This blog is about Truth. With a capital T because I mean it in the big sense, not the baser sense of "true story" or true/false. Science is also about Truth...at least it is at the heart, before media and corpocracy and fame have tainted it. The only reason science and religion conflict is because practitioners of one or both confuse the roll of each. See science can only tell us about observable reproducable things. As such, it can't talk at all about things that fall outside of the ability to observe and test. Conversely, religion isn't about empirical, observable, testable reality. Reality, yes, but not the physical world in the way science is interested. Anyway, I digress. My point is that I try to understand my world as a whole. And science informs things quite well. So it shouldn't be a surprise that this blog may also cover scientific matters from time to time as they engage in my brain.
So the concept of assimilation. This is the process of taking something in and making it a part of the entity, whether that is biological, social, spiritual, etc. Essentially, an assimilated thing ceases to be separate from the thing that assimilates it. We assimilate nutrients. Nations assimilate people. The US is known as the "melting pot", which refers to the quality of assimilating people from many backgrounds. We are not a nation based on genetic isolation or ancient tribal divides. Assimilation is a natural process that absolutely pervades every aspect of the function of the world. But I don't think many people understand it at all.
I was thinking of assimilation around the Christmas season for a couple reasons. First, because people get wound up about the various elements of the holiday. Regardless of what angle of that argument you might sit in, I think the concept of assimilation should help unwind that tension some.
No culture exists in a vacuum. Even the oldest cultures are influenced by those around them and evolve through time. The culture of a tribe 1000 years ago would not be the same now, even if that tribe were totally untouched by the outside, which none are. So there are going to be things that move from one to the other in both directions.
When Christianity first began to spread, it was spreading through existing cultures. Some of those celebrated Saturnalia, some celebrated Yule, and many other winter festivities. So when a few people began to see that this new faith had Truth, they didn't cease to live in the culture they were in. Others around them still celebrated the things they always did. Christianity, being a very assimilative type of faith, does not proscribe or prohibit much outright. The Apostle Paul (Saint Paul, depending on your tradition) who wrote most of the New Testament says all things are permissible, but not everything is beneficial. The individual has to determine what is good for themselves and their own. So many found what was good and true in the culture they occupied and kept those elements.
Where there were conflicts of conscience, people sometimes adapted the holiday to something that fit their new beliefs. Ok, so we aren't celebrating Thor any more, but as all powers and principalities are subject to the One God, then Father Christmas must also be subject to him...It's not a conscious happening, it's a slow and imperceptible shifting. Father Christmas, sounds much like the traditions of Saint Nicholas from southern Europe, so those gradually get merged as well.
Now if you are seriously conflicted by any pagan elements in your holiday, by all means, do what your conscience demands. Paul also says to bear with those who have weaker faith, so I for one won't be in your face about what gives you trouble, just like I won't drink alcohol around an alcoholic or a Baptist. But for your part, recognize the freedom of those of us who do not feel conflicted about it. We're not apostate because we let our kids enjoy a gift given in the name of a mythical character or a Saint. WE aren't worshipping a pagan God when we do it, despite the origin.
And if you're on the other side where you feel your holiday was stolen and perverted by us tyrannical Christians, please remember that you are still free to celebrate whatever you like. As I described above, most of the assimilation was a natural cultural process and not a decision to abolish or persecute your religion. I don't doubt that there were times where a state religion prohibited practices in an attempt to mandate what it felt was good. But that's not what's happening in the West right now. In fact, in today's world, you're more likely to live in a nation that mandates against Christianity, if it speaks to national religion at all. So it goes both ways. Individuals are not nations and nations are not individuals. Celebrate what you like in the way you like and allow others the same respect, even if you disagree. This is the definition of political and religious freedom.
Now on to the second topic of assimilation. Food. When you eat, your body assimilates the chemicals in that food: proteins, lipids, nutrients, synthetics, etc. Those things become a part of your body. Your body knows how to use a lot of those things. A good deal of them, your body can't use. Some of them actively break down the processes in your body as it tries to figure out what to do with them. But since assimilation is a great principle of life on Earth, a natural law, your body has an amazing capacity to take damage. It will assimilate and assimilate until it is overloaded. Even useful things can become a problem when there are too many of them.
Unfortunately, our bodies are so good at assimilating stuff we often don't take notice. The impacts, are virtually undetectable. But they are occurring. We only notice it once it's so far damaged that something actually breaks. It's the same process all over the natural world. I'm a water scientist and I see people seep junk into lakes and rivers for decades and then get utterly bewildered when the lake turns green and icky "all of a sudden". Truthfully, there are usually warning signs if you know what to look for, but people don't pay attention to them in their body or the world around them.
Even the government is not good at watching this. You see, most of the government employees want to do good, that's why we choose a lower paying career that comes with ample abuse from ignorant people. But a good deal of the job is about keeping the wheels turning. In the US especially, it's hard to just say, "whoa, change everything because this isn't working." So we operate by determining exactly how much we can mess something up before the impacts are too noticeable. I'm dead serious about this. It's how the laws are written and how the policies are structured. It's not a mindset of keeping things healthy, solvent, or sustainable. It's how much abuse can we take from all the pressures and not fall apart.
The same goes with individual health. Many people try to sneak just under the line where they crash rather than aim for the healthiest they can be. Fortunately for someone with a condition like me, my body reacts far more instantly to a bad element than most. So people say it's a problem with my body and those things don't affect them. But they DO affect you. They affect everyone. I'm like the canary in the coal mine. My reaction is the magnified and instant representation of what it's doing to you over the decades.
So why play with fire? If you, unlike me, have a good margin of safety, you won't fall out from a little bad stuff, but it's still bad! Imagine how healthy you could be if you didn't keep taking in that stuff that's pulling you apart at the cellular level.
Anyway, these have been my thoughts through this Christmas season as I've watched and listened to the world around me. As we start into a new year, I'd encourage you to take advantage of this marker in time to begin consciously assimilating these ideas about assimilation. Once you understand the concept, it explains so much of the world around you. You'll be more insightful, happier, and healthier for it.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Friday, December 20, 2013
Power
Power can never be taken. It can only be given. This is absolutely true. To understand it, though, we have to understand power.
Merriam-Webster defines it as 1. ability to act or produce an effect. 2. possession of control, influence, or authority over others. 3. physical might.
I'm obviously talking about definition 2, but in a less direct way, my statement also applies to 1 and 3.
So regarding power over others, this power can only be given with the consent of those over whom it is exercised. We don't like to think of it that way because too many of us lay down and roll over to let people have power over us. We want to feel excused, that there was nothing we could do. But this is false because no one can physically make you do anything you do not choose to do.
Actually, there's two exceptions. They can make you hurt and they can make you die. But they still can't make you do anything they want you to do. What we call oppression is really just strong coercion. An oppressor finds something we want and attempts to control our receipt of it contingent upon us doing what they want. This doesn't always have to be negative. Many rulers know that positive reinforcement is better than negative in many cases. In this case we don't tend to call it oppression, but the principle is the same. We want the reward, so we comply. Parents use this all the time.
Another side of this coercion complex involves vilifying those who don't comply and making negative examples of them. This plays on the human tendency to conform and really just greases the wheels of the coercive process.
But it doesn't always work. If a person or people lose the fear of the consequences, the power is gone. Unfortunately in our society, one of the largest coercive factors is the idea that death is the ultimate evil. If life is to be preserved at all costs, the power is handed over. It simply becomes a matter of the degree to which it is exercised. But if death is not feared, the ruler is grasping at straws because even pain is not so effective a coercion simply because no ruler can hurt enough people. sure it may work one on one, but usually this occurs only after someone has already given over too much power in the first place.
Here's some examples. Ever wonder why Native Americans were not enslaved by the Europeans? Why would they go to the trouble and expense to catch and ship over Africans when there was an ample supply of primitive people right in their own backyard? The answer is that they tried. The problem was that Native Americans were (and still are) an independent and defiant people who do not hand over their power. Even if one could be taken alive, he or she would not work. Give them a tool and they'd put it through your head. Slack the chain and they'd wrap it around your neck. Pen them up and try to break them, and they'd simply starve to death or take their own life before giving in. Where do you think that fierce independent streak of American culture came from? Indians weren't destroyed. They were absorbed. The distinct cultures were largely lost, but I am a living example of the assimilated, but not conquered people who have left an indelible mark on American culture. Truly, modern American culture IS a hybrid of Native and European and African influences. But I digress.
Secondly, the Christian martyrs, both ancient and modern. They came from the dominant cultures in which they were found, but lost their fear of death and even pain because of their faith. While they didn't often resort to violent resistance, they were never conquered and thousands have refused to submit to countless regimes that violated their beliefs.
Third, Muslim martyrs. The reason Islamic terrorism is so scary is that it can occur anywhere and from anyone. A people who are not afraid to die do not need to submit.
But I also mentioned torture as often the result of having given up power and attempting to take it back too late. The best example I know are the Nazi concentration camp victims. Countless people sat by and watched as they gave up more and more power to the Nazi regime. Then even when they were being hauled away, few resisted. Some did. But not most.
The Christian martyrs are not exactly in this state because they willingly submitted to the torture because of their beliefs in nonviolence. Since it was willing, they weren't technically abdicating their power, but choosing not to exercise their power out of deference to God, whom they believed to be in control even in that time. Some were miraculously rescued, others weren't. But before you go trying to say this proves God doesn't exist or didn't favor them, remember what I said about death not being the ultimate evil.
I want to be clear, that I'm not downplaying the strength of the coercion. I'm not judging anyone for acting or not acting in any way. Until we're there, we can't say how we'd react either. I'm simply pointing out that these were indeed cases where power was given and not taken.
I'm not even saying it is wrong to always allow someone power over you. Certainly there are cases where it is wise, prudent, beneficial, and even good to submit. The difference is the understanding of what we're doing. It is voluntary submission. No human has power over another by innate right. It is ALWAYS by the consent of the governed.
This understanding should color our views of those over us. It should also color our views of those under us. Doubtless someone will quote the Bible passage about submitting to those in authority because God placed them there. Yes. I agree. What does this have to do with my point? I still have the choice to submit or not, for good or ill. I still can't be compelled to do what a ruler says. And if you are citing this passage, I'd like to also point out the many others about leaders whom God also took down...many through the violent and bloody hands of His people. So it cuts both ways, pastor. Are you so certain of which type of leader you are?
So where does this leave us? Is there a way to act in society? Yes, I think a mutual respect among all people, a servant leadership that understands it is just that, paired with a diverse and necessary body of others who are no less necessary and no less favored. While this is an ideal that may be hard to reach (at least in the US), I suggest we at least reclaim the mannered equipoise of many cultures past and present: Know you have less power than you think you do, and there's always a chance I could be more coercive than you, or at least willing to put you to the ultimate test of defending your power (i.e. I might kill you.) So let's just be polite and we'll get along fine.
As for a better way, I think we have that as well. God, being the prime source and beyond our influence altogether, has established that goodness and love flow from Him to us. Goodness and love draw the recipient toward the giver. Thus we comply not from coercion, but as a gift back. It works in the human realm, we've all seen it. Betrayal is universally denounced. Good deserves good. Love deserves love. It sidesteps the whole power dynamic altogether. This is how Jesus operated. This is how many Christians operate. It just had to start somewhere, and God took care of that for us. Or rather, He established the universe that way, so we really have no other choice. To defy it simply negates our own being. A self-perpetuating system, no punishment necessary.
So I'll leave you with this. If you are having to manipulate and strive to get people to do what you think they should, you're doing something wrong. If you have to beg for money or tell people God won't bless them. If you have to make lighthearted threats to get them to sign up for your program. You are slipping into the power dynamic, which means you don't have the power in the first place. Forcing that will be your undoing.
The only winning move is not to play.
Merriam-Webster defines it as 1. ability to act or produce an effect. 2. possession of control, influence, or authority over others. 3. physical might.
I'm obviously talking about definition 2, but in a less direct way, my statement also applies to 1 and 3.
So regarding power over others, this power can only be given with the consent of those over whom it is exercised. We don't like to think of it that way because too many of us lay down and roll over to let people have power over us. We want to feel excused, that there was nothing we could do. But this is false because no one can physically make you do anything you do not choose to do.
Actually, there's two exceptions. They can make you hurt and they can make you die. But they still can't make you do anything they want you to do. What we call oppression is really just strong coercion. An oppressor finds something we want and attempts to control our receipt of it contingent upon us doing what they want. This doesn't always have to be negative. Many rulers know that positive reinforcement is better than negative in many cases. In this case we don't tend to call it oppression, but the principle is the same. We want the reward, so we comply. Parents use this all the time.
Another side of this coercion complex involves vilifying those who don't comply and making negative examples of them. This plays on the human tendency to conform and really just greases the wheels of the coercive process.
But it doesn't always work. If a person or people lose the fear of the consequences, the power is gone. Unfortunately in our society, one of the largest coercive factors is the idea that death is the ultimate evil. If life is to be preserved at all costs, the power is handed over. It simply becomes a matter of the degree to which it is exercised. But if death is not feared, the ruler is grasping at straws because even pain is not so effective a coercion simply because no ruler can hurt enough people. sure it may work one on one, but usually this occurs only after someone has already given over too much power in the first place.
Here's some examples. Ever wonder why Native Americans were not enslaved by the Europeans? Why would they go to the trouble and expense to catch and ship over Africans when there was an ample supply of primitive people right in their own backyard? The answer is that they tried. The problem was that Native Americans were (and still are) an independent and defiant people who do not hand over their power. Even if one could be taken alive, he or she would not work. Give them a tool and they'd put it through your head. Slack the chain and they'd wrap it around your neck. Pen them up and try to break them, and they'd simply starve to death or take their own life before giving in. Where do you think that fierce independent streak of American culture came from? Indians weren't destroyed. They were absorbed. The distinct cultures were largely lost, but I am a living example of the assimilated, but not conquered people who have left an indelible mark on American culture. Truly, modern American culture IS a hybrid of Native and European and African influences. But I digress.
Secondly, the Christian martyrs, both ancient and modern. They came from the dominant cultures in which they were found, but lost their fear of death and even pain because of their faith. While they didn't often resort to violent resistance, they were never conquered and thousands have refused to submit to countless regimes that violated their beliefs.
Third, Muslim martyrs. The reason Islamic terrorism is so scary is that it can occur anywhere and from anyone. A people who are not afraid to die do not need to submit.
But I also mentioned torture as often the result of having given up power and attempting to take it back too late. The best example I know are the Nazi concentration camp victims. Countless people sat by and watched as they gave up more and more power to the Nazi regime. Then even when they were being hauled away, few resisted. Some did. But not most.
The Christian martyrs are not exactly in this state because they willingly submitted to the torture because of their beliefs in nonviolence. Since it was willing, they weren't technically abdicating their power, but choosing not to exercise their power out of deference to God, whom they believed to be in control even in that time. Some were miraculously rescued, others weren't. But before you go trying to say this proves God doesn't exist or didn't favor them, remember what I said about death not being the ultimate evil.
I want to be clear, that I'm not downplaying the strength of the coercion. I'm not judging anyone for acting or not acting in any way. Until we're there, we can't say how we'd react either. I'm simply pointing out that these were indeed cases where power was given and not taken.
I'm not even saying it is wrong to always allow someone power over you. Certainly there are cases where it is wise, prudent, beneficial, and even good to submit. The difference is the understanding of what we're doing. It is voluntary submission. No human has power over another by innate right. It is ALWAYS by the consent of the governed.
This understanding should color our views of those over us. It should also color our views of those under us. Doubtless someone will quote the Bible passage about submitting to those in authority because God placed them there. Yes. I agree. What does this have to do with my point? I still have the choice to submit or not, for good or ill. I still can't be compelled to do what a ruler says. And if you are citing this passage, I'd like to also point out the many others about leaders whom God also took down...many through the violent and bloody hands of His people. So it cuts both ways, pastor. Are you so certain of which type of leader you are?
So where does this leave us? Is there a way to act in society? Yes, I think a mutual respect among all people, a servant leadership that understands it is just that, paired with a diverse and necessary body of others who are no less necessary and no less favored. While this is an ideal that may be hard to reach (at least in the US), I suggest we at least reclaim the mannered equipoise of many cultures past and present: Know you have less power than you think you do, and there's always a chance I could be more coercive than you, or at least willing to put you to the ultimate test of defending your power (i.e. I might kill you.) So let's just be polite and we'll get along fine.
As for a better way, I think we have that as well. God, being the prime source and beyond our influence altogether, has established that goodness and love flow from Him to us. Goodness and love draw the recipient toward the giver. Thus we comply not from coercion, but as a gift back. It works in the human realm, we've all seen it. Betrayal is universally denounced. Good deserves good. Love deserves love. It sidesteps the whole power dynamic altogether. This is how Jesus operated. This is how many Christians operate. It just had to start somewhere, and God took care of that for us. Or rather, He established the universe that way, so we really have no other choice. To defy it simply negates our own being. A self-perpetuating system, no punishment necessary.
So I'll leave you with this. If you are having to manipulate and strive to get people to do what you think they should, you're doing something wrong. If you have to beg for money or tell people God won't bless them. If you have to make lighthearted threats to get them to sign up for your program. You are slipping into the power dynamic, which means you don't have the power in the first place. Forcing that will be your undoing.
The only winning move is not to play.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Counterproductive
I don't participate in politics (in the common sense). I have many reasons for this. First is that my conscience won't allow me to vote for a person I can't trust. Also, my ethics won't allow me to participate in a system I know to be corrupt. So as a free man, I exercise my valid political choice to abstain. Then, perhaps most importantly, my faith tells me my hope is not in this world. God controls all things and it is not incumbent upon me to punch a ballot to effect His will. I can and will accomplish all He has for me regardless of the person in some human contrived office. Not to mention most discussion of such people in the Bible was negative as they are usually corrupt by reason of the fact that they occupy the position in the first place. But this is a personal choice and I do not expect anyone else to have to follow what I am led to do. If God is telling you to participate in whatever fashion, go do it by all means. He isn't telling me that.
Which brings me to my point. As a third party observer, I have noticed something that needs mentioning. I'm speaking to those who call themselves Christians. If your 8 year old kids are running into public spaces chanting a candidate's name, you are too bound up in this and I would encourage you to think about these things:
First of all, as I said above, you are welcome to your political opinions. That is the right of every free person. But I want to caution you about so overtly declaring one candidate. To be sure, publicly declaring your opinions on a policy or issue is acceptable, even to be encouraged. But when it comes to supporting a person, can you really guarantee that the candidate you are espousing will so perfectly follow your beliefs that you are willing to be judged by the community on it? Are you willing to have your faith, which you are also vocal about, tainted by the association with a candidate who does one thing you support, but others which are overtly against your beliefs? And believe me, right or wrong, you are being judged. If you don't realize this, you are far too insulated from the world.
Which brings me to my second caution. If you believe that you should share your faith and that those who support another candidate are morally in error, is it beneficial to constantly throw in their face your political views? How will this win anyone to your view? How will this even incline them to hear you on any topic. You are drawing a line in the sand and condemning those on the other side as wrong or worse.
What would you do? Oppress the opposing view? Crush the resistance? Establish a moral and religious state that lines with your views? See caution one! And then see the Islamic world! Can you not see the injustice this would cause? And once you established it, God forbid, you're party lose power, because then, you, my friend, are screwed! Prepare to be a refugee, rebel, or slave.
Of course I know most people who are active in their local church, inviting their neighbors to come, and yet wearing political t-shirts to pass out candy on Halloween haven't even thought this through. Which is why I wanted to share this. By all means have your opinions and do what God leads you to do. Support who you feel right to support and speak out on the issues that need to hear your perspective. But remember the universal truth that your opinion is, in fact, not as important as you would like it to be. But the consequences of your overly vocal support of a fallible human being who has made a career out of convincing people to give him power are very real. If your faith is real to you, can you really justify this? Wouldn't it be better and more prudent to have a sober and quiet opinion with respect to the beliefs of others who are, I promise you, watching to see if the faith you claim to be so revolutionary is real, and how it shows up in your life.
Which brings me to my point. As a third party observer, I have noticed something that needs mentioning. I'm speaking to those who call themselves Christians. If your 8 year old kids are running into public spaces chanting a candidate's name, you are too bound up in this and I would encourage you to think about these things:
First of all, as I said above, you are welcome to your political opinions. That is the right of every free person. But I want to caution you about so overtly declaring one candidate. To be sure, publicly declaring your opinions on a policy or issue is acceptable, even to be encouraged. But when it comes to supporting a person, can you really guarantee that the candidate you are espousing will so perfectly follow your beliefs that you are willing to be judged by the community on it? Are you willing to have your faith, which you are also vocal about, tainted by the association with a candidate who does one thing you support, but others which are overtly against your beliefs? And believe me, right or wrong, you are being judged. If you don't realize this, you are far too insulated from the world.
Which brings me to my second caution. If you believe that you should share your faith and that those who support another candidate are morally in error, is it beneficial to constantly throw in their face your political views? How will this win anyone to your view? How will this even incline them to hear you on any topic. You are drawing a line in the sand and condemning those on the other side as wrong or worse.
What would you do? Oppress the opposing view? Crush the resistance? Establish a moral and religious state that lines with your views? See caution one! And then see the Islamic world! Can you not see the injustice this would cause? And once you established it, God forbid, you're party lose power, because then, you, my friend, are screwed! Prepare to be a refugee, rebel, or slave.
Of course I know most people who are active in their local church, inviting their neighbors to come, and yet wearing political t-shirts to pass out candy on Halloween haven't even thought this through. Which is why I wanted to share this. By all means have your opinions and do what God leads you to do. Support who you feel right to support and speak out on the issues that need to hear your perspective. But remember the universal truth that your opinion is, in fact, not as important as you would like it to be. But the consequences of your overly vocal support of a fallible human being who has made a career out of convincing people to give him power are very real. If your faith is real to you, can you really justify this? Wouldn't it be better and more prudent to have a sober and quiet opinion with respect to the beliefs of others who are, I promise you, watching to see if the faith you claim to be so revolutionary is real, and how it shows up in your life.
Friday, February 17, 2012
I made it
I have recently been struck over and over again with how many of our problems are of our own making. We contrive some system or institution, which becomes so ingrained that we don't want to change from it and many can't imagine anything else. Then we see problems in it and begin to solve them by more contrivances. It's like putting sugar in tea and then inventing a machine to make the tea unsweet.
In another example, I have been wrestling for the past 6 months with a 96 page permit from one government agency to the agency I work for. The permit is to operate a storm sewer system. The permit stipulates 90 pages of things we have to do to ensure that the system doesn't pollute surface waters. We have to report back to the agency that issued it all the ways we are complying. So I have been going around to various departments in the agency I work for who don't in the least think about stormwater and trying to tell them they have to comply...which of course they ignore, so I have to figure out how the stuff they are already doing fits the very specific things the permit tells us to do. All the while not actually doing anything to prevent pollution from really getting in the water.
Why do we need the permit? Because the way we build storm sewers lets pollution get into waterways? Why do we need storm sewers? Because our cities and vehicles aren't built around the natural drainage. So where does the pollution come from? From the way we build the cities via the way we build the storm sewers. This problem was realized in the 1970's and many things have been cleaned up, so it isn't hopeless. But in this case we don't want to do anything different because it is hard to change the laws and rules about building which we created for ourselves. So instead we create permits that don't do anything but create paperwork and massive programs that pretend to comply with it. And when a rational group of people found out and recently sued the government for not actually cleaning up the pollution and won, the result was an even more complex permit requiring things that look like we're doing something without really having to which results in even more complex compliance programs to look like we are complying with the permit that wouldn't result in fixes even if we really did everything it asks for.
The crazy thing is we could sum up the entire body of law in one sentence: Keep the water clean. But enter the lawyers and they say how clean, what does clean mean, what does keep mean, endlessly trying to avoid simply doing what common sense tells us to do.
I recognize this is an over-simplification...but at the root, the problem is that the system is an over-complication. Be polite, share, keep things clean, don't hurt people even accidentally. Endlessly chasing pillow and plate is the way of the sinful world and that's bad enough. But we go so far beyond even just chasing those things.
So how do I get off this train? I think I have to own the problem first of all. Getting off is not so hard if I were not constantly over-complicating. Even the very device I'm using to type this
is part of that over-complication...and I have a free OS on a rock-bottom no-contract service. All I have to do is walk away like Francis. But I keep cutting away small things without just biting the bullet and letting it all go. Trying to find ways of edging toward the thing without actually having to go there. Fears, paradigms, lies, and temptations.
In another example, I have been wrestling for the past 6 months with a 96 page permit from one government agency to the agency I work for. The permit is to operate a storm sewer system. The permit stipulates 90 pages of things we have to do to ensure that the system doesn't pollute surface waters. We have to report back to the agency that issued it all the ways we are complying. So I have been going around to various departments in the agency I work for who don't in the least think about stormwater and trying to tell them they have to comply...which of course they ignore, so I have to figure out how the stuff they are already doing fits the very specific things the permit tells us to do. All the while not actually doing anything to prevent pollution from really getting in the water.
Why do we need the permit? Because the way we build storm sewers lets pollution get into waterways? Why do we need storm sewers? Because our cities and vehicles aren't built around the natural drainage. So where does the pollution come from? From the way we build the cities via the way we build the storm sewers. This problem was realized in the 1970's and many things have been cleaned up, so it isn't hopeless. But in this case we don't want to do anything different because it is hard to change the laws and rules about building which we created for ourselves. So instead we create permits that don't do anything but create paperwork and massive programs that pretend to comply with it. And when a rational group of people found out and recently sued the government for not actually cleaning up the pollution and won, the result was an even more complex permit requiring things that look like we're doing something without really having to which results in even more complex compliance programs to look like we are complying with the permit that wouldn't result in fixes even if we really did everything it asks for.
The crazy thing is we could sum up the entire body of law in one sentence: Keep the water clean. But enter the lawyers and they say how clean, what does clean mean, what does keep mean, endlessly trying to avoid simply doing what common sense tells us to do.
I recognize this is an over-simplification...but at the root, the problem is that the system is an over-complication. Be polite, share, keep things clean, don't hurt people even accidentally. Endlessly chasing pillow and plate is the way of the sinful world and that's bad enough. But we go so far beyond even just chasing those things.
So how do I get off this train? I think I have to own the problem first of all. Getting off is not so hard if I were not constantly over-complicating. Even the very device I'm using to type this
is part of that over-complication...and I have a free OS on a rock-bottom no-contract service. All I have to do is walk away like Francis. But I keep cutting away small things without just biting the bullet and letting it all go. Trying to find ways of edging toward the thing without actually having to go there. Fears, paradigms, lies, and temptations.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Who cares?
I am SO not the mainstream. That would sound like a cheesy poser line if I was spouting it in public. But in this case, I mean it as a not so surprising self-discovery. I could go off on that tangent, but I'm going to try to make a point.
I recently heard and read about this debate over high heels. Good/bad, subjugation/liberation, etc. I won't repeat the argument; look it up yourself. I felt like I ought to have an opinion here. Everyone else seems to. Instinctively I fell toward the side that they are subjugation and bad since I'm told they hurt and they prevent the wearer from being able to do anything remotely physical...which could actually be dangerous in a life-threatening context and contribute nothing to survival value. But that tipped me off to my opening statement. Who else even thinks like that? I'm sure some people do, but not the bulk.
So then I heard a statement that the type of beauty most appreciated in a woman is not what comes from the artificial posture induced by heels or from the sex-is-power persona that many women try to adopt. I agree with this too in very strident ways. But then I read some of the counters to that argument...one, not ironically, from someone who uses a pinup as the logo for her female-centered blog. (Proving the previous point, yeah?) Anyway, in those arguments for heels I can see how it might not be totally evil and certainly wasn't developed as a hobbling tool. So this side portrays the arguments against heels as bra-burning tactics.
That's when I reached my final conclusion...Incidentally this whole scene took about 10 minutes start to finish...I don't really care. Wear them, don't wear them...I just don't care. If you do, know they don't make you any more or less impressive to anyone who matters. You can be equally impressive and independent and confident without uncomfortable shoes. If you don't wear them because of some agenda, you're probably being silly; there are bigger fish to fry.
But that's not all. I have also been recently bombarded by political ads and commentary. OK, you know what, I don't care about that either. It is wrong to have to play games and deal around the politics to get something done for society. Government should do it because it's good and right. Debate should simply center on whether that is the case or not. So I refuse to play the game of lobbying and vote haggling. And for those of you who aren't invovled in government and therefore never really experience that, you aren't getting it right. I don't care which side of the mystical two party fence you fall on. You are two aspects of the same thing. To paraphrase what someone recently wrote, regardless of which side you're on, that means the other half has it all wrong. What kind of system can work when half the players are pulling the wrong levers? Which is even more clever a statement than the author intended because it proves the point that the two parties are not really as opposed as they hype. That's why the system can function at all. If one of the two sides was really that bad (whichever it side might be) the system must needs fail. Since it doesn't collapse so easily, they must not really be so different on the issues which keep the system running...for one they agree that the system should function as it does: votes, two parties, campaigning, etc.
But I'm getting off my point. The point is, everyone has an opinion, everyone wants to make it heard. Everyone needs to get their words in on the hot topics. I don't care!
What do I care about? Having food in my belly and a safe place to sleep. Enjoying my family and my life. Doing things that better the world around me in some fashion. Helping those who are placed within my reach to help. Being whole and at peace. These are the things I care about. I'm sick of listening to that other crap.
I recently heard and read about this debate over high heels. Good/bad, subjugation/liberation, etc. I won't repeat the argument; look it up yourself. I felt like I ought to have an opinion here. Everyone else seems to. Instinctively I fell toward the side that they are subjugation and bad since I'm told they hurt and they prevent the wearer from being able to do anything remotely physical...which could actually be dangerous in a life-threatening context and contribute nothing to survival value. But that tipped me off to my opening statement. Who else even thinks like that? I'm sure some people do, but not the bulk.
So then I heard a statement that the type of beauty most appreciated in a woman is not what comes from the artificial posture induced by heels or from the sex-is-power persona that many women try to adopt. I agree with this too in very strident ways. But then I read some of the counters to that argument...one, not ironically, from someone who uses a pinup as the logo for her female-centered blog. (Proving the previous point, yeah?) Anyway, in those arguments for heels I can see how it might not be totally evil and certainly wasn't developed as a hobbling tool. So this side portrays the arguments against heels as bra-burning tactics.
That's when I reached my final conclusion...Incidentally this whole scene took about 10 minutes start to finish...I don't really care. Wear them, don't wear them...I just don't care. If you do, know they don't make you any more or less impressive to anyone who matters. You can be equally impressive and independent and confident without uncomfortable shoes. If you don't wear them because of some agenda, you're probably being silly; there are bigger fish to fry.
But that's not all. I have also been recently bombarded by political ads and commentary. OK, you know what, I don't care about that either. It is wrong to have to play games and deal around the politics to get something done for society. Government should do it because it's good and right. Debate should simply center on whether that is the case or not. So I refuse to play the game of lobbying and vote haggling. And for those of you who aren't invovled in government and therefore never really experience that, you aren't getting it right. I don't care which side of the mystical two party fence you fall on. You are two aspects of the same thing. To paraphrase what someone recently wrote, regardless of which side you're on, that means the other half has it all wrong. What kind of system can work when half the players are pulling the wrong levers? Which is even more clever a statement than the author intended because it proves the point that the two parties are not really as opposed as they hype. That's why the system can function at all. If one of the two sides was really that bad (whichever it side might be) the system must needs fail. Since it doesn't collapse so easily, they must not really be so different on the issues which keep the system running...for one they agree that the system should function as it does: votes, two parties, campaigning, etc.
But I'm getting off my point. The point is, everyone has an opinion, everyone wants to make it heard. Everyone needs to get their words in on the hot topics. I don't care!
What do I care about? Having food in my belly and a safe place to sleep. Enjoying my family and my life. Doing things that better the world around me in some fashion. Helping those who are placed within my reach to help. Being whole and at peace. These are the things I care about. I'm sick of listening to that other crap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
