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.

What comes next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here comes the hypocrisy-- wait for it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predators and the land

Thought it'd be about wild animals, didn't you? Or maybe human criminals? How about those who would block the vote of citizens as a way to win their election? If you can't win by lying ads, by doing all you can to damage the country and make the existing president look bad, how about just blocking his most likely voters through voter suppression?

GOP Voter Suppression Plan

I can hear righties now. It's only to block non-citizens or the frauds. So exactly how big has that problem been?

The GOP War on Voting

Frankly a lot of Republicans don't care how they win. The idea that a woman who might've voted for 50 years would find herself going to the polls and being disenfranchised is not a problem to them. The idea that not everyone can afford to go down to the DMV and supply them with the proper birth certificate because they don't drive, hey who would that person be? Likely an Obama voter and therefore good to get them gone is the obvious assumption from the right and they have admitted as much.

Just in case these Republicans are onto something, how prevalent is voter impersonation, the kind that needs new ID laws? 

Impersonation virtually non-existent in voting

Of course, that's not what you'd be reading on the right wing, conspiracy rag-- WND.

Frankly I had no idea this kind of thing could even happen when in 2008 we donated for the first time to the governor's race to get a Democrat, whose record I very much respected. I didn't dream what Republican governors would do if they got power. I hope Americans, who do care about democracy, are paying attention as there is a real effort to suppress, scare off voters by threats, lie to them about voting places, make it hard for them to vote, as a way to win this election by hook or by crook.

It isn't just the United States Presidency at stake. It isn't just the United States Congress. The power of state government to undo what others would vote to accomplish has been widely displayed these last two years. Tea Partiers the party of democracy? You joke.

The Obama team is onto this and some of the money we have donated has gone into registration drives and getting voters those IDs. I hope it's enough as the last thing we need in this country is the feeling that voting is not our right and obligation. Everyone should get educated about the issues, the candidates, and take responsibility for the direction in which the country is going. To do less is not to deserve those who died for this right.

Democrats Fight Against Voter  Suppression

Pelican -- early morning on Klamath Lake

A relaxing week-end with family at Klamath Lake. There are a ton of photos and more will follow. Here's an example.

There are so many wonderful photos. -- along with some failures that make me want a better telephoto. I think I will sort through and turn these into a trailer as kind of a contrast to what we are facing as a people politically but what is in nature and must be protected if we want future generations to have a chance for any part of it.

The best campaign video you will see this year

Kay had this one on her blog. I like it for assorted reasons. It represents the start of the campaign season here at Rainy Day Thoughts. Until the election, with pretty much only a few breaks, this blog will be political and discuss whatever is happening in that line.

This is what is at stake and for anybody who thinks Obama has been a disappointment, I hope they will stop and consider what Romney will do to a ton of issues important to vulnerable Americans as well as progressives. Over the next months I'll be reminding readers what those issues are.
After the election, no matter who wins, I hope to forget about politics for a year! Until then, I will do my best; but in the end, we, as patriotic Americans, do accept how the vote goes and hope for the best! Until then, it's all out for what I consider to be one of the more important elections of my time in terms of which way this country goes.

Seasons and their wisdom

The first leaves are beginning to turn color.

Woman 

watching a leaf

waiting for it

to fall

Thinking...

How does she

help her daughters,

those of birth

and those of

life 

know their own

feminine self?

The earth knows the

answer--

 know yourself.

The changing nature of family

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

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

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

A cornucopia of bachelors

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

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

mountain lions and wolves

Because nature fascinates me and predators especially of interest, I thought this article might interest other readers. I had never heard of this happening, but it makes sense as wolves kill coyotes. So it's not as though predators won't attack each other-- when either their food supply is threatened or/and they believe they can win.

mountain lions kill collared wolves in Bitterroots

People often make the mistake of painting predators as superior in motivations to say humans. They might be less complex in their motives, because they have more problems in getting food which keeps them down to basics (and their breeding is more seasonal and biological with less emotion-- we think), but superior? Not so much. We are all just animals in the end. We do what we do because we feel it will benefit us. Humans can operate a little further out there for what we think that will be but often we are shortsighted and base in our motives. Because we have a more complex language, we just paint ourselves loftier.

Going along with this, before I had a chance to publish, came the following story which led eventually to the killing of the cougar as it simply approached too close to too many humans with no fear. Cougars can be quite curious and innocent in that curiosity and then again they are predators who must kill to live.

Mountain lion and campers 

Nature as our sustainer

These days, with all the upset we are experiencing in our country, the turbulence of a major election, big climate changes, violent responses by some that threaten innocents, economic transitions, and on it goes, it's important to know what is happening but also stay grounded in ways that are healing. We don't want to become sick from all the stress. We have to keep always in mind that we have to make our own lives good.

I find that for me one of the most joyful supports always comes from time in nature. Fortunately I live on the banks of a stream which in the summer is always a joy as it follows a lazy meandering path as it does what it does best-- provide a source of water for the land, the plants and the animals who live by its banks.

When wading in the stream, in a low water season, there are interesting rocks to examine. Crawdads, mussels, and once in awhile an artifact left behind by those who came before us from the Native Americans to the later settlers.

Our farm is much blessed by this stream. It provides the sustenance to the grass and the animals that count on it for water. It's been a busy time here with getting in hay, and Farm Boss extended the fences to give the cattle more grass on the leased pasture. They are happy and that makes us happy.

I have a little buddy who doesn't go out into the fields with the others. Most days he hangs around the house saying-- maaa maa which sounds like ma to me. He's old as the hills and should not be alive as he's a wether which means neutered male. They are what make up lamb chops. He was missed in his own round-up, fooled us into thinking he was a ewe because he so often has little ones around him. Lately with teeth missing in front, he is devoted to me and my daily feedings of cob (corn, oats and barley). He's as close to a pet as I let any sheep be. I have no idea how old he is, but he's not giving up yet. This summer, he didn't get shorn with the others-- too slick for that, but Farm Boss says he'll do him one of these evenings. He doesn't have a name-- other than oh you again-- but maybe he should have had.

again and again :(

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

A little distraction

Maybe I have or have not mentioned here that I don't watch Olympics. It hasn't been my thing; but after reading this and seeing the photos, I may have to reconsider. *fanning myself*

fans gawking at male athletes

Now I do understand that a lot of men are muscling up these days. I know this based on looking for photos that will work for covers or trailers. My goodness! But really-- these swimmers have to be about the tops for physical structure in a guy. Wonder if any of them have thought about posing for romance covers. *s*

The question I have though is-- were these kind of muscles so visible on them when I was young? If so, where was I?

Philosophy and Us

When I write something here, I generally know what to expect whether it will be liked and whether it will get comments (not to say there's never a surprise). When it goes against the grain or makes readers uncomfortable, they are too polite to say anything (I have a very nice group of readers), but I can feel the energy. And I write it anyway because I am expressing something that matters to me. Most of my expectations regarding readers comes from my feeling I kind of know those who comment here-- whether we have met for real or not.  I 'get' from where they are coming.  I think they also 'get' me and are not surprised that now and then we will disagree.

In a lot of ways I like that knowledge. I like knowing when I visit their blogs also more or less what kind of viewpoint I will find. This is true whether that writer presents a view of their own philosophy of life or not.  Philosophy governs a lot of how we operate, and it doesn't require that it be openly discussed for it to show up in words and actions. Personally I think that's good.

Maybe being a writer, I am more aware of these nuances of philosophy than others might be. Although I think it does matter for life, for others it isn't probably as necessary. For me, it's life blood.

This week because I was curious about the philosophy behind the two films that came before the Colorado theater shootings, I watched the first of that trilogy, Batman Begins, and thought that's not so bad as I was expecting. A lot of life philosophy in it even if not all positive. Right off, I admit I have never been a big Batman fan although I did enjoy it when Michael Keaton played him. 

After watching that one, I came across The Dark Knight at a cheap price for a Blu-ray and bought that one. It was a film I definitely had never figured I'd see because I had seen photos of Heath Ledger playing The Joker, and I didn't want any part of it. It seemed evil personified, and I don't go out of my way to experience anything like it.

The thing is the philosophy in the first one was a bit vague. Bruce Wayne really didn't have a handle on right and wrong (as I saw it). He knew wrong when he saw it but didn't know what to do about it. It was his weakness as that villain saw it. That villain got it (played by Liam Neesom, yum) with a personally consistent philosophy for life even if you and I would be horrified by what it was.

One key point about a consistent philosophy of life. It doesn't have to be positive or good. It just has to be steady, constant, and what that person lives by. A philosophy of life can be detrimental and destructive to self and others which is why I say consistent not healthy. Of course, for the most part whether that philosophy is healthy is mostly subjective as it varies a lot from culture to culture and religion to religion.

The second film, The Dark Knight was very disturbing, and I will not keep that one. I'll probably though sell it not destroy it because it wasn't evil but what it presented was more complex.

Unfortunately the only one with a solid philosophy of life in Dark Knight (and I do mean only one) was The Joker. Now it wasn't a good one for society or even himself but he got it for what he believed and he lived it.

Bruce Wayne though, he did not and that was what made it a disappointing film. Batman, as a supposed hero, blew it time after a time for having a vague sense of goals, but no clear idea (at all) how to go about attaining them. In fact some of his ideas were outright wrong (again in my opinion).

Admittedly, I like my serious films to be tidy where at the end you have this feeling of wisdom been shown. Not so with that one. It was very disturbing all the way through with NO reward for having taken the time to watch it. Lots of action, great cast, and maybe for a lot of people that made up for the failure in the hero. Possibly they forgave him because he meant well. Or maybe that's why so many wanted to see the third one to get that resolution.

The philosophy of the Joker, a complete psychopath, was that humans are weak and destructive, selfish and uncaring of others. He set up scenarios to illustrate that, to play with other humans and did it just for his own amusement. Now whether his philosophy regarding human behavior was solid and sustainable, well who knows as a movie is like a book. It's manipulated by its creators. Creators enjoy playing around with solutions and results, and I had the feeling not only The Joker did that in the second of this trilogy.

Whenever the director changed what might have actually been human nature, it fouled up The Joker. He simply could not assimilate it because it went against his own life philosophy. So The Joker did stay consistent at least to his own philosophy even if nobody else did. It led to his demise.

Some have wondered if the Colorado shooter, because he called himself The Joker, had been influenced by the films. I don't personally think so-- unless it was the joy of being a psychopath or fascination with destruction. I don't think he 'got' what they were even about and he didn't wait to see the third to find out what the eventual resolution would be and whether Bruce Wayne could come up with a sustainable life philosophy.

The actions of the humans though in the theater that night, illustrated that anybody who bases their own philosophy on thinking they can always predict human responses-- didn't get it either. We saw the best and worst of it in the stories that have come out.

Unfortunately I really don't think a lot of people think enough about philosophy; and the kind of readers I believe I mostly have here, who are living a philosophy with which they feel it fits life, people who live aware lives, I think that's rarer than it should be.

Schools used to do more to teach different sorts of life philosophies and let the students look at the results to see what works. I have a feeling there is less and less of that. Too often a philosophy of life comes from a religion and frankly we see how consistently that works with Mitt Romney...

After I had written this, I did a little search to find out what others had come up with regarding this latest Batman trilogy and what they believed it taught philosophically. I thought this one was worth putting a link.

Masked Morality Batman Trilogy

Photos from the gravel road alongside our land
of wildflowers-- although some might call them weeds

Philosophy and life

This topic is something I wrote for my blog on writing. Sometimes something there though seems apropos for here which requires some tweaking. After writing on evil, this seemed to follow along-- our own life philosophy and how it impacts decisions and actions.

There I was discussing how philosophy can impact writing and be used within the story as well as a part of character development. Here it's about our lives, our choices, our decisions, about basically anything we do from creative work to living life to voting. I honestly believe having a solid philosophy of life improves everything. It allows for quick decisions and gives us confidence when we step out on those choices.

Without a personal life philosophy, we will be unwilling or able to take a stand on anything. We will be one of those who says we can't decide or who believes assume is a bad word. I 'assume' we then will have to let others decide what is okay or not-- others wiser than ourselves?
 
If our philosophy of life has come from say a religion, then we better find it compatible with how we actually live and our own set of values  for the times when the rubber hits the road. If not, we will find ourselves screwed time and again. When we realize how we live doesn't fit that religion, then it's time to rethink the religion as I think a lot of religious people run into this. They give lip service to something but when a problem arises, they find it wasn't really their inner creed.

Whether someone thinks about what their own philosophy is or just lives it, whether they can express it in words, I don't think that's so important. What is important is to have one, and it will make all choices easier. The hard work was done. 


I am not suggesting which philosophy you should adopt. I am saying that having one that works for your own life and in your culture is important. 

The following all appeared first on the topic of writing books, but it has a lot of my own life philosophy in it. I don't suggest you adopt mine. I suggest you be sure you have one of your own. 

*******************************

phi·los·o·phy  (f-ls-f)

n. pl. phi·los·o·phies

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

 From the Free Dictionary

Although I have read a lot of books (and enjoyed them) with no clear philosophy of life in their plots, it's not what I like to write. Philosophy has been a major interest of mine from as far back as I can remember. Why do we do what we do? What would be better? If we follow this path, where will it lead?

Even an action story set into the world of rodeo, like Luck of the Draw, can have a philosophy of life within its pages.  When men and women live life on the edge, might they not even more than others, stop sometimes to consider what makes it worthwhile? Well, not all of them and that's why a book has different characters to juxtaposition ideas with how they are lived.

Frankly I'd find it boring to write any other way. Sure a writer can put together a plot with some characters, have this and that happen, but in the end-- why? I like to come up with an interesting plot, set of problems, intriguing characters, good love story, but put within ideas regarding life and how we benefit (or not) from certain actions. The problems in that story will determine the themes of the philosophy.

This kind of writing doesn't have to come out like a lecture. It just requires a few characters that think about more than making money, physically surviving, having sex, or finding adventure. IF the characters are also looking for meaning in their own lives then it's not hard to find places to put that into the book.

It's not only not hard but it's extremely rewarding as a way of writing. For me, philosophy belongs in fiction.

Excerpt from Luck of the Draw:

She remembered then a quote by Tagore, one she’d memorized. ‘Let my love like sunlight surround you and yet give you illumined freedom.’  The words fit this situation for what it’d be like if she loved Billy.

With some man, someday, she’d learn to love that way. Love but don’t hold too tight. Even if she had thought she loved Billy, he’d not have wanted such words from her, not now. She would though share it with Jean someday that she knew she had been right. Jean might blame herself for the accident, but she would be wrong to do so. Nick had made his own choice.

If she had loved Billy, she wouldn’t let her love box him in, try to change him into something he wasn’t. She would not let love do that to her either. This wasn’t the right time for such words to Jean or Billy. It was how she wanted to live, but the knowledge was new to her. She had to live with it for awhile to be sure she could really follow that road.

Does evil exist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We stop the next Aurora with better mental health treatment

gun control as a solution?

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

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

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

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

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

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

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

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

National Rifle Association's bizarre Colorado response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

no assault rifle purchases to civilians

limits on rifle and gun magazine sizes

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

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

more insanity

Once again we have had a catastrophic shooting with a mass murderer who had the kind of weapons that enabled him to kill and injure so many. We will be reading again and again about the victims, about who this shooter was, but can we, as a people, get a handle on the fact that having ordinary people able to buy weapons that are intended only for killing humans, this is as insane as this guy obviously was? When will we get a grip on it that to have a right to own a weapon doesn't mean an AK47 or AR-15? Yes, he'd have killed a lot even with a shotgun, ordinary rifle, or handgun, but it'd have been easier to stop him.

We are clearly in a very violent time with people feeling they have a right to kill others. What can we do to protect ourselves from this? We do know at least one step we could take. Why don't we have the guts to take it and take on the NRA and the idiots who defend the right to own these kinds of weapons because they might want to take over the country someday...

This is just heartbreaking and when you do live in such a violent time, you know it could be you or your family next time. We can't stop all of it but we can take some intelligent steps to at least stop the sale of such weapons. And if we can't, then tell me who runs this country and are we really just rabbits whose lives don't count?