"No. No. No. No. No!" It is all about me! Listen to me!

Selfish and Petulant.

Initial consideration informed me that the observations above were about another individual. And though the actual invective reproach was directed at me from this other individual, upon further examination I have discovered the evildoer to be me because 1) I did not follow a rule 2) openly, and 3) in front of the autocratic rulemaker who had just verbally decreed this new rule to suit the moment. This breakdown, (1, 2 and 3 above), is important as a guide for safely breaking rules. It is common for rules to be broken; sometimes openly. But to flaunt this rebellion, especially in the face of authority, and worst of all in front of the imperious rulemaker, is asking for admonishment. I would have likely gotten away with my breach of conduct if I would have broken the rule quietly.

In a separate incident this week, involving the same rulemaker, he declared that a weekly hour-long meeting must be scheduled in a certain daypart to give him more time for other work. And though on the surface, this is terribly illogical---(an hour is an hour is an hour)---I understand that each individual may have specific dayparts more conducive to maximal flow. What he intended was not "more time" but more "quality" time; (though I also believe that one should strive to give all dayparts equitable effort). Regardless, this speaks to the unprincipled nature of many rules and rulemakers. I believe that in an extremely large majority of rules there is a degree, (and in most rules, a very large degree), of amoral ego. Most rules are made to create comfort. For some rulemakers that comfort is structure and security. For other rulemakers it is the illusion of control. For a few it appears to be the sheer pleasure of tyranny. For some it is simply convenience. And for some, it may be a combination; a form of tyrannyconstrucurity.

In yet a third example from this week, a uniform nicely illustrated this flaunt-to-punish sequence, along with the arbitrary nature of most rules. A young woman obeying all traffic laws and driving safely, found herself accidentally flaunting her license plate in the wrong place at the wrong time, and as a result a man in uniform with a badge, a powerful screaming car and time on his hands, created considerable turmoil based on a bureaucratic misunderstanding. I am familiar with the maxim that "ignorance is no excuse" but shouldn't that be accompanied by the guideline "no harm, no foul"? Are there possibly better ways for an ego in uniform to be of value? Should individual priorities, (such as food on the table and a roof over your children's heads), be considered alongside bureaucratic priorities? This incident, (which I am sure is repeated many, many, many, many times over on a daily basis), shows how an imaginary structure, (such as a uniform, a badge, a title, or even a business card), can create comfort and perpetuate authoritarian whimsy.

I begin nearly every new week with the desire to submit uplifting and joyful written thought. But because I pay attention, I find this (in most weeks) to be quite difficult. The silver lining though, is that in most weeks, by submitting this written thought, I come to an agreement with adversity, whether that adversity is specific to me or one or more other individuals. Having expelled any potentially toxic anger, I typically come to an actively hopeful understanding, and I am able to move forward productively. I believe most individuals either do not pay attention, ignore, or forget, which allows forward movement free from the responsibility of productivity. (For me) it is preferable to thoughtfully reason and organize for further analysis and eventual progress.

And this brings me to still one more culmination from this week. I see many rulemakers as absentee rulemakers making absentee rules. If a rulemaker is making rules based solely or largely on their personal comfort, of course that rulemaker should not be making rules, but more importantly any rules they make are rules that can frequently be broken, if done so quietly. Hence, absentee rulemakers and absentee rules. This week I have also noticed a correlation between those "out of touch with reality" rulemakers and their actual physical presence in the midst of the reality they rule. As is often the case, after saying this it seems obvious. There is both a specious distance and a physical distance between absentee rulemakers and their given dominion, often with the only structural connection being absentee rules. As I heard the frustration so eloquently expressed yesterday: "She's just talking out her butt." The silver lining regarding all of this absenteeism? Some absentee rulemakers recognize this distance and often allow their people to create the rules that produce the best results. The dark cloud? Many absentee rulemakers could (and should) put forth more effort.

So to summarize: absentee rules can be quietly broken because they are often made by absentee rulemakers to enhance their personal sense of comfort and as a result create imaginary structure that also allows for authoritarian whimsy and encourages a lack of effort, misguided and arbitrary solicitude, and unrestrained thoughtlessness; and in this muddle of circumstance the absentee rulemaker really doesn't care about their absentee rule, probably does not even remember their absentee rule (unless a rulebreaker shoves it in their face), and will leave it to the authority figures (believing in their imaginary authority) to enforce the myriad of absentee rules.

(For me), (perhaps because I pay attention), it is much simpler to thoughtfully reason and organize for further analysis and eventual progress.

This is my peace...

...for this week.