Complexities of Modern Life

Modern culture offers some complexities that weren't faced in the past. These questions of right and wrong aren't always answered by religion-- even if we follow a religion. They can form ethical conundrums if we stop to puzzle through them. Following are some examples of what I am thinking about.

Today we have people with enough money to travel wherever they wish, finding fascinating places to view, and then leaving supposedly without a trace of themselves left behind-- except some money. We also have people who live in those places, often very primitively. Those people are often part of the appeal for what today is referred to as adventure travelers.

So instead of taking a place over and changing it, the goal is keeping it as it was to make it interesting to see even if some live in poverty or worse to offer those views.

This is one such example: [Elephants or villagers]. To have something adventuring tourists will pay to see, the elephant population is allowed to grow and sometimes rampage. Although the country receives financial benefits from the tourists, the villagers receive only death and destruction. Complexities of modern life.


We do still have the problem of the old-fashioned taking over of a country and what does the rest of the world do about it? Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion is about Tibet with China doing the old-fashioned occupying and conquering after Mao became the ruler of China. They justified their actions as liberating the Tibetan people who had asked for no such liberation and often had to be killed to be forced to accept it along with accepting the occupying army and Chinese settlers.

I knew the story but always thought Tibet still existed even though the world had been ignoring what happened there. Then we got our newest National Geographic map where there is no Tibet. There is instead China and the Tibetan Plateau-- in short a recognition that Tibet has been officially swallowed.

Who would fight to protect the Tibetans? Certainly not the United States who is in debt up to its neck and above. Although the Dalai Lama said he understood and thinks Obama has other ways to move forward on things, our president didn't meet with the exiled leader of the Tibetan people when he came to Washington D.C recently which was a first. That happened likely because Obama planned a trip to China to whom we owe so much money that we cannot afford to offend their leadership. Taiwan, watch out!

Is the taking over of another country okay when it's one big enough doing it? The argument goes that it's okay because China originally had Tibet as part of its domain. Really? What else did China have besides that? We have seen the same argument with North and South Korea as well as Vietnam. The countries were once one-- pretty much everything was; so now it's okay to conquer it? Complexities of modern life.


On a smaller scale, we were recently at Finley Wildlife Refuge. It is a wonderful place set aside for birds and wildlife. It is a mostly safe place for them to live and breed... But all around it are grass seed fields where the geese love to graze. These are fields planted for families to make a living but so many geese can decimate the grasses. As a compromise there is hunting allowed sometimes to reduce the numbers of certain of the geese and ducks.

So it's beautiful to watch these swans, to listen to their calls to each other which were so melodic as to be almost like songs, and a very contradictory emotion to once in awhile hear the boom of nearby shotguns.

We had the experience recently at the farm when we walked up our road, saw a lot of geese in our pasture, grazing alongside the cattle; then watched them fly off thinking how beautiful-- only to within moments hear the boom of shotguns in the next valley about the time the birds would have flown over.

Farm Boss reassured me that it was skeet shooting. Maybe or maybe some of those beautiful birds were shot right after leaving the safety of our pasture. And how long and how many of them could we provide refuge in our pasture. The cattle and sheep also depend on that grass. Provide refuge. Don't provide refuge? Complexities of modern life.


Finally (well not really but one more of these examples of complexity) we watched on HBO the recent remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still starring Keanu Reeves as part of an alien population who have decided humans are so abusing earth that they must be eliminated if the planet it to survive with habitability.

There wasn't a lot of story, but lots of special effects and one dominant question: Are humans worthy of having such a wonderful planet upon which to live? We say we own it but then argue over what that means, abuse it and each other, and can't agree on what quality of living means for ourselves or the earth. It was easy to make the alien's case for eliminating us as a species.

Of course, the thing is there are those among us who are worthy (most of us would start by naming our families, friends, and selves). In the film that was the case the humans made. We can change. We can do what is right. Give us another chance. But it was only at a point of disaster that humans were willing to do that. Would it change anything even if that happened?


How do we resolve these questions that it seems money decides everything. Want to visit a people at the price of elephants rampaging over them? No problem if you can afford it. With the complex lives some humans have, the appeal of viewing the simple life is very appealing-- so long as it's just as a voyeur.

Is there another way to figure out what is right to do? How about starting with the recognition that being able to afford something does not make it the right choice. Another good one is just because someone else says it's okay does not mean it is.

Photos from Finley Wildlife Refuge other than one from our pasture.

And don't bother telling me I think too much. I already know it.

Just Thinking...

We came across the program How the Earth was Made on History Channel recently. Although it was made in 2007, it had flown under my radar. I found it fascinating showing graphically the history of our earth.

The movie takes what we know geologically and biologically about earth's history from the start (4.5 billion years ago) and lays it out visually but without emotional interpretation. It didn't attempt to answer the why or what it meant, nor guess where it's going (beyond the eventual extinction as earth's future is tied to the sun's) but just what can we know from geologic and fossil records.

In watching the show, the mystery, for me, involved why life developed at all. Those first celled beings and then the others that followed. Why did they 'just' appear especially in such a hostile environment? What made dinosaurs develop? I know they were supposedly the best adapted is science's answer to that but were they or was somebody playing around?

Each time there would be a dominant species, going along, feeling like they had it all under control and then boom, a cataclysmic (and when earth delivers cataclysm, it really means cataclysm) event whether from space or earth itself and it all changed again.

What a violent, exciting earth we live upon, and make no mistake, despite the ego of man, we do just live upon it with very little real control over what it does or what comes from space.

Because the show doesn't attempt to draw conclusions, it leaves the viewer with some interesting questions. The big one for me is the first one. What made life appear, those first single-celled living beings and in such an inhospitable environment?

Did the seeds of life come from outer space which is certainly possible given they believe the water on this planet came that way. Meteors bring in many things-- maybe not all good. One of them might have been the seeds of life-- if so, from where did it come? Could another meteor bring our human history to an end as it did the dinosaurs? The end could as well come through a new bacteria as a climate driven result.

Some, who don't like mystery and want definitive answers, would say diversity came because of competition. Whatever the reason behind it, in each of these past stages, something changed so dramatically that it would kill off most of what lived in that time-- leaving a new form of life to evolve. Eventually that led to the age of man-- short in time though it might be given our destructive nature. We don't need a meteor to wipe ourselves out.

To me, the facts laid out in the film, with all the thinking about its meaning, added to the mystery. I personally don't see evolution as proving atheism or belief. It is a fact and then we interpret it or we don't. Drawing conclusions that it means there is no god or it means there is, to me it doesn't work.

Life is. Isn't that enough? For now, we are here. Evolution doesn't tell us our end anyway-- just that there will be an end but then a new beginning-- somewhere for something. How fascinating.

If you get a chance to see How the Earth was Made, definitely I recommend it. It brings earth's beginnings vividly to life and leaves as many questions as answers-- as is right given the complexity of the events.

[Beginning today, we will be on the road for awhile. First Thanksgiving with our family and then heading south to Tucson with our two cats. They hate travel and have been holing up ever since the pet carriers came out. This will be an adventure for them but one they aren't choosing. One of our neighbors is looking after the farm; so we have this chance to get the Tucson house set up hopefully as a rental for others.

I had pre-written some blogs on subjects that interested me; so they will keep flowing along every other day. For now, I am leaving comment moderation off; but if I check in on the way down and find too much spam, I will have to activate it. I go for a long while with none but lately I have been deleting quite a bit. Fortunately most of it is in earlier blogs which makes the blogger system easy to just reject it; but there is no way to do that with the current ones.]

A coming thing in medicine

Since our country has been discussing health care options, the problems we face, this was something that I came across. What do you think about it?

Patients face bitter choice: Pay up or lose care

The gist of it is that those, with sufficient money to pay a 'physician membership' fee each year (this is on top of any insurance they might opt to buy), then receive premium access to their doctor, guaranteeing not having to see a changing array of doctors or a physician's assistant.

For those with the money, paying a yearly fee offers security, quicker access to an appointment, more time with their doctors once there. The doctor limits how many patients he/she will accept under this concierge arrangement.

Are we more and on so many levels becoming a nation of have and have not? Is this where our medical system is heading with or without health care reform?

With a shortage of doctors, which doesn't seem to be letting up, more treatment is being provided by Physician Assistants. If you are not familiar with their requirements, it generally is a Bachelor's degree, possibly with prior medical experience, say as a nurse, then two years of graduate level training to get the equivalent of a master's degree. Wikipedia on Physician Assistants. Each state can have different requirements as can each clinic or doctor as the PA works under the supervision indirectly, of a physician. For those who would like to see what we have considered to be a traditional doctor, it sounds like it might be getting more costly.


We have two new calves. One night, with all the storms we have had, the cold air that is bringing snow to the highest hills around us, just as we were getting ready for bed, one of the new mothers decided she had lost her new baby. Misplaced it? Someone stole it. It wandered off. What a mournful sound she made as she ran around the pasture.

Finally it became impossible for Farm Boss to ignore her wailing-- just in case. So out he went with the spotlight to find a pile of calves in the corner of the barn on the straw he had put out for this exact purpose. The mama could not be convinced that her calf was one of those inside and safe. Although he moved her down to the barn, she ran back out determined to find her calf where it had been born. He left the calf where it was as an upset mother is better (if not quieter) than a calf out in the heavy rain and wind.

Next morning all was well and no apologies to the neighborhood from the cow.

Photos are of a two day old calf and one born several days earlier as they get acquainted with their world. By now they are already leaping in the air and running.

To be or not to be-- or something like that

If you are writing a blog such as mine, which sometimes delves into politics, you faced a question when Sarah Palin burst onto the scene again. Do you write about her? It's not possible to ignore her presence and what it could mean politically when she is all over the right and left media. But how does anyone write about her critically (as in analytically) without being accused of being a hater? The poor lady is constantly being picked on by the mean lefties which only endears her more to the righties.

[Why the Palin "Hate Affair" will backfire].

To begin, I don't hate Sarah Palin. How could I? She's done nothing to me to cause me to hate her. I do have an opinion about her though-- one which has been only enhanced by her recent media appearances. Most people appear to have made up their minds about her-- either pro or con. So why take the heat for writing about her? I read a couple of different takes on that question (both from liberal writers) .

Palin's Ego Trip
or
Leave Palin Alone

Which didn't help at all as they had differing views. Of course, Andrew Sullivan had his opinion on her book: Deconstructing Sarah. Because he is fascinated by her complex personality and has pointed out her lies, he's listed by her under those haters. Then there was Frank Rich -- The Pit Bull in the China Shop with his take on what she means for 2012.

I also read opinions which added up to hoping she runs for president. They want to see the right wing totally destroy the Republican party, and think Palin is the fool tool to do it. Those writers are sure she's not very smart and will self-destruct hopefully not before she gets the nomination in 2012.

Personally, I don't like that idea because I have the opinion that we gain as a nation when we have two highly qualified candidates running for our highest office with different political viewpoints. That way no matter who wins, we are going to be okay even if the political direction in which they take us may be very different. (It would have appeared we would have that in 2008 until McCain chose Palin instead of Lieberman.)

But my reasoning in her case also has a practical level: we don't know she can't win if she gets the nomination-- [Nate Silver-- 10 Reasons that Sarah Palin could win]. And we don't know that she's dumb as some lefties hope. When you set a bar really low, it doesn't take much to top it. She could be dumb; but then again she might be intelligent but have been intellectually lazy because she has been taught that it's not Christian to be an intellectual and not necessary anyway when she is so gorgeous (which she is).

Her answers in any interview make her sound like someone who has very little interest in the details of policies. Cut taxes, you betcha. Do whatever the generals order, yep. Exactly how her lack of interest in details or consequences (she's had plenty of time to bone up if she had wanted to do so) will help her make policy decisions pretty well comes back to how well you felt G.W. Bush did in that office.

Palin's simplistic answers don't tell us if she knows much but do appeal to the right wing of her party-- especially the Christian right. They don't like lengthy answers, love pithy comments they can repeat, and they most definitely resent anybody who would talk like an intellectual which she most definitely does not. *big wink*

Here's the thing. If we, on the left, don't address why we don't see her as fit for the highest office, we are treating it a lot like John Kerry did when he couldn't believe anybody would think he was a coward since he had been to war, when he could have dodged it, and had been shot at. His logic went how could they think Bush was the brave one when he evaded going and didn't even fulfill his full service. Until Kerry was swift-boated, by men who weren't anywhere near him when he was in combat, he assumed people would know without him making his case. They didn't.

My reasons for not wanting to see Palin as anything more than a Fox TV show host like Glenn Beck (who she has said wouldn't be a bad running mate if she did run) are more about her character than her possible policy positions. It's interesting that the right wing talks about how important character is but often they seem to equate it only with sexual behavior rather than things like lying.

[Palin's lies].

From looking at her untruths, Sarah Palin doesn't seem to be the kind who lies to protect herself (not honorable but understandable) but basically what appears to be of the pathological sort: [How to recognize a pathological liar]

Have you ever known anyone like that? They lie when it doesn't matter. They lie to enhance their ego. They don't bother to keep track of their lies. In her case it's even more bizarre than the usual pathological liar because what she says can easily be checked through transcripts and video tape. Does she not worry about keeping her stories straight because she knows her fans won't bother to check or is there a more disturbing reason?

Does having someone with that character flaw in our highest office worry you? There is yet another character quality that should be of equal concern. She gets back at people who have wronged her-- even if they didn't but she thinks they did. She basically is a grudge holder and it's easy to see it through her record (for those who care to look), her book (no, I won't be buying it, just going by the excerpts online), her interviews, and her speeches.

We have had a few grudge holders as president (some say it's what Obama does but that has yet to be proven) and it's never good-- in either party. That kind of person will take personal umbrage and damage others to get their revenge. Politicians should rise above that kind of thing for the good of the country. They don't all manage it.

Why do you suppose liberals didn't like her when she ran for Vice-president? Because she has great cheekbones and liked to hunt in full make-up? That's funny but only an extreme rightie would believe it was the reason. She was running in a party that has positions we naturally would not like, but it was something more.

Not only did she (and does she) lie about the position of liberals on pretty much any issue you can name (death panels for a starter), but she ridicules and puts us down in the nastiest way from which she takes clear delight and gains power in doing.

Palin's rhetoric feeds the far right who think all taxes are bad, don't like any government, but have no clue what government does. She says what they want to hear which is that it's all (whatever it is) somebody else's fault, and they shouldn't have to pay anything for it. They were and are drawn to her like moths to a flame, loved it that the left didn't like her, and will avidly vote for her in 2012. The only question about whether she could win an election will be how the moderates see her by then.

Whether she could get educated into policy positions, that I don't know. Whether she's intelligent, that I don't know; but I do know she has some character qualities that could make her a scary president-- maybe the scariest ever. G.W. Bush didn't appear to do the grudge thing, and I don't know if he lied as much as was intellectually lazy and misinformed. I have a feeling when he lied though, if he felt he had to, he knew it. I am not convinced Palin does. If that doesn't worry you, it should!

Putting today in perspective

Because I don't tend to notice significant dates as others do, I didn't realize today was significant until I read this article. The article is not so much about what happened November 22, 1963, but rather what is still happening in our country evidenced by billboards, signs in tea-bagger rallies, talk radio, and bloggers. It's well worth taking time to read. Ignorance won't protect us.

Extremism Lives on

To Mammogram or not

When I saw that United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) had decreed women no longer should have a mammogram at age 40 and after 50 only have one every other year, skipping breast self exams completely, and doctors should stop examining women's breasts during their physicals, I shook my head. The constant stream of contradictory medical information seems to be part of our culture. Today what is good will be what is bad tomorrow.

This particular Health and Human Services Commission is made up of: Task Force members. They apparently were only using other studies to come up with a conclusion, but their conclusions seemed a little odd. They decided what studies mattered most but had no oncologists, just professors, general doctors, or health care managers? What is their motive?

Although they said some lives are saved by early mammograms and manual examination, they decreed it's not enough to warrant the cost. Excuse me... to which families?

The concern does not appear to be the radiation from the machines because those have been improved a lot since I began having mammograms sometimes in my late 40s or early 50s. Back then it was a lot more iffy when a woman should have her first one.

Until this study it had been agreed that women should have a baseline mammogram at around 40, but I had not understood it needed to be done yearly. The commission's argument for changing this, besides not enough lives will be saved, was it upsets women to have them... Excuse me again. *taking some deep breaths*

So they want to spare women the upset because... because... wait for it. It costs money to do biopsies. You knew it would get down to this because if it's not about saving lives, not about the radiation, then what drawback could there be other than money?

I read some arguments that for women to fight against this means they don't want health care reform, that they are ignoring medical science. Get it straight. This was a recommendation based on many studies, but they must never have read the ones that claim mammograms do save lives. Well they knew they do but just not enough to be cost effective.............................. To add to it, they make their excuse based on it's scaring women. Women get scared of lots of things. Going to spare us them all?

This 'recommendation' does not appear to be aimed at possible new health care reform, which might not even happen; but instead that insurance companies would no longer have to cover yearly mammograms before the age of 70. And why we don't want our doctor examining our breasts in a physical? Well it's uncomfortable for sure but otherwise, why? Because he might find something? *more deep breaths*

Coincidentally, I had a physical this week. My doctor brought up the mammogram task force's recommendation and said to ignore it. He ignored it when he did a thorough breast exam. I had already decided that I wouldn't consider it in my own choice, but what if insurance companies stop paying for them?

We are bombarded by studies and results. To me having a yearly mammogram doesn't seem to be that costly. They said it doesn't catch the really fast growing cancers. Fine, that's why monthly breast exams and having your doctor do one. If we are going to save money on medical costs, it seems to me we could start with something else... how about prostate tests and exams? *s*

Where I haven't been regular with having yearly physicals (my doctor teasingly said he hadn't seen me in 3 1/2 years), with a grandmother, aunt, and younger cousin who have had breast cancer, I have been faithful to those yearly mammograms. I know they don't catch everything, but what they do catch is earlier than we could feel it. And yes, they are not fun; so that's a reason to not do them?

No illustrative photos for obvious reasons.........

A Possible Addiction?

Are you the type of person who gets into things and just can't let them go? In short-- are you an addictive personality? Every so often I come to terms with the fact that I apparently am. It happens with many things like when I start removing fallen leaves from the yard and driveway. I can't just let them be as soon as I see more come down.

Fortunately, with the farm, I have learned to not look at Farm Boss's territory because if I did, I'd constantly be trying to get things organized (not a happy idea for him or me) as he is not an addictive personality. He can just let things be. I would like to be more that way, but since I am this way still at 66, I doubt it's going to change anytime soon.

My latest example for addictive responses has been the Barbie doll dresses. It seemed so simple when I began. Scraps of material. Make some simple clothing. My granddaughter will be happy-- and she would have been.

After I had used my own fabric remnants, I began to think they weren't really the best ones for historic clothing. Oh I made them into dresses, skirts, blouse, accessories like a full length cape, apron (of course, pioneer woman), some shawls, and even a pair of pants which weren't likely pioneer woman attire unless they were men's. Well heck, an independent minded pioneer woman probably wore such when need be.

The thing was that I knew there had to still be better fabrics out there; and on one week-end, I found them. Quilting squares are the perfect size for a Barbie dress with wonderful colors, small patterns. Even more perfect they happened to be on sale at a dollar a square (about 18" x 22"). So I picked out 8. It's a wonder I stopped then.

Walking out of the store, I felt the emotions of a Midas who had found his her stash but wondered what she had been thinking to want it. That would have been bad enough, but I soon realized these dresses were going to require lace to really look right. How can you create fancy Barbie pioneer dresses (notice how this project is growing more complex) without lace.

I was still sure I had bits of lace here... except wherever I had packed them away, I have no clue. In stores, small laces turned out to be harder to find than I had anticipated. The ones I did find though were so pretty. I knew they would add so much to the next set of dresses. It's not like I'd have to sew up all eight dresses right away...

The first day, I made three...

It has definitely become a bit of an addiction, learning how to make hats (women of that era had to have hats), creating different styles, making them what I would have loved to have when I was a girl-- and it's a back killer for a woman 66. I think maybe if I got the sewing table down from the attic that it would be better.

Can you see this project growing by leaps and bounds? Somebody has to put a stop to it. After I used up the first quilting fabric, I bought more. Farm Boss is no help as he thinks the results are cute. He even made Barbie a western style vest and has helped me with some hand stitching (he's good at it). This project has forced me to do a bit of needle and thread work also (I'm not good at it).

Practically speaking, my home here is not well set up for craft projects. It's not even well set up for painting. I have my easel and paints in one end of the living room which means it's always in the way. Now I am going to add sewing?

Definitely I have to beat this habit before my granddaughter becomes swamped in Barbie outfits and my back demands I take it to the chiropractor.... Except it has been fun and better than listening to the news. I guess that's how all addictions start and grow-- justifying and ignoring the physical cost.

Because I wanted to have a record of the ones I made, I photographed them when I was finished and loaded them into a Picasa album. These are not all 20 0utfits as one I held back because it was a learning version. Although I could have waited for Christmas to give her these, she's growing up so fast, can I afford to wait?

[Barbie outfits]

I am not sure whether to file this under the category of proud or what was I thinking!