A few days ago I got a fare to what the guy said was "National Airport". As always, I asked, "You mean Reagan?". I did this because some people get confused by their schedules and think they are going to Reagan when they are actually going to Dulles or vice-versa.
But not this guy. This guy was the type of person who always says "National" because he's a leftie dim-bulb and cannot stand to say "Reagan" (and to tell the truth, I also use the procedure to divine whether I need to turn off Chris Plante and/or avoid talking to a liberal idiot). In any case, he was quite miffed, and asked me if I called BWI "Marshall"
Well, actually I never have to ask, because everybody, and I do mean everybody always says "Baltimore" or "Baltimore-Washington International Airport" When you are flying out of the next city to the north, you don't forget. It's a 90 dollar cab ride. But if I do reference the name, I call it "BWI Marshall".
The reason my passenger was miffed was that Reagan and Dulles were named after conservatives, and BWI-Marshall was named after Thurgood Marshall, who was not only a liberal but also The First Black Supreme Court Justice into the bargain.
Marshall's opinions and dissents were really no more remarkable than Samuel Alito's, but they are accorded great fanfare and respect because they were issued by The First Black Supreme Court Justice.
Although my ideological worldview clashes violently with that of the late Justice Marshall, I will be the first to say that his appointment and service on the high court was indeed noteworthy in light of the barriers it broke down. One thing I will say about Marshall is that his tenure helped make possible the appointment of the Honorable Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas. But I don't care if Marshall was a blond, blue eyed white Presbyterian from Bloomington, Indiana. He was still a scum-sucking liberal.
What is it with this insane adulation of people who were the "first" this-or-that to do thus-and-so? "First" in that sense they may have indeed been; but that does not mean that every word they spoke must be engraved on the pedastal of a statue of the "First" who spoke it.
Look at some of the big "firsts" of the last 40 years or so. The First Deaf Miss America (and wasn't there "The First Miss America With A Colostomy Bag? I think that was just a joke, but maybe it happened. I wonder what the swimsuit competition looked like). And a Very Big Deal is made about the First Openly Gay Man to do any damn thing more consequential than opening a can of beans.
Ask any liberal and he or she will tell you that these "firsts" are "a celebration of the progress toward acceptance of diversity" or some such twaddle. That's right, I said "twaddle"; and I can back up that assertion and I will.
You see, these types are the same people who - correctly - state that "every person is unique". But since "every person is unique", that means that society is neccessarily diverse to begin with.
Nobody on Earth has the same set of fingerprints and the same sequence of DNA as I do. There might be one or two other people with the exact same name as I have - like that damned sex-offender from Florida whose name pops up in a google check of my name and keeps holding up the instant Brady checks every time I buy a new gun - but none of them have my exact fingerprints, birth date, and DNA. Anytime I do anything for the first time in my life, I am ipso facto the first 1/8th Cherokee born in Indianapolis Indiana and raised in Dayton Ohio named F. Allen Norman, Jr. who did that particular thing. Why, the number of statues to be cast and the number of buildings to be erected in my honor would likely provide enough jobs to right the economy and get us out of these doldrums. So why isn't this being done? \
Well, because everyone would be engaged in making statues and constructing buildings; and no one would be left to pick up the garbage or grow the food. Especially considering the other mantra of the "celebrate diversity" crowd: that every person is like a snowflake, with no two alike. If everyone is unique, then everyone is the first something-or-other to do anything and everything from pooping in the potty to becoming President of the United States.
Everyone is unique, and there are upwards of six billion unique people on the planet, all unique as snowflakes. A blizzard of humanity, and like a blizzard this often results in a mess.
But if some individual is to be celebrated, by my sights it oughtn't to be about their achievement as the "first" to do anything less consequential than climbing Mount Everest. And even then, race sex and sexual orientation ought to be non-factors.
Let's say Danica Patrick won the Indy 500. She'd be the first woman to win, but she wouldn't have won because she had to overcome disadvantages directly caused by her sex; she would have won because she was a superior driver who also had better luck in staying out of accidents on the track and had a better pit crew backing her up. And she would also have beaten out not only the men, but several other women who were competing against her. In fact, it could be argued that the reason she didn't win in eight tries was at least patially due to her focus not on winning the race, but to be the first woman to do so. Personally, I think that this consideration put enough extra pressure on her that she made some bad decisions and lost when she shouldn't have.
Compare this with the homosexual basketballer who announced his homosexuality a few weeks ago. The guy was a midddling player at the end of his career. He might have faded into obscurity and opened a restaurant or a car dealership like lots of other has-beens do. He is widely hailed for his "courage". By my lights, it would be courageous for some kid with his whole future in basketball hanging in the balance to "come out of the closet" when he announces this being chosen out of high school to go to a Top Ten college on a basketball scholarship. That would be a truly brave act. The person referenced here was getting ready to go to the glue factory himself, so he came out and ensured himself of a few more years of adulation.
On the other hand, the Wright Brothers were the first people (of any race or ethnic group, period) to design, construct, and sucessfully test an airplane capable of sustained and controlled flight. It doesn't matter a whit if either of them was straight, gay, or a goat-fucker. What they did was of great consequense to the entire human race. But if the Wrights had been black or homosexual incestual lovers; that, and not the invention of the first airplane, would be what they would be adulated for by the Left.
That, of course, is the whole point of this "everyone is special" leftist bullcrap. When everyone is special, no one is special; and then the Left gets to pick and choose which "specialness" they honor. And it is nothing else but crap.