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