Dreams and Crumbs

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about the oath of office for a Senator?   

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

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

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

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.

 

Images... ?

 Image from my Stencil membership

Over my lifetime, whether on the television or theater, I think I've seen most John Wayne films. On DVD, we own quite a few, my favorites being Hondo and Red River. They have all the important ingredients for me-- love, discussions of the importance of honesty, courage, a clear depiction of the need sometimes to change, stirring soundtracks, big sky, desert landscapes, often humor; and of course, John Wayne as a powerful figure for right-- at least eventually.

 

Also, as did a lot of his films, there were strong female counter punchers to him (love that in the books I write also). Although today, there are some counter punchers to claim these were not good films, and he was not a good hero. 

 

The thing was in those films, you never had to worry if the good guy will win. Mostly when they are over, they leave the viewer a satisfied feeling. Did we think they really happened? Not likely. It's the emotional uplift that they provided versus too often a world without any feel good about what has happened-- no happily ever after or it all working out as we might wish.

There are also some problems with them if you look deeper. One is that we can mistake image for reality. John Wayne walked or rode onto the screen and instantly you knew he could not only be trusted to be who he said he was but that he could take care of whatever had gone wrong. Might take him some time, but he'd get you there. This is great for entertainment but what happens when you take it into real life?

Politically you can end up with the need for politicians to have an image that people vote for more than the actual person. Some is due to the need for instant sound bites and, at least these days, people's lack of patience with serious messages. We want to feel good and a lengthy discussion of policy isn't going to cut it. 

 

So, we can get a guy, who looks good in a tuxedo, can deliver a rousing speech, maybe written for him, but who cares. Maybe it's a woman in a designer suit, with a big smile, good makeup, and a promise of joy without much discussion of issues for either.

 

Or maybe the image wears a Stetson,  cowboy boots, buys himself a ranch, rides around in a pickup, cuts brush (never mind if it would've been better off not being cut), and you got a cowboy. It doesn't matter if he doesn't have a cow, has no idea which side of the horse to mount from. He presents the image, and what does cowboy mean to Americans?  To a lot of us, especially elders, it can mean John Wayne.

 

The John Wayne image worked, with his stories set in the West, righting wrongs, a code of ethics, a man of his word. Did the candidate with the image have any of those qualities? Most likely they don't have to have them. It's the illusion, male or female. Voters don't go deep enough in past records to find out if what is being presented is all image, that they may never have lived up to. Research and policy papers take too long and aren't fun. People, including reporters, get carried away with image. It satisfies something in us.

 

Images have long been with us, but are more easily portrayed with social media, which spreads those images. This one is ugly and fat. Even if they are not, the insults travel with them. That one is lovely and slickly dressed. Does that relate to anything but image?

Some politicians try to create an image that they don't really fit. They're a war hero, though maybe never in a war. That approach doesn't always lead to success with Americans if the real life doesn't fit it. But sometimes, connecting with these politicians seems to matter more with Americans than their actual policies. Would you like a beer with him or her, is the key and usually about an image.

This goes beyond politics to who we trust in our personal lives. A young woman goes to a bar, a guy has a square jaw, is cute, seems nice and she trusts him. What he truly is she has no idea as she barely knows him. It's all about image, and Ted Bundy projected a good looking guy until he got the girl in his power when what he truly was became obvious, and it was too late.

 

Another problem with images is when we get caught up in them for ourselves. Do we have to fit an image, created by the culture, that is not who we truly are? That can mean how we dress, wear our hair, jobs, hobbies, friends we choose, books we read, etc. Images might seem like a short cut, but are they to a real life?

Another problem with some of the John Wayne films (much as I love 'em) is that they too often present a simplistic solution to problems-- either a fistfight or guns (if it's an uppity lady, spanking will do). It is fun to watch those films, and I wait for the action like everybody else; but if we buy into that as a real solution, we will not only damage our personal lives (could end up in jail) but also get talked into wars that have no real purpose beyond looking like we are at least doing something.

 

As a writer, I come up against the image problem in writing my books. Did I buy into an image for the hero or heroine, which doesn't match real life? Most readers are looking for some escapism in the choices for books, but if a character comes across as cardboard, that doesn't satisfy the rest of their need in reading, which is inspiration.

What's the answer to the image thing where it comes to our lives, voting, choosing of partners? I think mainly it's recognizing image when we see it and understanding it is superficial and an illusion which may or may not have substance behind it. Real heroes and villains don't come so conveniently packaged.

Contingency Plan -- 3b

purchased from Canstock Images for inspiration and light

When I began this series, I had a list of issues I thought were important. There were more than I knew I could cover before the election, but covered as many as possible with simple essays. Since, I still believe I should go onto something new come November 9th (next Saturday's blog), it was time to stretch my thinking in a different way. I could pick one thing off the list, but...

• health care
• abortion
  
• taxes 
• voting IDs
  
• games/movies
• globalism-- one world government
  
• policing
• legal system
• economy
• divided country
•  environment 

Turned out, though the list still seems important, the new subject is not on it. It is inspired by what I've seen during the campaign through ads and speeches, but also what goes on in a culture as the elite side of a people, try to help the less elite do what is best... or is that what they're doing?

Before I start on the new subject, I want to say that I hope when the election is over we can let be whatever the result is and wait for the new leader to take office and begin to implement their ideas without the vitriol we've seen in recent times. 

I wish I felt more positive regarding that. Right now, I can't, not with all the venom out there, which I have personally run into-- fortunately, not here at the blog but in other social media. It is so important that we have a peaceful transition, as it was meant to be but hasn't always been. 

Having read/heard that one side and then another plans an insurrection if they lose, it looks as though violence is being plotted if loss happens. Some believe that was what the January 6th riot was. I do not think it had enough organization or smarts behind it for it to be more than a riot, which we had seen in cities across the country-- always when something dissatisfied the rioters. If though, a well-planned insurrection happened, could it work? I sure hope not. Even if it helped your side take power, how could that be good for a Constitutional government? Answer-- it could not.

Ranch Boss and I voted already, as Oregon is vote by mail; and in our case, we needed an absentee ballot for being in Arizona for the coming winter. I can't say we were happy with all our choices for ballot measures or candidates. We did the best we could for what we hope will be good for the state, country, and the world. 

It won't be easy, for either side, to not be upset if it goes against how we thought best; but it's the only real hope to continue to live a good life as well as for the community, finding any sort of unification. I don't want to be a hater for the next four years. Life is too sweet to ruin it for something we hurt ourselves more than others. If, we support a well-organized coup, those who take power will run things-- not the voters. Do we like that idea?

Some seem to be calling for a civil war. I have to think they've had no real experience with violence in their own life. Nobody should want a civil war, but instead work harder next time what they regard as a fairer result.

The subject for today, indoctrination, is important for voting wisely-- not only here but around the world as many have or will vote this year on possible change. Do we understand what change will mean? Who will tell us?

Indoctrination can happen not just with elections. Based on the dictionary, it means when an idea or belief is repeated so often it is accepted without questioning. Basically, it becomes dogma at a certain point.

When we look at history, we see what has been declared can be true or a lie-- like the earth is flat. It can lead to freedom or slavery. No one votes to become a slave, but they might give up freedoms when they don't realize it is at stake. 

We come into a season, like the US has just been having, with our own prejudices and opinions. Then, when we see an ad that fits that, watch out that we don't let it swamp any sense of reasoning we might have.

Indoctrination, which can also be called propaganda, is repeated again and again on Social Media, including sites like this one-- though I try hard not to do that. So what is a reader to do? Use discernment and even though we may want to believe an ad, still check it for truth in the supposed logic being used. 

As an example, I will use one of the more controversial issues remaining on the above list-- abortion. The ads I've seen the most frequently are on the side of protecting a legal right to abortion. The subject is emotional and very open to rage on either side. It also involves more than candidates but also ballot measures.

My problem with what I consider questionable logic is when it refers to the argument that the woman has a right to an abortion since it is her body. Yes, it's her body, but once pregnant, another body is also involved. Very tiny to begin, but it's growing and impacting the parent body. It has its own DNA, bones and organs. Does that mean she has no right to what is best for her body? I am not saying she doesn't, but that's the question, not that its our body.

Ads have argued that no man has a right to say what a woman should do where it comes to abortion. This is trying to create division and anger between the sexes.

 The other main point that ads and some politicians make is that the government has no right to impact the woman's body. Here's the problem there-- the government already impacts her body with requiring a helmet when on a motorcycle. It impacts what drugs a doctor can prescribe for her. If she has children, the government can impact her choices after they are born; and it does through social services if they are called in.

What I believe is we have to accept responsibility for making a choice to end an otherwise growing life. I don't consider it murder given the complexity, but I do feel we need to consider what we are doing. We might want to maintain the legal right, which, to me, is logical. But, be honest and not deceptive even to ourselves as to what's going on.

Now, I personally believe in early choice to have an abortion. Later, say after 15 weeks, a doctor should be the one determining the baby is nonviable, say its brain is no longer functioning. If the baby won't survive out of the womb and the mother would likely die, abortion seems a logical option. For many, opposed to all abortions, the arguments are more religious than biological.

Indoctrination does not just involve elections. Sometimes the laws are changed due to things we are told but are not necessarily proven.  When facing indoctrination, people need to think deeply and beyond emotional responses. Dogma can be very powerful.

How do we figure out for ourselves what is wise? It might be by personal experience. Today with Artificial Intelligence, we might believe something that never happened. Remember the old joke. Who you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes? Not so easy to determine right now where speeches can be created for someone who never said them.

There are many issues that we believe because of what we were told. To reach a point of questioning it all can lead to total chaos. On the other hand, to question can lead to wise choices if we look for facts.

Where it comes to indoctrination, I could list a lot more things, where I might agree or disagree with the popular stance, things I've been led to believe or don't, but I feel that's for each person to look at for themselves, as I have for myself once I felt it was okay to question. There are those who tell us to question nothing as it's ignorant or wrong. I was told all my life I question too much. Maybe so, but it's how I am and not likely to change now...

Next week this blog will move from political issues and hopefully something that will lead to more creativity and even joy. Our election will be over (although perhaps still counting or in the courts to determine winners depending on how close) with no discussions here about the results. 

The whining will likely increase, based on what I've seen so far. Will we turn to that and let it ruin our lives or find new things to inspire us? The main thing is, when we have the option, vote, wait for the outcome, then whatever happened. don't be a bemoaner-- that accomplishes nothing except angst or anger. I've voted where I lost and other times where I won for what I had hoped. Sometimes winning didn't turn out as I had hoped either. Life went on either way.

That's What It Takes

 warning: spider image ahead and if you have a phobia about them, you might want to skip the picture. We like them, try to protect them as much as we can-- outside, of course *s*

With the election less than a month away, only four topics are left in this series. There are more remaining issues I find important and am torn on which ones to look at with some research and my own insights garnered over 81 years. Yep, I am a Libra and just had that birthday. 

For us, it has been a busy month what with getting a new cat from the cat shelter, who has the energy of a kitten even if she's not. Her rambunctiousness is on and then abruptly off. It has been a long time since we've had a kitten. Being an old woman, I appreciate her level of energy even though it's been a while since I had anything like it. A long while. 

Fortunately,  Raven and Babe adapted to Luna after a week, with only an occasional hiss, growl,and swat-- from all three sides. We knew it would liven things up, and it sure did. When she decided to play with a female tarantula in the cat yard, we figured this was just a kitten thing and she'd grow out of it... *fingers crossed* 

Lady tarantula was relocated amidst some Mesquite trees (lucky we bought an insect net some years back). Hopefully she will lay many eggs-- not in our patio area though. *s* The one we saw earlier was all black and smaller, which they say fits the males. This female could be as old as 30. That would be quite cool if she's been around longer than us.

 

So, back to my topics. Too bad more of you don't comment as you could tell me if one of the issues on my list would be of interest to you. They are all interesting to me, but some are more dicey to cover. I naturally have opinions, but am not out in the world enough to know more than what I read, have experienced and hear-- hopefully from reputable sources. So, I'll jump on one of the dicey ones and give it my best shot.

We still have one grandson in public school. The other grandchildren have gone on various paths. The one in school doesn't talk to me much about his classes; so, that all makes me more than a few years from having personal info in public school.

My own education involved high school and missing one term of a teaching degree (unfortunately student teaching ) due to some lifestyle choices, which means no piece of paper. I don't regret that lack, but I did get a lot of education courses before we took a turn south and lived in Arizona for a year. Still, they were then, even my children's, and this is now

In case you didn't notice, those three paragraphs were disclaimers... lol. To be honest, I am apprehensive to take on the education system in the US. I have many friends and relatives that are or were teachers. I do understand how the system works in the sense that they are given a curriculum to teach, and it may not always be what they would have done had they the free choice that was true in the long ago.

Here goes and repeating that these are my ideas based on the experiences of an old woman. Many feel old people don't understand the new world cultures being entered. Maybe they need to consider the advantages in the educational one our country left. Before leaving something of possible value, it  should be evaluated.

Starting with home economic and shop classes. I don't recall how many years we took of each, but in my home ec, I learned the basics of sewing a skirt, using a pattern, putting in a zipper, and a home budget. Then we learned the basics of cooking. It was all girls back then as the boys took shop, which meant learning how to draw plans and make things with raw materials like wood or metal. 

Both skills are useful in life. For years, I made all our family's clothing and loved doing it. My brother said he learned to weld in shop and used it later in his work. i suppose this was dropped due to a feeling it was sexist. Easy fix, let boys and girls choose which classes they wanted. Boys benefit from knowing how to cook and girls could find it handy to know how to use a hammer or saw. We are all different in what we enjoy. The big thing is these are survival skills.

I also had the option (and suspect that most kids do today) to take some work oriented classes. As in for me, it was shorthand, typing, and then working in an office, which in my case was secretary for our head health teacher.

Now we get to one of the main things inspiring me to choose education as a topic. Atlantic magazine had a piece from someone researching how college literature teachers in the US felt about the students they get. One after another said that today's students cannot read a whole book, especially not complex novels of the past. One professor said not even a full sonnet. They are not getting students out of high school, even the top ones in top universities, who are prepared for complex thinking. The students have told their profs that they can't accept an entire book as an assignment. It's too much work with all they have going.

So, what's causing this? One prof guessed smart phones and short bits of information. Whatever the case, high schools are not challenging these kids. Now, when I was in high school. the literature class not only involved Moby Dick, but also complex sonnets and other short stories by classic authors to discuss. We didn't get to say we couldn't. It meant a grade. Do kids run the classes now?

I saw a sign of what might have been to come in my daughter's grade school class, maybe second. The kids were hanging out the windows, totally acting uncivilly. The teacher told me my daughter was so refreshing. I replied, Not really. She's just doing what she should do.  Somewhere teachers apparently lost control, and I don''t know why but have some ideas, which I won't go into, but you might consider your own.

Finally, we have the math and science classes-- if they still exist. I read one education theory that math isn't fair to minorities as they can't do it. From where did that dumb idea come (yes, I call it dumb or ignorant. My husband worked with minorities many times as an engineer. They are as sharp as anybody if they had a natural aptitude or been encouraged and feel the teacher has faith in them. 

Schools are the foundation of a wise society-- or better be.

What I seem to see now are students spending more time being taught how they should think as in politically. Instead of classes in literature, mathematics, algebra, science for the basic facts, it looks as though they are being taught an agenda that maybe was handed to the teacher by school boards or curriculum committees. 

Over and over I hear today's young people aren't willing to work hard. especially GenZs. Was that parents or our system? Maybe, games, entertainment? I don't know, but it does not bode well for the future if this continues, as a people who do not know how to work will fail. The idea it can be handed to us comes to an end when nobody is there doing the work

You know, we used to be encouraged by what came before us. My age group grew up with parents and grandparents that lived through the Great Depression. They not only knew how to work hard, but taught their children as they feared the results for our personal lives if we could not.   

We need teachers like that. There's one thing it takes to teach children where it didn't come easily to them. Believe in us and we will move whatever necessary to make it happen.  

 Encouragement doesn't mean phony praise. It means helping someone go in a direction they were headed and succeed. It means making something more likely to happen. I don't believe in no grades. Grades are something to work for because they mean something was accomplished. To deny them because one isn't willing to work for them helps nobody.

Our daughter was brilliant in reading but where it came to math, she was in a remedial class. The school actually asked us if that was okay. Are you kidding! We were delighted as it gave her the chance to get past her math barrier. I remember asking her what is 1 + 1 and she would panic. So, if kids don't find a subject in their sphere, get them extra help. It  moves mountains.

I don't blame the teachers for the current failure of the educational system. They have to also be encouraged and given the basic materials with which to work. I had some great teachers in high school and college-- but also know what it was like when a teacher didn't believe in me. 

When we don't have a good teacher, then challenge ourselves. I did that when toward the end of high school, I wanted to read all the classics of literature. I'd take an author like John Steinbeck and read every book they wrote. Libraries were my hunting ground. I had started in the toddler's room, moved down to the children's, and then to the adult's. Each one challenged me in its time.

I want to add that what I just said about being able to work hard does not mean liberal or conservative. I know both sides that work very hard. It's the attitude within the parties that might change that work attitude.

We can challenge ourselves; and if we want to have the ability to apply philosophy, logic, and then vote with wisdom, we better learn! The world is full of lies. Short bits are not much oriented toward building a solid base for a life or a culture.

 

photo from Stencil

 

Something to Think About

 

Thinking what might lead to violent actions, involves a lot of possibilities and differences of opinion. Maybe it takes a combination of things that come together in one, weapon-toting individual, who generally is male when it involves hurting more than one person and generally random strangers.

There are seven Saturdays, counting this one, before the election for President of the United States. Below, I have issues, some could impact violence. Many don't seem they could as I thought on them. All impact quality of life one way or the other, which might be a factor in violence. Obviously, I won't be touching on all of them. You might look at the list and see which matter the most to you.

I will share no thoughts on personalities of the candidates or who to vote for, because I feel issues are where we need to concentrate. So many say they'll vote for this or that one, but have no idea what they will actually do in supposedly forming a perfect nation (which we know won't happen as nations are made up of imperfect humans--well, maybe a few perfect but I've yet to meet that one).

Because this blog has readers from around the world, I will try to choose topics that could apply anywhere.

After the election for a long time, no more politics, no matter who wins. I do not want to be one of those who lives on hate. I will hope that whoever wins, it will be good for the country. and the world.

Some of the issues listed can lead to increasing/decreasing violence. Some might join together in a blog. I think all have varying levels of importance to voters and life.

• climate change
• mental illness
• health care
• abortion
  
• taxes 
• voting IDs
  
• educational system
• socialism/capitalism/communism
  
• poverty
• games/movies
• globalism-- one world government
  
• news media
• policing
• legal system
• immigration
• economy
• divided country
• environment
  
• guns. 

None of those are easy to break down and discuss, but I'm going to start with the last one: guns. In my country, that involves a Constitutional Amendment, which was ratified along with others in the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Second Amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Rather than go into our history with regulations, state and court opinions, I give you a link to a pretty extensive look at it on Wikipedia. Some don't like it; but this time, it seemed to give a lot of validated information. Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

Okay, now for how guns relate to violence or they don't. They have been used in most mass killings. The ones used tend to look like military weapons as they can fire multiple rounds without cocking. None are fully automatic rifles unless they have been modified (finger on trigger keeps it shooting) as those are illegal in the US for ownership by citizens.

For 2024 statistics, 527 people have been killed in such shootings.1,755 have been wounded in 432 shootings. Victims have been all ages but many have been in schools and children. Some of the shootings are gang related. A few involve someone the perpetrator wanted to kill with innocent bystanders caught in the action. Of course, there are also those who use their guns, or other weapons to kill one person, most often a family member or ex-partner.

Some of the shooters should not have been allowed to buy any guns, if background checks meant what they should. Some of the shooters got their guns through family members and some of those enablers are being charged also-- as they should be, (In my opinion).  There is also the black market and the most recent attempted assassin, evidently got his from the mail (from another country)-- neither of which are legal, but if you want to kill, legal doesn't matter to you.

Background checks have been resisted by some of the most ardent pro-gun people who have a strong need for guns to protect themselves and others. Some even believe they might be needed against an out of control government.

The argument against confiscating all guns comes down to ... the real outlaws will never turn theirs over. There is also fear that signing anything admitting to having a gun can end up with confiscations as has happened in other countries. 

There are those on the anti-gun side who want all guns taken by the government. The problem with that reasoning is knives, machetes, bombs and even vehicles can be used to kill by those with warped thinking. What stops them?

To me, fear and hate are the main reasons why the gun situation is never settled.

Now, about my own beliefs where it comes to guns. I believe in the ownership but not of guns only meant for killing people, like the AK /AR types. But, watch how that gets defined as the 22 Mag that I use when at the farm allows me to shoot as fast as I can pull the trigger  to protect our sheep from marauding coyotes, yes, they do kill sheep when they can.

I would be fine with no more AK 47s or AR 15s in this country, but they are in so many hands that I am not sure it's possible. I also believe in background checks that should involve animal or human abusers, red-flag laws. The issue is making the background check work. Many gun owners would have no problem with that.

The Christmas when I had turned 12, I got my first .22 rifle. I asked for it since our sheep were having their guts ripped out by the neighbors' dogs,  that were allowed to run free. 

One of the main memories I have is walking with my .22 to the back of our property, hoping I'd see those German Shepherds when the sheep were out grazing. I was by myself, trilliums were blooming on the side hill and no people or dogs were to be seen. No black bears either, as they did also patrol our property. I felt no fear because of that gun. To kill a bear with it would require a perfect shot, but I wasn't worried.

I still have that gun and now there are a lot more in our home of various types, but no AK47s or AR15s. We have no need for them. I do though have a loaded handgun within reach if someone broke into the house and didn't immediately leave. I can only imagine shooting in self-defense, which is how I consider the times I shot at a coyote to get it to leave our sheep alone.

I don't hunt, never have. Ranch Boss used to but hasn't for years. For us, guns are for self-defense or fun target practice. I believe in gun ownership. I also believe in gun safes, which we also have for storing guns we don't need handy for use. I also don't keep my finger on the trigger until I am ready to fire it. More than a few have shot themselves by making that mistake.

Knowing my revolver was handy was why I didn't fear being by myself when Ranch Boss was on business trips. Because  we learned when we moved here that there had been two women shot at a business and a woman raped not that far from our Arizona home, I could have been afraid with good reason. 

Some think they'd never need a gun for protection. I hope for their sake they are right. So far, I never have, but it's given me security many times over many years just to know it's there. As for shooting someone innocent, if they broke into my house, they are not innocent by definition. And, outside the house, I'd never shoot anyone. They would have to show themselves a danger.

To have a gun means you should be trained to use it. For those afraid of guns, don't get one. Be a good shot when you do have one and only use it when needed. Do NOT point a gun at anyone unless you know you could pull the trigger if they approached closer.

For me, gun ownership is an important issue when I vote. Not the only one, but important. Oh and photos here are at our Oregon farm and in 2004 (I think lol) with same .22 that I got when I was twelve. Fortunately, Ranch Boss is good at gun repair and has kept it in great shape.

Violence -- a political issue?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did we listen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dreams: Visions and Reality

 

Photo from Montana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.