BACK INTO THE FRAY AGAIN

It's been awhile since I last put any posts out, mostly due to some health problems. Being in pain and having little energy makes for a very dull imagination. I spent a lot of time watching TV that for me is HULU and NETFLIX via Amazon Fire. I'm basically a Hallmark Special kind of viewer but with the extra time, I've gone astray. I am now somewhat an expert on torture techniques, subversive countermeasures, undercover disguises and assassination techniques. This was quite a bit more than what my regular soap opera ever portrayed. The overload of dark and dangerous shows and movies left me to fear almost everyone I met, or at least to make a potential threat assessment. 

I'm doing a little better now. However, I'm still trying to figure out how the hero with only a pistol can take out fire guys with assault rifles. I know a little about weaponry from being in Vietnam but apparently, the usual laws of physics don't apply anymore. Yet such critical observances didn't matter as much as the need for pure distraction in a realm that I would have normally not wanted anything to do with. 

On my better days, I thought about what I was doing with blogging, if anything at all. I never expected them be popular as I can be an equal opportunity offender. But maybe something a little more nuanced would get more page views. With the extra time, I was able to see that many have similar critical considerations. It can't be helped unless you limit yourself to writing about puppies and kittens. For a while, several new directions and approaches were entertained. In the end it wasn't so much as needing change as it was needing inclusion, the inclusion of all things - all people, all suffering, all happiness, all evil, all hope, all need, all laughter, all illness, all success, all hunger, all joy and all displacement. 

Many more realities can and ought to be named. But a look at the world as it is, or was, or might yet be at every given moment "IS" rather massive. It seems then that any understanding could at best be only a mere reflection of its cohesiveness. But some don't consider things that can be known with only a little effort because they already have everything figured out.

The more we know about what life on the Earth is for all who have found themselves as it's inhabitants, the less we are to apply dogma. Sadly, many lives have left only a trace and certainly no record. At best we can paste together what life may have been for them. Even with recorded histories, some have been lost or destroyed or grossly incomplete. Too many histories have been written from limited or self-serving points of view even as our current history is often formed in the same molds. But what would a complete and concise history of everything actually look like? ...I'm definitely waiting for the movie. 

Let me be quick to say that I know of no approach that fully takes in all that there is. Some of that is based on how little we really know. The rest is based on how much we don't want to know. Perhaps faith is best seen as our hope in knowing enough. But that may likely depend on what we attach to it. It seems that some faiths are so burdened with add-ons that the original truth is distorted. I think the more narrowly defined, the more likely that even God has to consult it. 

Even the closest explanation of and for all things (which usually is the one that we currently hold) is not without problems. Many conflicts of course come from those who have a different explanation. But what is of more concern is when you can clearly see that some things don't fit and can honestly admit that you don't know what to do about it. Here I recommend a hefty dose of denial, or allow for some anomalies to exist or make unfounded accommodations. But if you can't just broad-brush all the incongruities away and the desire for reasonable understanding persists, welcome to living life without the safety net of knowing why.

The world is full of those who claim to have the truth about life; some even do it when they have people at gunpoint. And apparently, it can get even worse. Truth-telling can be a very risky business. But I can honestly say that I've never been so confident about the meaning of life that I would kill someone. I just don't see where that is necessary; leaving them traumatically wounded is good enough.

In writing posts for a blog, I sometimes feel like the "American Sniper." But it is said that the keyboard is mightier than the armed drone. Figurative killing and maiming seems to be a rather popular literary sport. Some of it is providing push back or at least a prick to the illusion of rightness. It is to point out that their solutions are just plain impossible, that they don't get to determine who is the best American or a real Christian, that they can't say that equal rights are only for their friends, that they don't get to be the only ones who speak for God, and that they can't just watch Fox News or MSNBC with mindless admiration.

Okay then, I think I know what I'm doing with this now. So it's back into the fray again. But maybe this time with a little more learned treachery disguised as objective analysis, and of course, at least some puppies and kittens. 

There is only doing, no guarantees or assurances. You have to deal with life one way or the other. Not so much the ideal as it is the practical that is needed. Perhaps it is as the best blogger I know put it in another time.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead!
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man,
As modest stillness and humility;
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger.

Special thanks must go to Sydney Bristow, Elizabeth Kane, and Peggy Carter.

CREDITS: William Shakespeare Henry V, Scene One

HALF-FULL OR HALF-EMPTY, IT'S STILL THE SAME LEVEL

I used to use the glass half-full/half-empty illustration to show optimism versus pessimism. But a more nuanced understanding has to include the fact that it changes according to what we want it to be or  really believe it to be or what better suits our purposes.

In some situations, it would be better to say that the glass is totally empty or completely full as that is real perspective that is being communicated. But for argument sake, let's just say that most of the time the liquid is at mid level. The emptiness or fullness depends on who's in charge. And the perspective potentially changes when someone else is in charge even though in reality not much is different. Unless of course, there are two different glasses. Funny how size and amount can affect your optimism.

Another perspective looks at it as being full; it's just not full of the same thing. To me, this doesn't denote optimism or pessimism but rather a statement of what's there or that fullness is not determined by one thing. My Dad used to get so upset when a waitress didn't fill his second or third cup of coffee to the rim. To him, the concept of free refills meant refilled to the original level. My pointing out that they were nonetheless free made no difference. At the time, I didn't realize the philosophical, sociological, theological and political ramifications that were involved.

The overlooked aspect is what kind of liquid is in the glass. For some things, half of glass is quite enough, like poison. You might be glad that you didn't drink a full glass. Or not, if it didn't give you the desired affect. In AA they say one glass is too many and a hundred are not enough. I'm not sure if that applies to half-full and half-empty glasses, but I suspect that it does. To a kidney patient, a half glass of water might be overdoing but yet, the desire is quite likely for a full one. In some situations it's hard to say what's better but in others, it's pretty clear.

In the end, even with all the other considerations, it often comes down to how you are feeling at the moment or what you are like most of the time. Hypercritical people are likely going to see the negatives. On a good day, they are at best teachers who are assigning grade values based on their own criteria's. Noncritical people might not even notice. I suspect  that something in between is more practical, but I'd rather err on the side of possibility, acceptance and gratitude when I can. There's just too much that otherwise is missed.

CONVENIENT DISSONANCE

After taking much of the summer off, it's hard to get back to thinking that anyone would want to hear what I have to say. I like to think I'm providing some push back more than clever insight. Hopefully it's more about possibilities than absolutes. Besides, I might change my mind. But I won't try to convince anyone that I never held a contrary opinion. 

The only things I can say for sure is that I don't want to see someone named Clinton or Bush in the White House in the next election or any election after that. I personally would go for someone named Gonzales or Nguyen. And I don't want to see our troops bogged down in politically run wars, especially where others are sitting back and watching. 

There's more than enough going on in the world right now to talk about; Isis, Ebola, Hillary, Gaza, Liberia, minimum wage, Somalia, Scotland, Putin, rain, sports, lack of rain, black man in the White House, inversions, national debt, immigration, maintaining the oligarchy, and of course the upcoming elections. For a time in which reliable facts are hard to come by, one can always know there'll be at least two dominant and divergent views.

You probably know the labels quite well; left or right, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, traditionalist or progressive, religious right or nonreligious left and etc. Much is said about the eroding middle and how more extreme positions are now the norm. This dance of limited choices and manipulated outcomes stifles any enthusiasm for believing that the system works. It's more and more apparent how much of governance runs on money and lies. Instead of a participatory democracy, we have special favor for sale with the suppression of anything and anyone who would do otherwise.

A popular belief is that if you can get voters enraged and obsessed about particular issues, they won't see what is really going on. Another one is that people will be swayed by cheesy and/or slanderous commercials. Some can be led by the nose to vote solidly one way or the other. But most know it’s usually a matter of convincing the undecided's and independents that makes the difference. I don't think this is ever done that well, as something in between the two extremes isn't offered. Many have to hold their own nose when voting because both choices stink.

It's not any surprise that the two party system works so poorly when there's no middle left. But they do agree on making it difficult or almost impossible for a third party to emerge. Kudos to the Tea Party for knowing that it is easier to just take over a dominant player. But are they trustworthy? Will they do what is best for the country? In the end, they might not be anything more than the Moral Majority with assault rifles.

I reluctantly predict that this convenient dissonance will continue to claim valiant causes without accomplishing anything of note. And all the while, the country will drift even further toward the edge of the earth. But not to worry, there still will be time to play golf.

GOTCHA GRAPHICS

A while ago, I queried several people as to what the all too familiar pictures, or designed backgrounds, that usually had worded statements over them are called. They were so prolific in emails, Facebook pages, websites and digital messaging but didn't seem to have a given name. There was a void that needed to be filled.

As a quickie communication tool, I think they are interesting, a few words are meant to say a lot. I know some people who automatically disregard them. But for me, they're usually so short, it only takes a second or two to find something that makes me laugh or go aww... It's almost a game of like or don't like, witty or stupid, touching or offensive, good quote or questionable quote, funny or not so funny, not seen before or have seen before, real or fake, and so on.

I can usually sort though all the political, scriptural, inspirational, new age, old sayings, quotes, admonitions, promises, out-in-out lies, propaganda, staged photos, religious beliefs and ways to live a better life without being too reactionary, taken in or overly consoled. Some of them are rather irksome, and likely meant to be that way, while others are only true if you can distort reality that far. But for me, despite how much I enjoy the funny, the humorous, the satirical, the put downs, the cartoons, the jokes, and the idiotic, as well as those that are touching and inspirational, I still thought there should be an all inclusive name.

A friend came up with MESSAGE BOX, which I thought was quite good. But something a little more catchy would have a better chance of being a part of the main. It took some time before I came up with GOTCHA GRAPHICS. 

To me, there's a gotcha aspect to these graphic depictions whether through a joke, a spiritual moment, a quote or an extreme view. If you read it, you're already got and can be further got by what you read, particularly if it is unexpected. But the big gotcha factor is when you pass it on because you agree with it or are intimidated into being a part of a chain due to retribution or missed reward.                                                                                      

How effective these Gotcha Graphics are, I really don't know. But they're not going away. They fit with the immediate and/or succinct norm of digital communication. I like to use them just to add to or detract from what I'm saying, and also to have something to look at besides words. A well-composed photo without words can sometimes be the most effective. And of course, chances are that you'll stop to look at anything with puppies and kittens. If not, you might want to get something to soften that hardened heart of yours.

I know we live in this creative nation where most have access to the means necessary to make many kinds of Gotcha Graphics. But I wonder if whole departments aren't dedicated to their production. With the midterms coming up, I'm sure there will be even more. It's hard to sort out the conflicting claims. But as my old pastor used to say, "People believe what they want to believe and don't believe what they don't want to believe." I'm pretty sure that's not the best way to approach things, but who do you trust? So-called fact-checkers have been shown to be only agenda driven. I personally don't trust anyone, not even myself. But a couple of independent fact-checkers do seem to be fairly consistent and substantially documented. Time will tell.

Some claims are at best misguiding and at worst a reflection of deep-seated hatred and ignorance, or an unchallengeable absolutism. But they usually look like, act like and quack like ducks so are rather obviously fowl. It's the Gotcha Graphics that make future claims, promises and predictions that are much harder to dispel or believe. It is hard to penetrate circular logic, or what has been taken from a special dispensation. Where are the fact-checkers when you need them? ...But I can see how documentation would be a problem.

There's a lot of ways to be got. The point might be that a response is evoked, a moment of clearer focus one-way or the other. I don't think you need to use mental, spiritual or emotional contraception, but it's probably wise to filter what is being absorbed. Especially, if it just doesn't look or sound right, or if it leaves you far too smug and satisfied. But if you begin to see these representations as Gotcha Graphics, you might just have the kind of protection you need.


BONUS GOTCHA GRAPHIC

CREDITS: BUZZ FEED, HUFFINGTON POST, THE ENDLESS FLOW

THE GREAT AMERICAN SHOOTOUT

Well now, that was a lot of kerfuffle. I'm speaking of the so-called standoff between the heavy-handed representatives of the unrecognized federal government and the self-appointed militia who were looking for the fulfillment of their paranoid conspiracy theories. It was the perfect storm of ideology, guns, flags, cows, AR 15's, distortion, media show casing, political rhetoric and the occasional reference to God. This is generally really good stuff with the potential of historic remembrance, but they never got to the good shootout part. You know, the one where actual bullets fly, people are hurt or killed, media stories are valiantly dispatched, supplies and re-enforcements are sent in, diplomatic peace efforts are thwarted, and Hollywood is already starting to write the ending to the movie.  

We could have had all of this and more but apparently some "supporters" didn't like the clear statement of beliefs that Cliven Bundy espoused, which was MLK's fault because he hadn't finished his job. Given that he was assassinated, I really doubt if the finished job would have been to Mr. Bundy's liking. So history once again turns around and bites us in the ass. There's no entertainment value in the idea that "patriots" can say any stupid, ignorant or false thing they want to say about people with a different skin color, religion, political affiliation, language, culture or class. As Renault said to the police in Casablanca, "Round up all the usual suspects." ...i.e. the show is about to end.

Despite having the entertainment of a fierce and glorious battle being ripped from me, I had to think of what could of been. The mystery of someone who doesn't recognize the federal government but certainly likes to be seen and parade around with the U.S. flag. A ginned up militia fresh from the Army-Navy store and machine gun practice goes up against law enforcement agents that haven't learned anything from their Waco "just because I sad so" debacle. 

The possible link of Cliven Bundy to Al and Peg Bundy sends me reeling and any association with Ted Bundy would be over the top. You can see how these things have so much potential. Reporters could have been embedded in the cattle herd to get those up close and personal stories of capture, dislocation, and betrayal. I was particularly looking forward to the Mad Cap adventures of the medical units. There still could be a reality show that comes from this. It seems only right. 

In reality, it's probably no more than some crazy old coot who likes to hear himself talk who fired up the "my way or the highway" crowd with familiar rhetoric about an antiquated concept. As disappointed as I am, I still can sympathize. The Federal government is a bully in a lot that they do. Mainly because they are so big and what they say is the final word. I personally would eliminate some unnecessary departments. I'm just waiting for Rick Perry to remember which ones they are. 

But in the mean time, it looks like everyone picks and chooses what laws to abide by and which ones to ignore or outright disobey. Of course, my selection will always be better than yours. The lying season for the next presidential election has already begun. The current political mentality is to be in control of enough of the government that you can do anything you want. So, there is a real possibility of another Great American Shootout. I hope this time they get it right. ...Otherwise, it's back to watching reruns on the Hallmark Channel.

BONUS PIC

Credits: The usual suspects ...and Cody.

FIFTY SHADES OF OF BROWN

At one point, I thought Fifty Shades of Grey was a book about the complete line of neckties at Brooks Brothers. Boy! Was I wrong on that one. As it was, the book mainstreamed porn for the unwashed masses. You can imagine the number of husbands that had to feign surprise. ....I imagined the number of wives. Exactly how kinky do you have to get to not be bored with sex? ....What is number 51? There seems to be a lot of questions in this area.

Don't take it the wrong way, this post is not about S-E-X. You can read on with comfort. ...Or maybe disappointment. If so, I understand.

This is about the title for a collection of thoughts and antidotes from my life on the Colorado prairie. After some struggle, I knew I had to steal the title, as titles can't be copyrighted. Fifty Shades of Brown fit better than The Prairie Woman that I first thought to go with. Gone with the Wind would have been good if I was just telling about my quonset hut. Les Miserables, if it was about my marriage. Other considerations were, Chuck of Brown Gables, A Tale of Two Houses, A Tree Doesn't Grow Just Anywhere, The Hitchhiker's Guide to Keep Going to Denver, A Portrait  of the Artist as a Old Man, and of course, Far from the Madding Crowd. 

So, Fifty Shades of Brown it is.

I used to say we had only two seasons, brown and browner. But with all the climate change, it looks like I might be adding brownest. We had to get a new garage door. I thought for sure that I would go with a  green color. Red was considered, but I knew that it be bit much by the community standard. You should only stand out in discreet ways. (farm equipment is exempted) However, not all follow that and thankfully so. My neighbor up by the highway has a red shed that tells me where I need to turn. Not sure what I'd do without it.

But since we'd have to wait and pay extra the color we wanted, we chose from a select few colors, all shades of brown!! ...Of course. ....Why not? I was pretty sure that it would blend in. I guess that's why tractors come in green, red, yellow and blue. You'd hate to lose one just because you couldn't see it. For the same reason, most everyone has black cattle. BTW, the calves are coming right on schedule even if spring isn't. So far, we're not experiencing any climatic changes in reproduction. I guess that actually was a sex reference. Sorry!

Here is an excellent photo essay of the prairie along the 100th meridian. It's not Colorado, but the look is similar. I recommend viewing it in full screen. From The New York Times, Life along the 100th Meridian.   http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2013/12/08/magazine/08greatplains_ss.html#

The corn turns to brown. The wheat turns to brown, perhaps a golden brown but still brown. Pinto beans are white before they turn brown. Even the green hay eventually turns brown. That seems to be the cycle of life out here. The remains of lives past are brown. Perhaps more attention should be paid to these warning signs.

For me, and perhaps for them, brown is the color of freedom. All the various shades, of which there's at least fifty, form a vast space and opportunity that says not a lot of people want to live here. But you have a chance you may otherwise not have. That doesn't mean everything will work out or it will last. It just means a way of life that is consistent with the Republican Platform. They might want to rethink being red. I hear that brown ties are making a coming back.

Regardless of the undue amount of dust, wind, flies, dryness, pesticide, heat, weeds, herbicide, snakes, storms, skunks, mice, cold, mud, hornets and countless bugs that can't be identified, I'm pretty content. .....But if the sky ever turns to brown, I'm out of here!  

WORLDS WITHIN WORLDS WITHIN WORLDS

It's normal to have an ever expanding world as you grow up. Then experience, reading, education and travel can further expand that world once you are on your own, if you let them. A big area is our understanding about God in this world. For me, the error here is when we chose from all we know and experience to form a world that is by design more comfortable and of necessity, excludes others or/and has some concept that explains their participation in your world. Most of this is determined by how colored your glasses become and how big your blinders really are.

Examples abound all along the spectrum. Of late, there has been singular concepts about God that eliminate him altogether or say there is no need of him. Some militantly want to show that God doesn't exist by saying there is no evidence for anything metaphysical, all can or will be explained by science and reason even to the extent of creating their own fundamental legalism.

Yet, believers don't share in a common theism as seen in mono and poly. Mono being what you get after being out with poly. They further confine what God is to a sectarian ideology, a dogmatic theology,  a traditional understanding or an emotional experience. To note, the confining of God should come with some caution. Some say God is confined to a sacred text, some say to a revealed revelation (which coincidently was given to them or their group), some say God is confined to those who claim to speak for God and some say God is confined to personal guidance. Using "some" this much is really fun for some reason.

There are those who really stretch the imagination by saying that God is on a totally other plane and man's experience of him on Earth is only incidental at best. Somehow this is comforting? Others say they have an intuitive knowing of God that doesn't need to be explained or defended. They avoid academics and tradition in order to sublimely rest upon their mystical laurels.

It seems that having THE ANSWER is terribly important in this matter. Yet few voice the possibility that man is not capable of understanding the answer. Apparently, it is better for him to assume such wisdom and justifiably go after, or defend against, anything that is different, militarily or otherwise. It is far too convenient to be who you are in your world, especially if you eliminate, ignore or explain away others in their worlds. 

Here's a guess, and not necessarily an informed guess. Mankind does a lot better with a God of love rather than a God of retribution. Yet, there is something alluring about damnation, boils, famine and a really big flood when it comes to early Old Testament motivation seminars. ...Now get out there and sell that manna.

It doesn't make sense to narrowly or broadly place God in this world, neither seems to cover all that needs to be considered. Nor should anyone who can materialistically account for what is attributed to God, ever believe that God was not genuinely involved. The thing with God is that he gets to be God. To understand the all of God, you might need to be another God or be really, really, really Godlike. 

My "ungodlikeness" has been apparent for quite a while now, but I do look back at my messianic period with great fondness. If I could only walk on water again. Those were the days. Since I'm not making final judgements like I used to be able, I'd like to speculate on what some claim. I remember a CEO of a bank in the infamous bailout saying that he believed they did GOD'S WORK. Well of course he did. Someone with that big of an echo, just like so many others with similar claims, has no embarrassment. When they are the all and should have it all, no other conclusion can be made.

What seems a little more believable to me is that God is involved with that CEO in whatever way God choses. I'd like to believe that God's concern and love has the same necessary and appropriate application in everyone's life. That however might not be the case. But for now, I'm going to go with it. Call me naive'. 

I just don't think God treats the current Pope or Billy Graham or any iman or spiritual teacher or rabbi different than any child in this world, dying from starvation or not, Moslem or Christian or Buddhist or Jew. I don't think I have to make comparisons to anyone  else in the mainstream; politician, business  person soldier, factory worker, teacher, farmer, doctor and etc. It comes out about the same.

Rather than for your team to win a super bowl (Would it have hurt Manning to just believe that Seattle might not care about Omaha?), it seems we would be better off praying to see more of what God is really doing and being open to all the places he is able to bless with his goodness, even if they don't meet our expectations. This is not to say that God doesn't care about our wants, needs, problems, pains and concerns. I just think he reserves the right to sort them out in the context of our real lives according to what we most likely can not understand. 

A few more speculations. Chances are that God doesn't only exist in your world. Chances are God is not exclusively on your side. Chances are that God doesn't belong to a political party or endorse a particular ideology. Chances are that God doesn't belong to any particular church, temple, synagogue or mosque. Chances are that God can be in worlds within worlds within worlds and do just fine. So why all the hostilities, violence, hate campaigns, intolerances, militant attitudes, ignorance, self aggrandizement and etc in his name?  

I think there's some pretty good reasons to be more content with the way God is in our world and in the world of others. A better world of understanding can't be all that bad. If you need to be ugly about something, do it in your own name. I'm thinking of trying it myself.


BONUS PIC

CREDITS: WeknowMemes, HuffPost, the happy world of neon lights