Thursday, July 26, 2012
SAVE the Children -
FROM salvation!
Where I got this quote is immaterial; it references the millions who think in this way and it makes me so compassionate toward innocent children. The quote (underline is my addition): ...our Vacaton Bible School at our small church. Every night I delivered 4 neighbor kids there, then went back 2 1/2 hours later to take them home. [This line reminded me instantly of the last time I attended a mass in the effort to be considerate of my Catholic friends. The spectacle of a woman carrying high above her head a large, open volume (something akin to the book of life, I suppose), with dozens of young children following her obediently down the isle toward a place to be catechized, hit me as a clear fulfillment of the lambs led to slaughter image.] cont. - ... 3 out of the 4 have hardly been inside a church; not sure about the 4th one. _____, 9yrs old, started asking me a lot of questions about what it means to be saved, what a Christian is, etc. At the end of the first night _____ gave a short talk about what salvation is, what sin is and how Jesus died for us. _____ went up to him afterwards to talk with him, said she wanted to receive salvation. [An emotional, ignorant and innocent 9-yr old wants to be accepted and adored by adults; any concept of salvation, which is an unsolvable mystery to adults, is too remote to even consider.] ____ asked her lots of questions, trying to make sure that she fully understood. [!] She answered as if she full-well did so he prayed with her, and hopefully there's one more little girl on her way to heaven!
Upon reading this comment (in a forum to which I subscribe) someone immediately took issue with the concept of going to heaven, which was cited as a non-biblical idea. My own exasperated, throw-hands-into-the-air thought was simply, it's all hog-wash! Why pick out any part of that whole quote and find singular fault with one tiny ludicrous item? Even if the concept of going to heaven could be shown to be based in a bible verse, so what? That concocted collection of books, written spuriously by various people from questionable, if any, educational backgrounds and from different centuries of life-span, all repeating age-old oral traditions and hearsay (including fantasies and outright lies at times, no doubt), has no realistic bearing on anything! Unless, of course, you choose to place significance upon that source. Your call!
Back in my fundamentalist kookdom days, our church (a small sect which was hyper-everything and fortunately has died away for the most part), thumped the bible heavily. The King James Version, mind you - all others were considered to be faulty and not to be trusted. Why the "original" KJV was beyond examination was never quite clear to me. Good old King James in the early seventeenth century had not been there personally to hear words from a son of god and write them down. The scribes of all eras and of all the various early manuscripts were as much removed from the "original" words as was James, so nobody can claim that all those words in the bible, KJV or any other, were actually worth anything as a purported history and recitation of words from some god-man.
To further the out-and-out emptiness of devoted belief in any of this stuff, the kookery of our little sect went so far as to encourage all of us believers to purchase our new King James Versions in the wide-margin printing style because that allowed us to put tiny printing of our own beside the scriptures - an important step in returning at a later reading of the bible (which was supposed to be repeated often) and recall the interesting and meaningful nuances of these scriptures as explained to us by some preacher or instructor. We also were shown how to use a variety of colored pencils and markers to easily reference from one scripture to another, thereby making it easier (apparently) to find the true meaning(!) of each by cross-referencing them with one another.
I often have wondered how many followers of that particular sect in later years had actually been trained in their beliefs (given their catechism of sorts) from the margins of those elaborate coloring books as much as they were from what was supposed to be "every word of God." I'm sure many of those believers who did that intricate and painstaking notation did so with absolute devotion to the deepest understanding of and yearning for truth and had the best of motives; therefore, the notes themselves, since they were in the bible were thought to be pretty much the same as holy writ.
My point of all this is not to be overly critical of any individual (judging others is very unwise), but to bring attention to the foolishness that has grown over centuries and is often more harmful than helpful. In particular, the idea of foisting off these wildly speculative ideas of heaven, hell, gods, angels, spirit, sin, salvation - any of the varying concepts of belief - onto the young minds of our innocent children is simply a crime. When a young person who has reached his/her best learning years of early adulthood has questions that lead to studies of many religious concepts and traditional beliefs, then that maturing individual has access to abundant resources which can be checked out and evaluated. I do not think it is criminal (even if a waste of time) for capable students to delve into any kind of research or interests on their own; but it is criminal of us adults to force religious ideas onto the unsuspecting and unprepared minds of young children.
Now I must add that I do understand that someone reading this will try that quoting of scripture thing - will point out that in the Book of Proverbs we are told to "train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it." Right - the very thing that Catholics have accomplished to a superior level. But I remind the reader that I have already stated my opinion that all those words are at best meaningless and at worst are harmful to the human psyche. I readily reveal my own total disdain for any of those writings as being nothing more than stories that grew into methods of control over humans. And will you train a child in ways known to ancient (biblical) man, i.e., a way of trade (barter) or of construction (cave or simple shelter) or of meat storage (curing with salt and hoping for the best), and then turn him out into a world for which he is ill-prepared? Will you instruct him or her to fear a heavenly being? Again, your call. Hamper a child by loading him with traditional baggage and watch him struggle to carry it through a tough life. Then tell me it was all for the best.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Conscientious and CONSCIOUS Comedian
On occasion, I enjoy introducing someone of character to my readers. Usually it is not such a character! If you have not yet caught an episode of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, (on CBS) do yourself a favor. Record the show one weeknight beginning at 12:35 A.M. (That's after midnight, which is why I personally record it and enjoy it at the sane old man's hour of 9:00 the following evening.) Even if you discover that you don't care at all for his zany type of humor, his ground-breaking concept of a show with a sidekick who is actually a robot, his left-over Scottish accent which he plays to a fine effect - you can't go wrong in checking him out.
Ferguson also leaves his show for a week each year to host one of the large July 4th celebrations in the country. For several years running, he was the face of the Boston fireworks display that included great performances by The Boston Pops on a plaza near the Charles River. He was chosen as the comic to host one of the annual correspondents dinners in Washington D.C. back in the Bush years (a tough job for anyone!). And that was at the very time he was swearing his new citizenship in the USA.
Well, there is plenty online and in books he has written and elsewhere, so I cannot add anything other than to state my personal preference of this very bright man as my all-time favorite comedian. And it isn't all about his twist of comic craziness. Much of my high esteem for the guy is due to the very touching manner in which he handles such UNfunny realities as the deaths of his parents (who died in Scotland about two years apart but both during his 7-year run of his show in Los Angeles) and this most recent tragedy of the theater shootings in Colorado.
If you know nothing about Craig Ferguson, I do hope you will click on the above link.
Ferguson also leaves his show for a week each year to host one of the large July 4th celebrations in the country. For several years running, he was the face of the Boston fireworks display that included great performances by The Boston Pops on a plaza near the Charles River. He was chosen as the comic to host one of the annual correspondents dinners in Washington D.C. back in the Bush years (a tough job for anyone!). And that was at the very time he was swearing his new citizenship in the USA.
Well, there is plenty online and in books he has written and elsewhere, so I cannot add anything other than to state my personal preference of this very bright man as my all-time favorite comedian. And it isn't all about his twist of comic craziness. Much of my high esteem for the guy is due to the very touching manner in which he handles such UNfunny realities as the deaths of his parents (who died in Scotland about two years apart but both during his 7-year run of his show in Los Angeles) and this most recent tragedy of the theater shootings in Colorado.
If you know nothing about Craig Ferguson, I do hope you will click on the above link.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Arrogating Americanism
If Prager speaks for a majority on the political right, then the right is wrong!
My deep respect for a friend (who made a sincere request) has caused me to make a valiant effort to struggle through a recent book by Dennis Prager. The struggle began in the very introduction where Prager labels me - my life, my goals, my very nature - as un-American!
The link I used above directs the reader to the whole Google search for the man because there are many different avenues one may take to discover what he is supposed to represent. What he represents to me is pure arrogance in the name of some imagined fundamental Christianity upon which our nation was supposedly founded. He is wrong, despicable and damaging to any sound future of America!
The obvious fact that this man is intelligent and successful does not make him right; he is merely accepted by and supported by the right. His major battle this book has launched is against the left. And the left he describes quite clearly as all of us who have views other than Christian conservatism.
Prager's claim that the Republican, right-wing political view is the ONLY one representing Americanism and that truth and the American Way are under attack from a sinister secular wave of socialism is the most flawed excuse for thinking I have witnessed in a long time. And I am personally offended to hear that my whole way of life, as a Golden Rule-guided Humanist, is somehow UN-American!
Then this Limbaugh in religious garb (crude nuttiness 2.0) has the temerity to invoke our founding fathers as backing for his claptrap.
Well, Mr. Prager - how's this for showing myself to be UN-American: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!
At the very root of Americanism is the freedom of speech, and fools of all stripes engage in speech that may or may not offer any edification to mankind. That applies to all I write and all that Prager writes. But as far as my words go, they do not claim to be any authority on anything - only food for thought. Prager wants all to heed his words because they are purportedly the paraphrasing of holy words and he readily claims attachment to a strong Christian heritage. He also freely ascribes that heritage to our nation and wants all of us who proclaim no religious connection to buzz off and quit claiming to be Americans!
Prager fears the left and he fears the fact that progressives are pushing for improvements for our future, which includes the support of better education for our youth. He fears youth itself! He fears too much change will undermine the stable "goodness" of America. Naturally, he has many fears; his whole claim to a sound connection to life is his firm belief in the fantasies and superstitions of religious teachings. Traditional religious belief is to him, sacred and beyond examination. He clearly cites The Enlightenment as the beginning of the troubles of humanity. Those crazy eighteenth century thinkers who preached reason were never to be trusted! Why, they even dared to question the Pope and sought a new foundation for living a good life, without the shackles of ethereal and infallible belief. Prager obviously does NOT fear the infallibility of belief, as reasoning people do.
Yes, I defend even this idiotic blathering as his right to print in books and sell to the public. Never mind that I would like to see this book (Still The Best Hope) reach the top of the non-seller list!
Does Prager, or do any of his ilk, even know that our great nation and powerful constitution were founded on this wave of enlightenment rather than on Christian tenets? The fact that our forefathers were bright enough to assure a freedom of religion (which includes a freedom from religion), has been a major contributing factor to our true Americanism and to our success as a government. Does he even grasp that if it weren't for the secularism built into our government (which is frightfully close to being overwhelmed by Christian radicalism today) we would not likely have survived as a free nation? He probably detests the above quote about free speech because it is manifestly from the writings of the enlightened, whether penned by Voltaire or by Beatrice Hall who edited The Friends of Voltaire - or maybe by some other enlightened soul. The thought is so deeply American in its intent that little else can compare to it in exemplifying the Americanism which Prager so glibly tries to pilfer and turn into some Christian ideology.
It is due to a morality based in enlightened understanding, a much more fundamental and work-a-day morality than Prager's flawed concept of unassailable Christian morality, that even allows him to write such irresponsible bovine fecal material and sell it to other fearful souls for his own profit. Welcome to the real America where we tolerate fools.
My deep respect for a friend (who made a sincere request) has caused me to make a valiant effort to struggle through a recent book by Dennis Prager. The struggle began in the very introduction where Prager labels me - my life, my goals, my very nature - as un-American!
The link I used above directs the reader to the whole Google search for the man because there are many different avenues one may take to discover what he is supposed to represent. What he represents to me is pure arrogance in the name of some imagined fundamental Christianity upon which our nation was supposedly founded. He is wrong, despicable and damaging to any sound future of America!
The obvious fact that this man is intelligent and successful does not make him right; he is merely accepted by and supported by the right. His major battle this book has launched is against the left. And the left he describes quite clearly as all of us who have views other than Christian conservatism.
Prager's claim that the Republican, right-wing political view is the ONLY one representing Americanism and that truth and the American Way are under attack from a sinister secular wave of socialism is the most flawed excuse for thinking I have witnessed in a long time. And I am personally offended to hear that my whole way of life, as a Golden Rule-guided Humanist, is somehow UN-American!
Then this Limbaugh in religious garb (crude nuttiness 2.0) has the temerity to invoke our founding fathers as backing for his claptrap.
Well, Mr. Prager - how's this for showing myself to be UN-American: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!
At the very root of Americanism is the freedom of speech, and fools of all stripes engage in speech that may or may not offer any edification to mankind. That applies to all I write and all that Prager writes. But as far as my words go, they do not claim to be any authority on anything - only food for thought. Prager wants all to heed his words because they are purportedly the paraphrasing of holy words and he readily claims attachment to a strong Christian heritage. He also freely ascribes that heritage to our nation and wants all of us who proclaim no religious connection to buzz off and quit claiming to be Americans!
Prager fears the left and he fears the fact that progressives are pushing for improvements for our future, which includes the support of better education for our youth. He fears youth itself! He fears too much change will undermine the stable "goodness" of America. Naturally, he has many fears; his whole claim to a sound connection to life is his firm belief in the fantasies and superstitions of religious teachings. Traditional religious belief is to him, sacred and beyond examination. He clearly cites The Enlightenment as the beginning of the troubles of humanity. Those crazy eighteenth century thinkers who preached reason were never to be trusted! Why, they even dared to question the Pope and sought a new foundation for living a good life, without the shackles of ethereal and infallible belief. Prager obviously does NOT fear the infallibility of belief, as reasoning people do.
Yes, I defend even this idiotic blathering as his right to print in books and sell to the public. Never mind that I would like to see this book (Still The Best Hope) reach the top of the non-seller list!
Does Prager, or do any of his ilk, even know that our great nation and powerful constitution were founded on this wave of enlightenment rather than on Christian tenets? The fact that our forefathers were bright enough to assure a freedom of religion (which includes a freedom from religion), has been a major contributing factor to our true Americanism and to our success as a government. Does he even grasp that if it weren't for the secularism built into our government (which is frightfully close to being overwhelmed by Christian radicalism today) we would not likely have survived as a free nation? He probably detests the above quote about free speech because it is manifestly from the writings of the enlightened, whether penned by Voltaire or by Beatrice Hall who edited The Friends of Voltaire - or maybe by some other enlightened soul. The thought is so deeply American in its intent that little else can compare to it in exemplifying the Americanism which Prager so glibly tries to pilfer and turn into some Christian ideology.
It is due to a morality based in enlightened understanding, a much more fundamental and work-a-day morality than Prager's flawed concept of unassailable Christian morality, that even allows him to write such irresponsible bovine fecal material and sell it to other fearful souls for his own profit. Welcome to the real America where we tolerate fools.
Friday, July 13, 2012
The PAT-HUG
Do you watch people who do the pat-hug? It is a curious half-hearted combination of two very personal actions, showing that neither is very sincere.
Just watch the end of a round of golf in the LPGA. The pat-hug has become the de rigueur counterpart to the male hand shake when competitors wrap-up a day's play. (Those hand-shakes can come across as pretty uninspired, too!) The pat-hug is used in many other situations as well, but to me anyway, it seems most practiced and least effectual here in the LPGA.
Perhaps I am totally wrong in this observation, but I do believe I see something that screams insincerity. And it can show up by surprise in varied circumstances.
In my estimation, the whole miss-managed action should be forsaken altogether. Think about it. If you know someone well enough that you feel a proper hug is called for and would not be offensive, then by all means, give a real hug. Let that person know you mean this personal gesture as your outward show of whatever love or condolence or congratulations the situation calls for. If you feel a person deserves a pat on the back, then give a sincere pat-on-the-back. That's it! No half-hug, piddly-pat combination gesture that lessens both in meaning.
Ever notice a referee in a wrestling match when a hold needs to be released? He gives a pat on the back to tell the person committing the disallowed hold that it's time to break it up. When I see a person involved in any hug that includes the little flutter pats on the back of the huggee, it says to me that the hugger is making that referee call on himself to his own desired end - that he entered the hug with the thought in mind that it needed to be broken up immediately. No lingering body togetherness to be endured for more than a split second. That's no hug! And the patting part is not really intended as a sincere pat-on-the-back with gusto. It merely says, "That's it, now I've done what I needed to do; please pull away!"
Recently I witnessed a man giving the pat-hug to his wife. That is really ugly. It literally made me wonder whether they might be fighting but had to show a good front to the public. My wife and I have been together for eighteen years, during which time I do not believe I have ever given her one of these less-than-real hugs. If my arms are around my wife, my hands on her body at some natural position gained when the hug began, the hands stay there, firmly saying "it's good to be next to you, holding you." If my wife deserves a pat on the back, I can also do that, and with full meaning, physically indicating "Congratulations," or "Well done," or whatever the case calls for. But since I am a hugger, she usually gets that full-bodied treatment over the pat because it goes farther to show my warm delight in her. She does NOT get both together in that silly little pat-hug.
When I hug a good friend, female or male, my hand on the back does not flutter in a method that calls the hold "disallowed." I hug meaningfully or I do not hug at all.
Have I ever committed the pat-hug? Yes, I confess to having done it, which is how I know what it means. Maybe it isn't the same for others, but it was clear to me that I was about to hug someone I didn't really want to pull against my own body, yet the circumstances seemed to say I should. Well, I don't do that nowadays. Because when I did it I felt myself allowing a "should" concept to override a desired (lack of) action, I gave myself permission to drop such half-meanings in the future. If you're getting a hug from me, prepare to be hugged, not patted! If you deserve a meaningful pat-on-the-back, I will stop short of knocking the wind out of you, but you will know I sincerely mean the pat!
Just watch the end of a round of golf in the LPGA. The pat-hug has become the de rigueur counterpart to the male hand shake when competitors wrap-up a day's play. (Those hand-shakes can come across as pretty uninspired, too!) The pat-hug is used in many other situations as well, but to me anyway, it seems most practiced and least effectual here in the LPGA.
Perhaps I am totally wrong in this observation, but I do believe I see something that screams insincerity. And it can show up by surprise in varied circumstances.
In my estimation, the whole miss-managed action should be forsaken altogether. Think about it. If you know someone well enough that you feel a proper hug is called for and would not be offensive, then by all means, give a real hug. Let that person know you mean this personal gesture as your outward show of whatever love or condolence or congratulations the situation calls for. If you feel a person deserves a pat on the back, then give a sincere pat-on-the-back. That's it! No half-hug, piddly-pat combination gesture that lessens both in meaning.
Ever notice a referee in a wrestling match when a hold needs to be released? He gives a pat on the back to tell the person committing the disallowed hold that it's time to break it up. When I see a person involved in any hug that includes the little flutter pats on the back of the huggee, it says to me that the hugger is making that referee call on himself to his own desired end - that he entered the hug with the thought in mind that it needed to be broken up immediately. No lingering body togetherness to be endured for more than a split second. That's no hug! And the patting part is not really intended as a sincere pat-on-the-back with gusto. It merely says, "That's it, now I've done what I needed to do; please pull away!"
Recently I witnessed a man giving the pat-hug to his wife. That is really ugly. It literally made me wonder whether they might be fighting but had to show a good front to the public. My wife and I have been together for eighteen years, during which time I do not believe I have ever given her one of these less-than-real hugs. If my arms are around my wife, my hands on her body at some natural position gained when the hug began, the hands stay there, firmly saying "it's good to be next to you, holding you." If my wife deserves a pat on the back, I can also do that, and with full meaning, physically indicating "Congratulations," or "Well done," or whatever the case calls for. But since I am a hugger, she usually gets that full-bodied treatment over the pat because it goes farther to show my warm delight in her. She does NOT get both together in that silly little pat-hug.
When I hug a good friend, female or male, my hand on the back does not flutter in a method that calls the hold "disallowed." I hug meaningfully or I do not hug at all.
Have I ever committed the pat-hug? Yes, I confess to having done it, which is how I know what it means. Maybe it isn't the same for others, but it was clear to me that I was about to hug someone I didn't really want to pull against my own body, yet the circumstances seemed to say I should. Well, I don't do that nowadays. Because when I did it I felt myself allowing a "should" concept to override a desired (lack of) action, I gave myself permission to drop such half-meanings in the future. If you're getting a hug from me, prepare to be hugged, not patted! If you deserve a meaningful pat-on-the-back, I will stop short of knocking the wind out of you, but you will know I sincerely mean the pat!
Friday, July 6, 2012
What Do ____ Want?
No, this is not another installment of my series, Rattle of the Sexes. It might better be billed under Prattle of the Nexus - or some other contrived creation of an ethereal heading. That's because the query I am posing is not one for which I can clearly produce an answer. Unfortunately, there may never be a clear answer forthcoming from any quarter.
We all can actually answer the age-old question of what do women want; we merely have to re-answer it hour-by-hour or perhaps with some, minute-by-minute. One minute it's merely a hug, next minute it is a new house.
But today's question is to another "W" group: What Do the Wealthy Want? The unlikelihood of a cohesive answer ever coming from them is due to the fact I am asking the question of a group that is not itself cohesive. There is no annual Convention of the Wealthy or Symposium to Satisfy the Desires of the Rich. Or at least not to my knowledge. But naturally, they would not contact me for any reason, so I am perhaps just completely in the dark.
But really, the question is an important one, and the subject is gaining in impact each day as the wealth of our society continues to be siphoned upward to that small point at the top of the societal pyramid while the foundation crumbles under deprivation. Yet again, any meaningful answer may never be attainable because the wealthy do not form a monolithic entity.
Ask Bill Gates and Warren Buffet what they want and even though they may be thought of as similar (they rank #2 and #3 in the world in individual wealth), they will not likely answer in the same way. Yes, they both are, fortunately for the planet, truly interested in a better world and are giving away massive amounts of their wealth to help others. Still, each will have a very individual slant on what he might really want. Ask Mitt Romney and perhaps he will honestly say he wants the power and recognition the presidency could bring. He might say he wants a more impressive mansion in San Diego for his future California White House. Rumor is, he is quadrupling the size of his existing shack there even now.
Ask Eike Batista and he may simply want to return to his higher position in the rankings; he slipped up recently and is now worth only around twenty billion bucks! Never heard of the guy? I hadn't either, but an article points out that he has recently lost over three billions in net worth and the measly $20.5 billions now listed as his personal wealth situates him at #23 in the world. I imagine he wants to climb higher.
Actually, if Batista's answer really is that he merely wants more wealth, then perhaps we have a general answer that could clarify the motives of most of the 1-percenters. It just does not make sense to me that as a class, these folks want more. It is vaguely understandable that each individual tycoon might be competitive with the others and want to ascend to the rarefied atmosphere of richest in the world. But competition over-all cannot be a factor in the general wanting more by the whole class of the very wealthy. They long-since departed the known universe of the rest of us; they have no actual competition.
So what could be the motivation for the most wealthy of the world to want power over governments and influence over elected officials of our - or any - government? Yes, the power to guide policies that allow for the rich to get richer, we know that has to be part of the motive. But why? More is simply more! What can a person do with forty billions that he could not have done with twenty billions?
Or is the internal competition for the very top of the Forbes list actually the main motivator after all and it isn't the whole group of the 1% that is causing the buying votes furor? Maybe the Koch brothers want to influence policies that allow unlimited gains in oil and other areas of business they conduct but are also working quietly to not allow policies that might assist computer software's future successes, thereby making the #2 spot vulnerable. The brothers might think they could one day overtake Bill Gates. Maybe similar political shenanigans are working against Carlos Slim in the vast telecommunications and associated businesses that put him in the #1 richest spot. Perhaps even he could be unseated somewhere down the line. If this is the motive of Charles & David Koch, welcome to the face(s) of pure greed.
As an actor, living in Hollywood twenty years ago and working in film or video wherever I could land a gig, I had a general plan, a dream really, well in mind. If I could only make it over that seemingly insurmountable hurdle of getting into a weekly TV series and hang in there for a few seasons, I would then parlay my good fortune and fame into the start of a business. My thought (probably an illogical one considering success/failure ratios) was to open a classy restaurant near enough to the entertainment industry to attract lots of celebrities. Then while letting a great chef and an honest and capable manager take over the day-to-day responsibilities of the business, I would travel the world, see the sights, play golf in beautiful venues - enjoy the bounty of my success. Fact is, I still harbor that last part of the dream today, the money coming from the big lotto jackpot I plan to win!
So, if I should hit that jackpot, maybe even a huge one that puts more than a hundred million dollars in my account, what would I do with it? Well, besides traveling the world with my wife and securing homes and futures for my family, I would likely follow the good examples of Gates & Buffet and become a philanthropist - just on a very minor scale comparatively. But would I even consider trying to buy influence in order to get new governmental policies enacted that would result in my becoming richer? Right! Why don't you watch when I land the big bucks and then hold your breath until I show myself to be one of the typical greedy bastards. I know myself better. And I'm observing far too many of them nowadays!
We all can actually answer the age-old question of what do women want; we merely have to re-answer it hour-by-hour or perhaps with some, minute-by-minute. One minute it's merely a hug, next minute it is a new house.
But today's question is to another "W" group: What Do the Wealthy Want? The unlikelihood of a cohesive answer ever coming from them is due to the fact I am asking the question of a group that is not itself cohesive. There is no annual Convention of the Wealthy or Symposium to Satisfy the Desires of the Rich. Or at least not to my knowledge. But naturally, they would not contact me for any reason, so I am perhaps just completely in the dark.
But really, the question is an important one, and the subject is gaining in impact each day as the wealth of our society continues to be siphoned upward to that small point at the top of the societal pyramid while the foundation crumbles under deprivation. Yet again, any meaningful answer may never be attainable because the wealthy do not form a monolithic entity.
Ask Bill Gates and Warren Buffet what they want and even though they may be thought of as similar (they rank #2 and #3 in the world in individual wealth), they will not likely answer in the same way. Yes, they both are, fortunately for the planet, truly interested in a better world and are giving away massive amounts of their wealth to help others. Still, each will have a very individual slant on what he might really want. Ask Mitt Romney and perhaps he will honestly say he wants the power and recognition the presidency could bring. He might say he wants a more impressive mansion in San Diego for his future California White House. Rumor is, he is quadrupling the size of his existing shack there even now.
Ask Eike Batista and he may simply want to return to his higher position in the rankings; he slipped up recently and is now worth only around twenty billion bucks! Never heard of the guy? I hadn't either, but an article points out that he has recently lost over three billions in net worth and the measly $20.5 billions now listed as his personal wealth situates him at #23 in the world. I imagine he wants to climb higher.
Actually, if Batista's answer really is that he merely wants more wealth, then perhaps we have a general answer that could clarify the motives of most of the 1-percenters. It just does not make sense to me that as a class, these folks want more. It is vaguely understandable that each individual tycoon might be competitive with the others and want to ascend to the rarefied atmosphere of richest in the world. But competition over-all cannot be a factor in the general wanting more by the whole class of the very wealthy. They long-since departed the known universe of the rest of us; they have no actual competition.
So what could be the motivation for the most wealthy of the world to want power over governments and influence over elected officials of our - or any - government? Yes, the power to guide policies that allow for the rich to get richer, we know that has to be part of the motive. But why? More is simply more! What can a person do with forty billions that he could not have done with twenty billions?
Or is the internal competition for the very top of the Forbes list actually the main motivator after all and it isn't the whole group of the 1% that is causing the buying votes furor? Maybe the Koch brothers want to influence policies that allow unlimited gains in oil and other areas of business they conduct but are also working quietly to not allow policies that might assist computer software's future successes, thereby making the #2 spot vulnerable. The brothers might think they could one day overtake Bill Gates. Maybe similar political shenanigans are working against Carlos Slim in the vast telecommunications and associated businesses that put him in the #1 richest spot. Perhaps even he could be unseated somewhere down the line. If this is the motive of Charles & David Koch, welcome to the face(s) of pure greed.
As an actor, living in Hollywood twenty years ago and working in film or video wherever I could land a gig, I had a general plan, a dream really, well in mind. If I could only make it over that seemingly insurmountable hurdle of getting into a weekly TV series and hang in there for a few seasons, I would then parlay my good fortune and fame into the start of a business. My thought (probably an illogical one considering success/failure ratios) was to open a classy restaurant near enough to the entertainment industry to attract lots of celebrities. Then while letting a great chef and an honest and capable manager take over the day-to-day responsibilities of the business, I would travel the world, see the sights, play golf in beautiful venues - enjoy the bounty of my success. Fact is, I still harbor that last part of the dream today, the money coming from the big lotto jackpot I plan to win!
So, if I should hit that jackpot, maybe even a huge one that puts more than a hundred million dollars in my account, what would I do with it? Well, besides traveling the world with my wife and securing homes and futures for my family, I would likely follow the good examples of Gates & Buffet and become a philanthropist - just on a very minor scale comparatively. But would I even consider trying to buy influence in order to get new governmental policies enacted that would result in my becoming richer? Right! Why don't you watch when I land the big bucks and then hold your breath until I show myself to be one of the typical greedy bastards. I know myself better. And I'm observing far too many of them nowadays!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)