Call her what you will; the sea, a river, the wellspring; her headwaters can unsurpassingly arouse, drown or crown you with her unrelenting invitation to come play with your better nature, making her nature your muse. It's only natural!
Just as Mary Oliver inscribed so elegantly ~ “You only have to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves.”
All we really have is here and now, this fleeting moment so we might as well get good at it and take care. Right! Now then, we are all guilty to some extent of being run by technology and numbers so this is the time to take our power back!
Where your attention goes energy flows... if it is anything lesser than the light of love look up to the clouds, acknowledge and watch your worries fall away here they loose weight, dissipating and cleansed as rain reFreshing falling to the rivers eventually all flowing back out to the salty sea. It is time to embody the ocean and move like the ocean. In this we are unarguably one-collective consciousness breathing, drinking and bathing in the same hydrologic cycle.
It is time to clear the fears planted on us by films like 'Jaws' releasing all anxieties around our uncertainties of the dark, unknown, and unforgiving grasping element and again let our imaginations run-free entranced in the timelessness of child-like wonder, of whats new, unfamiliar and foreign. Then we can so fully surrender to the present moment that all else will fall away as if we were all surfing her oceanic waves even when we're on land, it brings us back to balance.
Quite naturally the ocean demands our presence otherwise we would be choking-up water at risk of not resurfacing in this same precious vessel. We are all being held in the womb of waters grasp, a magnetic force like gravity, like the planets orbiting in our solar system. So our devOcean to really sea matters. And like the Ocean, to Be Love requires our full attention at minimum and like Love the ocean humbles us.
I look up at the clouds to see the ocean shape-shifting above me reminding to be flexible, adaptable and all-inclusive, expanding my awareness in all directions. In order to really LOVE our nature we must first TRUST in nature and take care of our waters.
"You are comprised of 38 trillion cells, 84 minerals, 23 Elements, and 8 gallons of water.
You have been built up from nothing by the spare parts of the Earth you have consumed, according to a set of instructions hidden in a double helix and small enough to be carried by a sperm. You are recycled butterflies, plants, rocks, streams, firewood, wolf fur, and shark teeth, broken down to their smallest parts and rebuilt into our planet’s most advanced living thing." ~ Aubrey Marcus
You See You Are Nature and She Animates You!
A good practice for getting intimate with nature is letting go of all the fears and stories we identify with and trust our better nature. Try writing exactly how she makes you feel, what in nature reflects back to you your beauty? Simply give thanks to it, write it in sand or in the dirt, offer it water and may it multiply taking root at high tide or in the soil, spiraling upwards and outwards towards the greatest good.
In trusting the muse is trusting the music, the song-lines of every whale, eagle, elephant, beetle, fungi and micro-algae are all in harmony, diverse yet connected in the circle of life and in their unique place with no other narrative to be anything but nature herself.
Our species has always held a deep fascination with the strange, unusual and unimaginable, from the depths of the great blue yodeling out to the farthest star. This is how we need to show up for one another, for earth, with greater trust for each other and in our self-awareness, it's our nature we just need to slow to down to remember. Let us breathe deeper, longer and slower, to continually seek to discover beauty in all forms.
Haven't you ever noticed that which tickles your fancies about nature provoke long forgotten wisdoms to arise within you? These are the unspoken epiphanies for healthy-relating and self-regulating.
As you learn to hear what she is on about, in her vast sea of knowledge you listen more acutely to your inner voice ~ the spark in the gut telling you whether or not to swim further, float, or take to your board. Water graciously gives us both conscious reflection and the sails for active choice. Like the moon radiant on a cloudless night get clear with your muse, give her your trust through, kindness, compassion and equanimity. This keen and highly rewarding observation links you to nature, connecting you to the real rhythms of life, tidal, cyclical, waxing, and waning, fully-illuminating and reinvigorating our strength of character on expedition defining what it is to be alive. Reminding us again and again to be more here relaxed in the now.
If ever in doubt take to the Wise Earth saying which still rings as true as it was first told, "the cure for everything is saltwater: sweat, tears and the sea."
In connecting people intimately with the waters, with presence and child-like wonder will heal our ocean. Culture is crying out for clear 'Rights of Nature' to be instilled and initiated through a 'Right of Passage'. As our youth come of age they should know their place in nature and how to be one with water, one with fire in trust with all the elements. Our oceans are dying for this wisdom to be rightfully reignited globally, it is our responsibility.
Although water is most often in the unseen does not in any way mean it does not exist, it deserves our trust, love and full-respect at all times. Just as I may not see your heart in full flesh yet I still acknowledge it is there and I honor it. This is the way we shall be with the sea, honoring that she is living, breathing all of life circling, reforming, and creating anew.
Meditate on this empathic interlude. So... Into the deep we went without reservation so that we can be vitally alive with all of nature, honoring both life and death. The lesson the ocean imprints on us is that life happens instantaneously everywhere. Breathe it in and let it all go so you can come hOMe to your true nature, with unwavering trust and spaciousness for the health of our wholeness.
Come to Your Nature ~ Trust Nature, Trust LOVE and Be Loved By Nature. Meet you there.
Love,
Your intelligent emOcean
About the Creator
Amber Brovelli
Amber Brovelli is a dancer, daughter, student and a teacher of earth, devoted to the heArt of our true nature, bridging spirit and science through ecological earth wisdom, embodied movement, meditation and loving action in the world.
Keep reading
More stories from Amber Brovelli and writers in Earth and other communities.
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassanabout 12 hours ago in Earth
DoJ Attorneys Resign Over Decision Not to Investigate Agent in Minneapolis ICE Shooting
A Justice Department Decision Sparks Fallout Several US Department of Justice (DoJ) attorneys have resigned following an internal decision not to pursue a criminal investigation into a federal immigration agent involved in a shooting in Minneapolis, according to multiple officials familiar with the matter. The resignations have intensified scrutiny of the DoJ’s handling of the case and fueled public debate over law enforcement accountability, particularly when federal agents are involved. The shooting, which occurred during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation in Minneapolis, has already drawn local outrage and national attention. The decision not to open a formal investigation has now added a new layer of controversy—this time from within the Justice Department itself. What Is Known About the Minneapolis ICE Shooting Details surrounding the incident remain limited, as authorities have not released a full public account. What has been confirmed is that an ICE agent discharged a firearm during an operation, resulting in a civilian being shot. The condition of the victim has not been fully detailed in official statements, though local officials confirmed the individual survived. Local law enforcement initially responded to the scene, but jurisdictional authority shifted quickly due to the involvement of a federal agent. Under standard procedure, incidents involving federal officers are typically reviewed by the DoJ to determine whether a civil rights or criminal investigation is warranted. It was this review—and its outcome—that ultimately triggered internal dissent. Why DoJ Attorneys Walked Away According to sources familiar with the resignations, multiple attorneys—some with experience in civil rights and public integrity cases—objected strongly to the decision not to open a formal investigation. They argued that the shooting met the threshold for independent review, regardless of whether charges were ultimately brought. One former official described the decision as “a dangerous precedent,” warning that declining to investigate could erode public trust. Others reportedly felt that political considerations, rather than legal standards, influenced the outcome. While the DoJ has not publicly confirmed the number of resignations, officials acknowledged that departures occurred and said they were handled in accordance with internal procedures. The Justice Department’s Position In a brief statement, the Department of Justice said it had conducted an initial assessment of the incident and concluded that there was insufficient basis to proceed with a criminal investigation at this time. Officials emphasized that such decisions are made after reviewing available evidence, including use-of-force policies and witness statements. The department rejected claims that the decision was politically motivated, insisting that prosecutors follow established legal thresholds rather than public pressure. However, the DoJ declined to provide further details, citing the sensitive nature of law enforcement operations and personnel matters. Minneapolis Officials and Community Reaction In Minneapolis, the reaction has been swift and critical. City leaders and community advocates have called for greater transparency, arguing that federal agents operating within city limits should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as local police. “This isn’t about politics—it’s about accountability,” said a local civil rights advocate. “When someone is shot, there must be an independent investigation, regardless of the badge involved.” Protests and community meetings have followed, with residents demanding the release of body camera footage, operational details, and a clearer explanation for the DoJ’s decision. ICE Operations Under Renewed Scrutiny The shooting and subsequent fallout have reignited broader concerns about ICE enforcement tactics. Critics argue that immigration operations often take place with limited oversight, creating conditions where accountability gaps can emerge. Advocacy groups note that ICE agents are armed and authorized to use force, yet incidents involving shootings are relatively rare—and therefore require especially careful review when they occur. Supporters of ICE counter that agents operate in dangerous environments and must make split-second decisions, warning against rushing to judgment without full facts. Political Pressure and the Rule of Law The resignations have also raised questions about political pressure within federal law enforcement agencies. While no direct evidence has been made public, former prosecutors say internal disagreement of this magnitude is unusual and concerning. “When career attorneys resign over a single decision, it signals a serious breakdown of trust,” said a former federal prosecutor. “That doesn’t happen lightly.” Lawmakers from both parties have begun asking questions, with some calling for congressional oversight hearings into the incident and the DoJ’s decision-making process. Legal Standards vs Public Expectations At the heart of the controversy is a long-standing tension in US justice: the gap between legal thresholds for prosecution and public expectations of accountability. Opening an investigation does not imply guilt, but declining to investigate can be perceived as preemptively closing the door on transparency. Civil rights experts argue that even if prosecutors believe charges are unlikely, a formal investigation can still serve an important public interest. “The process matters as much as the outcome,” said one legal scholar. “Especially when federal authority is involved.” What Happens Next While the DoJ has indicated it will not revisit its decision at this time, pressure is mounting. Civil lawsuits, independent reviews, or congressional inquiries could still follow. Meanwhile, the resignations themselves may become part of a broader reckoning inside the Justice Department, as leaders assess how internal dissent is handled—and how public confidence can be restored. For the attorneys who resigned, the decision appears to have been a matter of principle. For the public, the unanswered questions surrounding the Minneapolis shooting remain unresolved. Conclusion: A Case That Won’t Fade Quietly The resignations of DoJ attorneys over the decision not to investigate an ICE agent involved in a Minneapolis shooting have turned a single law enforcement incident into a national flashpoint. Beyond the specifics of the case, the episode raises fundamental questions about accountability, transparency, and the independence of the justice system. Whether through further investigation, legal action, or political oversight, the issue is unlikely to disappear—and the consequences may shape how similar cases are handled in the future.
By Aarif Lasharia day ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.