questions where I don't have an answer

We've all seen them. They can be on street corners or in doorways. Sometimes they ask for money. Sometimes they just watch as we go by. Some seem unaware of what's around them. In the United States, when we are just leaving two major holidays, and in the cold season for most of the country, there have been multiple articles on our problem of growing homelessness. This is just one such article.

Death and a Dumpster

What do we do about this? It's not new, but it's growing more significant for multiple reasons. I've seen many articles in the last months. Most blame us as a people-- suggest it's a problem of corporate or personal greed. Is it?

Is this the fault of our culture and we are heartless? 

Is it a product of many who don't fit into a modern world where jobs, even service jobs, require some strength or skills? 

Have some chosen it as they don't want to follow rules? 

Is it mental illness? 

Is it an influx of those from other cultures where they don't know how to fit in ours-- or don't want to? 
How much is PTSD from wars?

How about believing society owes everyone a living and if they don't get it, it's society's fault--  hence the fault is someone else's? 

Would a reverse income tax, where money is transferred from those who work to those who do not-- would that fix it or make irresponsible living worse?

When is irresponsible living a product of an irresponsible society? 

These are only a few of the questions from both sides of our partisan and cultural divide. I can come up with more possibilities but the idea of someone dying in a dumpster to get food is heartbreaking to me. If the food was left on the streets, which evidently France has been requiring, will that lead to more rats or spoiled food that sickens someone leading to lawsuits? 

My concern on the homeless being allowed to live on the streets, defecate wherever they want is historical memories of cholera and other diseases that come from not having sanitary systems. When cities allow tent camps, who maintains safety and sanitation in those facilities-- or is it maintained? If food is left to rot, rats flourish leading to plague. Does anyone seriously believe people today are immune to plagues, when we return to practices that led to so many of them?

One town has threatened, with a criminal charge, a church for providing free, home-cooked meals for the homeless. The local government charges that it encourages them to be there. If not there, where?

When I am in large cities or even our local towns, I see the homeless, some on bicycles provided to help them get around. They often have packs with them-- or their bike is filled with stuff they have scavenged. Vividly, I remember some of my experiences where the people were clearly mentally ill or high on some drug. That usually is not threatening. I've had a few times where it was. 

What leads someone to end up like the man in the article? What can we do about it in a country that has considerable wealth-- but with a valid question to be asked: what really helps? Currently, many of our cities have decided the answer is to allow homeless camps. Those are not new for those of you too young to remember them. I recall going to my grandmother's home in Portland and seeing the fires from the encampment down along the rails in a nearby valley. Those were the years where the men rode the rails and their encampments were not downtown. Today it's different.

Despite what some might think, this is not a partisan issue. It's a cultural one. What can be done-- dumpsters with lighter tops allowing anyone in them to get out even if sick or weakened? Tiny homes with the hope that whoever lives in them will clean up their act, with a real address, and get work? Many things have been tried-- what works? The blame game does not if it's not accompanied by some real solutions. I don't have them. Do you?

It is random

by Rain Trueax

Something has been on my mind. We, in the United States and most of the developed nations, live in a safe period of history. If you look back at history, you see wars that swept across people's homelands, along with plagues and famines. Those could decimate whole populations. 

As mankind has learned more, diseases have been taken on, and in some cases conquered.  When I was a girl, my parents feared having us swim in some rivers because polio was a very real risk. Then came the Salk vaccine, and polio has been all but forgotten for what it once meant-- unless you have a family member who had been touched by it. Iron lungs, what do people today know of that horrid but lifesaving device?

who's behind it?

This next issue is one that has concerned me a LOT this year. It has not been in a debate and often someone who brings it up can find their post censored in comments. It's the issue of where we get our news-- television, cable, print, radio, and social media. It is where supposedly we get our information. Specifically, this is about news dissemination in the United States.

Before this election, I thought we had so many places to get news that we could always find both sides of an issue. I thought where some sites presented one perspective, there'd be another with another side. I thought news meant journalism.

That was naive taking into account the history of news where the media has often driven public opinion to suit its own agenda. Yellow journalism is a way to get attention by sensationalism-- often to distract from real purposes. An example is when the Hearst newspaper empire wanted the Spanish-American War and created headlines that stirred up the populace-- especially using a ship destroyed in an explosion. Remember the Maine! became the battle cry. Who cared what actually caused that explosion. It was how it could be used. 

Through time humans have been manipulated by those who supposedly give them the information they need for intelligent decision making. It probably was true in tribal living also. Today though, didn't many of us think we were beyond that, and both sides would be presented?

When Hillary Clinton ran against Bernie Sanders, the DNC wanted her, and they did what they could to make it happen. I get that. It's the establishment protecting itself. Someone else though worked on Hillary's behalf, while they barely covered Bernie's speeches or his large crowds. Media glossed over or ignored that she couldn't fill even a small auditorium. Where she got constant positive coverage, he was ignored. 

The fix had been in to such a level that the head of the DNC had to resign in the middle of the convention. She was immediately added to the Clinton campaign and will doubtless be rewarded in a Clinton administration. But whether we should trust a party to be fair, shouldn't we have been able to trust the media to cover the full story and let Americans know both sides? Well, whatever we should have expected, it was not what happened.

At the same time, we had Trump who proved to be a showy candidate in positive and negative ways. His large crowds excited interest, and he got more media coverage than the other Republican candidates-- much of it often negative, but coverage is coverage. But the media often twisted headlines to mislead as to what Trump had actually said. Sensationalism stirs people up. Yellow Journalism does sell papers-- but it also directs the reader/viewer to a desired conclusion.

Then came the conventions, and two major candidates were left. Coverage on the two minor candidates, who would appear on most ballots, was minimal to non-existent. They were forced out of the debates because the polls said they didn't have the requisite number of followers.

For someone like me, who is not a leftie or rightie, as a writer, observing what came next was interesting in terms of human nature. As a citizen, it left me cold. The media bias became so obvious that eventually they admitted they were trying to direct voters to vote for Clinton. Probably for a leftie this seemed good. Can we trust Americans to sift through all that is out there? Why don't we make it easy for them by only giving them what we consider good for them!  Someone had to stop a dangerous candidate. So the headlines became even more distorted, and the fear talk covered with more vigor.

Along came the hot mic video followed immediately by women who said yep, he did it to me. Salacious details followed, and they were covered without question. Where Bill Clinton had the same accusations against him, those women didn't make the mainstream media's news shows. There was no alleged in the Trump headlines. Even though these incidents happened twenty or more years ago, you'd think they were today. It allowed the 'press' to wallow in sensationalism as if it was news. Trump had made it easy for them with his loose, boorish talk on the video.

And that might even be fair-- except when Wikileaks brought out unflattering things about the Clintons, it was treated as stolen words and not worthy of even telling viewers or readers. If someone got all their news from mainstream media, they would be told it was all about Russia trying to sabotage our election. Don't confuse your little heads with trying to find out what had been in those emails. We'd tell you if it mattered... So they ignore the Enquirer story but if it was against Trump, we know they would not.

News media people not only donated to Clinton but also slanted their headlines to make Trump look even more dastardly. Now he does help them out with his loose talk and lack of focus, but even when he doesn't, they make those headlines look as bigoted, misogynist, etc. as they can. How many people bother to read the actual stories?

What's going on? We have a media that seems determined to only tell Americans what they think they should know. Often they go off on a story like kneeling for the Anthem to cover up other stories that might actually matter. I think they managed to divert attention to something like Benghazi when the real story of interest, in terms of a leader, is why the US became involved in the Libyan civil war, why the Obama administration, encouraged by Hillary as Secretary of State, backed rebels to destabilize a sovereign nation. Another question has been raised as to whether it involved guns to Syrian rebels that ended up in the hands of ISIS? Benghazi was a tragic event, but the whole issue of our involvement in Libya is a question of judgment, not bad luck. Sometimes it looks like Republicans also like to divert attention from the real issues, but should the media be helping either major party do this?

Mainstream media outlets have more or less ignored [Standing Rock and the Native American protests]. The few reporters who have tried to cover the story have been arrested and threatened with long jail sentences. On the other hand, the Malheur takeover got a lot of coverage. Anyone who thinks about it a bit can probably figure out why. The thing is for me it's led to less trust of the mainstream media.

There is an agenda in the news today, and it's not to tell us what happened. It's to indoctrinate and manipulate us to think what they want us to think. With major mergers like AT&T buying Time Warner, fewer and fewer people control not only the news but entertainment. Universities, through lucrative grants, are often indoctrinated also with the 'proper' view on like economics. Who is behind this? Not likely the Clintons, as they obey their masters, who pay them handsomely and remain in the shadows. Hillary didn't get paid those big bucks for speeches without some expectation of return.

The following is a thoughtful link on what has been stirred up; but unlike its author, I wouldn't blame this all on Trump. It's been here since Obama got elected-- and before. Media thrives on anger and fear. Never forget that when you give it time in your life. The problem is-- how do we keep track of what is actually happening and more importantly find out why?

this isn't going away  

What disturbs me is what can we do about it? It's not like we get to vote on fair and balanced news coverage. When the news says what we want to hear, is that all we care about? Just remember-- next time it might go against our interests (frankly, it already does) and we won't be so happy at the manipulation and limited coverage when it's our ox being gored.

 

when in a bad time

While thinking of toxicity, how can I ignore how toxic our political environment has become? I try to keep this blog positive but...

Here's one thing that has gotten to me, and it was true of Europe during the Brexit debate and then vote-- it's not enough to disagree what must be done. Today the person who disagrees with us must be attacked. The candidate we don't like must be made into a monster. This is true of both parties in the United States right now. 

If I said I was voting for either major candidate, there are places I would be attacked for my choice that meant I was a bad person or stupid. If i said I was voting third party, the attack would be that I secretly wanted A or B to win and that was really what I was doing by voting out of the system.

Here's the thing-- when the politics of personal destruction reach behind the candidates to the voters, it puts pressure on people to not discuss their opinions. When some issues are such hot button topics that to hear someone sees it differently, debate disappears into angry attacks. And these issues are on both sides of the political divide. Talk about gun control, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, racism, political correctness, environment, taxes, etc. and you can guarantee to infuriate somebody if you don't already know to whom you are talking totally agrees.

This isn't just going on in the US. I think it's worldwide. It certainly was true with Great Britain voting, narrowly, to leave the European Union. I got into it once by having posted something about it and ended up with someone from Norway and someone else from Netherlands furious at each other with one on one side and the other the other. 

I guess we are lucky that mostly our debates are being settled at the ballot box, but in reality are they settled or just going underground, like abscesses, to surface in different ways? Are some of the rage attacks we see actually the result of this anger where it cannot be expressed, the person doesn't see things going the way they want, and it pops up against someone innocent or a spouse or themselves even.

A friend asked what can we do to peacefully bring ourselves together, and she suggested some possible ways. The thing is I don't think we can bring ourselves together right now. We just don't agree on what that would mean, and we are stuck in a a win/lose time. That rarely bodes well for good feelings-- even when it's over and a victory has been declared -- even worse if it's declared with gloating. And I have no reason to not think gloating will be involved after watching the recent aftermath of the first Presidential debate where the victor very much gloated the next day. If that happens again, how will that make the losing side feel? Like compromising and getting along or more angry than the actual loss had left them?

This situation reminds me of a book I first read years ago. I still remind myself of its principles when I come up against a sticky situation. 

[The 7 Effective Habits of Highly Effective People]

One important one (for me) was to not allow things out of my control to become too important-- but a lot of what is going on right now is out of our control. Another was not to engage in situations that required a win/lose or lose/win outcome. The idea then was to not play-- except when it involves our nation, our culture, the future of our children and their children, how do we not play?

What comes next?

 Tomorrow Americans vote. Many of us, through early voting, absentee ballots or vote by mail, already have. It is an important right and should not be blocked by those who want only the 'worthy' to vote (which means voting their way) nor by laziness on the part of the voter. Be responsible and make a choice for the future of the country and yourself. Make your voice count with your vote!

When the election is over, the votes tallied, however it turns out, I will hope for the best as will most Americans. I think we are all sick of politics. It will, for me, lead to two different paths depending on who wins.

If Romney wins, I will be watching almost no news for awhile. I cannot stand the man; and it's not the issues that he's run on, which I disagree totally upon, it's his character. He's proven to be a liar (lie upon lie and 533 lies in 30 weeks most of which aren't about changing his mind but blatant, pathological lies), and I cannot stand liars. In my personal life if I find someone is a liar, I will not be a friend of theirs. How do you trust or count on anybody who routinely lies? What can you believe of their words? None-- even when they occasionally tell the truth.

The second reason I won't want to watch him take over the job as president or listen to the bitching from the left is that he's a hypocrite, and I really really cannot stand hypocrites. It kind of goes with lying, but it's not the same. The following is an example.

Romney has been instrumental in sending jobs overseas. The plant of Sensata, right now, has had its manufacturing equipment shipped to China, the workers (to keep working as long as possible) had to train their Chinese replacements. Those jobs will be totally gone from the United States. Bain Capital, the company Romney still has ownership in, is 51% owner of Sensata.

This kind of deal has happened over and over with Bain. It's how Romney made his fortune. Buy companies, successful ones often, keep them awhile. If they didn't send the jobs overseas for wages of $.50 an hour if that), they would bankrupt them to end benefits, pensions, and lower salaries here (most likely why Romney wanted the auto manufacturers to go bankrupt).

Here comes the hypocrisy-- wait for it!

On the campaign trail and in ads, he is trying to scare workers by saying Jeep is sending their jobs overseas and it's all Obama's fault. Romney would stop this evil practice of sending American jobs overseas.

The auto maker said it's not true. The facts say it's not true. Jeep is adding jobs in Ohio, but they are also starting a manufacturing plant in China.

If you are defending what Romney is now saying at the same time defending what Bain is doing, you are probably a rightie. If you cannot see Romney's total hypocrisy in what he's saying, you definitely are a rightie.

We are in a world economy and a lot of major corporations have manufacturing overseas. My son is frequently on a plane somewhere because of this. It's been going on a long while, and it's not all about lower wages (China probably is). Some of it relates to trading benefits.

Republicans have blocked any effort to make such corporations pay a tax penalty for those practices, but while Romney has and does profit from it, he would use it in the campaign. That is a special type of hypocrite-- not even subtle. Rather like that Republican Joe Walsh who would talk family values while he wasn't paying his overdue child support (for political gain, probably, he has since worked that out).  This kind of hypocrisy is counting on the voters they need to not care or be ignorant-- either way, they don't respect their own voters or anybody else.

Finally Romney is a conman. I have never liked conmen who try to sell me something that supposedly will give me a special deal, make me money, and all I have to do is trust them that they know how to make it work-- without the facts. I got fooled the last time by a conman when I was in my early 20s.

So if Romney wins, I plan to tune out politics and him until the midterms.

BUT if Obama wins, I cannot do that. I will have to pay attention and support his work, have his back (that does not mean writing much about it here as I have other plans for blogging) because I know that the Republicans will continue to do what they have been doing-- anything to damage this country with the hope of gaining power. I will need to sign petitions, continue to write letters and make sure I push Obama to do the things I believe are important. If the only voices Washington hears are of the tea party ilk, Obama won't be able to protect food stamps, education, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.-- even if he wants to do so. It's up to us to make him want to do so. There are ways to move toward balancing the budget without hurting the weak.

Right after this election comes the issue of the budget where the right wing are going to try to blackmail Obama into making the Bush tax cuts permanent for our wealthiest citizens. They will hold America hostage. They might do the same thing with Romney, but there they have a willing partner, who they know will sign any bill they want. Grover Norquist said as much.

Photo at the top is Farm Boss and me from November 1. He has been an integral part of writing this blog as I have him read them all. He gives me ideas and although the words are always mine, a lot of the ideas come from pillow talk as often as what I read. 

Incidentally, this week we saw a really funny film that, while crude and taking what happens to a ridiculous level, did nail a lot of what's going on politically. In some of the scenes, I hate to admit, I laughed harder than I have in weeks. IF you can take 'raw language,' etc, if you laugh at Monty Python, give it a try-- 'The Campaign' starring Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis. It is up to date with what's been happening, makes fun of Americans, politics, while it raises some important issues regarding our system. The Motch brothers (played wonderfully by Dan Ackroyd and John Lithgow) are not even subtle take offs on the billionaire exploiters out there today.

The film made a strong point-- we need honorable people to run for office-- right and left. What will it take to get them?

The changing nature of family

The link below interested me as it's the other side of something I have read more about-- unconventional living arrangements. By unconventional, I don't mean sexually but just not the norm of male-female living together. It is discussing a changing view of family.

With older people this co-op living has been seen more and more as the economic conditions in the country become more difficult. Sometimes the people are living in quarters someone else created and charged a fee for the help provided. Sometimes a group gathers together finding they can live better together than alone.

But to see it be four men not yet 40 who have done it for eighteen years, where none of the four are couples, well that's a bit different.

A cornucopia of bachelors

The benefits are emotional and economic.  Obviously they can live in better quarters by sharing them but there are emotional pluses. Wonder though what will happen if one falls in love and leaves home. Will they look for a fourth to fill out their budget needs?

It's not uncommon out where I live to see it be brothers or sisters who have just continued to live together. Or one child who stays with the parent both for economic reasons but also convenience and care. The reasons vary; but if it works, it's good and maybe more people need to consider optional living arrangements.

Does evil exist?

Once in awhile I feel I should repeat what should be obvious all the time with this blog-- it's about my opinion.  Regarding this particular issue, I am not a doctor, seminary graduate, or trained professional in the mental health field. I am also very open to others posting opinions that differ. 

Real discussions, when politely done, come out of such open discussions and differences as issues are explored from various angles. I mention this here because the following is one of the issues that can excite passion as it looks at religion as well as human behavior.

Does evil exist? If it does, how can we explain it?

You can find dictionary definitions to evil but they don't really explain the primal feeling that we experience at hearing the word. Maybe we cannot explain and because we cannot, many people want to say evil does not exist. They do not like to hear the word used. Some of that is because of how it has been misused in the past. Religions have jumped on the word as a way to attack anybody who is against their religion. Evil has justified more evil.

The thing is, for me, even knowing some would say I am being judgmental to use the word, there is no other way to explain certain actions. It's not hard to see how early man came up with mythical demons and why religions created a Satanic type figure. If we cannot understand how men can do evil things, then we have to make there be a reason. The Devil cuts it when looking at our fellow man does not.

Evil is there; and if we don't name it that, we call it something else. The thing is what explains it or can we? When something seems so bad, so feckless, so inhuman, so mean, so horrible, the usual words simply don't cut it.

Religions provided what mankind needed-- a personification of evil. Man needed it because frankly evil is out there and can be seen. What we see, we would like to understand and control. Christianity named it Satan and gave control of it to Jesus whose protection man could then utilize through prayer and proper living.

Because of religious misuse of the word evil for witch burnings and wars, many rebel at even hearing it. If something is defined as evil, what comes next?

Most recently we had an example of something I would call evil with the shootings in Colorado. It's not the first time I've seen such a tragic happening and won't be the last no matter what we do (if anything) about this one. Each time it is beyond understanding. Evil describes it, but doesn't fix it or even necessarily help us figure out why it happened as there can be many ingredients.

We see personifications of evil with serial killers also. It's when something is so bad that we simply cannot grasp how anyone could do it. The Holocaust certainly qualified to anyone willing to use the word.

So what happened in Colorado was simply evil in my mind. Plain out evil. But it's not that simple and never has been with evil as I don't think its source is always the same.

I think there is evil done by perfectly sane people. They are those who are sociopaths with no sense or rules nor compassion for others. It is all about what pleases them.

I also think sometimes it comes out of something else especially when it's a horrible act carried out by a young person, who is at the perfect age for the onset of schizophrenia, a little understood disease and one that often is hidden by those with it. Does it being named a disease mean there should be no consequences for the deed? Not in my mind.

[He's the Joker]
[shooter's life in Aurora]
[behavior spurs speculation] 

If you have had much experience with people who have schizophrenia, you know one thing, most don't want treatment. They hear voices. They see visions. They don't see the reality everybody else does, and as long as possible, they hide their own reality. If they are found out, they hate the medicines that can control it because of their side effects.

Some of them have a god complex and feel those visions (evil or benign) are a sign they are special. For many of the schizophrenics, who are not dangerous, it is difficult for family and friends, but it doesn't endanger anyone except maybe themselves. Those voices, those visions can be benign in a sense, but they can also make a normal life nearly impossible as the disease takes more and more control over their ability to function.

Do we, as a society, have to force them to take the medicines that will allow them to conform to our standards if they hurt nobody else? But what about when they have the potential to do just that? What about the 10% of schizophrenics where it can turn violent?  Is there a way to find the potentially dangerous ones, and then do something about it? When they do turn to bad, there is only one word that I can think of for what comes next-- evil.

We are already hearing from those who want to understand what happened using religious justifications. [Shooting result of ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs]  So no church goer ever has schizophrenia or does something evil? Surely he knows better but he's counting on votes from those who don't, I guess.  We also heard from the ones who say they were protected from the carnage by their god. Guess that means the ones who died were meant to die?

The guy who killed Trayvon Martin has now gone on an interview program to declare it was all god's plan. I am not sure how he meant that other than it would sound good to those who think like the paragraph above. I won't say that shooter in Florida was evil. He was certainly misguided and ruined his own life along with taking that of another's. I also believe serial killers and mass murderers can be not only evil but sane. They aren't all schizophrenic.

And whether the Colorado killer is schizophrenic, only experts can probably identify and with someone who knows a lot about the illness, faking it wouldn't be impossible. To me a dangerous schizophrenic, who has committed such an act, should never be out of prison regardless of the diagnosis. He could have gone to a doctor and been taking medicines to control the symptoms-- if he had chosen to do so.

So mentally ill or not, what do we do about evil? One thing is face up to the word. Another is be more proactive where it comes to mental illness. We don't deal with it. It's not evil to be mentally ill. It's evil what some might do without treatment. Certain religious sects would still call it possession by the devil.

Evil has been in mankind all along. It was feared in cultures like the Native Americans where they often banished or killed someone who was deranged. It is feared for good reason. But when we don't face it, we are not only dooming many innocents to face its wrath with no protection but also the one suffering from it when today there are drugs that can help control it before it goes "postal".

I know there is much fear of over-diagnosing, of looking over everyone's shoulders for some reason to lock them up. That concern has been with good reason too. But we are supposed to be a more advanced society and yet it looks as though we wait for it to strike and then it's too late for the victims.

Most of these mass murderers, not all, have been shown to be worrisome before the slaughter. In the case of this young man, he left his home zone. He kept to himself. He was hiding something because he didn't want to be found out. He was capable of plotting his massacre. Does he not have accountability even if he's proven to have that disease-- especially when he did know what it was.

Ronald Reagan, the prince of the right wing, had a lot to do with how we treat mental illness when he put so many out on the street. Our culture has put rules in place that even families can't react until something violent has happened. Religion also has accountability when it named it possession by the devil. Science has some answers but more could be done if we faced it as we do an illness like diabetes without judgment unless/until it commits an act that goes beyond the pale. When that happens, we lost. That doesn't mean we should quit trying to fix it before disaster strikes.

Before we can do something about a problem, we need to define it, try to understand it, name it. Being willing to call out evil when we see it is a start. If that word doesn't work for you, what does?

Pre-publish update: After I had written this, I came across an excellent piece on mental illness and why don't we do something before the shooting (or bombs or knives or...) starts. That's the question I am asking and frustratedly heard Chris Matthews try to justify not looking at people for this kind of problem as it would infringe on their freedoms. Seriously doesn't he get it that another life was lost that night in the theater and all the other times-- the killer's. We have to get more proactive on this in a positive and effective way.  Will we? I wish I believed we would. It's commonsense but frankly that's in short supply these days.

We stop the next Aurora with better mental health treatment

Drought and fires

If you don't think this map regarding drought is about global climate change, if you don't think mankind (in particular our nation) did anything to cause it, don't you at least think we oughta figure out what we can do about it for the people in the zones that are drying up and burning? Or would you rather wait until the people who used to live in those red zones move into the white ones? Is everybody really on their own according to right wing philosophy?

Has it occurred to the climate change deniers that they do need to grow food somewhere?  Manna does not fall from heaven these days. We buy it in stores or at markets. It has to be grown or produced on land last time I checked. The area worst hit by the drought has been considered our bread basket. That word give anybody a clue what is at stake?

Largest natural disaster in US history 

Wildfires and ranchers 

ranchers to sell herds to cut losses 

 Yes, it's bad that homes have burned with year after year of disastrous fires in one state after another, but there is more at stake and it's food production and likely, if the forests burn off, further climate change.

With people in charge of the US Government who don't believe in government, who are cutting programs left and right to get to a point where nobody has the expertise to even figure out what to do, what is their solution? Private enterprise? Those guys don't want to put out a dime right now as they wait to get rid of the president who might get in their way with regulations and while they donate heavily to usher in the one who has no intention of doing any such thing.

Here's the thing, the arguing over why this is happening, that is old news. I remember writing blogs about why it mattered in 2004 and it might've been too late even then. By now, this might be a direction that cannot be turned around even if the right admitted they had been wrong (not holding my breath on that one), but what do we do about it?

Somebody with the money of a Rush Limbaugh or a Mitt Romney, they can move where they want, where the weather is better if things turn dire in the United States. Now exactly where that might be is iffy. Europe might not have the heat but they are the ones predicted to get the mini-ice age (something that earth has done before). When humans had these things before in the world, millions died off from starvation. There are a LOT more of us now.

It seems to me (and has for a long time) that we ought to have a national plan. Even naysayers about carbon dioxide do know about the earth's history (I think). If there is a plan in place, I don't know what it is. From what I have read, we are seeing more government fire fighting ability cut back by the starve the beast mentality of the right.

Possibly this is just going to happen and it won't be pretty. Maybe government can't really help with natural disasters. Maybe it's only good for fighting wars overseas (Cheney thinks Romney is the only one running for president who is capable of dealing with foreign affairs. Cheney was so good at that himself.)

If a large population of people are forced to migrate from one zone where nothing can grow and the heat is such that they can't live, are other regions ready for that kind of migration? What about growing food?

You know plastic can only fix so much...

stay at home moms

1981 Betatakin in Arizona

In the nature of full disclosure regarding stay-at-home moms, an issue that arose in this campaign, I was one of those. I did it during an era when it was not much respected by the rising feminist movement, where they felt that only women with a career could use their full range of skills, be independent and have power.

I did it because I had a choice-- not because someone told me to do it. I had had a stay-at-home mom and liked the idea of being there for my kids. I did it because Farm Boss made a living such that my income was not required. Now I won't say it would not have bought extra luxuries for the family, but he and I talked about it that we had a good piece of the pie with the money he made. If I had taken a paying job, it'd have meant someone else wouldn't have it. Plus we both knew  I liked the freedom no job meant which is that I could be there always for the kids, I could pursue my own interests, and I always had plenty of them.

When I decided not to go to work when the kids left the home, I again had a choice. At that point I wrote (much as I do now) pretty much whole days. I was developing my skills as a writer and creating plots. I also sculpted and painted. I had the time to do research on anything that interested me-- leading to the fact that today, with Farm Boss all but retired from outside work (unlikely he'll ever totally be retired), my day isn't different than it ever was-- him around the farm or not.

Now I had no hired help during the years of child rearing. Babysitters only happened once in a great while. When we took a vacation, we all went. Once when our daughter was small, I hired a woman to do our ironing (remember the days when everything had to be ironed). It was quite a luxury, but I never did it again. Never have had professionals clean our home nor wash our windows nor do the gardening.

I stayed home by choice. No religion dictated it. No husband demanded-- or demanded the opposite way. It's not the case with many women. Some want the challenges of the career and nothing wrong with that. If someone doesn't feel fulfilled, they won't be happy. An unhappy person won't make anybody else happy either. Some women work because they are the only ones with a job, or both partners are underpaid or have jobs that aren't always steady.

There is a big difference in why a woman would decide to not work outside the home. There is a big difference in how she can use that time when she is freed from outside restraints. Staying at home doesn't mean lack of intelligence nor ambition. It might not mean a person is more capable of being self-motivated. Likely there are stay-at-home moms who sit in front of a TV all day. I just haven't known any. She or he (these days there are stay-at-home dads too) can be informed, stay productive and basically make from that freedom whatever she/he chooses.

I speak of my own history in the matter because it was another of those issues last week, you know the ones that don't matter compared to health care, tax rates, income inequality, legal system inequality, racism, gun laws, gas prices, abortion rights, contraceptive availability, equal pay for equal work, equality of marriage, and so forth. The dignity or not, of stay-at-home moms, of making a choice to stay home, became the topic of the week.

The party, which does not believe women have the emotional intelligence to decide on an abortion, should be protected from contraceptives, the ones they do not think deserve equal pay as a legal right, yes, that party got very sanctimonious as it jumped on Hilary Rosen's statement that Ann Romney had no right to talk about economic issues for women as she had never worked a day in her life.

Romney himself, of course, could not resist jumping on it, setting himself up once again as this holier than thou figure as he got up on the podium with that look on his face and said all moms work. He had a great time-- while forgetting in January he had said mothers on welfare need the dignity of outside work and should not be permitted to stay at home and care for two-year olds. That man needs a better memory or possibly should stick to the canned speeches his handlers write for him to avoid these things.

Oh how the words flowed as the pundits latched on as though finally something deep they could cover-- do Democrats disdain women who do not hold down outside jobs?

Ann Romney and other first ladies

Democrats tried to distance themselves from the kerfuffle. Rosen apologized. But Republicans all but rubbed their hands in glee as they found a possible way to divert from the accusations that they are engaging in a war on women.  If they aren't into an assault on women, I don't know what you'd call it. It really does seem to be that they want to take us back to the 1950s if not the 1450s.

This was handy for Romney who knows he has a gender gap problem. He's been trying to prove he'd be good to women because after all a rising tide carries all boats-- except of course, it doesn't as the Bush administration proved conclusively to all but strident Republicans.

On the stump, Romney began using a statistic that shows women lost the most jobs during Obama's time in office. He had his 'facts' and was jumping on them. The fact that he has said he loved firing people, did a lot of it when he took over companies, that won't be noted by the right wing but it should. Also that his statistic is meaningless as you have to look at the whole recession but hey numbers don't lie-- except when they do. [Geithner weighs in]

Republicans can say what they want, but for anybody who cares to note what they have actually done, it's pretty obvious that they are not the friend of women-- including those in the work place. They do not favor any laws to help women be sure they get equal pay. Their governors have immediately gone after abortion rights and even contraceptive availability. Their attacks on unions will injure all working people. If workers can't go as a group, as a single person, they have little bargaining power for working conditions or salaries. When you add in the Republican assault on public education, men and women will have a harder time breaking through class barriers.

Romney pretends to care about women's issues but when reporters asked, at one his campaign's own planned events on women's issues, his spokespeople didn't even know what he thought about the Lilly Ledbetter Act even though this was supposed to be a meeting about economics and women. When Romney himself weighed in, he said he would not try to repeal it. That pretty well says he would not have signed it. What is complicated about equal pay for equal work???

Republican Pete Hoekstra labels Ledbetter Act a nuisance -- Sure he does. He doesn't want women getting equal pay or when they discover they are not, being able to sue to receive compensation (the threat of that helping to discourage it even happening). Only if corporations are held accountable (by their own ethics or our collective power i.e. unions and government) will women get equal pay for the same job. This is complicated?

 Romney is a man who clearly says whatever the times require.  Here's what he said in January on mothers staying home to care for children if they are poor [Get to work and government pay for childcare to do it].

Mitt obviously has no moral compunction about lying because he thinks it's all about him and his higher goals. Listen to anything he says and you hear the same thing. Right now he pretends to care about women. His own history and that his policies would make job loss even more entrenched, says otherwise. His concern for the poor (which disproportionately are women and children) he himself stated was negligible as we already had programs for poverty (which he then says in speeches that he would eliminate if he gets the power to do so).

But the reason Hilary Rosen's statement took wings isn't just because of Republicans. Early feminists, generally Democrats, did show disdain for women who stayed home to raise children. However she meant it, Rosen said something a lot of them (excepting Betty Friedan) have said at one time or another. They frequently implied women who didn't work outside the home were leeches and not developing their full powers. They saw a woman working out of the home as the only way she could attain security.

Rosen wasn't so much saying it's not work to raise five boys (even with a multimillionaire as a husband), but instead that if a woman stays home, she won't have had the experiences of women who are trying to squeeze multitasking in a hundred ways into a set of hours every day.

Now there are reasons to question Ann Romney's ability to understand economic issues and how women are impacted by them. The first would be her privileged life in so far as money can make for privilege. Ann Romney had the choice to stay home (assuming her husband would have let her work outside). She didn't witness her children not having what others did because she was there.

She has not though led a totally protected life as in she has suffered big health issues with MS and breast cancer, but she has had the best care possible for fighting those-- something Mitt would deny poor or really any other women.

Interestingly Ann Romney did donate to Planned Parenthood at one time; so whether she's like Laura Bush with a mind of her own, I don't know. She might have her own ideas on a lot; but if so, they aren't drifting through the ether to her husband (unless he likewise has other ideas but is lying to the Republican party). To add to the questions about Mitt's positions, there are those among his advisers who say his own personal opinions differ from what he is saying to get elected evidently on pretty much everything-- hence the etch-a-sketch president.

Mitt Romney really is a pig in a poke as to what people will get if he attains the presidency. Is he trying to fool the right wing or the independents? I think his lying is one of the aspects that scares me most about his gaining the power of the presidency. Lots of presidents cannot do what they promised when they were candidates but some have a deliberate swindle in mind -- think compassionate conservative.

We aren't supposed to mention religion in considering who Ann Romney is, what her knowledge might be about economics, but she lives in a Mormon household, became Mormon to marry Mitt, and frankly Mormons are not exactly noted for their equality toward women. A Mormon man can rise to the level of a god. A Mormon woman could become a god's wife but that's about it. Only men can lead their religion or, as I understand it, even lead the wards or stakes. Their infallible-on-such-matters President did end polygamy but because of politics in the United States which was the same reason they ended the belief that blacks were the descendents of Cain and hence not eligible for godhood either.  Does Ann believe all a true-believing Mormon woman would, if so, she's got a male fixation on leadership (true of fundamentalists also, of course).

She is a wealthy woman with the ability to hire whatever help her husband permits or wishes. She doesn't experience what it's like for single moms or poor women and for her to imply or him to say that she can advise him on women's issues, is basically a good example of his cluelessness.

She is, as was Laura Bush, a very appealing woman and an asset to his campaign in that sense, but her understanding of what it would mean to poor women to eliminate Planned Parenthood (which he has said he would do-- if we can believe what he says), if she has an understanding of that, she's not permitted to speak out on it.

So, Democrats got some of this on them because of their own history where it came to denigrating women who did not work outside the home as though they weren't fully developed.

I think, based on my own experience, that women can be informed as stay-at-home moms, they can be developing skills that would be marketable should they need them. BUT the important thing here to remember is that Ann Romney, as did I, had a choice. I would add that women who raise children with a full time job or even career, can be fully engaged in our culture, know what's going on politically, be there for their kids. It's just harder.

Breaking it down

It was actually nice to give myself a self-decreed month off from publishing blogs; however, I knew I'd never take a month off from writing, which whether it's fiction, emails, journal entries, or essays on a topic, has been an ongoing part of who I am since I was old enough to record a few scribbled words. What I wanted was a time out from deciding if whatever I wrote mattered and even more important from debating it with someone else.

Then too, I wondered how much of what I do is influenced by keeping a blog? Do I sometimes do something just to share here? As I have said, I never have shared all of what is going on in my life (even though it might make a more interesting blog); but if I wasn't doing a blog, would it make a difference? (answer to that one after a month off-- not)

Sometimes when I am thinking deeply, working out an issue (especially about politics) I don't want someone else to come along and find fault with it right away or even agree, leaving me feeling I have now set my opinion in concrete.

Besides that, I wanted a break to decide if regular blogging was something I wanted to continue. Blogs are kind of like books except there is no The End. I wasn't planning to delete this blog whatever I decided but more maybe writing less frequently than I have been doing for quite awhile. (Still not sure on that one but once a week might work better if summer actually gets here anyway.)

Being honest, before I left, I was also irritated with the political atmosphere in this country-- lefties and righties equally but for different reasons. I was tired of rants even when they were my own.

I have always known I am not someone who fits into a neat box politically and what has been going on in the US has made me even more aware of that and with no apologies. I like how I think; but feeling as frustrated as I did, did I want to write about any of it. Does it really make a difference in anything we write here? I have a firm belief that anger and divisiveness are unhealthy; but so is avoiding important truths just because they're unpleasant. The challenge for me is in finding a balance between caring, expressing myself whether in a blog or to friends, and not letting it become consuming.

One early Tucson morning, I lay in bed thinking, which is my favorite way to wake, when I can take some time to mull over dreams, capture the thoughts from the night. I was also listening to the mourning doves. Do you know they sometimes make the same sound over and over? No difference. It can go on for hours especially in the early morning. There is no seeming attempt to share an idea but just that kuh kuh kuh-coo (sort of what it sounds like). Maybe they enjoy it just for the sound in their own ears. I've been hearing a lot of repetitive talk from the media with one difference. The dove sound is never aggressive. It can seem repetitive though if you don't like it. I do like it and always equate it with Tucson.

The coyotes, which that morning I was also hearing, appear to do more conversing which can sometimes reflect excitement, sometimes upset. One night when first here, I had been awakened with that startle response a person gets when something wakes them that doesn't fit. I think mothers learn that and never stop doing it but farm living can bring it on also. That night there were other coyotes yodeling. I think the sound, like a loud pained whimper that went on and then was repeated, came from a coyote but why? What did it communicate? I waited hoping to hear it again but it didn't repeat. Was something being killed? Maybe a young coyote being taught manners? It wasn't something I had heard before and I have heard a LOT of coyote yodels. While in Tucson, I can enjoy their conversations more than at home when I have to worry if they will try to get to the sheep.

With all the animal sounds outside, the cool desert air was coming in the open window like a caress from the desert to my bare skin. If you have ever lived through a desert summer, you know that early morning is a precious time. It will be the only cool air until the sun goes back down. I love Tucson summers with the way they regulate the rhythm of life.

It was then that an idea came to me that while not regularly publishing, I could write things much more freely. I would keep a journal that I could publish elsewhere for readers of the blog to access if they were interested. It would give me a month, almost, to decide if I wanted to share what I wrote; but I'd write whatever I felt without censoring myself-- well less censoring.

I figured there would be my thinking on politics, maybe links as I came across them. Later, after I had started on it, I saw a natural division would work better; and I'd do it in two parts. One would be all politics, what I felt about any particular issue. A lot of readers might not care what I think on something like immigration, the oil spill, the Kagan nomination, Obama, 'don't ask, don't tell,' or anything else. People wouldn't have to read the link.

The second part would be my daily life and what my time in Tucson was like on a more personal level. The second part would be where most Tucson photos would go. It would be stream of consciousness writing without deciding if this or that was important enough to blog about.

It might seem I write about just anything anyway but I don't. I always try to decide if something matters enough to take up a reader's time. For May I decided I wouldn't do that about politics or the journal. Someone would have to click on it. It didn't matter if it was important.

Doing my writing this way was better on many levels because I could always write on the laptop even if I couldn't get somewhere to post it. It gave me time to decide if I wanted to change something where I had come to a new insight-- at least new to me. This is especially true of politics where the more I write or think about something, the more my ideas crystallize.

So for those who want to know some of what my month of May was like, the breakdown follows.

Part I Politics

Part II Journal and Tucson photos

Photo above is our dining room table in Tucson. A table is a good place to sit and talk over the day or issues that have arisen. Out beyond, you see the desert, our Tucson backyard.

Theoretically this link, [Tucson in May] will take you to more photos if you aren't interested in words. I say theoretically because it worked, then it did not work; then it worked again. Try it and see what it does now!

freedom of speech referral

Please read Ronni Bennett's blog for today as she writes about a subject we all need to consider carefully regarding freedom of speech... or not-- Thought Crime Bill Passes House. She is writing about this-- HR 1955.

We are in a time where we need to think carefully about where we are going in the supposed name of safety. Read it and think. To me, it's a further example of how our Congress is in lockstep with the group who want to silence any dissent. This bill goes to the Senate next.

Where we are heading and is it where we want to see this country go all in the supposed name of taking away some other guy's right to speak his mind? Are the majority of Americans really this afraid? Bin Laden has achieved far more than he could have ever hoped through fear, not his 20 suicide terrorists. We have been doing it to ourselves or someone in our country has used it as a tool to do it to us. What is at the end of this road?

Yes, it sounds like the bill is all about violence, which is why it passed so overwhelmingly, but when it says ideological violence what does that actually mean? If this sounds alarmist, make sure you have thought through who will be in charge of determining what is meant by ideological violence.

Finding Love in Low Places

(Well actually it's not love, that those seeking sexual encounters in bathrooms are hoping to find, but if I use the other word, I'll end up with search engines directing all the wrong traffic here.)

What happened to Senator Larry Craig this summer, when he solicited a sexual encounter with a stranger in an airport bathroom, is more tragic than anything else. How very very sad that anyone, hetero or homosexual, would find such an encounter to be rewarding. Not only has he been forced to resign over it, but what could he possibly have gained if that had not been a police officer in the stall next to his?

It's possible he might just be a pervert, who gets off on humiliating himself and others, who wants sex with no emotional connection, and therefore stranger to stranger would be his choice anyway. That happens in homo and heterosexual people. But looking at his options, it's not hard to see how it is for people who fall on the other side of what the majority have deemed the 'right' side.

I'd love to blame Republicans for this, but I think a lot of Democrats have the same hang-ups. It's normal for most humans to desire the opposite sex; so there often has been little sympathy for those who were born with different desires. Not only no sympathy but no compassion with teeth. It's not enough for us to say too bad. What can we do about it?

My concern is when we attempt to deny homosexuals 'normal' outlets, acceptable relationships where they can be publicly who they are, when we say they are already evil, where is there to go except into perversion?

Homosexuals of strong dispositions (or with families who are ready to help them be whoever they are) will buck the tide and say tough, I am who I am and if I love Joe or Frank (for females Sally or Susie) that's my right. They will marry in whatever method they can find (at one time just a celebration with their families and friends, today in some states legal ways) and live responsible lives adopting children if they choose, having a family life such as the rest enjoy, and for those who are shocked or resentful, that's their problem! It's not how it works for all.

For weaker people, who have been taught from childhood that homosexuality is a sin, the very nature of who they are has just been condemned. They must hide their desires. They might marry someone appropriate, manage enough sex to have children even and sometimes eventually break out by leaving those families or getting involved with seedy sex which, for some, appears to be all that is left for them in society's self-righteous eyes.

I don't know that Craig would not have been a pervert whether society handled all of this more maturely and compassionately. Certainly Bill Clinton has been into perverted sex (or was) and he's no closet homosexual-- probably. But it seems to me society should do what it can to change the game for those who are born with different wiring from the majority.

I would have said that Craig was a hypocrite, but maybe he's not. Maybe he has come to believe that homosexuality is evil, that no homosexual relationship should be honored in a marital service. Maybe he believes in the conservative platform but just can't live it. How sad that such people have to hide and deny their reality, sometimes commit suicide because they can't live up to the standards of their culture.

My solution is allow all government contracts between sexual partners to be called civil contracts. Let churches separate out who they feel should have marriages before the god of their religion; and let the rest of us teach any children we might have that there are good ways to live no matter what gender we desire and airport sex isn't one of them-- even if we don't get arrested and charged with disorderly conduct!

(Photo from Eastern Oregon, in the heart of the John Day country. Life is a road, winding between mountains, into and out of valleys, and which we negotiate as best we can.)

Outside the box

Most likely everybody, by the time they get old, has some opinions regarding what are lessons they have learned along the way. Equally likely those opinions will differ for what those lessons have been. For me one of the big ones has been-- be flexible. Be open to what is different. Don't lock yourself into assuming that because things have been a certain way that it's how they must stay. This is true for religion, government, environment, and personal safety.

Being flexible means being willing to think outside the box because whatever we have learned is absolutely and totally true every single time-- might not be. None of us should waste time trying to defend assumptions that have ceased working. One of the problems with old age is sometimes people get set in their ways. It's always been this way and it always will. Well it hasn't always and it won't.

One of the assumptions that some have grown up believing is that the world is a safe place or can be made safe by enough police protection, military might, or prayer to their god. Was any generation really ever safe? Can they be made so no matter what some politician promises?

The reality is, for most of us, the world is safe-- right up until the moment it is not. Because we have lived in a world, which hands over power to someone else, police, military, firemen, elected officials, or even a god, we have often forgotten our own ability to defend ourselves. They are supposed to keep us safe except they can't always.

What brings these thoughts to my mind has not been politicians with their constant drumbeat of danger and how they alone can keep us safe, but instead a series of unrelated violent events, girls raped and murdered, random shootings, and most recently a home invasion in Connecticut where a family of four were brutalized.

The Connecticut family had every reason to feel safe in their home because of surrounding community and likely their experiences. They were four people who seemed to have it all-- physical beauty, loving relationships, brilliant minds, good hearts, and material blessings. They had it all right up until the moment two men, who had none of those things, invaded their home in the middle of the night eventually murdering the mother and two daughters, setting fire to the home in the hopes it would cover their tracks and kill the father.

When bad things happen, there is no time to train to survive. In all of the horrifying events on television and in the newspapers, life was peaceful until it was not. How many people are prepared for such a moment? If we have grown up believing people are inherently good, we probably have had a fairly sheltered life and in an attack or home invasion would be in for a brutal surprise. If we believe we'd rather die, than prepare for such an event or to even imagine it being possible, we just might. To have any chance of surviving in a disaster, we need back-up plans. We need to train ourselves to think out of the box.

Like most of us, I live with some assumptions. Life is good, but it comes with no guarantees. The one certainty is everything changes. Bad things happen to good people. I might do everything I know to do and still have something bad happen. I won't let crippling fear stop me from living fully. A .357 has good stopping power even if it doesn't kill with the first shot.

For people who don't like guns, the last statement in my string was out of place. Some, who are upset at the very idea of gun ownership, have asked me-- but could you kill another human being? If I did not know I could, I would not have a gun. Without one, I would hope pepper spray would be enough, which I sometimes carry hiking when I am where I know predators (of whatever species) could be. I have more confidence in the .357, but it's not possible to carry it everywhere although for many years I have had a concealed weapon permit. The class I took for my permit said shoot to kill, not to disarm or warn. Never bring out a gun if you don't mean it.

I am not advocating everyone get a personal gun or two or seven. If you are afraid of guns, they won't do you any good. They might not have even saved that family in Connecticut. What might have potentially saved more of them was thinking outside the box. What I am advocating is that everyone think ahead-- what would you do if-- because none of us have a guarantee that the next time it might not be us.

The following is not intended to find fault with what that mother did because none of us can judge someone in a situation like that, but rather to explore possible options when there seem to be none. What if when the mother was sent to the bank to get ransom, with one of the kidnappers along to guard her, she had refused to leave the bank? What if she had immediately told the teller what was happening, screamed for someone to get the police if the kidnapper had tried to drag her from the building. Even if he had killed her right there on the spot, her daughters might have had a chance to be saved. By those miscreants feeling they could get away with murder, they had more reason to try to cover their tracks and less reason to keep any of the family alive.

It's easy to see why we might go back-- fear and love for our family. But on what basis should we trust those, who have already shown themselves to be criminals? If, heaven forbid, violent perpetrators invade your life, don't ever count on their word. If there is anything at all for us to gain, from any of these heart-breaking events, it is wherever we go, whatever we do, whatever we hear, we need to be thinking what if-- not with fear but sober awareness. We need our own plan if something goes wrong. Even that might not save us, because as we have seen all too often, bad stuff does happen to good people-- but it gives us a chance.

A survival lesson for violent times like ours can be is live with assumptions, but always be ready to think outside the box.

Whose side is he on?

While I would like to let the immigration issue go, this just couldn't be ignored. Portland mayor objects to arresting illegals in sting. It's hard to understand how a man, who was at one time Portland's police chief, can not understand how if it was illegal for some to supply phony Social Security cards, it's also illegal for some to use them. What about illegal doesn't this man understand? We're just lucky he's not still head of Portland's police department...

Camile Paglia

One of my favorite commentators on anything is Camile Paglia. She's witty, educated, and covers everything from politics to pop culture. This Salon column, which happens to relate to recent topics here, is no exception: Don't run, Al. Don't.

For people who don't follow up on links, one particular quote from her column is simply too good to take the chance you might miss. It explains a lot of the problems today with both the right wing, who want simple answers for complex problems, and GW Bush, who prides himself in never going deep or bothering to get educated on anything-- including how to properly address the Pope. Good ol' gut instinct never let him down yet, dontcha know.

Camile Paglia wrote: "I winced when President Bush at a press conference last month said, in reference to terrorists wanting to harm us, "These are the words of al-Qaida themselves." Nearly six years after 9/11, is it possible that the commander in chief of the American military still doesn't understand the meaning of that Arabic phrase? "Al-Qaida" isn't plural, like "Boy Scouts" or "Rotarians"; it literally means "the foundation," a loose consortium of scattered cells (against which conventional warfare is helpless).

"The embarrassingly limited knowledge of the Middle East possessed by this administration when it recklessly launched the Iraq invasion will be the subject of endless future histories. The president naively relied on arrogant advisors with their own covert agendas, above all Vice President Dick Cheney, who despite his impaired health and recurrent medical emergencies, remains the obstinate mastermind of our continued, costly presence in Iraq. This administration has morphed into Salvador Dali's horrifying 1936 painting, "Soft Construction With Boiled Beans: Premonition of Civil War" -- a barbaric spectacle of rage, self-destruction and decay."

Immigration and the Rule of Law

Having written about immigration before, I won't go into all my previous thoughts on it. Anyone interested can go back to those earlier blogs, and I haven't changed my mind on any of it. What this is about is the 'current' supposedly compromise bill and two aspects-- the rush to vote and what amnesty says about the rule of law.

The rush to get this omnibus measure passed and signed into law reminds me of how the so-called Patriot Act was pushed through with those in Congress not even bothering to read it. The immigration bill is a thousand page document that the senators are making no pretense of having read nor are they planning to read nor understand all of what might be in it. From what I heard, they plan to limit debate and vote on it by the 25th.

It's beyond me to understand why they would rush through laws this important. Why they would say they don't have time to read the thousand pages of this bill? Do they trust those who wrote it that much? Bush is eager to sign it. Do they trust him that much? It's not like the legislators are good at writing bills that only relate to one topic. They shove all kinds of goodies, unrelated to the originals, into all that they do. What's in this one? Who will know? What will it actually cost? Do any of them care?

It reminds me of when a salesman comes to your house or some kind of con artist. You have to decide right now, today! This offer won't be available tomorrow. Only once was I duped by that, ordered a set of encyclopedias when there wasn't the money to pay for them other than time payments. The next morning we had buyer's remorse, called and cancelled the order. If there is any buyer's remorse with the legislature regarding this measure, there won't be any morning after to cancel it. If you think there will, think-- Patriot Act and Iraqi War.

I understand that many who favor amnesty do so for what they see as benevolent reasons. They say it's fair to those who came here for jobs-- and we all came here one way or another. The difference is when our families came, most anyway, they didn't break the law to do it. Today when people come up from Mexico or from countries all around the world, they are breaking our laws and soon may be about to be rewarded for doing so. How do we tell our children and grandchildren that laws have any meaning when they don't?

Hearing all of this reminds me of how I feel when I am in some cities and stand politely at a cross-walk waiting for the light to turn to walk while people rush past. I am sure many in other nations, who did obey our immigration laws, are feeling that way about now. Obeying laws is dated, passé not to mention stupid, and our Senate, President and probably House will soon vote to confirm that fact; and in their case, it's not based on benevolence but on whether it makes a profit.

Even the nice looking and usually fair sounding Democratic Senator from California, Diane Feinstein has shown that where it comes to money, laws are kind of just sort of maybe could be things. Committees, on which she chaired, as well as belonged, directed a billion dollars in no-bid contracts to companies her husband controlled -- Feinstein's Cardinal shenanigans. (I was given that link awhile back from Ingineer.) We should not be surprised when ethics are hard for Congress to figure out given the way so much in this country seems to be calculated by--can it make a profit? Okay, it's gotta be good.

In the case of allowing of 12 million (and that's just the start) illegals to become citizens eventually, does anyone really know what the financial impact will be? What happens if the borders are truly rushed by the millions around the world who would like the same deal? The true economic impact of this measure is unknown, but the legal and moral ones are pretty clear-- forget obeying laws and our borders mean nothing.

Congress and the President are saying, what they said in 1986 when under Reagan they did the same thing, we'll close the borders right after this. Yeah right. If we believe that, gullibility is indeed our middle name.

Please voice your opinion here on this; and however you believe, write your newspapers, call your senators. Demand they at least read the damned thing before they vote. Don't let this be another Patriot Act. This is a big change, and if it goes through, as seems likely, will we have any borders? Can a system of law and order work without any?

(This particular piece was only about the ramifications of amnesty and what it does to the rule of law in this country but there are a lot of articles out there about the ramifications of this on Mexican families who have already been here and have part of their family still there or have been sent back when they were caught. It's not simple. Because Americans have for so long been allowing this system so that they would get cheaper produce, hired help for their gardens, their homes, inexpensive service, this is the human side to what happens now. How do you fix something that should not have been started at all?)

War Drums

[When you are about to discuss something which you yourself have never experienced, other than through reading or pictures, it is good to start with words by someone who has.]

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Growing up as I did, right after WWII had ended, the question of whether war was ever needed was meaningless. Of course, it was needed. My uncles fought in WWII, the world was endangered by the aggression of Hitler. I was taught in school that other wars were also needed-- like the Revolutionary War, the Civil War. Movies, by cinematic heroes like John Wayne, illustrated how wars are heroic and a part of life which cannot be avoided. Some of those historic assessments have been adjusted as they are looked at from more distance; but still for many cultures, time after time, war is the seemingly best answer to many political problems.

Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic debate basically said war was not needed, that we could avoid all wars and should. No other Democrat on that stage would have dared say the same. Democrats are already thought to be the wimps who won't even defend themselves if a bully on the street knocks them down (let's not bother to check back in history to how many wars were begun under Democratic administrations. History is meaningless anyway, right?).

But what he said did make me consider this question again-- when is war justified? Is it ever needed? When, other than in self defense, is violence justified? Does it ever get the kind of results for which society hopes?

Human history is full of not only wars but violent means to attain political goals. Assassination, duels, wars have been part of the human arsenal of communication skills. When all else fails, blow them away with weapons as advanced as you can afford.

I was born during one war and have basically known five now-- WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, some smaller skirmishes, and whatever the name is for the one we are in today. I have believed sometimes war has to be but have likewise believed when we do enter into a war-- noble cause or not-- there will be a higher price extracted than the obvious one on the battlefields-- call it karma. This doesn't mean no war should ever be fought, but it means when it is, the price is higher than those involved might originally think.

This was reinforced for me when I watched a program on cable this week-- Outlaws of the Old West. Our desperadoes were trained and equipped with guns by the Civil War. Was the Civil War needed? Some say if there had been reasonable negotiations, it was not, that the cruel practice of slavery was dying out in the South due to economic and social changes and the war was really over state versus federal power. Oppression of one people by another is bad (what you sow, so shall you reap), but if the Civil War was needed to stop that practice, its impact didn't end at Appomattox. That war, which had the greatest loss of life for this country, might still be a factor in our violence today. Without any doubt, the Civil War armed our people in a way they had not been before-- did it also prep us?

What about the American Revolutionary War? Well Canada and other former British colonies won their freedom without going to war. I read recently that the war with Britain was desired for reasons about which the average person of the time had no clue. The tea tax only impacted the wealthiest who could afford the tea.

In history, over and over again, you see how humans get pushed and excited into going to war-- Remember the Maine! I realize sometimes things go so far that probably there is no choice, but too often has war been a first resort, not a last one.

I am not a pacifist. I did not believe in the current Iraqi war and the Vietnam war not because I believe you should never fight, but because I never heard any reasons for those wars that made sense. In Desert Storm, there was a genuine worldwide coalition with clear goals. When those were achieved, the war was ended. This time the current president has changed his reasons with the winds and kept the war going on longer than WWII with no end in sight as far as he's concerned. Fortunately for his popularity among his base, those who most believe in him have short memories and never draw conclusions based on history (apparently).

The so-called War on Terror has been misnamed all along, and many are now calling the name out for the lie it is. Terror is a brutal, cruel, political tactic. You can't fight a war against a tactic. You have to have an enemy, and the enemies in this case are Islamic extremists who don't mind murdering innocent people (including their own).

Thomas Friedman had an excellent column in the NY Times called The Hail Mary. In it, he spelled out what he felt Bush should say now, the gist of which was to get the Arab world to realize what is growing in their midst. The suicide bombers, are a threat to all of the civilized world. Terrorists are a group of people who are ruthless, must be hunted down, imprisoned or killed because their sickness spreads, and hatred of the United States has blinded many to the real danger.

Oops, I got distracted but any thoughts on this-- is war ever needed? If it is-- when? What price would you then be willing to pay or is your idea of a good war one that is fought at no personal cost and on television?

It seems appropriate to also end this with words of someone who knew something about fighting a war. A Republican no less--

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
Dwight D. Eisenhower