The Cost of War

Wars generally are started by men in suits for political reasons and then fought and strategized by men in uniforms-- unless those who started it continue to micromanage it for their original political purposes. Although many said we learned our lesson in Vietnam, with not letting suits do the strategizing, it seems we didn't. To avoid running up more of a debt, to avoid a draft, and maybe to hide the true cost from the American people, it has been suits who have determined a lot of what has gotten us to where we are today in Iraq.

Constantly we are told we must support the people in uniform. What the suits really mean is we must support their political agenda and they use the loyalty of the soldiers to achieve that goal. Going back in history, it's easier to see that the real reasons behind wars are often not clear until many years later.

In the case of Iraq, people with Bush's mentality and emotional make-up can't or won't reevaluate any part of it. His people constantly say if we leave now it will make all of the loss of life to date meaningless. So the only way is forward (whatever forward now means) and Americans and Iraqis must accept more loss of life both from the military and civilians.

President Bush says if we cut and run (orderly withdrawal doesn't seem to be in his vocabulary) it will appear like what we did after our Lebanon Embassy and Marine barracks were bombed in 1983 under Reagan (he actually doesn't mention this one nor do his minions because it doesn't make their party look good); then there is how we pulled out instead of getting revenge in Somalia after the horrible death of some of our troops in 1993 under Clinton's watch (this has become very popular with the foxies to discuss and is way too complicated to go into the whys of here-- but is worth doing internet research for anyone interested); and finally how we didn't avenge the October 12, 2000 bombing of the Cole which could be either Clinton or Bush (less discussion on this one for obvious reasons; but if Clinton had started a war over it right before the election, can you imagine the screaming! Republicans had already accused him of wag the dog every time he tried to get bin Laden).

Iraq was supposed to be a quick victory and it would have been... if the political decision hadn't been that we must stay to occupy, and if the political decision wasn't wanting to determine who should govern there when we do leave. With an occupation, it has become a growing military and political nightmare as Iraq has slipped into a civil war, something the Bush administration has been slow to admit even when they are told so by their own experts-- suits and uniforms.

Our reasons for going there were supposed to be about weapons of mass destruction, nukes in Iraq. Oops! Not true although some diehards cannot admit this and continue to hold out that they have to be there somewhere. What was interesting about this reason, if it was so, is why did they tell the military to secure the oil administration first and not get to the weapon storage areas until well after they had been looted-- which means the Iraqis underground fighters got whatever had been left there.

For those who finally realized the WMD in Iraq were the remanants of earlier actions and not a possible risk to the rest of the world, the reason became liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. That works to a point given the man was brutal, but most of his worst deeds occurred years ago when he was our ally, and how many innocents have been killed there since we invaded? Oh well. Currently it appears to be about planting a flowering garden for democracy in the Middle East as a beacon to all other Muslim nations for what is possible.

It does appear to be a beacon, by our own government reports, but one for terrorists, something it was not before the war. Hussein and bin Laden had nothing in common except hatred of the United States, but Hussein was badly weakened after Desert Storm and had no ability to go to war with anyone. Being a secular leader, he didn't want bin Laden anywhere near him.

Some think 9/11 is why we attacked Iraq. That's what Bush used as his excuse-- convoluted as it is; but from what I have read, the plans were in the works from the day Bush took office. They were just waiting for a good enough excuse to get the American people to buy in on it.

They did manage to hit Afghanistan first, where bin Laden actually was, but didn't finish the job; and it's pretty clear for some reason backed off on getting bin Laden. Could that be because they wanted him out there as a bad guy to get Americans to accept the Iraqi war?

Here are a few questions to consider:

Was Bush's real reason for the Iraqi war a desire to consolidate his and the Republican party's power? After all, in a war, you can accuse anyone who disagrees with you of not being a patriot. In a war, you can take away certain people's rights and the majority don't argue because it's to make them safer, right?

Was his desire to conquer Iraq related to his father's decision not to do so, and a need to show him that he was the stronger man?

In Bush's ignorance of the Iraqi culture, did he really have no idea what forces he would unleash and wasn't about to ask his more knowledgeable father, given the rivalry he felt?

Did the people behind him think they could secure an oil source and didn't have a clue of the problems they were about to face doing it? (Some think that's why Bush Sr. sent troops into Somalia-- securing a huge oil field for friendly interests.)

Today Iraq not only draws terrorists to fight the foreign occupiers (to them, that's us in case you are a Fox News viewer), but it is also a poster for their enrollment elsewhere. It has distracted our money and resources from finishing the job in Afghanistan where we might have had a chance to actually accomplish something-- although the Soviet Union didn't find that such an easy job even in the years when it had one of the most formidable armies in the world (opinion of a former military man).

The problem, with wars in countries like Iraq or any of the nations that have little military might, is they fight guerilla style, like the Native Americans did here when they were being conquered by a much larger force. The Arabs have an advantage the Native Americans didn't-- money and resources to buy weapons as they need them. They are also reinforced by a religious belief that encourages their martyrdom in the name of their holy cause.

To make it worse, what we have done in Iraq has strengthened the belief of many that the western world doesn't care about them. Would statements such as Bush makes regularly-- we want to fight them there; so we don't have to fight them here-- make you think he cared about you if it was in your homeland?

(The war memorial above is in Lincoln City, Oregon. As in many small towns across the United States, it is a list of the names of those who gave their all in a war for this country. I stop at such memorials often because I think it's good for us, who didn't pay that price, to not forget what wars are really about.

Beside it, an old woman my age or a bit older, sat and read. I didn't ask if she knew one of those names, but she could have been a wife, sister or mother. Respecting her privacy, I would not think of posting a photograph of her, but her shadow is an added reminder that although wars are often begun for political reasons, they are paid for in someone's blood.)

Part II coming in next blog!

Torture

Might as well start out with one of the toughest issues that challenges the belief we have had about who we in the United States are: Do we torture? Should we torture?

Oh I know the spiel from the right-- What would you do if your grandchild was held prisoner and you could torture someone to find out where? How do you know we do use torture? Has it really been any tougher than a fraternity initiation? Those hypothetical questions, the ones that avoid real issues and pop up so people don't have to face real questions.

Here's a real question: Is torture okay with you? Or maybe-- how many of those who were tortured were guilty of anything? Or does torturing matter as long as you are kept safe? Will it only matter if someday there is a knock is at your own door?

President Bush has evidently won the right to keep torturing whoever he chooses. So much for McCain making a big deal out of his limiting the president. Limited him how? They left it whatever Bush decided was okay was okay. How is that different than what was? Was their whole protestation a farce to get publicity before rolling over?

With the justification of protecting us, the Geneva Conventions have been turned into whatever this president decides is okay. We already know what he has thought was okay-- beatings, sexual humiliation, water-boarding, hypothermia, stretched positions (used to call that the rack), threatened rape if not actual rape. Some died under these tortures. Under that criteria, seems odd they would try Saddam Hussein.

Personally I suspect Bush needed something said that would condone what he has already done. Maybe his concern was avoiding future trials of his own people. I wonder how he would like having his men or perhaps himself put on trial but no evidence given because if you gave evidence, it might alert the enemy to your true plans.

How does someone like Bilal Hussein, a cameraman photographing the Iraq war, defend himself when he's arrested but with no list of charges, no names of accusers, but just thrown into prison, possibly tortured to get him to admit to something-- anything.

Whether we like thinking about any of this or not, we have personal responsibility for our own acquiescence in whatever they do. So was it okay with to torture men like Abdul Ameer Hussein or Maher Arar who later the government released and admitted were innocent? Oops. Accidents happen when you are trying to keep the American people safe.

What if such torture ends up saving nobody's life anywhere? Still okay? How do we find out if the torturing was useful? Are we content to take the word of the Bush administration because we think that absolves us of personal responsibility?

Ignorance is no excuse in the law, and I don't think it is in moral issues either-- not when it's purposeful ignorance.

I believe the Geneva Conventions were agreed upon in the same way many years before a convention of people got together to write down specifically what Jesus taught and who he was. Not new information but simply deciding it was time to write it down.

The people writing the Conventions weren't gathering new information either. They were consolidating human opinion on how to treat others in a war situation-- something this administration has declared us to be fighting. The idea was the so-called civilized world (not one man alone) would decide what was appropriate to do to prisoners.

After the horror of the Holocaust, I think the world wanted to never again let one nation ride roughshod over others without accountability from the whole community. What they wrote down then was an agreement on what was civilized.

Germans, as a people, had a stain on their reputation that lasted many years after what happened under the Nazi party. Was it enough that they as individuals didn't know, or were they guilty of looking the other way and not wanting to see?

Some people in my country don't seem to care what someone else does if they are told it will keep their families safe. Others disagree with torture, but will they see that disagreeing means they have to vote out their own congressmen who voted to allow torture-- whatever party he was in.

And about torture itself, it's not just that it doesn't work. It's not just that people who are tortured will confess to anything. It's not just that it's inhumane to sexually and physically abuse another person for your own ends-- whatever they are. It's about who we are, not just who they are.

"This is a spooky time in history. It’s one thing for tyrannical regimes like the old Soviet Union and Communist China to bulldoze the very idea of human rights and human decency by engaging in such atrocities as detention without trial, torture and other forms of state terror. It’s something else completely when the United States, the greatest symbol of liberty that the world has ever known, begins to head down that hellish road. " by Bob Herbert-- September 25, 2006 New York Times

So just exactly who are we? Do we torture or do we say no to it at the polls in November?

The people who have been tortured all around the world by many nations are generally anonymous-- some guilty of something, some innocent. To reflect their faceless fate, there could be no photograph for this topic.

Who is she to write about politics?

At one time I was the real deal-- the proverbial soccer mom-- until my kids grew up. Now my grandkids are beginning to play soccer; so maybe it's soccer grandma. It will come as no shock to any regular readers that I am a registered democrat who regularly votes. In 2004, my family donated money to the Democratic party for the first time ever to any political party hoping to keep Bush from a second term.

Once upon a time I voted for the man rather than the party. That was in those days before one party got a lock on power. I am one of those who likes gridlock where neither party can shove through their own agenda but instead must work together. I'd be happy if a third party became viable. I am not sure that is possible given the lock the two-party system seems to have on power. Well it was two-party, not sure right now what it is-- nor am I certain what Republicans or Democrats stand for given the way money has so corrupted our system.

In terms of expertise, I have no degree in political science, nor am I a lawyer... Nope, no MBA either. I majored in education when I was in college-- way way back. I don't watch network television to get my news, and don't regularly watch cable TV either. I read newspapers (with conservative and liberal bents), political books, go to websites where politics are analyzed. Frequently I peek in at World Net Daily, a conservative, Christian online newspaper, to see their take on things and always take time to add my view to their poll results. I worry the most when I am with the majority on a question-- which does happen once in a great while.

From the time I was a little girl, the 'why' of things mattered to me. I was and am one of those always questioning-- leaving my friends to ask why be so analytical or say you're looking too deep. I can't argue with them, but it's how I am. It might go with the territory of writing and art. In art my interest has always been in sculpting or painting people. I am curious at the reasons behind things. That is both a gift and a curse.

For lifestyle, I am unorthodox in my spiritual beliefs, am a rural living and animal loving woman, who has raised two kids who are currently raising three of their own. I come from a union family where most everybody was Democrat. Even then politics was a hotly discussed topic not only from my parents, but at most family gatherings. My own children grew up hearing political debates in their home, being encouraged to vote as soon as they were legally able. We don't agree on all issues and still carry on those spirited discussions.

Until the Bush people got into power, I would have called myself a moderate. My political positions, while firm, are not those of one side or the other. It irks me when some say a moderate is washy-washy. It's no such thing. A moderate is actually an independent thinker. Because the party they generally vote for believes one way or the other won't make them do likewise. To me a moderate is one who chooses positions based on their personal life and beliefs-- not what someone else tells them they should support.

As two short examples of what being moderate means for me (would be different for others)-- I am for the death penalty in certain types of crimes, but also for choice in early abortions. I am not for free choice through the entire length of a pregnancy. I am a gun owner who has a concealed weapon permit and very strongly supports right to bear arms but don't think ordinary citizens should be allowed to own machine guns or assault rifles.

Naturally over the next month I will be writing more about my political opinions. I believe that just because we inherited a wonderful place to live, doesn't mean it'll always stay that way. We have to stand up for what we believe, sometimes sacrifice and stay alert that the values we hold dearest are not sucked away by those who only value power.

Sometimes in seeking power, people lose track of where they're heading, what they have sold to get it. Sometimes a country can do the same thing. I believe to stay grounded in world like ours takes constant reassessing. In any nation, there are always those ready to tell us what to think if we haven't taken the time to figure it out for ourselves.

When I tried to think of a photograph to illustrate who I believe I am but in a broader sense what I believe my country stands for, one choice became obvious. It was taken 8 years ago on the Metolius River in Central Oregon. My children were taken to this place from infancy, and the day the above picture was taken I had the opportunity to be there with my first grandchild. This photograph represents a continuity of love for nature and the beauty of life in a country that I will always cherish.

Incidentally, I was born 63 years ago today. I was fortunate enough to be born to parents who wanted me, who taught solid values by the example of their lives. When I was a toddler, they moved us to a farm where my brother was born. There wasn't ever a lot of money, but they taught us through the way they lived that money wasn't as important as other things.

They have both passed to the other side now, but I am grateful and thank them for the start they gave me, for all they added to my life. The continuity of life is one of its wonders.

(This last picture shows my roots as well as anything could. That's my brother and me cooling off in a cattle watering tank.)

Who is Bush?

I would like to start with something positive about our current President Bush, but I haven't come up with anything yet. Let me see if I can as I write.

On a personal level, I don't know who the man is. He claims he's a cowboy, others call him that, but is he? He was born to a wealthy, very political, blue-blood family. He was raised in the oil country of Texas and back East. When he debated Ann Richards for governor of Texas, he had no drawl. He acquired it, I guess, about the time he acquired a ranch as a way to present himself as a cowboy-- you know the kind with no horses or cows but who wears boots, drives around in a pick-up, cuts down brush that likely doesn't need cutting, the wantabe cowboy type. Maybe his handlers saw the image worked for Ronald Reagan, who happened to be the real deal.

Image is everything in the political world and what really lies behind it often is not of interest to anyone. Image is to make the rest of us feel good.

Much as I might like to, I can't say Bush is stupid or evil; nor on the other side can I say he's good or intelligent. All I know about him as a person is through mannerisms, his policy decisions, and speeches which are mostly written for him by others. Not knowing much about his personality other than mannerisms and hearsay, it's difficult to make assessments as to character. Not to mention when you dislike someone's policies as much as I do his, it's hard to separate the man out from his actions.

Whether it's Bush or those behind him, somebody in that administration is ruthless. Is that how he defines being powerful? Running for office, he didn't mind using character assassination to gain power. He is the man who has not only condoned torture but fights to continue to have the right to do it without having to prove a need or whether it has even worked. Is this a wantabe he-man type without understanding what real power is all about?

Does Bush understand his various policy positions or is there someone telling him what to think? Does it happen in the same way as when he tells reporters he doesn't need to read the newspapers because someone tells him what they say? Does he choose books to read that are part of our past history because someone doesn't want to confuse him with current books about the real problems we are facing?

For that matter if he really read 60 books already this year, not to mention all of those hours of exercising, how does he get his job done? Has anybody here, retired or not, had time to read 60 books in 9 months as he claimed he had done in one interview? Does this end up being busy work to keep him occupied-- so he doesn't get in the way of the important things being done by the big people? Or were those Cliff Notes he read? Is it more of the image of what he'd like to think he was but doesn't want to go to the work of really being? I can't say that's true. Can't say it's not, but it does make me wonder.

Being a good politician is important to get in office, but what kind of a leader has he been once he got there? For that matter regarding those who see him as such a shrewd politician, remember some also have seen him also as a good businessman. We know he failed in his oil business (during what was admittedly a hard time for oil) and instead made his money through becoming a governor and being in a position to increase the worth and his personal percentage of that sports franchise through a stadium the government helped build. All these opportunities came through family connections. I guess government pork projects are okay when you profit from them.

As for his military career, this gung ho to send our troops into war, who makes himself sound like he's such a tough guy, avoided going to combat himself by pulling family strings. Many avoided combat back then, but the difference is he now acts as though he did go to war. On that aircraft carrier (a carefully staged event), he strode around like the war hero president from the movie Independence Day. Is this like the wantabe cowboy? A wantabe war hero? All without having to do anything real to acquire it-- just the image.

When we ourselves have avoided war, an introspective person wouldn't even want to bring up their military service. But Bush would be the last person to say he was introspective or that he knows why he does much of anything. He just feels it's right, or does someone else tell him what is? Who really knows.

Since he got into office, where he speaks and who gets to hear him in person has been carefully monitored-- almost always crowds that agree with his stance, partisan groups. He can say all he wants about uniting our country, but he has gone out of his way from the start to be the president to a limited sector.

Not long after he was elected the first time, he flew into Oregon to survey fire damage. He came as the president of this nation, and spoke at the local fairgrounds. My kids live nearby and wanted their children to see their president. My kids are professionals, good citizens, and work in civic groups but that wasn't good enough. To get a ticket to hear the president, you had to be on the Republican list.

Since he was elected, he has been traveling around the country constantly. It's not for town hall meetings. It's not to speak to the citizens of this nation-- except through sound bites for the evening news. His purpose has always been to raise money for his party and himself.

Because Bush is not up for election again, some might see this whole piece on him was pointless, but it's his party who is. It is him who is out all the time gathering money for Republicans to win this November. He knows if they do, he can continue on his reckless path because Republicans, whether they call themselves moderates or not, fall in lockstep with the Bush agenda--- more coming regarding that and the recent torture bill.

The only way to stop Bush, if you do not respect where he's taking this country, is stop the Republicans come November.

When I tried to decide what kind of photograph could I use to illustrate this blog, I was stymied. An empty suit, a mask, the invisible man? Maybe a garbage dump for his attitude toward the environment. I finally decided the ruins at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, would say what is going on best.

Chaco was a spiritual and maybe even government center for the Anasazi people who built proud cities and developed quite a culture-- for awhile. Something went wrong in their environment and maybe their culture which forced them to abandon this site and head south. These empty holes should remind us to take nothing for granted in terms of what we believe we have. Bush is not a man to worry his head about such things which is why the rest of us better.

Scandal Control

Under normal circumstances, I'd not comment on the Foley, Congressional Page scandal as the newspapers are full of the details. What has gotten me about it, more than that an adult male (or female these days) would use their position to seduce teen-agers, is the reaction from Republicans-- the scandal control operation put immediately into place. Not to say Foley was right in what he did. He's disgusting, but it's what people who weren't perverts (supposedly anyway) did about it both before it came out and continuing.

First came the Republican expressions of horror that Foley would do such a thing. One of their own. Oh my! Then came the information that some of them knew about it. Uh oh... can't stay with the original dodge-- so it was the fault of the Democrats. They probably knew about it and held back until right before the election. Never mind that these boys came from Republican families as whoever wants to let facts get in the way when trying to bury a scandal.

Next I am hearing-- well look at all the Democrats who have done the same thing as Foley or worse. That was quickly combined with who else can keep the American people safe but Republicans? Only they will hold the line and win the war in Iraq. That last was evidently Speaker Hastert who quickly got himself onto Rush Limbaugh-- two soft-living, old men who never fought a war anywhere, but we are supposed to believe men like them are the reason we can win the war in Iraq. Amazing. They might be why we got into it without thinking it through but win it? Ack!

In my many years, I have seen scandals from both parties and fully understand that among all politicians are those who lead secret lives. Power corrupts, and too many in power do whatever they can get away with. They lose track of what is even moral as they espouse how good they are with words and forget those same words when it comes to their personal actions.

But the difference in parties is Republicans are the ones claiming to be God's party, the ones who are the righteous, religious and moral bunch. They claim, as Foley did before he was outed, that they will protect Americans from perverts. They are the heroes; like Cunningham was before he was caught in a web of corruption that sent him to jail.

It's not been determined that Foley committed any crimes yet, although evidently he himself helped write laws making it illegal to use the internet to seduce minors. Is that ironic or what!

Foley has now checked into an alcohol rehab center. I guess that is one way to avoid answering questions, but does anybody really believe the man did what he did because of alcohol? Oh and his lawyer says he is gay and oh yes was also molested as a youth. Furthermore, he's innocent because he was unsuccessful in his seduction attempts.

In comparison to the evil of the man who just killed the little girls in Pennsylvania, this is nothing, but it's how our political system reacts to it that makes it something.

To me, the basic lesson is don't believe what any politician says about himself. Because the guy claims he's moral is no reason to vote for him because too often those running on supposed character quality have no clue what it even is.

(No pictures for this one as it's one of those just came up topics and besides what kind of picture would be appropriate? I sure can't think of any uplifting side to it.)

(Updated: In comments, Dick suggested outhouses would be good photos for blogs like this one about scandals. I realized that I actually had such photos as I have photographed more than a few when I see one that is in an interesting area or different. This one is in the Bitterroot Valley of Montana. Anyway, from now on, whenever the topic is suitable, this will be the picture.)

politics policies politicians

When I began Rainy Day Thoughts, my intention was for it to be a blog about ideas, photography and art more than my daily life. It has never had just one main topic as do some of the ones I enjoy reading. I can't say where it would fit in any category and wanted it to be as diverse as my own interests.

For the month of October and until the November elections in the United States, it will be one-dimensional-- politics, policies, politicians. I am doing this because I believe this is a critical time in my country with an important election coming up. Every couple of days, I will write about another issue impacting life today-- all of these issues naturally as I see them. I won't repeat that statement each time, but I am aware that good people see these things differently.

In the process, I will probably seem to be regularly bashing the Bush administration because they are the ones who have put into place the current solutions (I use the term loosely). In 2000, I feared what Bush would do as president. His policies have proven to be far worse than even I imagined and I imagined a lot. For the next month, I want to discuss how I believe he's done as president and where his policies have brought our country but also issues that we face as people in a changing time.

I haven't written a lot about politics in comparison to how often I talk about it to friends and family. I have realized a lot of people don't want to read about it; plus some readers come from other countries. I know politics can be depressing to think about-- heck it upsets me and after 2004, there wasn't anything we could do to change any of it-- until now.

With an election coming up, the American people can once again change course. I am not sure I have a lot of hope, given how easily humans are manipulated, but that's my defeatist thinking. I see politics as about more than elections. It is the way we resolve major issues even within our families. We talk about what is wrong, suggest answers, listen to what others think, and then come together in consensus-- hopefully-- to put in place solutions.

We have not had a dictatorship in the United States (even though one party right now comes close) which means one man or one party has not had all the say. The American people voted for the party currently in power. The dominant party then gerrymandered districts to increase their odds of staying in power (which both parties have done to varying degrees), passed out pork liberally (ditto), used the power of the White House to influence events (in greater amounts today than before but it's not new either), and who knows what else to stay in power (that's what is scary). Unless elections are no longer conducted fairly-- something nobody should take for granted in any era-- the American people can redirect that power.

So for the next month and how many ever days until the election, I will write only about education, environment, terrorism, Social Security, health care, waning power of the middle class, poverty, taxes, media, border issues, the war, torture, courts, money in politics, whatever else comes up, and the Bush administration's solutions or the damage they have done in each-- not a fun thing on that list.

I will try not to have this all be negative. It does no good to bash something or someone unless you can think of alternatives. When it happens I don't have any but still believe the way we are going is a train wreck waiting to happen, I am hoping the readers who stick with it will have suggestions.

Because I know a lot of people don't like reading about these kinds of subjects, I am warning such that they may not want to check back here for a long while-- at least until the middle of November, and maybe not even then because if the American people have voted to continue with Republicans having a lock on power, something that won't surprise me but will disappoint me, I will not be in a good mood!

The other part of my writing for the next month is an invitation to readers, who do not have their own blogs and do have strong opinions, whether on topics I cover or don't, to email me (my email is in my profile) their suggested blogs, and I will consider posting them under the reader's name. If you have a blog, feel free to put your link here if you wrote extensively on a political topic.

On my blog I will post none from someone who can only say Bush is better because of who the other guys are. You need to have a reason you believe in the man, not just what you think the other guys would've could've should've done. Nor do I want to put things here that are only a rant about how bad Bush is. When you don't like what he does, have reasons, not just hate that causes the mind to go numb.

I will be writing my personal opinion regarding Bush as president, because it would be unfair to pretend I don't have one; but he's not why this country is doing what it is. There is a political agenda that has been behind his presidency. Without support for that agenda, he'd have no power-- or I should say it'd be limited to those signing statements which the courts and legislature could put a stop to if they aren't in his pocket.

As is true in all relationships, we need to look beyond the words to the deeds. Pretty speeches are as meaningless as pretty people when there are no actions behind the words. It likewise doesn't matter if a president stumbles over his words. It's what is he doing that matters.

One last thing. Politics can be heated. If someone (no one ever has on my blog to date) writes rude, or nasty comments, they will find theirs deleted. If they disagree with me but have solid opinions, I am fine with that. I understand good people don't see these issues the same way.

Ingineer and I have been friends and we disagree heatedly sometimes, but we have always respected each other and have kept it to issues, not personal denunciations. I have debated politics with those where that is not so. Name calling or threats in comments will be gone as soon as I see it, which might be a shame if the person has otherwise interesting ideas. Thoughtful dissent I will enjoy reading-- even if I am convinced I am right. :) I hope there will be discussion of both agreement and dissent as that's how people grow in understanding.

I love this nation. I grew up feeling it was the mightiest one in the world and that wasn't because of riches or military power but for things I think are, at the least, equally important-- like opportunity, strong ideals, and compassion. We had leaders like Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy, and yes, even Richard Nixon who, where I might have disagreed with his political positions, put the good of his country ahead of his personal ambitions twice. I don't see people like those out there today. Maybe they are. I hope so. I want to be proud of our nation.

Finally for every political blog I write, I will post one of my own photos of this country, the beauty, the people, what we have built, sometimes even the humor of who we are.

The first photograph was not chosen because the problems currently seem like a bottomless hole but rather because the Grand Canyon is one of the most inspirational places I know. When you look into its depths, think about the many forces that created it, you can get the feeling you are looking into time itself. It puts your problems into perspective. If we are going to part of the solution of keeping this country as great as I grew up thinking it was, we need to keep in mind that sense of awe.

Autumn along the creek

By this time of the year, the creek is low. Reflections, like the one above, can make telling which side is up difficult. The creek, like the land is waiting for fall rains which have yet to come. The forests are dry and logging is shut down again as until the real rains come, fire risk is still great.

Wild blackberries are almost finished, but the last ones are sweetest. As I walked back to take photos, the ravens cawed loudly in dismay. Who are you? Get away from here! I wish I could have caught them with the camera as they are gorgeous, big black birds with huge beaks. These are not the young ones that grew up down the creek from the house, but rather their parents. When they are not flying, or in a tree looking down on me with disdain, they stalk around the pasture as though they own the place; and more than once, due to their size, I've looked through the scope to be sure they are a bird and not a coyote.

The coyotes are mostly loud at night. During the day they sneak in, hoping to not be noticed. They killed one of our smaller lambs last week; so I am out several times during the day with my .22 in hopes of shooting them before they kill another. Temporarily the sheep have lost pasture privileges (they have always been brought in at night) and are being fed extra hay and kept around the orchard, barns, and house. Even getting a shot at the coyote will help dissuade it from coming in. Killing it will do better.

I don't like shooting coyotes as they have to eat. They are beautiful, but they also will not stop killing without being forced. Killing isn't a moral issue to them but rather one of necessity. So is my shooting one if it comes into the pasture.

In nature, like it or not, might makes right. Without me around, they have might over the sheep. With me, it will depend on how good a shot I am that day and how fast the coyote can run.

This picture is the cow and her calf from this summer. Junior keeps up with mama just fine now. And good he does as he's not large enough to be safe from the coyotes either. Mama with her horns would be a good dissuader though-- as good as me with my .22.

books like In the Meantime

The last few blogs have been on books I have read and enjoyed. Another in that category is "In the Meantime" by Iyanla Vanzant. It is about finding yourself and the love you want to be in your life with good suggestions on how to get there.

The main thrust of the book is that we sometimes live on floors in our houses that will never help us live as we wish-- floors that won't let us keep a good relationship healthy if we find one. We are running around all the time cleaning up our messes-- or that of someone else. We move up floors by dealing with our problems and growing as a person with our goal being third floor living.

The meaning to the title is that sometimes we mistake permanent relationships or situations in our lives for ones that are not meant to be forever. Some relationships are meant to be in the meantime and ones that can help us grow. Maybe even one that will someday be permanent is for now in the meantime.

It's been quite awhile since I read the book but would like to think I have continued to apply what I read. To give you an idea of what the book is like, here are a few of the many passages I highlighted:

"Everyone will find out what love is not on their way to finding out what love is."

"When you hear someone or yourself say, 'I have no choice! I have to do what I have to do!' know that you are in the company of someone who is having a meantime experience in the basement of life's house."

"When you know a thing, you do it, you live it."

"You overcome self-deception on the second floor."

"We must be willing to give up old notions, incorporate new information, change the direction in which we are traveling, and most of all take the strings off love. You can never love anyone to your own detriment. That is not love, that is possession, control, fear, or a combination of them all."

As you move up the floors, you will grow as a person with more and more capability to love as well as to know who you are. One suggestion she had that I particularly liked was taking the time to ask yourself questions-- and then even more importantly, wait for the answers. Too often we don't give ourselves time to even consider the questions, let alone wait for the inner voice to reply. She suggested if you ask a question and honestly receive no answer, don't ask a second question but come back to it another day.

"In the basement, you did not know you had a problem. On the first floor, you knew you had a problem and you learned the nature of the problem. On the second floor, you knew the nature of the problem, but you did not know what to do about it. On the second floor, you learned what to do about the problem. Now, in order, to be elevated to the third floor, you must learn how to do what you know."

More exactly what that means is why you buy or borrow the book from the library and take your time as you read it. Vanzant writes entertainingly and uses her own life for examples as to how this all works, and I personally will never look at houses without thinking of my own desire to live on that third floor in all my relationships.

I am currently reading The Second Half of Life, Opening the Eight Gates of Wisdom by Angeles Arrien. So far so good on it. Fran from Sacred Ordinary had mentioned it awhile back, and it seemed very apropos for my own thinking at this time.

When I am finished with it-- which might be awhile, as it requires considering how it applies to my life-- the next book is waiting, God Laughs and Plays by David James Duncan-- churchless sermons in response to the preachments of the fundamentalist right. This one was recommended to me by my daughter. As you can tell, I get a lot of my books by recommendation.

Of Women and Horses

Women have often found, at one age or another, they have a thing for horses. There are many explanations for this from suggestions riding a horse rubs us sensually (not in my experience) to the control of the beast is allegorical to the control of the man who we all know will never be controlled-- at least not the kind we often secretly covet.

I admit it-- horses are one of my fantasies. I put their thought aside for most of my adult years, but the dream of them and those who ride them returned with a vengeance in my senior years. They are a fantasy unlikely to be fulfilled in a physical sense, but they are satisfying to my imagination even if that is all they ever are.

As a girl having a horse was impossible as my father was allergic to them. He did give it a try once, having a horse on our farm. Even bringing the clothing into the house after our being with the horse soon made him sick, and the horse had to go.

Before the horse was sent away, I remember saddling him and taking him for a ride to the back of our property. I got a little nervous part way back and turned him around which was great with him, and he took off at a run. I pulled hard on the reins which stopped him as he was actually an obedient horse. Unfortunately I didn't stop as quickly and went right on over his head-- with no injuries except to my pride.

As a young married woman, my family and I took a trail ride back into the tall pines near Camp Sherman, Oregon. It was lovely, a dirt road and nothing but peace; until we turned toward the barns and the green horse I was on got in a tiff with another horse, did a little kicking, and took off at a gallop for the barns.

I recalled my earlier experience of going over a horse's head and knew the highway ahead was not where I wanted that to happen; so I just slid off the side of the horse to the ground, rolling (perfectly I might add) and avoiding any serious injury.

The dream of horses didn't end; and there were a few more trail rides; but for a lot of years, I put aside the idea of a horse of my own until a few years ago when I began to think what an ideal life would be like for me and realized it had a horse in it.

The current farm I am on does not have the right places for riding, has too many animals now, nor is the wet soil the best for horses; but in the back of my mind is that someday thinking-- even though I am almost 63 and know it's probably not wise someday thinking.

Thinking I should learn more about them, I have collected a lot of books on horse care, horsemanship and just the enjoyment of horses. One of my favorites in the latter category is Of Women and Horses. GaWaNi Pony Boy has put together a series of essays by various horsewomen on what horses have meant to their lives and art. The book is full of beautiful photographs, paintings of horses and the women of all ages who love them.

One of the passages in the book by Sarah Lynn Richards might explain the appeal of horses to so many women:

"As human beings, we, too, must make our choices, build our fences and remain safe or forsake safety for the riskier and more fulfilling life without them."

"Does this resemble in anyway the modern woman's struggle to exist? In her quest for safety, has she accepted the restrictions offered by her society? Don't bite, don't kick, eat this, drink this, look like this, walk like this, talk like this. Perfection equals protection? Has she internalized these complex familial and cultural standards and made them her own? If this is so, she has (unconsciously) struck a bargain. She will occupy only the space that is prescribed, she will take up less space than her natural or whole self would, but she will be safe. It is a trade-off, and may seem like a fair one, if choices are few. It is, however, the very state of this safety that prevents wholeness and growth for the individual."

Horses challenge safety. They are a risk. They offer something along with that risk-- as will most challenges we choose to face.

Spending

Spending by Mary Gordon was a gift to me from a friend who mailed it to me because she thought I would relate to the characters and story. She was right. The female protagonist is a middle-aged, divorced, moderately successful New York painter. The plot is a bit of an adult fairy tale in that what happens seems unlikely but how delightful for a little while to imagine it could. The book is well written and sweeps you away into an interesting lifestyle.

One of my favorite aspects of the story was that the heroine had an idea for repainting classic religious works of Christ by updating them to say something for our time. That, of course, offended fundamentalist Christians, but it led to her traveling to where the works would be, studying them, and reinterpreting them to suit her theme. It led me to look up the original paintings when they weren't ones with which I was familiar.

The woman who wrote this book understood artists and very nicely portrayed a creative life. It is a sensual read with the art, lifestyle, food, and eroticism as it starts with the heroine finding a lover (or rather he finds her) who believes so strongly in her talent that he offers to become her muse, providing her a place to work and money to allow her paint full-time-- that is when they are not making love or she isn't wrestling with her relationship with her grown daughter.

The following gives you a bit of a feeling for the writing--

"I began sketching him. That sounds like a simple sentence but the two pronouns, I and him, were actually very complicated when they were connected to my sketching. I was his lover, someone who knew something of his life that could be called his biography-- but I was looking at him as merely a series of planes, a series of angles, a series of shapes whose relation to one another I was trying to make manifest. He was a form that I would try to reproduce.

"But that's not really true either. I'd wanted the image of him because his form was saturated in desire. I wasn't Matisse in his white pharmacist's coat."

Yaqui Woman

Understanding the meaning behind my dreams has been one of my spiritual goals. Last week I had one that still has me considering. I was tending sheep and cattle. A pretty common theme for me, but then it began to turn unusual. Some I don't remember except for thinking-- what was that? One incident I recall was pulling a drowning calf from a water barrel, then realizing under it was another, and I was able to save it also.

Then the dream shifted to sitting in a room with a woman across from me and a man behind. I knew there were others nearby but unseen. The woman told me they all were part of my Yaqui family. She said the man was my Yaqui father and in the other room was my Yaqui lover. I saw none of these people in the sense of being able to identify who they might be today.

I had the feeling she was saying this was a bit of a magical family that went farther back than the Yaqui time; and yet Yaqui was how she identified it to me so I would understand.

She said, when magical things happen, they are only to get our attention for the message; so we will listen to what comes next. The magic is not significant other than as an attention-getter. Magic is for the message but not the message.

This is a truth that maybe should be obvious. When Jesus did miracles, he did them to get people's attention, to show who he was, to get others to listen to what he had to say. This is true of most mystics. They are not caught up in the power of the supernatural event but see it for what it is-- a way to help ourselves and others be open to listening.

I woke with a couple of feelings about the dream. First was wondering if it applied to one of my regressions (which I wrote about last fall and reposted for anyone who would like to read it-- here) regarding a possible past life, one which I had thought was most likely Apache because of the area where I thought it took place. Perhaps the people were Yaqui instead. The Sonoran Desert is still homeland to the Yaqui as it was to the Apache during the time of that possible lifetime. It is also where I have a part-time home, a land I have long called one of my spirit homes. Maybe a past life was there. Maybe not.

If it was, it would add to my understanding of what that regression lifetime might have been like. I have felt for a long time that what I did in that time had cost me a soul family's respect. Did I lose touch with who they were, and the dream was a way to reconnect us? As is often the case with dreams, one can wonder more than prove such possibilities-- at least for now.

Second possible purpose in the dream was nudging me to finally read the Carlos Castaneda books about Yaqui mysticism and learn more about the ways of the shaman, something I have read some on through the years but only limitedly. The book I will begin with is called 'A Yaqui Way of Knowledge, The Teachings of Don Juan.'

Shamanism has appeal to me because as best I understand it, it's about those who heal, who help others into oneness with the land and spirit. Perhaps I will soon know more about it.

As most strong dreams do, there could be a third reason for this one, and that might be combining the mysticism I can learn through these books into the story I have been slowly building from dreams. Maybe.. could be.

(This kind of, maybe, could be computer portrait, Yaqui Woman, is mixing some reality from this lifetime with that regression of 1998 in a bit of a dreamlike image.)

Aging naturally -- kind of

Recently Nora Ephron came out with a new book, title of which escapes my mind, but in it she claimed the reason women today look younger for their years is hair dye (as well as surgical anything and everything). Her clear goal was to look younger for as long as she could-- which makes sense given she is surrounded by those who believe you can never been too young and that old age is something to be hidden and denied.

No matter what a person does to try and look younger, I believe, it'll fail. I have seen photos of women who have had many thousands of dollars worth of surgery and the question is asked-- how old are they? I usually am right with my guess. In my opinion it's better to be who you are and that in the end will make you happiest. I do not want to turn my face into a mask. Plastic aging Barbie does not look young. The things I do are for helping my face not sag until it absolutely must, look refreshed, relaxed, and as I get older, that takes some effort.

My first and biggest tips are the obvious-- drink lots of water. It sounds simple but it's so true. If I don't like how my skin looks, I increase my water intake and the next day it's better. There is no moisturizer you can take that will duplicate what drinking water does. To go with that, when I have had much sugar, my skin always shows it for the next few days. Healthy diet is definitely a factor in good looking skin-- sunscreen too but everybody knows all of those things. So what! We still sometimes want chocolate or to be out in the direct sun and it's worth paying the price but there is a price and the skin shows it.

For me, next comes facial exercises. I began them maybe as much as 10 years ago. I bought a paperbook on suggested exercises for a natural face lift. It made sense to me because we exercise the rest of our body. We do exercise our face by our expressions, but sometimes those don't lift but rather sink our faces.

I ended up not sticking with the ones in the book but have my own that I do relatively religiously-- like especially after I have looked in a mirror and saw something sagging that wasn't. Mine are what I call isometric. They are very simple and a bit like yoga for the face. You concentrate on moving the muscles you want lifted or built up. Lift, tighten, hold, repeat.

If you have not worked with your facial muscles, it might take a bit of doing before you can feel the muscles tightening on command, and possibly that would be helped along by starting with the book to get familiar with controlling them.

My practice is to lift cheek muscles, nose, corners of mouth, under jaw, around eyes, and forehead. You can do some of those at the same time or concentrate on first one area, then the other. Ideally, you would do these with your hands on the forehead to block more wrinkles from forming there, but to kind of show what it looks like, I am not doing that. It's hard to get a photo that shows how you would take your mouth, extend it some to both sides, tighten and lift at the same time under the jaw.

The beauty of isometric is, although one looks a little peculiar doing them, basically it's not too odd-- not enough to have someone, who saw you driving down the road, wondering what the heck that was all about (I saw a picture of Goldie Hawn doing the ones in the book I have, and they made the tabloids online with what the heck was that all about).

If this is new to you, you will see a secondary benefit in that these are good for feeling more relaxed afterward. It's a release of tension. Facial exercises are not going to have anyone looking like they are in their thirties-- unless they are-- but they don't cost a dime (even the paperback book was pretty inexpensive) and in my experience, do make a difference. You can do them reading, driving or watching TV; so they aren't even time consumers.

They say our lips narrow as we age. I think this is mostly because we press them tightly together from tension, pain or habit. I can increase the width of my lips by relaxing them. I will catch myself (as I just did) tightening up with discomfort or from something I just read in a newspaper. If I purpose to relax my mouth, it increases the width of upper and lower lips. Check it out for yourself.

I did try those lip plumpers they advertise and to me they did nothing except make my lips sticky, tingle and give them an odd color. Better by far is practicing relaxing the mouth, let the lips loosen and release the tension. If you then turn up the corners, nothing is more attractive to others than a smile.

I don't know if it matters which moisturizer someone uses; except do find one that works for your skin. I have not found expensive meant more effective. My personal favorite is Oil of Olay simply because, even in my 60s, if I use anything with oil in it, I get a pimple. How attractive-- wrinkles and pimples side by side! I wash my face with Cetaphil cleanser, use either Oil of Olay moisturizer or right now am trying StriVectin-SD, which is supposed to improve skin condition (more expensive but available from Costco for anyone wanting the lowest price I have seen for it). Oil of Olay puts out quite a variety of products and I've played with many of them just for fun because at their prices, I can afford to try this or that.

For about five years, involving more effort and cost, I have off and on had fotofacial treatments when I can work one into my schedule as well as afford it. They are light treatments that improve skin tone, texture, and tighten some. While there is a bit of discomfort to them, for me it's been mild, and does not leave sores nor is there any healing times (there is a lot of information about them online if you are interested and the spelling changes with the patent). After a fotofacial treatment, I walk out looking like I went in (when there is any redness, it can be covered with a concealer stick); then my skin improves over the next weeks. They say it stimulates the collagen.

Fotofacials are not cheap. Usually they start with a series and run from a hundred to several hundred each depending on where you live and if there is competition. I began them because I had a mild case of rosacea, and I didn't want it to get worse. They help that, shrink small veins around the nose, reduce pores, and take away age spots. For me, they have tightened my skin but not changed my looks. My last one was about 6 months ago and I am overdue.

On the comment Ephron made in her book about hair dye being the secret to looking younger. I don't necessarily agree. It could in some cases but generally it's easy to see who dyes and who doesn't. If it's an unflattering color, it doesn't look better than natural gray, silver or white. I had colored mine in my 20s for fun, went through the process of growing it out and then began again in my late 50s until I again tired of doing it. Over a year ago I began stopping by streaking less and less color through it hopefully avoiding the telltale skunk stripe down the part. My hair is now a mix of the natural ash brown, gray and white with the dyed ends slowly losing their color. It takes awhile to grow out hair this length.

I think whether a person dyes or not, it should be what lets them have fun and feel good. If we do color, they say it's more flattering to use lighter shades than when we were young. Having seen Gloria Steinem on Bill Maher last week with her hair blond and knowing she is about 73, I think they might be onto something. She is a good example of an older woman who looks great but doesn't remotely look young. She has sags and wrinkles but, at least to me, they didn't make her look unattractive-- didn't to Maher either.

Nothing I have mentioned is a miracle cure. I have lines, some sagging. When I was younger, I said I'd get my first face lift before 55; then I found out what they do with face lifts; and the idea of having my facial skin peeled open, cheek muscles restitched, sleeping upright if it's around the eyes, healing for two weeks or longer, oozing... I could go on... was a major yuck. Not to mention maybe I wouldn't look like me when they got through. Doing what I can in a non-invasive way has been fun and generally (other than the foto facials) not expensive.

Earth Cycles

Most likely anyone who pays attention to earth cycles, religious seasons, or uses full and new moons already knows we are approaching a particularly powerful time with not only the new moon and equinox on Friday but the first day of autumn and Rosh Hashanah beginning Saturday. I received this in my email this morning from Stephanie StClaire and thought some others might enjoy reading it:

"New Moon with a solar eclipse is Friday, September 22 at 5:45 AM and the Fall equinox is at 4:24 PM US Mountain Time. This is a very powerful day and provides an opportunity to reset anything in your life that needs it by being clear about what you are leaving behind. Spend time on and around this day in spiritual practice and setting intentions for the future. Beware of possible mechanical or electronic malfunctions. Watch for dissolving of certain support structures as you reset areas of your life. Be proactive with this time and you will get a lot of mileage out if it."

from Jose and Lena of Power Path.

(I have read their emails through Stephanie before but have not visited their site other than to get this link to let you know from where it comes.)

being old means what?

For me, comments were especially interesting on the last blog regarding aging. I liked the diverse opinions others had on this topic. For some people old age seems to have a different meaning than it has for me. It appears to be seen as a time where a person is decrepit, maybe losing mental skills. Young is good. Old is not. I believe that is a product of our culture more than anything else, which Ronni Bennet over at 'Time Goes By' (linked alongside here) comments on regularly.

I am comfortable with calling myself old, and I think there are several reasons for that. The first comes from having been close to a lot of elders in my life. They were people who took vacations to Europe and Hawaii for the first time in their 70s and 80s. People like my mother, who learned to drive at 68 on a stick-shift truck. When my mom was in her 80s, and looking after this farm when we weren't here, she chased the young bulls back into their pasture, breaking a hoe over the back of one. Why would I worry about calling myself old with examples like those?

On the personal side, I have come to see old age is a time where I can relax and not have expectations for what I should do or be. Before that, there were so many and they got me through the years-- not in a negative way but just it's what was. Get an education. Get married. Choose careers. Build homes. Have kids. Raise the kids. See them in college. Help them start their own families. Fail at any or all of those. Suddenly with old age there was nothing more I 'had' to do. That did not mean life was over but just a freeing up. Expectations were behind me.

As Old Lady in the Hills mentioned in comments and I have also been aware given my own family, I could have 30 years ahead. Elders choose all kinds of options for those years. Some start a career they wanted before but for assorted reasons were unable to do. Given much of the attitude in the workplace to the old, this works best when you can start your own business. Others put time into charitable work that their earlier obligations didn't permit. Some get a degree, move to a foreign country, learn to ride a horse properly and go on a trail ride into the wilderness (that was a 70 something in Tucson). What we can do will relate more to general conditioning, accidents, diseases, and staying as active as possible than it will to old age alone. Anybody can lose all of their abilities at any age to disease or accidents-- or even to losing enthusiasm for living.

What is unique to old age is the body does wear out. There is no denying it happens; and if we try to do all we could have done at say 30, after we get old, our body will rebel. There comes a time, even for marathon runners, where denial of the aging body will lead to injuries. Some of what that involves will be dependent on what you like doing. Katherine Hepburn could swim daily in the ocean off Maine coast well into her 80s. For playing professional football, you are out of the game far earlier. Little by little I have seen that I don't have the strength I earlier had. It's not a big deal yet, but it's the beginning of a process.

Where it comes to food, not only can our body abruptly let us know something we always ate no longer works, but also find out it is going to put pounds on us because of metabolism changes. To eat a lot of fat as a kid seemed to work; to eat fat as an elder leaves me not feeling so good and with heartburn. I think this awareness of recalibrating our activities comes gradually but denying it won't stop it.

Writing about this has made me wonder if women are more comfortable with the stages of life than men given we come into womanhood (our culture would still call us girls) with menstruation. When we get past our fertile years, the monthly cycle stops. Bodily production of hormones is reduced and stopped. Is that related to attitude? How we react to it is, but basically it's a product of getting old. Men have less testosterone, although it's not as big an immediate shift for them. Women even have ours named by somebody-- The Change.

What I believe is that physical old age is a fact, not an attitude. The attitude so many fear is that they will stop being able to enjoy life. That can happen in their 20s. We don't have to claim we are still young at 60 to see old age as a fun time, a place to try new things, to learn. It is our choice what we make of it. Whether you say your body is old, it is what it is; and you can't fool others even with plastic surgeries. You can call yourself young at heart if you see youth as the ones to admire in terms of their hearts, but why isn't it the old at heart? I like old people, always have; and therefore, see their hearts as the ones to admire because they have the compassion and wisdom of experience behind them. Are all old people like that? Of course not, but they were the ones I now want to be like.

At the other end of old age is death, and old age should be a time of preparing for that in the most positive way through working out our spiritual beliefs, so when our time to pass over comes, we are not afraid. We can make arrangements for how we want to have our bodily remains dealt with, how much end of life care we want. Those things can be dealt with when we are at the beginning of old age and unless we change our minds, forgotten until it becomes an issue.

I have found some really cool things about being old. I dream dreams. I have time to dream them, paint them, and research them. I can take more time to think through ideas, to learn things. Through writing and art I can share what I have seen of this life with others. There are advantages to this period of life physically. For instance I don't have to worry that I don't look good in a mini skirt. I am not supposed to look good in one; so if I do, it's a bonus.

Next blog will be a bit superficial, I guess. It will not be about aging attitudes, which I think are key to changing the meaning of old age-- things like staying flexible, interested in life, taking risks, experiencing new things, and most of all not so much looking backward but rather forward. However, the next blog will be purely on facial looks-- what I do to keep my face looking as good as possible cuz having had an old, sexy grandma, with boyfriends still after her in her 70s, I know you don't have to stop looking attractive just because you got old. And on a personal note, I still like seeing a man watch me and knowing I pleased his eyes. I don't plan on giving that up until I have to!

Grokking It

Once in awhile, sometimes from out of the blue, others after working through a problem, I have moments I used to call epiphanies. They come when I suddenly know something so deeply that it's a part of me. I think today a better term comes from the book 'Stranger in a Strange Land'-- I grok it. Although I am always a little uncertain when I use a science fiction term, since it is not a genre I am familiar with generally. I did read this book and liked this word. It is a verb and means a knowledge and understanding that goes to the core being and lets you not only see something but use it. In the book, it meant to drink and refers to taking into yourself an understanding that becomes part of who you are.

Epiphany is a good word too but grok is better for what I feel right now. One could have an epiphany, and it might not impact their daily life. It could be a momentary awakening that sank back into forgetfulness. A person could know something but not use it for themselves. The ah-ha moment could end being nothing. But if I grok it, it means it went deep within and became part of who I am.

When I was a young woman, I was sitting in Mass with a baby on my lap and a toddler beside me. I could feel the length of my hair against the wood of the pew when I moved. My body and spirit were strong. I had borne two children, was raising them and knew how to do that. I felt female power surge through me with who I was and what my role, at that time, was in life. I knew what it meant to be a woman in the purest essence of that word. I savored the moment. I also knew it was but a moment but one to live fully.

Although I have had such moments since then, the one now is the most like that earlier time. As I grokked what it meant to me to be an old woman, I saw it as the coming into the power of the old woman, the crone, the wise one. A woman who has raised her children, has lived a life, and could now look back on that or take what she has learned and look ahead. Does old have to be weak? Must it mean limitations? It means some of that but more.

Some of what I am thinking was added onto when I was waiting to pay for entrance to the renaissance faire. A woman walked down the line saying, if anyone had exact change, she could take their money. I had seen printed that seniors got in for a lesser rate but didn't see where they defined senior. Experience has shown me it can be anywhere from 50 to 65. I asked and she made a joke out of it. She asked what would I call senior?

"I don't know," I said. "I guess for a lower admittance fee, I'd make it 65, but it varies."

"If you are willing to call yourself a senior," she said laughing and nodding to the others standing there, "you may have the lower rate."

I laughed too. "What else could I call myself at almost 63?"

She took the lower rate. As I thought on it later, I knew she thought I'd be embarrassed to call myself a senior. Why should that have been? Has it been a thing to be ashamed of in our culture? Is being twenty all that is supposed to be good and from then on it's downhill?

What I have grokked is that being old is what I am and being old is not only okay but a rich time of life. It's not a time to give up on being vital, sexy, attractive, active, excited about life. It's not a time to quit learning new things, Not a time to say I always did it that way and cannot change. It is instead a time to be like that sunset from the other night. A sunset marks the beginning of the end of a day, but it can be with a lush fullness, a promise of richness and going out can be with a bang, not a whimper.

I am making choices today and in the next few years that will determine how I live as an old woman. I see these as part of grokking old age with a new paradigm. I don't want to accept someone else's definitions for what old means, nor do I want to deny being old. I instead want to make the most of the last cycle of life as I did with the time when I was a young woman full of the spirit of being young.

Yes, I could for awhile deny what I am, try to hide it, have surgery, inject poison into my face, dye my hair, refuse to admit my birth year, but why should I? Why should I not be proud I have done what I have and now am ready to live these final years, how many there may be, as a juicy old woman, full of vim and vigor. Not as strong as when young but sure not ready to give it up either-- not just yet!

Witchcraft

Discussing witchcraft, when I am not and never have been a practicing witch, makes me a little uneasy. Because it is often much misunderstood, I feel it something important to write about along with the other spiritual topics I have explored. I studied up on it some years ago to write a story where the lead character discovers her grandmother was a practicing witch. She comes to learn what that means-- as did I in my research.

Some think witchcraft is connected to Satan; and rituals, like with a stag's head, could be part of why, but it is not. It goes back to paganism, to Celtic practices, goddesses, the uses of herbs, rituals, and moon cycles as ways to help one's own life and that of others.

I find witchcraft interesting, always enjoy learning more about it, and have known a few witches. As I said, I am not a witch, but I have a few of what I call pagan practices like Tarot cards, astrology, using aromatic oils, and have been learning palm reading which are within witchcraft. The main reason I wouldn't be a witch is I am not into being part of any formal religion at this point in my life. I most definitely don't want to cast spells and take the responsibility onto myself for changing someone else's life-- even if I believed I could. But I don't see witchcraft as wrong if it's practiced properly. Naturally in all spiritual practices there can be wrong and right uses of power.

With the work of witchcraft, the beginning is casting a circle and within it will be done sacred rituals. I have read a lot of ways to cast a circle but the essence is an awareness and meditation on the four directions, four colors, and four elements-- fire, water, earth and air. For anyone interested in learning more about what that all entails, which is not my purpose here, there are a many books on the practices in metaphysical sections of bookstores. To cast a circle, there is no need to desecrate the land, to build temples. The ground becomes sacred for the time of the work. When the ritual is finished, the circle is released and the land returns to what it was before.

In olden times people thought to be witches were burned in Europe and killed in the United States. Some of that was fear, of course, but some was because midwives or healers competed with doctors and sometimes were more successful. Remember back then doctors would go from doing an autopsy, treating any manner of illness, and immediately treat the next patient without washing their hands. Their idea of medical care was bleeding an ill person. It's not surprising that a neighborhood witch, with a knowledge of herbs, might have had more success than the doctor was having.

After the times of the Inquisitions and burnings, a lot of wisdom regarding herbal medicines as well as spells went underground. Some might have been lost, but it is slowly coming more into the light at least for now. It is still often misunderstood; but if one thinks of it as an earth religion, basically a form of paganism, it might not seem so evil or frightening. Things many people take for granted today like astrology, tarot cards, palm reading, collecting and growing of herbs and flowers to be used for healing, aromatherapy, energy transfer, understanding of the earth and moon cycles are all part of basic witchcraft.

Do witches really fly through the air, change into animals, make their enemies sick? None that I know, but I don't know what is possible. It's not likely to be the average experience of most witches. Mystics of all religions have had supernatural powers that most of us don't understand or even want.

Perhaps some of how threatening the practice of witchcraft might be, even if the coven attempted to use black magic, would be dependent on the spiritual power of the ones they were attempting to harm. Whether you believe in Satanic power, black witchcraft or even the ability of a Christian to pray bad onto you as punishment, it behooves you to be strong spiritually yourself.

If a witch properly understands her craft, she would not do evil to another even if she could. The belief of some is whatever they do returns to them three-fold. That might or not be true for what would happen, but if some Christians, who are so free with praying God will smite some person they regard as evil, were as concerned it'd bounce back on them, they would regard prayer a bit more cautiously too.

When I saw the last Johnny Depp pirate movie-- Dead Man's Chest, I was taken with the imagery in it and in particular that of the soothsayer. I decided I wanted to do a computer painting of what some regard as the dark-side and that is what accompanies this blog.

I thought it was interesting that the woman in the painting came out looking like an older version of the girl in my dream painting for The Wild Ones. Perhaps this is where that girl went to gain power to protect herself from a brutal husband who was chasing her. In those times, a mixed blood, poor woman, would have had few choices for how to protect herself. Certainly the culture wouldn't do it for her. This new computer painting has made me more and more think that dream might have been intended for a book someday and pieces of that will keep coming to me.

Love Spells

"I do not unmarry Ahab. But I marry myself. I take my fate as within."
from Sena Jeter Naslund's book-- Ahab's Wife.

When I started to read Phyllis Curott's last book, The Love Spell, I thought it would relate to the subject of witchcraft, which I intend to write about, and I knew it was about a search for a soul mate but was surprised how deeply it went into relationships and what makes them work. It was one of those books I buy and set aside for the right day. That day came; and once I began reading, I didn't want to put it down as it was so apropos to what I had been thinking and just written about-- soul mate love. I see it as synchronicity when it happens and try never to ignore it.

While I have written about the practical side of soul mates-- the friends, family, and working partnerships that can benefit from such connections, I know for most of us, when the subject of soul mates comes up, the belief is it's the ultimate love connection, the kind of story about which they create myths, poetry, books, songs, and movies.

The Love Spell is an erotic memoir which means it might not be everyone's cup of henbane tea especially if you see witchcraft as evil, have a belief that sex outside of marriage is always a sin, or are offended by reading graphic sex.

The writer is a lawyer and practicing witch in New York City, and her memoir is about a spiritual and physical search for love, to find the man of her dreams to fulfill her life. She feels something is drawing her to him. Is it a daemon, Dionysus, or James Dean? Hey, it's a modern memoir. Since she is a witch, she uses what spells and potions she believes will work to bring a soul mate to her, and it works.... or does it?

Her book begins with a quote by Rainer Maria Rilke: "Ever since I heard my first love story I began looking for you, not realizing how futile that is. Lovers don't finally just meet somewhere; they are in each other all along."

I also believe with soul mates we feel them whether we are physically together or not; and if it's a strong connection, probably very like that quote. Does that mean the relationship itself will work out? Not necessarily. But it does mean it'll be quite a ride while it lasts. Soul mate loves probably aren't ones you would say were based on practicality but rather on strong feelings that can override good judgment. (They can be confused with lust with which they have a fair amount in common as in lack of commonsense accompanying desires.)

Her book tells a story of the kind of search where you begin with the burning desire to be with someone to fulfill you. If you do meet them and it's all you had hoped, the magical time of it being everything only lasts a set time. When the clock strikes twelve, the partner better be one with whom you can get along, where you have things in common, share values and goals, or it will be over. The magic can get you there but it can't keep you there.

Although she uses ritual to try to create magic, she makes it clear such rituals cannot bring a certain person to you. Eventually she sees ritual is not required to draw the right energy. It is (as my friend said in those earlier blogs) a way to focus and that's all. She writes witchcraft could become a substitute for real experience. Sound familiar? Religions of all sorts can help us focus, get on the path, be emotionally and sensually satisfying; but if they stay the end-all, be-all, they are going to cheat us of genuine spiritual experience.

She learns that to find her ideal soul mate love and have it work, she has to be the woman she was born to be. When she marries herself, the earth, all around her, then she is ready to have a lasting soul mate relationship. At that point, being complete within herself, she would not need one; but she might still desire it which makes it stronger if it happens.

Toward the end of the book, her mentor states it well: "You can have happily ever after-- all it requires is the right person to create it with. He exists-- you're not creating him, you're sensing him. You have your soul; you'll find your soul mate. That's the journey of love."

The quote I used at the start of this, it is what I have written on the first page of my journal as something I never want to forget. We have to be our own soul mate even if we are fortunate enough to find that special love and are blessed to have a full life with them.

Olbermann

This morning I read Dharma Bums (linked alongside this blog) and they had this -- Keith Olbermann. I thought it was very important and wanted to put it here also. Please check it out. What Olbermann had to say was worth everyone in this nation taking the time to read or hear-- especially if they still support George Bush.

Renaissance Faire

Every couple of years, my family and I get to the Shrewsbury Renaissance Faire. I always find it an interesting experience with the mix of crafts for sale, entertainment, fortune tellers, artisans at work, and colorful costuming.

Those, who run the faire, dress and talk appropriate to the 1500s as best they know it. One booth rents costumes, but it seems each year more of the attendees come dressed up and having fun with their choices. A lot of time, money and thought goes into those costumes. When I was arriving, a wild looking bunch of Highlanders, in plaid pants and with swords were just ahead in the line.

Although I am not one who has been into Medieval times, sometime it would be fun to go in costume.-- play pretend and for a few hours be someone else. Since the usual garb for the Elizabethan wealthier classes involves rich brocades, heavy fabrics, many layers of clothing, not to mention corsets, if I do dress up, it'll likely be as a gypsy-- poorer but cooler.

The faire is currently being held on farmland, alongside a river, with timbered hills as a backdrop which makes it feel very authentic as well as picturesque. If you didn't have a field full of automobiles and an emergency vehicle parked alongside, you might almost convince yourself you had stepped back in time... almost.

While entertainment can be bagpipes, belly dancing, juggling, anything that might have been done back then, the highlight is the tournament which involves sword fighting and jousting. This year the group putting that on came from Seattle and had women as a part of the sword fighting and horsemanship skill events-- in everything but the actual jousting. Despite the fact the tournament is for entertainment, jousting is obviously an event that requires a great deal of strength, dexterity, and can be dangerous.

This faire is one sponsored by the Society for Creative Anachronism, which has information online for anyone interested. They meet regularly throughout the year, some have their weddings at their various gatherings, and from what I have read, many feel the 1500s is the time they would have most liked to live-- or perhaps the past life for which they have the most affinity. We also have such gatherings of mountain men and many of those people do feel they were born over a hundred years too late.

My grandson, who is two, left with a big smile, a dragon stick horse, a wand given to him by a strolling wizard (carved from a branch) and a peacock feather. Not sure where he got that. I left with some nice photographs, time spent with happy people, a full stomach (burrito renamed gypsy fare), and memories of a sunny afternoon enjoying the diversity of people and their interests.

Praying Mantis

This week-end, at a renaissance faire (pictures from that will come another day) I was sitting on a dusty slope covered with dry bunch grass to wait for the jousting to begin. Someone said-- a praying mantis is on your back. I have to admit, I was pleased. Really? It chose me? Wow. Let it stay there because with all these people around, it might be stepped on if it is brushed off. I handed over my camera and asked for a photo. It was in no hurry to leave.

Then they said-- it's crawling up your back and going to get in your hair. At that point I became concerned as if it got tangled in my hair, that could have caused it to lose a feeler or leg getting it out; so I asked the man to my right if he could safely remove it and put it on a small tree almost in front of us. He did so; and as it climbed up the tree, I took another picture, then lost track of it.

I believe the events in our life are like our dreams. We can dismiss them, see them as insignificant, or when something a bit unusual happens, become interested in learning more about the potential symbol.

Biologically, I knew they are a gardener's friend. Although they are named praying mantis for their front leg position, it is actually a deadly weapon. Their benefit to the gardener is their hunting ability. Aphids beware.

I had no idea they can also kill hummingbirds. When I did some research on them, I saw a photograph online, for which I am sure anyone interested can find, that showed a praying mantis with a hummingbird it had killed, and then devoured. It was a small hummingbird, but still who would have guessed that more than small insects should be wary around them.

Generally they are green when I have seen them, but they take on the color of their background which is why on this dusty slope, this one (not sure how you tell male from female but guessing it might be female) was the color in these photos. They live about a year. I did know that the female will sometimes kill the male after mating by knocking his head off before she devours him. Not always. Sometimes he's quick enough to get out of her way.

Researching the spiritual symbols, I learned in ancient Egypt it would have been greatly honored. The Greeks attributed to it supernatural powers. To some it has been seen as the guide into the underworld. It had been inspirational in creating some of the Eastern exercises to increase chi (energy). In Africa, a praying mantis is thought to bring good luck to whomever it lands on and even restore life to the dead. The Bushmen of Africa believe the praying mantis is a divine messenger and whenever one is seen, diviners try to determine the current message.

What message did I take for myself from its choosing my back over all the others around? I felt pleased that maybe it knew I would protect it-- which I did as best I could. If it had a spiritual message for me, I will be looking.

Fascinating insects. Also if anyone knows if they will eat lady bugs, who are also garden predators, please comment with the answer.