The Status Quo Always Dies Hard!

Many are incensed that Barack Obama received a Nobel Prize for having accomplished little or nothing "tangible". After all, it's just rhetoric and intentions! And rhetoric and intentions don't change anything!

Oh really?

Being a cynic myself, I would concur that rhetoric and intentions rarely do anything useful, but are they always futile? Here is a consciousness raiser: being that the status quo (which often is or becomes harmful to society at some point in its life) dies hard, how are we ever to move beyond the most dangerous ones? By paving new and untraveled roads.

Because the status quo is so entrenched in the mindset of a society, rhetoric and intentions must be sufficient to sow the seeds of change. Since Homo sapiens seem motivated predominantly by reward, how then do we pave the way for change? By rewarding and honoring rhetoric and intentions! This will then attract others to travel these new and untraveled roads. Over time, the status quo relinquishes its unshakeable grip and tangible changes ARE accomplished!

The BIGGEST of all questions is, which status quos have overstayed their welcomes and which have not? A tempting question to be sure, but this is not what I am addressing here. I am simply addressing WHY it is or at least could be beneficial for society to REWARD rhetoric and intentions alone.

If there was never incentive to change the status quo, how would it ever have changed?

Doomed To Be Hated 2

Barack Obama took criticism for giving the Queen of England an Ipod as opposed to something far more extravagant as is usual for a head-of-state. Should he have given her something much nicer, perhaps fancy jewels or some other priceless artifact?

On the other hand, if Obama had given the queen of England fancy jewels or some other priceless artifact, how does one suppose these same critics would have responded?

I have previously mentioned how hatred works (see Doomed To Be Hated) and in this case, the critics will always find fault with whatever is done or not only because they have set out to find fault in some way. And as I have said before, because there is no “perfect” answer to much of anything on this godforsaken mud-ball we call Earth, there will always be fault to find with any decision.

If Obama had lavished the Queen with luxurious excesses, I guarantee you these same critics would have waisted no time in pointing out how unconscionable this was especially given the current economic conditions and all the suffering many of his citizens are experiencing.

Once somebody is hated, this person is faced with a double-edged sword with any decision or action. How can Obama ever turn one of his haters into one of his lovers?

A Humbling Realization

Many resentfully claim Barack Obama is heavily supported by blacks primarily, perhaps only, because he is black. So what? How is this any different a manner in which we all tend to make decisions regarding political candidates or anything for that matter?

Many commonly base decisions primarily or only on somebody's physical attractiveness, religious persuasion, support for/against gun control, support for/against the right to abortion, support for high/low taxes/entitlements (presumably driven only by how these issues affect themselves/their group(s), etc.

One could surmise all these reasons for basing decisions as patently superficial, or not. It depends on the perspective utilized. Ultimately, we all base decisions primarily on how it benefits us or the group(s) we most identify with. This is simply evolutionary group selection at play.