I know that practically nobody checks out what I post here and so, since that's the case, I might as well let it all hang out, for once. It's something like playing before an empty house; if I step over the line of tact and brag some about being right, no great damage will result. When you get corroboration from some highly credentialed party of an idea the arose out of your own life-informed deliberations, you have a right to say, "See, I'm not just some dumb shit with delusions of visionary grandeur, spouting forth. Great minds DO think alike and, man, I am ever so tired of being humored as an oddball gadfly, out there in some wobbly orbit, grabbing at tendentious threads but devoid of real intellectual grasp on the bigger picture of things work, or less than qualified to make a proposal that might actually be useful in helping to make the world a better home for humankind.
It's a reaction from people that I've had to deal with all my life, from the days I was teased for being overly intellectual while in boarding school, 55 years ago, until today. Strangely, I just can't figure it out. It could well be a problem of inadequate presence. Being thin and not very tall, with an unusually soft voice is not a combination that leads people to sit back and pay attention, intellect notwithstanding. I've never once been offered a paid position where the product of my innately intellectual mind earned me a decent paycheck. Rather, I found myself being shunted into roles where I was required to use it for generally stupid purposes, like stocking grocery shelves in a more pleasing way, or managing other people's throw-aways for the lowest ecological impact, because they were too lazy or indifferent to do it themselves. For some reason, I never managed the trick of engendering the patronage of those who could help me climb out of the humble circumstances I've grown accustomed to having to deal with, even if I don't actually accept them as fitting for the two of us, Rachel and me.
That's why it's really nice to find my own eccentric convictions echoed in the words of others who have managed to make themselves into respected authorities on certain topics.
The post of mine that I'm referring to is the one I wrote on lateral giving - the kind of financial help you get from people who actually DO care about your well-being enough to give you what you happen to be in need of (as opposed just saying they care about you). The person of intellectual authority from whom corroborating statements come is Paul Niehaus, champion of the idea of direct, non-controllist giving, through the organization Give Directly. There are many Google headlines to choose from. I'll let you come to your own conclusions on what he has to say about what he believes in.
The point he makes that I really like is that the poor are, in almost all cases, the best authorities on the peculiarities of their lives, better than any organization, regardless of funding, could ever hope to be. The poor aren't some nebulous, helpless mass; they're sentient individuals who are living very closely held lives, financially speaking, with little or no room for error or waste. They know, far better, how to stretch the value gained from a dollar than almost any rich person does. I totally cop to that one. It's the very life Rachel, my partner, and I have lived for decades. Having to do without things others take for granted is the life we live, all the time. We know how that sharpens your wits. When you live poor for a long time, you constantly seek and find ways to make the limits of poverty work better for you. And when you do so, your impact on the planetary environment shrinks to a tiny fraction of what the average rich person burns through.
Who better to determine how a certain individual stuck in poverty should choose to use money than that individual him- or herself?
Rich people who base their disinclination to help a poor person in need on lame excuses like, " They just use it to buy alcohol", instead of just coming out with it and saying, "Fuck them, they're just losers and I don't give a shit what happens to them, because I don't value them" - which is really what they mean - get my goat; especially the ones who have no trouble liking a drink themselves. The rich drink like fish. Are the poor not entitled to the comfort of strong drink too? Lord knows, they could use a little comfort and if strong drink does it for them, so be it. In fact, I know it too. In fact, I'm getting a little upset just writing this and will take a few seconds for a sip of red wine to allay that uncomfortable surge that inner rage stirs in my blood. That's better. What kind of self-righteous, sanctimonious fuckhead would deny a poor man the chance to sooth his inner devils with a little rotted fruit juice? As if abstinence were equivalent to virtuousness. Abstinence is simply the doing of nothing. Rarely is there any virtue in doing nothing. I'll tell you what is virtuous in the extreme - generosity, the generosity to give without condition or subsequent judgment. Now, THAT'S virtuous.
Thank God there are still a few of that kind of giver around because, if there weren't - I'll say it out loud and clear - I'd be long dead, either of exposure induced illness as a homeless dude, or from outright starvation.
The benefactors of whom I speak have been many. They are not forgotten and my hope is that somehow, somewhere, my good referrals on their behalf is being noted for future reference by such authorities who regulate the conditions that await us beyond this life.
What kind of self-righteous, sanctimonious fuckhead would deny a poor man the chance to sooth his inner devils with a little rotted fruit juice? AMEN & :) !
ReplyDelete