Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal nailed the general feeling of “huh?” I had about the State of the Union speech tonight: a speech about everything is generally a speech about nothing. It was like a huge, fluffy pastry that, once bitten into, was found to be hollow on the inside. I’m still hungry. No, I’m not kidding. I’d just eaten dinner and literally went back into the kitchen for something more. What do you call that, psychosomatic hunger?

Our last two presidents have been terrible public speakers. They both insert pauses into the strangest places and for that reason I’ve found both Bush and Obama hard to listen to. On top of the interesting speaking style, I find that Obama’s eyes don’t seem to believe in what he’s saying. I noticed this at times with Bush too, but there’s a disconnect between the content of Obama’s address and his eyes, expressions, and gestures. If he were a preacher I’d think that he didn’t believe the gospel he was preaching.

Tonight’s State of the Union address wandered all over the map and seemed to be trying to please everyone in a desperate bid to stay in office. At times its ideas sounded very conservative, but then the means to achieve those ideas were very liberal. It was also very parental, with Obama scolding Congress as if he were a dad who needed to make a public show out of keeping his quarreling little kids in line. I appreciate the mention of needing to work together, but if I were a representative or senator sitting there, I would have felt disrespected because of the manner in which this was communicated.

There was a definite feel of narcissism to it as well. I know this may offend some people, but reality was that a lot of “I” and “me” statements popped up throughout the speech. I got the feeling that Obama feels the executive branch of the federal government reigns supreme over the two others. He made it very clear that he wants more power to get things done the way he sees fit and that’s very dangerous. Our government is supposed to be a system of checks and balances. The legislative and judicial branches need to do their jobs as well and don’t need to be ceding power to POTUS.

A lot of the concepts presented tonight would just mean more spending. People of all political parties realize that our country’s debt is out of control and more spending will just make things worse. The government simply can not be the answer for everything. I believe very strongly that a lot of tasks the federal government handles would be better managed at state or local levels. Power, and money, should return as closely to the people as possible. The idea of growing the federal government in any way galls me– it defies logic given what we the people are going through individually and collectively.

At the risk of sounding like Spock, I found the State of the Union address highly illogical, even incoherent at times. It was so disjointed in spots it verged on sounding like Charlie Brown’s parents: wa wah wah wah waah… It also evoked one of my favorite Harry Truman quotes, if you can’t convince them, confuse them. Staring into the TV, I felt like I was supposed to be falling for a weak Jedi mind trick that wasn’t going to work. Yet there was applause. If I were there, I could only applaud if that point of the speech were logical and sounded sincere.

I really thought that, given the stakes of the upcoming election, this speech would have been more substantive and better organized. Instead, it was a feel good exercise in which if we all work together, polarize the evil ultra rich, and think of the middle and lower class as one, we can work together to get things done with a crusty loaf of bread and a glass float from an antique fishing net. Something like that, and for the love of things that are stitched together and wrought from the iron of hard labor and intricate Burmese polyester because people in Rio like us, get it to my desk fast!

I don’t think that I’ve had a deep respect for a president since Reagan. I feel that they just keep getting more smarmy and sneaky (I’m not a Newt fan for this reason). My general sense of the last two is that we’re just supposed to believe whatever they say, and I have a lot of questions about a lot of what we’ve been told. My gut feeling about where our current ship’s captain is taking us is not good. It never has been. His perspective is more global than national. I won’t write off whatever good he’s done, yet I’ve never felt that he knows what he’s doing. When I hear old school Democrats say this too, it really freaks me out.

As someone who usually zeroes in on a person’s nonverbal communication, I feel genuinely weirded out about what I saw tonight. I expected more. The Republican response, although I did not agree with everything in it, was excellent. It flowed. I understood the concepts presented. Mitch Daniels looked like he believed it when he said that we can’t afford to bury ourselves in debt anymore and that we have a narrow window of time to get out of this mess. It was refreshing after the stumbling meander through Pan’s Labyrinth.

Maybe the lukewarm applause during many parts of the speech said it all. Of course you want to encourage the parts you believe in, but even when supporters of a given topic were standing, it just didn’t sound completely enthusiastic. Perhaps many people present felt like me: huh? More importantly than that, I have to wonder if America is as much of a priority as Obama claims it is given the time and importance he gives to other countries.

Overall, I was kept off balance because the speech seemed disorganized, I heard hypocrisy, I heard contradiction, and it sounded like a man wanting more and more power to try and be all things to all people. My advice to the “Amurcan” public, as Bush used to say, is to vote for the candidate most likely to help you hold onto your power and hold onto your money. The government doesn’t have any money; it’s our money and we’re supposed to be in charge.

The best people to decide what we need? Us. Not an inconsistent, spend-happy executive branch on steroids. The very suggestion that we give it more to protect us or save us is un-American. As a direct descendant of American patriots and a long line of veterans, I reject any idea that destroys what my people have worked so hard to create. We don’t need to be rescued. We need to be set free. I am tired of struggling to support those who don’t contribute and not being able to help the poor in my own family because of it.

Five years ago I penned this thought and it’s time to share it. It explains one reason why I’m a fiscal conservative. I’ve found that my experiences in bad relationships have strengthened my belief in a smaller federal government:

To me, being (this type of) liberal is like being in an abusive relationship. They are deciding what’s best for you. You’re financially dependent on them. You are letting them have control of your life and hoping you get something back out of it. They are deciding what’s best for your money. It’s not their money. It never was. Only by beating back the government, and allowing them to have as little control as possible, are we free from this abuse.

*************************************************************************************

Fans of the Chemical Brothers will understand when I say to take the lyrics for “Galvanize” and substitute the word “polarize.” That could be a theme song for this administration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac2EjcaFM2I

*************************************************************************************

©2012 H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com. All articles/posts on this blog are copyrighted original material that may not be reproduced in part or whole in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com.

From KOMO News (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Barefoot-Bandit-emails-ridicule-law-enforcement–137990673.html):

SEATTLE (AP) — “Barefoot Bandit” Colton Harris-Moore ridiculed police and prosecutors in emails and phone calls from prison recently, undercutting his claims that he’s sorry for his two-year crime spree, the U.S. attorney’s office said in court documents filed Tuesday.

In these emails, KOMO says, Harris-Moore allegedly called police, prosecutors, and reporters swine, vermin, and fools in direct contradiction to his previous “apology.” He bragged about his crime spree and obviously believes, in true narcissistic form, that he is above other people:

“The things I have done as far as flying and airplanes goes, is amazing,” he wrote in one email last August. “Nobody on this planet have done what I have, except for the Wright brothers.”

KOMO also cites a statement he made in his email just after his sentencing:

“When all the acting and spreading of high propaganda on the part of the state was over and my lawyers argued the true facts, the judge gave me a much-appreciated recognition and validation, calling my story a ‘triumph of the human spirit,’” he wrote. “She wasn’t having none of the weak argument the prosecution tried to peddle, and ended up handing down a sentence that was the lowest possible within the range…”

The Herald sheds more light on his mindset (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120124/NEWS01/701249835#No-remorse):

“It’s all political,” Harris-Moore wrote a couple a weeks later, according to another intercepted email. “I’m thankful for the judge saying what she did, but at the same time her words were greater than her actions — she had the ability as invested in her by the people to create change, and the opportunity to stand up with compassion, but didn’t reach that potential.”

Harris-Moore predicted that he’ll serve half the time imposed.

“I will emerge unscathed, with my plans back on track,” he allegedly wrote. “Just a matter of time no doubt.”

I’ve been blogging about this case for nearly two years now. I’m very familiar with Harris-Moore’s attorney’s playbook and this case was literally hitting too close to home for awhile. All along I’ve doubted that Harris-Moore would have sincere remorse and have discussed the possibilities that he is a narcissist, has antisocial personality disorder, or is a sociopath. It takes an expert to diagnose those and I discussed my reasoning in a blog post last month after his sentencing: http://wildninja.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/seven-years/.

Harris-Moore’s attorneys are predictably saying that these are just snapshots of hundreds and hundreds of pages of emails. They also claim that he has not disrespected his victims in these communications. That lessens the contradictions he’s making how? I’m not sure that serial criminals like him think about their victims much anyway. He has acted “favorably” towards his victims only when it’s in his best interest, like surrendering some profits from his crime spree to go towards restitution.

I don’t want to be rude, but part of me feels like saying, “skeptics, do you believe me now?” I know some people truly want to believe that he’ll be rehabilitated and mature into a productive member of society. We can hope. Given his patterns of behavior, including how they escalated until he was caught, asking if he is capable of that is a valid question. But the circumstances he’s experienced in life thus far, including his rotten childhood, are the very circumstances that can help mold some of the worst criminals among us, especially the self-absorbed ones who feel that they are the victims.

One point I make again and again and again on this blog is that low to no conscience types prey on our sympathy. They, sometimes even instinctively, know how to manipulate people’s emotions through so-called apologies and promises to change. But they’re not sorry. They’re using others to escape consequences and free themselves up to offend again. As uncomfortable as it is to say this, I hope that the last judge who sentenced him realizes that she’s been used. Maybe even his attorneys feel that way.

You can be a child abuse victim and you can be a rapist. You can be a sexual assault survivor and be a serial killer. Realizing what Colton Harris-Moore may really be does not negate what he went through as a child. Clearly he is grandiose, self-absorbed, and feeding off of the attention I hoped so fervently people would not give him. I’m not sure that I ever remember a case in which so many people were so quick to excuse his behavior based on his past, or a case in which people thought he was awesome because he hadn’t caused serious bodily injury to anyone even though he could have killed many people in multiple incidents.

Wake up, people. This guy may not feel real remorse and may not emerge from prison reformed. We have to allow for that possibility and not assume that because he had a bad childhood he’ll turn out okay. He may have also been brain damaged, in utero or via child abuse. The psychological red flags that have popped up throughout his life cause me to believe that he will just hone his skills and network in prison.

Even so, it’s in society’s best interest to keep him locked up as long as possible, which is why his two sentences should run consecutively, not concurrently. Anyone who starts fires, steal cars, boats, and planes, tries to harm law enforcement, breaks into houses– and on the list goes– is a public safety issue. Some guys like him become addicted to the rush. Some only feel alive when they are doing exactly what they shouldn’t be.

I am very glad that the comments Harris-Moore made are being included in the sentencing recommendation because he’s showing his true colors. I’m not surprised. What really concerns me is that this guy has a Manson-like magnetism– supporters have swooned over him as if he’s Robin Hood when he hasn’t tried to benefit anyone but himself. I’ve found this very disturbing.

What if he tries to mobilize his supporters to commit crimes? What if he emerges from prison appearing to be reformed and takes advantage of the well-meaning people who will be waiting there to help him get back on his feet? This personality type, the type seeping through between the lines in his emails, holds power over others because:

1. Despite their criminal acts, people only see them as a victim because of their childhood. He’s not a victim and a dangerous criminal to them, he’s just a victim.

2. They attract the kinds of attorneys who will help them appear remorseful when they might not even be capable of true remorse. Key terms here are spin doctor, smokescreen, shifting the blame, and PR.

3. People rejoice in the ways they hurt others, increasing the likelihood that others will be hurt and empathy and/or restitution for crime victims will be diminished. In other words, the disease spreads.

When you can’t see someone devious for who they really are, you’re liable to get used and get hurt. I hope that more people acknowledge how highly Harris-Moore appears to think of himself. Following this story, there has been red flag after red flag after red flag that tell me something’s truly wrong with this guy that might not be able to be fixed. Sadly, he’ll probably be a model prisoner and be out of prison in short order.

Ultimately, I’m not concerned with trying to rehabilitate this guy. The system should be punishing this guy in meaningful ways. Keeping him out of society is in everyone’s best interest including his own. I want people to understand, given his childhood, antisocial behavior, and flippant arrogance, that this is exactly how some monsters are made.

The characteristics of his life that have brought him so much sympathy are likely the same circumstances that might have twisted him into someone so entrenched in himself that he might never come back out. I really wish the prosecution would have had a qualified forensic psychologist evaluate him, especially because the defense hired their own such expert who made some odd conclusions. Harris-Moore’s life, including the adoration of his fans, has been the perfect environment in which a sociopath can develop and yet not be recognized as such by the masses.

*************************************************************************************

©2012 H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com. All articles/posts on this blog are copyrighted original material that may not be reproduced in part or whole in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com.

I wasn’t laughing.

Yes, this was a Lifetime movie. This network usually follows a formula of damsel in distress meets hot dude who rescues her. Or woman takes drastic action against abuser and the legal drama that follows. As cheesy as many Lifetime movies are, women watch these shows because they can relate to them. They give them the feeling that someone else understands what they’re going though.

Say what you will about Untouchable, but where it did succeed was in giving viewers a taste of what life was probably like for Peterson’s wives. This guy comes across as a raging narcissist and to me seems to be a textbook sociopath. His world revolves around… him. He, as I just discussed in my Courageous post below, tries to maintain a heroic public persona, complete with the stereotypical mustache of authority, while skeletons literally lie in this guy’s closets.

I was disgusted that media outlets this morning were blaring Peterson’s reaction to the movie. What did they think he was going to say, “gee, there’s part of it that really hit home for me?” The media’s focus on Peterson has been a stumbling stone in the path of justice throughout this whole saga. As vampires of his type are known to do, and this is so transparent to me, he’s succeeded in drawing attention away from his victims and onto himself. Frankly I’d be much more interested in hearing what the victims’ families and friends have to say about Untouchable than see reporters clamor to post what this suspect is bellowing from his cell.

Another beef I have with the way the media has handled the Peterson case is that they have focused cargo ships full of attention on this case to the detriment of other missing persons and murder cases. Homicide and suicide happen all the time in police officer relationships, yet only a select few cases dominate the airwaves, sensationalized by crusaders for justice who constantly run “breaking news” banners on their shows.

To understand just how much this goes on in law enforcement, please visit the Behind the Blue Wall blog at http://behindthebluewall.blogspot.com/. The media’s laser focus on the Peterson case may have people thinking domestic violence of this magnitude is a fairly rare occurence in police families. The stories featured on this blog cover just some of the cases, and only some of the cases that make it to the media. The person who runs the site is not a cop hater, but someone who, like me, believes that conditions for victims of officer-involved domestic violence will never get better until police culture and our society are honest about the extent of this violence.

Some of the lines used in the movie are being panned for their cheesiness without acknowledging that self-absorbed people really do say the darndest things. They are not always rational and really do come out with some shocking and awkward statements sometimes. In one scene, Peterson was basically reminding his wife how lucky she was to be with a man who had his size of male member, and she said, “have you been in a men’s locker room lately?” Some guys really do think they’re God’s gift to women and like to remind women that they are “exceptional” when their sexual skills may be average or below. Narcissist red alert!

Peterson reminded his wives and people witnessing the abuse that he was untouchable. He is the police, as this character said, and this is a common line among police abusers. It is a dilemma that faces the majority of victims of police officers because it’s true. If you call the police, will they protect him, or will they protect you? I’ve been through this, and if you choose to go to the authorities, you are taking the risk that they won’t do anything or worse, leaving you at the whim of your abuser, who’s now outraged that you “ratted him out.”

People often ask domestic violence victims why they don’t just leave. You can’t “just leave.” I’ve said it many times, but the risk of homicide goes up 75 percent when you leave an abusive relationship. The abuser may not want you, but he still wants control over you. If he believes he has to kill you to keep you from regaining control of your life, there’s a good chance he’ll do it. He may kill your children, pets, coworkers, or relatives too. Cops’ careers are based on power and control, and the ones who choose to abuse flaunt that power and control mercilessly. Leaving could be signing your own death certificate, because how dare you act like your own person and “rob” them of their “authority.” By leaving you also risk exposing the deeds they’ve worked so hard to conceal.

Men like Peterson in this movie are masters of what’s known as crazymaking (also known as gaslighting), tormenting and badgering their victims mentally to the point that victims start to believe there’s something actually wrong with themselves. Peterson referred to his third wife Kathleen as “the crazy lady” at least several times in Untouchable and made sure everyone around him knew that she was an unstable, vindictive, emotionally off-balance predator who just wanted poor him to suffer. Crazymaking is just one way to make the victim look like the suspect and vice versa. Also note that some abusers are so relentless that they actually can cause their victims real problems.

They are the victims, master spin doctors whose lies and excuses pour out of their mouths effortlessly to make the real victim look like the suspect. I mention this quote over and over in my blog, but as Martha Stout, author of The Sociopath Next Door says, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is…  an appeal to our sympathy. Abusers who are effective at this become the poor guy with the challenging wife, the longsuffering father whose kids are being poisoned by their mother.

Onlookers say, “he’s such a nice guy,” “he doesn’t deserve that,” “she’s a piece of work.” They generally don’t stop to ask the partner for her perspective; it’s obvious the “poor guy’s” got the short end of the stick and he doesn’t need you stirring things up by asking for his wife’s view, right? Wrong. Someone who has to go to such lengths to stir up sympathy might just have more going on than they’re letting on. Sympathy provides a smokescreen and diverts attention away from the victim onto themselves.

As portrayed in this movie, Peterson was only interested in the honeymoon phase of relationships. He got a thrill out of overlapping his relationships, using the time-worn phrase, “I’m still technically married.” Many con artists do this, saying, “I’ll divorce her,” “I’m in the processing of divorcing her,” “It’s completely over with her,” “I don’t feel anything for her.” But they thrive on their own cunning as they act out their fantasy of a sailor with a woman in every port.

In Untouchable, Peterson gets an obvious rise out of sneaking young Stacy into his house while his wife and children are sleeping. However, once they settle down and the thrill of the new relationship starts to wear off, the abuse starts. They’re out of the honeymoon phase and in his twisted mind she’s to blame for the ensuing “boredom.” He needs constant stimulation and settling down into routine life, with its less than perfect daily circumstances, is unbearable to him.

Speaking of children, some researchers theorize that sociopaths have an instinctive drive to spread their seed all over the place and ensure the continuation of their line. Some such abusers do this. They just keep having children and may use successive women to care for those children. I’ve seen this in real life and the children wind up not having a real father, but a Disneyland father who “works so hard” to support them that they “understand” why he’s not around. These guys are too busy tending to their new interests to be appropriately invested as husbands and fathers, and there’s always an excuse as to why they can’t make it to ____ (name an activity).

Drew Peterson made his fourth wife Stacy carry a cell phone constantly in this movie. This is also a common abuser tactic. He initially said that he needed to know she was “safe.” He was not motivated out of love or wanting to protect his wife, however, this was about control. He was irrationally paranoid about what his wife might be doing behind his back and needed to know her every move. There was one scene where he was spying on Stacy while in a marked police cruiser with a partner. It is reality that department resources may be used to keep tabs on a victim.

This picture also touched on how abusers may rage at their victims about things they are actually doing. In Untouchable, after Stacy hugged her brother-in-law at her sister’s funeral, Peterson asked her how long she’s been “banging” him. Then he attacked her in bed and asked how many times she’s “banged” him. A simple hug on a grieving family member can trigger the jealous rage of an abuser. They perceive it as a threat even though there is no threat. They are so mired in their own alternate reality that while they are away on vacation cheating on their spouse, they will call her and ask who she’s in bed with. They are, once again, making the victim the suspect.

The bed scenes in this movie were also realistic. Cowardly abusers will attack their victims where anyone else is least likely to witness the abuse. Rob Lowe’s Peterson also threatened to kill his wives at such moments, in both veiled and overt tones, in ways that couldn’t be proven. If you’ve heard the phrase “he said, she said,” that means that it’s her word against his. Guys like this are unlikely to threaten their partner in the presence of her friends or family. They get a thrill out of the fear and control they have while sneering that they’ll kill the victim when no one else can hear them. It’s also a way of deeply disturbing a victim emotionally so that only the symptoms will show in public, not the cause.

A final common abuser tactic that this movie covered was Peterson’s knack for demonizing his ex. Yes, some exes really are as bad as they appear, but I’ve learned to be suspicious of men who’ve been “horribly wronged” by their exes. Some won’t stop talking about how bad their exes are, and that may be a way of trying to bury the unfinished business or feelings they still have for them. It may also be concealing the fact that they’re still physically involved with them. Stacy’s experience in the movie version was that Kathleen, Peterson’s third wife, was a truly horrible person who incessantly harassed them. But Peterson convincing her of that just strengthened her loyalty to him because it evoked her sympathy. It made her believe that Peterson’s kids had a desperate need for a real mother.

Rob Lowe was genuinely creepy is this movie. Obviously Lifetime knows that casting someone who looks like him will draw more interest than someone who looks more like Drew Peterson. Regardless of what women think of Peterson’s looks, he seems to have that sociopathic draw, that hypnotic energy, that entices unsuspecting women. He may also appear attractive to some women in that he was an authority figure, that he was a father figure, and that he seemed financially successful.

A manipulator doesn’t have to be good-looking to have power over his victims; he just knows how to play his cards to reel in his targets. Please note that Peterson became engaged again in 2009, and after his intended left him due to her father’s ultimatum, she came back. After that she blindly defended him. I find absolutely nothing attractive about Drew Peterson, but there is a sinister energy that surrounds him like a cloud. When people are living in that cloud, they see a mirage or an embellished version of reality. You see what they want you to see.

To learn more about the kind of abuser that was portrayed in Untouchable, I’m going to recommend the book I always recommend, Sandra L. Brown’s Women’s Who Love Psychopaths, http://saferelationshipsmagazine.com/. It delves into both suspect profiles and victimology and should be required reading for both sexes.

If you are a victim of domestic violence, you will find very relevant assistance in Susan Murphy Milano’s Time’s Up guide to leaving stalking and abusive relationships, http://www.amazon.com/Times-Up-Abusive-Stalking-Relationships/dp/1608443604/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270995969&sr=1-2.

If you are a victim of officer-involved domestic violence, Diane Wetendorf’s website and booklets may be useful to you so that you understand the seriousness of what’s happening, http://www.abuseofpower.info/. You may also want to check out the website of the Officer-Involved Domestic Violence Network, http://policedomesticviolence.com/. Remember that abusers can track your Internet use, so be familiar with how to safely access this information before you look, http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/internet-safety.

There is also something critically important that you can do if you are a victim of stalking or violence: document it! Visit http://documenttheabuse.com/index.html to learn more about the critically important Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit and how to safely record what is happening to you. Stacy Peterson is featured on this website.

I also advocate having a will and other legal documents in place that explain specifically who should be questioned if you are missing, incapacitated, or dead. Mine is set to automatically disseminate detailed information to people in government and the media. Friends also know intimate details of what I’ve documented and how it is more complicated than what I refer to as my past life. Keep trusted people in the know without your abusers’ knowledge. Doing these things positions a guillotine that will take your abuser’s and accomplices’ heads (figuratively) if they come for yours.

So, mock the Peterson movie if you will, but remember that real women are dead and missing. Did this movie convict Peterson prematurely? Perhaps. Personally I believe Peterson’s victims were telling the truth and he’s guilty. His victims had nothing to gain and their lives to lose by standing up for themselves. All the red flags were there. Women who’ve been through similar situations, even of lesser magnitude, readily recognize the mind games, spins, and manipulation tactics that Peterson appears to practice both in real life and in this movie. It can function as public education.

Even if Peterson is pure as the driven snow and did not hurt any of his wives, this quick onscreen walk through suburban Chicago can function as a crash course in the tactics of domestic abusers. Some may see it as entertainment at the expense of the victims and I understand that. Was it right to make this movie? Did the victims’ families give their input, and who’s profiting from it, namely the precious children left behind? I also understand how media coverage can get cases moved to different locales and affect jury selection.

I’m not heartily recommending this movie, but I am saying that as long as it’s out there, let’s learn what we can from it. There is reality even in its cheesiest lines that can educate the public on domestic violence and be used to stop it. Knowledge is power. Awareness brings change. We must continue to speak out against the Drew Petersons of this world until domestic violence ceases to exist.

Idealistic you say? Given the magnitude of this monster’s reach, especially in law enforcement families, it’s an ideal worth striving for.

*************************************************************************************

It is terrible to find how little progress one’s philosophy and charity have made when they are brought to the test of domestic life. –C.S. Lewis

*************************************************************************************
©2012 H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com. All articles/posts on this blog are copyrighted original material that may not be reproduced in part or whole in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com.

After last week’s fairly unusual snow event in the Seattle area, we have had rainy, slushy, cold weather this weekend. Areas both rural and urban are keeping an eye on their rivers, streams, and storm drains in case of flooding.

If you are able to go outside and clean debris off of a nearby storm drain, this is an excellent day to do it. Also remember not to push your leaves into the streets because that just exacerbates the problem and clogs up the street sweepers.

A local nonprofit called Redeeming Soles is collecting shoes and socks for those walking around in this stormy weather without them. I’ve learned that some of the homeless people in our area are either going barefoot, walking around in socks, or trying to improvise by putting cardboard inside of their socks. Obviously none of these methods can keep their feet warm or protected.

In an amazing show of love and support, hundreds of people took off their own socks and shoes this morning and left them in a pile at church to donate to this charity. Most didn’t know they were going to do this when they walked in. These wonderful people walked out into the freezing, slushy puddles of the parking lot barefoot when they left the service, getting a feeling for what some of our neighbors go through 24/7, as one pastor put it.

While I’ve always known that socks are a hot item for nonprofits, I did not know until today that some charities have run out of socks and shoes because the current need is so great. They can use new and used shoes and new socks in all sizes, so if you feel moved to help out, check out Redeeming Soles’ website at http://redeemingsoles.org/ and find a donation site near you.

*************************************************************************************

The greatest joy in giving is to be the one who gives. –Welsh proverb

*************************************************************************************

©2012 H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com. All articles/posts on this blog are copyrighted original material that may not be reproduced in part or whole in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com.

Image from http://www.nhclc.org/news/nhclc-endorses-courageous

Sherwood Baptist Church of Georgia has done it again.

http://www.courageousthemovie.com/

It’s been nearly four months since the release of Sherwood’s fourth film, Courageous. I finally watched it this weekend and found that its tone was consistent with their 2006 football film Facing the Giants. It was a similar mix of laugh out loud hilarity and somber tearjerker scenes that result in deep self-reflection. The range of emotions captured in this film has a greater intensity than their previous films. It’s the kind of production you let play clear through the credits because you’re so absorbed in thinking about its message.

While I have not seen Sherwood’s Fireproof, which starred Kirk Cameron, I bought Facing the Giants immediately after seeing it and have watched their original film, Flywheel, on TBN. These are Hollywood-quality productions created mostly by volunteers and their expertise increases with each movie. It’s a pleasure to watch their growth. Aside from some awkward scene transitions and my ongoing boredom with most contemporary Christian music, this film is well done. A shootout scene in particular gave the subject matter a gripping realism.

When I first learned that Courageous was about four cops, I almost didn’t want to see it because I was concerned it would romanticize the policing profession. There are a significant number of domestic abusers in law enforcement, and many are masters of maintaining a heroic public persona while mistreating their families behind closed doors. For those unfamiliar with my blog, I am a multiple-time survivor of police officer-involved domestic violence who made that topic the focus of my M.A. in forensic psychology. I’ve lived it, worked in it, studied it, and have dear friends and family members in the profession.

What Courageous does is ask all men, including cops, to stand up and be men of integrity in both the public and private parts of their lives. This can be especially difficult for cops because their profession gives them access to drugs, women, money, and all sorts of tantalizing enticements that they have the means to indulge in. Working “overtime” or “off-duty” (wink, wink) or having special assignments give police officers a myriad of excuses to not be there for their families. Police departments may do briefings at the start of shift, but I have yet to hear of one that does routine debriefings at the end of shift that helps officers transition into their private roles. Ethically, police work is a minefield, and its reliance on power and control can be deadly for those around the officer.

Courageous doesn’t delve into police culture much but there is a scene later in the movie that demonstrates how difficult it can be for cops to be men (and women) of integrity. Policing is often described as a brotherhood in which you don’t “rat out” your fellow officers because you have to depend upon them to “have your back.” I’ve also seen officers face serious retaliation when they stand up to corruption in Administration, and as a civilian, have experienced this as well. Courageous addresses this in a manner that evokes one of my favorite ancient adages: to live a life of virtue, you have to become consistent, even when it isn’t convenient, comfortable, or easy. Sometimes you have to do what’s right even when it hurts.

“Why?” you may ask. Some people don’t subscribe to Judeo-Christian ethics and don’t believe that someday we’re going to stand in front of our Maker to explain why we did the things we did. That’s your choice. An astute point that this film makes, though, is that the behaviors we model to our children set the tone for their children, and their children’s children. One of the men in the movie recounts a time when his dad yelled at him, “I’d better never catch you drinking!” while holding a beer in his hand. Another never met his womanizing father, and another has a father-related secret that has him gripped by guilt. The characters realize that any darkness, drama, and dysfunction must be stopped by them.

This story is a good reminder that kids don’t need hypocrites, they need role models. It also speaks to the mind-blowing number of children in our country are growing up without dads. What we do—us, now—has a great likelihood of trickling down into future generations. The choices we make affect offspring we’ll never even see. Also, we don’t know how much time we get with the kids we have now, a component of this movie that may shock you more than any other. While both parents are equally valuable, there is a desperate need for dads and the protection they can provide in our modern age. As one of the characters pointed out, think of how many people in prison didn’t have active, involved fathers. I’ve often mused that this could be the single biggest social problem in the U.S.

While this might not have been the film’s intent, its message caused me to consider something I’d talked about with believing friends recently. The question is whether “Christian” men are any different than “regular” men. I’m completely serious. Going to church and saying “hallelujah” a lot while patting other men on the back and calling them “brothers” doesn’t mean that you’re a man of integrity the other six days of the week. You may be someone else entirely in your job or justify your choices based on your circumstances rather than your faith. This is something we all struggle with; I’ll be the first to admit that it is challenging to keep your faith intact at work.

I’ve developed a “typical single guy” composite based on the experiences of women around me, and “he” is a morally flexible, hedonistic sports nut who spends his weekends on grand adventures with his buddies and needs constant stimulation. His commitment to his partner and/or family is shallow and his level of involvement is determined by what’s convenient or comfortable to him. He compartmentalizes his life and usually has multiple relationships going on with good, successful, giving women who think they’re his “only one.” In a variation on this theme, there’s also the “cool dad” guy who, perhaps instinctively, uses his kids as bait. He eventually uses the woman to care for the kids while he’s sleeping around and acting like “typical single guy.”

This has a lot of beautiful, talented women in my life wondering, “where are the men?” Because even among the “brothers,” we find self-absorbed sports guy who talks the talk, but his walk has about as much moral fiber as a tablespoon of expired yogurt. He knows how to look awesome but fails to see—or doesn’t care—that his life is all about him. He shouldn’t lead women to believe he’s a Christian family man when he’s basically an overgrown frat boy. This “display of faith” is exactly how the spineless and noncommittal among us worm their way into the lives of women who are seeking long-term commitment. These guys thrive on attaching themselves to women who have their lives together and feeding off their successes. They crave what they lack internally—they’re parasites.

My main point is that if a guy says he’s a Christian, is he for real? Does he make a dazzling show of his forgiveness, benevolence, and belief in the eternal or does his daily life reflect his claims? Is he enmeshed with his mother, or an ex, or have multiple pots simmering on his relationship burner, or has he matured to the point that he is ready for the real deal? Did he have a father figure who modeled character and integrity? Has he made a conscious decision not to be like his dysfunctional parents? Sometimes those with the strongest faith are those with the quietest faith. Sometimes a sincere Christian is going to be a quirky guy who opens doors for old ladies but doesn’t raise his hands in church. Sometimes he’ll be a muscular manly man with gruff speech who has a tender heart. You can find a real Christian in his walk, not his talk. This is a lesson that I admit I’ve learned the hard way.

I fear that we’ve developed a “super-Christian” stereotype that a “true believer” will be dancing in the worship service and volunteering in soup kitchens. Such stereotypes are dangerous because different people are given different gifts and all are equally important. Additionally, how we express our faith is a personal choice, and God never made a rule that we all have to look or act alike. Our diversity is a reflection of His creativity. So frankly I’m wary of guys who come across as perfect super-Christians rather than men who walk with a limp. God builds our faith through trials and tribulations, so to me a sincere Christian man is going to be a guy who recognizes his bad choices and has made a commitment to doing things right. He’s not perfect; he’s trying, like me, and I am many, many miles away from a place called perfect.

This is exactly what the men of Courageous did. They decided that they were tired of being good enough, or hypocritical, or less than they could be, and they made a commitment to doing things better. Of course they’re going to make mistakes along the way; they’re human. But when they do, they’re going to have people around them to help them recognize those trips and slips and pull them back up. The five main characters of this movie basically made a pact with each other to be the kind of men that God would want them to be—honest, invested, reliable husbands and fathers whose actions reflected their faith.

Regardless of your belief system, Courageous will challenge you to evaluate how much you truly care about the people you’ve made a purposeful commitment to and the people you’ve brought into this world. It will make you think about whether you’re really standing up for what’s right or if you’re skating through life making excuses for everyone. You can look at this movie as entertainment with some notable casting choices and you can look at it as a mirror you don’t really want to gaze into, but you’ll be a stronger person if you do.

Even if you’re a single person, Courageous can be a tool to help you prepare for the life ahead. God recognized that it’s not good for man to be alone and if He has not relieved you of the desire for a partner, then keep praying you’ll be the best partner you can when the time comes. I am very glad that the producers of this movie dared show people what it means to be a real man and the consequences of saying you’re one thing but acting like another. We are all guilty of this to some degree. The point is that we can accept divine help to be better than we are. And there are a lot of women and children out there looking for real men, even the strong, successful ones.

*************************************************************************************

The world of posers is shaken by a real man. They’ll do whatever it takes to get you back in line—threaten you, bribe you, seduce you, undermine you. You must let your strength show up… Many of us have actually been afraid to let our strength show up because the world doesn’t have a place for it. Fine. The world’s screwed up. Let people feel the weight of who you are and let them deal with it.   –John Eldredge

*************************************************************************************
©2012 H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com. All articles/posts on this blog are copyrighted original material that may not be reproduced in part or whole in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com.

Looks like Fred and Barney have learned what not to drive in a Seattle-area snowstorm… I came upon this prehistoric Prius in Kirkland today, lodged in a field of snow just over a slush bank bordering the main drag.

Evidently it’s for sale now as the Flintstones and Rubbles have decided to upgrade to a four-wheel drive from a four-foot drive. Rumor has it they’re looking at a Hummer that can haul their hadrosaurus.

*************************************************************************************

©2012 H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com. All articles/posts on this blog are copyrighted original material that may not be reproduced in part or whole in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com.

Don’t let the fact that this came out of Berkeley scare you. MapLight follows the money trails from organizations and corporations to legislators and legislation. In other words, you can see where political contributions are coming from and what they’re intended for.

Click around on the various tabs and you can learn detailed information on each legislator, such as who their contributions are coming from and geographic information on which area finances them. You can find out which industries are the top contributors to which legislators. There are news stories and information on bills in the works. Both information junkies and citizens who just plain care what goes on in government will enjoy how this website connects the dots.

I am a staunch capitalist who isn’t going to make vague generalizations that rich people are evil and corporations are bad for us. However, I believe very strongly in accountability and transparency and have hefty opinions about corporate and political corruption. I am outraged over so-called bailouts and the inbreeding between politicians and lobbyists. Repositories of information like this can help us understand what’s going on in the political machine.

Remember, the government has no money. That’s our money. This is our government. Knowing where such money comes from and where it’s going isn’t a partisan issue, it’s a matter that concerns every American. Thomas Jefferson said that we in American do not have a government by the majority, we have government by the majority who participate. Check out who’s participating and see how well they’re representing your interests. You have the right to speak up if you’re dissatisfied.

*************************************************************************************
©2012 H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com. All articles/posts on this blog are copyrighted original material that may not be reproduced in part or whole in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com.

The wise and objective Ralph Hiatt had this to say:

Tim Tebow’s “Te-bow” reminds me of the almost exact position shown in the famous painting of General George Washington who was not ashamed to be a Christian when he knelt and prayed for his troops during the revolutionary war… while his ragged, tired men fought for freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom from undue taxation under the rule of the king of England. Years ago almost every school child used to see that painting displayed in his school room or in his school books.

America… Where are we headed?

Personally I’m not a big fan of professional sports unless Seattle teams happen to be winning something. The lifestyles of some pro athletes disgust me. I also don’t think God cares that much about which team wins or loses a football game. But should He be given credit for a win, or a great performance, or any other good thing? You bet! He’s who gives us the ability to accomplish anything in the first place.

I am becoming increasingly concerned about religious intolerance in this country. While I may not care much about pro football, the attacks against Tim Tebow for displaying his faith are disturbing. This is what I mean when I say it’s “okay” to hate Christians. Everyone’s free to express their own beliefs and opinions, but I’m noticing a widespread furor, almost a groupthink, that spews stereotypes and demeaning generalizations over those who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

Christianity has started to be treated as abnormal and dangerous when it’s plainly been the majority faith in this country (and Western civilization) for a long time. People who can’t even rationalize their dislike of it attack the faith as radical, extremist, and narrow-minded. I fear that we are losing our grasp on the concept of freedom of religion. True Christianity, in my opinion, is not a religion anyway, it’s a relationship without all the ritualistic, legalistic manmade embellishments. Regardless, it’s protected by the Constitution.

Jen Floyd Engel wrote an insightful piece about the hatred towards Tim Tebow on Fox Sports: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Tim-Tebow-why-the-heck-do-we-hate-him-110211. It brings that Selwyn Hughes quote to mind again, the one I just mentioned in my blurb on worldwide Christian persecution: This is why the scribes and Pharisees hated our Lord so much. It wasn’t because He was good; it was because He was different.

Yeah, Tim Tebow is different. I don’t care that he plays good football. I care that he’s man enough to stand up for the time-honored tradition he believes in and doesn’t let an army of critics shout him down. Walter Lippmann said, “He has honor if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct though it is inconvenient, unprofitable, or dangerous to do so.” That’s what Tebow is doing in a world of self-indulgence and I commend him for it.

As Ralph Hiatt said, George W. did the Tebow, and nobody should be afraid, ashamed, or timid about taking a knee in front of the Almighty. After all, as the great preacher Adrian Rogers said, the man who kneels before God can stand before any problem.

That’s what George Washington did more than two centuries ago, and the result was a nation that, at least in days past, believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness above all else.

*************************************************************************************

Update: You can read Ralph Hiatt’s take on the Tebow at http://ralphhiatt.blogspot.com/2012/01/tim-tebow-does-george-washington-bow.html.

*************************************************************************************
©2012 H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com. All articles/posts on this blog are copyrighted original material that may not be reproduced in part or whole in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com.

In the Still of the Night: The Strange Death of Ronda Reynolds and Her Mother’s Unceasing Quest for the Truth was published in 2010. It documents the players and circumstances involved in the alleged “suicide” of a former Washington State trooper in December of 1998. Reynolds was found shot in the head in her bathroom closet hours before she was scheduled to leave town. She was also getting divorced.

Many Washingtonians have seen this case in the news this past year. This is because the Lewis County Coroner issued arrest warrants for Reynolds’ former husband and stepson after an inquest jury found that they should be held responsible for her death. The Lewis County Sheriff, however, will not reopen the case without new evidence. I have previously blogged about this at http://wildninja.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/justice-or-merely-an-exercise/ and http://wildninja.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/its-about-time/.

To me, Reynolds’ death has always reeked of murder rather than suicide. The crime scene was compromised, the husband’s behavior was suspect, and authorities have always been split on what actually happened that night. As Rule insinuated in her book, when you have friends in Puget Sound area law enforcement, it can be awkward to come down on the side that questions people you may have deep respect for. The HITS team with the Washington State Attorney General’s office officially considered this a suicide, and given who HITS is comprised of, those are opinions I take very seriously.

What these 404 engrossing pages did for me was fill in some blanks about the case facts and timeline. They also provided me with basic profiles of several key people in the case. Additionally, this telling of the Reynolds story validated an unsettling feeling I’ve had, that is probably isn’t as simple as a husband killing a wife. The husband might not have even been there. My conscious mind has veered that way, but slowly, as I’ve learned more and more about the case, I’ve become aware of another presence in the room. Like a dark shadow melting into an unlit corner, someone else is there, was there– almost imperceptible, but if you stare long enough, you can make out their blurred outline shifting slightly against the wall.

When I started reading this book I didn’t expect so many psychological red flags to pop up. Halfway into the book I found myself in a minefield of red flags that made murder an almost logical progression of the chaos surrounding the Reynolds household. In other words, Ron Reynolds, Ronda’s husband of less than a year at the time of her death, had allowed a convergence zone in which such a horrific tragedy could occur.

Rule’s description of Ron Reynolds made my blood run cold. I warn other women about certain types of men; Reynolds is one of those types. Reynolds came across as a spoiled mama’s boy who developed new interests as quickly as he dropped them. Family members say that he was self-absorbed and had no empathy growing up. He was also described as being manipulative and having a chameleon-like personality.

Reynolds seemed to be very “one note” emotionally unless he was jealous and he was attracted to women who were successful and giving. He would use them as a convenience, such as caretakers for him, his sons, and his property, and he would use them financially. Despite his admirable income as a public schools employee, Ronda Reynolds had borrowed money from her mother to buy the house she, Ron, and his three sons lived in. He had a disturbing interest in finances after her death. His marriage to Ronda happened alarmingly fast after both of their divorces.

For those who’ve read Sandra L. Brown’s Women Who Love Psychopaths, these dynamics and the victimology may sound familiar. Ronda Reynolds was hard-working, giving, and a nurturer who hoped to have her own children. She and at least one other woman encountered Ron Reynolds’ lure of “impotence,” a classic manipulation tactic used to get women to “prove” that one’s parts actually, to his “surprise,” do still work after all. He was well-liked in the community and, upping the pity factor, he’d just gone through a terrible divorce that had hit him hard financially.

Ron Reynolds, however, wasn’t the only one interested in utilizing Ronda’s wages and means. His ex-wife was far from out of the picture. Just a few months into his marriage to Ronda, Ron and his ex had hooked back up. Their relationship was appropriately described in the book as an addiction. They had originally met at WSU back in the day and she had developed significant chemical addictions. They had five sons together and at least two of the three who lived with Ronda didn’t like their stepmother.

Based on information in the book, the boys’ mother appeared to be committing fraud and buying things on Ronda’s dime. Ronda, however, was being blamed for it. Blame shifting is a typical reaction of someone addicted to an ex-partner; no matter what reality is, they cannot give their current partner loyalty because they are so entangled with the old one. They grow closer to the old one, appearing to “rekindle their love,” by making the new partner the bad guy. Demonizing the new one allows the misdeeds and vices of the old one to be not only overlooked, but excused. The new partner becomes the fall guy, and these “awful problems” with the new partner provide an excuse to return to the old partner.

So enmeshed were Ron and his ex-wife that she spent the night with him in Ronda’s bed the night Ronda died. When Ronda’s mother arrived at the house the next day, she walked out of the master bedroom acting like as if it were a perfectly normal thing to do. Moving back in with one’s ex-spouse immediately after his current wife dies was no big deal to these two. Ron even told Barb Thompson, Ronda’s mother, that Katie, his ex-wife, could have even been in the house the night of the murder. As if that weren’t appalling enough, I think my jaw might have literally dropped when I read that Ron had the gall to show up at Ronda’s funeral with Katie in tow.

Much later Katie would post a message on Barb’s website saying that Ronda had been murdered. This was long after she and Ron had gone through yet another round of their Elizabeth Taylor-Richard Burton wash and rinse cycle. Addictions are not steady or monotone, they are thrilling highs and scrape-oneself-with-a-shard of pottery lows. The high wore off and Ron moved on to other giving women who truly wanted a stable, long-term relationship, understandably snowed by what he had been through.

I feel terrible for those women, because men like Rule describes have a snake charmer-like effect on their victims. Some of us women want to help. We want to heal. We want to fix things. We want to make our guy happy, and bring sunshine into his life to show him that brighter days are here. I wonder how much that hypnotic effect factored into Katie’s addictions. I wonder if that’s why she boldly went public with their affair while Ronda’s blood was still fresh on the closet floor ten feet away from Ronda’s side of the bed. I don’t think normal people would have even slept in the same house someone just died in.

Rule introduced a very important component of this case by chapter four, Reynolds’ sons who were living with him and Ronda. Ronda had told others that Jonathan Reynolds, the son named in the 2011 arrest warrant, had been watching her in the bathroom. After several incidents she’d tackled him. He hated her and by at least one account had threatened to kill her. Some of the Reynolds boys shared an obsession with sex and death, and one of Ronda’s dogs mysteriously disappeared. Later another of her dogs was found beaten to death and she seemed fearful of pursuing the issue within the Reynolds family. She was afraid of what might happen to her dogs, who were forced to sleep outside at night and be fed in such a manner that it wouldn’t “bother” Ron. Rule noted that David Reynolds kept the crime scene tape from her death investigation and displayed it in his room.

New witnesses have started to come forward in this case and it sounds like the Reynolds boys might have had a party at the house at the time of Ronda’s death. The timeline Rule constructed of this night, and the physical evidence at the house, were jolting in a puzzle-pieces-almost-all-properly-fitted kind of way. There’s that lurking shadow again—more people know what happened than the police might know about. While this may sound “conspiracy theory,” the evidence of a “suicide” is just bizarre, deputies altered the crime scene upon arrival, Ron Reynolds had his three sons leave the house before authorities arrived, none of them claimed to have heard a gunshot, and the house was flooded with invited guests while a bare minimum of deputies should have been doing an investigation. It gets much weirder than that, but put simply, possible witness statements were flushed and the crime scene was contaminated.

There are many more surprises in this book that I will leave up to readers to discover on their own. I’ve disclosed much more than the author would probably like to reinforce my view that this was not a suicide. Now that I know more about the history, the dysfunction, and the mindsets of people involved, I find it very logical to come to the conclusion that one or more people were involved in a staged “suicide.” Some of her worst enemies, in spite of all the people she’d arrested and stood up to, lived under the same roof.

Ronda Reynolds had survived sexual harassment and bullying in her law enforcement job; that’s why she resigned and went into loss prevention. Being a strong woman in law enforcement can bring you all kinds of hate—some men find it threatening. Ronda had already survived one divorce and had proper support around her to make it through a second. She wasn’t going to let that keep her down either. This wasn’t the type of woman who would spend most of the night on the phone with friends and family making plans for the next morning, and her next phase of life, and then kill herself. She wasn’t drunk. She had things to look forward to. She was only 32. She wanted children, and as Rule pointed out, she would have never, ever left her dogs at the mercy of that family.

Judge for yourself—Ann Rule has done a fantastic job of weaving together the various aspects of this case into a book that will suck you in and hold your attention until the last page. I’m glad that she took the time to tell Ronda’s story. Victims deserve to have their stories told. Even if you don’t believe that Ronda Reynolds was a homicide victim, she was a victim of sexism, of harassment, of addicts, and likely of a low to no empathy type who is still working his magic by keeping his public persona shining bright while the truth about Ronda remains in the dark.

Regardless of what the suspects in this case did or didn’t do, I agree with Rule that somebody knows more than they’re letting on. We know who those somebodies are. They know who that shadow is. As I set this book down, my head spinning as I processed the new information about this case, I thought, “Ann Rule will write about this again. This is just the first act.”

954, you will not be forgotten.

http://justiceforronda.com/

*************************************************************************************
©2012 H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com. All articles/posts on this blog are copyrighted original material that may not be reproduced in part or whole in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com.

On the bottom of my iced tea lid last year was a quote by the Lumberman’s Poet, Douglas Malloch. It said:

Good timber does not grow with ease. The stronger the wind, the stronger the trees.

Yesterday a friend reminded me of what trees need to go through to build their roots and wood fibers, and this quote immediately came to mind. He was saying that trees have to be allowed to face nature’s assaults to survive, and as Malloch said, so do people. It’s a good reminder of why we sometimes face adversity– it makes us stronger. The storms of life can be intended to build us, not break us.

I found the entire text of the poem at http://holyjoe.org/poetry/malloch.htm. This was a hearty dose of encouragement for me on a challenging Monday, and I hope that it greatly encourages you as well.

Good Timber
by Douglas Malloch

The tree that never had to fight
For sun and sky and air and light,
But stood out in the open plain
And always got its share of rain,
Never became a forest king
But lived and died a scrubby thing.

The man who never had to toil
To gain and farm his patch of soil,
Who never had to win his share
Of sun and sky and light and air,
Never became a manly man
But lived and died as he began.

Good timber does not grow with ease:
The stronger wind, the stronger trees;
The further sky, the greater length;
The more the storm, the more the strength.
By sun and cold, by rain and snow,
In trees and men good timbers grow.

Where thickest lies the forest growth,
We find the patriarchs of both.
And they hold counsel with the stars
Whose broken branches show the scars
Of many winds and much of strife.
This is the common law of life.

*************************************************************************************
©2012 H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com. All articles/posts on this blog are copyrighted original material that may not be reproduced in part or whole in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from H. Hiatt/wildninja.wordpress.com.