Toxic Narcissism

-- by Micheal

Okay, this blog has sat idle far too long. So, I'm going to post something even if no one reads it.

Why do people need to "See Themselves"? Why? Because modern liberalism has become racist.

A recent NPR story talked about the lack of diversity in the high-tech sector. It's still a lot of young white males. The same with venture capitalists. Mostly why guys. One black venture capitalist lamented to the journalist that as he walked around a VC conference, he did not see people like himself.

We're told that public schools have been quietly re-segregating themselves ever since the Grand Experiment of Desegregation forced mixing. But, the majority of school teachers tend to be white females. Kids of color "need" (we're told) to see teachers who look like them.

We're told that kids need story books have protagonists that look like the reader. Cereal boxes that show cartoon children enjoying the sugary breakfast need to depict an idealized racial mix. One black kid, one asian kid, one hispanic kid and maybe a white kid. Maybe. Why? Kids want to eat cereal with cartoon pictures that look like them.

For crying out loud! Why do we need to "see ourselves"? The people to follow, admire, eat cereal with -- must be of our own race! Isn't this the very "racism" we've been taught for decades to avoid?

Having come up through public school in the 60s and 70s, I had it beaten into me by the progressive liberal educational system, that I should be "color blind." It should not matter if a person is black or red or yellow or green. We were taught to treat the person as a person.

My teachers succeeded. I don't care what color a person is. I could watch The Jeffersons and laugh without being black or needing to "see myself" in the cast. I could eat cereal from a box that only had black and asian kid cartoon characters on it and still enjoy the cereal. I did not need to "see myself." I could admire a couple of my teachers for their dedication, wit and expertise without even thinking of what race they were. My personal heroes did not have to look like me. I was okay with that. I really didn't want to look like John Wayne anyhow.

Not content with color-blindness success, modern liberalism has become obsessed with superficial diversity. They assume that if kids can "see themselves" on TV or cereal boxes, they will somehow aspire to be more than an EBT user.

Instead, they are preaching the opposite of what my enlightened 60s teachers tried to do. They are subtly teaching that race really does matter. We somehow need to surrounded by people "of our own kind."  If seeing one black teacher is good for black kids, isn't a whole school full of black teachers BETTER for black kids?

This sort of racial narcissism is toxic to our society. We're poisoning the US with demands of ME.

Obama Slays Another Straw Man

-- by Micheal

In remarks during a speech in Maryland on Thursday, Obama attempts to make himself look progressive by besting a fake foe.  Obama claimed that president Rutherford B. Hayes failed to get his image carved on Mount Rushmore because he thought the new telephone technology was a waste of time.

Really? That's the best Obama could do? Dig up an obscure president from the 1870s to prove how forward-thinking HE is? That would be pretty lame, even if it were true, which it is not.

First off, there are only four presidents on Mount Rushmore. When it was begun in the 1920s, there had been 34 presidents. That meant that 30 of them did not make the cut. So how significant is it, really, to NOT be on Mount Rushmore? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt were selected because they either protected the republic, or expanded it. Technophilia was never a criteria.

Second, there is no record that Hayes ever said 'It's a great invention but who would ever want to use one?'.  Like many a famous line, it's more urban legend than real history.  As a matter of fact, Nan Card, curator of the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center said there's no record Hayes ever said that, and that Hayes was actually the first president to have a telephone in the White House.

So, Obama tries to show how forward thinking he is, by citing a fake "failure" of a minor president from over 100 years ago, with false facts.

Lame as it is, it will probably work for Obama. To paraphrase Santayana: Those who are clueless about history, are doomed to be duped by politicians who fabricate it.

The OTHER 1%

--- by Micheal

When I walked to South Station in Boston on Monday, I noticed all the "Occupy Boston" folks, and tents and signs were gone. All there was were policemen, barricades and fresh green sod.  I'd seen the crudely made cardboard signs on my evening commute. "We are the 99%" some said.  Since they, the 99, seemed to have nothing to do with me, and I wasn't the evil rich 1%, I had to wonder what percent I was. Zero maybe?

The whole "Occupy" movement was crafted to resemble the popular uprisings in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.  What was totally lacking, however, was any kind of a similar coherent message. As demonstrators, they had no demand that could be granted. The arab youth demanded that Ben Ali, or Mubarak or Kadafi be removed. The old anti-war protesters of the 60s had a demand: stop the war.  There was something the authorities to could do. Some action to satisfy the protesters. The Occupy groups, had no collective demand.  The could never be satisfied.

Instead, they seemed to have had a bunch of pre-existing demands -- Capitalism is Bad, Stop Greed, Free Healthcare For All, Legalize Marijuana, Stop Global Warming, End Nuclear Power, Stop Wars, Stop Supporting Israel, etc. etc.  Google "OWS Signs", and see some for yourself.  There is no coherence to them.  There is also nothing new to them.

It occurred to me, riding the bus back home, that these were all the old "Progressive" agenda items from the past forty years. These people have always been with us. There has always been some small percentage of our population which rants about something or other. 

They are the other one percent. Not the richest 1%, but the angriest 1%. 

They don't agree on what their issue d' jour is: whales, nukes, healthcare, war, weed, greed, whatever. What they agree on is that they're angry the world isn't doing things the way they want. These are the vocal, angry one percent who were sufficiently funded from somewhere, to camp in city squares, chant and hold cardboard signs.  When they held up their signs declaring they are the 99%, they were apparently very wrong.  They are not the 99%, They are just a different 1%.  The lack of any popular uprising, as in the Arab Spring countries, should prove this out. The real 99 did not rally behind this other 1%.

Speaking as one of the real 99, I don't mind that this other 1% are submerging again.

Who Is Responsible?

--- by Micheal

A recent article in the Union Leader titled "Suit dropped over defective deer stand" (11/22, p B1) raises the critical question of Who Is Responsible?  In the article, we learned that a man fell from a "defective" tree stand and was "permanently injured."

Tragic, right? Someone's got to pay for this injustice. Right? So, whether on his own gumption or pursued by lawyers eager to become the 1%, the land owner was sued. How dare he have defective personal property? How irresponsible. Make him pay!

Trouble was, the man who gave the hunter permission was not the property owner. In fact, the real property owner never installed tree stands. Oops. Sorry. Suit dropped. Nevermind.

But wait. If the land owner isn't responsible, who is? Someone has to be responsible, don't they? Whenever anything goes wrong (or at least not the way we wanted it to), someone (else) must be responsible and so should pay big-time.  That's what's made America what it is today!

Problem is, Mr. Jasmin is still "permanently injured" (whatever that means). Whose fault is it? By dropping the suit, the lawyers seem to be admitting that it might just be Jasmin's own fault. He climbed the tree. He sat in the stand. Did he check it out to see if it was sturdy enough first? Does Jasmin have a legal right to go hunting and never get hurt? What if he tripped and hit his head on a rock? Who do you sue then?

Admittedly, I don't have all the background facts, but simply dropping the suit is evidence enough. Mr. Jasmin was responsible for himself. His "permanent injury" is his own problem, no one else's.

This is a legal decision that needs to be applied all over our litigious quagmire of a culture. You are NOT a ward of the state. You are an adult, responsible for your own actions -- and the results of them. If you put hot coffee between your legs and get scaled, that's your problem.  If you use your lawnmower as a hedge trimmer and cut off your finger, that's your problem. If you are too obese to fit into a fast-food booth, that's your problem.

Want to stimulate the economy? Stop accepting the stifling culture of frivolous litigation. The law can protect us from swindlers and malice, but it should never be used as a substitute for our responsibility for ourselves.