who to trust

photo from our Arizona home with unusual morning cloud pattern

 After writing about the State of the Union address, I came across things I had written (years ago but that's the beauty-- or not-- of blogging). What I had written in 2009, makes it sound as though I have changed my mind on my political thinking regarding issues today. I do not believe I have. What has changed is my belief on who can fix what I think is wrong. 

I had planned to make this blog about my writing; but it seems that this is more important. What did I want to see done then versus what I want to see today. I have lost all faith in either party solving things-- and worse, now I distrust most of the agencies on which we depend. That means leadership, not the boots on the ground but those who rose to the top to run things.

My real question now is-- who can we trust? I think this is a worldwide problem and not just for the United States (not so united these days). A recent example regards the recent downing of four unidentified objects, which were balloons or were they? We were told the first, a spy balloon from China, was downed over shallow ocean-- turns out not so much as they didn't have all of it retrieved, when I wrote this blog. First, they said they saw it over Alaska... Now, we learn they followed it from its launch site in China... or did they? See the problem and it grows with the next three that are balloons, or were they? And have they retrieved them? Not any word that I know of. Were they from aliens? They weren't sure, then they were. Most of us figured they were from this world; but they, whoever they are, weren't sure, but now are-- or are they?.

The President said he didn't want to talk about it as it'd lead to panic. Really, he didn't figure people already understood this was an unknown situation. Now I read he might give a speech, but who will write it for him and will it tell us anything more than how great he is?

There is another thing out there, regarding this...Who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline? Russia, unknown, or did the current administration do it? Who can we trust to tell us?

When I wrote in 2009 that I liked the idea of dealing with health care, so people were not bankrupted by unexpected illnesses (insurance or not), I hoped there was a realistic plan to do this. It turned out not so much. People get hit by disastrous health issues, and there is no current answers. Who profited from the 'plan'; so far as I can tell-- big corporations.

I see the problem with a neighbor here where she is trying to treat her husband, who had a stroke, at home where it's wearing her out. What is her choice given what care facilities cost? Prescriptions are pretty well helped by Medicare and supplemental insurance, but what about everybody else where the prices continually escalate. An example is a test for Covid. I could get one free (on Medicare), haven't ever needed one; but our family has to pay $8 per test, which when it's a family and you need at least two each incident-- positive and then negative-- adds up fast.

Who can we trust? That's what I want to know today as it is certainly neither partisan party for me, where each have their own agendas that are not mine. Worse though are all the agencies, where nobody votes these people in, and they control a lot of regulations where we have a Congress that does nothing that isn't suiting their partisan agendas. The ordinary people??? It seems they have decided that we are too stupid for them to care what we want!

That's what has changed for me-- who should I trust? It's sure not most media, where it should be if we had reasonable journalism. Scare talk maybe, but I think it's unfortunately where we are and most countries probably suffer the same problems-- even when they are not totalitarian controlled. I want, at the least, a media that actually researches and tells us what they learn-- not what they want us to believe or what they are told they should say.

Hopefully next blog will be more upbeat. Although since it's on marketing books, maybe not lol

Update: I debated where to put my additional thoughts regarding health care-- in comments or here. You can see which won out and virtually became another blog (but I already wrote the one for Saturday).

There are two ways to approach issues where costs are growing too fast-- like health care. One is you try to bring costs down by looking at why so high. For instance with prescription drugs, is it real cost of new development (claims by corporate interests), or greed with wanting higher returns or making the stock market happy. It could even be all the advertising (didn't used to be legal to do) to get patients to want this or that prescription drug instead of letting doctors make the decisions. That advertising is not cheap and might even have someone asking for a more expensive drug when a cheaper one would have done the job-- or when they didn't actually need that one but it has some side benefit they want (recently with a very popularly advertised drug that also causes weight loss).

Looking at why costs rose in so many areas might give clues as to what could be done-- true in rapidly increasing costs of higher education where we could look at the kinds of buildings they claim to need, which might be not simple, safe structures, but more elaborate ones oriented to make the university look more Ivy League. Is it too many aides, high incomes given to only occasional professors (like one class instead of full work loads) for their name prestige? That's not the approach right now, which is more government loans (given at high rate of interest) to keep the students and no concern for why tuition has been growing faster than the cost of living. 

Same is true with many things-- an unwillingness to look at the reasons but instead find more government the answer. We can agree there is a problem-- easy to see sometimes; but what do we see as the answers-- corporate and even individual responsibility or government being the sugar daddy. This is not true of all things, but it's where we should look

This even applies to the recent train derailments. It's the fault of not enough government regulations according to one group. How about instead it's the fault of corporate interests who declare short term profits more important than wise infrastructure updates? Do we have to be forced to do what is right or should we look to responsibility as a big factor?

Me Too

by Rain Trueax

March Sunset from our desert home

Before I start on MeToo, I wanted to let readers here know that I have a free book at Amazon for Kindles. This is one of the benefits of making my books exclusive to Amazon (as well as that it can be borrowed for Kindle Unlimited members). So, if you have never tried a mystical realism novel, this is your chance for free-- Dangerous Match. It is supposed to show up free Saturday and Sunday but be sure it is before you hit buy.

~~~~~~~~~~~

While I no longer watch MSNBC for news, I used to have it as my go-to source. Even then, I wasn't fond of Chris Mathews. Something about his style of reporting turned me off. Still, when I read that he was forced out of his job there due to the MeToo movement, I read more about what exactly had happened.

Sexiest Man Alive-- or not

Now I don't buy the magazine, but every year you can't avoid seeing that People has come out with another sexiest man alive issue. Obviously a man cannot stay sexiest for more than one year.  It must be a heavy burden to carry.

It seems to me recently that they pick these girly men and sorry if that's sexist, but they do seem like the kind of guys who get their muscles from a gymnasium, not real work. and this time, they went to the bottom of the sexiest pile in my opinion to pick Bradley Cooper who would be on my list of sleaziest men but never sexiest (based just on his looks, not anything I know about his personality). For me, he  looks too much like the guy who would hop onto a bar stool next to you, offer to buy a drink and forget to mention he has a wife at home. I can barely stand him in any movie, and he is sexiest of the year?? Seriously!??

Well somebody else had an opinion on it (link below) and I agree with their idea more-- boy though he also is. They aren't going to pick my actual take after I thought a bit about it-- Stellan Skarsgård (son isn't bad either).  I am drawn to Stellan even when he's buried under makeup as he was in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. When a man can look sexy even then, that guy is sexy ;) He took the prize though in Mamma Mia-- tough, sensitive, sexy. Oh my! Okay, so I get it, he's older, but does sexiest guy alive have to be young? Frankly young guys can't possibly qualify ;) but if one did, I nominate Stellan's son-- Alexander

63 reasons Bradley Cooper is not sexiest Man Alive

Journalism? What Journalism?

Politics --
continuing the conversation while changing irrigation sprinklers. Help is always welcome with that job.

My frustration with television's news entertainment media has led to my doing some deep thinking about what I think is wrong. My first thought is that it's not really news-- most of it anyway. It's geared to entertain, fast moving, lots of pictures, excitement, controversy, and no segment lasts long. That is evidently what we want as a people proven by ratings.

The second issue, I think, is that programs on cable, despite the title many of them have, are not newspaper style formats. They are magazines. They have an agenda and offer interviews and news clips to get that agenda across. This is true whether it's Fox news or MSNBC. I am not saying there are not news programs out there, but a lot of what we watch is not and it's what is leading a lot of people to think they are getting the news when they are really getting someone's agenda.

Whether you watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, basically it's the same thing. They are aimed at a viewpoint and exploring, if you are lucky, some issues from several different political thinkers. If you are not lucky, you get people up there discussing an issue, like say a Dick Morris and Karl Rove who expect you to think they discussed it openly while they spouted their prepared talking points with the host adding to it. Each type of cable network does this and a lot of Americans call it watching the news. I have called it watching the news. It's not. It's watching a magazine program.

Even before I realized this, I knew that I got most of my information from newspaper and magazine sites online, but how much better are they? This was Paul Krugman's opinion about that: Horse Race Reporting. Want the facts, want policy details, you better be prepared to dig.

I read newspapers from the New York Times to the Washington Times and check into compilation sites from Huffington to Drudge. Of them all, Google has the least agenda as it simply gives snippets of headlines to click and read more. It's your decision whether you go beyond that headline to find the actual story which might bear little resemblance to the headline.

Pretty much anywhere I look, I am unhappy with the news entertainment media of today. Where is real information? Why is covering something Sarah Palin's almost son-in-law said-- whether defending her or attacking her with it-- a story? Isn't that just a family feud more suitable for reality TV than supposed news programs? To me, this whole game has become a race for ratings and ratings come from feeding the expectations of the viewers and from stirring up excitement.

A good example, of the distortion for sensational purposes, was a rally in Texas for seceding from the United States. We were talking a few hundred people and a couple of speakers whom nobody outside of Texas had likely even heard of before. Let's be frank, a few hundred people can be talked into gathering for almost anything, at any time, for any reason.

The 'event,' which deserved zero news coverage from national media, was replayed on MSNBC until you'd have thought the whole state was rising up in rebellion, gathering their guns and prepared to spill blood. Each time it was presented, it was those few seconds of film footage. It was a small event that media tried hard to turn into something of significance.

What should they have been covering instead? How about what health care bill details, specifics of what exactly is proposed. The accusation that it covers illegal aliens even led one legislator to call the president a liar. From what I have seen, illegals get coverage now in ERs but won't under the bill but isn't this the reporters' job to flesh out? Serious stories are left to newspapers and online articles like: [We already have health-care rationing in the U.S].

Magazine formats like Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman are good at providing interviews, some deeper insights into a particular event, but that's it. They do not remotely cover all the important things going on.

How much in that week, while the media was hyping the revolution, did you see about the climate questions. They can't give you: [Climate Wizard]. But they could discuss:[Climate Trouble may be Bubbling up in the Far North]. Given how many people I have heard discussing their freaky weather this summer, isn't it possible that those questions might matter?

How about more journalistic pieces looking at why we are enlarging our troop levels in Afghanistan. This is an issue for all of us to look at seriously, not from a partisan angle (although DC seems unable to get beyond that right now) but asking the same questions that should have been asked about Iraq-- why are we there and can we really do anything about it other than losing 51 more lives each month?

Try reading [Afghanistan and Obama by Nicholas Kristof] with a lot more out there including history books to give warnings to the wise. This is a topic to debate right now not waiting until it's too late and we are in deeper.

How about a ton of important issues that we all need to stay informed about but we mostly aren't unless we spend a lot of hours doing research because the mainstream media didn't. The current situation makes people, from the right or the left, think they are getting news; but they are, with a few exceptions, getting partial truths and sensationalism leaving in depth news to somewhere else if people care enough to do the work.

Looking at what has gone wrong in this country, the shallowness of us as a people, and I thought at first it was the educational system which has turned into a test taking machine (thanks Ted Kennedy and George Bush) and not teaching real logic. That idea falls apart if you look at who attends those tea party rallies. Most got their educations, such as they were, years ago. So what the heck is going on?

Maybe too much Kate and whoever that was and not enough of the kind of programming that was on television when it began, shows like Omnibus. It, for you kids, was a mix of plays, informational programming and unlike say Oprah, it didn't have to compete for ratings. There was only one station. [Omnibus explained in Wikipedia]. Today there might be sponsors who would fund such... maybe but without an agenda... unlikely. And if it was there, who would watch it?

Are Americans so shallow that they must be entertained every minute by some new exciting event. Popularity of reality television shows tell you where this is going. If we don't find a way to get more people demanding real news programs, real journalism, I don't think there is hope for serious solutions to real problems. We can't blame this all on the media anymore than we can blame it all on our government. It comes down to us and how much do we really care what is happening? Do we get our news from diverse sources or only go where we hear what we want?

So what do you think about today's media and if you agree with me that it's off base, what do you think has gotten us here and what can we do about it?

(If you made it this far, come back in two days for one last in this series-- this time the Democrats.)

Summer of Oddities

Politics

Watch out for those emails that seem to be in all of our mailboxes. Sometimes I get them from a friend asking me what I think. Too often instead it's just passed it on as fact. My opinion is double check it all and from any blog site-- including this one. We are living in a time where more information can be disseminated faster than at any time in history. Frequently we have no idea where it originated and without a lot of research, cannot decide on its truth.

Worse once these emails circulate, the blogosphere picks them up and they begin to be presented as valid as any newspaper report. In ninety-nine out of one hundred, you have no idea who even wrote them although they often use a celebrity's name.

Once upon a time, you'd know what your local community knew and maybe not much more. Today you know what every local community knows and sometimes it is nothing but wishes.

One of the stranger things that happened this summer was comparing Obama to Hitler. The right wing spouted it out and the left was forced to deny-- always easier to say something than to prove it but proof is not required when people want to believe something.

Basically at first it seemed just strange but typical rhetoric until they began to add 'facts' to it. Like that Obama wanted to kill old people. That became that it would be like the Nazis where he would also kill anybody he deemed unfit like say retarded citizens. Since some right wingers said he hated whites, maybe all whites except those he turned into slaves. The talk was unbelievably crazy to most of us but to some it worked.

The most interesting part of all is when we began to find out from where these accusations had arisen.

Behind the Obama Hitler Slur or Summertime for Hitler

Until this summer, who took Lyndon LaRouche seriously about anything? He had been pushed as far from the Democratic party as they could push, discredited by the mainstream media, and most citizens saw him as an extremist.

That's evidently no longer so for many Republicans as his accusation, about Obama's health care plan being like the Nazi's, was picked up by the media and with enthusiasm by some in the right wing, a party which, for far too often, the fear card has worked to extend their power.

So this summer, when Republicans would shake their head and deny comparing Obama to Hilter made sense, they'd add-- as far as I know.

How do you get from left wing nuts to right wing mainstream? Interesting question but the only possible answer is some in the Republican party don't care what they use, and extremists on either side have more in common with each other than any moderate of either party in the middle. For the moderate Republican politicians, like say John McCain, to say Obama respects our Constitution or is not a Nazi is to find themselves being booed in places like Sun City, Arizona (retirement community).

I hear the right wing has ideas for the problems we face, but has anyone heard what they are? Instead we are bombarded by birthers, tea-partiers, accusations of socialism, and on it goes. Anything to scare the American people-- even if it takes hooking up with Lyndon LaRouche. Amazing, isn't it!

Back Country and Talk Radio

Every time I am driving through the West, what some call the heartland of the United States, the red states, switching on the radio to find news can be an interesting way to understand what the people there are getting for information.

Across northern California's eastern quarter, into Nevada, down through its deserts and those of Arizona, this last trip down, there are no radio stations that give a moderate or liberal view of life. NPR, what's that? Unless they pay for satellite radio stations, the only available talk radio promotes a right wing agenda. The scanty exceptions are aimed at health questions or how to solve internet problems.

When we drive through the back country, see the ranchers out gathering their cattle, the small towns, the old trucks driving back from town, often enough a woman on her way home from picking up parts to repair the tractor, the awareness grows that these people only hear one view of politics.

Are these red regions because they think a certain way or because they are inundated with that thinking? They could turn on their cable TV (if they have a dish and can afford it). They could read different viewpoints on the Internet, but how many listen only to Fox news, read right wing blogs and think they are hearing the whole story?

Some years back, I used to listen to Glenn Beck but reached a point where I couldn't stand it any longer. I hadn't again until surfing on the long drive. Recognizing his voice and tone, I thought I should see what he's saying today. He has grown considerably in power since the long ago time when I first listened to him.

To me, Glenn Beck is a man with one agenda and a frantic tone to his voice. He is deliberately catering to the ones who say they are now disenfranchised because they voted for the losing candidate. Excuse me but I had that problem for 8 years and did anybody think I was entitled to stop paying taxes? With his tea bag revolt, he compares today's situation to that before the Revolutionary War. What is this man trying to create and what do those who listen to him hope to do?

As the miles spun past, I tried to listen to him for long enough to see if there was anything other than the most obvious messages: Only the right (O'Reilly being a good example) is telling you the truth. You, who listen to me, are better than those awful lefties who want to destroy this country. (Er what would a revolution do? Oops was that logic.) Beck isn't interested in logic. Only people who listen to right wing radio or TV are smart and smarts don't come from our corrupted education system. Not sure from where they do come.

Beck had a sizable segment devoted to one scientist with a top reputation who is saying we are not experiencing global warming but even if we are, it's not the fault of carbon dioxide which makes plants grow better. There was little discussion of what kind of plants, but that wasn't needed. What Beck wants is to make people afraid of liberals. For those who regularly listen to his radio or Fox TV program, maybe he succeeds.

Several times I came across Michael Savage. Later when I checked him on the Internet, I read, that for talk radio he is third only to Limbaugh and Hannity (nobody should ask me to listen to Hannity, that goes way beyond the call of duty).

Savage didn't change his message in any program. He sells (and probably bathes in) pure unadulterated hate. Thursday and Friday, he was mad at the fact that nobody but him had cared about four police officers in Oakland being murdered. He emphasized recordings from a small Oakland demonstration (35 or so people) of voices praising the murderer because they are mad at the police period and anybody who kills one is a good guy. Why these total nutcases, who probably would like no police protection so they can run riot, got any coverage, I don't know; and also, being on the highway, don't know if they got it from anybody but Savage. The media, including his, does not have to give time to just anybody who wants it!

As for Savage's accusation that liberal women with gray hair killed these police officers, well it is totally aimed at his audience who already disrespect liberals and must get off on hearing the anger in this man's voice toward these women who are the true destroyers of this country. Forget what you heard about bankers or corporate greed or even foreign terrorists. It's not them who endanger this nation's values but gray-haired, liberal women.

Truth isn't part of Savage's spiel; but for anyone who does care about it, those murders were in papers all across this country and people everywhere spoke out against the horror of what had happened. I don't know about you; but every time I see police officers, I think what a tough job they have and how they are the ones who go in when the rest of us run out. Sure there have been a few who abused their power, but they are a minuscule part of the US police force.

California's two senators came to the memorial service; but since they are liberal women, that was a double insult in Savage's mind. He is mad that these are the women who would try to control gun availability. So the fact that this criminal had a gun; and it didn't do the police officers any good that they had one when dealing with a sociopath, none of that had a connection in Savage's mind.

If you listen to Savage for long, you have to wonder if Weiner (his real name under which he writes books on homeopathic health cures) actually agrees with anything he says? Might he be like Glenn Beck who recently compared himself to a rodeo clown and believes he is supposed to be entertaining the ones who listen to him. It appears he feels he is giving them what they want.

If someone regularly listened to Savage, they would not simply lose hope. They would be ready to raise up and create violence, anarchy, as it's what he seems to want to see happen. It's clear that only a violent overthrow (don't ask by who as logic is no part of this man's programming either) will satisfy him. He evidently has bought himself a stronghold somewhere away from San Francisco where he will be based to escape the coming carnage. Is he trying to create that violence? He would be if enough people followed what he said.

Does he ever say anything sensible? Probably he does. In the church, they used to call that a Satan Sandwich (a lie sandwiched between two truths to make it seem to also be true). For Savage, Satan is me, but to me it's those who profit from encouraging others to ruin their lives so that they themselves can live a life of plenty.

Finally there is the king of the talk radio and hard as it is to say, Rush Limbaugh is the easiest to take. Part of that is the charisma of the man, the energy which generally was not hate filled or whimpering. He has almost a sense of humor about what is going on but that leaves me wondering what he really believes. His biggest concern last week appeared to be worry about more taxes; and with his wealth, that's not surprising, I guess.

At one point I had to turn Rush off but not for the reasons you might expect. I was starting to agree with him... but there are things a left leaning moderate always would see similarly to Rush. It's why I used to be able to listen every day. The part he seemed right about is some of the ridiculousness of dealing with global climate change.

Rush said the greens in California want to ban black cars by some year in the future. That's to make air conditioning work less. What if the people drive at night, Rush joked. In my opinion, government should telll people in LA how much extra gasoline they will be using if they have a black car and run their A/C but that should be the sum of their involvement as would red cars be better? How about the interiors? Should everyone have to drive white cars? It's just plain silly. Rush is good at finding such things that often the rest of us haven't even heard about (unless living in California maybe).

Unlike Beck, Rush didn't try to deny that global climate change might be coming. He just didn't think it came from mankind. Wrong though he might be, that is at least a reasonable approach to take. He didn't appear though to think mankind should do anything about it if it is coming and I wonder if he's thought about his mansion in Florida that is probably not much above sea level? Savage might even believe in global warming and it's the true reason he's leaving the Bay Area...

Where Rush surprised me most (from what I remember of his talk before) is when he was talking about power lost in our current power grid system and he claimed it is 40%. He seemed to believe that was how much is being stolen by customers who cheated the system and more or less said it's what Americans do-- take what they want. I don't know if he meant it to be approving, but it sounded that way.

First of all, overhead power lines have been a wasteful way to move energy. There is loss which is why it's not considered safe to live right under or near them. So even if the figures are correct, the loss of 40% is not all people rigging up their meters as Rush seemed to believe.

But it sounded like he was defending stealing when you think you have been treated unfairly, as some on the right seem to think because they didn't win the last election. Is it okay with Rush for people to lie on their taxes if they didn't get the president for whom they voted?

Well, we know Rush felt it was okay to get his prescription drugs illegally when he needed a substance that the government controls. How far does his thinking that way go? That wasn't the Limbaugh I remember who called people to higher standards. Has he lost his own moral code in catering to a group who actually are controlling what he is saying more than he admits-- at least publicly?

Basically most of the right wing talk radio were talking anarchy. Who exactly would then run things after they took over is not discussed. Forget Beck or Savage. Nobody is going to chose them for an actual leader. Who even knows what Hannity believes; but if Chuck Norris and Rush Limbaugh have to duke it out, Rush wins if it's oratory but otherwise, heil President Norris.

If I lived in the middle of Nevada and had to listen to just talk radio for what is going on, I would think the country was going to hell in a hand basket (as my not exactly sainted daddy used to say) and that any scientist who says there is global warming is either a quack or being paid off. I would ignore things like [Thomas Friedman explaining what we might be facing], and want more guns as I'd expect to be overrun by little old gray haired ladies trying to take away my freedoms.

To me, it seems a shame that the people in the wide open spaces, country I love, aren't hearing more viewpoints, hearing the arguments from both sides, but maybe they want to be told what is truth and not have to bother sorting it out. I can sympathize with that actually...

(Photos are from northern California and Nevada. The land is cattle and mining country. Miles of it many would call worthless, places that people try to settle and often fail leaving behind remnants of their dreams. I love driving through it-- not sure how it'd be for living, of course. Although I have often thought that with the right purpose to your life, the right people in your life, anywhere can be good.

Finally because of Savage's warnings about those old, gray-haired, liberal women who threaten this country's safety, I asked Farm Boss to take a photo of one of them at our Tucson house; so savage-type 'conservatives' will know for what they are looking.)

Snakes everywhere

Before you decide I have gone completely off the deep end, consider reading the whole article by Sean Penn for The Nation magazine and also in Huffington Post. It is a long one and complex.

Yes, I know how many people dislike Penn and worse dislike the people he is writing about, but just give it a chance even though it's about names whom you think you already know all there is to know-- Hugo Chavez, Raul and Fidel Castro. Penn is writing about what he, as an ordinary citizen with extraordinary opportunities, has observed when traveling to both Cuba and Venezuela. I hear you saying what does he know? These are all bad guys. We know all we need to know. Do we?

How much do we really know about leaders around the world, about what is going on in other countries? Does our media inform us or is it a propaganda arm for the government-- whichever government? Penn titled his article 'A Mountain of Snakes' because of that with which we have to deal as people. Who are the snakes?

A lot of people have been suspicious of Penn being a socialist or wanta be communist because of where he has visited and what he has talked about; or they see him as a dumb actor who should stay out of world problems and politics. Most of all, those are the people who should read his article all the way through. Read it and think about it for awhile. Do we get the whole story in our country? Do we really have a free press? Government doesn't dictate to our press as they do in some nations; but what does dictate the stories we hear about? Do either party want us knowing what is going on elsewhere?

We have one segment of America who wants to praise everything our country does as we can have done no wrong and have no wrongs to overcome. They are the ones who were so offended when Obama said the Constitution was not perfect. They are the ones who ignore that the Constitution at one time forbid women and blacks from voting (or maybe they think that was the right idea).

We have another segment who sees us as the biggest evil in the world and that this country has done no good. I am not sure where they would direct our future because they don't see us as having one. Some relish the idea of all humans being destroyed, as though other animals would do a better job of running things. Wherever they think we should go, they don't like anything about where we are.

The world today is a very confusing place. We read something, and we don't know whether it's true or spin. And it's not just our country. This is a worldwide problem. Which leaders should we trust? What obligations do we have to others? What will happen if we try to fix this or that? What are the unintended consequences of our actions-- or inaction?

Penn's title to his article reminded me of something else I had read in Lynn's World. Before the election, a woman told Lynn that she had a dream where she saw snakes everywhere and had decided it meant Obama was evil. She feared what he would do if elected. Lynn, who is an astrologer, wrote about Obama's chart and how she saw him (she is/was a supporter).

Some years ago, I had the only dream I have ever had about snakes. It was before we moved down to this farm; but we were arranging to buy the property. In the dream, I was with a lot of people I didn't know and inside a building which was a church. Outside were snakes writhing on the ground everywhere. I woke up wondering what did that mean? Was it an omen? Was this farm to be a bad place? Was the church we ended up joining the bad place?

I have seen snakes many times since that dream but never have dreamed of even one again. A mountain of snakes is a frightening concept. Sometimes in Eastern Oregon, people come across rattlesnake balls as they gather together to hibernate for winter or come out of hibernation. I haven't seen such a thing but earlier this year did see photos of them in Arizona, snakes everywhere and not a place anybody wants to be who isn't a snake. It's frightening imagery.

Penn used the analogy to illustrate not just our risks, but I think how hard it is to unwind the truth. Journal style, he wrote about what he observed; and for his courage in going out into the world, in trying to make a difference, I have to admire him. It's not easy to go against the popular viewpoint.

It's especially bad if you say anything remotely good about what either Chavez or Castro have done in their countries. For one thing, what they have done might not be what they will do. To be honest, when I remember reading he had gone down to Venezuela earlier this year, I thought oh no. After reading his article, I think it was good he went. It lets us look at another viewpoint beyond our usual one.

Snakes reflect uncertainty, dangers, hidden risks. Whenever I have seen big ones in Arizona and I have seen a few very big poisonous ones, it always stops my heart a moment; but one of the most frightening of those times was coming home from the store, and my cat was sitting on the front porch looking at a huge snake that at first glance looked a lot like a diamondback rattler.

A ton of thoughts went through my head. Had he been bitten? That snake is huge. If I grab up my cat, who didn't seem at all afraid, would I get bitten? The snake wasn't looking at him but my cat was fascinated with the snake. Did he think he could eat the snake?

Then I stopped to look more closely. No rattles. Head was not shaped like a diamondback. It was actually a big bull snake, at least a four foot long, thick bodied and colored just like a diamondback; but nevertheless, one of the good guys.

I reached down and grabbed my cat while the snake continued to ignore us both. The cat and I went in the back door. I focused my camera for one good shot before the snake left the home zone. He was never a danger to me, but the fear was definitely real for that moment before I could analyze the facts of the situation.

I think reading articles like Penn's, even if you have never liked him at all, is a start in being able to assess our current dangers. He was there. He observed something. What do you think about it? Whether you disagree or agree, you can't assess it if you won't look.

The point of his story was not that we should make Chavez or Castro our new best friends. He was just writing what he personally observed with those leaders and in those countries. He could go where we cannot. As I best understood him, the snakes are that we don't know the full truth, and it benefits a certain group to keep it that way. It's that mob mentality, of the Black Friday sales, that often is the government and media's main schtick.

Yes, there are dangerous snakes out there, and there are those that are not. Being afraid to look, ignoring all possible facts, won't help us figure out which is which or deal with any situation realistically. Can we trust our leaders to do it all for us or should we be informed also?

Duh!

Am I missing a sensitivity chip? Yesterday all the news media seemed to want to cover was Paris Hilton breaking out of jail-- and maybe being sent back today. Why is this a national story? Did the media create it by their coverage (while they ignored issues which seemed to me far more important)?

Even talk on the street, at work, everywhere it was all outrage over Hilton getting out of jail without doing much time. Who cares? Maybe somebody can explain it to me. It's not like we truly thought justice was blind. Has anybody believed that for years-- if ever?

Get a good lawyer and you will be like that skinny little toad, Phil Spector, sitting in a courtroom with a chance to get off after shooting a woman in the mouth. Yeah right a woman who had just met him would walk into his house, take a gun from his drawer and shoot herself in her beautiful face. If any ordinary working stiff had done this would it have even gone to trial? We know why it did-- because he has money. I won't even get started with OJ but it's one story after another like that. We have the best court system money can buy.

Back to Hilton and my own outrage that it became such a huge story. At the same time, we have Putin and Bush posturing like Cold War is back, at a time when Russia has money again (thanks to oil and not being in Afghanistan) and we don't (thanks to oil and being in Iraq), why the hell is a missile shield for Europe even being talked about? Is it over Iran who doesn't have such missiles and has yet to attack anybody except through their current leader's big mouth? Or is it the industrial military complex that must be fed more and more meat? Bush may have let a lot of his former backers down but he's never disappointed his corporate bosses.

Then we have the immigration bill that was shelved. Questions about whether the FBI hyped another terrorist plot that may have been basically created by their own stooges-- a plot that they claimed could destroy more than 9/11 but experts say wouldn't have worked even if it had been tried.

We have every candidate, (in both political parties) who is running for president, acting like he or she is running for the Pope's position. Then there is that girl grabbed in Kansas and murdered, another one to the point that our society has these predators running around everywhere, in every small town, and nothing happens to them for years if they even get caught! Ack I could go on but with all that, the biggest story was Paris Hilton??? I think I might have a stroke.

To me the real story about her is the gladiator sport to which this country has become so attracted. Build up these people like Don Imus, Martha Stewart, Britney Spears, et al. and then watch them crumble. That was the entertainment of the Roman society too before it collapsed.

Why did it matter about Paris even before this? What had she done to become so famous? A sex tape? A silly reality show? Looking beautiful? What was it? I have no clue as all I see is that she gets paid to go to parties and look 'hot' if you define hot as a dull looking pose that she repeats in every photo including her mug shot. Amazing and now she is the meat for the lions. She is pathetic, not to be hated but pitied.

Is it our media that did this to us or are we doing it to ourselves? Why do we care about that silly woman? And yet yesterday on the news channels, that I watched, it was the story all day, with even 'expert' panels to discuss it. I suppose it will be today too especially if she gets sent back.

I guess it's just as well as I should be doing coyote watch... I did get a shot at it yesterday but missed. It was a long way off, then ran across the field which put the neighbor's home behind it. Probably not a risk but I wouldn't shoot in that situation. It headed straight for the cow herd (which again meant too risky to shoot). That cow herd shall henceforth be known as the non-guard-cow herd. They didn't pay it any mind. Maybe they were chewing their cuds over the Hilton story too... grrrrrrrrrrr

Full Moon Rising

"I see a bad moon arising,
I see trouble on the way.
I see earthquakes and lightnin'.
I see bad times today."

"Don't go around tonight,
Well, it's bound to take your life,
There's a bad moon on the rise."

Credence Clearwater Revival

No moon is a really a bad moon. Beautiful, inspirational, indicators for planting, spiritual rituals, mood enhancing or depressing. Full moons are the times often hospitals see more accidents, more violence. Something about them does impact people...

So is that my excuse for thinking right now about what's going on in our country? Is it why I'm worrying about our media and why it seems to be so far off base with its lack of dealing with what really matters? Does anyone else notice we are being bombarded by 'non' stories when there are things we need to know; but if they get noticed at all, it's on the back pages.

Why is it even a story if an American actress, married to an English musician, said the English are brighter and more intelligent than Americans? The woman has since denied she said it, but would it matter if she had? First, is it wrong to look at other countries and decide they might be superior to ours for one reason or another? Secondly, who cares what she thinks? Why does this hit the newspapers and TV? Will Bill O'Reilly suggest boycotting her films? Is this crazy to you or are you one who thinks everyone in any country should be effusive on how wonderful it is-- no matter what it does?

Why didn't the murder of the male teacher in Afghanistan, who had the effrontery to educate girls, receive more coverage? He knew he was taking a risk, but he felt girls should receive educations like boys. First Lady Laura Bush even visited Afghanistan awhile back to emphasize how wonderful it was girls were finally being educated. There's sure a bad moon on the rise there. The Taliban types kidnapped that teacher, partially disemboweled him; and then tore him limb from limb, leaving those limbs on display to frighten others from daring the same thing.

"Looks like we're in for nasty weather. One eye is taken for an eye." CCR

Our media's constant drumbeat has been on Iraq, which makes sense, as it's a terrible problem; but why aren't we hearing more about how Afghanistan is slipping back under the thumb of the Taliban types? It's evident to all but the most rabid Bush supporters that he rushed us into Iraq for no reason (that has yet been revealed anyway) leaving behind a half-finished job in Afghanistan which is currently in the process of unraveling.

Then there has been all the 'news' about whether a certain pop star was making a comeback, getting a divorce, losing weight, making new friends that weren't such good choices, and wearing underwear... not! First of all if a photographer went into a local mall here and photographed up ordinary women's skirts, he'd be the one arrested... But the main thing is why was it a story on any news program, let alone most of them?

Current news that should matter to all of us is the hearing for Gates as Secretary of Defense. He is going to be approved and maybe he should be. I don't know enough about him and given the type of people Bush usually picks, maybe this man is the best we could hope for; but was it a significant item to you when he said we have to stay in Iraq or the whole region will go up in flames?

Irrespective of these hearings, we are being told if we stay in Iraq, it will still blow up the whole region if we take the side of the Shiites over the Sunnis... same thing if we do the reverse. Whichever side the US picked, the other side has friends ready to enter into the fray. In the case of the Sunnis, that would be Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Sunnis in Iran.

Our presence in Iraq galvinizes the terrorist element in that country. Nobody likes invaders and to many there we are perceived as that most especially when we build bases and say we are staying far into the future. It's also obvious to anyone, impartially looking at the situation, that those terrorists are mostly home-grown. Al Qaeda doesn't need to go to Iraq to cause trouble. They can save their energy for retaking Afghanistan or attacking innocent people around the world. Terror is doing just fine in Iraq without their help.

Could it be our news is screwed up because Americans can't handle the truth any better than their president? Bush was taking away as many of our liberties as he could get away with and what slowed him down? Not his usurption of power but rather his failures. Suppose he'd been efficient, would Americans be nodding their heads to his power grab and saying Amen?

Dissent is threatened in this country. We hear so much talk about the need to spread freedom around the world while we are seeing people try to erode our freedoms here. Even a blog that dares to write about things that are going wrong, about Bush's ineptness can receive death threats. The Dixie Chicks lost most of their fan base for daring to say what they thought about Bush.

If it is said enough times that Bush is and has been a good president, will it make it so? I guess he thinks a half a billion dollar presidential library will convince everybody.

One last thing-- if anyone thinks that the problem is just Bush, they are not facing the whole picture. He represents, and has all along, a certain political movement which wasn't born with his presidency-- hence we have Gingrich speaking on limiting freedom of speech to control dangerous... uhm exactly what was he worried about stopping? Dissent that upsets people and interferes with the plans of those in power perhaps? We might need protecting all right, but it's not from someone peacefully arguing against what a president has been doing but rather those who would stifle such dissent.

And then there is McCain who wants the presidency so bad he doesn't care what it takes to get there (yes, you can insert Hillary's name there too). McCain's latest is blaming the end of Bolton's term as UN Ambassador as being the fault of Democrats. Might we say instead credit goes to the Democrats given what I have heard about Bolton's abrasive style while holding that job! Do we really need more enemies around the world? Do we believe we are in any position to demand others follow our dictates? Bolton was what Bush wanted because he represents the kind of bullies Bush admires; and while Bolton might be gone, our country and the world have two more years of Bush, who feels he must regularly remind us he is the Commander in Chief, the Decider. Like who can forget?

(Moon pictures taken December 5, 2006 at 6:45pm using Canon Rebel. No tripod and no timed shots thanks to the 100-400mm Image Stabilizer Zoom Lens. And thanks to Parapluie for the idea of taking pictures of this beautiful winter moon.)

Same Ol' Same Ol'

When John Kerry managed to botch a joke in such a way that it left open the interpretation that he was saying people end up fighting in Iraq because they didn't get good grades, rather than a president ends up sending people into a war because he wasn't willing to study the deeper issues, it led right into more of the same ol' same ol' that politics has become.

That joke was written down for him to say correctly with no chance anyone could have thought he meant the troops, and he couldn't manage it. It gave Republicans a chance to jump all over the issue and accuse every Democrat in the whole country of hating the troops. Botched jokes or jokes in bad taste are not unique to John Kerry. Bush has a ton of them back there but he's not running for president. Oh wait, neither was Kerry. So the point of this was exactly what?

Until I saw Jon Stewart's Daily Show the other night, I had no clue how bad political ads have been. He ran a montage of them for various candidates across the country. They had nothing to do with the issues these people stood for but were all about cheap shots and a hopeful soundbite that would possibly get a voter to ignore the issues and be carried away by emotion.

I thought of this when I was out in my field the other day and the sheep flock was grazing to the back of the pasture. I was out with my .22 more to let the coyotes know I'm around than with a real expectation that they would come in and give me a shot. The sheep glimpsed me and suddenly panicked. They ran for the cows (a smart technique actually), but the idea that they would scatter so fast at the sight of me was not smart. I have never hurt them, have done nothing but shake down apples from the trees, feed them hay and give them water but still they saw me and panicked.

What we have to do as voters is be sure we don't get caught up like sheep when we hear various things like the spin on what Kerry said. Kerry's joke was not intended to put down our soldiers. He has been a friend to the military in terms of voting for more benefits but he doesn't have a knack of saying things wisely-- which is a definite negative in a presidential aspirant. There is one plus. We probably don't have to worry about Kerry running in '08 after this.

The horrible thing about this is it meant Republicans didn't mind at all using our soldiers as tools if it got them votes. Bush's speeches, using this non-issue, were particularly self-serving and disgusting as they so often are when he's using someone or something to gain power for himself. When the Republican party decided to spin what Kerry said into an accusation against our troops, it was done not caring if it hurt their morale or not. The spin was to turn Bush being ignorant (which he was) about the consequences of going into Iraq, about the culture there, into an accusation that Democrats hate our troops-- which is patently ridiculous if you stop to think but if you are sheep, you don't stop to think.

What we need to be aware of is all the candidates, of either party, who run ads not about what they will do or believe, but cheap shots at their opponents. From the looks of it, when you hear an ad come on, you would be wise, to tune it out. Listen to your candidate's speeches, read the voter pamphlets on what that person says they will do-- not that politicians are noted for doing what they say. Like who would admit-- I am open to graft-- just make me an offer and I'll consider voting your way!

And on a national level-- if you like what Bush is doing, vote for Republicans. They will keep him "keeping on".

If you don't like what he's doing, you have to vote Democrat even if you have to hold your nose to do it. It is the only way to turn the House or maybe even the Senate in a new direction giving a chance for fresh thoughts.

The main thing is don't be caught up in spin. It is rarely about what really matters.

Media Morass

How do you get your news and what do you trust? The latest snafu for the news media was doctored photos from Lebanon where the photos were so poorly photo-shopped that even an amateur could see the repeated images. It is amazing that a photo journalist, trying to show the world a war in Lebanon, would believe distorting the pictures to dramatize them was acceptable. Have we entered a time where truth has no meaning? Clearly that person had lost touch with the purpose of his job. For the rest of us, if we can't trust a photograph... scratch that question. Clearly we can't. And actually never have been able to as darkroom techniques have always allowed for fudging with this or that. Only now 'anybody' can do it.

So we have photos we can't believe. Then there are the words to describe actual events. Since the Bush administration was discovered to be paying journalists and commentators to get the viewpoint out that suited them best, since they send out fact sheets written up as stories for the newspapers to use directly, what is news and what is propaganda? How do you personally decide?

It's not like one news network or another is going to have the pure facts. They all have some kind of agenda. Some say that the entire media is liberal or was before Fox came along with its right wing slant. Since the media is generally owned by those on the right and the journalists typically lean to the left, where does that leave the viewer? In a mud-dle in the middle? Actually it probably seems to be biased to both sides at this point. They showed some stories on the current war in Lebanon and Israel to Arabs and Israelis. Both sides felt it was biased-- against their side.

Is it even possible to have stories that are pure facts without an agenda being pushed? I have heard that if we were to watch CNN in Europe, the feed would be totally different than here which is why they have seen the situation so differently. Each is aimed at their target audience-- telling them what they want to hear. Is that what news is-- entertain us and make us comfortable?

Some believe the best idea now is read blogs from war torn areas like Iraq, Lebanon and Israel and there is some merit in that. At least then the people with an agenda are upfront about it. There is no pretense that it's unbiased because these are people living on the frontlines of a human disaster and writing about what they see and feel. If they are prejudiced toward what allows them to survive or their own country to continue to exist-- we can understand.

It's been a very confusing, disillusioning time which is the main reason I haven't written about the situation between Israel, Lebanon and the Hezbollah. I read about it. I feel bad for it. One time I almost put something up until a good friend and I hashed it out up one side and down the other. When we had gotten through, I thought I don't really know what is true, and I don't want to write about it. I just want it to go away. But it won't.

None of this time of terrorism and wars is going away soon-- unless we blow each other up. We have entered a very ugly time and it is impacting the entire world. It's not (in my opinion) the fault of Israel for existing or even the US for attacking Iraq. Bin Laden began his vendetta against the West before we went into Iraq. Israel only provides an enemy for them to use to concentrate their power and gain followers.

Yes, the United States has made mistakes, and only history will determine the significance of those, but whatever brought us to here, I think we could all agree, we are in a mess, and part of that mess is being unable to trust the government or news to tell us the true situation.

If we can't know what is going on, how can we wisely vote, send money, or even pray? Possibly that suits some just fine to keep citizens in the dark. Some criticize the media if they give bad news. Or they want more coverage of this or less of that. Others want to only hear things that reaffirm their bias. But if the news media has any purpose at all, it should be to tell us what is happening period-- not what it means. Analysis should be labeled analysis. We should demand we get basic, honest coverage of events-- no hype. Is that asking too much? Apparently it is.

Tabloids

Kirstie lost 69 pounds... She cheated on her diet. She'll wear a bikini on Oprah (does that mean she has no cellulite?). Nicole got married. There was a prenuptial. There was not. Denise is surprised Charlie turned out to be what he always was, and Heather is surprised Denise wasn't really her friend. Divorces. No divorces. Bad face lifts, Botox, and what is it with those lips?

If you don't know what any of that meant, you probably do not glance at the headlines of the tabloids alongside the grocery store check-outs and definitely do not buy the magazines. Now days you don't have to buy them. You can get most of the gossip and pictures from blogs as well as find interviews on major news programs. The mix between what is gossip and news has long been blurred.

I would not walk across the street to see a movie star in person and probably would pretend I didn't recognize them if I saw them in a restaurant. That was what I did the time I saw Clint Eastwood. I don't watch their interviews on television regarding how to fix the refugee or environmental problems, but I like to read stories about them. I think it's because their joys and problems are like anybody's except the opportunities, wealth, and glamour are bigger than average.

Back when I was young, the headlines were Liz and Eddie find true love. Liz and Dick find true love. Nothing much has changed for the stories. There were quite a few glossy movie star magazines back then, and I got to read them thanks to an aunt who passed them down. I didn't think nearly as highly of my mother's favorites-- Redbook and Good Housekeeping. Nope, for me it was seeing the stars on vacation, at a shimmering event, or catching a glimpse of some beauty kissing someone she wasn't supposed to through the grainy image of a telephoto lens where you had to take the photographer's word for who it was.

Now days the interest I have had in celebrity magazines is leaving me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I still enjoy the stories, the clothes, luxurious vacations, and seeing who is dating who and is she really having a baby-- even as I know the likelihood is if she is, the tabloid will be the last to know. But, I admit they are for me the same as junk food-- probably not good but something I have done anyway. There is the same mix of guilt for contributing to something that isn't healthy with the pleasure of doing it knowing I wasn't supposed to.

With the increasing aggressiveness of the paparazzi, I feel it's becoming more damaging, and I would be in favor of laws limiting access. Because someone is a celebrity or a political leader, does that make them suddenly fair game? I read there is a site on the internet where people can send in where they saw a celebrity for others to rush there. That becomes like hunting prey, doesn't it? If the laws are changed, readers would still have celebrity events; and the interviews when the celeb had a new product out. They know they need to advertise, but that advertisement should be limited to common decency.

And yes, I know, this is not exactly a weighty topic (think of it as summertime lite), but I am going to 'weigh' in on a couple of the stories. I hope Keith and Nicole have found lasting joy. Paul and Joanna did years ago. It could happen. Everybody likes a happy ending, but then I hoped Kenny and Renee would find that also. I think when Angelina says that she is putting her children first and that's why she's not marrying their father, whose leg is she pulling? And as for Britney, who did not expect a girl growing up as a child star would have problems figuring out how to live a balanced adult life? I have never watched The View, but was it good or bad to bounce Star from it? Hmmmm that about covers it... except will Kirstie really keep the weight off? Tune in next week.

(I did not ask permission from the Evening Grosbeaks for the above picture. From the looks and sounds of conflict at the feeder today, stars have nothing on them.)