Couldn’t have said it better

Not too long ago a commentator wrote a psychological analysis of one of the nation’s most disturbed famous names. Add enormous of amounts of money to our “culture of celebrity” and you get an (almost) equal-opportunity bigot who has twisted Catholicism and Christianity beyond recognition. The writer is David Brooks and the subject is Mel Gibson.

David Brooks is not a writer with whom I would normally agree. After all, he writes for that bastion of national lunacy The Washington Times and spreads the gospel according to Banksters on the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages. But every once in awhile he shows some good judgment, in this case for the New York Times.

As I read the first few paragraphs of his Gibson article, I could have sworn that he’d spent some time here in Longmont observing our city’s mayor and his blogger-in-chief who has a fascination with lightning.

Read for yourself the first few paragraphs below and I have no doubt that you will conclude that this nail was hit squarely on the head.

Let us enter, you and I, into the moral universe of the modern narcissist.

The narcissistic person is marked by a grandiose self-image, a constant need for admiration, and a general lack of empathy for others. He is the keeper of a sacred flame, which is the flame he holds to celebrate himself.

There used to be theories that deep down narcissists feel unworthy, but recent research doesn’t support this. Instead, it seems, the narcissist’s self-directed passion is deep and sincere.

His self-love is his most precious possession. It is the holy center of all that is sacred and right. He is hypersensitive about anybody who might splatter or disregard his greatness. If someone treats him slightingly, he perceives that as a deliberate and heinous attack. If someone threatens his reputation, he regards this as an act of blasphemy. He feels justified in punishing the attacker for this moral outrage.

And because he plays by different rules, and because so much is at stake, he can be uninhibited in response. Everyone gets angry when they feel their self-worth is threatened, but for the narcissist, revenge is a holy cause and a moral obligation, demanding overwhelming force.

  11 comments for “Couldn’t have said it better

  1. Gregory Iwan
    August 14, 2010 at 10:18 am

    What is this self worth? Ans.: What someone would pay for it. And, considering the going rate for a municipal election around here (regardless of from where the money comes), the Hon. Mr. B should be driving a Mercedes. And so he does. But not in the rain. Think about that.

  2. August 14, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Now THAT’S ironic.

  3. August 14, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    But he could use a rein to control his reign. Then there might be some worth?

  4. Gregory Iwan
    August 14, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Sometimes, but not often, value equals price. Cost is never the same as either.

  5. John Brown
    August 14, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    I’m not overly thrilled with this guy Baum, either. You folks sure elected one pip of a guy. I’m glad I no longer live there.

  6. Kaye Fissinger
    August 15, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    Mr. Coulson, the “(almost) equal-opportunity bigot who has twisted Catholicism and Christianity beyond recognition” is MEL GIBSON, not David Brooks. The source article was written about Gibson and Mr. Brooks did an excellent job. Brooks’ explanation of narcissism was especially insightful and it is why it was used in this article.

  7. 2 Sons
    August 17, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Is the above the wife of Bryan Baum? If it is, didn’t you say while your husband was mayor you would not be commenting on blogs, etc. while he is in office? Perhaps I am mistaken…..

  8. August 17, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    2 Sons, Stephanie Baum IS the wife of Bryan Baum. And it is appropriate to assume that she blogs under other “names” than her own, although she certainly won’t admit to it.

  9. August 17, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    Stephanie Baum 4/13/2008 on Blogger.com (MuskratHunt) “But I can tell you with absolute certainty that he is NOT connected with LongmontReport because I know who is, and they are totally seperate people, who, as of the last time I met with the owner of LongmontReport, which was not too long ago, had never met in person. I also am not behind LongmontReport, but like I said, I do know…”
    —–
    Stephanie Baum 11/12/2009 via Facebook video comments (we were not friends – this is a ‘back door’ way to send someone an email) “My problem is, and this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, that I truly don’t know who is behind LR.”

    So first you insist you DO know (to cover for a fellow wingnut’s screwup), then swear you DON’T. I’m afraid your word isn’t worth much to me – or anyone else for that matter.

    As for blogging, here’s exactly what you said to me:

    “As you might have noticed, I’ve been absent from blogging during Bryan’s campaign and will remain “on the sidelines” so to speak, as long as he is in office”

    Clearly you have not done so. Your comments here are proof.

    Ms. Baum, in my opinion, you, like your husband, simply don’t know what the truth is.

    It’s a sad situation for Longmont.

  10. 2 Sons
    August 18, 2010 at 11:19 am

    “Remain on the sidelines” also is another way of saying not commenting, blogging, etc. Makes one think that you do indeed use other names for commenting because you just can’t stay quiet. Good to know your definition of “blogging” too by the way.

  11. T. Alexander
    August 19, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    I see the self-proclaimed “First Lady of Longmont!” has joined the fray. So you DO know who is behind Longmont Report? How about the Pink Letter? Any thoughts on the questionable ethics on display with that travesty? Or have you conveniently distanced yourself from that as well?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *