Trust

"We lie to each other so much, that there's nothin' left that we trust."

The words of Megadeth. I've been away from my blogging lately, instead engaging in political debate on a number of different Facebook pages (no endorsement intended). But recently, my blogging muse has returned to me. Perhaps these deviations are what recharges my batteries; who knows. For those who are tired of the doom and gloom of modern political debate, this is NOT for you – this will be a discourse on some of our modern problems, and will not be of a cheerful or hopeful nature. But to the rest of you, I hope this is an eye opener – my ultimate purpose in life.

We talk about whether or not we can trust our government to manage our healthcare. And everybody's become so polarized over this issue. But so often, we look at one side of the coin, ignoring the rest (there are at least to sides, plus an edge). I want to increase the level of disclosure here, thus encouraging you to think more deeply regarding these matters. That way, by virtue of our collective intelligence, we can arrive at the best possible solution(s). Ready?

First: the US government. While we'd all like to think that we can trust in our government, reality slaps us hard in the face when it comes to examining this as to whether or not it's actually the case. We need look no farther than recent history – Japanese internment camps incarcerating tax-paying citizens simply because of their genetic make-up, Katrina victims being refused the service we, as Americans, have been contributing money towards for decades in case of an emergency, killing Americans to get back the FEMA trailers they were living in, fleets of jets for congress to fly to the Bahamas to study global warming while snorkeling off the coast, and on and on. When I approached Social Security for medical help when every other form of insurance I'd paid for turned their back on me, they fought me tooth and nail for over three years, rather than provide the help I was entitled to, because I paid for it ahead of time. Your trust is ill-served with your government.

Second: your health insurance. There are far too many stories out there regarding this atrocity; surely, you know of someone injured or killed by denial of service. If you don't, consider yourself lucky, with the foreknowledge that it's only a matter of time before this will impact you. As long as the law requires that paying investors takes priority over providing what you paid for, this system will continue be a death machine. Your trust is in poor company with these companies.

Third: yourself. Yes, you can keep your money in your mattress (don't laugh – it may be safer than many "financial institutions" these days), stashing away a nest egg for that day that you're injured and unable to work. Have you seen the price of medical treatment these days? Good luck with that one. Additionally, this would of course lead to economic genocide, where only the most affluent will live to continue the species. But the argument that insurance is a bad deal; that you're hoping for a disaster in order to recoup your pay-out, is valid. Your trust in yourself is valid, but will be insufficient when that day comes (God help you; may you never need this option).

When someone tells you that they have no trust in one institution or another, be aware of these considerations – they are most likely correct in their warning to you. But as of yet, I've heard no good option to the standard data set – where is there a good option? I do not claim to have the answers, but know that if I help you to see the problems clearly, that a solution may be achieved. I may or may not produce the answer, which is irrelevant. All that IS relevant is that an answer be arrived at, and that those who produce the solution be as informed as possible. Trusting in something unworthy of your trust is a dangerous thing.

Comfort Zones

Have you ever noticed that if you travel to an unfamiliar area, and you watch the local news there, that the news casters seem like amateurs? Humans have some peculiar ways of determining whether or not something is familiar or comfortable to us.

We travel to a foreign land, and we discover the foods of the local peoples. Our first reaction is typically disgust and/or reservation. Yet we know that these locals eat this food all of the time, desire it, and even anticipate it, just as we do with our own foods. Others who come to visit us are likewise offended by our diets as well.

We visit a friend's church, which is not the same as our own. We feel that they worship incorrectly, and we are out of our comfort zone. Can it be the same God?

We travel to a distant land. The locals wear different clothes, and speak a different language. We feel that they are somehow backwards and underdeveloped. We sense fear.

We talk to people with opposing political views. We feel that the others are misinformed, and/or liars. That the others are demons, determined to undermine the good of our nation.

There is no moral lesson to be learned here; there is nothing in particular to be taken away from this. It's simply an observation. We fear the unknown, and the unfamiliar. As our fear increases, our comfort level plummets. Yet with open minds, we can see that there is no logic in this kind of thinking. I have eaten foods that would make many of you sick, though I enjoyed it, as do the people who introduced it to me. I have visited many churches of many beliefs, both as a Christian and as an atheist. I have lived for long periods of time with people of different racial backgrounds. And although the numerous trips to strange places has removed much of this effect from me, it nonetheless does not eliminate it. It has been a lifelong struggle of mine to resist this tendency, and assume that nearly any situation I'm placed in must be comfortable to someone else, and therefore can be for me as well. Just sharing a part of my personal growth, y'know. So – what makes your skin crawl, and does it really make ense?

Lobbyist Contributions

The very premise, that our (the US) politicians should be approachable by all, is one that benefit's the individual in a society. But somewhere along the way, this noble idea has been convoluted into a serious crime. One that makes impotent your vote and our way of life. So then how did this happen?

In our democracy, we are ensured that we can approach our legislators and our executive branch. That way the little guy could get his voice heard as well as the bigger interests. But at some point lobbying was handed over to the large corporations, and although all of our politicians insist that the money that these people keep shoveling forth is insignificant, they nonetheless continue to remain "on the take". Lobbying is a form of bribery - how can it NOT be? Today, large corporate and private interests pay small fortunes to congressmen and women who claim that the money doesn't influence them, and then they become the puppets of the interests behind the lobbyists. And our executive branch is likewise corrupted. Finance reform laws, written by those for whom it was supposed to control, is predictably ineffective and easily sidestepped – even a child could understand the mechanisms used to circumvent these laws.

These criminals on the take are our elected officials, meaning that your vote has just been purchased away from you. One of the few things that the small guy had to help level the playing field, that one thing that we all had in common, is now meaningless and of no effect. You can elect anyone who'll say anything, but they're all there to get a piece of the action. Why won't the legislators ban lobbyist contributions altogether, restoring power to my vote? It's asking them to put on a collar of their own construction – they'll never do an effective job of it, as we've seen from past "attempts". And the executive branch, also on the take, would be required to sign this into law. If it attempted to control them, it would never be signed.

Through legislative slight-of-hand with the American people, these crooks have engineered a money machine that siphons off the bounty of our nation, along with your freedom of choice, for their own greedy oligarchy and leaves our country in shambles. So how do we solve this dilemma? As of this time, I'm uncertain. No one would write such self-imposing legislation, and no executive member would give it the time of day. If you had the law, no lawmaker or executive member would turn away from crushing it. Jefferson thought that occasional rebellion was appropriate; is that our only alternative? Is there no other way?

John