Why process matters

     Every time I turn on the news I see a story about negative attack ads  and how this is possibly the most negative election ever.  Worse than that though, Every time I turn on the news I see a story that has a biased perspective, a story that sides with one side of current political discourse, and worse still, these stories actively disparage the opposing side.  these attack ads, even the political press in this  country tend to tear down the 'other side' rather than simply report news. I hear a lot of people ask why it is that the discourse in this country has fallen to such a level. 
     It is not just America either.  Look for example at the European Union.  The EU was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize this week.  Upon hearing of this, news agencies all over the world responded with snark.  While it is true that the EU is having some trouble because limitations in its governing structure are creating problems and making it difficult to adapt to a rapidly changing world, but the same can be said for any government.  Keep in mind that the EU is only 60 or so years old. 

     The European Union is important and significant because it represents a victory.  Before I explain, let me clarify.  The EU encompasses an entire region of the world.  Nearly an entire hemisphere.  I think when we talk of the European union we tend to think of it as mainly a few large countries working together rather than a massive conglomerate of nearly every European, and eastern European country both large and small, united together under a common currency and governance structure.   Now also realize that the area of the world covered by the EU has known near constant war for all of recorded history.  Yes, in one part of the EU, or another, people have been killing one another for all of time.  That is of course, until the formation of the European Union. 
     The EU has largely ended war and human misery in a part of the world that had been at war since humans had been able to keep track of such things.  The Nobel Committee recognizes this, and sadly it seems that we do not.  Why is this?  We seem to have a distaste for all things policy and procedure in government.  It seems we would rather disparage, tear down, belittle and ridicule the intricacies of government rather than celebrate successes.   I think we do this because we need conflict.  Conflict has been part of human society since we have been able to form societies.  There are different tribes with different cultures and different religions with different definitions of what 'good is' all competing for limited land and resources.  Conflict is inevitable and naturally constant. 
     Democracy, policy, and procedure, rules.  These are things that we have developed to deal with these conflicts, they are tools we have developed  to resolve our differences without killing each other.   Yes, the process is slow, awkward arduous, complicated, bulky and difficult.  When viewed through the lense of history though the result is sublime and beautiful.  So we  but what is the alternative?  I think the answer is war.  I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that either we have people killing each other in streets or we have attack ads.  Conflict is a part of our lives.  So much a part of our lives that we have developed a kind of distaste for how we resolve conflicts in a nonviolent manner. 

Conflict is such a part of us not because humans, in our hearts, are primitives, but because we are predators. Though we have learned to grow our food instead of kill it, we still have predatory instincts, and these instincts express themselves through conflict. As we have evolved and developed a more civilized discourse, so to has our conflict evolved. We have moved from warring tribes, to warring nations, to peaceful nations. Our conflicts has evolved from bloody combat to political vitriol and expresses itself in political adds, social conversation and even internet discussions.

While conflict is inevitable and maybe even necessary we must be careful not to revel in it. At the center of our modern, civilized 'political pundit' age conflict lies a distaste for the procedural, slow-motion bloodless method conflict resolution that we call modern government. Take a look at Congressman Ryans comments on Syria from the VP debate. It was clear that he wanted boots on the ground over sanctions. A lot of people feel the same way on nearly any conflict. blood over talk. We can;t give in to this feeling. Yes, we must tolerate conflict, it is a need we have, but we must defer to the procedural. We must allow for the slow, lumbering resolutions of democracy because they are better than violence and bloodshed. We must also, always remember that there is no bubble that exists in which all conflicts are resolved without differences, and there is no universe that exists in which there are no differences.

We are all different, we all think different and we will all always want different solutions to our shared problems. This will never change, but what we must always do is resort to nonviolent ways to resolve our conflicts, no matter how badly we want to kill the other guy, and feeling that way is natural, we must talk it out. And was we grow, we must do what the European Union has done, we must bring others to our table, We must seek out those nations and peoples among us who still resolve their conflicts with blood and violence and show them that there is a better way. Yes it is slower, and yes it is sometimes awkward, and yes sometimes after months of talk no one gets what they want but if no one dies and suffers, it is still better. This is the burden of civilization, we must lead others to be civilized. If all life is sacred than efforts to preserve life must be undertaken.

When history becomes story

<p>     I am watching a documentary on Cleopatra.  Specifically on how an international group of archaeologists have rediscovered her royal islands in Egypt's harbor after being submerged there for over two thousand years.  It is one of the most significant historical discoveries of all time.  What makes Cleopatra and her story, rather her history so interesting to me is because it could easily be fiction.  Just perusing the highlights it sounds like its made up.  For example, female Pharaoh seduces Julius Caesar, when he gets assassinated she seduces Marc Antony and fights against the might of Octavius and all of Rome.  When her forces are defeated in the biggest and bloodiest sea battle in history, both her and Marc Antony commit suicide.  Her by Egyptian tradition of Asp  bite.  </p></p>
 <p>    Just glancing at it it sounds like its made up doesn't it?  But it isn't.  I bring this up because her story is so intricate, so interesting and so involved, and frankly, so often told that we tend to forget that it's actually history, and not just some story made up by Hollywood.  Those amazing things actually happened, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar and Mark Antony actually existed, I can go to Egypt and see things that they saw, touch things that they touched, I can connect with them even after two thousand years.</p></p> 
  <p>   I want to compare Cleopatra to another figure, Jesus Christ.  Also from about two thousand years in the past, and whose story has also been made into countless movies.  Unlike Cleopatra however, Jesus never existed.  I know that that's big talk but hear me out.  There is not one part of Jesus's story that can be verified historically.     None of the authors quoted as providing proof of his existence are contemporary to the time of christ.   I am aware that most historians consider the existence of Jesus a settled< fact, but I'm not sure that that opinion is based on evidence.  It is based more on a deferral to a vocal community that on any evidence dug up out of the earth.  </p></p>
     <p>I often hear that there is just as much historical evidence of Jesus as there is anyone else.  That isnt true.  I can slap on scuba gear and I can touch things that Cleopatra touched.  I can see the room where she seduced and made love to Julius Caesar and then Mark Antony.  I can see the wreckage of the great battle between her forces and Rome.  I can walk where she walked (well swim where she walked).  Her entire life is documented.  We have images of her that were made while she was alive.  There is contemporaneous evidence of her existence.  </p></p>
   <p>  Where was jesus born?  A manger in Bethlehem?  What manger?    What happened in the thirty plus years after his birth but before his death?  I would think that a historical figure who was rumored to be a god, THE god, would leave more of a trace.  Look again at Cleopatra, all Egyptian Pharaohs were also considered to be re-incarnations of the gods, In her case it was Isis.   As living embodiments of the divine, every move they made and every word they said was meticulously documented.  You would think that the coming of the Christian messiah would be similarly documented.  I mean as far as the christian religion goes, there is no more significant event.  This was their god come to earth was it not?  There were witnesses to the birth, why then did not those witnesses stay with Jesus and document his life?  Like I said, this was God wasn't it?  Why is there such a dearth of information on the life of God?  He is born, disappears for thirty plus years and then dies.  While other human made gods from the same era can't take a dump without someone chiseling it into stone for antiquity.   </p></p>
     <p>I find it ironic that we often forget to realize that larger than life people like Cleopatra and Julius Caesar were real, and the events surrounding their lives actually happened.  The story has been told so often and become so familiar that it becomes just that, a story, not history.  While on the other had, the story of Jesus, has, due to its status as religion, become history.  The deference we give to the myth of jesus has enabled it to assume a place in history despite a near total lack of evidence.  I cannot go and touch the things that jesus touched in the way I can with Cleopatra.  There is no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus.  There are no documents that mention him from the time he was supposed to live.  For someone supposed to be god, the most important figure of a religion, this is damning is it not?  </p></p>
     <p>We pay to much attention to myth, and not enough to historical fact.  Cleopatra was real, and the events surrounding her death changed the way the entire world worked.  the circumstances that resulted from her defeat and death changed the course of history and effect us to this day.  Even despite all that most people dismiss Cleopatra as a figure in a story and fail to realize how significant her life really was.  </p></p>
   <p>  Jesus on the other hand, left no meaningful mark on history, and no evidence of his life exists outside of the bible, and the bible is not a historical document.  Yet his existence is held as an undisputed fact.  Why is this?  It is simply because religion demands deference and acceptance, and we give it for no reason at all.  The story of Cleopatra, to me, is so interesting, and so compelling because it is also history, because it actually happened.  the story of Jesus would be similarly compelling to me if it actually happened, but it did not.  I'm not telling people to not believe in Jesus, just that they know that they are in fact 'believing' in him, not accepting his existence as fact.  There is a big difference between the two.