Contingency Plan -- 3b

purchased from Canstock Images for inspiration and light

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do citizens want socialism as their government?

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

Voting as cultural issue

our photo when the saguaro yields its fruit for the birds, eventually animals, and insects-- in the fullness of time.
 

Following along with the theme of the last blog, this one is again about what is happening in our country and how is it portrayed by the internet. The difference is I want to explain a bit about my background, something we rarely know about those giving opinions.

I've mentioned before that I was a registered Democrat from the time I was allowed to vote until 2018 when I left the party over issues where I simply didn't like how it was going. I didn't see a way to be a Republican either for the same reasons-- hence unaffiliated, which means I can't vote in Oregon primaries. It was worth it to me as I am an issues voter and always have been, though I've seen how partisan groups use these issues in ways I just don't get.

So, why get into this now? Two big ones arose within the last week. One a presidential debate and its aftermath and the second a Supreme Court decision, also impacting the Presidency of the United States. The fall out has been great and not yet really decided; but to me, the big thing is how what happened has been presented, especially to those who get all their news from one side or the other of whatever happens. 

First, I did not watch the debate. I do not watch political speeches and debates are all about rhetoric. I did though see the first answer Biden gave. I saw no sign of the cold they later claimed he had. I also saw the answer as vague and again political spiel. I turned it off before Trump spoke.

The political rhetoric the next morning was not surprising to me. They did accept that Biden did poorly and lost his train of thought frequently, but their big point was Trump lied a LOT. What they never tell is what were the lies and also who declared them to be lies. Might two people, on different sides of the political divide see truth differently? I guess if you are on one side or the other, you don't care. 

Now, it's been a week since the debate and the excuses for Biden's performance have grown. Who believes them? Pretty much those who want to.

The question asked was one debate a big deal. Probably not if there hadn't been so much talk before it about what was going on with his cognitive reasoning. Where powerful people often get others to cover for them will we ever know the truth? We sure know the spin if we care to look. 

Biden has evidently declared he'll have no events after 8pm. So what if it's an emergency?

Second big issue was the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. This one went right along party lines-- despite Roberts saying earlier that the court is not partisan. Maybe only he believes that. 

Afterwards, the panic started from the left. Maddow fears seal teams sent after political enemies. She also said she wondered if she could be sent to a concentration camp? Apparently no concern if Biden stays in power or Harris, which is the latest question brought up. What about her for President if he passes on running. It depends on how much attention you have paid to her political career as you probably see it.

The fear of Trump for wars or worse determines a lot of how someone sees all of this. The fact that he avoided wars when in office does not prove the future reactions, and frankly what he did after his loss is not reassuring to anybody-- or should not be. 

A big question also involves the Heritage Foundations 2025 Project and how much will it impact what Trump tries to do. If you don't know what that is, you might want to look it up. Do we want a religiously controlled country? Earlier citizens did not. What about today? I have read Trump does not agree with it, but these days how do we know what we can trust?

If Biden resigns as a candidate, then who picks up the mantle? Supposedly, most likely is his vice president. How do voters feel about that? I keep coming back to a quote that she has used many times with great pride. "what can be, unburdened by what has been." What the heck does that mean? I also resent how the Democratic party would not do debates earlier to avoid all of this coming out right at the last with little time to look at other options.

I think the Supreme Court decision made sense with the limitations it imposed. For immunity, it had to be a part of the presidential duties-- not personal issues. I've listened to those who claim it could be anything, but that's not what they said. It will be further defined probably and likely satisfy no one.

Does any of this say anything about how I will vote in November-- and I always vote? Not really, I am an issues voter and I haven't written about those this time around. It's a disturbing time, and I just want to be sure voters are informed and not just propagandized.