pro-life Catholics who are advocating for gun control and against abortion at the same time. See Laura Goodstein’s “In Fight Over Life, A New Call by Catholics:”

“The March for Life in Washington on Friday renewed the annual impassioned call to end legalized abortion, 40 years after the Roe v. Wade decision. But this year, some Roman Catholic leaders and theologians are asking why so many of those who call themselves ‘pro-life’ have been silent, or even opposed, when it comes to controlling the guns that have been used to kill and injure millions of Americans . . .

‘We’re addressing life,’ said one of the signers, Thomas P. Melady, a Republican who served as ambassador to the Holy See under the first President George Bush. ‘I accept the Catholic teachings, which promote the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. And certainly the death of the 20 young kids and 6 adults in Newtown was not natural. Why can’t we take some steps with regards to these killings? These sophisticated weapons should be controlled.’”

2. The rock/glock advertisement in The Hartsville Messanger:

Because, apparently, giving away glocks as an incentive to buy engagement rings is not sickening. I took this one especially hard, since I’m from the McBee/Hartsville area. Such promotion (of guns or the Wayne LaPierre version of the NRA) is, at this historical/cultural moment, insensitive at best and dangerous at worst. And — all around — despicable, sad and just plain wrong.

1. The Sandy Hook conspiracy video: I can’t bring myself to link this one, although it came across my Facebook newsfeed at least twice. I made myself watch it, because I wanted to be prepared if some of my students brought it up in class, but it took me several glasses of wine to get through it. The unknown conspiracy theorist builds his “argument” of Sandy Hook as government conspiracy on such flimsy “evidence” as the following: there were conflicting news reports (expected in breaking news updates, especially when the scene is so chaotic); some Sandy Hook parents smiled *gasp* when remembering their dead children; etc.

I think the thing that bothered me most as I was watching it was the realization that the victims’ families would most certainly hear about this and, God forbid, see it. “Don’t you know,” I told my husband, “that they wish to God this was a government conspiracy, that there were no bodies for them to see?” The theorist suggests the families weren’t able to see the bodies at all, instead of having to wait until the next day, after the bodies had been moved away from the crime scene.

Rather than listening to the victims’ families and their stories, some people choose to think of Sandy Hook as a conspiracy, because then they won’t feel compelled to change anything. Listening to the victims’ families is both painful (for everyone) and vitally important.

We need to hear about Emilie Parker’s younger sister, Madeline, who wanted to wear Emilie’s favorite dress when she met the President.

We need to hear about Catherine Hubbard’s 8-year old brother and their ancient Labrador, Samantha, euthanized after Christmas. Catherine had loved Samantha, and when her brother hugged Samantha goodbye, his mother overheard him whisper, “Tell her I said, ‘hi.’”

We need to hear about Veronica Pozner‘s decision not only to view her son’s body but also to insist on an open casket:

“Tiny Noah took 11 bullets. His mother, Veronique, insisted on an open coffin, Naomi Zeveloff reported in the Jewish Daily Forward.

You’ll probably remember Noah. He was a happy little guy with beautiful heavily lashed eyes and a cheerful smile. In his coffin, there was a cloth placed over the lower part of his face.

‘There was no mouth left,’ his mother told the Forward. ‘His jaw was blown away.’

She put a stone in his right hand, a ‘clear plastic rock with a white angel inside.’ She wanted to put a matching stone in his left hand but he had no left hand to speak of.

Parents of the dead children were advised to identify them from photographs, such was the carnage. But every parent reacts differently. Veronique Pozner did the most difficult thing. She asked to see the body. Zeveloff asked her why.

‘I owed it to him as his mother, the good, the bad and the ugly,’ she said. ‘. . . And as a little boy, you have to go in the ground. If I am going to shut my eyes to that I am not his mother. I had to bear it. I had to do it.’

When the governor of Connecticut arrived, she brought him to see Noah in the open casket. ‘If there is ever a piece of legislation that comes across his desk, I needed it to be real for him.’ The governor wept.”

We should listen. We too should weep. And we should loudly demand change.

For my birthday, the fabulous Scott Fisk decided to surprise me with a mini-break road trip. I’m always on board with a mini-break road trip, especially when it contributes in some positive way to the causes I hold dear. Since the Sandy Hook massacre, I’ve been on my gun control soapbox, and plan to make myself comfortable and stay there for a bit.

Scott decided we would drive 7+ hours to Seminole, Florida to shop at Frank James’s Lone Star Jewelry and Pawn. James has been in the news, recently, because of his decision to stop trading in firearms, previously half his revenue. He worries about his business being able to survive his decision, but as the father of a six-year old child, he cannot in good conscience continue to sell guns until stricter regulation is passed. He is a member of the NRA and personally owns guns, but he says the wrong kinds of guns are getting into the wrong kinds of hands and refuses to contribute in any way, despite the cost.

The Fisks adore this and set off to personally thank him. Jack and Arina wrote “thank you” notes on the drive.

We left on my birthday, Friday the 11th, when Scott got home from work. We drove until we were tired, stopping at a hotel for the night and continuing on the next morning. We got to Lone Star Jewelry and Pawn between 3:00 and 4:00, and were pleased to have reached the end of our pilgrimage.

Imagine our surprise to find it . . . closed.

Flummoxed, we went back to the car and pulled up James’s web site on the internet. “See,” I told Scott, “Open 7 Days a Week!” We looked at the two signs in the window; the “Pawn” sign was on, lit with red lights, but the “Open” sign was dark. We looked in the window, and it was dark inside too.

“Call the telephone number?” Scott suggested. I did. The message said that Lone Star Jewelry and Pawn would be closed through January 14th, for the holidays.

We laughed, and laughed, and laughed some more. And then we took campy photos that we plan to send to Frank. In the first, below, Arina is gesturing toward the dark “Open” sign.

In the second, below, Arina and Jack play in the Lone Star Pawn trailer:

Arina decided that we should go to the beach instead. Luckily, the beautiful Madeira Beach was just over the bridge. I told Scott Madeira was the perfect beach for me, since it reminded me of Jane Eyre, whose uncle made his money and lived in Madeira.

Madeira Beach, Florida is a lovely little seaside community, east of the Gulf of Mexico. We watched the sunset, while Arina swam in her clothes and Jack played in the sand . . .

. . . and watched for planes, one of which flew by several times with a sign:

While Scott and I watched the kids play, we talked about Plan B, because as Fisks (accurately and lovingly referred to as hot messes and shit shows)  we always have a Plan B. We decided that we would put together a package for Frank James (including a copy of this post, the kids’ cards, and a check for the donation amount we had planned to spend) in the mail on Monday. In a way, we reasoned, this is an even better option, since he will be able to get our donation, plus sell whatever we would have bought.

We also remembered that pilgrimages are as much about the journey as they are about reaching a destination, and we agreed that the journey had been a good one. We alternated the time between listening to an audiobook about Churchill and Ghandi that Scott had received as a Christmas present and listening to the kids playing in the back. I immersed myself in a writing project while on the road, and the kids made cards and told stories.

I reminded Scott that activism, especially when I’m involved, always seems to be messy. Example: the fostering dog project, scenes of which include me, running through the neighborhood after foster dog Morven, while attired in pajama pants, fuzzy socks, rain boots, a tank top and fancy corduroy jacket; or, our house, covered in stinky wet dog food after I turned my back on Jack for two seconds.

Life is messy and fun. And, I told Scott what a couple of my girlfriends said about him, that he’s a “stud,” because “civic engagement and making it happen is hott.”

It’s “hott,” even when it doesn’t turn out quite as expected.

So, to Scott: Thanks for a wonderfully exciting weekend adventure.

And to Frank: Be on the lookout for a package from the Fisks. We’ll catch you in person next time.

Each New Year, I look forward to Natalie Leppard’s facebook status update, because she shares Neil Gaiman’s annual New Year’s wish. I’ve only read Gaiman’s The Graveyard Book, but I enjoyed it very much and am open to other recommendations (hint, hint). I could visit Neil Gaiman’s online journal and read his wish myself, but waiting for Natalie to post it is part of my New Year’s tradition.

Like the rest of America, Gaiman seems to have had the Sandy Hook Massacre in mind, when he wrote the following:

“It’s a New Year and with it comes a fresh opportunity to shape our world.

So this is my wish, a wish for me as much as it is a wish for you: in the world to come, let us be brave – let us walk into the dark without fear, and step into the unknown with smiles on our faces, even if we’re faking them.

And whatever happens to us, whatever we make, whatever we learn, let us take joy in it. We can find joy in the world if it’s joy we’re looking for, we can take joy in the act of creation.

So that is my wish for you, and for me. Bravery and joy.”

Tonight, Sandy Hook Elementary School is having an open house in its new location, a refurbished old school that had been closed two years prior. Tomorrow, parents across America — but especially Sandy Hook parents — will be brave and drop off their kids at school. They’ll do this, despite the fact that — unlike Australia, a country that had implemented stricter gun regulation 12 days after its last mass shooting in 1996 — America has done nothing.

Part of the reason that America has done nothing, of course, is that there are still opponents for any change in gun laws, a la NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre. Granted, the majority of NRA members support stricter gun regulation. But others are advocating Wayne LaPierre’s “more guns” position and are attacking the argument that we should go the way of other countries, such as Australia, Britain, Japan or South Africa.

The latest forwarded post that came across my facebook newsfeed argues against using Britain, specifically, as an example, because of the 1999 murder (which was later reduced to manslaughter) charge against Tony Martin.

The forwarded post claims that the misunderstood Tony Martin is now serving a life sentence for murder, because he defended his home against two intruders with an illegally owned firearm. It fails to mention the following complicating facts of the case:

(1) Fred Barras, the boy murdered, was 16 years old.

(2) Tony Martin’s pump action shotgun was only illegal, because he did not legally apply for and receive a firearms certificate. Of course, he wouldn’t have gotten it, because he had legally applied for and received a shotgun certificate, but it was revoked when he shot a hole in the window of a vehicle whose owner had stopped to pick an apple in his neighboring orchard. Martin shot instead of getting the vehicle information and giving it to the police like a normal person. Or, explaining that the apples were off limits. Or, letting him have a damn apple.

(3) Forensics evidence revealed that Tony Martin lied to the authorities about the details of the shooting. It was not possible for him to have shot at the intruders from the top of his stairs, as he claimed. Rather the bullet holes suggested he had been lying in wait. The 16-year old victim was shot in the back, as he was trying to climb out the window.

(4) Tony Martin was prejudiced against Gypsies. He was known to fantasize about “putting Gypsies in the middle of a field, surrounding it with barbed wire and machine gunning them.” Fred Barras was Gypsy.

(5) Martin is a free man, having been released 28 July 2003, serving three years of his five-year (not life) sentence.

So, no, gun lovers. Tony Martin is not proof than Britain should not have responded to the Dunblane , Scotland massacre with stricter gun regulation. Not even a little bit. Twenty children died not even a month ago, and you’re more concerned with the Tony Martin’s who may be affected by the one measure (gun control) that has been proven effective.

My husband and I were talking over the holidays. We remembered that, when we were young, we wondered why people who lived in violence-ridden countries, like Israel and Palestine, didn’t pick up and move to a place that would be safer for their families. Why stay in a country with so many acts of terror, so many suicide bombings? As adults, we understand. It’s difficult, in many ways and especially financially, to pick up and leave for another country. We agree that Britain or Australia would be a safer place for Arina and Jack, since America has become the land of domestic terrorism, with suicide shootings rather than bombings. It’s a land where one customer can buy 32,000 rounds of ammunition, worth $18,000, and have it delivered to his Kentucky house on a freight truck. It’s a land where it’s easier to buy bullets than Sudafed.

If the NRA, or anyone of the Wayne LaPierre mindset and pocketbook, is willing to finance our migration, we’ll go to that safer place with thanks. Otherwise, I’ll be right here, exposing your lies.

P.S. Natalie responds to the forwarded post, imitating its melodramatic form:

JUST A THOUGHT…
You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump in your garden.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
Someone is trying to break into your sister’s house next door and is moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the masked man.
You raise the shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks the thug to the floor.
Then you realize that “thug” was your adopted son, a high school student:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209791/Tragedy-father-shoots-dead-15-year-old-burglar-realises-OWN-SON.html

Because today is Sunday, I’ve decided to write about a perplexing religious response to the Sandy Hook Massacre.

Some pastors like guns.

I’ve seen, through social networking sites, both pastors and their families (wives and adult children) indicate support not only for the NRA and “2nd amendment rights” (never mind that the 2nd amendment is about well-regulated militias) but also for the proliferation of assault weapons . . . as self-defense.

Because, they argue: assault weapons = powerful = the best gun for self-defense when a criminal, who might have an assault weapon, knocks at your door. Yes. This is a paraphrase of an actual argument.

When I told my friend, Natalie, about it, she — as always — got to the heart of the matter in record time:

“Well that’s just nonsense. The ONLY way an assault rifle is effective for self-defense when guys with assault rifles knock on your door is when 1. You’re not taken by surprise and are as prepared as, if not more prepared than, your attackers; 2. You live in a fortified house that’s going to stand up to a barrage of bullets from multiple guns; 3. You answer the door ready to shoot every single time you answer the door. The person who satisfies all three of those is likely to be a paranoid schizophrenic who is more likely to shoot up a school than save his family. Number 3 will result in shooting a Girl Scout selling cookies.

And, really?!, when do guys with assault rifles ‘knock’ on your door? And when are guys with assault rifles coming after you in your house? When you’re a criminal and the police aren’t so much ‘knocking ON’ as ‘knocking DOWN’ your door. That’s when. Meanwhile the ‘logic’ that s/he should get to own an assault rifle just because criminals might get one is, frankly, f*&^ed up. Criminals get all sorts of dangerous things–that’s why we call them criminals. Are we going to legalize crack because criminals can get it? Meth labs? Plutonium? WMDs?”

An atheist, Natalie isn’t as bothered by the fact that these arguments are coming from people who identify as Christians. But, coming from a more conservative Christian background and identifying as a (very) progressive Christian as an adult, I don’t know what to do with a response that seems both violent and fear-based from people who are supposed to be peace-loving and working toward making things here on earth as they are in heaven, a la “The Lord’s Prayer.” Call me crazy, but: I imagine there would be less, not more, guns in heaven.

But, not all pastors like guns, of course. Our pastor, Dr. Roger Ray, does not. And, I’ll close with a sermon I recently read, by Rev. Stephen E Carlsen, Dean and Rector of Christ Church Cathedral (thanks to Elizabeth Broadbent for directing my attention to this one). The sermon, entitled “Don’t just grieve. Do something” is available, in full, at: http://ccc.blogs.marketpath.com/parish-announcements/don-t-just-grieve-do-something

Here’s an excerpt:

“By nature I am not prophetic in my preaching. I prefer to be pastoral, to be theological. I have come to the conclusion that I am a poor pastor if I merely ascend this pulpit after these shootings, one after another, and merely comfort, merely mourn, merely sooth. I’m done with that.

You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee the wrath to come? Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So, with many other exhortations, [John the Baptist] proclaimed the good news to the people.

The Good News is not always comforting. Sometimes it provokes us to change our ways. That is the Good News for us on this sad occasion: not just to comfort, not to sooth, not to mourn, but to provoke. We need to mourn but not stop there—to go on and work at stopping this carnage. We can start by common sense measures.

My son just got his learners permit to drive a car. We had to fill out much paperwork, to register, to show proof of insurance. He had to pass an eye test and a written test. He needs to keep a log of his driving. Six months later, he can get his license after a driving test, but it will still be restricted for a long time afterward. No driving friends for months. He like us all must wear his seat-belt. If we accept this level of regulation to drive a car, why not restrictions on guns?

No one needs assault rifles, large capacity ammunition clips, hollow point bullets—not for sport, not for hunting. Get rid of them. Letting nearly everyone carry concealed handguns is lunacy. Letting them in schools and universities, and in bars, [which] was approved by the Michigan legislature on Friday, is bordering on evil . . .

Don’t just grieve. Do something. This is not a reality that we must accept. Start today.

I use my authority as Rector today to declare that guns are not welcome in this sanctuary . . . Turn your assault weapons in to the police for disposal. If you hunt or shoot as a sport, unload and lock away securely any firearms. On the public level, pressure timid politicians to enact common sense laws. Learn, speak out, vote.

You brood of vipers! John said. This is going to happen again. I will again ascend this pulpit and speak out until this scourge, this culture of death, this cult of violence is purged from our land.”

At this cultural moment, we have “men of God” falling on both sides of the gun-control debate. I’ll be standing alongside the ones who are furthering the kingdom of God.

I’ve never cared for vipers.