Dreams and Crumbs

 

This work of paper art is currently at the farm. We bought it at an art fair in Jackson Hole Wyoming. As you can see, I was pleased to find it. Photo taken June 2008.

Some of how I think may come from growing up at the end of a gravel road, at that time on the edge of a wilderness. Lots of time alone for thinking and reading. It might also have led to my political beliefs, which since 2018 are unaffiliated, not uncommon in Oregon to not belong to any political party. I have views that relate to issues. They do not fit exclusively with either party in the United States of America. One party has some of my beliefs when another moves to others. Frustrating.

I see people who might seem honorable but too often, they seem to fall under one side or another, as that's how it's supposed to be given our system. When they deviate from the 'rules', they lose political and financial support. It's rather cultish with how they have to fit under the bubbles. Even many voters find bubbles most comforting.

Recently, I had a dream where a guy, black and handsome, was selected to be a detective, but the title wasn't the end of the criteria. It required 'crumbs' to define that that meant. I woke up thinking that it was true for religious and political titles. Crumbs in the dream meant how the tasks were filled in. It wasn't just a title but what did that title mean.

Crumbs? Well, dreams can do what they want, but I can see how that works in baking. It's the crumbs that fill out the cake. In life, it is the meaning of the tasks that fill out how they operate.

When people elect someone from one party or the other, they expect that party to do what they want. It's not about what we as a country need or want. It's what their party expects.

So, recently when someone went to a rally for a politician (very much of a party person based on his voting and what he said), he finished his speech, to their delight, "It will take time, but I believe we can take it back."  

What did that mean? Take it back from those who last elected it? I assume that's it and happens on each side. What about others? Never mind as it's all about one side winning it all?

What about the oath of office for a Senator?   

 "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Never mind, as it's all about serving a party, for whatever issues it supports. Time and again, we see that play out or the politician is pushed out. I don't know how it got this way, but it sure appears it is. And a lot of voters like it. I do not, and I respect those few politicians who can vote what they feel is best-- no matter what their party thinks.

Do I think that no one should belong to a political party? Not really, but can they do that and still support other kinds of issues? Do they need to see opposing leaders as wrong, theirs always right, and ignore realities? Quit thinking as the party does it for them? 

What is going on?

 First of all, how'd it get to be December already? What a year.

Stencil.--  In Tucson, we have no snow at our elevation. It's in Arizona.

The issue that has been troubling me has been pushed through the media. How seriously should we take it? Well, I start here with my uneducated, non-military history where it comes to rules of law. 

When I first read about six senators, one with a proud military history warning soldiers that they did not have to obey illegal orders? There were no specifics given as to what orders-- just to let them know, as if they didn't already.

Did it relate to the attacks on narco-boats delivering drugs in the Caribbean? Well, these supposed fishing boats had high level motors. That didn't seem like fishermen to me.

Then is the number of Americans that have been dying from illegal drugs, many of them young and naive (600,000) over a few years-- more than our losses to wars.

As someone who does not know military rules, I turned to other heads, one a friend (whose name I will not give) who had posted this for military protocol. 

  

This is something everyone should read when considering this "unlawful orders" hubbub that's going on. We have been discussing the “unlawful orders” video in our home. A friend shared this assessment from Lt Gen (Ret) Mark Hertling. It does a good job of capsulizing our discussions and is a good read for our non-military friends.

 

“When 6 members of Congress released a short video on Tuesday (18 November) emphatically reminding military personnel that they must not obey illegal orders, the message ricocheted through the political world and the media like a rifle shot. Reactions split along predictable lines. Some saw the video as a necessary civic reminder in a volatile moment. Others attacked it as inappropriate political rhetoric directed at the armed forces. Still others lied about what was said, or mocked the message as condescending. As the controversy escalated, the lawmakers who appeared in the video began receiving death threats, while the president himself suggested—astonishingly—that their message constituted “sedition” and that they should be imprisoned or executed.”

 

“I want to address a fundamental point revealed by the video and the debate surrounding it: Most Americans do not understand what is in the oaths sworn by our service members. Confusion about that, combined with an understandable desire to keep the military a nonpartisan institution, fuels both the alarm that motivated the video’s creation and the backlash against the video. A clearer understanding on this subject will help reveal the aspects of our constitutional structure that protect the nation from unlawful uses of the military.”

 

“Here’s the truth, learned on the first day of service by every enlisted soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, guardian, and coast guardsman, and learned but sometimes not recognized by the young officers who first take the oath:

“There is not one military oath. There are two. And the differences between them explain exactly who is responsible for refusing illegal orders, why the system was designed that way, and what it means for this moment.”

 

“One reason the debate keeps going sideways is that the public keeps talking about “the military” as if it were a single, undifferentiated mass of people with identical obligations. It isn’t. The Constitution and Congress deliberately created two different oaths—one for enlisted personnel, and one for officers. That structure is not bureaucratic trivia; it is grounded on the bedrock American civil–military relations. Ignoring it leads to the misleading assumption that everyone in uniform bears equal responsibility when confronted with an unlawful command.”

 

“They don’t. And that distinction matters.”

 

“Enlisted members swear to support and defend the Constitution, and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” And the UCMJ makes crystal clear that the service member’s obligation is to obey “lawful” orders, and that no enlisted member is permitted to carry out an unlawful order. But the enlisted oath is also intentionally anchored in obedience of the chain of command. The accountability lies one level up.”

 

“Which brings us to the officer oath—shorter in words, heavier in weight. Officers swear to “support and defend” the Constitution; to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it; and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. They also affirm that they “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” What they do not swear to do is equally important: Officers make no promise to obey the president and the officers above them.”

 

“That omission is not an oversight. Officers give orders, evaluate legality, and act as the constitutional circuit breakers the Founders intended. They are expected—by law, by professional ethic, and by centuries of tradition—to exercise independent judgment when presented with a questionable directive. Officers are duty-bound to refuse an unlawful order. It is not optional. It is not situational. It is their job.”

 

“When the members of Congress in their video urge what seems to be the entire military not to follow illegal orders, they may unintentionally blur the very lines that keep the system functioning. Enlisted personnel obey lawful orders; officers ensure the orders that reach them are lawful. The real constitutional failsafe is not a general broadcast to every rank. It is the officer corps, obligated by oath to the Constitution alone.”

 

“This matters in a moment when Americans are hearing loud claims about using the military to solve political disputes, intervene in elections, or take actions beyond statutory authority. People are right to worry. But they should also understand the guardrails already in place. The military has been here before—they have already, at times in our history, faced unlawful pressure, political manipulation, or attempts to turn the armed forces into a tool of personal power.”

 

“Also worth remembering: No one in the American military swears allegiance to any individual. The oaths are not pledges of loyalty to a party, a personality, or a political movement. Loyalty is pledged to the Constitution—and officers further take that obligation “without mental reservation,” knowing full well it may someday require them to stand with courage between unlawful authority and the people they serve.”

 

“So while pundits and politicians continue fighting over the optics of the lawmakers’ video, the core reality remains: The safeguards are already built into the structure. The oaths already distribute responsibility. The law already forbids what some fear. And the officer corps already knows that they bear the constitutional duty to ensure that unlawful orders never reach the young men and women who follow them, and who, in effect, they also serve.”

“This is not a moment for panic. It is a moment for clarity.”

 

“If Americans understood the difference between the two oaths—one grounded in obedience, the other grounded in constitutional discernment—they would see that the republic’s defenses against unlawful orders are not theoretical. They exist. They function. They don’t depend on the whims of political actors on either side of the aisle, but on the integrity of those who swear to uphold them.”

 

Finally, here is a commentary on what was behind that video, that it had been well-orchestrated and expensive for these six senators to read their lines. Having one a well-respected military hero had to add to its finding democrats cheering it. I respect this university professor for his takes on what is going on. If such interests you, check it out. what was beyond the opinions they voiced. 

 

My final thought is how divided our country currently is. We don't even know to what degree since it's all media driven. 

 

holiday mood or not

 In the United States, this is a holiday week-end, which means different things to different folks. I have something I want to write about, but it's so un-holiday in mood that I am putting it off for next Saturday's blog. 

Enjoy this time, however you do and something different, not holiday,  will be next Saturday. It is important though. 

Meanwhile find something for which to be thankful. There is always something

 

 

Thanksgiving-- last Thursday of November in US

 

images from Stencil

Next Thursday in the United States is Thanksgiving, the fourth Thursday in November-- officially since Abraham Lincoln declared it so, though it had been celebrated earlier. It has some typical traditions, which are often ignored. 

The idea is a day of being thankful, eating a lot of food, and gathering with loved ones. Its traditional basis was supposed to be the first European arrivals being gifted with a feast by their Native American hosts (wanted or not). In the US, it's gotten to be a bit controversial with some feeling it should not be celebrated but rather embarrassed by the effect of the new migrants taking Native lands and killing to do it.

But the concept to me, of a day to think about the good in life, is positive, no matter its history. In my life it was a major celebration with extended family when I was young and then family and friends as I got my own home and began cooking it.

Today for Ranch Boss and me, it's a day of diminished results but good memories. We do not live close to family; so it's just us. We don't have the friends we had in Oregon, as when we decided to live longer in Arizona, was right when Covid hit. We hunkered down as did many. Now I have some physical limitations that play a role in just a few nearby friends, who are great but have their own families for such celebrations.

Some years, we'd fix a full turkey with the trimmings. This year we just bought a turkey breast with plans for some limited trimmings. Overeating when elderly does not feel good. The pumpkin pie will come from the grocery store's bakery and not made by me. I've done them though using a whole pumpkin to start. That's really good but not worth the work for just two people. No more fixing cranberries, the whole berry way, as neither of us care for it. We won't overeat (due to above reason) and will have leftovers. 

I got curious about how others celebrate a Thanksgiving or if they do. Turns out France does not, but here is a link to those who do, not on our date but one of their own.

Thanksgiving Around the World 

Universe Truths?

 

 When I woke up one morning last week, my dominant thought was about the universe. I lay, thinking of how this works for us as human beings on one planet in that universe. I guess that such wondering always has happened, as soon as we could think beyond how to capture food.

Basically, we think on several levels. The first is likely most primal-- bodily. How are we physically doing? If it's not as we wish, what should we do about it. When that goes wrong, likely it's the whole of our wondering until it gets fixed-- if it does. This is not true for everyone, of course, like Stephen Hawking, who did a lot of thinking beyond himself despite a horrendous illness.

The next level is what I'd call close community. This means family, friends, those we care about. If that's good, we can go on.

Next is the broader community, our country. This is where our religious and political concerns come into play. Is it governing as we ourselves would like? Where it comes to religion, is it working for the good of that broader community? Somewhere in there humans figure out their take on the spirit side of life. If they find religious answers for behavior, forever, a god, that might end their explorations.

For many, it is then time to look at the world beyond our piece of it, other countries. Are they getting out of control, as once Germany did, what should we want done about that?

Only then, do we look to the broader universe, planets and stars beyond ours. Are those aliens visiting us; and if they are, is it for good or negative purposes?

There are a myriad of stars out there to wonder about. Do they have life on them? Does it matter if they are light years away? Do they visit us? Are there worm holes through which to travel past time constraints? This is all being studied by those with more tools than I have or even want.

The theory that the universe has a beginning (big bang) and an end is currently being questioned. Might it be infinite? We know one thing, based on human observations-- stars have ends as that can be observed. Hence what we call the sun, which has allowed for life here, will eventually end it based on too hot or maybe an explosion. 

What I lay awake considering is-- are there universes beyond ours? If there are, are they parallel to us, or we just a raindrop in a much larger world picture-- even though humans have thought of themselves as the center of it.

 

Mystery?

 

image from Stencil

Sometimes, I start thinking about a blog knowing exactly what I want for the topic, even if I didn't already see the details. I didn't this week. While there is much I could write about regarding our culture and what direction will best govern its future, I already said the immediate and now, I want to see more of how it plays out since voters in some states have spoken. Let's see the results before more about it.

What is on my mind is more personal. Given my age, 82, I am definitely nearer to death than younger folks-- or so we would expect. I have no reason to think mine is imminent, but then whoever knows.

The topic for today isn't though unique to being this age. I've thought about spirituality and death all of my life. In my mid-50s, I got curious about reincarnation. Reading a lot about it didn't answer my questions; so I spent a summer doing meditative regressions, where you follow instructions from a tape to take yourself back down steps to maybe your own past lives.

Being a writer, always thinking of stories, I had some concern for the stories I had gathered with that method. There were 6 or so of them, but none with being a queen or celebrity. All had sad endings. At the end of that summer, I worked with a hypnotherapist to get the same stories with one more. She asked a salient question when I brought up my concern. Did you cry when you come up with earlier stories for books. I know that some writers do, but I don't. But with the past live meditations, I did. 

For my personal exploring, that was more or less all I did-- leaving the answers of the beyond to mystery. Although, when I lost my beloved cat at too early an age, I did ask for a dream about reincarnation. I did have a very specific dream (not about the cat) that led to my paranormal/fantasy series.

Recently, on YouTube, I watched a podcast where the host was asking questions of a doctor, who does such research on near death experiences, which are death except the people come back. I found it of interest and wanted to share the link here with readers for others to think about.

All Souls Day Episode.

It turned out the host was wrong, not on All Souls Day, but at the time of year for such questions to arise with Samhain. This is a very spiritual time of the year for many religions.  A good time to consider what might be beyond what we see.

Government shutdown means what???

I wish I had good news for today, but it's not what's on my mind. None of this directly impacts my life, but pain for others hurts us all. What is below, I learned from reading/watching online, with two exceptions of those who shared their experiences.
 

Writing this now, when I have no idea how the government shutdown will end or if it will, I still feel strongly about some cultural issues that I feel Americans should consider. There are programs that will not be funded. How many of us understand what they are? Or how they impact the lives of others.

The first one on my mind is what the government now calls SNAP, which used to be food stamps, and when I was a girl, it handed out food from warehouses where people stood in line. I saw the lines but never was in one, but I thought they gave out basic food needs like bread, vegetables, cheese, and I don't know what else.

Today, Snap means Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Except now they are talking about children going hungry. Does not sound like supplemental nutrition, but rather what I thought Food Stamps used to mean, which could be total food costs.

Who should we blame for the government scaring families like this, which I consider cultural? I'd say both parties who care more about their political power than families.

Turns out one of my relatives works for checking food programs in at least one part of Washington to be sure it's legitimate, which sounds like all anyone can do and reassures me. 

But, I also was told by someone who gets SNAP that when they use it for food, and not all of it, the cashier gives them back cash. That means they could use that for forbidden items like cigarettes or alcohol. Nutritional Supplements? 

What does not reassure me, with its loss, is the SNAP programs are also helping to fund local food banks or even stores to help the less advantaged to get food. This is a big deal and makes me angry that fear is trying to be used with evidently 42 million people in the programs. If they are the elderly, disabled or those with children, that sounds right that they should receive it.

Is that all that get it places they might not be checking? And even, if so, why are so many suffering in our system? I know what some claim... tax more to the rich, but I don't know that it's so simple and political power might play more of a role than it should. Besides, what does it mean when people must depend on government, where it's so vague what the "government" actually does.

With the government shut down, evidently it will also impact airlines. That means controllers are not being funded by the ticket purchasers. This is about to majorly inconvenience those who need to fly. If it lasts until Thanksgiving, this will not only impact families but also the airlines.

The military will be funded by a billionaire's donations, which is not reassuring for a budget that already is massively in debt? What is going on and how many of us have any idea? I sure do not, and I fear that many do not want to know!

There are a lot of other programs that have been intended to figure out nature's needs, not to mention the park services. Where is the money going? I ask again.

We know the Congress made sure they get paid even when they refused to fund the country or figure out what needs funding. They don't seem even embarrassed in protecting themselves over others. It's very disappointing, but nothing more for me than children going hungry. Do the people we elect to Congress care about anything, but power for themselves-- that means both sides.

If the government cares about doing what is right for American citizens, which lately I tend to doubt, end the filibuster. It used to make sense when someone like Senator Morse could speak for hours to justify his position. They got lazy and now all it takes is one to say-- I filibuster to mean a simple majority is not enough. If Americans want one party or the other to be in power for that simple majority-- vote. But as it stands, it seems to me the filibuster just avoids responsibility. Get rid of the meaningless filibuster that enables them to avoid their duties.