How we think-- or not

My blogs keep getting rearranged by life. Several that I wrote ahead of time simply didn't fit when their Saturday came along. Part of this one still fits, but more has been added. It's about why we think as we do and why it's so hard for us to understand and sometimes even communicate with others.

This one began when as we drove south and all we could get for talk radio was Rush Limbaugh. I am sure I have mentioned before that, as you drive through the heart of this country, right wing political talk is all there is-- which was before Portland, Oregon found itself in that situation other than public radio or one that talks about things/world/life but not political and not my favorite leftie commentators. 

Farm Boss was not thrilled when I looked at the radio dial contemplatively and asked-- how long can you stand Limbaugh? He made a face. I promised I'd turn it off as soon as it irked him; he reluctantly agreed.

When I began laughing at what Limbaugh was saying (it wasn't the times he intended to be funny) Farm Boss also saw the humor and stood it longer than I expected. I suppose some of my laughter came because Limbaugh had lost big time and he was taking it poorly. Although I must admit he did appear to understand what losing means which is more than I can say for other righties. What he said though, in sticking to his schtick, was so funny I laughed out loud more than once. To his listeners, he called Democrats the under informed voters which is funny all in itself given what his callers appear to know-- which is not much that Fox didn't hand them.

The funny part is during the GW Bush years and Obama's first term, I would be enraged by Limbaugh and how he left out facts or twisted them, but maybe November made the difference. He makes his money not by solving the problems of the country but by rhetoric that enrages and makes a percentage of people feel victimized, superior and furious.

You know it's possible Limbaugh thinks this way, but he also might well know that he's twisting it when he claims Obama is deliberately plotting to teach people that raising taxes is how we succeed as a culture. Does Rush live in a bubble, as Romney did and not actually know that this is a president who for two years has tried to keep the middle class from paying the payroll tax as a way to give them a tax cut he couldn't give them any other way. Obama didn't do it out of the sweetness of his soul (his offering to use a chained cost of living for Social Security proves he doesn't have sweetness of soul) but because he felt it would boost the economy.  The battle now is about trying to keep the tax cut for the middle and raise it on the higher income levels-- and frankly Obama is not pleasing us much on the left for his method.

When I really snorted with disbelief was when he tried to paint a Dana Milbank column as indicating Milbank was enraged that Romney was going back to work for a big hotel chain. He claimed Milbank said Romney should work for the poor. I have listened to Milbank in discussions. He's not the kind of man I can imagine being enraged at the least over Romney-- before or after the election. So when we got to a motel that night, I found the article Milbank had written.

As I read [Milbank's article] out loud to Farm Boss, he and I both agreed. In my view, Milbank was wishing Romney would work to shore up the Republican party. He wanted to see him involved in the negotiations on the so-called fiscal cliff but doing it as the moderate he believed Romney always had been. He wanted moderates and even the actually conservative wing of that party to take it back and said Romney, as the most famous name in his party, could use that to bring his party back from the brink of total control by the wackos (like the judge who took 10 years off a convicted rapist's sentence because he said a woman can't really be raped-- her body won't let it happen).

Limbaugh goes so far as to suggest Obama is some kind of tax dictator who will soon take over all our schools with a tax nirvana agenda. Future generations of children will be taught that high taxes are required for a good life-- or so he said. Recently Farm Boss, on his way to get parts to replace the kitchen faucet here, heard some of Sean Hannity (who I can't stand for even as long as it takes for him to get out the first syllable) hitting on the same spiel. It's probably rampant on all these rightie shows.

Where it comes to Limbaugh, I don't know what he actually believes. His callers are where this gets really weird and my bet is the most rabid never get past his screener. They are the same ones who think Obama is a Muslim, that he wants to destroy our country, that he's a socialist, that he and his ilk want to destroy Christmas. They are the ones who think every school should now make teachers go armed as obviously the answer to what happened in Connecticut was not too many guns of the wrong sort. It was not enough guns.

Since the shooting, one of that bunch said it's Jon Stewart's fault as he's attacking Jesus and Christmas. Excuse me, idiot boy, but Stewart is a Jew. Do you know what that means? Likely not. Someone must be blamed to keep the spotlight off guns and mental illness. Atheists are next as some on the right claim they are trying to destroy belief in any god.

Limbaugh praised the NRA which I think gave one of the most self-serving press conferences that I can imagine. According to the NRA, we don't need more control over war weapons-- we need more of them. Armed guards at every school is their idea-- profit for them not a factor. They and their ilk say it's the fault of those who didn't want teachers armed for why this last shooting happened. The NRA is berserk and I only hope more of their members drop them.

You'd think after all of that, I'd feel relief to listen to lefties. Not so fast. Since I don't toe the liberal line, I am also not thinking as they do. It's hard for me to grasp how the left wing has gone after fear of all guns instead of the actual guns that were used in this massacre. Right now they are providing evidence of their real goals to those righties, who fear any reasonable gun regulations. Attacking all gun owners for what a few do is not going to get legislation that many gun owners also support. Can any of these sides look at what actually happened and what might've stopped it?

Okay looking at facts, I look at the issues of guns this way. Yes, guns can be misused. Yes, some kill people. In 2011, our country had 12,664 murders with 8,583 with a gun. Of those most were gang/ drug related shootouts or domestic violence.

The big problem with the drug and gang related shootings in our cities is this: collateral damage. The bullets fly and innocents are killed. Are these guns legally purchased? Probably not since a lot already involve illegal, reckless and violent activities.

Will taking away assault rifles and high capacity magazines stop deaths? Maybe or maybe not as in this country the guns are there. IF, and this isn't going to happen, the gun haters got through a law to ban all guns, who will turn in theirs? It won't be the ones in inner cities using them so carelessly that walking to school can mean death. It's why I didn't laugh when in the film, One for the Money, the grandmother shot the cooked turkey sitting in the middle of the table with the family all there. I don't find guns funny.

As for the many deaths from domestic violence, those could happen as easily with a knife, fist or baseball bat if it didn't with a gun; so it's not going away based on no gun.

One place I read an article intended to scare people into getting rid of all guns, not just the extended magazines and assault and semi-assault rifles. When I got through it validated what I thought before I began-- women need to be darned careful what kind of men they date, live with or marry. Some men are very scary. Whether the woman in the article had been at risk of being shot in the head by a Glock, with a boyfriend violently out of control, a knife would have done the same thing. It has worried me for sometime as to who my granddaughter will start to date when that time comes as a woman's greatest risk is trying to end an abusive relationship that she didn't realize she was in until it was too late.

That's what I thought but not what the other commenters said, who were absolutely convinced that guns were the problem. Get rid of guns, and boyfriends will cease killing woman trying to leave them not to mention half her family when he can reach them.

I see it that once you get in such a dangerous relationship, you probably have to move somewhere that person cannot find you when you finally decide you want out. Women sometimes find restraining orders hard to get but like one is going to stop a man already set on murder? Maybe threats of violence should land someone in jail for long enough to cool of at the least.

To me, the nutty stuff coming out of the right is even worse for what they want as a solution to someone shooting up a school-- arm the teachers too. Wait until a child gets hold of one of those guns (they do all the time in homes where parents were careless with the weapons) and starts shooting. End of that idea along with more deaths. I don't know if they could find someone to train on the faculty but it seems some states are determined to try. The armed guards the NRA suggested are equally asinine. That is the most self-serving, disgusting bunch. Oh wait, did I already say that!

The question I got from all of this was how can humans look at the same facts and come up with such totally divergent opinions on what they mean? Is that brain wiring? How we grew up? Do we get fed what we think even if subtly? I find I can't really talk to the extreme right or left on a lot of sensitive issues. Try having a rational discussion on abortion with a rightie or leftie when your position is not total freedom of abortion and also not total elimination of it. Emotions run high over murder on the one side and total freedom on the other. For me it's a lost cause because I see nuance.

Years ago I did one of those personality tests where it determines where we fit in the human spectrum. My results came out in the less than 5% of the population which may explain some of my problem in all of this at least.

So as I have said here and wherever I've commented on this, I saw what happened in the shooting this time as multi-pronged and in no order of what should be done first.

One--better access to mental health, identifying dangerous people before they get to the mall or school, giving families and authorities the power to do something when the problem is identified (the power is NOT there now). As you read the stories of families and school authorities dealing with mental illness, it's clear that they are on their own, helpless with a problem that they can see has every chance of escalating to deadly violence.

Two-- get the guns that did the killings out of the hands of everybody/anybody. That means assault and semi-assault rifle ban, no extended magazines, no resales and a program to get the ones out there turned in. More controls over the big gun shows that are everywhere. How about the government putting out some money to help with meaningful background checks which means waiting periods no matter where someone buys a gun. And if you sell your own to a private party, you have responsibility for who they are.

On the assault rifles already out there, even if they could make them illegal to own (it'll take a Democratic majority in the House and Senate) survivalists won't turn theirs in, that's a fact, but there could be a big fine if they are found with them. They are the ones who think they need those weapons to defend themselves when the UN comes knocking-- which is no more likely to happen than Santa Claus will come down their chimney-- and in the meantime these guns are designed to look cool to the youths, they are what they see in the video games and movies, and intended for only one thing-- killing humans.

Three-- look at our culture of violence where kids grow up pretending to shoot people in video games and watch films where mass murder is common and part of the excitement.

Yes, I have said all of the above before-- and after each of these mass killings. My posts on violence through the years.  Nothing happens. Nothing is done and the reasons are manifold. Some because Americans are eager for the next cause which is instantly provided. It takes concentration and a reasonable set of goals to get anything-- if we could even agree what anything is.

Four-- replace all school doors with bulletproof glass and solid enough doors that a machine gun can't open them. This should be done before school starts up after Christmas. Can't do it? Why didn't we already do it?

Five-- I've suggested this other places but bear spray in the administrator's offices with them knowing how to use it. Bear spray works better than pepper for an insane, maybe out of control druggie or someone like last one who couldn't feel pain. It works at 30' and although he might not feel pain from it, his eyes would close long enough for the police to arrive.

Six-- quit calling each other names over this. It is NOT the fault of  me and the millions of other gun owners. It is not the fault of atheists. It is not the fault of Jon Stewart because he's Jewish. It is not because we don't have prayer in schools. It is the fault of all those who have been ignoring all of this, which might include us, and letting weapons of war become toys in homes for people who didn't grow up.

Guns are tools. They are used by ranchers to quickly and mercifully kill suffering livestock when what is wrong cannot be treated. They are used to kill predators that threaten or have killed their stock. Where I live they are used by some who hunt for the meat which they very much need as they are marginal for incomes. They can be used if the person is attacked by a predator. Most country folk are wise enough to realize when a bear in the bush wolfed at you, the solution is quietly turn around not shoot into the brush, but if the bear does more than warn you off, then it's good to have more than a shrill yell to hope will stop his charge.

Yes, I've shot my rifle at living creatures-- coyotes. I have also, when I cannot get hold of one fast enough, run screaming at a coyote with a lamb down and scaring it off by my voice. Actually I've done that twice with no weapon, but it only works when I am there to do it. I've seen the animals torn apart by the predator and I guarantee you, it's not a pretty sight.

Because of my experiences with livestock and the need to protect them, because I live a LONG way from any police protection, a gun is a tool for me. I don't love it. I do understand how to safely use it which means I don't keep my finger on a trigger when I am not ready to fire. I also don't point it at anything I don't intend to shoot. (our class for a concealed carry permit said don't point it at anybody as a threat but only if you are willing to shoot-- the other way is apt to see your gun taken away and used on you).

Although I do have a concealed carry permit, I don't carry because I see the risks of having one where my purse might be stolen as greater than not-- besides my purse is too heavy now. I've had friends though who always carry a gun in a shoulder holster, and I feel no fear of them because they know how to use the gun wisely. For those who worry about concealed weapon permits-- how many holders have ever used their gun for a crime?

For those scared of guns. Wise choice. Don't get one. But don't you dare try to put the blame for Connecticut on me or those like me. I won't take it, and you are shooting at the wrong target with the likelihood the real one will escape as it's counting on this kind of hysteria.

Worse though than the possibility the country won't really get rid of assault rifles, for me is that we might not change policies regarding mental illnesses; so that parents and schools have better options than to have to wait until a crime has been committed. Isn't that too late? It was in Connecticut.

If I am talking to a rightie or leftie on this, I lost them both a long time ago. My only hope is enough moderates are thinking and ready to put real pressure onto government, thoughtful, nuanced pressure that we might as a nation make changes that would stop a new tragedy at least using extended magazines, assault or semi-assault rifles. I also hope the changes don't end with the guns.

Of course, my hope is not what the far right wing wants. They want more guns, even assault rifles in the hands of principals. And what I want isn't enough for the far left who want a ban and confiscation of all guns. Three ways of seeing the same incident and three different approaches. Why do we see it so differently?

I hope you didn't think I had the answer. I haven't got a clue as how I see it seems the obvious sensible way but neither extreme right nor left agree with me.

First three photos in our Tucson back yard are of a Harris's hawk. Fourth is a kestrel at Catalina State Park and the one above a Road Runner also there. 

Bird watching is very good for emotional health right now in such a tumultuous time. I know Christmas seasons can be stressful but this seems extreme and not just the mass shootings, just everywhere. It's as if our country has gone for rabid anger and it's feeding on itself. What is that about!?

A Culture of Rage

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

Too many guns
need more guns

Assault  rifles

school prayer 

Jesus

NRA

Republicans

Democrats

liberals

conservatives

permissiveness

punishment
abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thinking the Unthinkable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another national tragedy

I've written two blogs that I originally thought I'd post tomorrow and each time I changed my mind. For the latest, the Connecticut mass shooting stopped me. There is absolutely NOTHING more horrifying to me than that an elementary school would be targeted by such a brutal killer.

I don't know what the answer is to this despite how some wish there was some magical solution. As it stands, I just want to say I am so sorry for the families impacted in Connecticut. As a nation once again we grieve. We all want to hug our children and grandchildren and mourn for those who are once again weeping at another senseless tragedy.

When more information comes out and I feel less upset, I'll write more. It might take awhile.

12/12/12

Even though I have cut way back here to do more with Rain Trueax, I cannot miss the opportunity to post something about 12/12/12 which is the last such combination that our culture will see for another hundred years assuming we don't destroy ourselves first.

I don't know that there is anything magical about such a combination of numbers. Well, actually I do know; but since what I know logically says no way could there be since numbers are man-made conveniences, I'd rather act as though magic could sometimes happen.

It could be a magical time if we make it into one to work on some new idea, something that we want in our life but haven't started but we will today. If there are such spans, the time between 12/12/12 and 12/21/12 could certainly be one such. If there is not, a new start, new seeking of opportunities, anytime would be a great time to begin something new or refine something old.

Photo December 9th at Catalina State Park. 

As I think I have mentioned before, I don't buy into the Mayan calendar stuff anymore than I did the millenium or any other such combination of man-made dates. If the Mayans were so wise, why didn't they know that the Europeans did not mean them well? Ends of calendars happen all the time. I buy a new one every year. So for it to be significant for end of earth, some polar shift, or a planetary pull (an alignment that happens every year), doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, I know from my own experiences that some times are better for me to be creative than others. There are times when everything flows and other times it stagnates and I might as well do some meditation, go for a walk, or sit back as nothin' is happening no way. Does that relate to some planetary alignment? I don't know but try to be observative of how I am feeling and go with it when I get a shot at a  vibrant time (which has been happening this year from before the 12th).

A few links on the subject as we keep one thought in mind regarding this. Such thinking is not about a god or a religion, it's about a repetition of cycles, observation, and some conclusions, that as with all such conclusions, might or might not be valid but can be fun to explore:

The numerology of 2012

Spirit library of 12-12-12

12.12.12  Sands of the World

Once again we had a tragic shooting, this time in a mall where I could have had relatives or friends and have many times been there myself. Tonight, as I write this, the authorities have not yet identified who did the shooting, but likely we already know a lot about the shooter. This keeps happening and while some will say it's about guns, I think it's more about mental illness and stopping people who are dangerous before they act out. Almost always those around them have worried about the shooters, but there's been no way to do anything. We need to find a way because this kind of random violence simply is not okay. It could literally happen to any of us. To do something about this is going to take better responses to mental illness. I had my blood pressure going up tonight, as I imagine did many Americans. Maybe we can't stop all of it, but I think we can do better.

Aging

 Most of the time I don't think much about my age. It's a fact but not one that seems to have much impact until something happens to remind me. That something recently was doing a lot of leaf blowing, climbing up a sand dune at the coast, some other physical things, and ending up with pain in the muscle on one side of my leg, right below the hip, where it attaches. I wasn't sure where the problem originated, but it was definitely interfering with my daily life. I was not only in discomfort but suddenly not walking right.

Because it didn't immediately go away I began to look at the possible reasons it happened. One of my legs is shorter than the other and years ago a structural masseuse told me that one hip and shoulder were higher (one foot 1/2 size smaller than the other). She felt she could fix the irregularities with enough adjustments-- painful ones. I talked to my chiropractor about it, and he didn't actually think it'd be beneficial at my age. In short, it could throw a lot of other things off in trying to do that.

There was another possible reason this was happening now. When I was in my late 30s I was throwing a bale of hay over a fence to our livestock and the way I twisted caused so much pain in my hip that I had to lie on a bale until the pain subsided. Now I wondered if that had left that joint weakened or susceptible to arthritis. In that region it's hard to tell from where pain originates.

For over ten years I have worn tennis shoes with gel inserts and that had let me forget about the finicky hip for a long time until now. In trying to figure out what this was I found out I could not, when lying on my side, lift that leg laterally up. The other leg could do it but not that one.

Well, I am back to walking normally but still have discomfort if I move wrong and if I am not careful, I end up with the knee hurting as the whole thing gets out of whack. It took weeks before I could finally lift my left leg laterally from the floor. Being unable to do it left me feeling like a bird with a broken wing.

What I think is that overdoing it when old is one good way to end up needing a joint replaced or a permanent handicap. There is the old adage-- if you don't use it you lose it, but what about overusing it when eventually cartilage and joints can wear out. It might seem great in old age to run marathons, etc. but is that a factor in so many aged having hip and knee replacements. Too much weight sure isn't helping my joints or muscles.

I think-- but am still figuring it out-- that it's finding the balance that is part of successful aging-- use it but don't misuse it. Eat it but not in excess and likely not as much or all the things that once were possible. Sugar used to be something I liked and now it's something that leaves me feeling less good afterward. And on it goes as I find new things about this business of being old.

Of all the things in life that fascinate me, I think aging is the greatest. It is so awesome/horrifying to realize how we change through the years and despite the talk of this or that to make someone stay young or age faster (when you are young), it all proceeds at a pace. It's kind of funny how some people talk about how they look younger as though it's a factor in it. It's not. We all are aging whatever we might think we look like.

When I watch a show like the History Channel's The Hatfields and the McCoys and see the characters' lives go past, there are the young, so strong and virile, then those same ones reach old age bodies. They live a life, if they are lucky, and they get old. The lucky ones reach that point. They change with the years.

I remember all my family members who are now gone and how they seemed to me and then what it was like as they aged into their last years. I see it in my pets. The young ones, the old ones, and the gradual changes.

Then there is my own body now 69 and heading toward 70. As astounding as what has passed is what lies ahead. I look at photos of myself as a child, then a teen, finally a young woman. pregnant, with small children, teens, an empty nester and who knows what's next. It's hard for me to believe those other people were me.

A few pieces of my own story up to now-- through photos.

And on it goes.

Hold the line

Here's the thing with all this panic over the fiscal cliff-- if Congress does nothing, tax rates go back to the Clinton era January 1. This is not about the debt ceiling. That is resolved later and frankly, for Republicans to vote not to raise it, is to say equivalently-- I spent too much at the mall and now refuse to pay my credit card bill. Rework the budget but don't renege on the bill once it was already spent.

The federal deficit is not about Social Security even though Republicans are trying to make it part of the package. They will do anything to avoid higher tax rates on the richest Americans. Remember this will only be an increase on the net income (after deductions) over $250,000. That means, unless Republicans refuse to agree on tax cuts for the middle, even the rich get the first $250,000 at the lower rates.

Republicans have themselves in a hole and keep saying it will hurt the economy to raise taxes on the wealthy. It's a lie. If someone making $100,000 gets a tax break, they are likely to spend it on things they've been wanting-- hence bumping the economy. The wealthy already have all they want or need; so it'll just end up in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands.

We have to hang tough on this as right wingers are acting as though we must do what Romney ran and lost on. It will take Americans being behind Obama to hold the line to a reasonable rate on spending, to not make the poor pay the whole cost of two wars and tax cuts that weren't budgeted, and to make tax rates fair now.

If Republican members in the House refuse to value ordinary Americans before the wealthy, 2014 isn't that far off.

Watch Robert Reich as he explains the fiscal cliff.

 Republicans need to use as an adjective for how they operate not patriotism but partisaniam-- [Thugs in the House].  Are Republican voters in agreement with this? They are if they listen to Limbaugh and his callers as I did the other day when out and about. It's all about partisanship to Limbaugh and tax cuts for his economic group (who are probably none of his callers) matter more than anything else. Don't believe me? Listen to him for as long as you can stand. It likely won't be long but you will have a better idea of what these people are thinking and how far their reality is from everybody else's.

Saturday's blog will be on aging.

Bullies and Bigots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stand up for something or fall for anything

Everybody is tired of politics but right now some important things are being decided by Congress and the President. Filibuster reform is one biggie but how they deal with what they call the fiscal cliff is another. They both matter. Americans who are tired of all this talk of politics need to pay attention again because lobbyists are. If they are all the elected representatives hear from, you can bet what happens won't be good for the middle class.

One of the issues is Social Security and whether it has to be cut in some way or up the age it can be received, which might seem fine to someone who sits for their job but not someone like my father who worked with his hands and body all his life. He was lucky to get to 62 and get a few years of retirement before he died at 70.

Get informed and make your voice heard. It matters and I don't care if we've had enough of it or not. We need to be heard now. Obama needs us to push him and be behind him.

6 reasons the fiscal cliff is a scam

This is good on Social Security for those who think it's part of the problem.

My blog for Saturday will be on bullying and bigotry.

Global warming means climate change

climate reports dire-- and it's not just about polar bears

Personally I doubt someone like Marco Rubio (or his ilk) gets it why, when he says the age of the earth is up for debate, he is put on a persona non gratis list for future government leadership by anyone who takes science seriously.  This is not about whether there is a creator or there is not. It's about something science has data to prove-- the age of the earth. For someone who still considers creationism equal to evolution for potential to be right,  (whether it is said out of ignorance or pandering) that person should not be taken seriously as a national leader. There is a reason for this and why it matters-- global warming.

Having written on the subject of global warming several times in this blog, what is being said about it hasn't changed much-- if you read scientists who are not paid to give the answer someone wishes. Basically it is called global climate change now because too many humans couldn't get their heads around how the earth growing some degrees warmer would actually make some regions colder. The earth is getting steadily warmer; but when we talk of weather, it's about possible ice ages (from 2003) as well as super storms. When ocean currents change, what does that do to the world's climate? Can you see the connection?

If you read no other links from this piece, please check out the following. It's lengthy and the story of one man's investigations into what was happening and where might it lead. Was he an alarmist or trying to get attention by telling humans what's coming whether sooner or a bit delayed? What should we be preparing to do? This is one opinion from 2007 (not when he began speaking or writing on this but date of this interview).

At one time Lovelock believed the earth would balance itself, but it's looking less as though it can when man is doing little to help it happen. The release of methane in the Arctic might contribute to why this thing is badly out of control. Some think we can do nothing but are they the same ones worried more about dollar cost than scientific research?.

The prophet of climate change: James Lovelock

For me caring about this and believing it's happening is not new. Here are a few of the pieces I have written on the subject, all with links most of which still work and are worth following.

 global climate change 2012

drought and fires 2012

bottom-line 2010

science and earth 2009

weather and global warming 2009

When you do research, a lot of the articles talk on what is likely to be seen with a few degrees of increase. Then there was this-- what if it's more and comes faster? There is plenty of evidence that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is unprecedented for anybody who believes in science. Yes, scientists can now check such things through old ice and rocks.

Basically the earth is warming and humans are unlikely to be able to totally stop it. Can we though slow it or delay it? Some still don't believe it will happen, think their god will fix it, or claim since it costs money and inconveniences us, why do anything?

They are the same ones, of course, who wouldn't value anything listed above. They think dollars will fix any problem. Likely they believe they can move to some new country where the weather is better-- but can they? Will they find they are trapped in the world they created and die along with the poorest of poor?

I am not sure why some desire to amass wealth in things. They appear to think $1 billion + dollars is necessary but what they can do with it to improve their lifestyle that they could not with say $100 million? Isn't there a point where those dollars accrue to no avail and where the damage they have done to the earth, which is of value beyond paper or gold, isn't worth it? Evidently not yet for the ones still paying for environmental studies that will let them keep on abusing and avoiding real choices that might change this.

Listening to a speaker on NPR the other week-end, he said we could still change things on the East Coast of the US by reducing our emissions. According to most experts, it will not stop it, but it would slow it. What many experts are suggesting is we do what we can but we also prepare for the change. Are we? Anywhere? If the oceans rise will dikes be enough to save major cities like New York City? There are places where a lot of people currently live that are likely to become uninhabitable.

The latest super storm should convince those of us who can do math to change our view of at the least shorelines. Shouldn't it? The houses built on the shore in New Jersey should not be rebuilt there. I know humans like to think we can fix anything with money but once again, we cannot-- not when it's a big earth shift.

Facts and figures and we all agree-- right?

latest predictions shock

turn down the heat

Except they don't because for all the major scientists predicting this kind of thing, there is a rightie claiming it's all communism and there is a paid fossil fuel corporate scientist who says it isn't happening or if it is, it's not man's fault. For those who think that way, it requires ignoring the climate changes they are seeing, the horrible tornadoes of 2011, the super storm of 2012, the melting ice caps, the change in the Arctic because they confuse climate and weather. Since it seems colder to them today, global warming can't be happening.

The end result is a resistance to government doing anything and they aren't considering possible changes for their own lives if this thing does get worse. Such people like the Rush Limbaugh faction claim it's Henny Penny running around crying the sky is falling and they forget the story of the grasshopper and the ant. Of course, a lot of them have been stockpiling wealth because everybody knows dollars/euros/gold can protect them from anything, right?

Well it cannot and whether the direr predictions of Lovelock come to pass, this earth has been in a balance. It will crave balance and won't let us vote on how that happens.

To have the Republican party put people at the head of Congressional science committees who believe the earth is 9000 years old, who believe God can fix anything, who think more trees should be cut down since they use oxygen, who don't believe in science basically at all, says they are currently the party of yahoos; and if they want to change that, they need to find new candidates to run for office. right now they get the title of science deniers and dollar valuers-- while they call themselves the values party.

So what do I think we, who do take science seriously, can or should do? One thing is be prepared ourselves to see disruptions in food supplies. Commonsense just says that regardless of whether a major disaster is imminent.

Then support new technologies. If you aren't in the field, you have no idea how many ideas are out there. The latest I heard about was getting water from air (assuming the air has it in it, of course)-- NDB Nano. The advances in solar and wind are impressive with better batteries to store the energy.

We use solar for the electric fence on our leased cattle property.  Some of these new green technologies won't work in the long run but others will and it takes support to get them off the ground.

Too often such ideas were bought up in the past by oil corporations who didn't want competition. The innovators need to hold out and think of the long range, not their short range gain. Same with keeping the companies in this country instead of the temptation of sending them off to other nations with $.50 an hour labor. We have to as a people care about more than ourselves and think of the future generations.

Once a super storm is on its way, there's not much we can do except get somewhere safe, if possible, and accept that maybe where we live isn't going to be safe in the future. What do we as a world do when that's whole nations? Do we really care about our brother or is it all us? The days ahead may cause many of us to have to seriously consider our own answer to that question.

What can we do other than put our collective heads in the sand? 

Be sure we are living somewhere that has a maximum possibility of surviving big changes.

Redesign and build homes that can survive tornadoes if that's where we live. If not your whole home, make sure you have a well-designed storm shelter.

Learn hunter gatherer skills.

Practice container gardening and buy heirloom seeds that can be saved and used the following year.

Be flexible and alert to what's around us. 

Always look up, down, around, and listen.

Learn the earth's patterns where you live.

Stockpile a rotating food supply

Owning basic tools would not only be good but valuable for barter if things truly turned bad-- they are good for now even if they don't.

Favor government support for research into green technologies.

Minimize our own carbon footprint without a law forcing us to do so.

 

 And finally for anybody who does believe in science, they absolutely cannot ever vote for somebody who says something like this-- Marco Rubio has no idea of age of the earth. That person cannot figure out how to deal with what is coming because they give equal weight to a theological interpretation of the Bible and what science can determine with technology. I think people can believe in a creator and still believe in science; but they cannot question the age of this earth and consider it equally possible it's a few thousand years old. You might consider that a partisan statement but it doesn't have to be if Republicans stop catering to ignorance and creating heroes out of religious leaders who have turned into political ones.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 Happy Thanksgiving

which is in the United States, a time to stop and be grateful. It is traditionally a time of abundance, of family-- even as we know it's not that way for too many people. It is a very appropriate time to look ahead for what might take away abundance from us all. My blog on Saturday will be on global climate change. It's not just polar bears that need to be concerned about this.

Photo purchased from CanStock

Sex and Politics-- or cheating and power

When I got this idea of cutting down on the posts here at Thoughts, I listed off some possible topics. I hope relationships was among them because that's what's on my mind right now-- not my relationships but the ones currently we are reading a lot about if we are reading the news anyway.

One thing to clarify first-- politics is not government. Politics is the nature of how people work out decisions, relationships, power, etc. Unless humans are living solitary lives, politics is in any relationship they have (maybe animals too). So when I say sex and politics it means sexuality and the dynamics of human interactions.

One other thing-- in comparison to stories like why are we still in Afghanistan, the tragedy unfolding in Israel and Gaza, this affair is seemingly a non-story that wouldn't have been a story in the past.

It might matter to us as in how easy our online correspondence is to track [privacy? What privacy?] but has that changed so much when someone in the FBI wants to find your secrets?  An obsessive FBI agent led to the downfall of Petraeus

Now that it's out, it has gotten so much coverage mostly because humans love dashing heroes, beautiful women, juicy gossip, taking down heroes, and in the case of right wingers-- some way to punish Obama for daring to win twice. 

CIA directors and scandals

Our current example of cheating and power just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser as it reveals a world of interconnected warriors and hot women. So for anybody who reads here but has no interest in such relationship stories, the crux of it, that we know for now, goes like this (for today because it might change next week).

David Petraeus, who has been an American war hero (mostly to the right), suddenly resigned as director of the CIA-- right after the election (first suspicious clue for conspiracy seekers). He admitted he had been having an affair (the dates of which change with every story I read) with a married woman who wrote a flattering biography of him and has been embedded with him (turns out literally although the only for sure account is under a desk).

It gets more complicated when we find the affair was discovered while an FBI agent, on his own, was investigating harassing emails sent to another hot babe (all part of what would make for a good English melodrama) in kind of an interconnected group of friends which has led to discovering hundreds of titillating emails sent by the current General in charge of Afghanistan to the second of the two hot babes (it gets more confusing).

One person said the most damage this story is doing is to the Staff Sergeant trying to teach a group of young military recruits about the high standards of the military while we see the general in charge of Afghanistan has had time to send flirty emails to one of those hot babes.

When I first read about this, I went to Drudge (something I no longer bookmark because it's so one-sided and salacious but when I wanted salacious, it was the place I thought of), read the articles there and then went below for rightie comments.

The comment section is where this gets scary. They did not believe Petraeus even had an affair.  The commenters thought it was all about Obama trying to prevent the CIA director from testifying about Benghazi (which I gave my earlier take on back in the blog--Doubling down on dumb-- Benghazi).

Get serious, it's not like Obama would be hurt running for election with this attack having been al Qaeda. In some circles, they call that wagging the dog and some presidents have been accused of creating such an incident. Plus he's had an ongoing action using drones (which some believe is wrong) against terrorist leaders anywhere they are found. This attack could make his use of drones seem more necessary even to the left. It sounds more like that October surprise they expected him to create to stay in office. Plus he did call it an act of terror.

As far as I know, they have yet to prove what political group planned it. What I think is it was part of a much broader effort, but I can no more prove that then they can that the Chicago tough guys were behind blackmail and coverups. The latest far-out theory by some of the wackiest is that Obama set up the woman to have the affair and trap Petraeus. I tell you, righties will believe anything.

 The right wing has an ongoing effort to somehow blame Obama for those four deaths. That Libya was a dangerous country. That the men (three trained warriors and one ambassador who had seen the worst of Libya's civil war) killed all knew their dangers, not of interest. That the extra security was requested for Tripoli, also not of interest. Nailing Obama somehow for something that could lead to an impeachment, that is.  And wacky righties think they have it now-- Benghazi a way to undo an election they could not buy or steal.

Now skip the lack of logic that Petraeus' resignation would not and did not prevent him from testifying. Maybe some of those commenters were spy novel fans (all clearly watched Fox 'news' and/or listened to Rush and his ilk). Most of them sounded like bigots who cannot stand a black man as President.

Their logic is that if the affair had come out before the election it would hurt Obama which skips over the fact that the right had Petraeus up on more of a pedestal than the left.  The women, the FBI agent, the Generals all apparently were Republicans. When all those parties and high lifestyle were coming out, might it not have more likely impacted Romney who wanted $1,000,000,000 more for the military? [high living no surprise to locals]

A lot of those commenters saw Petraeus as a hero and by golly they still wanted him to be one. A resignation over a simple affair got in their way; and since facts don't seem important, they could dismiss those (he didn't have an affair but admitted to one out of ____ you fill in the blank).

They created a new story that had nothing to do with sex. Fox and empty headed commentators like Peggy Noonan are helping them do it. I used to respect her but listening to her talk about this with kind of an inane expression, a skinny old lady, she strikes me as so far over the top, and anything but bright that it's no wonder she was a speech writer for Reagan.

Is any of this affair/affairs our business as Americans? Do we have a right to demand sexual fealty from our heroes?  Alpha males and cheating

The affair and all that has come out since would not have been revealed except for two cat fighting females and an obsessive FBI agent, who had no idea it involved the General or any possible threat to security but as soon as he thought it could have political capital went to right wing politicians with the story due to his belief his superiors would not properly use it. It got as far as Eric Cantor who went to the FBI head but didn't reveal anything to anybody. He might've also wondered whose ox it would gore if it did come out before voting.

Incidentally that aggressive FBI agent sent a topless photo of himself to one of the hot babes. He has said it was sent to many as a joke which might have been true or not; but it is something that men, who do such things, often say (do not ask how I know-- but I do).

The more we read about this and that aspect, the more it sounds like one of those British novels regarding their military in India or Africa and the complex interrelationships that we had no idea was happening right there in Tampa (and likely on other high level bases). I suspect we would have been happier not knowing-- unless this involves revealing classified secrets which so far it appears it has not.

We're not alone with such scandals where two women set about bringing down a leadership-- not with that intent so much but out of jealousy.  France is going through something similar (could there be something in the water?)

Should we even elevate heroes? Do we like to put people onto pedestals so we can then see them knocked off? From the stories of warriors, like David Petraeus, affairs are not unlikely whether they end up proven (wisely he admitted it and won't end up in prison for perjury like Martha Stewart) or like Eisenhower, simply rumored and revealed by his mistress after he was long dead and couldn't deny it.

Is adultery in our leaders the business of the public? If someone is a general, the military regards it as theirs. From what I know of the military code of ethics, it's grounds for court martial to commit adultery (when it's proven). And I guess it's up for debate whether it still might impact Petraeus as a retired officer if they wanted to reactivate him and prosecute. I read they are unlikely to do that.

Some say this is all just too coincidental to come out right now. Oh, I don't mean those trying to tie Obama into it with the hope of another impeachment over nothing. I mean the James Bond film which came out at the same time.

Such films are likely one of the reasons for those conspiracy types to be sure Obama (or as one retired military leader said on Fox, the Chicago tough guys) had something to do with this as a cover up or had been using it as blackmail to shut Petraeus up. That would be smart, wouldn't it, to reveal the affair and make someone mad enough to reveal those secrets you were trying to blackmail them into keeping. Remember logic is not a factor in any of this-- not the behavior nor the reaction.

Some ask why I don't want to write more realistic stories, closer to real life. Why choose romances that are a bit of fairy tales? Well this is why-- rare are the happy endings when it involves people living life on the edge. Happy endings are for boring little lives that are the best to actually live but definitely don't make for 100,000 exciting words to tell about. Such lives are for memoirs which most likely (unless a celebrity or noted biologist) only have family members interested in reading-- if them.

Years ago when discussing Bill Clinton and his sexual scandals, Farm Boss said that was probably where he got his energy-- the cheating. It's that challenge of doing it, hiding it, knowing it could be found out, the power, the risk. This is not to say that there aren't some real love stories out there in these secret affairs. One that might be the case was Mark Sanford sneaking off to South America to meet with his lover and saying later she was his soul mate and he would not give her up. Evidently they are planning on marriage-- but will that lead to a happily ever after? If I had to put money on it, I'd take the other side ;)

Remember the old saying-- ah what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Actually a spider web is pretty well organized in comparison to human webs.

Jon Stewart, as usual, lays it all out with logic and humor. Too bad righties are so mad at those like him and Bill Maher who also did a good job on explaining it last night. They could learn a thing or two or three.  

Jon Stewart blasts Petraeus conspiracy theories

one more thing...

For those who think that politics are way too disturbing or that this election decided something important in the United States, when we were returning from our family beach trip, we tried to turn on 620 Portland which has had all the progressive radio stations in our area. It was gone replaced by Fox 620 Sports News.

I thought maybe the liberal voices had gone elsewhere. Nope. They are gone in our state. On our way home as I dialed around trying to find one single progressive speaker, I ran across 4 Rush Limbaugh stations (and had only covered half the numbers).

Thom Hartmann history. Ed Schultz history and any other liberal voices-- gone. Portland has a lot of sports channels but now it has one more as a way to block any opinion but that of the right wing. The right wing money has found a new way to spread their mindless entertainment and keep Americans from hearing anything that isn't.

It hasn't changed my mind about this blog. I will still go to once a week but it has made me hope that Americans who are not of the right wing ilk stay with it on issue after issue. It sounds good to say we need to think positive and all. Well while we are doing that, the powers that be have the money and are willing to spend it. They aren't giving up and their newest dodge will be to try and turn Benghazi into a way to impeach Obama. You just watch. This is NOT over and I hope nobody is naive enough to think it is.

Bain controls Clear channel the largest radio broadcasting in the US who owned KPOJ and probably a lot of other stations that had progressive voices. So instantly they decided how they win next time-- or revenge for those who spoke the truth about them. For you righties who think that's great-- just wait.

There was a rumor out that they were trying to get Ed Schultz off MSNBC as they did Keith Olberman earlier. We'll see but Americans should not take for granted access to truth. 

It proves to me how important this election was and even more so the mid terms. Americans voted by 500,000 + votes for Democrats running for the House but didn't get control of the House based on gerrymandering. I know righties like this but someday you will find out, they are not on your side either.

Oh and as for my books, I'm disillusioned on that also but will keep on keeping on for now.

blog changes

One thing I had decided several months ago is that blogging so much has been draining my fiction writing energy. The political campaigns probably did too as instead of thinking of my characters, debating what they would do next, researching what was historically happening at the time of the stories, I was reading political articles and figuring out my own analysis. It involved a lot of reading and a lot of thinking. It was very important to me to do that, but it was a detour that was not helping finish my books.

So Rainy Day Thoughts is going on a once a week schedule (most likely a Saturday). Although I am not sure what I'll write about, the topics which currently appeal are genetically altered food and seeds, global climate change, getting old, environment, religion/spirituality, preparing for disasters, where our culture is heading, philosophy of living, and I'm sure more will come to me.

It will not be political so much as social and physical regarding issues I think humans need to be thinking about-- as these are around the world issues. There might be a little US political push once in awhile as I do believe Americans can't afford to take the next two years off. We need to be informed and express our opinions if we want to see anything positive happen on a lot of important issues. It takes pressure from citizens despite citizens wanting to hide in a hole after this long and intense campaign cycle.

Less frequency here will enable me to put more thinking and time into my two historical romances (first time ever that I have had two books unfinished-- ack!). I also hope to write regularly in my creative/marketing blog, Rain Trueax where I will aim for one every two or three days. Writing professionally is a mix of creativity and marketing. Anybody who has actually put out books (ePub or traditional) knows this.

There are assorted reasons for having that second blog. I felt Rainy Day Thoughts didn't start out to sell my books. It was about ideas and life in general. It can still be the latter; but if I write about the books, my struggles with marketing or plots (a big part of my life these days), comments here dwindle into nothing, and I suspect it feels like spam to long-term readers. I've had that happen when a blog I had been reading suddenly turned to selling. I didn't like it either.

Independent writers of eBooks must have places to have their work seen as they aren't on any store shelf. My Rain Trueax blog is one of those for me. My goal for it is to see it develop a readership of those interested in creativity and/or are working on their own projects-- which could mean writing, painting, crafts or any of the many creative arenas. The problems aren't a lot different if you want to go beyond the hobby phase to actually selling.

There is a cost in cutting back on the frequency here as Thoughts has had a nice sized readership which I expect, with less frequent postings, to be reduced; but I need to balance life with the writing. Actually I have noticed a lot of bloggers, who've been doing it a long time (I began in 2005-- old posts are on a blog called Age Old Beauty), have also gone to less frequent postings-- if they are even still doing it.

I hope regular readers here, who would like more frequent entries and are interested in the life of a creator, will give Rain Trueax a try. I recognize that romances are very politically incorrect, not exactly the elite thing to write, but they are what I write. The blog, however, is about more than them. It's about creativity in all its moods and aspects. The blog list here will always have it with its latest topic. I'll mix my art in with it and openly invite other creative people to put up guest blogs.

Whether someone is aiming to write memoirs, sci fi, flash fiction, chick lit, romances, adventure stories, non-fiction, or the great American novel, I think sharing the work can help.

Much to my surprise, I've learned that I enjoy writing about writing and the philosophy behind my work-- and yes, romances can have a philosophy behind them. Mine express a lot of my cultural and political views-- although you're unlikely to ever see the words Democrat or Republican in them (never say never but I can say never to date). Not all romance writers cover controversial subjects as it does turn off a certain percentage of possible readers, but I wouldn't even write if I had to write pablum. I just hope gradually to find readers who also like something more than a happy ending with their romances.

Photo on top is from CanStock where I purchased the rights. It fits into one of the books I will be putting more energy into-- an historic romance set in Oregon after the Civil War. It got stopped, after getting about 20,000 words into it, by a need to re-edit my contemporary stories as well as do further research on a little known Indian War. I thought I'd get over to the area where it was set but summer was way crazy and it didn't happen. Maybe in the spring.

The other unfinished historical, the one likely to get my energy first, is set in southern Arizona of 1885-- another very interesting time. It follows a book, which is edited, ready to go and will be on Kindle the first part of December-- maybe :). It would be an apropos time as last December is when my publisher (Farm Boss) and I put out the first of my ten contemporaries. I will have opportunity for more photos of that area as I get back to Tucson in December.

So don't give up on Rainy Day Thoughts as it'll still be here, just less often.

Rain Trueax

El Tiradito, a Tucson wishing shrine (a plot factor in both Arizona historic romances).

Some more takes on our election

Daily Show's take on Fox as they tried to deny the election results as long as possible. Why are we surprised-- we aren't. But this bunch will try to stir up rage and it's working with a certain element of the population-- those addicted to Fox and right wing talk radio for their information. Is it to keep their followers tied to them for their misinformation? Maybe. Republicans in power have shown their first loyalty is to their partisan group and not America. That's what so enraged that bunch about Chris Christie when he put the people of his state ahead of partisanship.

And a friend sent me the following from 'AllAfrica.com.

 ************

interview  Prof. Jean Emmanuel Pondi, International Relations expert and author of the book, "Barack Obama: From Questions To Admiration," explains reasons behind President's second term win. 

Americans on Tuesday November 6, 2012 re-elected President Barack Obama. What, according to you, explains the wide margin of victory contrary to opinion polls?  First of all, it is not really a surprise that Barack Obama has been re-elected because he conforms to what majority of Americans want to see in their representative at the White House. The image of America around the world has improved immensely since he took over power four years ago. Prior to that, being an American in most parts of the world was more of a danger - physically speaking, for the individual. Today, that has changed and I think that it is thanks to his policies, his extended hand of friendship, and the fact that Barack Obama is truly a world president. He represents the diversity of humanity in himself and his family affiliations. So, I think that what he represents for the world and America is positive, overall. Maybe that is why it was better for him to continue for a second term.

The second reason is that in times of crisis, it is better to have a sure hand; someone who can weather the storm more confidently than a person who starts to learn the principles of government in the middle of a very agitated sea. Perhaps, American voters understood that it was not the time to hand over power to someone who would start learning leadership in the middle of a storm.

The third reason is that Barack Obama had a well-designed and organised campaign strategy that was well oiled four years ago and perfected its organisation during this election.

 You talked of America being in the middle of crisis. Which crisis are you referring to?  America is experiencing economic crisis - with more than seven per cent unemployment, an economic growth rate that is very poor, high level of debt... All these make for a rather gloomy outlook. But I think it is all the more remarkable that despite this situation, Obama was still given a second chance. It means that there is something in him, his charismatic personality. After all, he was able to pull out a few things such as the killing of Osama bin Laden that also played a major role in uplifting his image in terms of security for Americans The situation in the Middle East is so tense with the war in Syria and the war of words between Israel and Iran.  

With the election of Obama, what do you think the future holds for this region? The truth is that this region has always been agitated, has always known trouble. Now, it is a matter of lessening the level of tension either in Palestine, Syria or between Israel and Iran. It would be too optimistic to think that someone can solve the problem now. The region is always a dangerous spot for American foreign policy. I think Obama was too absorbed in working for his re-election. Now, he will have a better time frame to deal with these issues as the election is over.  

Some people are of the opinion that Obama didn't do much for Africa in his first term. What do you think? I reject this way of thinking by most Africans. Mr. Obama is an American President. What did Africa do for his election in 2008 and re-election on November 6, 2012? The two are not connected. He is the President of the United States of America and his platform concerns the lives of American citizens to whom he is today linked historically. It is true his father is Kenyan, but Obama is an American citizen. It is time for Africans to stop thinking that somebody owes them something. The question is what Africans have done to merit any kind of gratitude from Barack Obama. I think Africans should work out a strategic partnership, present to America and negotiate with their President. But have they done that?

 How do you see the future of the world in the next four years with America under Barack Obama's leadership? Will the world be a more secure place, given the potentially explosive situation in the Middle East? It is a very difficult question to answer. The greatest challenge for America today is China, not the Middle East, Africa or Europe. The next world power from a commercial, economic and technological standpoint is clearly China. I think the Chinese are also determined in the next 25 years to become the world's first economic power because they are not yet a military super power. I think President Obama will rather insist on cooperation with all countries and cultures. I don't think he will be like a Republican president, a war monger who prefers the military solution in first place. I think he will be more willing to negotiate and put economic and technological cooperation first, before resorting to war.

rejecting extremism

 Vision without action is a daydream.

Action without vision is a nightmare.

Japanese proverb

My take on yesterday's election is that Americans rejected extremism. More states okayed gay marriage. Two backed legalizing recreational use of pot but Oregon wasn't among them which is too bad as I voted for that as just commonsense. It's too bad that California is keeping the death penalty as I don't think it's proving beneficial, but there is always another time. It's an idea that's not going away.

The biggest extremists, running for leadership in Congress, were rejected which meant Mourdock, Thompson, Walsh, and Akin found their far right views weren't those of their constituents. Oh and West of Florida who says so many hateful things. He'll likely find a niche on Fox for that rhetoric now.

I don't think America rejected conservatism because despite how Fox and the righties have tried to paint it, Obama has run on what I consider to be real conservative values. The current health care bill under Obama was originally a conservative idea-- before their party ran so far right that real conservatives would not recognize it.

We went to bed happy last night. Glad Obama won a real victory of Electoral College and popular vote. We had donated to campaigns outside of our state for the first time and in each case, that candidate won. Big money was always against them, but the values of the voters counted more than those dollars-- even ours. In the end, it's still one man one vote.

Some say this is the end of white male controlled government in the United States. I disagree. I know a lot of white males who voted for Obama and Democratic values. They voted on the issues and I hope that's what is at an end-- voting on color or religion. Vote on issues. Vote on character. Color of skin is irrelevant and a lot of us see that. Hopefully more will.

So now comes the work because a budget crisis looms; and even though the Senate is a bit more Democratic in 2013, the House is still controlled by Republicans. Will they be more willing to look at issues like taxes to get the budget more realistic? The Republican mantra has been they must protect the wealthiest from any tax increases. Americans don't agree.

We'll see if anything can be done with the filibuster still in place or must it be turned  into a demand-- you want to filibuster, get out there and do it. It's been a lazy man's tool recently, but they can go back to real filibusters and they better. Right now a majority in the Senate buys you nothing but blockades where one Senator can stop anything. That is not the majority rules, and it's been used to block appointments that should have been decided by vote-- not blackmail. Real filibusters, filmed filibusters, would let Americans see what these people believe and why they support what they do. They say they can't do that as it stops progress on anything. Like this kind of filibuster doesn't???

I'd like to think that what I see about extremism losing would be the take of Republicans, but I doubt it for now. They will think Paul Ryan is their solution and he is a religious extremist who although he won reelection to his district, does not hold the values of the majority of Americans with his desire to force his religion onto others, with his lack of compassion for genuinely helping the poor or healing the sick which tells me he's not a Christian but a christianist.

One last thing-- I don't think that the hurricane cost Romney the presidency. I think seeing Christie and Obama working together, cooperating for the good of the people might've played a role. It's what the country has believed we do but hasn't seen recently. It reminded voters how it could be when leaders put the people ahead of the party. Obama was heading toward winning anyway though based on polling-- which turned out to be pretty darned accurate.

Electing Romney would not have not allowed working across the aisles despite his call for how he'd do that. He didn't in Massachusetts and he would have owed too much to the far right to do it as President. It was his way or the highway. Who he really was, we may never know.

Romney did give a very gracious concession speech. Losing hurts and he did it with grace. If he'd shown more of that during the campaign, less lies, less unwillingness to ever confront the extremists, this might've ended differently. For our country, I'm glad it didn't. I wanted those four more years and hope that a lot of positive things can happen during them.

hope for the best

Vote! Make your voice count!

The following is something that made me smile and hope it will you too. Either way this election goes, thinking positive is not just a slick expression. It is what we need to do for a good life for ourselves and loved ones.

You cannot come in unless we deem  you worthy. 

Cheese would go a long way toward making you worthy.