Small things can make big changes...

My Grandfather died yesterday, January 24, 2013.  He was 104 years old.  In and of itself this is noteworthy.  However, his death has given me cause to speculate on many other things as well.

For one, my grandfather and grandmother greatly influenced my religious beliefs.  The details are unimportant, but let's just say they are out of the mainstream.  And it was not through some long, drawn out conversation.  Rather, they simply said..."if you are looking for a church, give this one a try."  We did, and it stuck.

Another interesting thing I have never forgotten is the story of how my grandmother and grandfather voted.  Now the fact is they lived through the depression.  They lived at a time when socialism and anarchism was alive, well and talked about.  They also lived in a very conservation Republican/Democrat part of the country.  During one particularly contentious election in the 30's, my grandparents decided that the best candidate for office was the socialist.  And they voted for him.

Years later, they were at a party (I can't remember if it was a Christmas party, wedding or what).  But at that party happened to be the local election person.  I am not sure if it was an elected or appointed post, or if they were a party person or what.  What I do know, is that they knew the vote count.  Talk turned to politics and my grandparents made the (startling) revelation they had voted for the socialist.  The election person turned to them and exclaimed "We always wondered who those two were!"  My interest in alternative politics comes honestly.

Some may wonder why I speak of my grandparents and not my parents.  Well, it turns out my parents were killed when I was less than two years old.  By a drunk driver.  I know little of them and they were very young, so they had so little of life for me to know.  However, one thing I know about my father.  He did a record.  Why, I don't know.  On one side is him reciting his thesis.  Frankly, I don't remember it, understood little and took less from it.  He was an electrical engineer, very bright and it was way over my head.  However, on the other side of the record he chose to make an impassioned plea for civil rights for African Americans (he used the term "negro", but it was that time in our history and it was not derogatory).  I have never forgotten his words, his passion or his zeal.

The point is three little things.  Three very different things.  Yet they all had a profound influence on my life, my thinking and where I am now.  In a prior post I talked about how just a little push is all one needs.  I am now giving concrete evidence of how that works.  Sometimes it is the "second shift" that gets the benefit.  Sometimes the front line is in two or three decades.  But the point is, everything matters.

What if they gave a chance for civil disobedience...

...and what if everybody went!

The Sierra Club is specifically stating the February 17, 2013 gathering is NOT about civil disobedience.  The Sierra Club has historically eschewed civil disobedience.  They actually had to have their board agree to a later event at which civil disobedience would be sanctioned.

However, can you actually plan, or sanction, civil disobedience?  By definition is it not someone failing to "follow the rules"?  And if that is the case, is not any gathering a chance to someone, or many someones, to not follow the rules.  Not that anyone would - or could - sanction such a thing.  But what if it happened?

Once again, NO ONE IS SANCTIONING CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN WASHINGTON DC ON FEBRUARY 17!

How attractive is that?

Spread Anarchy...

I have Stumbled Upon this image more than once, and it never fails to touch me.






I mean really.  It is so true.  Why is anyone reading this?  Just go do it!  Whether I tell you or not. 

February 17, 2013, Wahington, D.C. 12 -4...

It appears there is to be a large gathering on February 17, 2013 on the mall in Washington, D.C. from about 12 to 4 to, I don't know, protest the Keystone XL Pipeline or Global Warming, or Climate Change or ....I would suggest... whatever you want to protest.  A public forum after all, cannot be wholly controlled except by the mob itself.

I am not suggesting anyone go to Washington, or not go for that matter.  I for one plan on being there and meeting people, exchanging ideas on how the world can change and participating in making change happen.

It wouldn't bother me if I met some of you there.  In fact, it wouldn't bother me if I met a LOT of you there.  Let's all go independently together!

Funny what a post can do...

• The other day I put the following post on Facebook: 

   

  I heartily accept the motto, - "That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, - "That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
  
  --Henry David Thoreau,
  "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"

  This seemingly innocuous quote engendered quite a response from my "friends".   Two people "liked" the quote. 
  
  The first person who responded simply wrote "Amen." Now these three are somewhat different in their world views, although maybe not representing far ends of the American political spectrum.  To me, that illustrates the universal appeal of Henry David Thoreau and the very American affinity for Civil Disobedience.  It also highlights the American mistrust of government.  I feel it necessary to point out that, unless things have changed in the last couple weeks, all three of these persons have jobs, live in houses, have families, in other words, have something to lose and are not out overthrowing the government.
  
  What happened next is what is really interesting.  The next day a friend posted: "Wow, that sounds like something a rich person who "isolated" himself in the woods to do a lot of "deep thinking" would say."  I am not entirely certain, but that seems like a sarcastic (as opposed to satirical) comment.  The implication is that only a rich person who is an "academic" or has their head in the clouds would come to the conclusion that we do not need government.  I should point out this person also has a job and a family.  In fact, a corporate job.  A job which depends heavily on the government and government regulation if not subsidy.  So much so that they employ a full time lobbyist to watch out for laws and regulations that may have negative impacts and to try to have passed laws with positive impacts.  In other words, this person is entrenched in the very system Thoreau rejected.  
  
  But wait, it gets better.  
  
  The next person, who tens to like to think of herself as a nonconformist commented "But yet still had his mom cook his meals and do his laundry." 
  WHAT!?!  Where did THAT come from?  So Thoreau's comments on government are undermined by who does his laundry.  By the way, I have been to Walden Pond and I am pretty certain Thoreau cooked his own food and washed his own clothes while he lived there.  I am not even sure his mother was alive.  
  
  Next came an honest to goodness American Libertarian, or at least a Republican Libertarian (I am not certain about Republican or not):  "It's why Thoreu [sic] is my hero. I found 'Civil Disobedience' to be a treatist [sic] on libertarianism. So, I take it from the UU (Unitarian Universalist) camp here that we should excommunicate Thoreau?"  (I digress, but should explain that all three of the last comments were by member of the Unitarian Universalist Church.  I am also a member.  While I generally find organized religion to be the opiate of the masses, UUism runs in my Mother's side of the family, has seven principles that most people couldn't disagree with so my kid's learn good things and UUs generally participate in social justice activities I sympathize with.  Many UU's, if not all, call Henry David Thoreau one of the great father's of American Unitarianism because of his transcendentalist teachings.) 
  
  But don't worry, because things get weirder from here.  The next post was from a relative.  A hearty Republican businessman type.  He is older than me by 25 years and spent a lifetime working for corporate America.  More precisely, he worked for transnational corporate citizens.  He believes that "Christian" is a buzzword that identifies a way of thinking in the same way "conservative" is a buzzword for the religious right.  His comment was that he and his spouse "...heartily agree with [me] and H.D. Thoreau." 
  
  So we now have very liberal people agreeing with very right wing people that Thoreau was right and some very middle of the road liberal people arguing that Thoreau was wrong.  
  
  After a little "making up" by some of my friends (which is irrelevant here), it occurred to me what the greatest irony of all was.  I had chosen this quote from a website entitled Anarchist Theory FAQ Version 5.2,  http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part6.  
  
  So it appears that anarchy is popular with people who not only would not agree with it if they knew what they were agreeing to, but would most likely disagree with each other, if they knew what each other thought.  
  
  The lesson of the day is to tailor the message and the audience will follow.  I once told someone I did not care WHY someone did what I wanted, only that they did it.  And in 99.9% of the cases this is true.   Can a movement survive that no one even knows exists?  
  
  Apparently.
  
  
  Write a comment...

What does it mean that The Front Line is Everywhere...

Obviously, I took the name from the song by Rage Against the Machine.  "There'll be no shelter here....the Front Line is Everywhere."  But that statement means different things to different people.

In the words of Voltaire, we could be discussing the quote from Candide "Il faute cultive votre jardin."  By taking care of yourself, you will be influencing the rest of the world.  This is true, and bears an affinity for anarchists, who almost by definition are individualists.  An anarchist desires to reject the power of the state and bear their own responsibility and they do not desire to force anyone else through coercive means of the state to a different point of view.  Therefore, taking care of yourself first is a priority.  The front line is where you are.

However, that could also mean that you would lose connection with your neighborhood and neighbors.  While we all know of the neighbor we would rather not know, the truth is that people are social animals.  The front line is all around in your connections and interactions with your world.  This is where philosophy meets action.  This is where a person stands up and questions authority.  This is also a great place to influence your life.

But this is not where it ends.  The further we look into the world, the more injustice and problems we see.  In fact, our philosophy in action does not stop at the corner or the neighborhood.  It raises to the level of our communities, counties and even states or Commonwealths.  We all recognize that the policies that are effected on the local, county or state level have a great impact.  These can range from dog laws, bicycle registration laws, to zoning, to laws impacting the redistribution of wealth and how industry will be allowed to pollute our waters and streams.

Obviously, there are winners and losers.  Obviously, to state the front line is everywhere is to ignore that the winners increasingly are isolated from the losers.  So there is one more explanation of where the front line is.

Everywhere we are.  Whether we are at home, visiting out neighbors, dealing with local officials interacting with the county, state, or even federal and international officials, we need to keep in mind our principles and our philosophies.  Live your convictions.  Your thoughts, your mind are your own.  Act on your own.  Conspiracy is such an ugly word.  But be assured you are not alone.  Look around. Remember the smallest wounds can hurt the worst.

The front line is everywhere.

Progress is not always....

The last post was a little short and a little quick.  But I wanted to get it out while I thought of it and saw it.  So yesterday and today I had the opportunity to think about the First Nations, their positions on "progress" and the use of their natural resources, as well as the resources around me. 

I walked both days around a park near my house.  This was an old park.  It was about a three mile loop around a pond and swamp.  As I walked the first time, I was with my son.  We looked at the ducks and the geese and he asked me about the park.  The park had been an amusement park at one time for the nearby city.  People would take the trolley out and spend the day on amusements.  In the winter, they would ice skate.  It was just far enough out of town to be an adventure, and close enough to be convenient.  The Pennsylvania Canal also ran through the park, so commerce took place at a slow pace in the same area. 

Through the years, the amusement park gave way.  It seems people found other amusements.  The park became a swamp and, at one time, a dump.  The pond filled in more and more and is now quite shallow in terms of water, although there is probably a good 5 or 6 feet of mud. 

The second day as I walked, I remarked on how the herons were fishing in the canal and right behind the canal was a busy industrial road dotted with truck terminals, a gasoline tank farm and a railroad yard.  I also noted how there was now two interstate highways ringing the park.  All the noise and pollution.  I recalled that the reason the pond is filling in is that housing subdivisions and commercial development has caused a lot of runoff to come down the creek in high rains. 

That was the first time I started to think that progress is not always progress. 

Then I walked by the Nature Center and realized how I was walking on paved trails, the swamp was covered by boardwalks and there were plans to finish the chipped path with some sort of more permanent surface.  We humans were changing even the nature that we decided to protect and keep.  There was no part of what formerly existed that was left untouched by human interaction. 

To be sure, the park is one of the biggest reasons I moved where I now live.  I love the park and walk, run, bike, canoe or otherwise use the park every week.  The people who work there are good people who care about the environment.  The point is that progress....as we know it....is not always progress. 

First Nations Solidarity...

Anyone noticed that Canada is slowly being shut down?  The First Nations and their "organization" called "Idle No More" is protesting what they see as an erosion of their rights as a sovereign indigenous people.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/11/idle-no-more-protests.html

This is a great story of a group of people coming together more or less at the same time for the same reasons.  Of course, the great thing is that they are recreating their relationship with their government.

A New Relationship Between People...

Begin with the premise that Proudhon may have had something going when he suggested that there is a confusion between personal property and private property.  Throw in a dream, because sometimes dreams, visions or simply feelings are precursors to actual thought and maybe someone could see something I didn't in how it worked.

Exhorted people to action.  It is a new year, time for a new start.  Prior posts listed things that can be done to create human interaction, to meet your neighbors and to be part of community without giving in to the organized form of community which leaves us all feeling just a little more co-opted and a little less fulfilled than we should. 

In fact, prior posts have suggested - and downright asked - for everyone to be creative in rejecting the social norms and forming these personal relationships.  The fate of our communities may depend on it.  We cannot abdicate our responsibility to ourselves and our children.  We cannot look to corporations and governments to tell us how to act or feel about important issues like climate change, genetic modification of food sources, global trade imbalances, education, consumerism, or even religion and morals.

Challenging these issues head on simply makes one part of the process.  Capitalism is, after all, amoral.  Puerile interests can be accommodated as well as altruistic ones in the marketplace.  But the marketplace is not where we should live our lives.  It should be no more than one tool to how we become the people we want to be.  Happiness should be given as much value as income.  How we treat the elderly, infirm or weak as much value as life insurance. 

Advocate an open rebellion against all forms of organized thought and organized behavior.  Question authority?  Hell, reject it!  Authority should be earned, not granted or expected.  I stated in an earlier post I was not anxious to go to jail.  I still am not.  I am not asking, suggesting or hoping anyone else does.  In fact, going to jail simply supports another organized form of control.  It increases GNP, GDP or whatever form of measurement your government uses for productivity.  Don't think for a moment that going to jail for your principles is the most lofty form of protest and don't believe for a second that damaging another persons personal property or committing violent acts are somehow justified because of your beliefs.

At the same time, do not give in to wrong thinking.  One does not have to smash in the windows of a large department store to attack the store in ways that make it clear you do not support its values.  In addition, not all large stores or companies are immoral.  It will take large organizations to tackle large problems.  The founding fathers of America, before they declared independence from England in 1776, entered into the Articles of Association in 1774.  This was essentially a private contract open to any person to sign (or not sign) that boycotted the English goods and refused to send raw materials to England.  This is a pretty good read for any anticapitalist alive today, as it sets out a specific course of nonviolent action intended to get a response.  While history tells us it got a huge response (including the Boston Tea Party and the creation of the United States of America), it is just as easy to read as a conservative idea that broke no laws, but made a point.

There is an often misquote made that what is good for GM is good for the country.  Well, there is some truth.  Typically, workers, or producers, produce goods and sell those goods (their labor or the fruits of their labor) to an employer.  The employer then sells that commodity to a middle man and ultimately to a consumer, who uses the money (or fruits of some other labor) to pay for the commodity.  In all cases, it is the worker's labor or money that is changing hands.  Since at every step of the process there is some "transaction fee", then the fact that goods are changing hands and someone is trading their labor for the money to buy the good does show that the system works.  However, like our forefathers in 1774, we need to demand the respect that without the citizens producing and consuming, the whole system beaks down, because, what is good for the country is also what's good for business.  We cannot elevate the accumulation of wealth over the nature of what is best for our citizens and our country.

These debates do not rage today.  They are taken for granted that people will consume and that companies are to make money for their shareholders at all costs.  Let's challenge that authority and let's do it everywhere.  1774 is not so different from 2012.  A government far removed from its people is trying to legislate economic policy which creates winners and losers.  And too often those losers are losing more and more, while the winners are winning more and more, when what's best for the country is everyone sharing in the prosperity that true leadership can bring. 

Question authority?  The citizens should be the authority.  Time to change the relationship.

A Little Creative Anarchy...

To reject the state, it takes some action.  Philosophy in action.  Now, I'm not fond of spending time in jail.  Not against paying for your convictions, but simply not interested in committing crimes for the sake of committing crimes.  Besides, I want to find ways for otherwise typical persons to become involved in human interactions outside the ways sanctioned by the state and the business complex. 

However, to put philosophy in action, one needs to be creative.  Last Christmas, I gave away some lottery tickets with the admonition that, if the recipient won the jackpot, they were to share the jackpot with me.  That was, of course, putting into action the philosophy I mentioned in a previous post with regard to the fact you only truly own property when you give it away.  And giving it away while retaining the right to direct disposition is the best of all possible worlds.

So, there is one creative way to break down barriers.  Try giving away $2.00 and tell someone they have to give away $1.00 of it.  Some people will ask and you can share the lesson.  Some won't care.  But you will live a philosophy relatively cheaply.

A previous post suggested public singing.  Music is always a good way to break the ice and cause free associations of people.  Street music that is unplanned and brings people together can be greatly cathartic.  I have read of "Street Fairs" spontaneously breaking out.  What a wonderful way to reject the need for a state run, media sponsored entertainment complex!

Finally, I have thought about various art projects.  One that has seemed to have possibilities is to buy a dozen or so disposable cameras.  Give them to a dozen or so people with instructions for them to take pictures and return them to you.  Then post the photos online or, better yet, in the neighborhood, as part of a bigger art project.  Or to do the same with a writing project.

Art has always been connected with social change and the results of these types of projects can be not only useful in and of themselves, but can serve to instruct others in the future.  In any event, it forces people to act on their own, outside of convention, and it shows them the results of that direct action.

I would be interested in any other creative ways to take undirected actions which can be used to further human interactions outside the accepted and predetermined norms of the state and business/capitalisitic complexes.  Let's share these and see what can be done!

Private Property, Personal Property and Public Property...

There is a false and mistaken division between private and public property in the United States today.  There is also a lack of respect for personal property.  This false division and lack of respect leads to a flaw in society.  A small number of self interested individuals make a lot of decisions for a large number of individuals about what is best for everyone.  By understanding (and perhaps abolishing) the "public versus private" distinction, we can start down a path of reinventing our society and decision making to benefit all persons.

My research indicates that laws and governments - states - spend a lot of time "protecting" private property.  In many cases or places, this is defined by its juxtaposition to "public property".  In this definition, public property is that which is owned by the state, and private property is everything else.

Following these definitions, the Complaints of the Declaration of Independence and the protections of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution look as if they are meant to keep the state from "stealing" someone's property.  Indeed, that is a true statement.  However, it is far from the whole story.

In thinking about property (personal, private or public), we need to start earlier and from a different perspective.  To a large extent, prior to the Magna Carta all property was owned by the king.  I recognize this is a gross exaggeration and that there are numerous examples where this was not true.  However, this is a useful place to start.  The Magna Carta essentially granted rights, or "property", as that term can be loosely used away from the king, while retaining certain rights, or "property" in the king.

Now, there is an interesting characteristic of property that everyone knows and everyone forgets.  Property owns you.  While you "own" something, you always have some sort of obligation, whether it be a tax, maintenance or simply finding a place to store the property.  And, of course, you always have the risk of loss.  After you give property away, of course, you no longer own it.  So the peculiar thing is that the only time you actually exercise all the rights of property that you may have is at the particular time you give away those rights.

That bears repeating:  only at the time someone actually disposes of their property is that person taking complete control and exercising all the property rights they own. 

Taken one logical step further, the best of all possible worlds would be to give away the (property) rights, while still maintaining the ability to direct the use and management of the (property) rights.  The king knew this when he put his seal on the Magna Carta.  The Barons that forced the Magna Carta did not get freedom from the king.  The state knows this when it allows you to "keep" your property free from taking for public use without just compensation.  On a personal level, the parent who "gives" a car to their child to drive to and from school and work, and nowhere else, practices the same type of control.

So let's use this concept and redefine public property.  Public property is not just the property "owned" by the state.  It is the whole of the rights that the public has.  This includes positive rights such as traditional deeded ownership of land, as well as negative rights, such as the right to zone, or set a speed limit.  Let's also do away with the idea of the state "owning" these rights.  While modern law seems to treat that as true, I am proposing that is the wrong way of looking at things.

The King gave way to Parliament in England.  However, in the United States the King gave way to the people.  In fact, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the rights have been protected by the Commonwealth as if in Public Trust.  The Pennsylvania Constitution essentially gives the people rights which - most rightfully - should be public property.

So then, private property is everything not owned by the people, right?  One certainly can make that distinction logically.  However, there is another more fundamental distinction at play.  Since so many property rights are subject to so many rights of the public, is there not a third, more inalienable property right?  Did the Declaration of Independence not indicate there were inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  Can someone take your intellectual property?  You can give it, perhaps without protection, but can they actually take it?

My suggestion is that there are certain personal property rights which are inviolate.   Nor should these be limited to your thoughts.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come to mind.  The clothes on your back should be your personal property, subject to no one else's right to remove them.  Of course, the line gets blurred, but generally the fruits of your labor should be yours.  You create it, you keep it or dispose of it.

However, all other property, including the money received if disposing of personal property, and no matter whether "private" or "public", is simply property.  Again, all other property, whether "private" or "public" is simply property.

It is neither good, nor evil.  One property right is limited by another.  In a society, one in which presumably there is a social compact, the concept of correlative rights allows for seemingly incongruous positions on property.  Taxes are an example of incongruous positions.  If your personal property was inviolate, and you sell it, why wouldn't the income be inviolate.  This is because taxes are simply a method of aggregating capital that presumably the public has agreed upon (this is another subject, for another day, but remember that whole "taxation without representation" thing). 

So the important thing is not what kind of property right we have.  The important thing is what we as a society choose to do with these rights.  Right now, much wealth (a form of property) is concentrated in a few holders.  This is not necessarily bad.  A concentration of wealth allows for investment.  What is dangerous is how the decision is made how that wealth should be exercised.  In other words, how and when will it be given away?  To who?  What restrictions will be placed on how that wealth is used?  As a society, we should be wary of  allowing a small group of persons to make those decisions.  Likewise, we still have the same tensions as the founding fathers regarding the tyranny of the majority.  More recently, we need to be concerned about the tyranny of what is loosely termed special interests. 

While I cannot answer specifics as to ownership or wealth transfer or regulations and rules on the use of property (who am I to impose this order unilaterally anyway), I do suggest that people stop thinking in terms of public versus private (and left versus right).  We need to begin to think of "us" and what is best for ourselves and our children.  It is not best for a small number of private interests to make public decisions.  It is not best for the public to abdicate their public responsibility and allow a small minority of persons to hold capital with little, if any, accountability to the public.

Talk with people.  Talk with your family.  Talk with your friends.  Talk with those who disagree with you.  What kind of social conscience do we all agree a large company like Walmart should have in return for the public allowing them to exist and concentrate wealth in a small number of people?  What are we willing to do to achieve this?  Start first by changing your own thoughts and actions, and then let's change those of others.  In everything we do, think of what it is we want in the world and cause it to happen.

Just a little shove...

While cleaning sinks and toilets the other morning, I discovered a teeny, tiny, paper cut like split in the end of my left middle finger. If I showed you, it would be THE finger. You actually could not see the split, but I guarantee you, it was there. I have now learned that it does not have to be a large wound to hurt really bad. Taking that further, it does not have to be a large action to affect (or even effect) something. All that is required is that it be the right action, at the right place, and at the right time. OUCH!

Given that thought, what small thing can we do to advance humanity?  What can we do that rejects the stifling forces of our culture and our producing/consuming mania, without necessarily throwing out the baby with the bath water?  Rather than being "anti" anything or destructive, I suggest we do things that affirm human connections, because it is through human connections that people learn from each other.  So in the spirit of a New Year, a new or second chance, and in furtherance of a paradigm shift in thinking and relations, I offer the following suggestions. (I am sure anyone reading this has more and are welcome to offer them.) 

1.  Buy nothing for a day.  Alright, we all know we probably paid something for the food we ate or the clothes we are wearing or the shelter we are in.  But keep your cash, debit and credit cards in your pockets and just go through the day with what you have.  Won't hurt you a bit and will help you appreciate what you have.  In fact, you might have something to talk about when you...

2.  Meet a new person.  Go out of your way to say something to the cleaning staff, or the bus driver or whoever.  It doesn't have to be someone you see often.  Just simply introduce yourself and tell the person that you are following advice to make life more worthwhile and wanted to meet someone new.  Worse thing they can do is reject your invitation.  Even that is a lesson for both of you.

3.  Turn off the TV for a day.  Simply do not allow it in your life.  I know this has been done for a week or more, that some people don't have cable, etc.  Again, this is about little shoves, not changing everything at once.

4.  Don't use the internet.  Same thing as TV or radio.  In fact, many of us get our news on the internet instead of the TV anymore.  

5.  Do something creative.  Anything.  Draw.  Write.  Sing.  Dance.  Paint.  

6.  Share photographs.  These can be any photographs.  With your kids, your parents, your friends or even complete strangers.  Photographs have such powerful images and can stay with people long after they have given away or lost the picture.  

7.  Intentionally use the stairs.  Exercise and no waste of energy.  Double winner.

8.  Do not drive anywhere.  In fact, do not use a car or other form of fossil fuel burning transportation at all.  Walk or ride a bike.  Or roller blade.  Or ski.  Whatever, just get out of the bubble and be part of nature.  Or go nowhere, if you prefer.

9.  Volunteer.  At a church, a shelter, a school.  Whatever you are comfortable with.  Great opportunities to meet and network with people of all kinds.

10.  Sing, whistle or otherwise make music in public.  You may get strange stares, but it makes people happy to see other people happy.  

11.  Share a book.  And discuss why you liked it, why you think it is important or entertaining and why the person you share it with should read it.  We almost all did this in grade school and shouldn't stop now.

12.  Pay someone's bill for lunch or dinner.  Or pay for the next person's coffee in line at Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts.  A simple nice thing to help people see other people in a different way.

13.  Write a letter.  Better yet write a letter to a legislator about something important to you.  Not an e-mail.  A letter.  Even better, call ahead and find out a staffer's name so you can send the letter to them along with a note asking them to be sure the legislator sees it. 

14.  Write a letter to the editor.  (Just don't read the comments back.)

15.  Hike, canoe, ride a bike, ski.  Get outdoors.  Commune with nature.  Better yet, take a child or a friend.  

Remember, these are just small things that can cause a great impact if everyone did some of them just some of the time.  And if all of us did some of them some of the time, why they might just think it's a movement!  (Reminds me of a famous song.)  All we need is a little shove at the right place at the right time.

A chance to start over...

For many of us in the Western World, today marks the beginning of a new year arbitrarily numbered 2013.  Remember, that the naming of time is an artificial construct of our minds.  Much more useful concepts of time come from children.  They ask if something has already happened, will it happen later and....why can't it happen now! 

So what do you do when the New Year is here?  Why, the same as you did last year only, different.  Because it is not the name of the new year that is important. It does not matter if you have a business and you "close the books".  It does not matter if you live in a world where your personal goals are measured in terms of this arbitrary date.  Again, we have constructed those things and we can choose to use them or to allow ourselves to become slaves to them.

But what does matter is what you do with the time you are given (old cliche, but true) and the fact that each and every now is a new now.  A new start.  A new chance to go in a different direction or to continue in the same direction.  A chance for some current or eddy of energy to thaw and begin to flow, and for another, perhaps less urgent, energy to slow.  Sometimes this slowing can be a time of rebuilding and sometimes it shows us where we never wanted to spend our time (and energy and money) in the first place.

So today, just like the New Year beginning when you finish reading this, and the New Year beginning at the highest point of the sun and the New Year beginning at the deepest dark of the night (and just like every other New Year starting after this) take the chance to start over.  Try something new.    Take a chance.  Start a business, or an organization.  Make a new friend.  Play a practical joke (putting dead batteries back in the battery drawer is one of my favorites, but I wouldn't recommend it).  The worst thing that can happen is that you start over again next year.

Whenever that is.