something to worry about?

 

Something good-- the summer solstice, where the longest day of the year yields way to the change of seasons with eventually shorter days. Down here in the Southwest, it means hot times ahead, and we hope monsoon storms, which the desert needs.

It's hard right now to concentrate on what I might prefer. I read those from the left explaining how the deportations of illegals has run amok. It ran amok during the Biden years when nobody watched who came in, now it will hurt honest workers, who get rounded up when they aren't the targets or the ones supposed to be sent out of the country. I get it that it's not good. But how do we fix what happened during those unbounded years?

It's the big thing in the US with legal gatherings to express anger at the current policies, of the elected government. Although I want to see it fixed fairly, it's not my biggest concern. For me, it's what's going on with Iran and Israel and is the US about to get into it with dropping bombs? If so, what will that trigger?

I want to see our borders controlled, but I have to look at some of the ICE targets, and some that I see, sadly reminds me of what we saw with WWII when even native born Japanese had their land taken and were thrown into what amounted to concentration camps because someone wanted that land. Happened earlier with unfair treatment of the Chinese and Native Americans with the same goal-- someone turned in so someone else could get what they had.

So, that's not good (to say the very least) and needs to be addressed, but something else is out there.

What will happen if the US gets into war with Iran? What other countries will get involved to increase the war? What happens if the leaders in Iran do finally get a nuclear bomb capability, given their previous support of terrorism? What about possible sleeper cells already in the US maybe with suitcase nukes. You know, it's not just honest workers who entered the loose border. Or maybe you don't know, but should think about it, as well as what drones will mean for future wars.

Likely, most who read here do not read Glenn Beck because they see him as a right wing religious nut. Well, they might give this YouTube a listen for the Iranian expert, who was being interviewed, Asra Nomani.  

It's another viewpoint on the whole situation. By the way, Glenn separates Iranians into some being Persians. If you read Reading Lolita in Tehran, it might give you a different perspective on how many there favor the Twelvers and how many are part of a proud heritage that isn't just about religious fundamentalism, but people who want a real chance to manage their lives.  

While, I think it's fine for some to march for their beliefs here in my country, I just hope they are also paying attention to the rest of what is going on, which might be catastrophic, although we hope not. Having grandchildren, who might be called up with a war, I have a selfish reason to not want to see again what I was born into and grew up through. 

Ranch Boss gets excerpts from The Atlantic, very interesting insights, if you subscribe, by Eliot  A. Cohen --The Three Dramatic Consequences of Israel’s Attack on Iran . Many are thinking about this. The world needs more doing that. It could impact lives everywhere.

In the end, of all we read, what should we trust? I have no idea, and that is frustrating,. We have been lied into wars before. I wish we could not  let it happen again.

The image at the top is from Stencil, no telling from where or if it is AI. 

Chaos is an answer to what?

 

 Although I had no intention on writing more about cultural issues, events occurred that changed my mind. Over time, I've heard plenty of people on Facebook talk civil war, if their party didn't win. When the leader they favored used as much power as he had (Executive Orders), it was fine, no concern he was being a king, but woe unto the other side winning and doing what they ran on. So threats ran wild, often no more than words. It worried me anyway, as I do not accept violence unless it is in self-defense.

It's kind of an irony right now that some on the left talk as though maybe this last election involved cheating in key states. Four years ago, they called such talk treason and impossible.

Well, sadly, it's not just talk where some want violent overthrow of existing laws to suit ones that they favor. I wonder how many think about what that kind of violence in our cities and towns will mean and has meant in the past-- both here and other places? Who could ever welcome such again?

 

Yet to some of our politicians and citizens, to send in the military to stop it is wrong. In fact one governor is claiming that to bring in military makes it all worse. In other words let the riots, destruction, and blocking of certain roads or neighborhoods continue. It is just fine as he sees it as peaceful protest even when it involves throwing rocks, setting fires, and looting stores. 

That way of thinking blows my mind; and since I've seen the photos of what was going on, when that governor ignored it, I know it was not the fault of the federal government, who declared that all citizens in the United States were entitled to protection and that includes police and military.

I picked up some photos from Stencil, which you see above, of what war in the streets has looked like in the past and still does when nobody can stop it. 

The left was horrified by January 6th, even though the only deaths were of the rioters and later suicides of officers, which sadly happens due to the difficulty of what they do.

Who though can stop this kind of violence, like Antifa years back in Portland with a lot of the same actions? Politicians with fancy words? Giving the rioters everything they want, which in this case means do not send those here without legal papers and who have committed crimes like rape, murder, assault, burglary, etc., back to from where they came-- at least if they'll take them.

If votes do not determine the direction a country is going to go, is it violence? How would you like it, if you were on your way to work, as one upset woman was in, I think, New York, and the ones blocking her car were laughing (photo out there). Do the ones creating this kind of chaos have a purpose and if so, what it it? To me though, the big question still is who can stop it if not police or military?

One more thing-- Saturday the US will have a military parade (weather permitting), which I won't watch as I watch no TV, at least for now, but likely wouldn't anyway as I am not a big parade person and never was. It though celebrates 250 years history of the American military, a kind of birthday. It's a military that has intervened in wars, sometimes with success, sometimes not-- although a lot depends on how heavily it went in. Our soldiers though, our warriors, do deserve to be appreciated and that's what the parade is about.

Paths of Empires

 

 As a writer, and especially of historical novels, I find research a key to the stories, but my love for history began as a child with the books I loved to read, especially when I got old enough to check out books from the adult side of the library. Most writers of such books also do a lot of research, which makes their books more exciting when blended with fictional characters.

One book I bought years later, when at the farm, was Generations, by Neil Howe. It dealt with how one generation influences another, and he took it from our beginning as a nation to 2069. The idea is what our parents experienced will impact how we see life-- and we will also impact our offspring in ways we don't really understand. For me, with my historicals, I saw this as advantageous to understand the personalities of the characters. 

So, where I am today with what I see with my country, the United States, is how history and the impact of generations, might impact what we want... although there are many my age with a totally different idea of what is right for ethics and life. We as humans are complex is all I can say.

Because of all I have heard from right and left wingers, I found this article very interesting and drew from it some key points. This is its link for those who want more than those points: The Seven Stages of all Great Nations.

Here those stages based on his research of nations going way back in history. It definitely fits the United States quite well-- at least for the past:

1. pioneer

2. conquest

3. commerce

4. affluence

5. elites and intellect

6. decadence and lack of courage

7. decline-- distrust, scapegoating, factionalization, currency collapse 

Basically, the 7th stage is the end; or if not, a total recreating in a new form, what that would be decided by the ones in power.

I could write more about each stage, but better those interested go to the link for the interpretations there. 

So, where are we in the United States today? 

We can see, if we know history, that we've been through a lot of the stages, although defining things like conquest might vary with different empires.  The US went through a lot of conquests with other nations but especially with the people who were first occupying this land-- i.e. Native Americans. 

The 7th stage though is where it seems we are now with blaming others, trusting nothing, divided into 'tribes' with only currency collapse yet to show up.

With the factionalization, what gets to me is when I hear people complain about the 'other' side. While I don't disagree that both sides have their part in leading to distrust, to taking away other people's freedom of speech (as they see it), but rarely can either side see something wrong with their own. 

The other big thing for me is how we have so many programs intended to help people, often keeping them dependent (while calling it empathy) but how are the programs being paid for? We know our  US debt is approaching $40 trillion dollars, and increasing with every new budget. How do we pay for these 'nice' programs? I know there are those who cannot take care of themselves, but is this because they never could or were taught that someone else could fix whatever was wrong, and they didn't have to do it?

Some say to think that way is a lack of caring but does that really help weak people or were they actually ever weak? We know some have mental illness, but do we have programs for that or is the answer just throwing money at the problem? A lot of times, the money goes to those running the programs... sometimes a LOT of it. Is there ever true accountability for how well something is working? Where it comes to education, sadly many of the best teachers are hindered from what they'd really like to do by partisan rules sent down from above, which can be from either side.

When I talk to some about these ideas, they blame me for how I think. They do not offer real solutions, if there are any. 

If we are truly in that 7th stage, maybe some are hoping for a totally reworked culture, along lines they believe better--like with sports and how a biological male can compete with biological females simply if he says he sees himself as a female. Well, we can't just see ourselves as another race because does that make us one? It's very unfair to the girls who have trained so hard but cannot beat a biological male. Talk about misogyny. But is there any turning around from the fractionalization that is clearly in our country right now?

Sometimes I say what I think, but a lot of the times I do not, mainly because I am not sure how to fix anything. I only know one thing-- we cannot keep borrowing money because at some point no one else will want to loan to us. What then? A sugar daddy? Santa Claus? A mystical spirit? Or is it really up to us if we don't want total destruction with not a sugar daddy running things but the meanest, toughest ones possible...

The photos above are ones I've kept for historical reference, not my family-- although I have those also for maybe some other time. They, and many others I have saved, are a reference to what it was like and not that many years ago in terms of time. Is it any wonder that we are having a hard time adjusting to all the changes. Yes, young people have not seen that many changes, but they have also seen so many.

 

 

 

THE PILING-ON PHENOMENA

  Cairns can be seen across the American SW to mark the way of a path. Most not are not piled as elaborately as this one, acquired through my Stencil membership

Two things before I pile on... as in, discuss what piling-on is. These aren't one more important than the other, but one has to go first. 

I have no interest in changing reader's minds. I want to lay out what I think and why, but if someone disagrees, sees it the opposite, I will not fight to the last round to convince them they are wrong. I have a philosophy of not only live and let live, but also that while I do believe in what I do, I could be wrong. Many people do not share that view. They are convinced not only they are right, but I am wrong. I am not one of those people. 

I go by what I have lived, what I have read and heard, and finally what to me seems like commonsense. I don't have to convince other people that, for instance, "I am not a racist". I don't really care what they believe as few of them know me at all. I know me. I know racial prejudice is not in my DNA based on experience. I have known too many people of various races and beliefs for me to think they were inferior/superior based on anything but their actions and the things they say. 

So, when I've written a blog, it's not to convince you to think like I do. It's to tell you why I think as I do; then let the chips fall where they may. I can agree to disagree and do it without insulting others. That is also in my DNA.

Let's see, where was I, oh yeah, the second point or perhaps secondteenth by now. I am not by nature a follower. It might be why I am not into sports. Who would I root for or bet on? It's just not my thing as a non-follower. Same is true of celebrities whether of movies or music. 

These days I would be lucky to even know their names, but back in my younger years, I had one crush on a celebrity, except he was not a real person. He was a character. (I do not btw get crushes on my book characters either.) Actually there were two crushes as a kid and I mean early teens or before. Cheyenne and Spin. Look them up if you want, but the crushes didn't last, as I got old enough to have crushes on real guys. lol

Finally, I am to my point for this blog. Piling-on is one of those things that (forget its dictionary meaning) can go positive or negative. People tend to follow what others think. Now, that's not everybody, but a certain group of people.

Where it comes to me, at my age, I sometimes have a general understanding of what is being talked about but mostly I know little about sports or the celebrity world of today. I know a bit more about political leaders, like where'd they accumulate that wealth on their salaries? I only know about their personal lives what I read, which means media is determining it, whether news or social. 

What I've seen recently for the piling-on has all been negative whether movie, music, or sports stars. Lose a game and the world turns against you as it's 'the' thing to do and a way to be part of the group. To not pile-on is to be suspect. You must be one of 'them.' These can lead to riots or big demonstrations to depict power. Piling-on is about being part of power.

Politically speaking, I've read (often they can be from anonymous or false sources) to make every day January 6, 2021 in terms of disrupting government working. Earlier it was claimed those piling-on should interrupt those, who work for the 'wrong' person/party, should go where they go out to dinner, to movies, and at their homes and yell insults or carefully worded threats (don't wanta get arrested do ya). 

It has also meant trying to kill and sometimes succeeding. With those who didn't do it, piling-on by saying they wish that person had succeeded or were glad for what they did. Piling-on can mean trying to disrupt the economy as punishment; thus, so many phone calls that the one they hate cannot function. Destroying businesses by fires or breaking in (businesses unrelated to the current piling-on cause). And on it goes right up to and including violent protests that block roads for those on the way to work, when they again had nothing to do with what the piling-on person is angry about.

Of course, there can be a seemingly positive side to piling-on. You then become part of fandom. You follow someone and accept whatever they do must be right. This works fairly well for politicians and entertainers until they do something to upset those piling-on, then watch out. It can encourage people to support causes, music or movies because it's popular, not because they even like them or know much about what they mean.

The power of piling-in is how one sports figure just said that the whole experience can 'shoot you to the moon.'  Well, it can also bury you in darkness when it turns if the person depended on it. Here is how it can work: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/10/v-fluence-pesticide-critics

Obviously, I am no fan of piling-on negatively or positively. Decide what you think or like based on what you believe and have experienced yourself. I see there is energy there, but it can turn on you just as fast. 

I don't generally use cartoons, but I thought a humorous approach to this subject, considering how angry things can be right now, could be fun to put together. The three images were found and purchased from Deposit Photos. The images represent the two ways of piling-on and the energy behind it all.

 

Beauty Standards... ?

Currently, due to tragedy after tragedy in the United States, some from before Trump and some after, with people throwing out anger every which direction to blame someone, it might seem strange that I'd write about this. Well, this is always with us and the other things come and go. They are maybe more important than how we see beauty but they are also very 'flame throwing.'  I had written this earlier and said I'd bring it out. Here it is. Whether later, I get into the blame game, I don't know, but I do have one more that will be political for next week. I myself am concentrating more on one of my older historic books, which I am enlarging from a novella to a novel (or so goes my plans) because there is more story to tell. For me, writing is a good break, since I have no real solutions for my country given we just voted... And, many want exactly what is being done. So, here comes something that is more for how we see each other- does beauty matter? Should it matter?

12 years old school picture

After years of having mixed feelings about how I looked (more on that below), when I turned 80, when I looked in the mirror-- oh my gosh how did that happen? Ithink because of my skin type, I hadn't earlier needed moisturizers, etc. Except, did ignoring all of that end up where I was in that mirror.

To be honest, I had been told most of my life that I looked pretty good. You know how that can be-- others say one thing about your looks, but you see another. As a child, well, that photo at the top was me in 7th grade where I had no idea how to dress, wear my hair, or do makeup. There are more awkward photos from childhood years.

By the time I got into high school, the toughness of my school for kids dressing well, I had to work on caring and accomplished a lot of it through second-hand stores. If children wear makeup too early or sexy clothes, it's not good to many. But to have no clue what is attractive, that also is not good. Plus, there were so many standards back then for length of hems, and you absolutely could not wear pants to school.

Here I am today, when I began to not only think--- eek, but also what am I trying to do here? Look younger? I was definitely not at my best at 18. I used to say most women reach their best at 35, but now I think it's in their 50s, when they have maturity added to their features. This though again, is for women who have interest in such and many do not. Bless them!

As for this business of surgery, it's definitely about trying to look younger. Frankly, it doesn't work for most. They just look plastic. They lose out on what mature beauty might appear to be. Can we let go of a youthful look and find other ways to feel good about our physical looks? 

I don't even know what hairstyle is supposed to be youthful. It's been a long time since I've cared. When I was in my mid20s, I was at a stylist to have my hair trimmed and he said no woman should wear it long ... past 30. 

Over my many years, I've varied the length of mine but never short since high school.  Pixies look cute on some women. I don't think they would so much on me but it's not the reason I wear mine so long.

To begin, I let mine grow long in my 70s-80s, was curiosity. I wondered if I could. I enjoy the feel of long hair on my back, I cut it myself with long layers. I have gone to salons for perms but frankly, retired as we are, cost is a factor in not doing it. I've never had a pedicure or manicure, but that's personal preference to not liking my nails colored because, if you are an active woman, they constantly require maintenance. I used to do some polish at home before my tremors got so bad. Like, how many places to I want that color to end up???

Another thing, a woman whose blog I read, said one of her commenters said she should not wear jeans. That is just ridiculous to me-- wear the clothes that suit your interest as why do most of us have a reason to be high-styling, even if we could afford it. Does that make someone seem more attractive? I can give a few names where it doesn't in the celeb world, but I won't. 

After I saw some recent photos of me, most taken with bad lighting, too many shadows, and bright sun (that's an excuse but not a good enough one) I got interested in some simple things to try and improve my elderly skin, things that are not that expensive or invasive; since I am not trying to turn back time. Still, keeping my skin healthy looking with less droopiness, bags, or big lines, well, I am into that. If you see me making weird faces, they are facial exercises :). which help a lot to keep a chin and neck from losing it.

Some of what I am trying are like facial peels, which is supposed to encourage  the skin layers and encourage collagen development . Exercises help with the muscles under the skin. Everything I use can be in the home. I don't have the money or interest in expensive answers.

To me, the big thing is being able to see someone is old, but that they still have beauty. The alternative is surgery or maybe Botox, which I don't trust any more than I would Ozempic for weight loss. Humans always seem to want the easy answer. I suspect, given side effects, there is no easy answer for any of it.

Just had a ton of photos taken by Ranch Boss to get my Passport renewed with a current picture, but it kept getting refused for an online renewal. The one they finally accepted was an eyeopener for saying-- I don't care. By the time, we had success, smiling was no longer happening, and frankly, smiles improve looks a lot!

When you see that many photos of yourself, necessarily without photo-shop (Passport claims they can tell), it really makes you SEE yourself and in ways you'd rather not, generally speaking. It led to my interest in having beauty be a topic here. Why do we care about it? Should we care about it? Worse though, to me, is should we care about youthful looks? That one I know we should not but how to get past it in a world that makes so much of it? It's all up to us in our own lives. I know that much as the celeb and advertising worlds won't let go of it.

Repeating-- here's the thing I'd like to have Americans and really people around the world be able to see-- women,who look old, can at the same time appear lovely to us. And not just to be polite, but genuinely see the two things can go together. As it is, all the goals to increase beauty appear to try to send it back to the woman's 20s, which by the way, are not women's most attractive years, at least for most of us. Cute works better for me where it comes to young women.  It takes some maturity to create what I consider beautiful in a woman. 

As a writer, what was frustrating is the need to create a cover with a beautiful older woman. It takes a lot of searching. I like writing about elders showing that romance can still happen. but there need to be more images available to buy if there are to be people on those covers. I finally did it by finding a head one place and an historical garment another for a new creation. Fun to do actually, but I'd love it if some of these models, as they age, could continue being out there. The world is not just made up of young people doing things. 

As I said in the earlier blog, this appears a bit easier for men to be considered old but still good looking-- although I also had to buy one man's head and another body for one of the covers. Of course, maybe the companies know only the young ones get bought. This whole thing might be more a thing of society than in ourselves. Looking old should not be negative but rather just part of a long-lived life, and it should not require surgery...

Meritocracy

 

 image from Stencil and our sunset photo from 2019

After writing a blog a about age-ism, I planned on a follow-up. That was until this week hit me with all the social media talk, often on both sides of an issue, which I believe is important to a culture if it wants to succeed. It's the title for this blog.

Here is the issue-- How do we appoint or hire people for key jobs, and there are a lot of important jobs that many do not see that way. What if the appointments are based on diversity, ethnicity, and/or inclusion or should it be based in merit, ability, skills, and/or what they have already achieved? To be good at a job must they have already done it or might they prove it by how they have handled other jobs? Should it be based on skin color, sex, or from where they came? DEI gave credit even to corporations for applying it to new hires or promotions. How's that working for ya?

For way too long, our country applied a different kind of racial and sexual "filtering". If you were a black who wanted to get an important position, you had to be a hundred times better (over exaggeration) than a white looking for the same job. And if you were a woman, you could just forget it. That also was not meritocracy, nor is giving it to someone for who their family is (unless it's a family-run operation, which is their business to sink or swim). Meritocracy too often was not the key application to be used.

As for what are key jobs, it's easy to list some and none relate to the celebrity world. It's not just the obvious ones like medically related, which includes pharmacists, nurses, doctors, therapists, etc. We depend on these people to help us when something has gone wrong with our or a loved one's health. Do we care what race, sex, or color their skin is? Likely only if we are a bigot.

But also meat packing plants. Oh, you didn't see that as important? How about when it's carelessly maintained or even deliberately polluted? 

Of course, it should be obvious that fire department, police and any part of the legal system are very important for the security of a people. I use the term should be as DEI has been applied to those positions too. Don't we want a highly qualified judge if they are to address a case for us? Or does it only matter, in the legal system, that those judges have a certain political ideology? I guess that's fine if it's your ideology that we're talking about? How about the head of big churches, DEI or merit for who gets the position?

Are there any jobs more important than that of educators? They shape the future and does their merit matter or only their political opinions? What will they be teaching those future generations and will it help them achieve merit or just rely on their own DEI qualifications?

Do you like the idea of DEI mechanics? Okay with you if they are not merit based when they go to repair your broken down vehicle? Airplane repairs? and so many other jobs done by repair people of electric, plumbing, internet, etc.

I want to make the case here that DEI sent us too far down the wrong road to correct a wrong. A true meritocracy is the answer where no matter from where you came or what sex you are, you can get the job if you passed their key needed tests. One, I'd suggest, is caring about doing a good job for the ones you are working with whether bosses or customers. Also respecting that your job is an important cog in a big wheel. Want a job that seems more important to you, improve your needed skills.

One of the first corporations for which my husband worked (I was a stay-at-home mom) had a philosophy that later got changed by those who took over power but had not created the company. The key philosophy back then to me was that all the workers were important. A technician could get a spot on a company plane when a project needed a tech specialist if the seat was open. Can't have that came in later, where only some PR people were important. That company was already an important corporation but those who came along lost sight of a key reason why.

There is more to say on this topic, but what would come next might prove a distraction from what is above. I think it's important for citizens to consider long and hard from where they want their leaders and workers to come. 

Next week will be the one connected to age-ism and in its case-- beauty. BUT I am not leaving meritocracy, with more on it February 8th-- the possible distraction.

Poverty we always have with us. Do we have to?

 As best I know it about mass shootings in the United States, they are not related to poverty. So, why is poverty a topic for issues? There are other kinds of violence that don't involve mass killing (over 4). Instead, they involve thefts. rape, abuse, and destruction of property.  Many would believe those things relate to poverty. I am not so sure. Many poor people commit no burglary, shoplifting, or other kinds of theft. In fact, some rich people have been caught shoplifting. Still, we are told it's poverty that justifies what the poor do. 

The belief in reparations for descendants of slavery or of Jim Crow offenses, is based on thinking they deserve it, though people today experienced none of that. Some are believed to have been pushed back in the ladder of success.

I had believed affirmative action was intended to help people rise up from poverty through college degrees and a boost in terms of jobs. We don't hear anything about that right now. I think it's still there but don't actually know. If you are interested in its various forms in countries around the world, do some research. Affirmative action, as a way to deal with poverty and racial unfairness, is called different things in different countries.

 (these work horn hands are an image from Deposit Photos. I bought a package a while back)

When my husband and I first were old enough to vote, President Johnson began talk of a War on Poverty. If there was much of an attempt to get rid of poverty, it likely got lost in the cost of the Vietnam war. Whatever the case, it seems we have more poverty than ever-- especially given our current large homeless population in cities around the country. 

Back to violence and poverty. For a while, there was a pressure to not do anything about the gangs that rushed into stores and grabbed all they could get. Some of that is still going on. Sometimes the thieves are picked up in a fancy car, like a Rolls Royce. Does that sound like poverty? 

The violence has extended to breaking windows, blocking cars on freeways, hitting strangers  and burning buildings in some big cities. The booty is often sold for cash rather than using it. Drugs?

What was done about such destruction? Almost nothing. If they got arrested, they were immediately released. Was that thinking a kind of reparations? If it was, it wasn't helping the ones committing the crimes or their victims.

The police often stood by, due to orders from higher ups. So, it was okay to destroy businesses, sometimes small ones but also there were major stores. Some people want to defund the police (until their homes get burglarized). Without active police, what keeps mobs in order? Who do you call for help?

Were the thieves encouraged to take what they could get out of some kind of missed concept of reparations? There seemed to be an attitude that if people were poor, it was fine for them to steal. Except, it wasn't fair to the victim or the perpetrator. 

So next comes a question regarding poverty. Is it the fault of the poor for being poor? I don't think so, at least not all the time. It can be though with those who turn to drugs, which makes them unable to function in society and hold down jobs. Some don't want to work; but if so, how do they then get money for food or shelter? Begging, hoping for charity, or stealing? 

We live in a society where people work for what they want; so how do we deal with the ones who don't? How do we deal with tents pitched in parks or other people's property? Once in a while, the police go through and destroy these makeshift communities, but it doesn't last long before they are back.

The US has shelters for some of the poor, but they don't cover all.  A lot of homeless have resisted rules and shelters have to have rules. Charities also offer beds at night or meals; but in the end, it's stopgap. It's not fixing anything.  

One of my answers is to provide training for new jobs if they lost the one they had, which can happen with companies upgrading their automation. If though, the poor person has no interest in working for everything they want, do we let them starve? I don't think that would work well for a compassionate culture. If the poor person is using drugs that are not legal, maybe time in jail where they get the training they didn't want. Will that work? 

Another possible idea for the homeless people as well as new immigrants, see if they can, with some help, start a business. You know, at one time, most families in the US had a parent, sometimes both, working at their own business, like say carpentry. We don't know how many skills the homeless might have if they could get a start. There is pride in creating a product. We've traveled a long way down a road where only corporations provide jobs. It didn't used to be that way and maybe doesn't need to now. Find out what people's skills are and then help them exploit them.

At any rate, dealing with homelessness and poverty is one of the issues we do care about when we vote. Are good suggestions offered? Right now I haven't heard solid answers other than handing out money. It doesn't take long for that money to be spent and the person is back on the street. One possible answer seems to be offering training for not only jobs but for taking care of property and possessions. 

Our culture has also traveled a long way toward television, computers, games, and phones to entertain ourselves. There is more to that in life. Let's remind ourselves.

Dreams and Topics

 

Last blog, I said this one would not be on political thinking... I meant it at the time and had a blog from something at our desert home, but then a dream happened. I don't ever ignore dreams and what they might be telling me; so I'll share that here-- well, part of it.

A person is trying to get a friend to change their bad habits. They might say they would but then it'd not happen. There are two ways someone might change. One is love of someone. Another is reading something that convinces that person this is going the wrong way. 

Well, there is a third when they see it for themselves and the change then is more permanent.

Then I realized this applies to a country when it's going the wrong way. It has to see it for itself, cannot be forced from outside as it won't last.

When I woke up, I knew this applied to my country with its massive debt, which last I read was $34 trillion. Let that sink in as to how much money that is; and although we are a wealthy country, by many measures, what does it mean to owe that much? Who does the government owe it to? More on that below.

When the Fed increases the money supply, which is part of its job description when needed, what does that mean for inflation or the value of the dollar?

People talk about inflation but what causes our dollars to be worth less and less? I have some books I bought years and years ago that cost under $2 (price still on the cover) that today would be $20. Was it that they cost more to make, or the lack of value in my dollars-- more likely they cost more because dollars were worth less? When America went off the gold standard, supposedly for trade and freedom of marketing, what replaced it? A nebulous concept of the country's net worth? Who decided that?

I am no economist and only know what I read, which can go many different directions. but I do understand our dollars are constantly losing value.

When Congress figured out it could borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, it forgot to clarify how it'd pay it back or if it would. When Congress made a law that it did not have to vote in their own wage increase but instead it was automatic with cost of living, it left out the rest of us, including SS, which is supposed to relate to cost of living, but not what people need to buy but rather a lot of other things that don't relate to the real cost of living for the elderly.

Our biggest debt holders were China and Japan. Added of course, with ourselves with bonds, which get paid when and by whom? What if we can't pay? 

Finally, do either of the current Presidential candidates have proposals for the debt or is it all about gimmes to voters, which will get them votes? That should not have been a question. Who is seriously looking at the debt or will that all come after disaster strikes, and we know it can based on other countries. BUT not on my watch is all many care about...

They might though care about this if they took the time to look, which I doubt. If you want to see how inflation might be linked to money supply, check out this link that Ranch Boss found: How M1 Money Supply and Inflation are Linked.  Research it further if inflation is of concern to you.

image on top is one of our barrel cactus. Such fun to watch them take on their full identities.

Do citizens want socialism as their government?

Let's start with defining socialism as I think some don't get its full meaning. Here it is from the dictionary: 

a system of society or group living in which there is no private property,

a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

I believe that socialism starts one way, which might seem innocuous but what do the people behind those beginning steps truly want? Step by steps freedoms can be lost for free speech or many other things.

 

As soon as someone says socialism, some bring up libraries. Clearly that's not socialism but instead social programs that citizens want to pay to benefit all. Government does not dictate what can be in a library-- or it has not...

Another socialist argument is that Scandinavian countries are socialist. Not from all I've read, where they call themselves a socialist democracy and say they are a free market, capitalistic society, with loose regulations favoring corporations doing well. Check it out.

 

For those who want businesses and corporations run by government agencies, what do you think they know about producing products? We have seen how it works in our country when government dictates which businesses get their spoils, often determined these days by lobbyists, and who donated to the powers that be.

 

Most politicians will not admit they want to turn this country socialistic (with some exceptions) as Americans have valued freedom and been leery of too much control in the hands of a powerful government. Or, that was at one time true, like when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by those with experience. Is it still true today, or might Americans value what they see as comfort and security as more important?

 

Once we elect someone, it's hard to turn things around if they have been lying or only saying what they believe people want to hear. 

 

In the case of the various candidates, we can look at the record especially of the Vice Presidential candidate, since he was a governor. We have the words of the Presidential candidate, from earlier discussions. How many look? With the ex-president, we can look at his record when he was in office. 

 

We might or might not like what that was; but if we check, not just listen to more rhetoric from enemies, we have some chance to see the results. These days, it pays to check records more than one place as lies are flying from all sides.

 

My real question is how many Americans want socialism without understanding it might be on the road to less personal autonomy? Socialism grows and usually it takes totalitarianism to enforce the less popular rules.

Do people today vote issues or is it all personalities, with one nicer and the other not so much?

Are Americans interested in choosing leaders based on DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion)? I've heard that is racism where it comes to the Presidential candidate. If so, it's what the current President said he was using to make his pick -- woman and black.

If Americans were to look at issues, which ones would they care about? More on that to come although not next time. I have something from our desert home to share next Saturday. I can't do politics constantly as I need breaks and don't want to make it feel like pressure here. I don't feel that way at all, even though I know some on either side do feel that way for those who do not vote as they believe is correct.

 

We all need to vote our conscience, but I just want to be sure voters are thinking what is best for them and the country. Do not be fooled by rhetoric as they all know how to use it.

 

 

Needed distractions sometimes

 In a time where we might find ourselves on the brink of a third world war, when we discover there is so much hatred in the world for one ethnic group, and yes, i mean Jews, where most of us thought a civilized world was far beyond such thinking where it comes to bigotry. The worst being how it has shown up on our major university campuses, it's hard not to be really depressed.

If we think those wars will be far from us-- there are reasons to believe that is not true. One, many of us have offspring of an age to be called up as happened in previous wars; but with a frighteningly open border, there could be many who have entered our countries with not the purest of purposes.

What do we do? Well be informed is important but not to a ghoulish fascination; but  we need to be aware and that means around the world. So much of the violence that strikes is random. Being aware of our surroundings and world is key.

Sometimes, however, we need to look for ways to uplift ourselves. For me, I found one with this article on a creative painter I have long admired as it goes into her life with what I considered to be an uplifting documentary of Georgia O'keeffe. If you have liked her work and read all the books you could find on her life, you won't find a lot new in the video. If you have never heard of her, I think you'll find a good exploration into a creative life.

It is about an hour long and takes you to a different time and place. I hope you will give it a try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DMMWaGm4jU

I will post next week on the subject of aging with my thoughts on it as I see it in my own life. I want some time to think more deeply on it. After all, it is the one given in life. We do age

more divisions

 view out our bedroom window of Pusch Ridge and clouds typical of our monsoon season down here.

There are a LOT of things going on in our world today. Some are huge and others less important. We tend to see things so differently, which makes it all tougher when something comes up which some feel reflects not just one time racism but current bigotry.

 

When a music channel bans a song, is that big or little? Well, I don't currently listen to country music; so didn't know Jason Aldean or his music. But it showed up as a link on Facebook; and I listened to the song; saw nothing wrong with it, as to me it was about behavior and what we tolerate. I liked it. 

 

I got another link to it from a YouTuber, who is black and evaluates music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYXIzosITCQ  

 

What he said was he saw the clips all about people, of various races, doing things that were not good. They were interspersed while the singer sang. He also analyzed that it's about community standing together.

 

Here's a link to the song if you also have not heard it. Let me know how you see it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1_RKu-ESCY 

 

One person criticized the lyrics, as they took it to mean it was a small Southern town and not just a small town anywhere. The YouTuber above said he thought it spoke to communities that know each other and gather together for support and control-- anywhere that happens.  

 

I guess the biggest complaint is because of the courthouse behind the singer was where a lynching happened in1927 of a mob killing a young black man, Henry Choate, accused of sexual assault of a white girl. I looked it up for the details. The stories vary a lot for what happened that night, but it was at or near the courthouse in Columbia, Tennessee where Aldean lives and many videos are shot. 

 

For anyone interested in news stories and research as to what happened, it's all out there-- ugly whichever one you read. Mob actions were wrong period, and it's happened to whites too. Was the music video shot there because of that past horror, did the ones putting together the video know about the heinous event, or to them did it represent a pretty backdrop as well as law and order? Did they know and hope it would excite interest, which it has done?

 

The last part of the Small Town music video spoke of farmers putting aside their own work to help another farmer. One man said we help each other. 

 

 

I should add a personal experience given I've lived in rural America most of my life. We had a barn burn in the middle of the night. The local volunteer fire department quickly arrived but it was too late to save the barn or the animals in it. Tragedy for me that I still feel pain from and try not to remember. Except there was another side to it when the community people offered to help us rebuild the barn. 

 

Of course, this kind of support can happen in big cities but lately we have seen a lot of times where it has not. People stand by out of fear or concern they'll be hurt or killed, which can happen (did to a white man in Portland Oregon, who tried to protect two Muslim girls being threatened and was killed for his kindness). 

 

If we want an orderly community, fear can't stop us. It takes us standing together against wrong actions for anything to be done-- can't just count on the police, who often are also attacked. In Oregon, where our farm is, the police are a long way off-- and with reduced budgets often can't come to all calls. That leaves it to us, of all colors, doesn't it?

code of ethics

 

After I wrote about woke, I felt I'd write about how it relates to writing books. Naturally, I can't go into it for all authors, just myself. I began thinking about the whole subject of ethics, which is to what I think this comes, which is why we decide a certain code of behavior is correct for us. 

That's when I came up with a different question. How do ethics influence my life and from where do my personal ethics come? That's no easier to write about than how it influences creative work. From where do any of us get our own code of ethics? Is it family, tribe, peer group, schools, culture, books, entertainment, or is some sort of code born in us? 

Today, I am relatively sure schools are having a huge role in teaching ethics, and some of that relates to both parents needing to work or single parent families. Both parents are gone more than I think was true in the past. 

Most likely, for today's kids, another big influence is social media, which didn't exist back in bygone eras. Game playing may be doing more of it than those of us who don't play games understand.

When I went to school, subjects were like English, literature, math, science, foreign languages, along with shop for boys and home economics for girls. No classes that I remember were about ethics. That was taught by our teachers' deportment, how well they taught, and the order that was expected in the classroom. They didn't tell us how we should vote, and I have no idea, even years later, to what political party any of them belonged-- if any.

So, I began to think from where did my own code of ethics come. Certainly my family, not just my parents but grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. As for a tribe, my parents mostly socialized with family-- both sides. We didn't go to church; so that wasn't much of an influence for things like Sunday school classes. I did though get my first Bible at a pretty early age. I didn't read it all the way through, until years later. I understood the basics--  you know, the words in red 

As for my tribe, it was likely mostly family, Growing up at the end of a gravel road in the country, there were no immediate neighbors. As a child, I was outside a lot; so nature was an influence and our animals, which involved pets but also cows at one time and then sheep. When you grow up around animals, taking care of them is a big part of how you learn what's okay to do. 

Guns were in my life always with rifles on the wall in the utility room. I got my first rifle when I asked for it as a Christmas gift. I was twelve. I was taught how to care for it and use it responsibly-- definitely an ethical value as responsibility has been a big deal all of my life. I wanted that rifle to protect our sheep from our nearest neighbor's dogs, who tore them apart too many times. I learned about death early, that way also, as farm life tends to do.

Books were another major influence in how I saw what was right to do. From the time I could read, I was in a library at my parents' encouragement. My parents both read also. I graduated from the little kid room, to the teen's room and then the adult room where I read all kinds of books from John Steinbeck, Janice Holt Giles, Zane Grey, Pearl Buck, Ernest Hemingway, and more. Probably books were the influence that today the internet can be. 

There were some romances too, but this was before sex entered into such books. They were more about how you treat a loved one-- presented generally in a positive sense. I don't know if books like Lolita would have been in my small town library. It was pretty controversial when it came out in 1955, but I preferred historical books anyway. I read a lot of those like Frank G. Slaughter's, and they did have ethical standards. If a major protagonist went against the right kind of behavior, they had to change by book's end, or punishment was their lot.

I doubt that peer group was much influence on me given my limitations in getting to town, until I drove. School buses might have been more so with strict bus drivers running the show. I was on them for a significant time, considering our stop was the first and then end of the line.

However it totally came together, I ended up with a code of ethics, which has been with me all of my life. This involved a sense of responsibility as well as consequences of actions. If ethics don't have an action component, they aren't really ethics. What I believe about that has influenced what I write and how I make my choices for themes. A bit more on that next Saturday when I also write about how the woke culture may change a lot-- or not.

 

new words and times

 

This week, it occurred to me that a topic I wanted to write about was the word 'woke.' Immediately, I next thought, are you nuts! I mean, this is a hot button topic, very incendiary. I have tried to avoid such... but then regarding some of my other recent topics, maybe I haven't avoided it. Well, either way, I am about to tackle what being woke means-- to one group or another. Also, how i feel about the word.

I started by looking for definitions online... not easy since it has various supposed meanings depending on who is putting them out. There is a racial context evidently originally to be woke, which meant "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination".

Then, there is the current usage of it by the intellectuals or those who consider themselves such-- ''well-informed' or 'aware', especially in a political or cultural sense.' And I assume by those who created the definition in terms of what you are aware of.

Where it comes to how I see the word woke, it basically comes down to those who have used it and what I think about what they've done or said. In general, I dislike the word, though what it should mean is positive as being socially aware and seeing where prejudice (a biased view as to what is true) might be still influencing too much of our culture.

Recently, we've seen where a dean at a university law school attacked a judge, who had been invited to speak, by spending his time tearing him apart as she saw it. The students who were in the audience also blocked listening to him. Very woke since he was the bad guy in their eyes.

Which led me to think of a word (which I also had to look up its meaning when I first began reading it), which I think has shaped at least some of how woke changed. Intersectionality, the theory regarding the overlap of social identities-- race, gender, sexuality, class, and how it contributes to a systemic oppression and discrimination as it's experienced by individuals. Mostly that's what woke and intersectionality seem to be today-- looking for oppression and ways to right wrongs that they see as past but also still ongoing.  

What it seems to me happens when people claim to be woke is they see there is one way to see what is fair-- to not be woke is to be wrong. Woke has often gotten to a point of not only being unwilling to listen to other viewpoints but to block others from hearing them also.

How can you be culturally aware if you only know one side of a cultural issue? To those claiming to be woke, it appears, there is only one side and the other side is bigoted, misogynistic, white supremacist (even if they are of another color), destructive. etc. No wonder they won't listen to the other side, to them it's evil. 

Where it comes to racial wrongs, it is in history and still seen today-- the question being how do you fix it? I thought that affirmative action was intended to address past unfairness, as well as other laws, where it comes to race, but it isn't even discussed today. I think it's still out there, but is it? Now it's about reparations-- first for blacks but maybe soon for many other areas where people there have been mistreated, like to the LGBTQIA (initials keep being added to that one) community. As it is used today, woke goes beyond race to gender identity where some don't like the words woman or man and want to refer to all as they/them/etc.

What I thought made this subject interesting for me, as a writer, is how this wokeism, which seems to be wide across the land, applies to the books we write, which often, when historical, were based in a very different time than our own. How do you stay historically accurate and still satisfy the desire to not offend? 

When I got interested in defining how I see my own writing-- ethically speaking-- and how today's cultural climate might influence me or other writers, I saw it as a separate blog, way too complicated to add onto more length here. Hence, it'll be next Saturday.

In the meantime, if you have definitions for how you see woke, I'd appreciate it being put into comments here-- pro or con.

 

 

 

 

 

SOTU

  

image from Stencil

Where I don't generally do politics here, this seems a good time to discuss the State of the Union. Why do we have such a yearly address, and what is its stated purpose?

The 1790 state of the union address was the first one given to Congress, required by the Constitution to have the President report to Congress what he saw happening at the current time and what he saw needed to be done. That one, not titled state of the union, was delivered by President George Washington.  Not sure about Adams, but in 1801, Thomas Jefferson delivered his address in writing, starting a new tradition, which lasted for 112 years. The thinking is he wasn't a gifted public speaker, and he was nervous in front of large audiences.

In 1913, that changed with Woodrow Wilson, who again delivered his message with a speech to Congress. He might be the first who recognized how it could be used beneficially by a President for what he wanted to see done-- setting the stage for the modern SOTU, which has become partisan and about political rhetoric-- where we are today. 

Two more things were added-- first its name, called that by FDR and officially named it by Harry Truman. The second was when it was broadcast to the people with first radio and then television. At that point, it wasn't just about information to Congress but also the American culture, or sometimes defending a war. Reagan enhanced using it as a tool when he began to invite special guests, which hit on issues the President cared about most.-- or thought would register with the American people.

For those most interested in more about its history, an online search finds many articles. I didn't do that, as frankly, I am turned off on it and have been for some years, when I believe it became solely political and not really about the state of our country. This year was no exception to my dislike for it as I only read about it later, with no desire to see partisan rhetoric given such a broad stage.

Some have said this year's SOTU was the beginning of a campaign speech. Probably not the first, given the time a Speaker of the House tore up the papers she held with the words of the speech. She did it right after that President's speech and in front of the cameras. She wanted to make as strong a political point as she believed the President had just tried to make. 

After the most recent speech, on Wednesday, I figured the left would like it and the right not. Pretty much, how it went. We see what we want to see, which is another reason (besides not believing they tell us the state of the nation), why I don't watch it. Bad enough to read about it later.

For my SOTU, I'll give my take on what I think should have been dealt with as it stands right now. It's not about what was said-- as none of it was; but rather what we need to deal with and understand as people living in the United States-- or sometimes those around the world impacted by us. I am not providing all the problems or answers, as the SOTU didn't necessarily need to do that, but rather what are some of the issues that impact daily lives. These are not in order of importance.

First would be the downing of the spy balloon (there has since been a second but this is about the earlier one). It's not so much what the spying nation got in terms of information that it could not have gotten other ways, but because it could have carried anything with it (think diseases, destruction of cyber systems, or even bombs). Since it was a remotely controlled robot, what else was it capable of doing? Plus, should one nation allow another to cross their whole country that way? We know the answer even if our President, apparently, does not.

It is claimed this one had antennaes, which means it could listen in (potentially) to conversations on the ground. Which discussions? We shouldn't care?

It is also an issue that citizens weren't told about it until a man took a photo from his window in Billings, Montana. When the military said it wasn't an intrusion could they possibly know that it was not preparing the way for a lax attitude and something different coming as a payload?

To me, it's also a big deal that many are being, and have been, sent out from a site that manufactures them and from which they are launched around the world. Are we facing a war, as why else are they used other than preparation? Maybe to find important minerals, but this one didn't go over such sites but rather bases and missile sites.

To go with this, there are currently at least two nations that could want to attack us, have threatened us. Shouldn't we be told the details and our own readiness for such a possibility? Are we in another Cold War or might this become a hot one? This isn't about fear but a realistic attitude for what might be coming. If the President doesn't tell us, what is the point of a state of the union that doesn't reveal possibilities, which could be so important! With grandchildren of the age to be pulled into fighting a war, I have selfish concerns, as well as for our nation as a whole.

Second, impacts some of us to a greater degree than others; but most of us notice it-- inflation in the grocery store and at the gas pump. We are told it's getting better; but when we get to the store, we don't see an improvement. I would guess it is even more of an issue at restaurants (but we almost never eat out; so I don't know for sure). 

Instead of saying inflation is decreasing (rah rah talk) why not talk about the pain it causes and what could really be done with a realistic look at how the dollar is losing value and prices are going up up and have for many years to some degree. I have books I purchased years back for $1.29 on their jackets but today would be $20. It should be a real concern-- also for those who save money and find those dollars decreasing in value by the year. I do have some ideas why this is happening, but not sure what should be done instead-- other than this is disconcerting.

Third, while it was emphasized in the speech about the need for more training for police (or so I read), but what was there, regarding crime, random violent attacks, thefts (such that some insurance companies refuse to insure some brands of cars)? The reason we might find some of our police overly violent could be what they face daily and never know when a domestic violence call is really a trap. Add to that the haranguing they receive, which has led many to leave the job. I am all for more training, weeding out bullies and thugs, who should never have been there, and higher wages to draw the best possible candidates. We have to recognize what is going on in terms of violence as it has increased and like a black swan, randomly could hit any of us.

Rather than blame one party or the other for this anger and violence, ask the question as to why is that happening??? The answer is likely not simple and involves mental health along with many other possibilities. At least, acknowledge this in any state of this nation.

There are many more issues but I want to put two together here; since they are used by both parties in partisan ways. I believe they should have been addressed if someone really wants to talk about the state of this nation. 

One is Social Security and the other abortion. They are used in different ways to inspire fear and anger with different age groups-- old and young. It seems that our leadership should delve into answers for these. I have two ideas. On SS, increase the income level on which the taxes can be levied-- way up-- and lower the percentage for all. It's an easy fix to bring in more money and was regularly done in the past. For some reason, that stopped. It's not as though anybody gets a lot of money for the checks when they reach a certain age, but it'd be a big deal to the nation,all of us, if the program failed. 

The second very partisan one, abortion, could be dealt with in Congress by passing a federal law allowing it up to certain times in the pregnancy-- in all states. As it stands, even the so-called morning after pill could be called murder in some places. Do Americans want abortion returned to back streets and turned criminal for women and doctors? Some do, but the big thing with it, as a partisan issue, is votes-- not concern for women or babies.

Should not our President discuss his ideas for both of these important issues? IF state of the union actually meant what the people in that nation actually need for concerns.

There is more I could say about each of these issues and a ton of other critical ones to evaluate for risks and possible solutions; but this blog is already too long. My main point is the SOTU has become a rallying cry for either party and a campaign speech where Presidents toot their own horns, more than discuss real issues facing the nation. Some are cultural; but this time, one involves war, which could involve attacks on our own country but also sending more of our young off to fight wars. We've been there, and it's a big deal, but no reference to it-- or other major issues impacting the country-- some with obvious fixes and some not so much. If it's not a campaign speech, issues and reality should be at the head of the list, not ignoring or casting blame but looking for real solutions. Currently, they are not while each party rah rahs their own side while the other side groans and Americans suffer.

Update: Turns out the second UFO is not thought to be a balloon, but they are still not saying what they think it was until they can identify what they shot down-- if they ever tell us.