The Hate of Excellence against "Second Best" or less

I had a recent discussion with someone concerning a deaf person's need for an interpreter for a demonstration and wanting to get an interpreter for them. Comments from others chastized my thought process and that I was "bowing to the entitled" handicapped crowd. Although not those exact words, these comments by them troubled me.

This type of act is not a trend by any means, it just goes to show how evil and bad mannered man can be with those that are below them from a competitive perspective. But is it really about being competitive? You've heard the statement "You don't win Second Place" by those in a competitive sport, but what about other areas of life?

How about religion? Did you know that Australian Muslim Taxi drivers and Oslo Taxi drivers are not helping out blind people because of the blind people's dogs?

So what have we got here? We've got a business person that refuses or intimidates their workers NOT to get an interpreter for the deaf person because the boss considers the deaf person's "entitled" interpreter an "excessive cost" for an "entitlement" for a customer. We've also got a Muslim that refuses to allow dogs into their cabs because they "should not go near dogs."

In both cases it's about those that are not "perfect" by "normal" standards not being allowed to have some semblance of a "normal" life because the excessive "cost of doing business (i.e. not making enough profit) or religion (dogs are unclean). But what is interesting about these comments by these dumb and stupid people is this: the business person is willing to "give to the 'normal' customer because of 'customer satisfaction' what a 'normal person wants' " and considers the deaf person "less than a normal customer". The religious person is preventing a less than normal person from getting to a point of self sufficiency so as NOT to be a continual burden to their religion, they want to keep them in "their place" in society and not allow them to grow into productive human beings.

Three sides to every story

1. On the right side, refusing/oppressing/repressing to let anyone to be allow those that are less fortunate to move ahead.
2. In the middle, providing enough of a hand up to at least allow those that are less fortunate to make it on their own.
3. On the left, enabling those that are less fortunate to stay right where they are by giving them a hand out (not a hand up)and not give them some semblance of contributing to society.

It's a moral issue, not a cost issue.

But just like these stories, change can be slow. During the mid to late 1800's in America when baseball was just beginning, playing ball was normally done WITHOUT gloves with injured hands the norm. It wasn't until Doug Allison, a catcher for the Cincinnati Red Stockings, in 1870 and Charlie Waitt, who, in 1875, wore a pair of flesh-colored gloves in a failed attempt to avoid the derision of the fans because they thought they were being "sissies."

In this case, I'm glad to be called a "sissie" by others if it means that someone at least can get a fair deal in living their life.