Sometimes it’s hard not to be cynical:
We often use the word “need” a little more than we probably should. We need to go see this movie when it’s in the theater or we need to get that new gadget. Often, we use it to describe a very strong desire, and I get it.
I mean, I do it too.
The truth is that our needs are much more basic than that. We need clothing, food, shelter, etc.
And that worries me because Michelle Obama thinks that taking more than we absolutely need is a problem.
I can’t even …
Yesterday I wrote about how shamelessness is a superpower, and I have to say that it is a wonder to behold.
As the Democrats gather in Chicago to experience the religious ecstasy of being surrounded by each other and sniffing their own farts, they are treated to speeches from elite hypocrites who pretend to be perfectly normal people.
Last night was the ol’ HOPENCHANGE shtick, with Michele and Barack Obama babbling on about things they don’t believe while Obama sycophants babble on about how their “spiritual voids” were filled by the Lightbringer.
An emotional high point was, apparently, Michelle’s speech in which she blathered on about how very normal her family was and how they were egalitarians who were suspicious of rich people.
To be accurate, she said, “suspicious of people who took more than they need”.
I find this fascinating because, well, the Obamas own three homes. The least amount they paid for a home was $1.65 million, and that was in 2005.
I’m always amazed at how people who spend their lives working in the public sector and for non-profits can amass so much wealth, but apparently, that’s just what they need.
Let’s understand that most of us are living with far more than we absolutely need to survive. We also have a lot of things that simply provide comfort, such as smartphones, televisions, computers, and so on.
So if we’re to be suspicious of people who took more than they need, should we be skeptical of the person looking back at us in the mirror?
Who decides what one needs? To what level are we ascribing the term “need” anyway?
Does anyone need $750,000 for an hour-long speech?
