Violence -- a political issue?

 

Strictly speaking, violence is not, but its impact on our lives is great whether it touches us directly or through what we read or hear. Why do we see so much random violence to the point we cannot feel totally secure? 

No candidate though would run on- I'm for more violence. The thing of interest  is what leads to violence in a community and that is very much a political issue where candidates promise us peace and good lives. Sometimes, they come up with what things they would get rid of if they win a political office. Those things are issues. Here is where we need to think about whether it's right and do they speak to all of what might lead to it in a culture where violence is too prevalent-- even when it is random?

Touching on those topics here will, by necessity, be cursory. It would take books to explore each of them. I hope a blog will be enough to trigger interest for those who haven't, maybe, thought that deeply for how it might impact their lives through black swan events.

The topics include wars (an obvious one), guns (maybe also obvious at least to some), law enforcement, news coverage, and I could add entertainment, which means movies and games), but I am unsure how much it adds to actual violence given it's been around a LONG time. Still, I'll discuss it and maybe a few other things as they come to me.

Let's start with wars. Where it comes to violence, wars are the epitome of approved violence, at least on one side. Yet, are they even mentioned in most of our political rhetoric?

Wars have much impacted my life. I was born in the middle of WWII. I grew up in its aftermath and the Cold War era. The Korean war from 1950 to 1953 was called an Armed Conflict, but it was a war.

Some believe that fighting wars overseas will keep the blood from being spread on their own land. I heard it a lot about Vietnam and the domino effect if we didn't send troops there. Well, we sent them and many without wanting to go as the draft  (more about conscription) dealt with that. Young men were the only ones subject to the draft in the beginning, but I've since read today, that young women must also sign up. Where could that lead? Calling up the draftees is mostly needed when we fight an unpopular war or a long one.

So, why do I think wars can lead to violence at home? Part of it is those who came back not only with injuries but also PTSD for what they experienced. This can lead to confused thinking and violent actions. One of the first mass killings I remember came from a rooftop in Texas with a veteran of the Vietnam War.

With that war, of 1955 to 1975, we eventually had to get out after 282,000 deaths on our side and from the allied forces. For Vietnam, including civilians on the North and South's side it was over 1,000,000. 

Today, we trade with Vietnam as it is a manufacturing hub, North and South joined together. No domino effect.

I mention it because it was a war that fit what President Eisenhower earlier said in a last speech:

On January 17, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower ends his presidential term by warning the nation about the increasing power of the military industrial complex.

Did we listen?

The Vietnam War impacted my generation and some a bit older or younger. The war touched all of us because of how the draft was deployed. Men had a number and their chances of being called up was related to a lottery. If he came from a district with a lot of men of that age, he was less likely than smaller districts. There were exemptions as there had been in earlier wars, but I am sure the Vietnam War impacted all of us at that time with the uncertainty.

After that, it was a mostly peaceful time in the United States until along came 9/11. By this time, the draft had been ended, but many joined as the US had been attacked and patriotism was part of the sign up. IF we have a future war, I don't know if that will be the case or if drafting enrollees will be back. People have to sign up for it but are not forced to join. I've read young women also.

Why do I equate wars with an issue? Because the government is behind wars, or they don't happen. Which candidate is most likely to be led into wars by the military industrial complex that Eisenhower knew a bit about considering his own history.

Besides maybe taking lives on both sides, what do wars do? I believe, as mentioned above, that the violence comes back like a fever or virus, whether someone served or not. It's like a fever in the air-- a mentality. PTSD leads to some of it, but I think the fact that we think war is important sometimes leads to thinking violence is a logical means to get what someone wants. I won't say wars are never needed, but I've read that many could be fended off if a culture acted sooner with other steps. Of course, not always given human nature...

Human nature comes into it with the military leaders. Some might support a war but not how it's being fought. Or not like the war for the same reason. Soldiers can lose ranks if they don't do as they are told-- at the least. 

One more thing to add here, but not political. In some places, returning soldiers were treated very badly. I think we learned about that and it won't happen again; but wars are ugly things and to blame those you sent to fight it, is very wrong. Remember a large percentage in the Vietnam era never wanted to go, but even if they did, it's a war and it is savage. It's meant to be. Take that into account before blaming those who fight it.

Since the United States began with a war, fought others to acquire land, and even fought a war against itself, definitely could make it an answer some would turn to. Can't blame that on politicians of today... unless reincarnation is true *s*.

For those who think that is different with the Ukraine and Russian wars where we just supply arms to keep it going and help the 'good' side; I suspicion those people will find out otherwise, too late as if we end up in WWIII, the United States itself will not be immune, not with the weapons that are out there today.

This went on way too long, and I have a lot more to say on the many possible issues that might lead to more violence in the homeland; so come back next Saturday if you find that of concern in your country or this one. If you have an opinion, feel free to voice it, agree or disagree.

Dreams: Visions and Reality

 

Photo from Montana

Once again, my idea for a blog is being rewritten by a dream, which led to an idea or maybe more accurately thoughts when I woke. Things I'd not have written otherwise.  Dream first.

Ranch Boss and I were leaving the small town closest to our farm. I saw a road turning up  a hill just past a small store. I wanted to walk up it. So we left our vehicle and proceeded up the narrow road. It was pretty with tall trees and lots of ivy. Most of the houses were still occupied but a few had been abandoned. Ivy entwined everywhere. 

As we got closer to the top of the hill, we saw some of the usual piles of small limbs and brush that had been piled to burn in the fall. By this time, we knew no more homes would be and turned around. This time we saw what we had missed earlier. Roads and bulldozed clearings were where there had been trees and orchards. The cleared areas were massive, seemingly everywhere we looked. 

Those people, who lived where we had passed coming up, had no clue what was about to happen as the roads in didn't pass their homes, but when apartment buildings and houses were built, as seemed obvious, their life would change in ways they couldn't have imagined. No chance to change any of it-- it was too late.

When I woke, I thought as I always do. What did that mean? I've driven that Oregon road many times, but the side road never. So, did the dream have a cultural or political meaning?

In Oregon, there were rules passed in 1973, which made it difficult to do what we had just seen in the dream. Farm land, timber, orchards were limited for development and that included private land and government. Vast tracts of land were protected from uses not intended to help the people but just to make money. The kind of development I've seen in other states including Arizona where I live much of the year and maybe soon,  permanently.

The thing about regulations is they can be good or bad. Some are in place simply to enrich others as a reward for what they have done. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch said that such regulations can be good but also if they go too far, they can stifle needed growth (paraphrased). That's where having strong, honest, ethical leaders is so important-- not those paid off by someone with greed as a motive. How do we as voters determine which is which?

The Oregon leaders, like Tom McCall, who set environmental laws in place valued something more than dollars. They knew you can't eat dollars but rather must have places to buy what dollars can purchase. Imagine if those leaders had not existed then.

We don't have to imagine. We are seeing it, and it's not just one political party, wish it was. Ranch Boss and I have traveled across the United States from border to border and the Pacific to the Atlantic, both flying and driving. In many places, there are hodgepodge developments thrust wherever someone wished. It's not just close to cities but also in the middle of seemingly nowhere. There are places people can buy chunks of raw land where there is no water but just dreams. 

What we see today so many places is where land is cut up with no more hope of making a living on it than those first homesteaders had, with many places too dry with no water. Who profits from that?

Another thing we see in Arizona is where other countries have bought land that they take the water to raise crops that will be sent to those countries. The water they use require deeper and deeper wells for those already there-- until the time there is no water down there.

Too often, ordinary folk have no power. In fact, even big ranches and farms owned by families are often forced to be subdivided or sold to the highest bidder. They are torn apart due to federal and state estate taxes if the owners have not found a way to protect their operations, sometimes of many generations.

In my opinion, right now, too many leaders, state or federal, use their positions to enrich themselves. Give me one reason why so many who come into office without a lot end up wealthy? If you don't know that's true, do some research.

When they run for office, they are all for the ordinary folk, but once in, it changes. Many may know that they are going to do that, but some may just be seduced. I don't know, but I do know we used to have leaders who could look ahead and see what was good for the people.

So, what does any of this mean, my dream or what came after? I guess that depends on what matters most to voters-- talk or actions.

Another thing-- is it too late to change what is happening like in my dream and a lot more? Voting is the only hope of which I can imagine changing things. Voting is when the little people do get a chance to make a difference. The thing is though what matters most-- short term or long term? We can't stop change. It's coming, but which direction?