Self-Centered Society and "Me-Itis"

To read the news today gives so many examples of the degree to which self-centered delusion, egotism and avoidance of personal responsibility has risen in society. The most obvious example, of course is the gun rights fanatics who hold the distorted view that their “personal” right to own semi-automatic weapons trumps any societal need to improve public safety and prevent gun violence resulting in mass murders. Not content with merely the right to own basic firearms for sport hunting and the deluded notion of home protection [studies have long shown that far more gun related injuries and deaths occur as a result of accidents and domestic disputes than from encounters with home intruders] these “guns rights” advocates demand open access to semi-automatic weapons whose sole purpose is rapid and multiple human death and mayhem.

Certain types of speech can be regulated, births require the parent to sign a certificate to register responsibility and the right to vote or drive a vehicle have some measure of regulation attached for the public good. Is it not arrogance and hubris to contend that the public welfare cannot demand that certain weapons be banned and that ALL purchases and sales of weapons and ammunition be recorded to a person to whom responsibility would attach?

A current article about what to do if one is “unfairly terminated from employment” spoke only about recourse of attacking the employer for a variety of reason and placing blame for the event upon someone other than the employee himself or herself. No doubt, some employers do discriminate and terminate employees unjustly. But “justice” requires looking at all the facts and circumstances. Nowhere in the “advice” article was there an admonition to FIRST take a hard look at the employee’s own performance, late arrivals at work, failure to follow company procedures, altercations with supervisors or fellow workers, failure to meet standards of performance set for the department or work group. The attitude is to sue the employer for wrongdoing, sue the lawyer if he or she does not obtain revenge against the employer – in short, lay blame to anyone and everyone OTHER than the most likely source of the problem. This self-centered and delusional myopia is a sad commentary of today’s society.

Arizona landowners complain that the federal government is not doing enough to secure their land from smugglers. They purchased land right on the border, where there have been illegal crossings for many decades, and now cry foul that the “government” is not protecting their property. These same individuals rant that the government should not impose any additional taxes to support revenue to PAY for these demanded and individualized services. They also rail about “small government” and that the government should keep out of state and local affairs. Integrity would suggest that they use the ingenuity they profess to find a local solution OR that they offer to pay additional taxes to support additional government services. Instead, they demand what they want for themselves and that someone else should be responsible for providing them. Of course, if they are seriously concerned about safety, they could always use personal initiative and responsibility to just move away from the border and avoid personal involvement in the problem.

 I recall, as Chairman of a public school district Board of Education years ago, having to deal with irate homeowners who built new houses next to the site of a major high school complex, and then complained that “someone” had to do something about the bright lights from the football stadium on game days. No one forced them to build or buy a home so near the stadium if the light would be a concern. This kind of self-centered myopia is nothing new. However, it seems to have gotten more widespread, more damaging to the fabric of society and more deadly.

Government "At" the People, instead of Government "of" the People

For those attuned to teach and discuss gender studies, several weeks could be productively spent deconstructing and exploring the implications of the “Super Bill [HB5711]” passed by the lame duck and vindictive Michigan legislature the day after passage of so-called “Right to Work” law. The GOP controlled legislature was stripped of its majority in the election, but has chosen to strike back at the electorate by passage of extreme and mean spirited laws that will need to be undone, if possible in subsequent years. The “Super Bill” attacks women, and particularly women in working and poorer classes in three main ways. First, consider that ending unplanned pregnancies is a more crucial decision for women of limited means who are struggling to support themselves and children they may already have. The law would prohibit private insurers licensed in the state to offer coverage for pregnancy termination services. Next, the bill allows employers to exclude contraception and birth control from coverage.

Cynically, this could lead to more unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, the termination of which would be most difficult and expensive under the new law. In addition, the law imposes regulations on health care providers that offer abortion services that will likely cause many to end such services, making those services less accessible even for the women who can find the money for them. There are also restrictions on advertising pregnancy termination services so that public information will be restricted. Nothing in the bill addresses enforcement of paternity obligations or seeks to balance the burdens of the legislation from the shoulders of women toward the men who father the children of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. It is hard to believe that we are approaching 2013, and yet such retrograde social legislation is moving more than 60 years in into the past.