A short follow up to yesterday's post on the nature of self-economics.
I am not sure what a plumbing house call runs these days. It cannot be less than $75 (That is what we paid when we had our home warranty). That, of course, typically discounts any additional hourly work or parts.
Now to be fair, a plumber would have dealt with the issue much quicker than I did - after all, I sort of instinctively thought I knew how the parts went together, but I had to experiment a great deal. So let us say an hour of labor to disassemble and reassemble the sink - or at least, that is what I would have been charged for.
What is the hourly rate? Not sure - but let us use that $75 number as I suspect it is closer to the truth than I would like to think.
Now parts. I paid about $25 in parts. There is always markup in parts - 20% is (I think) standard for the auto repair business, so we will use that. That is $30.
So to recap: to have it repaired could have cost in the area of $180. In point of fact I paid $25. That is (in case you are math challenged as I am) a savings of $155.
It did cost me three hours of my time. So if I look at that number, it appears I "made" $51.66 an hour by do it myself. (This is the part that is always hard for me: I never "make" that money, I just did not spend it. I understand cost avoidance, it just never feels as satisfying actual cash). That is not a bad hourly wage.
It helps -and it is something I need to get more in the habit of. Work because not quite as boring or not engaging when you do it this way: how much am I actually saving by doing this? How much money is not leaving my bank account because I surrendered 3 hours to refitting the sink?
And, of course, the self confidence - which is priceless. I have actual abiding sense of competence at the moment. I looked at something I had never done before and puzzled it out in a way that worked - and saved me money.
Not a bad return overall for three hours of labor.
Friday, February 03, 2017
Thursday, February 02, 2017
A Plumbing We Shall Go
The Ravishing Mrs. TB catches me when I come in the door from work. "My sink is not draining" she said. "Have you used any on it?"
Sigh. "Let me go give it a look".
I crawl down, and open up the cabinets and unscrewed the rings by the pea trap (one plastic, one metal) in hopes that I can get a screwdriver up there and pull whatever nastiness is there back down. The top one - the metal one - will not turn. I keep working it but it will not release. I start working the upper part of the pipe from the sink, but it torques the stopper. I keep trying to turn the upper ring - until it breaks off. Rusted through.
Great. Now I have a sink that empties directly onto the cabinet bottom. I have never done this much plumbing in my life. It looks like I need to replace the pipe dropping directly from the sink. I have never done this before.
But I do not really want to pay plumber either. Let us see what happens.
The pipe from the sink turns out not to be too difficult to disengage. There is a brass nut which hasto releasee, which in turn releases the pressure on the rubber grommet above it to prevent leaks. Removing the stopper is easy: there is a smaller nut that feeds into the main pipe. Unscrew it and it drops away.
I keep turning the pipe and it does not seem to be moving. Hmm. I finally figure out you have to hold the top part of the drain (that metal ring in the bottom of the sink) while you turn it. Out it pops and down comes the main pipe.
I drag the parts with me to my local Large Big Box Supply Store. I am matching pieces via diameter - fortunately, if you look long enough you will find it. A new pea trap (just in case; I will certainly need the rings), a new drain assembly, and a 10" Crescent Wrench (which I have needed for a while) equals $42.00 and I am on my way back.
Putting it back together is pretty much a reverse of the process. Top of the assembly goes in and then the pipe screws into this - which takes me a while as you have to really bring the rubber grommet and brass ring down to get it up in the hole. The stopper assembly is (literally) like the old one - five minutes and I am done. Putting the drain pipe into the pea trap turns out to be the biggest issue: the plastic ring does not seem to seal as well as the metal one did. Hmm. I have two inner rings from the pea trap I got: I put one in the ring and reverse the other one in the pipe. This seems to work.
I spend 15 minutes filling and then draining the sink, then tightening things, then draining the sink again. I seem to have gotten nearly all of the leaks, but we are leaving the cabinet under the sink empty and monitored for a bit.
This was (obviously) not how I was expecting to spend my evening. Total time was probably about three hours all told. That said, I am pretty sure that I could not get that work done for what it cost me to do it.
And I found out I can do a little more plumbing than I thought. Once again, trying to be self reliant is not a bad thing.
Sigh. "Let me go give it a look".
I crawl down, and open up the cabinets and unscrewed the rings by the pea trap (one plastic, one metal) in hopes that I can get a screwdriver up there and pull whatever nastiness is there back down. The top one - the metal one - will not turn. I keep working it but it will not release. I start working the upper part of the pipe from the sink, but it torques the stopper. I keep trying to turn the upper ring - until it breaks off. Rusted through.
Great. Now I have a sink that empties directly onto the cabinet bottom. I have never done this much plumbing in my life. It looks like I need to replace the pipe dropping directly from the sink. I have never done this before.
But I do not really want to pay plumber either. Let us see what happens.
The pipe from the sink turns out not to be too difficult to disengage. There is a brass nut which hasto releasee, which in turn releases the pressure on the rubber grommet above it to prevent leaks. Removing the stopper is easy: there is a smaller nut that feeds into the main pipe. Unscrew it and it drops away.
I keep turning the pipe and it does not seem to be moving. Hmm. I finally figure out you have to hold the top part of the drain (that metal ring in the bottom of the sink) while you turn it. Out it pops and down comes the main pipe.
I drag the parts with me to my local Large Big Box Supply Store. I am matching pieces via diameter - fortunately, if you look long enough you will find it. A new pea trap (just in case; I will certainly need the rings), a new drain assembly, and a 10" Crescent Wrench (which I have needed for a while) equals $42.00 and I am on my way back.
Putting it back together is pretty much a reverse of the process. Top of the assembly goes in and then the pipe screws into this - which takes me a while as you have to really bring the rubber grommet and brass ring down to get it up in the hole. The stopper assembly is (literally) like the old one - five minutes and I am done. Putting the drain pipe into the pea trap turns out to be the biggest issue: the plastic ring does not seem to seal as well as the metal one did. Hmm. I have two inner rings from the pea trap I got: I put one in the ring and reverse the other one in the pipe. This seems to work.
I spend 15 minutes filling and then draining the sink, then tightening things, then draining the sink again. I seem to have gotten nearly all of the leaks, but we are leaving the cabinet under the sink empty and monitored for a bit.
This was (obviously) not how I was expecting to spend my evening. Total time was probably about three hours all told. That said, I am pretty sure that I could not get that work done for what it cost me to do it.
And I found out I can do a little more plumbing than I thought. Once again, trying to be self reliant is not a bad thing.
Wednesday, February 01, 2017
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Breaking Up A State: A Letter
To: Lady Liberty
Washington D.C.
USA
Congratulations on your decision to divide your country in smaller countries!
We know that this has been a difficult decision for you - after all, any relationship which has been enduring through the years always creates pain when the relationship ends. But fear not - we here at Chaos, Catastrophe, and Unintended Consequences LLC (CCUC) have a great deal of experience in the matters and are looking forward to serving you and making the process as easy and non-emotional as possible.
I see here on your basic dossier you have elected to divide your country via a vote. Overall an excellent choice - after all, where possible violence is should be avoided - but we do feel compelled to warn you that votes do not always go the way one hoped. Within every geographic area there will be groups that feel they do not want to leave the larger unit. Will you allow them to exercise their own voting rights, or do you intend to force them in - as they will point out, thus using the same argument your previous partners used on you? This leads to either rather bothersome population relocation (our staff is looking into the India Partition and the unfortunate incident of East Pakistan) or the outbreak of fighting which in fact does often lead to a civil war (our publishing department is working on various methodologies in the event of this unfortunate occurrence. We have found in the past that the words "insurrection", "rebellion", and "civil disturbance" are infinitely preferable to "revolution".).
We appreciate that you have completed the additional sections around manner of government, rights of citizens, and broad government policies. We note, however, that you have missed some common items that might have an impact on your separation process:
- Currency: We see that you have suggested the previous national currency as your currency of choice. We regret to inform you that in most cases, the predicate country will not allow their currency name to be used. As a subtext to this, we might also note that you will have to develop a backing for your currency in order for it to be accepted on the world market. You should give some thought now to how that will be accomplished. Please remember that, in general, promissory notes and a belief in "The New You" are not considered sufficient collateral.
- Land and Facilities: As with most dissolutions, the land and facilities between the smaller geographic entities and the larger geographic entries - often referred to in the legal documents as "Federal" and "State" - are often co-mingled and therefore difficult to separate. Some past dissolutions have opted for a blanket possession of all assets; while this is simple enough to implement it does create issues if you intend to do business with your former associates. It perhaps would be more prudent to consider an exchange of land for debt now and work that into your legal documents (see below).
- Debt: As with the reallocation of assets, so the reallocation of debts. Be aware that debtors will not accept a separation as a failure to pay borrowed money. It is up to you to make provision for the portion of the debt you will be inheriting upon dissolution of the relationship. If the assessment of Land and Facilities and assets of the previous relationship is not sufficient, we often recommend a "new state tax" to cover the difference, presenting it as the cost of becoming independent. We do note that such a tax is not universally welcomed and in some cases may create further "disturbances" and trust you have allocated a sufficient budget for your armed forces/law enforcement units to handle the issue..
- Business: The lifeblood of any state is its business, the primary way its citizens are employed, materials provided, and taxes paid. Understand that from the business' point of view, your separation is not necessarily an asset. Any attempt to make their working relationship in your new state reflect your vision of the new state - and thus make it unique - will make the business take a serious consideration of it is worth its resources to continue to operate there. We recommend maintaining, as closely as possible, similar policies to your neighbors or even to your previous relationship.
- Neighbors: With the advent of your new single status, you will find that you are now the focus of intense interest on the part of any number of other states. Like any other relationships, these have advantages and disadvantages. Some will seek to sweep you off your feet. Others will seek to undermine you for past hurts they may feel. And for an unfortunate few, your new single status will be viewed as the opportunity to force their way upon you. As with any change in relationship status, we recommend you manage your new relationships with the care and concern that any reasonable person would exercise in an unknown environment. We would especially warn you that the practice of "On-line State Dating" is inherently risky and should be avoided.
Again, congratulations on your step into a brave new world! We are sure that you find that the benefits of self-state-actualization and freedom will counterbalance any temporary issues arising from violence, an ungrateful population, bankruptcy, economic downturns, and neighbors that refuse to cooperate.
Sincerely,
I. M. Chaos
Principal Partner
Chaos, Catastrophe, and Unintended Consequences LLC
Washington D.C.
USA
Congratulations on your decision to divide your country in smaller countries!
We know that this has been a difficult decision for you - after all, any relationship which has been enduring through the years always creates pain when the relationship ends. But fear not - we here at Chaos, Catastrophe, and Unintended Consequences LLC (CCUC) have a great deal of experience in the matters and are looking forward to serving you and making the process as easy and non-emotional as possible.
I see here on your basic dossier you have elected to divide your country via a vote. Overall an excellent choice - after all, where possible violence is should be avoided - but we do feel compelled to warn you that votes do not always go the way one hoped. Within every geographic area there will be groups that feel they do not want to leave the larger unit. Will you allow them to exercise their own voting rights, or do you intend to force them in - as they will point out, thus using the same argument your previous partners used on you? This leads to either rather bothersome population relocation (our staff is looking into the India Partition and the unfortunate incident of East Pakistan) or the outbreak of fighting which in fact does often lead to a civil war (our publishing department is working on various methodologies in the event of this unfortunate occurrence. We have found in the past that the words "insurrection", "rebellion", and "civil disturbance" are infinitely preferable to "revolution".).
We appreciate that you have completed the additional sections around manner of government, rights of citizens, and broad government policies. We note, however, that you have missed some common items that might have an impact on your separation process:
- Currency: We see that you have suggested the previous national currency as your currency of choice. We regret to inform you that in most cases, the predicate country will not allow their currency name to be used. As a subtext to this, we might also note that you will have to develop a backing for your currency in order for it to be accepted on the world market. You should give some thought now to how that will be accomplished. Please remember that, in general, promissory notes and a belief in "The New You" are not considered sufficient collateral.
- Land and Facilities: As with most dissolutions, the land and facilities between the smaller geographic entities and the larger geographic entries - often referred to in the legal documents as "Federal" and "State" - are often co-mingled and therefore difficult to separate. Some past dissolutions have opted for a blanket possession of all assets; while this is simple enough to implement it does create issues if you intend to do business with your former associates. It perhaps would be more prudent to consider an exchange of land for debt now and work that into your legal documents (see below).
- Debt: As with the reallocation of assets, so the reallocation of debts. Be aware that debtors will not accept a separation as a failure to pay borrowed money. It is up to you to make provision for the portion of the debt you will be inheriting upon dissolution of the relationship. If the assessment of Land and Facilities and assets of the previous relationship is not sufficient, we often recommend a "new state tax" to cover the difference, presenting it as the cost of becoming independent. We do note that such a tax is not universally welcomed and in some cases may create further "disturbances" and trust you have allocated a sufficient budget for your armed forces/law enforcement units to handle the issue..
- Business: The lifeblood of any state is its business, the primary way its citizens are employed, materials provided, and taxes paid. Understand that from the business' point of view, your separation is not necessarily an asset. Any attempt to make their working relationship in your new state reflect your vision of the new state - and thus make it unique - will make the business take a serious consideration of it is worth its resources to continue to operate there. We recommend maintaining, as closely as possible, similar policies to your neighbors or even to your previous relationship.
- Neighbors: With the advent of your new single status, you will find that you are now the focus of intense interest on the part of any number of other states. Like any other relationships, these have advantages and disadvantages. Some will seek to sweep you off your feet. Others will seek to undermine you for past hurts they may feel. And for an unfortunate few, your new single status will be viewed as the opportunity to force their way upon you. As with any change in relationship status, we recommend you manage your new relationships with the care and concern that any reasonable person would exercise in an unknown environment. We would especially warn you that the practice of "On-line State Dating" is inherently risky and should be avoided.
Again, congratulations on your step into a brave new world! We are sure that you find that the benefits of self-state-actualization and freedom will counterbalance any temporary issues arising from violence, an ungrateful population, bankruptcy, economic downturns, and neighbors that refuse to cooperate.
Sincerely,
I. M. Chaos
Principal Partner
Chaos, Catastrophe, and Unintended Consequences LLC
Monday, January 30, 2017
Fear Itself
A friend on Facebook posted the following question: "'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.' - FDR. When did we become a nation that is so scared? So paranoid?"
It is a valid and good question, and I spent the better part of two hours thinking about it. But in line with my long standing policy of publishing not a thing political or political theory based on Facebook, I decided to give my thoughts on the matter here.
What would make "us" this way? After carefully pondering the issues, I came up with at least five things:
1) We have taught people what to think instead of how to think: Instead of teaching our young - and ourselves - how to think critically about facts and situations, we have taught them what to think them. What this means is that when they are presented with alternate information or information that does not comport with their world view and knowledge, they do not take the time to think through what this means and if it is true what these means. Instead, they simply react - and what they have taught to think about things that do not comport with what they have been taught is to fear it.
2) We have taught people to rely on others, not themselves: Instead of teaching our young - and ourselves - to learn to do things for ourselves - or at least try to learn to do them - we have taught them that only the collective can bring the answer. What this means is that when something happens and cannot instantly be resolved by someone else, be it a tow truck driver or law officer or government agency - we become afraid that the problem will go unsolved and we will be inconvenienced or suffer, instead of at least trying to do something on our own. In fact in some situations this drives us into even deeper fear, where we clamor for more people to do more things for us. We have carefully trained ourselves that we "cannot" as individuals. We only "can" as a group.
(A convenient side note of this is, in general, this is the sort of behavior that so many governments and bureaucracies and business thrive on. Self reliant people, in general, do not like to give power over any part of their lives to others.)
3) We have created a society of either/or, where things become a reaction to the other side rather than trying to come up with the truly best answer: There are two items here. The first is where policies are passed by fiat and imposed, regardless of how it impacts the individuals involved. When the matter is brought up, the typical response seems to be something along the lines of "Tough. Adapt. We are in charge." Not unsurprisingly, people come to fear this sort of social or economic governance. The other side of this is the counter-reaction, where the other side (who is now the ascendancy) pushes back. Now those who passed the first round are in fear.
What does this mean? The answers offered are always either/or: "We won" comes the response, "and we will do what we think best." "We think best" is most often not the same as "What is best." Asking "what is best" takes a strength of character in that we must accept views contrary to our own, and that these views may be right. It also takes the ability of people to critical think instead of just react (see item 1).
(Lest you think I am speaking only of government, business has the same sorts of modus operandi. For example, everyone loves electric cars; no-one really cares to want or know how batteries are made or how destructive they can be to the environment. Likewise with driverless cars: We are told it is the future - yet Yahoo cannot hold onto my e-mail securely. The chances that the cares are any less prone to hacking? Oddly enough, never discussed. Again, it is an either/or solution: either you are for safety and cleanliness or you are for the unsafe and environmental destruction. There is no third way.)
4) Fear sells: Fear sells in two ways. The first way is simply as an economic tool. People - governments, businesses, individuals - make money off fear. If I can get you to become afraid of an outcome, I can offer you a solution - and with you emotionally engaged, you are far more likely to act to "solve" your fear.
The second is that fear brings power. If I can make you afraid and offer a solution, then you will support me if you believe that my solution is superior to the fear. Again, this stretches across governments, businesses, and individuals. How many have found their start in fear - and stretched that fear out, lest the problem be solved and their power dissolved?
It is commercial exchange run amok: the buyer gets a sense of safety, the seller profits from the power. Unfortunately like any addiction the relationship will probably never end, as it is not in the seller's best interest and they will do their best to convince their buyer they are "better off" with the fear and their solution than addressing the problem head on.
5) We no longer value risk or failure: When I was a lad, I did some incredibly (by today's standards) risky things. I went down a rather steep hill on my back on a very narrow skateboard. I played with fire. I rode without a helmet, swam before 30 minutes, and tore around in the woods at night without a flashlight. In other words, for the time I lived in I was a normal boy. I risked. And sometimes I paid the consequences.
I have also failed. More than I wanted to of course and sometimes in painful ways emotional and economic. I learned from the those experience things I would not otherwise learned.
But as a society, we are different now. We don't encourage our children - or ourselves - to risk, except in specific socially acceptable ways. And we sure do everything in our power to avoid our children or ourselves failing, to the point that this is unhealthy.
What does this create? A people that, when presented with new or potential unknown situation, are neither willing to risk trying something or simply will not do something because they may fail. It is easier to live in fear that try at risk or try and fail - because risk and failure are perceived as the true thing to be feared.
How to solve this? As usual, I pose questions to which I do not know that I have the answers. But I suspect a good place to start would be to simply reverse the five items:
- Teach ourselves and our children how to think instead of what to think.
- Teach ourselves and our children to be self reliant.
- Teach ourselves and our children to look for the best solution, not the either/or solution.
- Teach ourselves and our children to not allow ourselves to buy into fear, or to sell ourselves to it.
- Teach ourselves and our children to risk and fail.
Easy to write, hard to do. But the only other option seems to be the increase of fear in our society, to the point that simply become able to do or say anything and live instead in a circle bounded solely by the fear we have of everything.
It is a valid and good question, and I spent the better part of two hours thinking about it. But in line with my long standing policy of publishing not a thing political or political theory based on Facebook, I decided to give my thoughts on the matter here.
What would make "us" this way? After carefully pondering the issues, I came up with at least five things:
1) We have taught people what to think instead of how to think: Instead of teaching our young - and ourselves - how to think critically about facts and situations, we have taught them what to think them. What this means is that when they are presented with alternate information or information that does not comport with their world view and knowledge, they do not take the time to think through what this means and if it is true what these means. Instead, they simply react - and what they have taught to think about things that do not comport with what they have been taught is to fear it.
2) We have taught people to rely on others, not themselves: Instead of teaching our young - and ourselves - to learn to do things for ourselves - or at least try to learn to do them - we have taught them that only the collective can bring the answer. What this means is that when something happens and cannot instantly be resolved by someone else, be it a tow truck driver or law officer or government agency - we become afraid that the problem will go unsolved and we will be inconvenienced or suffer, instead of at least trying to do something on our own. In fact in some situations this drives us into even deeper fear, where we clamor for more people to do more things for us. We have carefully trained ourselves that we "cannot" as individuals. We only "can" as a group.
(A convenient side note of this is, in general, this is the sort of behavior that so many governments and bureaucracies and business thrive on. Self reliant people, in general, do not like to give power over any part of their lives to others.)
3) We have created a society of either/or, where things become a reaction to the other side rather than trying to come up with the truly best answer: There are two items here. The first is where policies are passed by fiat and imposed, regardless of how it impacts the individuals involved. When the matter is brought up, the typical response seems to be something along the lines of "Tough. Adapt. We are in charge." Not unsurprisingly, people come to fear this sort of social or economic governance. The other side of this is the counter-reaction, where the other side (who is now the ascendancy) pushes back. Now those who passed the first round are in fear.
What does this mean? The answers offered are always either/or: "We won" comes the response, "and we will do what we think best." "We think best" is most often not the same as "What is best." Asking "what is best" takes a strength of character in that we must accept views contrary to our own, and that these views may be right. It also takes the ability of people to critical think instead of just react (see item 1).
(Lest you think I am speaking only of government, business has the same sorts of modus operandi. For example, everyone loves electric cars; no-one really cares to want or know how batteries are made or how destructive they can be to the environment. Likewise with driverless cars: We are told it is the future - yet Yahoo cannot hold onto my e-mail securely. The chances that the cares are any less prone to hacking? Oddly enough, never discussed. Again, it is an either/or solution: either you are for safety and cleanliness or you are for the unsafe and environmental destruction. There is no third way.)
4) Fear sells: Fear sells in two ways. The first way is simply as an economic tool. People - governments, businesses, individuals - make money off fear. If I can get you to become afraid of an outcome, I can offer you a solution - and with you emotionally engaged, you are far more likely to act to "solve" your fear.
The second is that fear brings power. If I can make you afraid and offer a solution, then you will support me if you believe that my solution is superior to the fear. Again, this stretches across governments, businesses, and individuals. How many have found their start in fear - and stretched that fear out, lest the problem be solved and their power dissolved?
It is commercial exchange run amok: the buyer gets a sense of safety, the seller profits from the power. Unfortunately like any addiction the relationship will probably never end, as it is not in the seller's best interest and they will do their best to convince their buyer they are "better off" with the fear and their solution than addressing the problem head on.
5) We no longer value risk or failure: When I was a lad, I did some incredibly (by today's standards) risky things. I went down a rather steep hill on my back on a very narrow skateboard. I played with fire. I rode without a helmet, swam before 30 minutes, and tore around in the woods at night without a flashlight. In other words, for the time I lived in I was a normal boy. I risked. And sometimes I paid the consequences.
I have also failed. More than I wanted to of course and sometimes in painful ways emotional and economic. I learned from the those experience things I would not otherwise learned.
But as a society, we are different now. We don't encourage our children - or ourselves - to risk, except in specific socially acceptable ways. And we sure do everything in our power to avoid our children or ourselves failing, to the point that this is unhealthy.
What does this create? A people that, when presented with new or potential unknown situation, are neither willing to risk trying something or simply will not do something because they may fail. It is easier to live in fear that try at risk or try and fail - because risk and failure are perceived as the true thing to be feared.
How to solve this? As usual, I pose questions to which I do not know that I have the answers. But I suspect a good place to start would be to simply reverse the five items:
- Teach ourselves and our children how to think instead of what to think.
- Teach ourselves and our children to be self reliant.
- Teach ourselves and our children to look for the best solution, not the either/or solution.
- Teach ourselves and our children to not allow ourselves to buy into fear, or to sell ourselves to it.
- Teach ourselves and our children to risk and fail.
Easy to write, hard to do. But the only other option seems to be the increase of fear in our society, to the point that simply become able to do or say anything and live instead in a circle bounded solely by the fear we have of everything.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
The Prophet Amos
Of all the minor prophets, I think I like Amos the best.
He is the only one that lets us know - before he gets God's commission - what he did for a living: "who was among the sheepherders of Tekoa" (Amos 1:1). When arguing with the Amaziah of Israel he states "I was no prophet, Nor was I the son of a prophet, but I was a sheepherder and tender of sycamore fruit." (Amos 7:14)
I enjoy this because of all the prophets, I can most identify with him. A man whose job was sheepherding and tending sycamore (fig) trees was a man who spent a great deal of time away from humans and with the natural world, sheep and trees. A great deal of quiet, a lot of dirty work and wind and rain, obviously a some level of thinking about and communing with God (else he would not have been selected by God or heard the call). A man who probably right to the point of his call was perfectly happy living with the wind and sun and sheep and trees.
And then God calls him away from all that, to go into the world of urban living and traveling outside of his own land to give his message.
I get the suggestion, at least once, that he was not altogether happy with changed: "Then the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said to me, 'Go, prophecy to My people Israel. (Amos7:15). In his comment I hear the voice of a man who is not altogether happy with where is at the moment and would just as soon return to those flocks and trees instead of being where he was. I sympathize with him: being amidst an urban sprawl, surrounded by people, is not necessarily where i want to be either. But apparently for a time that is where he - and I - were called to be.
Give him a read - it is only 9 chapters and touches not only on judgment coming for Israel and Judah but for the surrounding nations as well (God plays no favorites: righteousness and unrighteousness have one standard, His own). Read it and hear not only a prophets cry for a people to turn from their wickedness but the heart-sense of a man who ultimately just wants to go back to herds and orchards, to hear the voice of God in the wind and sun and rain.
He is the only one that lets us know - before he gets God's commission - what he did for a living: "who was among the sheepherders of Tekoa" (Amos 1:1). When arguing with the Amaziah of Israel he states "I was no prophet, Nor was I the son of a prophet, but I was a sheepherder and tender of sycamore fruit." (Amos 7:14)
I enjoy this because of all the prophets, I can most identify with him. A man whose job was sheepherding and tending sycamore (fig) trees was a man who spent a great deal of time away from humans and with the natural world, sheep and trees. A great deal of quiet, a lot of dirty work and wind and rain, obviously a some level of thinking about and communing with God (else he would not have been selected by God or heard the call). A man who probably right to the point of his call was perfectly happy living with the wind and sun and sheep and trees.
And then God calls him away from all that, to go into the world of urban living and traveling outside of his own land to give his message.
I get the suggestion, at least once, that he was not altogether happy with changed: "Then the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said to me, 'Go, prophecy to My people Israel. (Amos7:15). In his comment I hear the voice of a man who is not altogether happy with where is at the moment and would just as soon return to those flocks and trees instead of being where he was. I sympathize with him: being amidst an urban sprawl, surrounded by people, is not necessarily where i want to be either. But apparently for a time that is where he - and I - were called to be.
Give him a read - it is only 9 chapters and touches not only on judgment coming for Israel and Judah but for the surrounding nations as well (God plays no favorites: righteousness and unrighteousness have one standard, His own). Read it and hear not only a prophets cry for a people to turn from their wickedness but the heart-sense of a man who ultimately just wants to go back to herds and orchards, to hear the voice of God in the wind and sun and rain.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Of Populism and Tribalism
In recent months I believe I have not heard the word "Populist" so much since I was junior in high school studying American history (The Populist Party in the late 19th Century American politics, for those of you for whom, like me, it has been a while). And it not just here in the U.S.: the same sorts of language is coming from Europe as well. It is generally (in its current usage) a sort of curse word: someone is accused of being a "populist" as one might have been accused of being "Catholic" 125 years ago.
A populist, in case you have forgotten, is "a member of a political part claiming to represent the common people" or "a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtue of the common people." In the past such a party - The Populist Party"- was largely supported by farmers in the South and Midwest against the perceived entrenched interests of the industrial elite. In its present incarnation the term "populist" is put in opposition to "globalist", "a national policy of treating the whole world as the proper sphere of political influence". This has redefined populist as a sort of national minded party only - a party of the people of a particular place.
My contention is that in reality, even most who proclaim themselves globalists are practicing populists.
A populist now defined is a person interested in the rights of a smaller group than the international playing field - typically a state. Such are accused of benefiting themselves to the expense of the international order.
But oddly enough, we have made a practice and habit of practicing something else, tribalism.
The Interweb really accelerated the process. Once upon a time - a time I can barely remember myself - if one had interests that were often not shared by any of one's friends, one sort of suffered in silence or lived via magazine and mail order. Suddenly, as the world became more "connected", one found that one had companions in one's various interests: I was not the only one interested in role playing games or 13th Century Ireland or Japanese swords. I became part of a community - a community that was often not defined by my geographic area but rather my interests. A group that shared common interests and, over time, a somewhat common way of thinking, at least about sudden things.
I had found a tribe.
Now most people are parts of tribes, even if they do not realize it as such. They talk within the tribe, they share within the tribe, they defend the tribe from outsiders, they support the tribe. And this sort of behavior is supported, even blessed, by culture that has come to value this as the true sign of individual freedom. Even those those who are thoroughly internationalist and globalists are, if they at all belong to one or more subgroups and act in this way, tribal. We can none of us escape it in the modern world.
But now we have a problem: populists are also a sort of tribe by this definition. They talk within a group, they share within a group, they defend against outsiders, and they support the group. It is just that they have a larger group than most.
I do not necessarily have an answer for this (and thank you for sticking with me through this). It does strike me as odd though that we seek to decry and mock the very sort of thing that we claim to cherish and support. It is either the sign of a society that is schizophrenic or a sign that we have lost the ability to ask the deep hard questions about what we really believe and what we are truly about.
A populist, in case you have forgotten, is "a member of a political part claiming to represent the common people" or "a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtue of the common people." In the past such a party - The Populist Party"- was largely supported by farmers in the South and Midwest against the perceived entrenched interests of the industrial elite. In its present incarnation the term "populist" is put in opposition to "globalist", "a national policy of treating the whole world as the proper sphere of political influence". This has redefined populist as a sort of national minded party only - a party of the people of a particular place.
My contention is that in reality, even most who proclaim themselves globalists are practicing populists.
A populist now defined is a person interested in the rights of a smaller group than the international playing field - typically a state. Such are accused of benefiting themselves to the expense of the international order.
But oddly enough, we have made a practice and habit of practicing something else, tribalism.
The Interweb really accelerated the process. Once upon a time - a time I can barely remember myself - if one had interests that were often not shared by any of one's friends, one sort of suffered in silence or lived via magazine and mail order. Suddenly, as the world became more "connected", one found that one had companions in one's various interests: I was not the only one interested in role playing games or 13th Century Ireland or Japanese swords. I became part of a community - a community that was often not defined by my geographic area but rather my interests. A group that shared common interests and, over time, a somewhat common way of thinking, at least about sudden things.
I had found a tribe.
Now most people are parts of tribes, even if they do not realize it as such. They talk within the tribe, they share within the tribe, they defend the tribe from outsiders, they support the tribe. And this sort of behavior is supported, even blessed, by culture that has come to value this as the true sign of individual freedom. Even those those who are thoroughly internationalist and globalists are, if they at all belong to one or more subgroups and act in this way, tribal. We can none of us escape it in the modern world.
But now we have a problem: populists are also a sort of tribe by this definition. They talk within a group, they share within a group, they defend against outsiders, and they support the group. It is just that they have a larger group than most.
I do not necessarily have an answer for this (and thank you for sticking with me through this). It does strike me as odd though that we seek to decry and mock the very sort of thing that we claim to cherish and support. It is either the sign of a society that is schizophrenic or a sign that we have lost the ability to ask the deep hard questions about what we really believe and what we are truly about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)