Seasonal Joys?

 After a week-end of horror events, it takes some time for deep breaths to attempt to recenter for a season of spirituality and love.

When I looked about what to write, I remembered thatI have several books with Christmas in them, but this is where the season, including the Solstice is at its center. I wish I could make it free but the best I can do is 99¢. Rules 'dontcha' know.

Holiday novella

For me a Christmas movie or book has to have certain qualities. 

The novella, A Montana Christmas,  moves forward a few years ith  the ranch family in From Here to There. Rather than a romance as such, this is more a slice of life story. It has all the characters from FHtoT as well as some new ones. There is a bonus short story with A Montana Christmas-- Curly learns a lesson.

 
Snippet from A Montana Christmas:

~~~

When Helene heard the truck outside, she went to the door to open it for her smiling uncle and Curly as they stamped the snow from their boots.

“How’d it go?” she asked at the two, who were grinning as though they had been up to something.

“What part?” Curly asked winking at Rafe.

“The doctor part, of course.”

“Oh that,” her uncle said pouring himself a cup of coffee and ignoring her frown. “Doc let me go. Looks like I’ll live to be eighty after all—if I don’t ride with Curly driving again that is.”

“Dangnabit, I did not take the corner that fast,” Curly grouched as he took a big sip of the coffee with a satisfied smirk.

“What else were you up to in town then?” she asked not ignoring the original grins she had seen.

“Little shopping is all and don’t ask for what,” Uncle Amos said. “Tis the season and all that.”

“Speaking of seasons,” she said, “with Christmas just three weeks off, I was thinking we should make some plans.”

“More than the usual with Nancy, Emile and the boys?” her uncle asked.

“I was thinking yes… Phillip will be here, I hope. I’d like to have the dinner up at our house. How would that be?”

Amos shrugged. “Never no mind to me if it don’t matter to Emile and them.”

“I invited too?” Curly asked.

“Of course, and a girlfriend if you wish.”

Curly snorted as he leaned back against the counter, crossing one boot over the other. “Women are too danged much trouble. Not gonna mess with one again. I’m too old anyway.”

Now it was Helene’s turn to snort. “You are still a handsome man, Curly, and you know it. What happened with Sherri?”

Amos was the one to laugh that time. “She found out about Jan and that was pretty much it for both of them.”

“Good riddance to both. Women just wanta own a man.”

“Maybe you haven’t found the right one yet,” Helene suggested.

“He’s been married three times. Maybe he’s right to give it a rest.”

Obviously to divert that direction for the conversation, Curly asked, “What you going to cook, Helene, not that I’d be picky or anything.”

“Just traditional fare.”

“So long as that means turkey, dressing, cranberries, mashed potatoes and lots of gravy,” her uncle said with a grin. “I got no complaints. But what’s this planning business about. Throw a spread, open some presents, isn’t that about it? What’s to plan for?”

“There are the numbers. I’ll call Nancy to be sure they can come.” She glanced at Rafe who had said nothing. “You will come also, won’t you?”

“Where else would I go?” he said with a grimace as he shifted positions and manned up to another sip of the potent coffee.

“If no one minds, I’d like to include a few others. One or two that might have to sleep down here.”

Uncle Amos frowned. “My sister coming?”

“Heavens no.” She laughed. “Mother is in Palm Springs with her bridge buddies, and Dad is off with Sharron to wherever it is she convinced him to take her this year. No, not them. I’d like to ask Phillip’s mother, sisters and brother.”

Curly choked on a swallow of coffee. When he got his voice back, he asked, “Phil okay with that?” His look said he doubted it. 

 Available at Amazon: A Montana Christmas

 

Dreams and Crumbs

 

This work of paper art is currently at the farm. We bought it at an art fair in Jackson Hole Wyoming. As you can see, I was pleased to find it. Photo taken June 2008.

Some of how I think may come from growing up at the end of a gravel road, at that time on the edge of a wilderness. Lots of time alone for thinking and reading. It might also have led to my political beliefs, which since 2018 are unaffiliated, not uncommon in Oregon to not belong to any political party. I have views that relate to issues. They do not fit exclusively with either party in the United States of America. One party has some of my beliefs when another moves to others. Frustrating.

I see people who might seem honorable but too often, they seem to fall under one side or another, as that's how it's supposed to be given our system. When they deviate from the 'rules', they lose political and financial support. It's rather cultish with how they have to fit under the bubbles. Even many voters find bubbles most comforting.

Recently, I had a dream where a guy, black and handsome, was selected to be a detective, but the title wasn't the end of the criteria. It required 'crumbs' to define that that meant. I woke up thinking that it was true for religious and political titles. Crumbs in the dream meant how the tasks were filled in. It wasn't just a title but what did that title mean.

Crumbs? Well, dreams can do what they want, but I can see how that works in baking. It's the crumbs that fill out the cake. In life, it is the meaning of the tasks that fill out how they operate.

When people elect someone from one party or the other, they expect that party to do what they want. It's not about what we as a country need or want. It's what their party expects.

So, recently when someone went to a rally for a politician (very much of a party person based on his voting and what he said), he finished his speech, to their delight, "It will take time, but I believe we can take it back."  

What did that mean? Take it back from those who last elected it? I assume that's it and happens on each side. What about others? Never mind as it's all about one side winning it all?

What about the oath of office for a Senator?   

 "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Never mind, as it's all about serving a party, for whatever issues it supports. Time and again, we see that play out or the politician is pushed out. I don't know how it got this way, but it sure appears it is. And a lot of voters like it. I do not, and I respect those few politicians who can vote what they feel is best-- no matter what their party thinks.

Do I think that no one should belong to a political party? Not really, but can they do that and still support other kinds of issues? Do they need to see opposing leaders as wrong, theirs always right, and ignore realities? Quit thinking as the party does it for them? 

What is going on?

 First of all, how'd it get to be December already? What a year.

Stencil.--  In Tucson, we have no snow at our elevation. It's in Arizona.

The issue that has been troubling me has been pushed through the media. How seriously should we take it? Well, I start here with my uneducated, non-military history where it comes to rules of law. 

When I first read about six senators, one with a proud military history warning soldiers that they did not have to obey illegal orders? There were no specifics given as to what orders-- just to let them know, as if they didn't already.

Did it relate to the attacks on narco-boats delivering drugs in the Caribbean? Well, these supposed fishing boats had high level motors. That didn't seem like fishermen to me.

Then is the number of Americans that have been dying from illegal drugs, many of them young and naive (600,000) over a few years-- more than our losses to wars.

As someone who does not know military rules, I turned to other heads, one a friend (whose name I will not give) who had posted this for military protocol. 

  

This is something everyone should read when considering this "unlawful orders" hubbub that's going on. We have been discussing the “unlawful orders” video in our home. A friend shared this assessment from Lt Gen (Ret) Mark Hertling. It does a good job of capsulizing our discussions and is a good read for our non-military friends.

 

“When 6 members of Congress released a short video on Tuesday (18 November) emphatically reminding military personnel that they must not obey illegal orders, the message ricocheted through the political world and the media like a rifle shot. Reactions split along predictable lines. Some saw the video as a necessary civic reminder in a volatile moment. Others attacked it as inappropriate political rhetoric directed at the armed forces. Still others lied about what was said, or mocked the message as condescending. As the controversy escalated, the lawmakers who appeared in the video began receiving death threats, while the president himself suggested—astonishingly—that their message constituted “sedition” and that they should be imprisoned or executed.”

 

“I want to address a fundamental point revealed by the video and the debate surrounding it: Most Americans do not understand what is in the oaths sworn by our service members. Confusion about that, combined with an understandable desire to keep the military a nonpartisan institution, fuels both the alarm that motivated the video’s creation and the backlash against the video. A clearer understanding on this subject will help reveal the aspects of our constitutional structure that protect the nation from unlawful uses of the military.”

 

“Here’s the truth, learned on the first day of service by every enlisted soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, guardian, and coast guardsman, and learned but sometimes not recognized by the young officers who first take the oath:

“There is not one military oath. There are two. And the differences between them explain exactly who is responsible for refusing illegal orders, why the system was designed that way, and what it means for this moment.”

 

“One reason the debate keeps going sideways is that the public keeps talking about “the military” as if it were a single, undifferentiated mass of people with identical obligations. It isn’t. The Constitution and Congress deliberately created two different oaths—one for enlisted personnel, and one for officers. That structure is not bureaucratic trivia; it is grounded on the bedrock American civil–military relations. Ignoring it leads to the misleading assumption that everyone in uniform bears equal responsibility when confronted with an unlawful command.”

 

“They don’t. And that distinction matters.”

 

“Enlisted members swear to support and defend the Constitution, and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” And the UCMJ makes crystal clear that the service member’s obligation is to obey “lawful” orders, and that no enlisted member is permitted to carry out an unlawful order. But the enlisted oath is also intentionally anchored in obedience of the chain of command. The accountability lies one level up.”

 

“Which brings us to the officer oath—shorter in words, heavier in weight. Officers swear to “support and defend” the Constitution; to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it; and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. They also affirm that they “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” What they do not swear to do is equally important: Officers make no promise to obey the president and the officers above them.”

 

“That omission is not an oversight. Officers give orders, evaluate legality, and act as the constitutional circuit breakers the Founders intended. They are expected—by law, by professional ethic, and by centuries of tradition—to exercise independent judgment when presented with a questionable directive. Officers are duty-bound to refuse an unlawful order. It is not optional. It is not situational. It is their job.”

 

“When the members of Congress in their video urge what seems to be the entire military not to follow illegal orders, they may unintentionally blur the very lines that keep the system functioning. Enlisted personnel obey lawful orders; officers ensure the orders that reach them are lawful. The real constitutional failsafe is not a general broadcast to every rank. It is the officer corps, obligated by oath to the Constitution alone.”

 

“This matters in a moment when Americans are hearing loud claims about using the military to solve political disputes, intervene in elections, or take actions beyond statutory authority. People are right to worry. But they should also understand the guardrails already in place. The military has been here before—they have already, at times in our history, faced unlawful pressure, political manipulation, or attempts to turn the armed forces into a tool of personal power.”

 

“Also worth remembering: No one in the American military swears allegiance to any individual. The oaths are not pledges of loyalty to a party, a personality, or a political movement. Loyalty is pledged to the Constitution—and officers further take that obligation “without mental reservation,” knowing full well it may someday require them to stand with courage between unlawful authority and the people they serve.”

 

“So while pundits and politicians continue fighting over the optics of the lawmakers’ video, the core reality remains: The safeguards are already built into the structure. The oaths already distribute responsibility. The law already forbids what some fear. And the officer corps already knows that they bear the constitutional duty to ensure that unlawful orders never reach the young men and women who follow them, and who, in effect, they also serve.”

“This is not a moment for panic. It is a moment for clarity.”

 

“If Americans understood the difference between the two oaths—one grounded in obedience, the other grounded in constitutional discernment—they would see that the republic’s defenses against unlawful orders are not theoretical. They exist. They function. They don’t depend on the whims of political actors on either side of the aisle, but on the integrity of those who swear to uphold them.”

 

Finally, here is a commentary on what was behind that video, that it had been well-orchestrated and expensive for these six senators to read their lines. Having one a well-respected military hero had to add to its finding democrats cheering it. I respect this university professor for his takes on what is going on. If such interests you, check it out. what was beyond the opinions they voiced. 

 

My final thought is how divided our country currently is. We don't even know to what degree since it's all media driven.