"The People Have Spoken--the Bastards"

Yesterday, Election Day in America, I boycotted Facebook, the assumption being that the Hillary people, already insufferable in their giddy expectation of her inevitable coronation, would be even more so the day of her coronation. And though I was never a fan of Donald Trump and agreed with all critiques of his character flaws and his shortcomings, I was never going to vote for Hillary Clinton, no matter how much the Hillary people chided and scolded (and chide and scold they did, day after day, ad nauseam). 

So all through the day and into the evening on November 8, 2016, I cut a wide swath, not only boycotting Facebook, but also Twitter and radio and live TV and chat rooms and even my phone, not even wanting to see a notification. Instead I watched an episode of "Blacklist", and then a repeat of "Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives." When that was finished, I glanced at the clock. It was only 8:30. Damn. Now what. 

So I finally relented and texted a couple of my political junkie friends. 

"Just checking in," I wrote. "What's happening out there?" 

"Turn on your T.V.!" they said. 

And then, of course, the shock, the surprise, the unexpected, the bizarre. 

And before the night was over (well, technically, closer to the wee hours of November 9th), not only had Donald Trump won the presidency, beating his opponent 279-228 in the Electoral College (though losing in the popular vote by 200,000, last I heard), but the GOP also retained majorities in both houses of Congress.

This is no small matter. We (Republicans) had been bracing ourselves for months for losses from top to bottom. The gloom that had settled over many of us, the demoralization, the resignation, was beyond palpable. As election day neared, Trump at best had a 35% chance of winning the presidency, though all the so-called paths to an Electoral College victory were razor-thin. Not only that, his impending loss was supposed to hurt GOP races in the House and Senate and governorships and state legislatures, all the way down ballot. In other words, Election 2016 was supposed to be a tsunami of defeat, a once-and-for-all repudiation of and end to the Republican party. 

So yes, most of us expected the worst, were resigned to the worst, maybe even believed we deserved the worst, especially those of us who were already frustrated and disappointed about the situation. We had lined up our best and our brightest, a deep bench, indeed, including my personal favorites, Marco and Carly. But one by one they fell, knocked ruthlessly aside or, in some cases, stepping nimbly aside, until there was only one man standing, and that man was Trump, Trump the buffoon, Trump the narcissist, Trump the con, Trump the boor. We seethed with resentment because this was supposed to have been our year. So many of us were weary of Obama's executive overreach, his condescension, his divisiveness, and Hillary Clinton was such a weak and beatable opponent. Any of those 17 candidates could have beaten her. Anyone, that is, but Donald Trump. We knew that. We of all people understood that. What is he doing on that stage? Get rid of him now!

Which is why, watching last night's remarkable events unfold, one can only marvel in disbelief at an outcome that never even occurred to us. A Clinton win was a given. The best many of us hoped for was that the GOP would retain majorities in Congress in order to keep her in check. But Trump won. The GOP held on to their majorities in both houses of Congress. I don't know how it happened. This is for historians and pundits and analysts to explain. All I know is that yesterday, for good or for ill, was a political earthquake. And it's becoming clear that, while Donald Trump may not have been our first, our second, even our 17th choice, in the end it appears he was possibly the only one out of that distinguished crowd of 17 who had the chutzpah, the ego, the stomach, the nerves of steel, to take on the formidable Clinton machine and the media who openly and unapologetically supported her--and beat Hillary Clinton at her own game. 

So now, today, The Day After, I venture cautiously back into Facebook, not to contribute, but to listen. And not surprisingly, there's a lot of rage. Here's a sampling: 

"I am pissed beyond measure at the 59,479,296 of you who voted for Trump. With your votes, you supported racism, nativism, sexism, and ableism. You showed that you don’t value education or science. You demonstrated a complete lack of regard for people who aren’t as fortunate as you. Your votes threaten our liberty and undermine the social progress we’ve made in recent years. Your votes embarrass me and disgust me."

"I'm so beyond disappointed in the U.S. We have a disturbingly large number of vile citizens. I don't care about myself. I care about the millions of souls that are in great danger. The millions of lives about to be shattered into so many pieces based on the horrific views and actions of Donald Trump."  

"I find that seeing Trump and his followers win caused a deep sorrow in my heart, that evil had triumphed over good. Yet I must remember to put my future in God's hand and worry about a day at a time. And secondly it is good that there are others out there who have not been taken over by evil."

"This is so tragic and I cannot agree or believe that God's heart is not broken for his people, all people. Tonight, I am grieving for my previous friends, loved ones and strangers of all people groups who are wounded and reeling. I am grieving for myself."

What I find interesting about these comments (and I'm guessing these are the milder versions) is that it doesn't really even matter that it was Donald Trump. Substitute any Republican name and the reaction would be the same. As I recall, the left demonized Mitt Romney in 2012 (pretty sure Hitler's name came up). This time around, they detested Ted Cruz, were repulsed by Carly Fiorina, loathed Mike Pence. In other words, it's not who beat Hillary Clinton. It's that she was beaten. Hillary Clinton could have lost to any one of the candidates and the anger would be no different. Sure, Donald Trump made it pretty easy. His defects are so obvious, so pronounced, it was child's play to wield him as a club to shame and hector and browbeat conservatives (at least, this conservative) into silence and embarrassment. This is who your party has nominated? Are you saying you'll vote for this monster? 

Sometimes Facebook feels like a grade school playground, bullies running roughshod while the rest of us cower in the shadows and eat our lunches. At first glance, it seems the shaming works in that it shuts most people up. It's not worth getting ganged up on. But I can't help but wonder if the shaming might be counterproductive. Because, when asked, or, more to the point, when polled, who would admit that they'd vote for "this monster"? Tell the pollsters anything but the truth. As Jim Geraghty of National Review wrote this morning, admitting that even he had gotten the numbers oh so wrong: 

"Pollsters have had off years before, but there has never been a colossal ten-car pile-up like this in the polling industry. The entire industry needs to scrap everything they know about the electorate and start over. One of the giant questions they must address is whether we now live in an atmosphere of such far-reaching and stifling social disapproval of politically incorrect positions that a significant portion of respondents no longer feel comfortable expressing their actual beliefs to a pollster. There really was a silent majority."

So. Election day arrives. The silent majority emerges from the shadows and casts its votes. And the world goes mad.

There's been a lot of soul-searching on my "team." Maybe those on the left who are so enraged, who regard those who voted for Trump with such contempt, should do some soul searching of their own. Yes, a silent majority spoke, but what did they say? Surely Clinton's loss cannot be laid at the feet of 59 million people. An election is a job interview. Hillary Clinton applied for the job and came up short. It's happened before, and it will happen again. To accuse close to 60 million people who didn't offer her the job as being bigots or racists or misogynists is a cop-out. The way I see it, Hillary Clinton and her party have no one but themselves to blame. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump did what he needed to do. His victory was an apparent repudiation of everything Hillary Clinton represents: leftism writ large, executive overreach, political corruption, cynicism, abuse of power, condescension, arrogance. Those who voted to give Donald Trump a chance are taking a gamble. This could blow up in their faces. But to damn them? 

Let the soul searching begin, America. But let it also begin in the sacred halls of progressivism.

"The people have spoken--the bastards."

(Democratic politician and strategist Dick Tuck, 1966)

A Civil Conversation About Incivility? It's Possible!

The following is an actual Facebook conversation that took place over the course of a few hours on a leisurely Saturday afternoon in August between me and someone I know indirectly (the husband of one of my Facebook friends) but had never met.

The subject had to do with the life-sized nude statues of Donald Trump, created by an anarchist art collective called INDECLINE, that started popping up in several U.S. cities during the month of August 2016. 

One of my friends shared a funny article about the statues. A friend of hers responded by saying the statues were “stupid and un-funny” and wondered whether people would be laughing if a similar statue were displayed of Hillary Clinton. 

I happened to agree with the self-described “party pooper” and ventured into the conversation: “No possible way someone does this to any other candidate, but particularly Hillary Clinton,” I wrote. Someone else concurred, asking if this was free speech "going too far."

That's when Aaron entered the fray. Here's the ensuing conversation. 

Aaron: I'm not understanding something about the reactions here. How is this statue free speech going too far? Saying that it isn't right because "how would you feel if it was Hillary?" shows implicit bias in the judgment of the work. The fights against sexism, racism, ableism are about equity, not equality. When Hillary or any other candidate makes the kind of social gaffes that have come to characterize Trump's campaign, then they are fair play for this kind of ridicule too. Is the statue un-funny, crass, and poor taste? Sure, but that would seem to be the point, reflecting your reactions back on the subject. If Trump can get away with disgusting things like calling out a judge as unfit because of his heritage, or using loaded gender stereotypes to attack female journalists all under the protections of free speech then this certainly should be protected too. Don't make the mistake of conflating your sensibilities with what is protected as speech under our constitution; something I personally find far more unfunny than this statue or the parks department's cheeky response. 

 Me: Fair enough. My only thought here has to do with how people would respond to an over-sized, butt-naked, flabby-bellied, dimply-bottomed, saggy-breasted Hillary Clinton statue with goggly-oggly spectators taking photos and posting them far and wide on social media. Not only would the feminists be outraged, there would be "hell to pay" for whoever the perpetrator was. Politics played dirty (tit for tat?) is fine until a woman is the target (unless, of course, the woman is a Republican, I guess). That's my beef. 

 Aaron: I would agree that someone erecting a statue as you've described would cause outrage. But "tit-for-tat" I think misses my point about the difference between equity and equality; fairness versus sameness. I would have a hard time finding a fair reason Hillary should be depicted as you've describe, but regardless whether I agree or not, I can see a valid argument for the statement the Trump statue makes based on the behavior of the candidate. I think it is completely valid to debate if it would be fair treatment to put up a similar statue of Hillary on the merits of the piece and the statement it makes. What I do not think is right, is doing so just because they did it to Trump. 

 Me: If I'm understanding you correctly (making a distinction between fairness versus sameness), my response would have something to do with examining the thing that makes one type of vulgarity (Trump's) different from another's (Clinton's). Those who find Trump distasteful (Republicans included) have no argument with your point that he deserves this humiliation. Yet what is distasteful about Trump on one level, many find distasteful about Clinton at a higher level. Crude, crass, boorish behavior is bad and should be called out, maybe mocked and satirized. But abuse of power, dishonesty, corruption, not to mention what many of us believe to be abhorrent views about abortion, is, at least in my view, equally distasteful, perhaps even more so. It's easy to deride Donald Trump and say he deserves it. But Hillary Clinton also deserves derision. The distinctions may not be "equal," but in my view, it's "sameness" by analogy, if not equality. Not sure if that makes sense. Hope I haven't offended.   

In either case, I fail to see how full-bodied disproportionately exaggerated over-sized anatomically incorrect nude statues of the objects of our derision helps the debate. All it's done is plunged us several meters deeper into the gutter. And fair or not, my guess is, now that the door has been shoved wide open, we can expect more of the same. Because "tit for tat" is unfortunately how the game is played.

Aaron: I agree with you here. I don't think it helps advance debate either and would rather the collective discussion focus on issues and finding common ground. I think the door has been shoved open but I think I would disagree with you about who did the shoving in this case...Perhaps I am naive, but I believe we can play the game how we choose and tit-for-tat isn't the only way to engage in political circus. What ever happened to "turn the other cheek"? 

 Me: Disappeared with all the other Biblical ideals. 

 Aaron: That may be... but that is getting into a whole other topic. I want to say thank you. I've found this discussion helpful in clarifying some of my own thoughts and I feel like I have more insight to other opposing perspectives. Even though we don't agree on these issues, being able to have a lively back and forth that doesn't devolve into insults and name calling is refreshing. 

So true, Aaron, and well said. I hope we (collectively) can do better, learning how to listen to and maybe even respect people who have different outlooks on life. 

What Left-Leaning People on Facebook Say About Iran Deal

Eavesdropping on the Lefties...they really are foolish. I'd venture to say they have no idea what they're talking about.

Addendum (July 31, 2015)

I happened to catch a Michael Medved segment today in which he interviews Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School about Dershowitz's brand new book called, The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Stop Iran From Getting Nukes? Professor Dershowitz's opening remarks were telling: he clearly self-identifies as a man of the left, a Democrat, an Obama supporter, etc., and in doing so, indignantly repudiates any suggestion by the the president that those who oppose the deal are conservative or Republicans. 

Dershowitz had some pretty damning things to say. Pay attention, left-leaning people! I hope his book (currently available as an e-book) makes the rounds on Capitol Hill, especially among Democrats, some of whom seem more loyal to party than to country. 

After the Rainbow . . .

I spent the weekend listening, eavesdropping, more or less, on "the conversation" taking place in social media, primarily Facebook. I heard sentiment ("Isn't that fabulous!"), sarcasm ("This just in: next week the Supreme Court will be redefining 'Tuesday'"), melodrama ("That'll do, SCOTUS, that'll do"), hyperbole ("and Rome fell"), and lament ("a bit queasy--so sad to see how fast we are degenerating"). There was the predictable fawning (over Obama and Biden jogging through the White House carrying rainbow flags and Justice Kennedy's "beautiful" closing paragraph), but there were also long, personal, often eloquent statements. Not surprisingly, there were dismissals and un-friendings. One person said she had been reported to Facebook for posting pictures of flamboyantly-dressed gay people.

Following one thread, I was particularly touched by the posting of a man named Joseph Sciambra, an ex-gay porn star who has become a Catholic. I would go so far as to say Mr. Sciambra's comments impacted me more than anything I read all weekend. He obviously deeply loves his former friends, while at the same time wanting to offer them hope and freedom in Christ. Here is his blog. I think I will follow him and try to learn from him.

The appearance of the rainbow on users' profiles by means of the Celebrate Pride tool provided by Facebook gradually distinguished those who celebrated the decision from those who didn't (at least, that's how it was perceived), once again validating my growing suspicion that social media is not about being social but being socialized. But I digress.

I haven't quite entered the fray. There was a (private) tussle with a relative over the question of narrow-mindedness, the relative claiming that it's narrow-minded to impose one view of marriage on the rest of us, I countering that it's arrogant to undo thousands of years of an understanding of marriage that is based in both the Judeo-Christian ethic and biology ("every single person arguing this issue was created by the fertilization of a female egg by a male sperm"). 

This afternoon I dipped my toe into the discussion stream, responding to someone else's post. But I'm really not quite ready to articulate everything I'm thinking, especially on Facebook. I'm collecting articles, listening to both sides (sadly, this is one argument that seems to have no middle ground. One is either for gay marriage or against it), hoping mostly to figure out what I think and why I think it.

The funny thing about rainbows is, they're illusions, but not reality. Yes, I know, we're supposed to see a rainbow as symbolic, the end of a storm, with the sun emerging from the clouds, light refracting off water droplets creating the beautiful spectrum of color. The rainbow, I suppose, is the "beautiful closing paragraph" from Justice Kennedy, whose purple prose presents marriage as embodying "the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family." 

But what if a rainbow didn't signify the end of a storm but rather a pause between storms? The sun peering through clouds doesn't mean there aren't more storms gathering. That's what I'm sensing. Gathering clouds. Some of the articles I'm reading, for instance, don't paint quite the rosy picture that Justice Kennedy described. Hanna Rosin in Slate, for example, writes that "in legalizing gay marriage, we are accepting a form of sanctioned marriage that is not by habit monogamous and that is inventing all kinds of new models of how to accommodate lust and desire in long-term relationships." Rosin cites a Gawker article by Stephen Thrasher, who in turn cites a study out of San Francisco State University which essentially concludes, as Thrasher puts it, that "not all gay unions are built on the straight model, particularly when it comes to the issue of monogamy." 

Were Justice Kennedy and his fellows snookered? Quite possibly. But now that Pandora's Box has been opened and gay marriage is the law of the land, as people (politicians, in particular) are wont to say, it will be interesting to see how things play out. The redefining of marriage from the standpoint of genders is what we conservatives are focusing on right now, along with concerns about fundamental freedoms (religion and speech). There are (or should be) concerns about children and children's rights. But beyond these, will we also begin to see marriage re-imagined as an institution, as defined and practiced by gay couples, if, indeed, these observations (linked below) are valid? The challenge in the next months and years will be whether or not we have the courage and honesty to confront and address these questions. 











For Further Reading

1. "The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous," by Hanna Rosin, Slate, June 26, 2013
2. "Master Bedroom, Extra Closet: The Truth About Gay Marriage," by Stephen W. Thrasher, Gawker, June 19, 2013.
3. "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret," by Scott James, New York Times, January 28, 2010).
4. "Relationship Characteristics and Motivations Behind Agreements Among Gay Male Couples: Differences by Agreement Type and Couple Serostatus" 
5. "The Beautiful Closing Paragraph of Justice Kennedy's Gay Marriage Ruling," by Jordan Weissman, Slate)

One (of Many) Reasons Why Facebook is Annoying

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then perhaps a screen shot is worth a few dozen? The original poster (Taylor Olson) had asked the group "Escondido Friends" to vote on Mike's BBQ (green box at the bottom of the list). I guess the response was a bit less enthusiastic than Taylor was expecting. Just saying... 

lol or is LOL?

Facebook is so annoying. Why do I keep going back?

Some Letters Should Remain Unopened

I happened upon a post on Facebook, posted by an acquaintance who was replying to one of his own friends. I guess privacy settings were non-existent because I was able to read the original post and my friend's affirmative comment. Since the exchange appeared on my wall, I felt compelled to comment since the original post was so offensive (i.e., it's not as if I was stalking someone else's wall). 

The original post was an article (so-called) that appeared on the DailyKos, an uber-left leaning site. It was written by a blogger who goes by the name Ministry of Truth, who is actually someone named Jesse LaGreca (I know because I had to do a bit of sleuthing). LaGreca is obviously also on the far-reaches of The Left, judging not only by this article but by the Wikipedia write-up about him which shows him affiliated with the obnoxious Occupy Wall Street movement. 

Here's his article. 

An Open Letter to the People Who Hate Obama More Than They Love America

And here's what I posted on my friend's Facebook post. 

What a despicable letter. If anyone's a "hater" it's the author of this odious tirade, which is based exclusively on caricature and stereotype. It occurred to me that the author (Jesse LaGreca?) is himself a caricature, but judging by the comments that follow the article, maybe not. I had to slog through the muck before I ran across one comment that reflected some insight. Referring to the few conservative acquaintances with whom he apparently respectfully differs, this person writes, "We do talk about issues, though, and I often learn something. I think it's good to remember that they're people who have a different outlook that puts blinders on their better interests. My friends honestly believe in a market that creates opportunities and risks but builds a better personal character. I believe them wrong but neither of us know for sure. What we do know is that they have been there for me when it counted and still are. That's what matters." What a gentleman. For more insights into why liberals and conservatives differ (and how, hopefully, to bridge the gap between them), perhaps Mr. LaGreca could look into the research of Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Peace out.

Later, I might write my own "Open Letter" to people like Jesse LaGreca, maybe even to LaGreca, himself. Meanwhile, here's a good introduction to Haidt's research.

Jonathan Haidt: The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives (TED Talk)

The La La Land of Facebook

E-mail to a friend, posting here with a few edits and updates. The comparison of Facebook to the Matrix came up while we were texting. She hadn't heard of or seen the movie, so I followed up with this message:

What's the Matrix? Here's a short answer (from Wikipedia):

The Matrix is a 1999 American-Australian science fiction action film written and directed by The Wachowskis, starring Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Carrie-Anne Moss, Hugo Weaving, and Joe Pantoliano. It depicts a dystopian future in which reality as perceived by most humans is actually a simulated reality called "the Matrix", created by sentient machines to subdue the human population, while their bodies' heat and electrical activity are used as an energy source. Computer programmer "Neo" learns this truth and is drawn into a rebellion against the machines, which involves other people who have been freed from the "dream world".

​Facebook strikes me as a pretty good analogy. I've given up trying to inject "reality" into my occasional posts. People just don't seem to want to hear bad news. So while World War III is taking place in the real world, the good people in Facebook Land talk about sunrises, baby goats, puppies and kittens, grandkids, anniversaries, restaurants, etc. All fine, all fun, but try to interject something having to do with the real world and you run the risk of being "blocked or unfriended. Who likes a spoilsport? 

A few exceptions. One person in my "friend" list (she's not even a friend, just someone I know from the Writers Guild) is a rabble-rouser, unabashedly, unrelentingly political, can't stand Obama and isn't afraid to let people know. She's actually funny, snarky and sarcastic, constantly posting articles, etc. that I find interesting and actually read. One of the few Facebook denizens not plugged into the Matrix.

Other exceptions: Democrats reviving old grievances (against George W. Bush, the Iraq war), environmentalists or animal rights activists. Conservatives like me tend to tiptoe into Facebook Land, "like" something they agree with and even occasionally join the conversation. But we seldom step into left-leaning discussions (why isn't there a dislike button?).  

My involvement on Facebook lately is mostly passive, with the occasional random posting (some arcane bit of information like Botox being botulinum toxin would probably make the cut) or birthday greeting even though I'm still old school and love actual notes and cards (hand-written preferably). 

Occasionally I feel the old stirring of wanting to just SCREAM at stupid people who don't seem to care about what's happening outside the Matrix...but I get over it pretty quickly. I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it is what it is. 

Narcissim Run Amok: Thoughts After the Isla Vista Rampage

I'm beginning to develop a theory about the next generation. 

Not having to do with access to guns. That's a separate issue. But having to do with the way this generation (millennials and younger) are being raised, not only without God and faith and and a morality that transcends human wisdom (right/wrong, good/evil), but also being raised as if they're the center of the universe. 

Maybe this next generation should be called the "narcissistic generation." YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, selfies. This is their world. Affirmation is not an option but a necessity. One of my students wrote in a paper this semester that if she doesn't get at least 50 "likes" on a Facebook post she removes the post. 

Even if it turns out this guy Elliot Rodgers had some kind of mental disorder, it doesn't change my thinking. I believe he's an inevitable by-product of the societal trend that fosters self-affirmation. Social media not only perpetuates this trend, it probably spawned it. 

From childhood, millennials have been nurtured on the idea that they're self-important, that everything has to go their way, that they are "winners," that nothing bad should ever happen to them, that they deserve happiness, that the world revolves around them. And when it finally dawns on them that the world does not revolve around them, those that that are already a bit "off" (like this guy apparently was) are already be primed to commit atrocities like this. 

But not, of course, before they get out their I-phones and videotape themselves, up close, in our faces, talking about how they've been wronged. 

Factor in the secularist, anti-Christian, anti-God thinking that now permeates both the schools and public square, and the inevitable result is pretty frightening. What we saw in Isla Vista last night is just a symptom of a greater ill: narcissism run amok.   

Isla Vista Shooting Suspect Left Disturbing Manifesto (Los Angeles Times, May 24, 2014).

Insufferable Facebook-isms

I'm tempted to post this article (linked below) called "7 Ways to be Insufferable On Facebook" on my Facebook page. However, if I did, I suspect that might make me insufferable. 

Here's a snippet.

A Facebook status is annoying if it primarily serves the author and does nothing positive for anyone reading it . . . To examine this a bit, let’s start by discussing the defining characteristics of statuses that are not annoying.

To be unannoying, a Facebook status typically has to be one of two things:

1) Interesting/Informative
2) Funny/Amusing/Entertaining 

You know why these are unannoying? Because things in those two categories do something for me, the reader. They make my day a little better.

Ideally, interesting statuses would be fascinating and original (or a link to something that is), and funny ones would be hilarious. But I’ll happily take mildly amusing—at least we're still dealing with the good guys.

On the other hand, annoying statuses typically reek of one or more of these five motivations:

1) Image Crafting. The author wants to affect the way people think of her.

2) Narcissism. The author’s thoughts, opinions, and life philosophies matter. The author and the author’s life are interesting in and of themselves.

3) Attention Craving. The author wants attention.

4) Jealousy Inducing. The author wants to make people jealous of him or his life.

5) Loneliness. The author is feeling lonely and wants Facebook to make it better. This is the least heinous of the five—but seeing a lonely person acting lonely on Facebook makes me and everyone else sad. So the person is essentially spreading their sadness, and that’s a shitty thing to do, so it’s on the list.

The author then provides examples of insufferability, nearly all of them falling under the general heading of "image crafting." Rather hilarious, not to mention embarrassing. I wonder how often I've been insufferable. I think I was pretty insufferable during the 2008 election of he-who-shall-not-be-named.

The scary thing is, if the entire concept of social networking is designed to promote, propagate and perpetuate narcissistic behavior, why do I continue to skulk about in this community? Yet when I think of closing up my account once and for all, I wonder what I'll miss out on. And so I linger.  

Anyway, here's the article. Very funny. Not sure who the author is, but it's from a blog called wait but why. 

"7 Ways to be Insufferable on Facebook"