Showing posts with label Glenn Beck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Glenn Beck. Show all posts

Friday, February 18, 2011

Is Our Competitive Spirit Helping or Hurting America?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Is Our Competitive Spirit Helping or Hurting America?

We accept a lot of so-called truisms simply because we've been told that they're true all of our lives. Take competition for example. From the day we start school most Americans are taught that our competitive spirit is what makes America great. But is that really true? Is competition really the most productive model for promoting human progress? I don't think so. While recently discussing this issue one gentleman said the following:

“Personally I don’t mind competition. It has brought us better roads, better cars, better airplanes, better vacations, better medicines, longer life spans, and in many cases, except for us damaged Vets, better health.. I don’t see honest competition as dysfunctional at all. Profiteering is okay also, as long as it is honest and based on productivity, job creation and boosting the human spirit. Why shouldn’t I be motivated by money, a bigger house, a nicer restaurant, to create the next Penicillin, the next Salk vaccine, the next aspirin, and all the jobs and opportunities these inventions have provided.”

I’ve heard this argument a million times, but we have absolutely no evidence that any of the things mentioned above are a result of competition. Neither do we have any evidence that suggests that competition is a more powerful motivator than the simple pursuit of excellence. The fact is, competition caters to the very worst in human nature - selfishness, hostility, and greed. Competition is only truly productive when we compete against our last best personal effort.

It's more likely, therefore, that human accomplishment has actually been stifled rather than enhanced by our childish need to be competitive. How much more might we have accomplished if instead of duplicating their efforts in pursuit of competitive greed, drug companies shared their knowledge in an effort to cure disease, or instead of the nations of the world spending trillions of dollars in global competition, that money was being used in a cooperative effort to enhance the plight of mankind?

The mere thought that man's primary imperative is in pursuit of conflict and greed - and that's essentially what competition is - is counterintuitive. The fact is, our tendency to be competitive rather than cooperative is man's primary dysfunction.

It would be interesting to see the results of an experiment where they took two footballs teams and trained one in the traditional way, and trained each member of the other team to focus on nothing but improving on their last best effort. I'm virtually certain that the latter team would prevail if all other things were equal.

And consider what life would be like if as a society we rewarded ourselves on character and intellect instead of how many “things” we could accumulate; if we rewarded our young people for creativity and scholarship instead of how often they could get a ball to go through a hoop; if teachers and scientists were the superstars in our society instead of self-absorbed dysfunctionals. Try to imagine the benefits to our society if young men aspired to getting into the best universities with the passion that they currently dream of getting into the NBA or NFL.

One of the immediate benefits of such a society would be a more informed citizenry. We would also neutralize the negative impact that money is having on our political system, because no matter how much money a corporation spent they wouldn't be able to pull the wool over our eyes by appealing to our emotions over our intellect. We would also have far less crime, since there would be no motive to obtain “things” to gain stature in society. And since character would be the coin of the realm, it would promote family values, because a father who abandoned his children would lose stature in the community. In such a society he would be looked upon with the kind of disdain that we currently look upon shiftless bums.

Another positive impact that such a philosophy would have on our politics would be, in a society that valued character over wealth a politician wouldn’t be assessed based on his longevity or on his ability to obstruct the opposing party. He or she would only be able to gain stature by what he was able to accomplish during his time in office. And the kind of destructive rhetoric that Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin engage in would be nonexistent. Instead of Democrats and Republicans arguing over what’s wrong with one another, each party would be engaged in showing how and why their respective positions would be more beneficial to the people. The fact is, with corporate profit removed from our politics, political differences would be far less pronounced.

Our need to compete is a misguided attempt to raise our personal feelings of self-worth by impressing others with superficial accomplishments, often in connection with some group or organization that we use as an extension of ourselves. That's why people like Dick Cheney, Limbaugh, and Beck are so fixated on the concept of American Exceptionalism, race, and "us against them." You can literally draw a profile of these kind of individuals. The lower their feelings of self-worth, the greater their need to feel a part of something "special" - a race, team, country, etc. They try to use it as an extension of themselves.

That's also why people of this ilk hate Barack Obama so intensely. Obama's character and natural intellect is a direct challenge to their delusions of grandeur, so they've dedicated their lives to trying to prove that he's just as flawed as they are.

Thus, in our misguided attempt to find personal self-esteem, we’ve collectively incorporated competition into our body politic, a flaw in our character that has become a direct threat to human survival. The only thing competition is good for is administering to our delusion of grandeur. And no matter how often we claim to be the best, or how loudly we proclaim American exceptionalism, both our collective and individual inner-selves will always know who we really are beneath our strutting veneer - just another group of flawed individuals, though, a little more arrogant than most.


Eric L. Wattree

http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.





Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Is Sarah Palin More Dangerous than the Average Guy in the Hood?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Is Sarah Palin More Dangerous than the Average Guy in the
Hood?




Date: January 15th, 2011
Name: Caroline Miniscule
Subject: Is Sarah Palin more dangerous than the average guy in the hood?
Comment: I don't think so.

"If you read all the information that is coming out about the loon who attempted to murder Giffords, you find out he was mentally unstable for some time. He could just have easily been set off by watching a WWF wrestling commercial, that shows steroid-pumped guys stomping people on the ground, breaking chairs over peoplels' backs, and so on. Or he could have been lstening to rap music which disses women and advocates the killing of police officers."

Writer's response:

Caroline,

You're either being disingenuous or you're incredibly naive. The fiscal conservatives (the corporatists) are using their army, the social conservatives (social bigots), to gain control over this country by any means necessary - and that includes insurrection. So by failing to speak out against this tactic Obama is allowing these factions to insert fascist rhetoric into the national debate, a tactic designed to both desensitize the American people to the thought of political violence, and to provide the GOP with plausible deniability.

You indicated that the "loon" who committed the shooting was mentally unstable so he could have gone after anyone. But he didn't. He was stopped by a police officer on the way to commit his crime who he could have killed, but he didn't. He passed by several locations closer to his home where he could have killed people, but he didn't. He went directly to a Democratic function to commit this crime.

Yes, he was unstable, but that's exactly who the corporatists are trying to incite with their inflammatory rhetoric to commit their crimes. Just since your comment California  governor, Jerry Brown, has been threatened with a specific day that he's going to be killed, and in Spokane, Washington a bomb was planted along the path of the Martin Luther King Day parade route. Coincident? I don't think so.

I'd also like to take a moment to debunk the myth being widely spread by the corporate media that merely mentioning the Nazis in response to what's currently going on in America is irresponsible and beyond the pale. That's total nonsense and is in direct contradiction to another adage that states that a crazy person is one who does the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. Thus, the corporate media is literally asking us to embrace insanity.

Demanding that we never mention Nazi tactics in relation to current conditions in this country not only demands that we totally ignore the experience that we gained from the most horrific period in world history, but also assume that there will never be another group comparable to the Nazis in the future.

So what if the comparison is valid and some contemporary faction in the nation is, in fact, comparable to the Nazis? What should we do, simply ignore them just to adhere to some arbitrary maxim? I'm sure they'd love that. Thus, on its face, the adage is a stupid rule of thumb  - and the only reason we've accepted it is because we're being reprogrammed out of our common sense, and our ability to be independent thinkers.

So we should actually be asking ourselves the following: 1). Who's promoting this nonsense? 2). What is their motive? And 3), what methods are they using to get us to so sheepishly buy into it?

But let me save you the trouble by answering those questions for you. It's being promoted by international corporatists in order to completely takeover the United States political system. They are systemically reprogramming us by destroying our educational system, and then using their corporatemedia to whisper in our ear from the time we wake up in the morning until the second we go to bed at night - and not only through the news media, but through televison programming, commercials, the entertainment media, our politicians, and even our brainwashed peers.

Less than a week after the FCC approved the Comcast takerover of MSNBC Keith Olbermann, one of the strongest advocates of progressive views left in broadcasting was fired. Could this be the beginning of the FOXification of MSNBC under Comcast?
*

*
Clear evidence of the insidious impact that the corporate media has had on our thinking is, I was told by many in response to my previous article, President Obama's Flowery Arizona Speech, that it would have been inappropriate for the president to voice political views at a memorial service. That's another adage that's mysteriously crept into our collective psyche. How did it get there?  It's certainly not a part of our history.

During the memorial services for the children killed in the Alabama church-place bombing Dr. Martin Luther King's said,"These children - unoffending, innocent, and beautiful - were the victims of one of the most vicious and tragic crimes ever perpetrated against humanity."  I'd call that a pretty forceful political indictment.

So in answer to the question posed, yes, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and many others are very much more dangerous than the average guy in the hood, and  President Obama's reluctance to speak out against them is clear evidence of that. 
*

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, January 14, 2011

President Obama's Flowery Arizona Speech

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE 

President Obama's Flowery Arizona Speech 


It is indeed interesting to see how all of a sudden the corporate media and the GOP have come together to praise the president's Arizona speech - even FOX News. After two years of calling him a communist, a friend to terrorists, a fraud, and a liar, the GOP has finally found a reason to praise him. The reason they're praising him, however, is because, yet again, he's allowed GOP criminals off the hook.

Now the GOP says this is no time for partisan politics, but when have we ever known any situation in the past, regardless of its gravity, that the GOP considered beyond partisan politics? They didn't consider the threatened collapse of the world's financial system above partisan politics, neither do they consider the loss of homes and the unemployment of millions of American citizen above partisan politics - and we still have Republicans riding 9/11 for political gain nine years after the fact.

So the true reason that Republicans want to hold the Arizona shooting up as being above partisan politics is because they know full well that they're guilty of creating the inflamed political environment that led directly to the tragedy taking place. Thus, what there's actually no time for is flowery sentimental speeches in lieu of decisive action.

This tragedy should be used to weed out a national cancer. That would be the greatest tribute that we could pay to it's victims. But President Obama's speech - as touching as it was - was an attempt to treat that cancer with an over-the-counter antiseptic, when what we need is radical surgery.

The president needs to recognize that the GOP is run by corporatists. These very same people are responsible for killing over a million Iraqi citizens, so they could care less about flowery speeches, nor, do they care about the life of one 9-year-old little girl. They have a corporate and political agenda to promote, so the life of one little girl is meaningless to them. They look upon her death as merely collateral damage. So the minute this uproar subsides it will be business as usual.

But President Obama doesn't seem to recognize that. He insists on adding sugar to strychnine so it won't taste so bad going down, then bringing us together in a rousing chorus of Kumbaya to ensure it's administered in a civil manner. He seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that the poison is still going to kill us in the end.

It's beginning to look like President Obama's not going to see the light until these people are goosestepping through Times Square - and I'm saying that as a moderate progressive. Recently elected GOP local chairman, Anthony Miller, on the other hand, could see the writing on the wall. He saw it so clearly, in fact, that he resigned his post - and he was in the GOP inner circle. So why can't the president see the light?

According to The Arizona Republic, Anthony Miller, "a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family's safety." The article goes on to say, "Miller told state Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen he was quitting: 'Today my wife of 20 yrs ask (sic) me do I think that my PCs (Precinct Committee members) will shoot at our home? So with this being said I am stepping down from LD20GOP Chairman...I will make a full statement on Monday.'" Three other party officials also resigned.

In addition, The Telegraph reported as far back as November 2008 that "The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks. Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: 'Why would they try to make people hate us?"' The article indicated that, "[Palin's] attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric" (Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama ).

So wake up, Mr. President. Part of being an effective leader is knowing when the time for talking is over and it's time to take decisive action - and being an apologists for domestic enemies of the state doesn't meet that test. You're inaction is allowing fascist rhetoric to become a routine part of the political debate, and that's not a good thing. This nation needs to confront the issue of inflammatory and insurrectionist rhetoric head on.

This kind of behavior simply cannot be tolerated in a free society. While the United States Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, along with that freedom comes responsibility. Thus, nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to be criminally negligent.

At times like this I wish you'd spent more time in the 'hood. Then you would have immediately recognized these people as classic bullies, and understand that appeasement is not going to work. The more you give a bully, the more emboldened they become - ask Neville Chamberlain. So stop making excuses for these people and step up to the plate, because the very last thing we need in this recklessly hostile environment is a president trying to be a nice guy - and you can ask Jimmy Carter about that one.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content