by baldilocks

A couple of weeks ago, I meant to comment on Roger L. Simon’s piece on Moral Narcissism.  In it, he expounded on a phenomenon which I’ve seen and been irritated by all my life, but had no name for.baldilocks

Moral Narcissism is an evocative term for the almost schizophrenic divide between intentions and results now common in our culture.  It doesn’t matter how anything turns out as long as your intentions are good.  And, just as importantly, the only determinant of those intentions, the only one who defines them, is you.

In other words, if you propose or do something, it only matters that you feel good or righteous about what you did or are proposing, that it makes you feel better personally.  The results are irrelevant, as are how the actual activity affects others.

Roger points to egregious examples of our society’s Invasion of the Moral Narcissists.

The Obama administration is loaded with moral narcissists, including, obviously, the president himself — Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton etc.  The media and Hollywood are also clearly stuffed to the gills with moral narcissists.

Obamacare is a perfect example of moral narcissism in action.  Never mind that the public didn’t want it. Never mind it was an atrociously planned bureaucratic mess (in fact that comes with the territory).  It was what Barack Obama wanted — for himself.

Moral narcissism creates an atmosphere of dishonesty bizarrely similar to Islamic taqqiya.  In Islam, the believer is permitted to lie to the non-believer because the believer has the greater truth.  For the moral narcissist, lies becomes truth in almost the same manner. Some like Dan Rather (a moral narcissist par excellence) could thus pronounce the Bush National Guard papers real when anyone with an IQ in triple digits could see that they were fake.  They felt real to Dan. And, crucially, that made him feel good about himself.

Roger goes further in claiming that the Bergdahl affair was another example of moral narcissism in action: that President Obama fancies himself “The Great Emacipator, Part II.” It is here that I disagree with Roger.

Barack Obama had it within his power to help six of his fellow Muslims get back to their respective homes, so that’s what he did. It was simply an act of Islamic loyalty; nothing more complicated than that.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2009; the second edition in 2012. Her new novel, Arlen’s Harem, is due in 2014. Help her fund it and help keep her blog alive!


no one can argue that celebrity babes generate traffic. Over at Conservative Grapevine, the most popular links are always the bikini pictures. And try as I might to make “logical arguments” for tax cuts, wouldn’t you rather watch Michelle Lee Muccio make those arguments?

Robert Stay McCain Feb 15 2009

I had planned to stay off the net today but went to check the score of the football games when I saw this post at Robert Stacy McCain’s site that had the following words:

There is a scene from The Movie I Will Not Name in which Alyssa’s character does Things I Will Not Describe and, while I do not wish to derogate her skills as an actress, her extreme discomfort with the scene is quite evident. And it is precisely this creepy scene, of course, which is splattered all over the Internet in videos and photos.

To anybody seeing this, paragraph and knowing the scene in question, this would come as a shock. Stacy McCain is the inventor of Rule 5 and Rule 5 Sundays. If there is one thing he has no objection to it’s incredibly attractive women in a state of undress.

Now one might think reading the post that it might just be an excellent chance to hit a feminist:

We sort of expect a French dude to display Valérie Allain’s assets. We expect James Cameron to give us Kate Winslett naked. This we can explain either by reference to the ordinary impulses of human nature or (if we are feminist ideologues) as the typical oppression of the patriarchy. But I’m having a hard time understanding how anyone could explain Anne Goursaud’s treatment of Alyssa Milano in that movie.

but a closer look at the post gives the real clue:

Early in my pursuit of that celebrity re-Tweet, a friend more familiar with Hollywood gave me a warning: “Whatever you do, don’t ever mention that vampire movie. She hates that movie.”

And that is the overriding factor.

I don’t doubt for one moment that Stacy objects to the film in question, I don’t doubt for one moment that in his opinion Milano is ill used in the film in a gratuitous way, but Ace’s post or no I think the driving force behind the last half of this long post is that sentence and one that preceded it.

It was one of those crazy double-dog-dare-you stunts, and Alyssa Milano was certainly a good sport about it.

And that makes all the difference, Stacy was doing a stunt as a running gag in an attempt to generate hits and Milano eventually noticed and gave him that re-tweet he wanted and a reason to crow about it. Milano did a favor for Stacy a favor that would give he no advantage.

If anyone thinks for one moment that Stacy McCain will ever forget that favor they are out of their mind, so when in the course of event Stacy McCain had the chance to defend Milano’s honor and simultaneously hit the director of the movie she “hates” you had better believe that Stacy would do it.

However my previous statement still stands. I submit and suggest I’m one up on him on celeb tweets There will never be a shortage of beautiful women in Hollywood, but there is still only one William Shatner.

Of course neither a Milano re-tweet or a Shatner tweet will get pay the bills this month, that’s what the emergency bleg is for and after 10 days I’m still $370 short, if you think the blog is worth it I’d really appreciate it.

Update: Cause & Effect

Stacy McCain and Ladd Ehlinger are both friends of mine, their views on Herman Cain are diametrically opposed.

Ladd is a blunt speaker and his not one to BS his readers, I thank his complaints about the campaign seriously. As both he and Stacy are much more shall we say “worldly” than me I’ll have to let them decide about Cain’s social life.

Stacy being the reporter notes the exculpatory evidence, myself I note the pattern, first “harassment” then “an affair” but the evidence on both batches are pretty light.

However if Mr. Cain is in fact doing as poorly as the media suggests why play another card?

I say it’s very simple, this is the internet age, where is the recording, where is the cell phone video?

As I’ve said before, if Cain is telling the truth, he can expect these attacks to continue.

If he is lying then he can expect a “blue dress” or the digital equivalent to come out, furthermore consider for a second, how stupid or how egotistical Herman Cain has to be if this accuser is telling the truth. If they had an affair for the length she is saying, even if Ladd Suggests he is only out to sell a book, wouldn’t this run be the height of Gary Hart stupidity?

However there is one more twist. It is no secret that Robert Stacy McCain is on the Cain train and has been for a long time, that being they case why am I reading this?

Accusations by hyper-litigious bankrupt divorceés? No biggie.

Leaving me off a key conference call? That could be serious trouble.

Why on earth would you leave a reporter who has been strong in his support and advocacy for you off such a call?

Granted he has a lot on his mind but even if you end up marrying someone else spare a kind word for the lady who gave you a date when nobody else was interested.

That’s not the Sicilian way.