Trust - the USA and the NSA.

Trust is defined, in my well used two volume New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, as “Faith or confidence in the loyalty, strength, veracity of a person or thing; reliance on the truth of a statement without examination.” Trust is thus a very fragile feeling or sense of understanding. To me the important part of the definition is “… without examination.”

If something or someone needs to be constant examined before you “trust” them or it, what does this say about your own state of mind? What does this say about your own trustworthiness?

Speaking generally now, my life experience has shown me that people who are trustworthy trust others. Such people have a sanguine belief in their leadership and moral standing; a sufficient confidence in their own activities and their own abilities that they would not countenance treating others in a way that betrays trust – “their word is their bond”. My life experience has also shown me that such people, by their exemplary example, lift others to behave as they do and to follow their example.

Historically spies have never been considered as exemplary beings. Spies have always been considered untrustworthy, as “two faced” and to be avoided – one never knew what their motives were or where their loyalties lay. When caught spies have always been treated harshly and, certainly in times of conflict, are often executed.

When the spying activities of a country or the malpractice of an organization are exposed internally by an employee with a strong moral compass – ie a “whistle blower” - outrage is the normal reaction. The fact that a government or organization has been exposed as “untrustworthy” is treated as a “betrayal”, as something abhorrent. This turns the whole idea of trust on its head.

Why is the individual – the whistle blower - condemned and not the government or organization that initiated the, now exposed, activity?  This is the same criminal mentality that considers the only crime is to be caught – not the crime itself.

To prove my point just look at the treatment applied to and the penalties inflicted upon the hapless Corporal Bradley Manning and the threats levelled at both Julian Assange and  Edward Snowden. Going further back in time recall the uproar caused by Daniel Ellsberg when he released the “Pentagon Papers”, he was called the “most dangerous man in America”. All these people did was to expose the moral shortcomings of the United States of America; to expose the untrustworthiness of the various Administrations activities to the World.

This should not be allowed to happen – the USA is supposed to hold the moral high ground and cannot not be seen to descend to the level of the base activities of lesser countries.

Is the USA with its now notorious National Securities Agency worthy of the trust it is trying desperately to maintain? I am not sure anymore. Trust comes from within; trust cannot be imposed; trust cannot be willed; trust has to be earned.

If antidepressants drugs are so effective ….

If antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs are so effective why are they being prescribed in ever increasing numbers? Something is out of kilter here.

The percentage of the population with some sort of mental issue remains fairly constant at about one person in five (in developed countries that is). But the number of prescriptions issued for antidepressants and antipsychotics are increasing year by year – according to the New York Times “In 2011 alone, they and other antipsychotic drugs were prescribed to 3.1 million Americans at a cost of $18.2 billion, a 13 percent increase over the previous year, according to the market research firm IMS Health.” Again, according to the American Psychological Association (APA) “The use of psychotropic drugs by adult Americans increased 22 percent from 2001 to 2010, with one in five adults now taking at least one psychotropic medication, according to industry data.”  

In Australia the rate of increase in such medications is similar with the rate per 1,000 population of community-dispensed prescriptions for mental health-related medications increased from 2005–06 to 2009–10 by an annual average increase of 2% - roughly 10% in five years or (extrapolating the figures) roughly 20% in ten years (Australian Medicare records).

In the same ten year period the population of the US increased by (again roughly) 10% and that of Australia by roughly 12%.

In summary then – populations of both the USA and Australia have increased by about 10%-12% in the years2001 – 2010 but mental health medication has increased at roughly 20% - 22% in the period.

It may not be a widely known fact but documented research constantly shows that antidepressants and antipsychotics are only marginally more effective than a placebo (a sugar pill). Yet the pharmaceutical companies – they are huge money making organizations – keep telling us otherwise.

My point is IF (and it is a big if) these drugs - which have been around in one form or another for about fifty years - are so effective, and if the percentage of people with mental health issues has remained constant at about  1 in 5 for years, why then is the use of these drugs increasing?

As I said at the beginning of this post – something is out of kilter!!

Why dance to someone else's tune?

This is an interesting question which needs an answer particularly when considering the increasing influence of social media. As my one loyal reader has asked for my comments on this question I thought it would be a good idea to explore the subject.

Just spend a moment to think about it. Life is a process but we are pushed and pulled, manipulated and categorized by all organizations, both commercial and governmental, and by some individuals who want us human individuals to behave in a certain regular, rational, manner such that this behaviour may be more easily statistically analysed or somehow meet with their approval.

The problem is that we humans are neither always regular in our activities nor are we always rational in our behaviour. We are not clones. The reliance on statistics to analyse behaviour reduces individuals to a collective; to a deviation from the mean; to a statistical probability. But I am not a statistical probability. I am me; unique. My thumb print tells me so, as does the pattern of my iris. Similarly the way I walk; my mannerisms; my height; the span of my fingers; the shape of my toenails – are all unique to me as are my thoughts and my life experience that shapes my behaviour.

As the American scientist Lewis Thomas said, “The social scientists have a long way to go to catch up, but they may be up to the most important scientific business of all, if and when they finally get to the right questions. Our behaviour towards each other is the strangest, most unpredictable, and almost entirely unaccountable of the phenomena with which we are obliged to live.”

Marketers and advertisers obviously do what they can to gather information about our “habits” to try and improve “market penetration” because it pays. We are subjected to hours of advertising on TV and on radio; magazines and the media generally are saturated with advertising exhorting us to buy this or that product because we “deserve it”. We are “channelled” into the aisles in supermarkets; our purchases are tracked by loyalty cards; we are asked to complete surveys and given the prospect of a “reward”; our personal details are “shopped” to any organization that may want to pay for them.

However, there is nothing in life that is certain except for the fact that if this is being read a birth took place. If a birth took place, a person was born, and the fact that a person was born means that someday there will be a death (and the payment of taxes in the by-going!). We may be unwilling to dwell on this but it is true. Apart from those two facts nothing is certain. Not the economy; not relationships; not possessions; not one’s job. Nothing!

This overall uncertainty seems to inspire us all to strive for some certainty in life that leads many to seek some assurance, for something to ‘hang our hat on’. Hence the desire for plans, budgets, for exactitude in anything and everything. But a process (which is what life is) can never have certain results. In a process there are variables and reliance on anything or anyone (even oneself) is a gamble – sometime it comes off, sometimes it doesn’t.

To get round the problem of life’s inability to provide any certainty many of us give up and simply conform to society’s ‘norms’. We ignore, or most likely forget, that life is, actually, a process. This presents a paradox. To conform means to follow others. But to do what others do or want us to do, means losing our identity. By conforming to what others consider normal behaviour we gives up a great deal, and risk becoming a dumbed down version of who we really are. It means approval by others to be part of the ‘team’. It means being led by others; to do what the majority do; to think the way the majority think, whether or not this is a comfortable situation. We adjust our behaviour to meet the accepted “norms” or expectations of society, the community, a group, or some other person.

Is this really a natural choice? We are each an individual, with our own hopes and aspirations and, to be quite frank doing what others suggest or direct, is not going to help anyone develop as a human being or to lead a fulfilling life. Trying to do so is stressful. It may be ok for a while, but deep down there will always be that question, ‘what if ...?’

The answer is in establishing our individual values; that set of core beliefs that form our character and cannot be transgressed without long term angst and discomfort. This not always easily done, because of the desire, or requirement to conform. To stand out from the crowd takes courage and possible vilification; certainly some hard words will be said and heard. It is, however, absolutely necessary for our long term mental harmony.

Very few of the judgements we make on a daily basis, about what is “right” or “wrong” are made by us, based on our true understanding of the situation as presented. It often seems that the more important the decision, the less likely we are to use our own thoughts and ideas, based on our own experiences. In most cases we have chosen to accept someone else’s decisions. Someone who came before and who, presumably, must know better. Otherwise why accept their decision?

Everything we do is as a result of a thought; this is fundamental to the process that is called life, which is dynamic. To move (mentally) is to grow. To stay still is to stagnate, to risk the death of ideas, thought processes and initiative. Living in the past was never possible. The present moment, now, is the only time that Life is actually present. The past is but a memory and the future still a dream. Thus the process of life can only take place with full recognition of what is happening at this precise moment. Here, now.  

When all is said and done we are all Human Beings not just Human Doers. Just doing what others tell us to do has not got us very far – in fact it has got us into a great deal of trouble! If only we could learn to be what we choose to be, and then strive to become that.

No one can solve our problems in the way we can; no one can react the same way that we will, to life’s trials and tribulations so, as I said at the beginning of this post, “Why dance to someone else’s tune?”