"Michelangelo Hid Anatomy Lesson in the Sistine Chapel: Human Brainstem is Depicted in the Image of God"

In May of 2010, medical illustrator Ian Suk and neurosurgeon Rafael Tamargo came out with an astonishing revelation in Neurosurgery: that the painting of God creating Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel --

-- in fact contains a detailed, anatomically correct representation of the human brain:

Michelangelo frequently dug up corpses from local cemeteries and dissected them, starting at age 17, so had an intimate familiarity with the human body.

There are two schools of thought about Michelangelo's message here. One is that he was celebrating God's greatest gift to Adam, the human brain. The other interpretation is that he was saying that God is merely a creation of the human brain, not the other way around.

Most people seem to have assumed that Michelangelo, often described as a deeply religious man, was sending the former message: that God had endowed Adam with a special brain because He favored humans.

I lean toward the latter interpretation. If Michelangelo had felt that God's greatest gift to Adam was a human brain, why would he not have said so more straightforwardly, rather than putting it in "code," so to speak. Plus, it is God, not Adam, who is contained within the brain, suggesting that it is He, and not he, who is a figment of the imagination.

Michelangelo lived from 1475 to 1564. The Vatican had been established in Rome in 1377, the Spanish Inquisition had its heyday in the late 1400's, and Italy had its own version starting in 1542. In Michelangelo's time, the church had far more power than it does today, and a public declaration of atheism would not have been wise for an ambitious artist.

Michelangelo, as a homosexual, undoubtedly felt himself outside the mainstream, which probably predisposed him towards a different way of viewing many things. (A grandnephew, who published Michelangelo's sonnets in 1623, felt obliged to change the gender of the pronouns in the homoerotic poetry.)

And desecrating the bodies of the dead would certainly not seem to be the act of an instinctively pious man.

Michelangelo must have been confident that people of his time would not recognize the shape for what it was, and that his message -- whatever that was -- would be discovered after his lifetime. And if anybody did happen to recognize the shape, he had plausible deniability: he could just say any perceived resemblance was unintended.

Of course, there is a third interpretation: that Michelangelo had not intended any message, and that the brain shape was merely a lark, a flight of fancy. But this seems unlikely in an era when religion so saturated public life and thinking.

Whatever Michelangelo's intent, it's awe-inspiring that the huge brain -- in effect, the artist's brain -- sat there for half a millennium, gazed at by millions but not truly seen until 2010.

(Would Michelangelo have been surprised at how long it took?)

I find myself shivering in an almost religious rapture at the thought of his overwhelming genius.

"Obama's young male golfing buddies"

An interesting article about Obama's choice of companionship during his leisure hours.

Wuss-in-Chief

It seems more than coincidental that the Obama administration announced they would aid the Syrian rebels just one day after Bill Clinton said that Obama risked being thought of as a "wuss" if he sat by and did nothing.

Clinton is a master manipulator, and as such, understands that the best way to manipulate men is by telling them that their masculinity depends on doing whatever it is you want them to do. And Obama seems particularly vulnerable to that sort of suasion.

(The more manly response would actually have been to laugh at Clinton's comment and then ignore it.)

There is absolutely no upside to our getting involved in Syria. Assad has always been a repressive dictator, and more recently has been a murderous one; but he has also provided the kind of stability which suits our interests, The rebels are for the most part Muslim extremists who will merely install another theocracy. Their new government will undoubtedly be sympathetic to, and possibly even provide shelter for, al Qaeda.

The Arab Spring would have more aptly been termed the Sharia Spring. We have only just begun to reap its "benefits."

Portrait, Part II

I realized soon after putting up yesterday's post that Bill Clinton's repertoire of poses was far broader than I had given him credit for. So, for your edification and enlightenment, here are a few more:

"I admit it, I may be a little naughty -- but I'm certainly not bad."

"Look what a nice guy I am -- I'm so affectionate I even let my cat climb on my shoulders." [This pose reminds me of nothing so much as those Death Row inmates who pose with pets in order to seem "nice."]

"I wouldn't be using both fingers to point if I didn't really, really mean this very serious point. And the fact that I'm making it, by the way, shows what a very serious person I am."

"Even though I'm God's gift to this country, I still retain my humility -- isn't that amazing?"

"I love being the center of attention, especially with a bunch of fawning sycophants like yourselves."

"I think I evoke JFK, don't you? Look, we have the same haircut."

"Hey, you, what was your name again? Monica? Monica honey, come over here a sec, I got a favor to ask."

"Okay, so we happen to be on stage. Believe me, we're every bit this affectionate in private, too."

"I'm humbled to be in the presence of greatness.....my own, that is. Nelson should feel similarly honored."

Clinton is far more stage actor than movie actor: he is like a ham who is always emoting for the cheap seats. He looks good from a distance; up close, it's a bit much.

It's always the people who seem most sincere, especially those who can summon up such 'sincerity" at a moment's notice, for any occasion, who are the least so.

Portrait of a phony

Yesterday I stumbled across a photographic essay called "Bill and Hillary through the years." I can't seem to locate the article today, but I was struck by how phony Bill Clinton looked in all of the shots. He always seemed to be posing, putting on whatever expression he thought most appropriate for the situation. But he always seemed to give himself away by overdoing it.

No matter how slick you are, if you're a sociopath who lives in a goldfish bowl, as Clinton did for eight years in the White House, you can't hide your sociopathy. The sociopaths themselves, of course, always think they're fooling us, but their overconfidence often does them in. Clinton has in fact fooled a lot of people, but he hasn't fooled as many as he thinks he has. For those of us schooled in the ways of sociopaths, he is a textbook case.

Here is a Youtube video of Clinton at the funeral of Ron Brown, his Commerce Secretary: Clinton is laughing and joking, but as soon as he sees the camera pointing at him, he looks down and wipes a nonexistent tear from his eye.

This is the same Bill Clinton who said, during an economic downturn, "I feel your pain." Translation: "I am an empathetic and sympathetic human being." The only problem is, no one who actually feels empathy and sympathy would ever feel the need to point that out.

Take a look at some of these pictures. If you look closely, you'll see each of his poses is almost too good to be true, i.e., he captures the expression he's trying to achieve almost perfectly, which "real" people almost never do.

Here's Bill's humble yet patriotic look:

Here are two photos of Bill shedding his famous crocodile tears (which involve no actual production of water):

Here's his "You can count on me to fight for you" look:

Here's his "Together, we're gonna win this thing" look:

Here's his "It's just so great to be here with all you wonderful folks -- and look who's here!" look:

Here's his justifiably angry, "I did not have sex with that woman" look:

Here's his "After all these years, I'm still just head over heels for Hillary" look:

Here is what is undoubtedly one of Clinton's favorite photographs of himself, from a rare lean phase. Note the faroff look in his eyes, as if he is contemplating weighty matters, combined with the determined set of his jaw, and the judicious stroking of his chin. What a statesman!

Please bear in mind, this is not just a lesson in Bill Clinton-ism; it is a lesson in sociopathy. Sociopaths often betray their own essentially dishonest natures by overdoing things, demonstrating the falseness of their emotions.

Now, if you didn't take a look at the Youtube video linked above, please do so; it's extremely illuminating.

(Here's my more detailed explanation of Bill Clinton's sociopathy.)

Still not sure what to make of this NSA guy

The NY Post (Ralph Peters) gave a withering assessment of Edward Snowden this morning.

USA Today gave a more seemingly balanced view, which included a good definition of what both a hero and a villain are.

If you betray US government secrets, especially after you've signed a confidentiality agreement, you're a traitor, period. And yet....and yet....Snowden was no Aldrich Ames, who gave away the names of individual US agents who were killed as a result, for personal gain. He was the opposite, someone who sacrificed a good life in order to tell the truth.

The fact that the Left is lionizing Snowden makes me leery; but all he really did was say that Big Brother -- or perhaps, Big Brutha -- is watching.

In principle, I have no problem with the NSA having our phone records, if it helps save American lives. On the other hand, our current administration has shown scant reluctance to use its power to punish the political opposition, while being incapable of sorting out real threats from the likes of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the "underwear bomber"), Nidal Hassan, the Ft. Hood shooter, and the Tsarnaev brothers, even after being alerted to their suspicious behavior beforehand.

Maybe they were too busy concocting schemes like Fast and Furious, and using the IRS to hinder the Tea Party. After all, as Valerie Jarrett said after Obama's reelection, "It's payback time." (She wasn't referring to al Qaeda, but to the people this administration regards as the real enemy.)

So....I don't know what to think. I'm probably still guilty of confused thinking at this point.

Sophisticates vs. unsophisticates

Every now and then it occurs to me, that the associations sparked by certain words determine the listener's level of sophistication:

When you hear the name Hannibal, do you first think of the Carthaginian general who crossed the Alps with his elephants, or of Mr. Lecter?

When you hear "SEC," do you expect to hear about the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Southeastern Conference -- home to the Crimson Tide and the 'Dawgs?

Do the letters WWF evoke the World Wildlife Fund, or the World Wrestling Federation?

Does "superman" bring to mind Friedrich Nietzsche, or Clark Kent?

When you hear "The Talented Mr. Ripley," do you think of the book by Patricia Highsmith, or the movie starring Matt Damon?

Does the word "movement" make you think of the symphonic, or the bowel, kind?

After the words "the rise and fall of," do you expect to hear "The Roman Empire" or "her heaving breasts"?

Do the words "the theater" make you think of David Mamet, or the local movie chain?

Beyond words, there are other associations which give us away:

When you see a bottle of wine, do you wonder about the vintage and variety of grape, or do you think, time to get shit-faced!

When you see a man with a muscular, well-defined body, do you think what an idiot he must be to waste all that time at the gym, or, wow, that guy is jacked!

When you see someone driving a Ferrari, are you dismayed at his vulgarity, or envious of his hot shit car?

Personally, I count myself squarely in the unsophisticated category. On every single one of the examples above (with the possible exception of the SEC), I would have the lower brow reaction.

It's not that I'm really lowbrow: I don't like comic books, and have never been a professional wrestling fan. I'm just middlebrow, and there doesn't seem to be anything I can do about it.

I know that I should have some appreciation for opera, the ballet, fine art, antiquities, and the theater. But I just find them boring.

To me, museums are places I would only go to see specimens of fearsome animals, not Art. Shakespeare was just someone I was forced to read in high school, not a joy to read.

I prefer Kurt Vonnegut, Frederick Forsyth, and Ken Kesey. The middlebrow pantheon.

I know the Russian writers are supposed to be great, but I'm just not interested. Or, at least, am no longer willing to make the effort to wade through those interminable chunks of pavement. (War and Peace was recently recommended to me, but I think I'll just wait for the movie.)

The only good thing I can say about myself is that I'm not pretentious. (Well, at least not about this stuff.) To me, there's nothing more sickening than people who affect an affection for something they think they're supposed to like, not because they actually enjoy it, but because they think it reflects well on them.

You can always tell because they advertise their love. They fall all over themselves letting you know how sophisticated they are. (The converse is also true: if anyone is ever sheepish about a hobby, at least you know he has a real passion for it.)

With the phony sophisticates, it's always their pride that gives them away.

Then again, looking over this post, it sure seems like I'm pretty proud of my lack of sophistication.

(Which is worse? I honestly don't know.)

White trash

Look up "white trash" in the Free Online Dictionary and they give the following definition:

n. Offensive Slang
1. Used as a disparaging term for a poor white person or poor white people.
2. Used as a disparaging term for a white person or white people perceived as being lazy and ignorant.

The Urban Dictionary gives the following definition:

Slang term for white people that usually live in a trailer park. With low incomes that spend their tax returns on things like big screen TV's instead of clothes for their kids. These people tend to be mouthy and fight frequently. Generally these people are uneducated and have little concern for personal hygiene. To see these people at their best watch Jerry Springer.
"What happened on Jerry Springer today? Oh, the usual. Some White trash ho beat down her white trash boo because he was getting freaky wid the white trash neighbor who is married to her father."

There is an equivalent expression, "trailer trash," which means basically the same thing.

There are, of course no such equivalent expressions for the other races. (Have you ever heard of yellow trash, brown trash, or black trash?)

The etymology is surprising. According to Wiktionary.org, the expression is:

A shortening, first attested in 1850, of poor white trash, which black slaves in the Southern United States were said to call white individuals who worked in servile positions (for example as butlers).

What would be the reaction if a white person called an African-American "black trash"?

(Somehow I doubt that the term "yellow trash" would bring the same degree of censure: a description of Korean-Americans as "lazy and ignorant" just wouldn't set off the same kinds of alarm bells.)

Yet the phrase "white trash" is not at all taboo. If you type it in the search bar of the NYTimes.com, it returns 9520 results. Then again, if you type the n-word into the same search bar, you get 13,000 results, although most of those articles seem to be about the use of the word itself, whereas "white trash" is mostly just used as a reference to a certain class of people.

What are white trash, exactly? They are people who live in trailer parks or other poor areas, like Appalachia. They are uneducated, go on welfare, have babies out of wedlock, drink and smoke more, occasionally become addicted to meth, have illegal guns, and become violent more frequently than the rest of the population.

Substitute housing project for trailer park, inner city for Appalachia, and crack for meth, and you have another sector of the population. Yet there is no such expression as "black trash."

Is this yet another example of the usual double standard which allows endless criticism -- the trashing, so to speak -- of white people, but not a bad word about brown or black people?

When you think about it, the existence of the phrase "white trash" and the lack of an equivalent phrase for blacks is almost "racist" against blacks: whites who are termed such require such a designation because they are apart from the norm for whites. Is the reason no such designation ever developed for other races because it would more often be redundant?

I suppose you could be offended by the term for whichever reason you choose: because it is insulting to a certain class of white people, or because of its implied insult to black and brown people.

"The Progressive Glossary"

What progressive terminology really means, from Jim Goad. Definitely worth reading.

The New Colossus

I was going to do a parody of Emma Lazarus' famous poem which is inscribed on a plaque on the State of Liberty. However, upon doing a little research, I found the poem, which I'd never heard in its entirety before. It's actually quite beautiful:

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I like the comparison to the Colossus of Rhodes, and the contrast of the woman -- the "Mother of Exiles" -- with the "mild eyes" to "the brazen giant of Greek fame." I like the way this Mother tells the "ancient lands" -- Europe and the Near East -- to keep their "storied pomp," with the implication that this New World country is not at all pompous.

The only problem is, the last five lines are now a little self-defeating for this country. Still, it's a great sonnet. 

I had intended to say something along the lines of, 

Give me your Marielistas, your Mexican Mafia, 
Your masses of low IQ's yearning for welfare. 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 
Send these, the soon-to-be homeless, to me. 
I lift my lamp beside the green card.

But the poem itself is so beautiful, I can't bring myself to say that.

Emma Lazarus, when first asked to write a poem for the edifice, declined, saying she could not write a poem for a statue. But at the time, during the 1870's, she was heavily involved in helping Jewish victims of various pogroms in the Old World find refuge in the United States, and eventually she was convinced that her words would be seen by the many immigrants who were processed at Ellis Island. 

Lazarus' concern was primarily for her fellow Chosen, hence the reference to the "sunset gates," i.e., a gate to the West, where the sun sets, from the East, where her kinsmen were from. But the poem, especially the last five lines, have since become an invitation to every type of immigrant who wants to come to the US, from every direction, for every reason.

Which will eventually be our downfall, seeing as how our melting pot is no longer.

"Decorated Seal Team 6 member reveals inner 'Warrior Princess' after undergoing sex change surgery to become woman"

Yikes. Still trying to wrap my mind around this one.

You'd think that a guy who became a Seal Team 6 member would really be into being a guy. You'd think he'd be some high testosterone, hard charging, parody of machismo.

Or maybe not. But this has to be the most extreme case of overcompensation I've ever heard of.

Gotta wonder how the other Seals are taking this news.

FEMEN now protesting themselves

Those doughty women of FEMEN have been at it again, this time protesting Heidi Klum's live TV show, Germany's Next Top Model.

Two topless protesters crashed the proceedings. One had "Heidi's Horror Picture Show" written across her torso.

The next day, the group released the following statement on Facebook to explain their actions. Read it carefully:

FEMEN disrupted the live broadcast of Germany's most popular casting-show Germany's Next Top Model. The program format is pimp-show where world-famous supermodel Heidi Klum plays the role of "mom" and forms a bevy of underage girls to fashion-fools. The unauthorized appearance of FEMEN sekstremists at the epicenter of the show broadcasted live made the organizers and participants in the state of torpor. FEMEN sekstremists managed to make their accusations in the face of fashion-fascist ideologist of the show Heidi Klum in front of 15000th stadium and the millions of TV viewers audience. FEMEN regards the fashion industry as an element of pimp business and has consistently opposed the commercialization of the female body. Every year the fashion business millstones grind hundreds of thousands of girls, promoting the brilliance and richness of modeling career, forcing women to false ideals, provoking a real disease. Fooled by fashion propoganda, failed by fashion models, women regularly join the ranks of sex workers, and psychiatric patients. Stop the fashion business! Stop Prostitution! The true mission of a woman is a revolution!

"Forms a bevy of underage girls to fashion-fools"?

"The unauthorized appearance of FEMEN sekstremists....made the organizers and participants in the state of torpor"?

This show took place in 15,000 stadiums? (It's much bigger than I thought!)

Failed models automatically become prostitutes? 

If you ever want an immediate clue as to the worthiness of a group's cause, take a close look at their missives. Too often they'll betray their level of intelligence with misspellings, inappropriately used words, incorrect grammar, and garbled syntax. The Facebook message above almost reads like one of those Google translations of a foreign language: you just have to guess at the original meaning from the jumble of seemingly disconnected words. 

Perhaps I'm being unfair; perhaps the writer of the above manifesto only spoke English as her second, or third language. Even so, she seems guilty of confused thinking. 

But while confused thinking may be symptomatic of FEMEN's intelligence level, their hypocrisy is symptomatic of the group's character. 

It turns out, as pointed out after this blog's last FEMEN post (by Pete and "W O D"), that FEMEN themselves hold auditions for the role of topless protester. Women who want the job have to be photographed topless in order to be hired (at a salary of $1000 a month) as a protester. 

By holding such tryouts, aren't the group doing the exact same thing that they are protesting German's Next Top Model for? In fact, aren't they taking it a step further by insisting that their models pose topless?

On top of which, FEMEN obviously chooses their protesters on the basis of beauty, every bit as much as Heidi Klum's TV show does. If you don't believe that, then you must believe that these FEMEN protesters look like a typical cross section of feminists:

(I'll use any excuse to put pictures of half-naked women in my blog.)

Seriously, FEMEN's behavior is every bit as hypocritical as that of Norman Lear's (described in the post below).

"Edith Bunker's place"

Typical limousine liberal hypocrisy, personified by Norman Lear.

Another one

No one who isn't a sociopath ever tries to pull a scam like this.

What am I?

I am not asking the above question in the philosophical sense of, who am I? (Though that troubles me at times too.) Nor am I inviting reader comments along the lines of, "A self-satisfied, obnoxious asswipe." 

Rather, I am referring to my ancestry.

My father says that he is half-Welsh, and an eighth (each) Scottish, Irish, English, and German. I've always wondered, how could he know so exactly? 

My mother is Japanese, so that theoretically makes me half Japanese, a quarter Welsh, and a sixteenth Scottish, Irish, English, and German.

But my father once told me that when he went to Wales he saw absolutely no one who looked like him. 

And my mother has a pronounced bridge to her nose, which is vaguely non-Japanese-looking. And none of the three kids in our family were particularly Asian-looking, though that may have been primarily a function of our father's craggy features. 

A couple days ago I stumbled across this account of how Vanessa Williams found out exactly where her ancestors had come from. I wondered if I might have any similar surprises, so sent away for a DNA kit from Ancestry.com. for $109. 

They seem to be able to break down your European ancestry (to "British Isles," if not Scottish or Irish, and "southern European," if not necessarily Greek or Italian). It will be interesting if I don't come back exactly as advertised. 

It may turn out that we have some Korean or Ainu blood, which might not please my mother, who grew up in Japan, and can't help but harbor a few typically Japanese attitudes.

My father's side of the family has been in this country for over 200 years; I'm sort of hoping we turn out to have a dash of African blood. If so, I'll be able to speak honestly about racial differences without anyone accusing me of racism. (Or, if they do, at least I can patiently explain to them that it's okay for me to say these things -- even if it's not okay for them.) 

I'll even be able to use the n-word with impunity. (Well, maybe not.)

I love the idea of DNA testing. Apart from its usefulness in determining criminal culpability and paternity, it could be a useful tool in other ways, too. For instance, in determining who has the right to open up a casino: personally, I don't think anyone who has less than half Native American blood should be allowed to. (Actually, I don't think the government should be awarding such licenses on the basis of ancestry at all, but that's another matter.)

I've seen pictures of some of the people who claim Native American ancestry in order to obtain such a license. About three quarters of them could never, ever get cast in a Hollywood movie about Indians. I look far more like an Indian than most of them, even though I have no Indian blood. 

Or maybe I do. As I said, my father's side has been in this country a long time, and stranger things have happened. If we are part Cherokee, that could be a nice windfall: step right up folks, we have the finest slot machines in the entire state! The roulette wheel is right over there; put your money on either the red or the black.

I'm not putting my money on either red or black ancestry; but I will consider it a pleasant surprise if I have either. 

An interesting surprise, anyway.

I'll report back in a few weeks. 

I. M. a shrewd manipulator

We've all heard the Samuel Johnson quote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Basically, what this means is that if you associate yourself with a cause generally considered noble, you can use your supposed allegiance to that cause to all manner of selfish ends. The way this works is by discouraging opposition: if anyone opposes you in any way, it means they're opposing the noble cause.

There was no one more adept at this than the architect I.M. Pei. One theme I didn't fully explore in my earlier post about Pei (from July 2011) was what a manipulator Pei was. He has falsely wrapped himself in many flags, positioning his designs so that if you disagree with him, you're somehow against the spirit of whatever entity he was designing for at the time.

A few examples (from Wikipedia): 

Pei wanted his design for Dallas City Hall to "convey an image of the people."

Don't like it? Why do you dislike Texans so much? Are you one of those snobby "flyover" people? 

How this building conveys an image of the residents of Dallas is a mystery. (Was Pei was trying to convey the feeling of a cowboy falling off his horse?)

Pei felt that his design for the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong needed to reflect "the aspirations of the Chinese people."

Don't like Pei's design? Oh, so you don't think the Chinese people should be allowed to aspire? You racist!!

Pei claimed that a pyramid was "most compatible" with the other structures at the Louvre.

Don't like the design? Whatsamatter, you don't want to preserve the architectural integrity of the Louvre? Do you really hate French tradition that much? Are you saying the Louvre is a pile of crap?

Pei had in fact originally conceived the idea of a glass pyramid for the John F. Kennedy Library back in the 1960's, though the concept was shot down then. He recycled his idea for the Louvre. The structures it would be most compatible with are located in Giza, not Paris, but even there, it would be jarringly out of place.

As an architect, Pei is a modern artist: he tries to be different for the sake of being different, because he knows he will get more attention and fame that way. Being different is great if it represents an improvement of some sort. But to do it for its own sake, as so many fashion designers do during Fashion Week, is just the mark of a b.s. artist.

But if you wrap yourself in a flag, you can get away with that.

Knight in shining armor

From the AP, via the NY Post:

Drunk driver crashes while having sex; leaves ejected lover on the road then hides behind cactus. 

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A New Mexico man faces multiple charges after police say he was having sex with a woman while driving drunk and crashed, ejecting the woman from the vehicle.

The Albuquerque Journal reports 25-year-old Luis Briones was found with one shoe on and his shorts on inside-out Monday night after he wrecked his Ford Explorer in Albuquerque.

Police say Briones' female passenger was found naked outside the SUV after being ejected. She had deep cuts to her face and head.

Authorities allege Briones tried to drive away after the crash and leave his passenger behind, but a witness grabbed his keys from the ignition. He also allegedly tried to hide from responding officers behind a cactus and refused to keep his pants on when he was in the back of the police car.

Briones is charged with aggravated DWI, reckless driving and evading police.

No attorney was listed for him. 

When Briones does get an attorney, I will be very curious to hear what sort of defense that attorney mounts.

Maybe he can say it was just misplaced chivalry -- that Briones didn't want to embarrass the woman by making it apparent she had recently had sex, so tried to make himself scarce.

One also has to wonder what Briones will say to the woman next time he sees her. ("But honey, I thought you were still in the car"?)

It's going to require some pretty slick talking for him to get a second date.

(Am I the only one twisted enough to find the original AP article funny?)

Feminists bent on proving women unequal

While writing the recent post Finally, a worthwhile protest, I realized that in a strange way, it's actually the feminists who most convincingly demonstrate the differences between the sexes. There is simply no group of men who are the equivalent of left wing feminists.

The example I gave in that post was that feminists complain about unrealistically proportioned Barbie dolls, while men never complain about superhero dolls. But the differences go beyond this.

Another way the feminists prove they are not equal is by criticizing pornography. They say that it dehumanizes and objectifies women. (How many times have we heard this?) Naked men are featured in Playgirl, but there are no men who complain about this.

Feminists like Naomi Wolf complain about the "beauty myth," and how there is so much pressure on girls to be attractive. One never hears men complain about the "machismo myth," and all the pressure on men to be brave and tough and strong, and how this is unfair to men.

You can't see an adventure movie without a hero who's practically a parody of manliness. When men see such a hero, they aspire to be like him. But if feminists see a beautiful heroine, they complain that she represents a false ideal of beauty promulgated by the patriarchal power structure.

Some feminists say that if you've ever had sex while you were drunk, you've been raped. (They actually taught this at my son's high school.) It's a pretty safe assumption that they weren't saying that drunken men are rape victims. But why wouldn't this rule apply to both sexes? (Can two people rape each other at the same time?)

Women occasionally organize races like the NY Mini, where men are not allowed. Men never organize races specifically to exclude women. (There are certainly athletic competitions women don't enter, but it's generally because they can't compete.)

For years, feminists complained that women were numerically underrepresented in colleges and universities. Now that women outnumber men on the campuses, you never hear men complain.

Feminists say that when men stare at women, or crack lewd jokes within their earshot, that constitutes sexual harassment. Women can act as raunchy as they please, and men never complain of harassment.

If men were like feminists, they would complain about how they are overrepresented on Death Row -- even after the difference in murder rates is taken into account. But they're not, so they don't.

Feminists don't really want real equality. They just want rewards without pain.

(Please note, I'm not lumping all women in with feminists; most have far too much common sense to be so doctrinaire.)

A moving story

It's Memorial Day, so the media is full of tributes to our fallen veterans. Many of the stories have a somewhat obligatory feel to them, but this one doesn't.

Sociopath alert: Julie Hermann

An article in yesterday's New Jersey Star Ledger described how the new Rutgers Athletic Director, Julie Hermann, quit as the Tennessee volleyball coach "after her players submitted a letter complaining she ruled through humiliation, fear and emotional abuse."

A few excerpts:

"The mental cruelty that we as a team have suffered is unbearable," the players wrote. Specifically, they said the coach had called them "whores, alcoholics and learning disabled."

In blunt terms, the players wrote, "It has been unanimously decided that this is an irreconcilable issue."

Hermann, the players say, absorbed the words, turned to her team, and said simply: "I choose not to coach you guys."

Hermann says she did not remember the letter by her volleyball players. When the letter -- given to The Star-Ledger by one of the women -- was read to her by phone on Wednesday, she replied, "Wow."

Their accounts depict a coach who thought nothing of demeaning them, who would ridicule and laugh at them over their weight and their performances, sometimes forcing players to do 100 sideline pushups during games, who punished them after losses by making them wear their workout clothes inside out in public or not allowing them to shower or eat, and who pitted them against one another, cutting down particular players with the whole team watching, and through gossip.

Several women said playing for Hermann had driven them into depression and counseling, and that her conduct had sullied the experience of playing Division 1 volleyball.

Asked about the players' lingering grievances, Hermann reacted sharply and said she was flabbergasted. "I never heard any of this, never name-calling them or anything like that whatsoever."

The word "whore," she said, is "not part of my vernacular. Not then, not now, not ever. None of this is familiar to me."

Ironically, Hermann has been hired to clean up the Rutgers athletic program after the scandal involving an abusive basketball coach and an AD who did nothing about him. Hermann said all the right things about putting the athletes first; but of course hypocrisy is a sociopath's stock in trade.

If you look at the video in the linked article, Hermann says, "Trust me, there's no video" -- about a video which in fact does exist, in which she is attending a wedding (which she says she has no recollection of attending). "Trust me" is a common formulation among those who know that people shouldn't trust them. 

Hermann's loss of memory about how her volleyball coaching ended is very convenient, to say the least. Sociopaths lie unashamedly whenever it suits them.

Most telling, of course, is the description of how Hermann treated her players. Sociopaths often rule through intimidation and ridicule. They aren't above sabotaging (having players do 100 push-ups on the sidelines during games is self-defeating).

Another sociopathic specialty is public humiliation; dressing down a player in front of the others qualifies as that, as does forcing them to wear their workout clothes inside out. And not allowing players to shower or eat goes beyond what even most other sociopathic coaches would do.

Easy verdict: screaming sociopath.