Show Me the Trust

There is a basic question everyone needs to answer for themselves, whether they are aware of it or not: is the world a basically good or bad place? In other words, "can I trust others?" The answer to this determines what sort of individual you are and how you interact with everyone around you. If you are constantly on-guard or scared of being exploited then you won't be the same person as if you were confident that you are safe and secure. If every situation is seen as another possibility to be humiliated, hurt, bested or broken then everyone around is a source of one of these possibilities. When you worry everyone is against you, it means you are using energy for that-not looking for the opportunities to cooperate-as you feel you need to outdo the other person before they do you in. This is not alleviated by being rich or powerful, it is pervasive and can only be dealt with in terms of the question presented at the start of this post. The stakes only rise the higher one climbs; it means those same enemies who would throw you only a few meters before can now send you plummeting kilometers. One will not find that suddenly-upon completing a marathon, receiving an award or standing ovation, having the person of your dreams agree to wed, or getting a dream job-that this problem resolves itself. These things can all be undercut by the feeling that your accomplishments can be stolen by a competitor, or that someone else could do the same or better.

What I Couldn't Say to My Coworkers Over Lunch.

Talking about the "housing crisis" and how people need to live within their means or they should lose their houses. You are about to read my opinion, I don't actually have a disclaimer for this, like on a talk show or television program, other than you may not like it-but I do hope you read and think about it.

In this complex situation, where greedy people raised in a society that allows them to bend the rules if money is "made" and the goal is always-always-to better one's own situation; here the people doing the lending were greedy and the money made was at the expense of the borrowers. Certainly some of the people who borrowed the money were greedy and looking to improve their situation, but the burden lies on a broader swath of the population than just "those stupid, grabby poor people." The investment banks played their part, the lending institutions had a say, the brokers could have stopped it, and the actual, everyday people-who have lost the most-certainly wouldn't have signed up if they could have believed they were going to lose the place they live and a substantial amount of their time and capital. It's absurd to believe that anyone would have wanted to become homeless or bankrupt, or that they should be further punished for it! What about the brokers who pushed for the larger loans, who assured the people putting their lives and credit (because as much as financial institutions would like it, those are still two separate things) on the line that "it'll be okay"? Why blame the borrower who has been kept in the dark about the entire lending cycle, and in most cases poorly educated about money matters in general? Can you really say that these people, who were merely trusting the so-called 'experts' about what they should buy, were to blame? What happened is another example of capitalism gone wild: unregulated and self-perpetuating. This is something that could only happened in a country that does not put its citizens first, which values commodities over lives. This is a terrible and preventable catastrophe, much like the effects of Hurricane Katrina in the South U.S. That we continue to be bombarded by such terrors indicates that we are not valued beyond our ability to provide more for those who already have too much. Such has been the case for too long; despite all our advances, we are still subjects or serfs being forced to bow down to some self-proclaimed master. Just because we can change jobs makes us no less indentured, we are still kept insecure (and often desperate) within a system that is not designed to benefit the majority.

Insecurity and Anger

Being insecure means that one feels less confident in doing things, in all things that one does. Which inevitably leads to questioning ones decisions, actions, eventually everything is suspect as one cannot trust anything one does. Since everything is so uncertain, so unreliable, it creates a self-perpetuating system that other people will sense or even see. This will in turn lead to feeling angry, as not feeling confident leads to feeling threatened beyond a normal, reasonable amount or even by generally acceptable things. Which in turn leads to a greater level of anger in response to each perceived threat, as one can get upset about becoming unreasonably angry and irascible. This then reinforces the original insecurity, since one will feel it was right to suspect oneself in the first place.

Why do I bring this subject up, and why am I wasting space on an exploration or explanation of this simple process? The answer is equally basic: I suffer from this thinking, from feeling inadequate and ineffective. I, too, am human; it's true, believe what you will. Which would be part of why I write such things in the first place: to feel as though I am being productive, or even profound, and impacting others. But even as I write, it feels meaningless and trivial. The desire and goal is not necessarily to succeed, but even more: to not surrender. That I continue to write and try to become better and improve the world somehow is reward and success enough.

The Process of Change is Hidden

Regardless of how we are treated and trodden upon, it is of no use to succumb to the desire to fit in or "go with the flow". No improvement can be made if we all "go along to get along" because we are not demanding any change. Strife, or at least discomfort, are necessary to change things, and certainly to change them for the better. By this I mean that to make dramatic changes, which are often needed as people and cultures will stagnate and calcify over time, these changes are difficult and sometimes unpleasant. It is easy to give in rather than find that other path, one that leads to revolution; here I mean that things move on, they revolve rather than stay in place. Not that a little rebellion isn't necessary also, and what we are trying for is appropriate and requisite actions. The frustration at not being understood or not making progress should be channeled into the drive to change, rather than into self-destructive modes of action. It is counter-productive to be frustrated by attempting to force others to "recognize truth" or change their ways. We can only change ourselves and what we do, and try to convince others through demonstration and reason that there is a better way. This is why Mahatma Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." There is not a law passed that can change a person, only by seeing that change is necessary and beneficial will people try to do so. It is uncomfortable to challenge the way things are done, there isn't an easy way to confront the contradictory or self-serving nature of people. This does not lessen the necessity of doing so. Finally, you may not see (or live to see) the results of your efforts, hence the title of this post. There are often subtle things one does not pick up on, especially if we expect to see dramatic signs of improvement. Still, keep at it and believe in the goal and achieving it.

Daministration!

One of the books I am currently reading is "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule" by Thomas Frank. It is easy to read and about an interesting subject, of course. I am prompted to voice my reaction here, as well as to suggest you read the book for yourself. There are a number of reactions to the basic problems of organization: of coordinating what, where, who, and when. "What does organisation have to do with the government of the U.S.?" you may ask. That is a fair question, but not as unrelated as you may suspect. It is what would have allowed a coordinated and effective response to the hurricane in 2003 that devastated the Southeastern U.S. It would have created the possibility to respond quickly and appropriately to the events in New York City on 11 Sept. 2001, along with many other incidents. Instead, as we are all well aware, these crises (along with many other and lesser occurrences) were bumbled and we are still realizing the consequences therefrom. All this is known and discussed, or at least joked about, amoung most citizens: the ineptitude of the federal government (as well as, in most cases, lesser governmental bodies). To those who have not given up hope for improvement and question why things should be so, however, these events and reactions are a slap in the face. In summary, the book shows how this ineptitude and mismanagement serves the needs and goals of those "in power". No surprise there, since this can explain a great many strange and unnecessary things. It should also be unnecessary for a book to explain why it is not good to cripple and dismantle a government. Yet, here we have it: an in-depth look at the people who have broken the parts of the government that actually worked

An Oft Overlooked Command

There is a lot of news lately about our military, and I want to focus on something that many in the military (as well as outside of it) fail to respect enough: the necessity of knowledge. There are too many people placing emphasis on "just following orders" or "just doing my job", rather than understanding what that means and whether or not they are justified in doing it. This is an extension of the general ignorance and malaise in society, a cop-out of having too much to know or understand. This is never a reason, only an excuse. Frankly, it's easier to have someone else do the thinking, but that isn't what life is supposed to be. Life isn't about easy; it's not easy to be a student or a parent, or beautiful, or healthy, or anything else. We are endowed with intelligence for exactly this reason: to not be used or hurt and so that we are not taken advantage of. All of which happen to some extent when we are not in control of our own lives, when we abdicate or subjugate our intelligence. We have brains so that we can overcome obstacles and apply control, rather than force. Just swinging the stick isn't enough, one must understand why, and if there is a way to not have to swing the stick at all, that is even better. That is where true intelligence, and therefore true humanity, lies.

Why I Am as Valuable as You

I would like to examine the worth of a human from a purely scientific viewpoint, from which everything is measured and judged by empirical (based on observation of fact) evidence. Therefore, at it's most basic, we have a strong reason to allow everyone to be themselves and support their needs so that they live well. Every human is deserving of respect, each equal to the other, because we all carry the preservation of our kind within ourselves. Any one human can be the answer to a problem facing all and the continuation of humankind. From a recessive gene to a novel invention, some breakthrough or innovation that comes from an unlikely source, we know that these things happen. No one knows which traits will be adaptive, what will be needed to survive in the future, or when we may be called on to answer such a problem. The more diversity we have available, the more likely we will be able to continue as a species and persevere in the face of catastrophe. Instead of trying to limit our differences, or wanting to determine what "kind" of person is acceptable or desirable, we should focus on how all live and the elevation of each to their potential so that we are capable of answering any such crises of survival. Our solutions will otherwise prove insufficient and we will fail as a whole species to make any necessary adaptation, what we think of as the hallmark of humanity. On the other hand, there can be no survival without resources: space, food, clean water, the basic necessities. If there are an unsustainable number of humans alive, that does not allow for a solution or meeting the needs of those who are already alive. We cannot demand that others suffer or give up what they need so that there can be more people, or more of a certain group of people. When we cannot provide for those already alive we are not fulfilling the first promise: to allow all to reach their potential. When people do not have their needs met, they cannot be expected to think beyond how to meet their needs. That does not allow for invention or innovation, nor encourage higher-order thinking that is needed for overcoming larger problems. We need to be able to provide for all to preserve all, that is basic and obvious (although I am stating it here, so that we are sure to be clear and on the same wavelength). So, it seems we need a balance-which is not much of a surprise, as so much of life is balance. We need to maintain our diversity while keeping the overall population at a level that does not overwhelm the resources available.

Join the Club

There seems to be a pervasive attitude, an opinion, that influences many cultures and religions worldwide. I am referring to the belief in the defect of human-ness, the idea that we need to prove ourselves worthy of something. Instead of accepting each other as humans, to believe in the natural worth of anyone, we are taught to suspect and question everyone's worth-even our own. What does that say about us, about our beliefs and opinions regarding ourselves as a species? We somehow think that there is no universal right to some very basic things, we are actually willing to deny another human's right to exist. We cannot accept that everyone, by dint of being human, are owed these things: health, education, food, shelter (not an exhaustive list). What is it we have to prove, and to whom? How can we know, and when will we ever be sure? Why is this, why is being human not enough? I would love to hear your comments and answers, as ever.

The Cult and Culture of Cars

In so many ways, the automobile has taken over our lives, even beyond when we are in one. This can be seen not only in the way we design cities and states with roads and parking for cars in mind, but also in the way we think of where we live; in relation to friends and work, for example. Really the basic function of the automobile is to make travel a less onerous task. Yet it has become an extension of our selves, another symbol and, in turn, another way to judge others. It has, in such a short amount of time, come to where it seems all our cultural personalities and institutions can be expressed in terms of cars and traffic. This extends to art and entertainment certainly, but also language, societal expectations, and self esteem. The very idea of not using or having a car has become ludicrous or foolish, although I am glad to say there are people trying to counter that. We don't just move further away from our family and the places we were born, we use cars to escape from the world. By getting in and turning up the stereo, by taking a long and destination-less drive, or just by going really fast, we are trying to get away from the rest of humanity that causes us so much upset. We complain about all the other drivers...please examine the hypocrisy of that thought. We all get out on the road together and think that none of the other drivers should be there.

Thank you for examining that; it is, of course, just a symptom of the selfishness of capitalism and competition so prevalent in culture today. However, these tie so closely with traffic and the auto as to be indistinguishable. Yet we should ask ourselves the basic questions: "How does this help us?", "Is this really good for us?", and "Can we do better?" The competitive approach to driving is what inspired this post, because it seems rather than improving the way we get where we are going, cars are just another way to "beat" each other. There are "sports events" entirely devoted to and consisting of cars and trucks and things that go vroom. In everyday life there are those who try all sorts of ways to "win" in traffic. The person who dodges and weaves around others, another who shoots off to the next traffic light, and especially those who drive as though no one else is on the road. I don't believe this attitude or circumstance is intentional, that we set out to create it. However, we can and need to overcome what has happened, not just to be safer on the road, but to instigate change in other parts of our lives, which suffer from the same basic problem.

I recently heard about a book that seems to fit with this subject, which I am excited to read, called Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt.

Why Do My Peers Hate Me?

The rejection of peer pressure hurts those applying it, as well as the one(s) being pressured. Trying to get someone to do go along with the rest of the group is important for the members of the group, especially if the activity is questionable. Not participating points out the weakness of those who do engage in the behaviour. Resisting demonstrates that not everyone agrees with the group, so it is vulnerable to some other opinion. This is unacceptable to some people, as they need the comfort of others who share their opinion to feel confident. It can be seen as a matter of control: when these individuals feel that everyone is going along with the program, it is fine. The questioning of the groups' plan may be seen as an attack on the structure of the group, the cohesive dynamic which holds the group together. This is not always to do with something illicit, but this drive is more powerful the more dangerous or risky conditions are.

So we have insecurity compounded by feeling scrutinized by peers, leading to feelings of violent retribution for exposing the underlying vulnerabilities of the group. This should be overcome by confidence, with deciding from a place of certainty and integrity, as pressuring someone(s) into doing something is obviously not in the best interests of anyone. Actions of individuals and groups should come from deliberate consensus and valid arguments, not bullheaded or ill considered desires or impulses.

Actions Speak...Loud and Clear

There is an idea that has intrigued me for a long time: "what you pretend to be is what you are in the end." On the surface, it's simple: we can claim to be nice all we want, but it is our acts and choices which will determine whether or not we are nice and seen as so. I mean that even though we may think we are perceived as nice, attractive, and intelligent people and think of ourselves as nice, attractive, and intelligent-and we all want to believe that, right?-it may not be true. This is beside all the petty gossip, misunderstandings, and jealousy we all have to face from day to day, just because that is the culture. What I refer to is simply what happens as we go about our daily lives, make mistakes, talk to new individuals, and such. As we make our choices as to how we act and react, we are demonstrating whether we have those positive attributes we would like or instead have negative ones. Further, it also means that when we try to be something we are not, if one does strive to be different than before, that habit becomes the truth. On another level, though, this same idea holds true when a company or organisation does something different than what they claim. If one is supposedly helping a country with economic rebuilding and it is in actuality undermining that goal, what does it matter what is said? The results-such as people dying, pollution, and excessive debt-are what we need to pay attention to. This isn't about Utilitarianism or some overarching system of thinking and organising humanity and its actions. I am not advocating for something beyond simple truth and openness here, the scale and importance of these issues are too great for anything less. I think those two things would go a long way towards a solution for either personal or organisational problems of this nature. I understand it is always in the best interests of a group to promote the idea that the group is doing well and doing what is beneficial for everyone. So it is no surprise that most groups do just that, but it is important whether or not that claim is true both inside and outside the group.

Also it is true that many will wonder why things are so messed up now. This is a process and has been happening around us the whole time. To 'check out' as we have and allow these groups to do whatever they want because they'll tell us nice things is irresponsible. People need to stop being sold to, to stop passively accepting the messages that these companies and conglomerations are foisting on us. The constant barrage and commercial harassment of citizens is unacceptable and absurd. Our actions are definite and easily observed: we have been lazy, become complaisant, accepted the continual replacement of freedom with flashy distractions, and been complicit in the ending of democracy through murder, illegal and continual limitation of human rights, and lies. We are as much to blame as the companies who spill the oil, use slave labor, invade countries through trade agreements, or whatever else they cook up. No matter what we tell ourselves and would like to believe, that is the truth. We need to actively seek solutions instead of passively allowing these problems to continue. It is our responsibility, both in the way things have become, and also to come up with a solution. This is a good thing because if it were left up to those who are directly responsible, there would be no change. We can stop allowing it, take back the direction of our lives and country, and make the necessary changes.