The turn of events in the world

I haven't posted this past week, and it's not because I've run out of things to say. It's because I'm shocked by the turn of events in the world. Russia invaded Ukraine and most of the world united against the aggressor Russia. I'm astounded by how fast that happened, both the invasion and the reaction to it. We knew the invasion was coming, but the unity of the reaction impresses me. I'm so heartened to see all of the businesses that are pulling out of Russia, the freezing of Russian assets, etc. While I know that many Russians don't support Putin's decision or his world view, the fact remains that they are the only ones who can end his reign of terror and paranoia. They are the only ones who can rise up against him. It has to come from within their country. I'm all for supporting Ukraine with weapons and military equipment, and if need be, personnel, but only if absolutely necessary. But if we do, the USA and NATO will be part of a new world war, and what will that mean for humanity's future, especially if it becomes a nuclear war?

What has also surprised me is how many wealthy people there are in Russia, all of whom are worried about their wealth and their freedom now that sanctions are a reality. Russian oligarchs. I looked up the word oligarch just to be sure I understood its meaning. An oligarch is 'a person who is part of a small group holding power in a state'. Wikipedia defines Russian oligarchs as 'business oligarchs of the former Soviet republics who rapidly accumulated wealth during the era of Russian privatization in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s'. In other words, opportunists who got filthy rich at the expense of the country; they support Putin and their resources help to finance his invasion ( FACT SHEET: The United States Continues to Target Russian Oligarchs Enabling Putin’s War of Choice | The White House). Putin is very wealthy as are many in his cabinet and many of his cronies. Of course they want to preserve their wealth; in that respect they are no different than many American billionaires. The difference is that American billionaires are not considered to be oligarchs, although one can wonder at times about their intelligence and morality (or lack of it). I need only think of Jeff Bezos wanting the city of Rotterdam in the Netherlands to take down a bridge so that he can sail his 458 million dollar yacht out of the city (Rotterdam to partly dismantle historic bridge for Jeff Bezos’s superyacht | Netherlands | The Guardian). Rotterdam surprisingly enough has agreed to do that. Or Kim Kardashian paying 150 million dollars for her new private jet. People are starving in the world and they use amounts of money that 99% of the world population will never see during their entire lives.  

I'm not shocked about how power corrupts or about how absolute power corrupts absolutely. One need only take a look at some toxic workplaces to understand this. Unchecked power wreaks havoc on a workplace, just as it wreaks havoc on a country. One must stand up to power-hungry bullies and aggressors, but it seldom happens if they have the power. Toxic workplaces are like toxic countries, just on a smaller scale. You do as you're told or else. The 'or else' can be everything from being fired to being harassed, frozen out of the majority, or mocked. Imagine working for Trump and getting on his wrong side; we've all witnessed how he treated those he considered to be 'disloyal'. Luckily for the USA, its founders built in a set of checks and balances so that the president would never have absolute power. They did not want a king as leader of America. Trump is fascinated by authoritarian leaders like Putin; you could wonder if he wants to be in the same position, the undisputed leader with absolute power. 

The uncomfortable truth is that many people view the extremely wealthy as successful and good people. I'm sure a number of them are, but many aren't. Many are just plain amoral, unconcerned with the right and wrong of a particular issue. And men like Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and OJ Simpson, who are just plain immoral, who behave evilly because they think (know) they can get away with their abhorrent behavior. What surprises me are the number of people living in borderline poverty who think people like Trump, Bezos, or Gates really care about them. What don't they understand? Trump, Bezos, Gates, and other wealthy people do not represent them. They actually have no idea about how the other 99% of people in the world live. How can they, when if they want to travel, they hop on their private jets and avoid what the rest of us have to deal with anytime we want to travel--traffic on the way to the airport, queues at the airport, the economy section of the plane that packs people together like sardines. During the recent pandemic, they were not crammed into their tiny apartments in Manhattan or the Bronx, they were ensconced in their beach houses or vacation houses far from overpopulated cities. 

I don't envy the wealthy, I never have. I grew up with people who did, who wondered why they weren't wealthier, why they couldn't have what their wealthy friends had. I never cared too much about money. Had I cared, I certainly wouldn't have chosen an academic career. Scientists made very little money when I was starting out. I chose my career based on my interest in it, but I did of course know that it would pay me enough so that I could live and take care of myself. Most people think this way. I am appreciative of the innovation and jobs that the wealthy create when they start companies based on their innovative ideas, but at some point their wealth gets the upper hand and things get out of hand. They forget where they came from and they surround themselves with people who preferably don't remind them of where they came from. 

Putin seems to have forgotten where he came from. He is interested in preserving his power and wealth like most right-wing ultraconservatives. He may have been a communist once but no longer. He will kill many innocent people to protect his power and wealth. He is not interested in what is good for Russia, only in what is good for himself. He is both amoral and immoral and the world will eventually be better off without him. How that happens is anyone's guess. I am very grateful for all of the unnamed diplomats in the world who work tirelessly to preserve peace and prevent war. I never understood before what an important role they play in preserving the fragile peace in the world. God bless them. 

Reconceptualization and revitalization

Everywhere I turn in Oslo, whether I walk down a (once) quiet side street or a noisy major thoroughfare, there is a building project underway. Some of them are quite extensive, involving roads that have been ripped up in order to install new water pipes. Others are renovation projects—store facades that need sprucing up, brick buildings that need sanding, or co-op apartment complexes that are adding balconies or new windows to individual apartments. Still others are major new construction projects—new apartment complexes being built (the Akerselva river is riddled with large new complexes--not a trend I like very much, because they will end up choking the life out of the river), new parking houses, new ‘super’ malls. It doesn’t matter what kind of project is involved. All of them are indicative of how wealthy this country has become. This country has so much money that its communities can design and build local neighborhood shopping centers, only to reconceptualize them eight or so years later, which involves extensive renovations to the existing structure. It’s all about ‘concept’ these days--finding the new concept that replaces the old. The turnaround time for concepts is very short now. A good case in point—the St. Hanshaugen shopping center that opened perhaps eight or nine years ago. When it opened, there was a good bakery, a bookstore, a flower store, a women’s clothes boutique, a liquor store, a Nille (like the Dollar store in the USA), a supermarket, a dry cleaning store, a home design store, a pharmacy, to name a few. What’s left of the original stores in the center? The supermarket and the dry cleaning store. We hardly get a chance to get to know a local shopping center, and poof, it’s gone or changed several years later, reconceptualized and replaced by a ‘new and better shopping center’ that will likely be replaced yet again in several years. This is the way it’s done now, and the locals have no say in the matter. I do know that I don’t like the constant change because it destroys the continuity that is necessary to build a loyal customer base in a city neighborhood. And it's the creation of small neighborhoods with their own stores, local cafés and restaurants that makes cities feel a bit less impersonal and overwhelming. The old center had bakery with a little café where the retired and elderly would sometimes meet for coffee and cake. I enjoyed seeing that—the locals gathering to sit and chat for a while as part of their daily routine.

The Kjellands Hus shopping center is the closest local shopping center to our co-op complex, and is no more than about two city blocks from the St. Hanshaugen shopping center. It started out (in 2006, if I recall correctly) with a supermarket, bookstore, a very large computer/electronics store, sports boutique, a flower store, and a couple of restaurants. The computer/electronics store closed about a year ago, and the space has been converted into three new stores—a liquor shop, a pharmacy, and a Nille. Guess where they moved from? The St. Hanshaugen shopping center. It doesn’t make much sense to me. I’m not sure which shopping center did better business or attracted more customers, but it seems to me that the St. Hanshaugen shopping center is on its way out, even though the changes are presented as a kind of revitalization. Time will tell.   

The great divide

I notice more and more how purportedly classless (egalitarian) societies, like the one I live in, struggle with the reality that not all of its members enjoy materialistic equality. It becomes more apparent to me each day, especially as this country gets richer due to its oil money. All individuals living in this society have gotten richer during the past ten years, yes, but some individuals have achieved a higher level of wealth than others. Not all people make the same amounts of money nor do they own the same numbers and types of homes and cars. They are not equal in the materialistic sense, no matter how hard the government tries to make it so. And that will likely always be the case. A perfect utopian society on this earth seems unlikely (the notion has been around for many years)—a society where all members have exactly the same level of wealth, status, or material possessions. A society where all members have equal opportunities for public education and the same legal rights is achievable. But there is no guarantee that even if all children have the same opportunities from birth, that they will grow up to earn exactly the same amounts of money, or be similarly educated, ambitious, talented, hard-working, creative, innovative, or that they will behave in similar ways in any given situation. Society consists of unique individuals, and that uniqueness begins at birth. People will utilize their talents and gifts in different ways compared to all others around them, and that will inevitably lead to different career choices with the resultant income disparities. Not all types of work are rewarded with similar incomes; perhaps that reality lies in the future. Imagine a society with no salary differences whatsoever. That would change the way in which education is viewed, as well as how career progression is viewed.

But it is the definitions of rich and wealth in the materialistic sense that interest me. One hundred people gathered together in one room might not be able to come up with a working definition of ‘rich’ or ‘wealth’. Some people will define ‘rich’ or ‘wealth’ as owning one home and one car, whereas others consider themselves rich if they are able to rent an apartment and not own a car, but perhaps use their money to travel, while others require a home and a summer cottage, and several cars and maybe even a boat in order to feel as though they have achieved the requisite level of wealth. Some people will say that they are rich if they have freedom to do as they like and can come and go as they please; they may not be interested in owning many material possessions. So what then is the definition of ‘poor’? Individuals who rent an apartment and do not own a car, a vacation cottage or an expensive boat—are they to be considered poor if they are content with their economic situation? Can society force that definition upon them? To me these are difficult questions to ponder, let alone answer.

There seems to be a lot more envy now in society than I can remember from when I grew up. You need only look at a newspaper to understand that; if the rich open their mouths and tell the less rich how to live or what to do, or if they in any way go overboard in terms of flaunting their wealth, the less rich will tell them in no uncertain terms to shut up or try to take them down a few notches, again using the media to do so. But they do it in a way that smacks of envy.

Perhaps globalization and a relentless media have made us more aware of the haves and the have-nots. We again need only turn to the media for them to tell us how the rich live; all the gory details are there for our perusal. The danger is that constant immersion in the media-created focus on wealth fosters a false sense of reality--that all people can achieve wild levels of wealth, if only…….And who knows if this way of thinking has contributed to high levels of personal debt—in the craze to have as many material possessions as possible, even if it means personal ruin.

Sharing happiness and being happy for others

The death of Whitney Houston, like Amy Winehouse before her, is always a wake-up call to pay attention to the lives we have, right now, today. Today is all we have. Instead of wishing our lives away, hoping for better times in the future, or worrying too much about the past, we are reminded that it is best to focus on today. These are just two of many enormously-talented people in the world who achieved fame, years of fame, and for all their fame, did not seem to find the happiness they were seeking. Their lives sunk into the hell that is drug abuse; their personal pain and negative experiences are poignant reminders that fame and wealth will not necessarily bring happiness. I read somewhere that Whitney’s husband was jealous of her professional fame, and that this led to psychological and physical abuse on his part. If he managed to drag her down rather than her pulling him up, how sad is that. Is professional jealousy a common thing in marriage and relationships? I don’t know. Sometimes I am tempted to answer yes, especially the more fame and wealth one partner achieves compared to the other. Fame and wealth may be good to have; we may experience them as rewards for a job well-done. They may make life easier, but they cannot buy happiness or guarantee it. And that must be the bitter rub. With all the money in the world, one cannot buy the love of another, not if it is real love one is out after. And one cannot buy happiness.

Happiness is an elusive thing, and no one has managed to define it satisfactorily (at least for me) to date. It is a very personal experience—for some it may be the experience of family life, for others career success, for others the realization of personal dreams. For some it may be a combination of all these things. For others it may be daily contact with nature and with the animals and birds around us. It is important to acknowledge the happy times in our lives; important to tell others when we are happy. There is too much focus in our world on telling others when we are sad, depressed, upset, or angry; not enough focus on telling others when we are feeling happy, content, joyful or at peace, or when others make us happy. Why this is I cannot say. Perhaps we always want to share the negative. Or perhaps we are afraid to share the positive. Afraid that others will take our happiness from us, or come with a flippant or sarcastic comment concerning our happiness. Sometimes just verbalizing something positive sounds so strange, out-of-place, unnatural. Or perhaps we are afraid that we will hear the standard well-meaning advice that many people tell you—don’t get too wrapped up in your happiness; the bad times will come again. Don’t get too comfortable or don’t be too happy about being happy. As though that was a crime. Others may feel guilty about finding happiness, especially when they know that family and friends have not found it. Why can’t we be happy for others when they find happiness? It is no reflection on our lives if they find happiness. We can choose our responses, and I think it's best to choose to be happy for others and to support them when they are happy. Wouldn’t you want others to be happy for you when it’s your turn? Don’t you love the people who turn to you when you are happy and say—‘I’m so happy for you right now’. It’s freeing, it’s loving, it’s generosity in action. God bless those people.