Letters to the Editor
-
Thanks Peter
I am in complete agreement with your response to Oprah Winfrey’s latest trip to the land of self-aggrandizement. I have disliked this awful woman since she stood on the steps of a Texas courthouse and proclaimed that the winning of the libel suit brought against her by the Texas Cattlemen’s Association was “a victory for black women everywhere,” or some such nonsense. Really Oprah? In what way did this development help black women specifically? I have a suspicion that verdict helped only one woman. Gosh, Oprah, your contribution to the struggle for civil rights was so awesome.
Unfortunately, the great god Oprah is everywhere and she is a difficult entity to ignore, although I try and try. As one letter writer mentioned, many of the celebrities she interviews (like Sarah Jessica Parker) try to point out that they are lucky, they have achieved the things that they do because they possess the money to hire people to take care of the day-to-day business of living.
According to her new religion poverty is your fault because you lack the ability to wish prosperity into reality because too much time is spent wondering how to pay the phone bill, the rent or the kid’s doctor bills. Perhaps installing a spa in a leadership school will help wash away all of that negative energy. Giving more disadvantaged young women the benefit of an education is a step forward Oprah, super-clean pores appears to be a trivial matter in this process. How about a school for women in every city in every country? I imagine this would limit the time she has to pave the world with bullshit.
Of course, this ridiculous sideshow would not be possible in a society that teaches critical thinking (rather than leadership classes). Those who employ reason and decency and kindness in everyday life see right through her pathetic attempts to to make a difference with one 600 thread count egyptian cotton towel at a time. I do have hope that the coming generation will see her for the corporate shill that she is and turn the set off.
Cheers,
CW--Los Angeles
-
And another thing
Those who defend Oprah here are interesting. It's as if you all believe that you are not living in an interconnected universe where the choices of everyone else have an impact on one's life, and that you are all gods of micro-univserses free to wield power with just a thought. What about the millions of folks who achieve against all of their conscious thought, negative self-talk and low self-esteem? What of those who achieve great things at the expense of all others? What about the consciously deluded, who pursue dreams for which they lack the ability/faculty to achieve? What about the undeniable power of the human shadow, and/or Jung's Collective Unconscious?
There is so much complexity left-out of the hyper-simplified and soft Oprah message, it isn't hard to see why it is so provocative, and sorry to say, attractive, to a lazy entitlement culture. It is the same lie as the American Dream, which ignores the reality of life-chances and operates on an exception-is-the-rule model. One poor kid gets rich, and anyone can; one poor kid makes it to the big leagues, and that's proof that anyone can. This is the most ridiculous and damaging system of cultural belief every conceived.
-
Thought Does Not Equal Consciousness
I have read "The Secret" and share some of the writer's opinions about the book. However, I have several problems with Peter Birkenhead's critique.
First, Birkenhead equates thought with consciousness. This is a fallacy that is to blame for many of our personal and social ills. The purpose of meditation is to transcend our endlessly repetive thought patterns, not to examine them in minute detail. As someone who suffered a crippling bout of anxiety and panic disorder, I know that thoughts are powerful and can be very destructive. Anyone who has ever recivered from severe anxiety will surely agree, controlling repetative negative thoughs is the only way to achieve some level of peace and avoid the living hell of anxiety and panic.
Second, I can see why a holocaust survivor or inner city child would take offense to the notion that they are responsible for their circumstances because of their thoughts. But does the writer mean to suggest that we should be content to wallow in thoughts of blame and victimhood until we are rescued from our dire situations by others? I cannot see the harm in believing, even metaphorically, that we are the creators of our own universe. I don't believe that through thoughts alone I can cure the congential heart defect that I was born with. However, I do believe that I am 100% responsible for my reaction to this and the other challenges that life brings.
I believe that every moment of life is infinately precious and awe-inspiring. I also know that life can be a hell of pain and alienation. The essence of this and other spiritual or self help works is to remind us that we can choose to be present in our lives and find peace amidst pain and suffering.
-
Negative?
Several posters lambaste Birkenhead as being excessively negative. I don't see it. Is facing up to the fact that life can sometimes be hard, unfair, random & beyond our control -- is that being negative? Or is it just being honest? As for offering an alternative, it's right there in what he's saying: hard work, facing reality, using your brain rather than sacrificing it to a feel-good philosophy. In short, advocating an engaged life, rather than a wishful one. I don't see him denying that life can also be joyful & wondrous -- if anything, an engaged life will make it easier to experience that joy & wonder, certainly more than simply wishing for it.
-
The Secret
Remember Job's "friends"? They couldn't handle the notion that bad things can happen to anyone--even them--so they took turns bashing poor Job and saying things like, "Quit lying! You know you did something terrible to deserve this!" Job in turn mentions bad men who are wealthy and get away literally with murder, and good men who suffer. God appears and tells Job that if man-made justice were imposed on the universe, the whole thing would collapse. Then he tells Job's friends that they were NOT GOOD FRIENDS to Job (hence the term "Friend of Job", the type of idiot we heard a lot from after Katrina). Believers in the Secret are uncomfortably close to Job's "friends", and I suspect Oprah is too. She could have ripped Bill Orally a new one for saying that the kidnapped boy "enjoyed" his fate; she didn't! And tho' she considers alternative religions hooey, she sure spends a lot of time kissing Scientologist ass. Maybe because they too subscribe to the notion that everyone deserves what they get, and if they meet misfortune it's because they didn't do all they could have to get rid of that nasty Thetan drool. Or maybe she likes the idea of a "religion" that has a Celebrity Centre. Thanks for your article, Peter.