 |
| Rob's Soapbox | ||
|
Congratulations!
You have finally landed on the one page on this entire site (and on the entire internet for that matter) that is purely without bullshit... my soapbox page. There are a lot of times during our show that, whether it's because of time constraints and other obligations, I don't always get to address some issues that I feel don't get the attention they deserve. There are even more times when I just don't feel like waiting until the show the next day to get some things off my chest. Thus, I have started the "Rob's Soapbox" page. If you have clicked on this page looking for someone to coddle your fragile sense of self-esteem, or tell you what you want to hear or to reinforce your outdated world view, then exit this page right now and go somewhere else. If you are in search of the last forum for reason and common sense left in the world, then sit back, relax, and enjoy. I make only one promise with this soapbox page... if you read long enough and often enough, you will eventually be offended. So here's my latest soapbox. Listen up, 'cause you just might learn something... |
||
|
||
|
May 7th, 2007 UNDERSTANDING AMERICA'S CULTURE OF WINNING Weeks ago I made the comment on air that America is a "culture of winners." I forget the context of the conversation, but the message and slogan are hardly new or unique to my way of thinking. Like it or not, America is, at all levels a culture that is based on who wins. Big houses, big cars, big bankrolls, big trophies, big grades, big scholarships, even big churches all define who we are and who we follow as a society. In order to define such winners, I remarked in that on-air discussion, that we need losers. Losers define who the winners are in our society, I argued then and now. That comment sparked an email from a listener named Chad who lives in Rocklin. He wrote: "Dear Rob, I will readily agree we are a culture of winners. I want to succeed. I want to reach all of my goals and see all of my dreams come to fruition. What I disagree on, however, is that if I reach my goals and succeed in my dreams that someone else must lose. The only time there are winners and losers is when people compete against each other. Your goal and dream of becoming rich and famous is not necessarily connected to my dream of being rich and famous. The might both be possible. You becoming rich and famous does not mean that I cannot. Your dreams and goals and others' dreams and goals do not, at this point, affect my own. So while in some respects I'm still working towards my dreams and goals, I have not "lost" because I have not gotten their yet, while others have." Before I address all that is wrong with Chad's letter, allow me a few asides; for starters, the fact that a listener mail was powerful enough to become the subject of a soapbox speaks volumes. Most of you are illiterate maggots who bore me, while Chad at least challenged my senses. More specifically, there are myriad of minute issues that I agree with Chad's letter on in the abstract: The basic premise of Chad's letter is correct, while simultaneously flawed and simplistic. It is correct in the sense that not all of us directly compete with another person head to head to define our ability to win, thus damning them to losing. It is also correct that in America there are a seemingly endless amount of opportunities for people to "win," depending on how they define such. Beyond these points, however, Chad is wrong. I suspect that Chad is simply part of our ever growing "feel good" society that actually believes that honesty and niceness can and should go hand in hand. This, of course, is sophistry if forced to choose and should always fall to the side of honesty. The truth will always be the truth, no matter how harsh. I am very sorry that people must lose and/or be defined as losers in order to determine who wins, but it is, at the end of the day, the truth. This whole ridiculous mindset of Chad's and people like him began years ago when losers of head to head sporting events would say asinine things like, "well, at least we got there," Thus began the language of loser talk. Only a loser would be satisfied at having a chance to win. Winners win and accept nothing less. In fact, those of us who are winners would rather finish last than finish second. To us, it's all the same unless you win. As for non head-to-head related issues, this brings us to Chad's inability to be mean in the face of honesty. How dare we label someone a loser, say people like him? It's quite simple, really. Certainly I can become a fantastic father and husband while not directly competing against my neighbor, best friend or anyone else. However, the only way we know how great I am is by abstractly comparing me (in this hypothetical) to a "loser dad" or "loser husband" who beats or deprives the people he should be providing for and protecting. Thus, a loser exists as a barometer. Chad wants to argue that all successes have direct comparisons, which I never claimed. If that were true, everyone who wasn't Bill Gates would be a financial loser, which is clearly not true. However, just because no direct competition doesn't exist, doesn't mean that there aren't losers… just ask the guy who can't find shelter from the rain because he spent all of his money on hooch. As for the argument that an individuals' ability to dream does not, at any time, have to be connected to other people. That's just Pollyanna personified. Whether you are pursuing your dream to own your own business, have the best talk show or simply be the best son you can be, there will always be people who are pushed aside, deprived, or passed over in your path to success. Accepting that truth is a prerequisite to being a part of the American culture of winners. If you aren't prepared to do so, then happily accept your place amongst the mediocre and leave us winners alone.
|
||