"Change!" "Change is coming to America!" The battlecry of Barack Obama in 2008, change definitely happens all the time, but by definition it's not always good: otherwise the world would never have battles, diseases, villains, or organized crime. Truth is, what Barack should say is "Positive Change is coming!" or "Positive Change!" Cuz I'm not sure what the exact percentage distribution of positive change is to negative change, but I'm pretty confident (95% confidence interval-from statistics class) that it's near 50-50.
Yea, "change" is always one of those expressions/ideas I always cringe at, kinda like "Ok. Why not?" Well......"Why not" is you could lose a lot of money, people could die, you could get hurt, etc. etc., etc., so that question is definitely NOT as rhetorical as people make it out to be. The same concept applies to "change"..... most people make it into some positive energy field that people should always be striving for: in fact, the Resident Adviser training at USC preaches that as part of its curriculum: Change!!!! At the time I followed the herd and repeated their mantra, but even then I didn't totally agree with it: I mean, don't you need some caveat in there? What if someone "changes" from the nicest person you ever met a raging alcoholic who doesn't care about anyone else? I mean, especially at a top-tier university like USC, the students tend to be high-achieving, well-mannered, driven young studnes (albeit maybe a large proportion than most schools having pretty rich parents), to the extent that it becomes a bad gamble to try to change them, given the large amount of things they could become that are worse than a high-achieving, well-mannered, driven young student at a top-tier university as opposed to the list of things that are better? ( I guess you could be the same at Harvard, etc., and be just ANGELICALLY nice...)
The point is, telling someone to "change" innately assumes that there's something wrong with them and that they NEED to change something, which may not be the case. Same thing with presidential elections: telling a country it needs to "Change" might not be the best: Consider that although the US has its flaws and imperfections, it's still one of the top 3 countries in the world economically, socially, life-style wise... it's why other countries model their governments/business systems/court systems after ours.. it WORKS. It could be a lot worse. Consider that even in 2008, when Obama was running for President, right before August when the finanical meltdown happened, that was probably one of the BEST times in American history. Dow Jones running high, new inventions coming out like Youtube, Iphones, electric cars, housing market still booming, gradually pulling out of wars in the US...... wouldn't you actally WANT it to be more 2008 than say.......late 2011? ( This is not a political plea, although it may sound like it, about the competence or abilities of one President Obama). Actually, you can say the same thing about the last several presidents and their election years.... 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992........don't we kinda want some of those years too? I mean, at some point it becomes, "if it's working, don't fix it," or "the grass is always greener" or "be content with what you got" or any number of other cliches. Personally, for me, if the world could always operate like it did in 2005, that'd be just groovy: White Sox win the World Series, booming housing market, booming tech market, booming global trade, you name it, we got it.
Plus, some people just don't LIKE change.
My grandpa doesn't like to change habits: he goes throught he same daily routine every day: get up at the same time, do morning exercies, read the morning paper, do some advanced math, eat lunch, go out for a walk, spend dinner with the family, watch news on the TV, read a bit, and then go to bed, call it a day. That's what he wants, he's content with that, he wants nothing more: nohing can be improved on that. I personally also do not like change. I'm moving out into a new apartment and I'm apprehensive about it (not like in a "I'm going to get murdered in a haunted mansion" kind of way, but only in that it's outside my cofort zone, I don't really need to move over there. It's a hassle, Change is risky; there are a lot of variables, a lot of unknowns, known unkonwns and unknown unknowns (as much as Donald Rumsfeld sounded terrible on that soundbyte, it's actually a valid point). Personally, the less ambiguity it is the better. Heck, stocks on the Dow Jones trade higher because they have certainty; investors pay for that certainty. It's why if you were offered Choice A) have a 50-50 shot at getting $50 or $0 or Choice B) just get $25, you would take Choice B. You get the sure thing.
And I'm not saying I'm perfect, or for some reason I can't or won't change. In many ways, I should change:
I should put 2 hands on the steering wheel instead of 2, I should give more to charity, I should clean up my room/car more often. I admit I need to change in those areas. Positively. I do NOT admit to needing to go into a blanket "change" mode where I change things just for the sake of changing, or being spontaneous, or whatever. I think it's irresponsible to ask people to do that. Change for the positive, yes. "Change," generally? I'd rather take the sure thing. Gimme 2005 all over again, don't ever change.
Fantasize on,
Robert Yan
