Well,

My writing on what's happening globally is no better today than last week. The killing in Minneapolis has as much confusing info on it as before. So the victim has four wounds, one in the head from shot through windshield, but one hole through the windshield, not four. Others were in her chest and arm. Who shot those? There are also claims that he has internal injuries from being hit with her vehicle. What makes sense to each side might depend on where they came from in terms of partisan hacks-- either side.

Greenland seems wrong to attack but is it part of global change with new and old enemies changing constantly. Iran-- bad however you look at it. WWIII-- is it on the horizon? I hope not but so much is out of our control, but maybe not what will hurt us.

My own life had multiple problems this week from one of our beloved cats developing a limp that meant she hopped to avoid stepping on one leg. After a veterinary visit and multiple x-rays (plus reducing our bank account), there is no firm answer, but she is getting old. She came to us a stray 9 years ago. We have no idea how old she was.  She is though, much beloved for so many reasons, and we do what we can to keep her as long as possible along with the two others, with maybe a future decision to adopt to have four cats... (fingers crossed on that one).

Then, there is the farm where one of our beloved big old white oaks split off part of it to damage the home roof, destroy the chimney and send one of the broken branches down two feet. Now, that's scary. Insurance is starting to deal with it (maybe) that but doesn't make it less stressful.

Didn't they used to say another day another dollar? I don't think so anymore. 

 For me, this is a bad time to write what I feel. I do not know all the facts of many recent happenings; but feeling, I do know that. However, might that change when more facts come out. That's the problem with writing in such a time. Besides, not knowing, I do not want to write what will doubtless upset others. Reading the newspapers does enough of that. I might write about it all someday, when more is known, but not today.

So, I dove into my archives for things I had written years ago, like in 2005. I still very much relate to this feeling for today as a way to get through difficult times. Some say, live in the moment. I also believe that, but my memories are always also part of me today.

Before that, is this quote by Mary Oliver, known by many but always worth remembering.

"“Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your wild and precious life."

-------

 

I have this yearning right now to be where the sky is big, the land open and not blemished by man's touch-- needful as that touch sometimes is. I'd like to smell the sage, feel the prairie wind in my hair. I'd like to forget for a moment that I am who I am and just be one with the earth. Be where the sky becomes as important or more so than the land beneath, where it speaks to you with gentle or fierce voices and you know somehow that whatever is troubling you is less important than you thought.

The closest I can get to that at the moment though is looking through my pictures, remembering the times in the Big Sky country and listening to the soundtrack to Legends of the Fall.

I am lucky the memories linger in my head. I sometimes think we only do things to have the memories become part of us, that the doing is not more important than the lingering effect on our souls. Some say live in the moment but the moment is part and parcel of all we have been and done. It's not just what we see in front of us but all that lingers within and that we can see when we close our eyes. The moment can likely never be as big as the memories we take away with us and can call back whenever we need to refresh our souls and be somewhere meaningful with someone we love.

So for just a moment I am not sitting at my keyboard but am instead at a trailhead in the Absaroka Mountains and I feel the edginess of knowing the unknown lies ahead. Might a grizzly be down the trail? A big elk? or just a view that will make me catch my breath?

 Do you make resolutions for a calendar new year? I had some years, maybe from my 50s or thereabouts where I'd do goal statements.  I'd break them into spiritual, physical and emotional. After a few years of that I realized I wasn't changing any of it. Time to think but not write anything down.

It is almost a new year, which seems amazing. I don't have much to say right now, but found a video I had filmed about ten years ago on writing and solitude or not. I hope I come up with something new with 2026. Let's hope for the best for this coming year, as '25 has known a lot of tragedy in the world. 

Not sure what this year was, but it was when still at the farm.

Aging has changed me from my 70s to my 80s so far as looks, more then for many years, but my ideas are still the same about writing and what it takes. The cat behind me, I lost a year or so later, and I still mourn her as she was that special cat for me.

 After a week-end of horror events, it takes some time for deep breaths to attempt to recenter for a season of spirituality and love.

When I looked about what to write, I remembered thatI have several books with Christmas in them, but this is where the season, including the Solstice is at its center. I wish I could make it free but the best I can do is 99¢. Rules 'dontcha' know.

Holiday novella

For me a Christmas movie or book has to have certain qualities. 

The novella, A Montana Christmas,  moves forward a few years ith  the ranch family in From Here to There. Rather than a romance as such, this is more a slice of life story. It has all the characters from FHtoT as well as some new ones. There is a bonus short story with A Montana Christmas-- Curly learns a lesson.

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? 

 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.”