On Sunday night, in almost the same timeslot as Sunday Night Football, Larry King aired a Special on CNN. It was called "A Dinner with the Kings". Larry King and his wife hosted the event, and Wolfgang Puck plied his culinary skills in the creation a multi-course meal fit for Kings.
If you didn't have the good fortune of watching the special, you can sample some of the fare here.
Many of the invited guests are arguably kings in their own right, having achieved crowning successes in their respective fields, from sports to television, from the world of fashion, music, and the Internet, to television host.
Tyra Banks, Shaquille O'Neal, Quincy Jones, Russell Brand, Seth MacFarlane, Jack Dorsey, Conan O'Brien--all royal standouts in their various industries, were seated, not around a Round Table, but an oblong one.
The guests responded to questions that Larry passed to them, first to one, and then to another, as one would pass a dish laden with food--after helping oneself--from one person to another.
Of the several questions that were passed from guest to guest, one, perhaps more than others, left a bitter taste in the mouth, and contributed to a likely case of indigestion.
Larry asked one guest: "What gets you angry?"
It was Conan O'Brien's answer to the question that would have had me reaching for a handful of Tums, or an Alka-Seltzer, had I been there:
"I think entitlements is my least favorite. I can't stand it when people think that they're entitled to something. I think our culture is very entitled. I honestly don't think I'm entitled to anything. I come from a culture where you get what you can...and you're grateful for it--but I don't think I deserve anything...we [his family] didn't feel any entitlement. I think in America there's a lot of I'm owed this and this."
O'Brien's statement came from a classic Republican/conservative recipe, a potluck dish secreted in to compete with a dish from one of the world's greatest chefs, Wolfgang Puck.
After the "entitlement" statement, O'Brien revealed: His mother became a lawyer, and his father was successful in his own right. It's easy to slam "entitlements" when your life has had the auspicious beginning that a upper-class upbringing can afford.
Larry King with a followup question asked: "Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]?"
O'Brien responded: "I don't know where that comes from."
As the camera panned them, Tyra Banks and Shaquille O'Neal appeared visibly uncomfortable with the subject, perhaps prompting Larry King, after a couple of more responses from his dinner guests, to quickly changed the subject.
But not before Russell Brand garnished the topic with a biting remark of his own, interpreting "entitlements" as it may relate to consumerism, and not as it may relate to people's expectations from the government and others in society. Harking back to the question, "Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]? he said:
"I don't know where that comes from...because you're told that you're nothing unless you can consume, unless you can purchase. People see these products and they want them. People are being accidentally marketed to who can't afford the products that they're being sold, they're being told they should have, that they deserve, because you're working, just do it....And there's been a void created, a spiritual void."
Not to be outdone, Seth MacFarlane added a pungent spice of his own to the evening's meal: It comes from "every politician on the planet saying, 'You know what, you're getting screwed, you deserve more, how are you, why are you, tolerating this.'"
Now, I'm willing to admit: O'Brien and MacFarlane may not have had the Arab Spring or the various Occupy Movements and their foreign supporters in mind when they made these statements, perhaps sprinkling a bit too much hot sauce on them, but neither did they answer the question that the host posed:
"Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]?"
The term, "entitlement," has various definitions:
The last definition Red Eye would refer to as "earned benefits," and rightfully so, as the term "entitlement" has been muddied by the likes of Frank Luntz.
1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group: "fights . . . to preserve victories won a generation ago, like the Medicaid entitlement for the poor" (Jason DeParle).
Rather than argue whether a "sense of entitlement" is prevalent throughout the world (which is absurd), or whether the Occupy Movement or the Arab Spring, or the unrest we see in England, or Greece, is symptomatic of this (which it's not), let me answer the question that the host, Larry King, or his several guests failed to answer to my satisfaction.
My answer will focus on "entitlement" as it pertains to this country, and not as it may be considered in other parts of the world.
To the question--"Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]?"--I have this answer: It comes from our Declaration of Independence and our U.S. Constitution. Entitlements, loosely defined, are Rights, pure and simple. Entitlements are what one has a right to expect from a government that has established itself as sovereign over the lives of those that fall within the sphere of its governance.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Over the past several decades, our federal and state governments have become "destructive of these ends," and a growing number of the people (especially those in the Occupy Movement) are exercising their rights--entitlements afforded them by their Constitution--"the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government," one that hasn't been corrupted by special-interest money.
And there are other Rights, entitlements, at the people's disposal. They're called the Bill of Rights:
Over a Wolfgang Puck meal, Conan O'Brien assured us that he didn't feel entitled: "I honestly don't think I'm entitled to anything."
Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Right to keep and bear arms
Conditions for quarters of soldiers
Right of search and seizure regulated
Provisions concerning prosecution
Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
Right to a trial by jury
Excessive bail, cruel punishment
Rule of construction of Constitution
Rights of the States under Constitution [1]
Well I do! And I'm not reticent to say so.
I'm entitled to the social contract that was drawn before I was born, one that I didn't have a hand in writing, but which has governed my actions, and those of many of my fellow Americans since its inception--the United States Constitution.
Because I pay taxes, I'm entitled to a government that actually works for the people and not corporate special interests that have more legislators and judges on their payroll, and in their pocket, than did Al Capone at the height of his infamy.
Because I vote, as a civically-minded member of my city, state, and nation, I'm entitled to have my vote count and not suppressed; I'm entitled to representatives--those who I helped elect to office--who will do their utmost to represent me and other constituents to the best of their ability, putting in more time to carry out the people's business than their own.
Because I live in the country in which I pay taxes, I'm entitled to a livable environment--clean air and clean water--and regulatory agencies that actually take steps to make sure that my air is breathable, and my water potable, and a Congress that stands with me against corporate polluters, rather than with them, patiently waiting for just the perfect moment to dismantle them and scuttle their live-saving mission.
Because I worked to become a contributing member of my community, I'm entitled to a government that works to be a contributing force in the lives of its many constituents, by assuring "that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [by affirming equal rights for all, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual preference], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life [by making health-care universal, and available to all], Liberty [by insisting that no one is above the law, and that all participate in the defense of this country, and help pay for the cost, regardless of social status] and the pursuit of Happiness [by providing opportunities to all, using a criterion of inclusion, rather than exclusion]. [2]
We may never achieve the status of kingliness in this lifetime that would satisfy Larry King's criterion sufficiently to be invited to his home for a royal dinner, or partake of a seven-course dinner created by the incomparable chef, Wolfgang Puck, but we can all do our part to elevate our government so that it is self-correcting, continuously monitoring and rectifying an errant system which is more vested in promoting social, political, and income inequality, where a few arrogate to themselves through their wealth, the people's power, than standing with the 99 percent.
When government fails the people, we the people are entitled by history, and by duty, "to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to [what] shall seem most likely to effect [our] Safety and Happiness."
[1] Read more about your Bill of Rights.
[2] See GrannyStandingForTruth latest blog entry
4 comments:
It's easy to slam "entitlements" when your life has had the auspicious beginning that a upper-class upbringing can afford.
Amen and Amen.
Another good read BD. Sorry I'm a bit late getting here to comment.
The Frank Lutz's of the world have set up a narrative that revolves around entitlement and the abuse thereof. Of course, the logical extension is that efforts must be undertaken to curb the abuses and set things back in balance. This, of course, shades the truth and efforts arise from this lie to go after the victims rather than the actual perpetrators.
Those who feel entitled and who've abused it are actually those who are a part of the 1%. They're the ones who've purchased the political system. They're the ones who are entitled to the suspension of sensible regulation to prevent their abuses. They're the one's who are the beneficiaries of tax cuts, wars and the government's "moral hazard insurance". Yet they receive all of this under other narratives like "increasing taxes will be a job killer", "the government needs to get out of the way with excessive regulations" or "we're paying the majority of the taxes, so we should get the tax cuts". And there's no shortage of sycophants at their beck and call to defend them. Apparently O'Brien is one of these.
When most folks like O'Brien talk about entitlements, the focus is never on who's walking away with the lion's share of the spoils, instead it's on stuff like immigration, welfare cheats, people who supposedly created the mortgage crisis because the government forced banks to lend to minorities and etc. Basically, anything but the actual narrative that approximates the truth.
False premises guarantee false policies and "solutions" to things that aren't the problem. This is pervasive throughout our society.
For e-mail followup
You're never late, Greg. You're always on time with your comments, to wit:
"False premises guarantee false policies and "solutions" to things that aren't the problem."
An inspired response.
You're right, our elected Representatives are perennially busy solving the wrong problems--social, and political--rather than dealing with the actual issues we're facing as a nation: too big to fail, a small number of mega-banks (6) with assets equivalent to 60% of our GDP, a 700 trillion dollar unregulated derivative market, a central bank extending billions in credit to foreign banks, trade imbalances, and a congress that's bought.
And I'm only getting started: The problem is larger and more complex than those I've cited.
"When most folks like O'Brien talk about entitlements, the focus is never on who's walking away with the lion's share of the spoils."
So true! If we added up all the money spent for social welfare, it wouldn't come close to the amount spent on corporate welfare, and other corporate entitlements.
"And there's no shortage of sycophants at their beck and call to defend them. Apparently O'Brien is one of these."
I wonder how long O'Brien could survive on the air with just the 1% tuning in. Truth be told: The 1% need the 99%, which is why some of them recently lobbied congress to raise their taxes--and brought down the ire of Fox News hosts, and some Republicans on the Hill.
Republicans real aim is to starve the beast, to dismantle government agencies that provide oversight of corporations, especially those that monitor pollution and control it, and to defeat the president in 2012, by keeping the economy on life support and without the needed infusion of new tax dollars to assure its recovery.
TeaPartyites, mostly comprised of older Americans, make the same distinction: They earned Social Security and Medicare; all others receiving government aid, such as Food Stamps, or government subsidized health care are freeloaders.
Yet, they don't seemed as outraged about government tax subsides for rapacious corporations.
"This, of course, shades the truth and efforts arise from this lie to go after the victims rather than the actual perpetrators."
Luntz is good at what he does, which is to provide spin to sell bad ideas, by appealing to the biases and bigotries of people--emotional appeals so convincing and so resonant, that people voluntarily lower their defenses.
The election of 2012 is going to make us, or break us. It's that pivotal to the future of this country as it will determine our trajectory for decades to come.
I wish I were more optimistic about the future than I am.
Post a Comment