Chaos is an answer to what?

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is mental illness?

 When we hear about mass killings, the next we hear is it has to be mental illness. It must be someone insane. I think that's at least partly because we can't imagine anyone doing such a thing, who was totally sane. 

When I began to think about how mental illness impacts violence, I thought somewhat the same. Until, I researched technical papers that said of all the mass killings in our country (numbers in last blog), only 25% are linked to a past clinical diagnosis of mental illness. 

That led to another question for me. If that is the case, what is mental illness? Well, according to these articles, it's schizophrenia, bipolar disease, major depression, and assorted other things that impact quality of life. 

Of course, even with the numbers being 25%, how did they get their hands on mass assault weapons when buying guns requires background checks? Well, the issue anyway, with such a diagnosis-- most people with mental illness are not violent. One article claimed that in 2020, 20% of Americans have been clinically claimed to fall into one of those categories. Obviously, 20% of Americans are not committing violent crimes.

The other thing about 'legit' mental illnesses is that you don't get off anyway, if you get violent. It takes being insane, which means the perpetrator does not know what they did is wrong, hence does not fear getting caught. That does happen, but we can see from what we read that it's not the norm with mass killings. Many of them kill themselves when it's obvious they can't kill more innocents.

The desire to commit suicide fits what another article I read claimed as the main reason for mass shootings-- either by their own hand or that of the authorities. 

I don't actually buy into that theory as the main reason for their violent acts. I think other things fit the reason better.

So, if not certifiable mental illness or desire to commit suicide, how come so many instances of violence? What leads someone to commit a violent act, whether a mass killing or of family members or loved ones?

The next reasons given are what I group as behavioral: nihilism, emptiness, anger, noteriety. We have to find that based on social media postings, friends, or families because as soon as someone is charged, defense lawyers get into the picture and make it difficult to question the assailants, assuming they survived. This is supposedly about them not incriminating themselves, the Miranda Act, but come on-- many of them have been clearly identified by survivors or photos. To me, this becomes a sad act that prevents a culture from more clearly understanding why these tragedies happen. (Obviously, I am no lawyer; so this is my view as a citizen, you know what we used to call commonsense.)

Looking at the possible behavioral reasons, I will start with nihilism, which means life has no meaning. What the heck leads someone to feel that way at an age old enough to commit these massive crimes? Is it in the family? how about the community? Schools? Media? Or if they are middle-aged, what in their life had led to that feeling of emptiness?

In my personal life, I have no experiences that would have led to a feeling of hopelessness. Was that because I grew up on a farm, where you sure see a lot of death and suffering but you adjust to it. Life has tough
elements but hard work is what you have to use to get through bad times. I learned that from my parents, who both outworked me and never let me make an excuse.

Same thing with school for me. I got good grades but because I worked for them. I began first grade in a two room school with no buses to deliver us. That meant, I walked a mile and a half since my mom did not drive, and dad worked nights into mornings.  The walk from the school went past some homes, a dairy, then open farm land, timber and eventually through more timber to get to the top of our hill and my home.

For the first grade, I read all the second grade work before our district consolidated and there was a bus with a bigger school. I had to redo all that second grade work as the bigger school had no ability to skip ahead with the work. I have heard of kids who feel bored with their school work. Maybe the farm life helped, with just going through it.

So, I have no experience to know  about a feeling of nihilism, even though I grew up during the Cold War where my bigger school had 'bomb shelters' to go to in case of a nuclear attack. Seriously, that's what we were told lol

Again, back to that feeling of emptiness where I just can't get what would cause that or anger for that matter. I had some things happen that could have made me mad, but I just took it, felt disappointed but can't remember being mad at the one who caused the hurt. 

As for social media, again no experience at all. We only got a TV, black & white with one channel, when I was already in school. Not a lot there to entertain kids, not yet anyway.

And, where it comes to wanting noteriety. Heaven forbid. I am an introvert, which means not wanting too much attention. Stay in the middle worked for me, then and now. 

Was I lucky when I grew up? I have often thought so. I think today's kids grow up with a lot more awareness of what can go wrong... maybe. I did read though that most mass shootings aren't kids but middle aged men. What went wrong for them? What can we as a culture do about it before it happens and innocents pay the price?

Blaming someone else for everything that goes wrong doesn't seem like a good way to grow up. Are schools doing too much of that, some schools anyway, and not enough of the basics, like reading, writing, mathematics, history, and once upon a time how to cook and sew for girls and do wood and metal work for boys. Maybe too sexist for today's world? Well, let the kids choose whether they want home skills or shop abilities. Why not?

Somewhere, we need to let kids find a sense of accomplishment and purpose, ones that let them feel proud of real skills, ones that make their world and the ones around them better-- and that means middle-aged men who are still blaming others for what they must find in their own ability to turn it around when they work for something that can make them feel fulfilled, instead of blaming someone else whether someone they think let them down or a stranger.

For those wanting noteriety, how about less publicity for the killers? No photos (unless they are needed for a capture) and minimal information; it's not a lot. A concept that fame comes with doing an evil act has to be knocked down. 

I realize that's no real answer probably but it's all I've got. Does working for what you want seem too simplistic?. You might be surprised how that turns out. Also FBI needs to take more seriously tips, for which, they request and then we are told they sometimes ignore. We need a place for those who are threatening-- before they do it. Try to turn their thinking around. It wouldn't hurt if we stopped admiring old time outlaws as if we don't want modern ones, why act like the old time ones are kind of heroes.

Okay, why the cat pictures. Because, this week, literally last Saturday, we adopted a shelter cat. We had two cats after having lost one a year and a half ago; we decided it was time for us to expand our fur family. The two cats haven't agreed. They are adjusting, as is Luna, a tuxedo cat, our new addition. We hadn't intended to get another black cat, well, Luna is a tuxedo but mostly black. We fell in love :). Hopefully the other two also do, eventually. Last Saturday was not fun for us or the cats. lol

I thought pictures of cats would maybe lighten the blog here as this is a dark topic, with currently no answers for the horrible tragedies, that impact all of us when we learn of them. Although the US has the most, other countries have experienced the tragedies with different weapons. Some say it's all about guns, I don't think so, since many weapons are effective ways to end lives. We need to get at the WHY, and do something to redirect these troubled souls, beforehand.

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.

more divisions

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

by Diane: In response to a FB Norwegian friend - What is going on?

One of my  Face Book friends posts mostly pictures of his wife and the marvelous food she prepares in a tiny kitchen, plus pictures of them enjoying their balcony garden in their Oslo apartment.  He asked me upon learning of the attack on Congress, "What is going on?"  First, as best as I can, I relate my own journey in coming to my viewpoint. Then how I see what brought about the break into the Capitol by racist extremist groups.  Finally, I write about my eventual optimism for the future.

From five years old, I felt the privilege of living in the United States was uncertain for me and my family.  My paternal Grandmother said it was not a good idea for a nation to be wealthy because other nations will be jealous and attack us. A maternal grandmother who worked in  Washington DC said that the government was in a very bad way during the Kennedy administration. She was a Republican and sure very soon the United States would completely fall apart from the way the Democrats behave. Spending, Spending and spending.  At home I was traumatized because the FBI threatened deportation of my father a full naturalized citizen. My parents discussed the Loyalty Oath placed upon University of California Berkeley faculty. How a childhood friend of my father's was in prison because of his out spoken poetry and writing. It was the McCarthy Era.

Fast forward to the Spring of my Senior year in high school.  Two CIA agents visited and told my mother and I that my father would be deported almost immediately.  Some how father reversed the deportation at his trial and we were sort of free. 

About the same time my grand father made his last visit and declared what I was learning at school did not cover the truth about China. He said maybe someday I would like to study Chinese history. I was overwhelmed for awhile. I  wondered how studying alone I could understand what really happened where our scholars have missed something important. His carefulness to convey his meaning was hidden in his poetic symbolism. He gave me a two sentence myth about a dragon. The symbolism made it hard for me to understand. And my grandiose fantasy was frightening. Could a look into the future be possible to one such as me?  I am not a genius by any means. I worked hard for excellent grades.  How could I become knowledgeable of the key to save the world and go forth and reveal it to the world.  I am nervous when I have to speak in front of a group. How could I learn the key to resolving times of famine as my grandfather wanted me to do?

As big a weight on my shoulders of imagining that I could do something significant in creating world peace it not only over whelmed me but it was irresistible to try to believe I could understand the workings of the political world  even though it was seldom a topic of discussion at home during my childhood. So I collected notions with out  a great amount of scholarly looking into each notion. And I am bewildered to support them in the usual political discussions that often put me in my place. I feel more normal talking to someone who can bring me to understand better.

So what is happening with the terrible inability of opposing political sides to communicate and effectively govern? 

 Ever since graduating from college in 1966 I observe through the lens powered by a smattering of sociology, social anthropology, the history of science, and former Portland mayor Dorothy McCullagh Lee's class on city government. I observe myths play a big part on our nation 's government. Rugged individualism was seeded by the Boston Tea Party, for example. The myth can be cleverly interpreted. History can be rewritten by extremists wanting a revolution. Myths raise emotions and are more vivid markers than factual persuasion. 

Words are important in persuading us to think and take action or not. The British vaccinate by giving jabs. We say shots. When people do extremely bad things we  have a separate word from bad to label them - evil. The French do not have an emotionally charged word for bad.  "Mal" serves for both bad and despicable, horrid, unholy bad like the single word we have -  "evil".  So for very bad behavior they can't demonize others as readily as we do.

 When giving a speech communication is better when considering the listener.  So the choice of words will be understood as intended.  If the listener to Trump before proceeding to Congress has carefully and fully planned a break into Capitol with inside information about the whereabouts of unlabeled offices that they wish to gain classified information and if they wish to take members of Congress hostage, they come with a handful of constraints.  The leaders will want to interpret Trump saying "fight" as go ahead and break into the Capitol and be violent.  

An important opportunity presents itself for a more complete investigation to reveal the dynamics and causes of the widening crack that has always been in our Democratic Republic.  A trial,  where our nation's citizens will see the workings behind the build up to the assault on the Capitol. The trial could set a positive example of opposite sides expressing themselves while also listening.  A trial done in a slow sober way can enlighten us resulting in bringing  our divided nation back to a functioning nation. 

A Culture of Rage

As soon as the news revealed the horror of what happened in the grade school in Connecticut, the theories began about why it happened. What led to it? What could stop it? Why our country? Although these things have happened elsewhere like Norway last year, they are more frequent here. This one though was as bad as it gets. It is impossible to imagine anything that would more stab the heart of all Americans than what happened in that grade school.  He attacked us all and hit home. In this emotional moment, the words have flown as to what led to it.

Too many guns
need more guns

Assault  rifles

school prayer 

Jesus

NRA

Republicans

Democrats

liberals

conservatives

permissiveness

punishment
abortion

 You name it and somebody said that's what was at fault. I think everyone is clear that it's really the fault of the one who did it (and I would add an irresponsible mother if that doesn't seem too unkind given she was killed), but we are desperate to think there is something we can do because, as it stands, anytime we enter a restaurant, a mall, a theater, send our children to school, drive down a highway, take a walk, go to work, sit in our home, we are vulnerable to it being us or ours. There is absolutely no way to prepare for it and mostly we have to live as though it could not happen-- even as we stop for a moment to listen when we hear a loud noise.

Americans want answers, but the ones I am personally coming up with aren't what anybody on either side wants to hear. People want one simple answer. They want someone/something to blame. My answers are complex not lending themselves to quick fixes. They are more like when we get a disease like cancer and there are multiple factors that led us there. That's what I think this is, and it's a part of our culture not just one group or thing.

I will say that the media's coverage of this horrified me. Yes, we want to know but they gave us misinformation as if it was facts. Mother, shooter, you name it. I don't know if all the networks were as bad, but MSNBC even had interviews with some of the children who had been in the school as reporters asked how they felt about it. Were those reporters nuts? And what led to the network putting it on the air? These little kids did try to answer, but they should have not been asked to make what was already horrible even more difficult. I also didn't like how the networks were trying to calculate if this was the worst in the nation based on numbers-- as though this was some kind of contest. That just seems nuts to me, and frankly I can answer it-- when it targets small children in their schools, yes, it was the worst!

The gun was not illegally purchased.  It is hard to say if we can get a ban on assault rifles, good if so; but the gun he used was purchased by his mother, from all accounts a well-off woman, who encouraged her son to learn to shoot, who collected guns, who was apparently living in fear of economic collapse. Was she feeding her son that kind of fear?

Some have said other nations, like Japan with rigid gun control laws, don't have gun killings. Okay, I can see that but there also are other differences with Japan. It's pretty much of a mono culture. It is not at war. Maybe they monitor the video games/movies that are available  (I don't know this about them by the way).  Could it be they don't have the politics of rage that permeates our country. Maybe they are not caught up in a culture of violence as we justify wars and torture to keep ourselves safe. Moral confusion here is rampant.

I have no idea if this young man watched the news or cared about politics. Isn't it possible though that the politics of rage impacts the energy surrounding us all? And I do not mean just right wingers. You hear it on both sides with the near hate and rabid rhetoric. Talk of overthrowing government does not just come from one side or the other.

From what I read, the murderer was a gamer. What kinds? Most Americans have no clue how very violent, realistic, and oriented to shooting others the video games have become.

And movies-- argh! Last week we watched the last of the Batman movies, The Dark Night Rises.  Part way through I told my husband that this kind of film could incite to violence a mind already unstable. The violence was glorified and used to bring excitement time after time. My opinion is it was a horrible movie, and although stable people could all watch such and not be impacted, what about unstable where it makes violence an exciting solution.

How do we as a nation, where time after time we have used violence as our solution in wars and countries that someone in our government decides threaten us, where over there innocent children have died as we try to kill terrorist leaders, where we have had wars going on now over 10 years, how can we be surprised when the violence becomes an atmosphere that is unhealthy for those unhealthy to begin?

At first I thought how could someone educated, a kindergarten teacher buy those weapons when she knew she had a troubled son. then it turns out she wasn't a kindergarten teacher. Educated or not I wondered how would she have brought such weapons into her home?Others knew her son was troubled. She had to have also and yet she had all those guns accessible to him?

That brought back the memories of the other such events. There was a school shooting in Oregon at Springfield High School in 1998. The teen-age killer's parents (liberals by all accounts) had also bought him guns (his psychologist said it'd be a good thing). He used those guns (and I think stole more) to kill them and then head for the high school where he shot 27 students, killing 2 of them.  When he had to reload, one of the wounded students jumped him and put an end to the carnage.

In my area of Oregon, there have been several families where the parents were murdered by a disturbed son. The last one, the son used a machete to slaughter them both. Once again they had known he was troubled, mentally not healthy, but they were fundamentalist Christians, good people, but naive about mental illness. They paid for that with their lives. He'll spend the rest of his life in prison-- hopefully.

So what am I saying? I have no problem with blocking ownership of assault rifles, ending the right to buy extended magazines, but unless we find better ways of dealing with mental illness, it won't stop such tragedies. Maybe less will die in each assault, but is that okay? Collateral damage? Acceptable to have five children killed but not twenty?

Can we really not find a better way to deal with mental illness? For those who worry about infringement of freedom, it's an infringement of freedom to not know we can safely send our children to school, walk into a mall without fear or be in our own homes.

On MSNBC, a research expert said most of these type of murders are committed by three types of people. One is totally delusional but they are the less common. Another is psychotic like the one who recently committed suicide in Alaska after many serial killings including home invasions. That killer said he did it because he liked killing and knew exactly what he was doing and could plan it out-- that's psychotic. The final one he had as an example were most common-- the clinically depressed.

I would add another level of mental disorder because it takes more than depression to want to kill a bunch of small children. I think that something else is out of control rage. Is there a clinical title for that? Everyone of these killers has had a rage going. What are they mad at? Maybe like the one who just killed his father with a bow and arrow in Casper Wyoming-- he said he was enraged he had been born with Asperger's.

There's a scene in the film Tombstone that might say it well for some of these callous murderers:

Wyatt Earp: What makes a man like Ringo, Doc? What makes him do the things he does?  Doc Holliday: A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it. Wyatt Earp: What does he need? Doc Holliday: Revenge. Wyatt Earp: For what? Doc Holliday: Bein' born. 

Read the following story and expect to feel upset as it's what some parents are facing and on their own with no real help from our laws or culture:  

Thinking the Unthinkable

This is clearly, as was the case with our most recent shooter, something chemical or in the DNA which is seen from the youngest of ages. For someone like that probably nobody can do anything to fix it by the time they are adults. But are we researching it? How about those who are better at hiding it? Many serial killers can hide their rage as did Ted Bundy until they have their victim vulnerable.

Are we really ahead as a culture to have this rampant rage that is being stirred up in all manner of ways when you end up with road rage, strangers hitting strangers trying to shop, someone walking down the street bumping into another, or pushing someone onto a subway track? Some murders have a purpose, gangland types, drug dealers, family disagreements. It doesn't make them okay but we understand them better. But killings where there is no purpose only to kill, how do we understand those?

As a culture, we can do something about feeding rage through our words, our choice of media, our acceptance of violent movies and video games, our belief that we can fight wars overseas to keep the blood over there. It doesn't work but even if it did, what kind of people would buy into such thinking? It's okay to kill there as long as I stay safe? I said it during Vietnam and have seen it ever since-- the blood comes home in different ways.

I had an idea about mental illness. What if when it is identified in children, besides professionals, there could be adult mentors, those who had that illness and had learned to live worthwhile lives despite the difficulty it posed? If such a young person saw that it wasn't impossible to live a good life and got help for how to do it, could it make a difference?

In some cases, we might need, as a culture, to force the meds on the person.  I've heard the complaint that it takes away their freedom. They don't like the side effects. Well, it's not so great to end up in prison for life having slaughtered innocent people either.

Why can't we put more into research and treatment for mental disorders instead of regarding them as a shameful thing to hide. If we treated mental disorders as we do diabetes, might the attitude of parents be more open to their child being treated? If, as the mother in the above article said, nobody will do anything until there is a criminal charge, isn't that too late?

Maybe with better treatments for mental disorders, we'd have more families living happier lives and less total loss of life whether from a knife, strangling, poison, bomb, or gun. We likely can't stop all such attacks, but we aren't even trying right now. It's as though we have given up. Not everyone with such a disorder is dangerous but don't we have tests to determine who might be? I know, because of personal experiences with those suffering from schizophrenia, that we do.

To add to this, what if we look at our entertainment and put up some standards where we don't allow what is purposing only to inure someone to the cheapness of life and making it look exciting to kill? When a child of five is already talking violently, it wasn't entertainment that caused it, but a lot of kids today are being fed on a diet of violence because they like it. Their liking it doesn't mean it's okay. And when small children have no empathy for others, isn't that a warning sign?

I don't have a problem with looking at guns, making stricter rules to block instant purchase, government help for background checks, blocking ownership of assault rifles (the resistance will be fierce), but if we don't look at the root cause of the rage, it will be for naught. We will never get all the guns. but we could admit that a culture of rage is not a healthy place for children to grow up-- mentally stable or otherwise. It's not great for the rest of us either.

We are not helpless in this unless we refuse to look at the real causes, unless we give up before we start. Parents like the one who wrote the article above should not be in this alone because someday that child might be the one grown up and wielding a weapon. Using this tragedy as a way to hit on a pet cause like prayer in schools won't get us anywhere. It takes courage and determination to change something. Why can't we do it?

No way am I saying I have the answers. Like everyone else I am trying to sort through it. I think it's more diverse than one easy solution. Go for assault rifles, background checks, etc. but don't ignore the elephant in the room-- mental illness.

Bullies and Bigots

I am going to start right off offending certain liberals by daring to use the words bullies and bigots as the title. There is a philosophy out there that nobody is what they do, they are who they are. So the fact that someone bullies others does not make them a bully. We must separate out the good in them from the bad. If that person is a great father and husband but mistreats those at his place of business, that means he's not a bully or bigot?

The idea for writing about this subject began with the image above that a friend posted on Facebook. She had added her concern that we find ways to stand up to this behavior without turning into bullies ourselves. Because I agreed with the image and  know it takes courage to confront bullying and bigotry, I shared it but without an explanation and got a comment from another friend asking is this creating a title or talking of a behavior?

Well it's both and I thought it'd take more than a Facebook comment for me to explain what I mean and why this matters. Also where does it lead when bullying is ignored?

I  think people can become bullies and bigots. They can do something so often that it becomes part of their persona, and it's no different than when we speak of someone who is so generous, gives so often that we consider them a saint. We become what we consistently do. Yes, it's not all of who we are; but if we regularly engage in bullying behavior, it should be at least one adjective to describe us. That does not mean that one act of bullying makes someone a bully. It does mean that if it consistently happens, yes, they will attain the reputation of a bully.

The nice thing about being a bully or bigot, and there really is only one nice thing, is such a person can change that behavior. They don't have to stay either. If they recognize it as being a bad thing, not helping their lives, they can turn it around. It's not a skin color, a gender, how they look, having a disability, or an ethnicity. It's a behavior but when that behavior is routinely followed, it  becomes a title.

My own experience with being bullied is mostly through what I have read and the stories I've been told. I actually have never been bullied. I have never bullied anyone else either. I have had people say mean things to me-- mostly when a child; but that's not being bullied. Bullying is something that keeps happening, and it's done to browbeat the victim and gain power for the bully.

I wrote one of my books that centered around bullying and bigotry-- Moon Dust. It explored this behavior from the consequences in schools and homes. Although the villain was a male, there was also a woman I would also call a bully. She never actually appears in the book, but the ramifications of her behavior were still being felt on the one who had, as a child, been her victim.

Here's the thing about confronting bullies. The victim generally cannot stop it. It takes someone either stronger or who doesn't care whether the bully likes it or not. The weak are at the mercy of both bullying and bigotry until the larger population or a strong individual steps in and says-- enough.

Children are where this can do the most emotional damage. The bullying can be physical or emotional. The 'cool' kids find someone different to build the strength of their group. Empathy for what they are doing to the weaker one is lost on them unless someone can show them a better way. There is nothing wrong with using shaming to do it. It is shameful behavior to bully another and deserves to be seen for what it is with no soft soaping.

The whole experience can be turned around when someone steps in to stop the bullying, someone stronger-- leaving a lasting memory on the bullies and the bullied. Some years back, A boy in the church youth group told me how our son, when he was one of the big boys on the bus stepped in to to protect him. He hadn't forgotten it. Maybe someday he'd do the same thing for another when he was the strong one and could.

I have quite a few family stories about someone who confronted a bully. Farm Boss had the experience in high school where he stepped between a bully and his victim and got punched hard for his trouble. But the bully later became a friend and who knows if stepping in that day turned his behavior around. Stepping between bullies and their victims can have a cost but there might be a benefit also.

He told of a boy who was a bully in an earlier school he attended where the principal stepped in but understood the boy was being bullied and brutalized in his home; so what the boy needed was attention. By an adult, someone in power, doing something about it, another life was turned around. Bullying does not have to be a permanent condition.

Where it comes to bigotry, it comes out of the same basic source-- fear and need for power. It is connected to bullying because bigots often abuse and bully. They do it because they get power from it or possibly have decided the 'other' is a threat.

Bigotry can come from those who do not think of themselves as bigots. Like the young woman after this election who said she wished Obama would be assassinated. They asked if she was a bigot when they interviewed her. She denied it. Of course.

Some of the most bigoted stuff I've gotten has come through jokes where when I would confront the sender by saying it wasn't funny, they would act offended. It was just a joke. Well sorry but making fun of someone of another race, gender or ethnicity is a way to belittle them and generally based on lies about who they are.

These days with the internet allowing for anonymous bullies, perhaps the behavior is growing as some threaten and frighten others for the joy of doing it. When it's children taking the brunt, they have gone so far as committing suicide to escape what they feel they cannot any other way.

Bullying and bigotry can be a huge problem in school where children cannot escape from the bully or bigot, where they become so depressed that they cannot function. But it doesn't end there. It can be in the workplace and homefront. It is when a man sexually fondles a woman who has no power to stop him, where insults are thrown around, gossip spread, lies created all to put down the 'other'.

It might seem idyllic to say there are no bullies or bigots only bullying and bigoted behavior. I don't buy it. When someone does something often enough, it's what they become. But they can change it. And it will take someone stronger to make them face that truth. The victim is unable to do it which is why they were chosen or even created.

Tolerating bigotry or bullying, with some sense that it's not the bigot or bully's fault, that it comes out of their religion, etc etc., cannot stand if a culture wants to be a good place for all its citizens. Recently we read of a school girl who stood up to what I consider bullying behavior by a religious group. She was shot in the head for it and is still trying to recover. Will her culture as a whole stand against what she was enduring? Time will tell as it does take courage and the risks are not unsubstantial.

After I wrote this, I saw this story:  Mexican cartel assassinates woman where she had stood against the bullying and illegal activities of a drug cartel. Some might say that is an extreme example but that's what happens when a culture ignores bullying and bigotry. It can go and will to the extreme.

Image on top from Facebook. Photos purchased from CanStock. I am really liking getting these for here as well as my books and trailers. It's not very expensive and often illustrates something that words alone don't really express.

again and again :(

Another attack. I really wish I understood what is going on where it comes to this kind of senseless violence. Over and over we are saying the same thing. Why? And then such sorrow for the victims and their families. Depressing doesn't begin to describe it. :( I don't know if it would help to understand the why because there can't be a reason most of us would understand. Just so tragic.

gun control as a solution?

My suggestion for a first step on stopping the kind of mass carnage we just saw in Colorado was to ban assault rifles-- at the least reinstate the ban Clinton got passed in 1994 which expired in 2004. It was an attempt to limit access to the kind of rapid fire weapons and magazines developed for military use. These are weapons only intended to kill other humans. They are not needed for home defense. You can't use them to hunt.

The right wing claims such ownership is a Constitutional right which if anybody reads the Second Amendment, they can see says no such thing. Do you see the right to have cannons or any specific weapon?

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.

Some say militia means our national guard and the second part of the statement doesn't mean our own right to have guns, but to me, that's not a logical interpretation.  Most probably it took into account that at the time often all able bodied men could be called upon by their government to be part of a defense. This was a government without the kinds of arms that it has today.

America has a long history of gun ownership and trying to eliminate all guns not only won't happen, but isn't going to stop mass murderers. Assault rifles though, that's a different story altogether. Seriously you can't stop an intruder threatening your life with a regular gun? If you can't, you shouldn't have it either.

Assault rifles have been used over and over again to shoot so fast that no one can stop the shooter. It enabled 70 to be shot at that theater-- and more would have died had it not jammed. No routine handgun (with a regular magazine) or rifle could do that.

 I've heard the arguments why assault rifles are needed-- what if the citizen has to fight their own government? The NRA is supporting a bill in one state that would allow for the times when a citizen has a right to fire on the police. I didn't read the details of the proposed bill but that's the kind of thinking that convinces yahoos they do need an AK-47.

For Obama or Romney to suggest (what both have said before) that there should be a ban on assault rifles would require the kind of courage that I haven't seen in either these days. Because the NRA is so powerful, they can stop Congress from proposing anything with no chance for more draconian measures. The NRA is supported by a very powerful guns and munitions merchandizing business-- around the world.

National Rifle Association's bizarre Colorado response

Farm Boss was in the NRA when we were a young married couple. He and I were both gun owners when we married, and he was in favor of supporting not only the right to own guns but also be well trained in their use. He quit it for some years, but then joined again when there was talk of taking away all guns probably twenty five years ago or more. Then he got so disgusted by how the NRA promoted the right to own  human killing weapons that he got out again-- that was about twenty years ago. It looks like they have only gotten more mercenary in the years since.

Some are saying we shouldn't even talk about solutions right now as this is a time to mourn. Or get more clear-headed. Or wait until nobody is talking about it, then discuss solutions. The some who are saying that want nothing done as people in this country only operate under drama queen/king times.

So we are bombarded by who this guy was, as we were after Tucson and after Virginia Tech and after _____________. Fill in the blank as it's been all around the world including that horror in Norway. Does the media realize that they only exacerbate the problem when they give these shooters fame? When they go into their family history back to the Mayflower? Media, despite what they say, doesn't care that they may lead to copycat killers because, as much as arms manufacturing is a big business, so is media.

 I don't really care who this guy is. I don't want to know anything about him except one thing-- what can we do to catch someone like him before midnight in a crowded movie theater? At first it sounded as though he was so intelligent, such a successful person, that there were no tell-tall signs; then other information trickled in like--gun club turns down membership request.

As with many of these shooters, it is beginning to sound as though a few people did see something was out of whack with him, but what could they do? What options are in place to look at this kind of person and evaluate what's going on? Our fear of offending someone's rights is running smack into our desire to not see carnage in a mall.

Right now-- pretty much nothing can be done even knowing that schizophrenia does develop at about this age. The thing is most untreated schizophrenia, although hard for the family, difficult to be around, is not deadly. 10% potentially is. Seriously we cannot get a grip on finding these people first for their sake and ours?

Some are suggesting that more people owning guns would be a solution and would have stopped the shooter after only a few deaths. How exactly? Say 20% of the people in that theater were carrying guns, would a shootout have saved lives or cost more? Nobody was going to the theater with an AR-15 at their side.

This man was thoroughly armored. Who would know that when they started shooting at him? The gas canisters he threw out doubtless confused vision (what's with permitting just anybody to buy those?). In a shoot-out, how many more would have been killed by friendly fire which happens even with our trained police and military?

If it's unrealistic to think the government could stop all gun ownership and confiscate what is out there, what about evaluating those who are trying to purchase a gun-- especially the kinds he bought? From what we heard at first, it sounded as though this guy would likely have passed all tests... except now we read this from the shooting club, and it sounds like his problem wasn't so deeply underground as it at first sounded.

Somehow he went into stores, maybe stayed very quiet while doing it and didn't ring any bells. Should it have rung at least one that he purchased so many?

With generally no waiting period to buy a gun in most states, there are no phone call checks which again might've stopped a purchase as it stopped his right to be in that gun club. The NRA, with the support of the right wing, rebel at any waiting period to buy guns, any check on background but they don't over the same kind of thing to get a concealed weapon permit. What's with that?

Another thing that could have helped (besides a ban on assault rifles) would be a computer system that could catch when someone bought so many 'war' weapons within a short period of time as well as all that ammunition online.

Suppose we had the manpower to investigate that kind of mass purchaser (even when he didn't have a Muslim sounding name), maybe do an onsite interview or at least a phone call? Talk to those who know the person? Or have we cut budgets so much that isn't possible?

The thing is a lot of us already worry about 1984 and a police state. Do we want to head further in that direction? Well when it stops the killing of children, I think we should be at least thinking about options. Next time it could be our child or grandchild.

So some potential steps that don't seem draconian to me:

mental health checks on weapon purchasers (phone calls would be good)

no assault rifle purchases to civilians

limits on rifle and gun magazine sizes

Not so much but more people would be alive today if they had been in place. Do we have the courage to stand against the NRA? Our Congress doesn't. But maybe we need to make them more afraid of us than them!

And for god's sake what will it take before we start finding better ways to deal with mental illness? When Gabby Giffords was shot, I said the same thing. What has happened since? Nothing that I know of!

Wars wars and more wars

Has anyone noticed that since McCain lost the 2008 election, he's been a bitter old man who smiles and uses any possible opportunity to try to convince people what a mistake they made not choosing him and Palin. Figuratively he regularly stabs Obama in the back. Latest example is we should get involved in Syria by sending arms to... well there you go-- which side? Whoever is fighting the dictator except is there only one side doing that?

Should America get involved in more wars in the Middle East? Should we put ground troops or even our weaponry in the hands of anybody in Libya, Egypt, Syria or anywhere else over there? Can we afford to get into another situation that escalates into us having another ground war?

Here's one take on it: Take a deep breath America

We should have learned this lesson before but more powerful nations rarely do. They intervene with what they hope will be a side more friendly to theirs (or profitable) except wasn't that the argument in Afghanistan when we helped the Taliban against the Soviets. Although technically speaking, that was not a civil war but an invaded country. Still look at who we aided-- bin Laden.

So we see these terrible massacres in Syria, and they have been terrible. We read about the election and the argument going on in Egypt with two sides trying to claim power.  

We must do something. 

 Must we? 

That's the debate we should be having. Ours is a nation that claims it has a nearly crippling debt, cannot maintain its infrastructure or care for its weak, cannot even govern itself because of the disagreement between two warring (with words) sides, and yet our people are easily stirred into thinking they need to fight somewhere in the world to right wrongs and bring peace... and you know the spiel as well as I do by now.

Can we even afford to think of getting into the Syrian or Egyptian potential civil wars. Both have a potential to get very ugly fast and pull us into another land war. Good idea or bad?

drones

 Here is an ethical issue that is new to the Bush and more to the Obama administrations-- the use of drones.

We saw the drones being trained when we drove south this spring. In Nevada, they were training alongside the freeway with landings and flying around-- hopefully not looking for terrorists.

I have to say it was a little eerie as when they come straight at you, they are nearly invisible in sunlight. We saw them best alongside the road over their field. I didn't photograph them as I wasn't sure it was okay and sure didn't want to get targeted myself for being investigated.

This whole idea of satellites that can look down and help them pinpoint a kill from someone flying them thousands of miles away, well it's a little dicey to think about. On the other hand, we'd prefer to risk a human life when the target is a well known terrorist? but don't you have to add-- if they are?

Then there is what the right brought up and had been in the NY Times-- the supposed inside leaks regarding them. My question would be-- how could it be classified? How could it be hidden? We saw them in Nevada. Where they are being used as a weapon of war is in other countries where they obviously will be discussing and writing about what they have seen happen, about those being killed. The idea that only a leak from the White House would tell anybody seems totally nuts to me.

Jon Stewart had a funny take on it... if you can call this sort of thing funny. The video is worth watching but there is an article there too.

Jon Stewart on Congress and response to drone attacks

It is true that this is an area of ethics that we as a country need to talk about. But the leak is the issue? Seriously? To Republicans it's all to Obama's credit to do this. Not so with Democrats; so any leak isn't automatically to his benefit. Republicans obviously don't get this!

Walking while black

This link came from Tara. Everybody should read it-- especially those who thinks the killing and even more police reaction to the murder of Trayvon Martin weren't about race. And if they think the problem is localized to the South, there is even more reason to read it. If a person only gets their news from Fox and thinks this story is another leftie plot or all about gun control, even more they need to read it. Please!

Walking while black

A few years ago a Congresswoman in Arizona ran into the same thing as she was pulled over in a nice neighborhood (happened to be her neighborhood) while driving an expensive car (her car). There was only one reason for the officer to stop her.

Come on. We as a nation can do better than this. Can't we? Or have we come to accept threats and violence are okay, racial profiling is okay-- so long as they happen to someone else! These incidents don't all end in someone's death but they should not happen at all because the potential for it to be worse is there in every one of them.