Search Box

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Who would win in a fight?

I happened to see this picture of the First Couple hosting their final state dinner yesterday --

-- and I had the same childish thought I often do: which of them would win a fight?

Michelle has the arms and shoulders, and appears toned:

Whereas Barack, seen here pre-Presidency, does not look all that hard-bodied:

Michelle also seems to be more of a fighter by nature:

Whereas Barack appears less belligerent:

And Michelle actually has an interest in fisticuffs:

Whereas Barack appears to be more of a pacifist:

Then again, Barack has the guy thing going. Early on in his Presidency, he played basketball:

Though he has reportedly given that up, and now just plays golf:

It's a tough call.

But my guess is that if they ever did go at it, Barack is the one who would end up shaken to his core.

(I know, silly post. But I swear, I have that thought every third or fourth time I see a picture of them, and I needed to exorcise it.)

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

What is an "unwanted sexual advance?"

It's when you lean forward to kiss a woman, and she pulls away. In other words, we've all done it.

If you've never tried it, you've probably never kissed a girl. And you certainly haven't gotten laid.

How can a guy know ahead of time whether the female will be receptive? She may be extremely flirtatious, then decide at the last minute to play coy. That has been known to happen.

So, from now on, only virgins will be allowed to run.

Adam Lanza for President!

The idea that Donald Trump is now guilty of "sexual assault," while Bill Clinton's actual rapes are overlooked, is indicative of how biased our media are.

Trump tried to kiss a woman who wasn't receptive. Well, that definitely disqualifies him from being President.

Personally, I've probably insulted more women by not making a pass than by making one. A woman you make a pass at, even if she turns you down, will tend to regard you fondly afterward. A woman who expects a pass, and doesn't get one, will never forgive you. She may even tell her friends that she thinks you're gay. (I've had that happen.)

Or, she may just lie and tell her friends you made a pass at her. (I've had that happen as well.)

My guess is, that's what happened with at least one or two of the women who are now claiming that Trump made an unwanted sexual advance at them.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Interview with Michelle Obama

In the wake of her scathing speech against Donald Trump, Just Not Said has obtained an exclusive interview with Michelle Obama.

JustNotSaid: Thank you so much for agreeing to meet with us.

Michelle Obama: Thank you. You wouldn't believe what great press I've gotten the past few days.

JNS: Oh, we can believe it. But frankly, we're a little confused by your having said that Trump's words have shaken you to your core. That implies your sensibilities are fresh from a cloistered 1950's nunnery, yet you've invited rappers to the White House who've said far worse than Donald Trump ever has. For instance, Rick Ross, who --

MO: Rick is a wonderful, melodious, Christian singer.

JNS: But he's constantly rapping about his "hos."

MO: That's not the Rick I know; I'm sure he must be referring to his gardening hoes or something.

JNS: But in his song U.E.O.N.O., he raps, "Put Molly all in her Champagne/ She ain't even know it/ I took her home and I enjoyed that/ She ain't even know it." Do you think this promotes constructive behavior?

MO: Believe me, Rick is a gentle soul who wouldn't hurt a fly.

JNS: Or Common --

MO: (interjecting) Oh, Common! I just love his song "Letter to the Law."

JNS: But in it, Common raps, "Tell the law my Uzi weighs a ton....I hold up a peace sign but I carry a gun." Now, your husband has taken a strongly anti-gun stance, so don't you think that message is somewhat at odds --

MO: (interrupting) Oh you know, that's just poetic license. He's trying to make a point, that's all.

JNS: Now you've said in the past that you can't imagine a better role model for your daughters than Beyonce. But she's sung, “Who the fuck do you think I is? / You ain’t married to no average bitch boy / You can watch my fat ass twist boy / As I bounce to the next dick boy.” Is that really the way you want your daughters to talk?

MO: Oh please. Beyonce happens to be very ladylike, she's just trying to sell albums.

JNS: But you said you were shocked to your core when Trump talked about grabbing pussy, yet Beyonce herself has sung, "Why can't I keep my fingers off it, baby, I want you." Is that not the same thing?

MO: Not at all. Beyonce is a star. Being a star comes with certain privileges, you know.

JNS: But that's exactly what Trump was -- never mind. Now, you also said in your recent speech that the men in your life do not talk about women the way Donald Trump does --

MO: They'd never dare! Why, even when Barack was with his buddy Reggie Love, I never once heard that kind of low-down, ill-mannered talk about women. They were perfect gentlemen. Reggie would always call me "Ma'am." As a matter of fact, he almost seemed a little afraid of me, I don't know why.

JNS: Did, uh, Reggie Love date women much?

MO: He didn't have time to date -- he was too busy with his job! You have no idea how much work it is to keep America running smoothly.

JNS: But his job was just to attend to Barack's personal needs.

MO: And he did a good job of that. Barack always seemed to be in a good mood whenever Reggie was around.

JNS: You've really never, ever heard Barack talk about women in a suggestive manner?

MO: No, even when he was hanging with his first body man, Nick Colvin, who'd been with Barack since he was a Senator. Barack was just never disrespectful that way. In fact, he never even gave another woman a second look.

JNS: But how about when Kal Penn was at the White House? After all, these Hollywood types have a reputation for being very upfront about sex.

MO: No, not even with Kal. I mean, the two of them would giggle a lot, and seemed to have a good time, but it wasn't at all as if they were being impudent, or discourteous to women.

JNS: Okay, I think we get the picture. A slight change of subject here: your speech praised Hillary Clinton to the skies. Yet back in 2008, your husband said that Hillary would, and we quote, "Say anything and change nothing."

MO: Why would you want to go digging up ancient history like that?

JNS: But that secretly recorded tape of Trump with Bill Bush was done even earlier, in 2005.

MO: (shaking head) I'm telling you, that tape shook me to my core.

JNS: Well thank you very much for this enlightening interview.

MO: Thank-you

Sunday, October 16, 2016

From the horse's mouth

You've undoubtedly heard the argument over voter ID laws. The Republicans say it's necessary to prevent voter fraud. The Democrats say it's just a way to repress the black vote.

But you need an ID to cash a check, get on an airplane, or drive a car. Nobody has ever suggested that those were methods of keeping black people from driving, etc.

Finally, we hear directly from a Democrat -- a Board of Elections Commissioner (in New York City) -- that voter fraud is rampant. The relevant excerpt from the NY Post article:

“Certain neighborhoods in particular, they bus people around to vote,” he says on the tape. “They put them in a bus and go poll site to poll site.” Asked if he meant black and Hispanic neighborhoods, he nods: “Yeah, and Chinese, too...”

And some of it is just common sense, such as his rejection of most Democrats’ resistance to voter-ID laws: “You know, I don’t think it’s too much to ask somebody to show some kind of an ID,” he says. “You go into a building, you have to show them your ID.”

And: “People think [opposing voter-ID laws is] a liberal thing to do, but I take my vote seriously, and I don’t want 10 other people coming in negating my vote by voting for the other candidate when they aren’t even registered voters.”

Bear in mind, this is a Democrat speaking. And now Mayor de Blasio wants to fire him for having committed the cardinal sin for a Democrat: admitting the truth. 

Here is the original videotape where he was surreptitiously recorded, courtesy of Project Veritas. It's worth a look. Alan Schulkin, the Commissioner, seems like a decent enough guy. He also seems to be disgusted with the way the Democrats operate. 

Anyway, that answers the question of whether voter fraud is real. 

(But don't expect the NY Times or Washington Post to cover this story.)

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Michelle's Obama's hypocrisy, and one true statement

Much has been made of Michelle Obama's hypocrisy in saying that Donald Trump's dirty talk "has shaken me to my core."

Here's one site, LifeZette, which points out that at the same time that Michelle acts so shocked at Trump's words, she was hosting rap stars who've said far worse -- quite publicly -- at the White House. In fact, Michelle once said that she couldn't think of a better role model for her children than Beyonce.

I won't repeat all the relevant lyrics by Beyonce, Jay Z, Common, Rick Ross, and other invited White House guests here. But I would like to point out that in the midst of all her holier than thou posturing -- and she did go on and on at great length about this -- Michelle did say one thing that rang true:

"I can tell you that the men in my life do not talk about women like this."

That, I believe. 

Friday, October 14, 2016

A graphic that's been making the rounds

A friend emailed this:

I don't know who came up with it, but I thought it worth passing along.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Which is more important?

There hasn't been a time in recent history when the country has been more divided, and when there are two more divergent visions of what this country should be. The fate of the nation hangs on this election. Yet the election seems to be being determined on some awfully unimportant things.

Should we accept more Muslim immigrants who are potential terrorists, and who will probably be more loyal to their nation of origin than to the US? Does it matter that once they reach a critical mass they will start to demand Sharia law and forever alter the complexion of this country?

Well, maybe, but it's far more important that Donald Trump once told an interviewer that as a celebrity women would let him get away with a lot.

Should we have good relations with Russia, or should we escalate tensions, possibly leading to a major war?

Who cares about a little thing like that when Donald Trump once tried to kiss a woman without asking permission first?

Should we enforce our borders so that we're actually a nation?

It's obviously far more important that Trump, incredibly, once referred to people who snuck across those borders as "illegal aliens" rather than "undocumented workers."

Is it a problem that so many of our jobs have been shipped abroad and that the middle class is being decimated?

Well, it's not nearly as big a problem as Trump saying that Megyn Kelly was "bleeding from her wherever."

Should we choose as the next Supreme Court Justice one who will respect the Constitution, or one who will push the activist agenda of the Obama administration?

Who cares about such an inconsequential thing when it turns out that during production at The Apprentice, Trump actually talked to his coworkers about which women on the show he'd like to bed?

Should we continue to enforce ridiculous standards of political correctness whereby criticism of one group is okay but similar criticism of another is not? Should we continue to call realistic talk "hate speech," thereby ending all honest discussion of our domestic problems?

Who can be bothered about a trivial matter like that when Trump once called Rosie O'Donnell a fat pig?

Should we be concerned about the rising murder rate in our cities and the fact that our police now feel hamstrung when it comes to law enforcement?

Of course not -- this pales in comparison to the fact that Trump used the word "pussy."

It's good to know that the media is keeping America focused on the things that really matter.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Vandalism from the Left vs. the Right

An article in the local paper a couple days ago described how Trump signs have been vandalized all over town. People put them on their lawns, and then, within a few days, someone has either stolen them or pushed them over.

There have been no similar complaints from people who put up Clinton signs.

The local paper didn't get into a philosophical discussion about what that means.

But it's hard not to see this as an example, in microcosm, of a basic difference between Left and Right.

The Right believes in free speech. The Left believes in free speech for its own side, but categorizes anything it disagrees with as "hate speech," which they do their best to repress.

The Right respects other people's property. The Left does not, whether it's a Trump sign or someone's taxable income.

A friend recently put a Trump sticker on his car, somewhat apprehensively, just to see what kind of reaction it would get. Within a week one lady shook her head and hissed at him, "America is already great!"

I don't think that liberals who put a Hillary sticker on their car get equivalent reactions. My friend was worried that someone might key his car (no one has, so far). I don't think liberals worry about that.

The same friend got a Trump t-shirt. While he was walking with his girlfriend on the beach, another guy glared at him. (Do conservatives glare angrily at people wearing Hillary t-shirts?)

He said yesterday, "At the dump a guy in a pick-up truck looked at me and did a prolonged shaking of the head and amused frown, as if in disbelief." (Do conservatives condescend so ostentatiously?)

The most telling thing is that, somehow, none of this is surprising.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Does Trump have ADHD?

Commenter Mark Caplan made an insightful suggestion this morning: Trump likely has ADHD.

From Wikipedia:

Inattention, hyperactivity (restlessness in adults), disruptive behavior, and impulsivity are common in ADHD. Academic difficulties are frequent as are problems with relationships. The symptoms can be difficult to define as it is hard to draw a line at where normal levels of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity end and significant levels requiring interventions begin....

A child with ADHD hyperactive/impulsive type has most or all of the following symptoms, excluding situations where these symptoms are better explained by another psychiatric or medical condition:
-Fidget and squirm in their seats
-Talk nonstop
-Dash around, touching or playing with anything and everything in sight
-Have trouble sitting still during dinner, school, doing homework, and story time
-Be constantly in motion
-Have difficulty doing quiet tasks or activities
-Be very impatient
-Blurt out inappropriate comments, show their emotions without restraint, and act without regard for consequences
-Have difficulty waiting for things they want or waiting their turns in games
-Often interrupt conversations or others' activities

This does sound like Trump, and it would explain a lot. During the last debate, much was made of the fact that when it was Hillary's turn to speak, Trump would often walk back and forth, and at one point even did some modified push-ups on his chair. (Fidgety.)

He has by all accounts been reluctant to sit down and practice debating with his team. And he has also been unwilling to do his homework on the minutiae of foreign policy, learning other countries' leaders' names, and so on. (He has "trouble sitting still...doing homework" and is "very impatient.")

Mark mentioned that Trump has admitted that he doesn't read books, another activity requiring patience.

Trump interrupted Hillary frequently during the debates. ("Often interrupt conversations...Have difficulty waiting their turns...")

His frequent and often self-destructive Tweeting is another sign of impulsiveness. As is his spontaneous blurting out of insults about people's looks.

He's been married three times. ("Problems with relationships" -- although, in all fairness, this may just be par for a billionaire.)

Is it possible that even his tendency to repeat himself is a sign of ADHD -- the repetitions buy him time to gather his next thoughts, which tend to scatter.

Mark also pointed out that Trump describes everything as either a "disaster" or a "catastrophe." Might it be that his limited vocabulary is another side effect of the ADHD? (If you can't concentrate, it's harder to remember a lot of words.)

Remember, Trump was sent to a military school at age 13 because he was a "discipline problem." Those two words are often used to describe someone with ADHD.

The Clinton team undoubtedly hired some psychologists to give their opinion of Trump, and they undoubtedly offered the words "narcissistic" as well as "attention deficit" and advised her to keep him off balance and off message with personal attacks. (These work well with a narcissist, as he will always defend himself, and with someone with ADD or ADHD, since he will lose his train of thought.)

Hillary was able to do this successfully in the first debate, much less so in the second. The Clinton campaign, of course, wants to prevent Trump from sticking to his script, since he has a winning one. So far they've been partially successful.

Let's hope -- for the good of the country -- that somebody gives Trump some Ritalin for the third debate.

And, that somebody points out to him that there are many perfectly good synonyms for "disaster" (courtesy of debacle, calamity, failure, fiasco, flop, washout, blight, and bust.

All of which would describe a Hillary Presidency well.

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Newsflash: that's how most guys talk

You've undoubtedly heard of the recording from eleven years ago where Donald Trump talked about how he tried to have sex with a married woman.

Trump said:

"She was down in Palm Beach and I moved on her. I moved on her and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married....You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women, I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything....."

Now, all sorts of politicians are claiming to be shocked, shocked I tell you, by Trump's vulgarity. According to the Washington Post:

After the video appeared online Friday afternoon, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wrote on Twitter: “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.” 

[No one could ever accuse Hillary of being self-serving.]

Her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), told reporters, “It makes me sick to my stomach,” while campaigning in Las Vegas.

[Funny, he himself evoked that same reaction from much of the audience during the VP debate.]

Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which has endorsed Clinton, issued a statement from Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens saying: “What Trump described in these tapes amounts to sexual assault.”

[But there's a big difference between merely describing it and actually doing it, as Bill Clinton did.]

Trump was also criticized by members of his own party. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who said he is “sickened” by Trump’s comments, said the Republican presidential candidate will no longer appear with him at a campaign event in Wisconsin on Saturday. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”

Ryan's holier-than-thou posturing is particularly sickening, given that he's obviously lusting after the 2020 nomination, and is hoping that Trump does not get elected -- and Hillary does -- which will clear the path for him.

It's hard to believe that any of the people who've claimed to be so shocked at Donald Trump's words are actually all that shocked, since this is the way most men talk when they're with their buddies. In fact, the only guys who never talk like this are stiffs (~20% of the male population), true gentlemen (~1%), gay men (~4 or 5%), and self-righteous, hypocritical politicians (<1% of the population, though that description fits > 90% of politicians).

I'm guessing Paul Ryan falls into at least two of those categories, and "true gentlemen" is not one of them. 

And what did that tape tell us that we didn't already know? That Trump is an egotistical boor? We already knew that.

So what? Hillary is a corrupt, traitorous sociopath.

A couple things from that tape. First, note that Trump admitted to failing his seduction attempt. His honesty puts him a level above many men, who simply lie about their manly pursuits. (For instance, Paul Ryan, who ran a marathon in 4:01:25 and then claimed to have broken three hours.)

Second, I doubt that Trump ever once made a pass at a woman by grabbing her by the pussy. Whatever his other failings, Trump is undoubtedly a man of the world. As such, he had undoubtedly learned by age 59 that starting off an attempted seduction that way is not the most effective method of landing a woman in bed.

Trump was obviously just trying to make a point by exaggerating what he could get away with as a celeb. There was a certain schoolyard bravado to his words; if you want to say that's pathetic for a 59-year-old, I won't argue.

But better empty boasting than what Bill Clinton did, which was to actually did grope -- and in some cases, rape -- women against their will.

If Hillary brings up the recent video in the debate tonight, Trump should respond, "Hillary, I just talked about it -- which I regret. Your husband has actually done those things, and worse. You've said I shouldn't be President because of my words. Do you feel your husband should never have been President because of his actions? And while we're at it, you were in charge of the war room dealing with all the so-called bimbo eruptions around Bill. You savaged all of those poor women who were Bill's victims. Does this mean you shouldn't be President?"

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Peaceful protests

When the Obama administration initially described the Benghazi attack of 9/11/12 as a "peaceful protest over an offensive internet video that spiraled out of control," the mainstream media dutifully reported this version events --

The MSM, as loyal to the Obama agenda as Tass was to the Kremlin, referred to the recent rioting in Charlotte as "peaceful protests" --

After a black cop in a police department run by a black commissioner shot and killed a black man in Charlotte, crowds of angry blacks attacked random whites in reprisal. But the MSM continued to characterize these goings on as "peaceful protests."

It's unfortunate that these sorts of honest and accurate depictions of events weren't available for other periods of history. Instead, what we always seemed to get were sensationalized accounts which overly dramatized what were, in fact, humdrum events.

It's high time we rewrote history to conform to the more up to date, sophisticated standards of great newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Here are some early Romans holding a peaceful love-in that involved a few Sabine women:

Here are some of Genghis Khan's Mongol peaceniks on their way to a friendly demonstration in Baghdad:

Here are Tamerlane and his nonviolent protesters outside the ancient city of Urganj, in what is now Turkmenistan:

Here is Atlanta after General Sherman led a peaceful protest march through the city:

Here's Winston Churchill inspecting the aftermath of a peaceful rally by the Luftwaffe in Battersea:

And here's Dresden after a counter protest by the Allies:

Imagine how much clearer our understanding of history might be if only it had been recorded by modern journalists. Small wonder that the New York Times has garnered 117 Pulitzer Prizes, and the Washington Post 47, for their hard-hitting reporting.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Leanness and looks, Part II

I'm not sure exactly whether the main difference between today's diet and that of 150 years ago was the proportion of carbs vs. fats or just the overall amount consumed. Obviously there was a big difference as far as the physical exertion put forth as well.

But it's hard not to notice the difference between the way Civil War soldiers looked --

-- and the way Civil War reenactors look:

Being lean not only makes you better-looking, it somehow makes you look more capable, and more serious as well. If either the Grays or Blues had seen opposing soldiers who looked like these reenactors, it would have undoubtedly boosted their confidence.

This may conflict with the spirit of the Fat Liberation Manifesto, but it doesn't conflict with basic human nature. There is something about a lean face that makes it seem more somber, and grim, and gritty -- as if the person behind that face is ready to wage war, as opposed to just play act at it.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

The interrelatedness of sociopathic traits

If you look at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders, or the DSM, as it's popularly referred to, they list the following diagnostic criteria for "antisocial personality disorder," which is how they refer to sociopathy.

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

At first glance, this looks like a random collection of undesirable traits, all of which combine to form an extremely unattractive personality. But in fact, each of these characteristics is related to the others.

A failure to comply with the law (1) is nothing more than a consistent irresponsibility (6) combined with a certain impulsiveness (3). It often incorporates a reckless disregard for safety (5) as well.

The kind of people who are repeatedly deceptive (2) are that way because they feel no remorse (7). If you feel guilty -- or at least embarrassed -- about lying, you don't do it, and certainly not on a regular basis. Lying is also the act of a person who is impulsive (3), who wants some sort of satisfaction at that moment, and who doesn't care about the future, when he may get caught in that lie.

(It's hard for most people to imagine, but a sociopath will lay claim to a nonexistent accomplishment just to bask in the glory of the moment, even though it's inevitable that he will eventually be caught in his lie.)

"Conning others" (2) is also a function of "consistent irresponsibility" (6) as well as a "lack of remorse" (7) and it often is illegal as well (1). One behavior is a prerequisite for another.

"Impulsivity or a failure to plan ahead" (3) is how you behave when you never learn from experience, and you never learn from experience when you never feel remorse (7) or even embarrassment about your mistakes.

"Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults" (4) can only result from a "reckless disregard for safety of self or others" (5). And the irritability is often a byproduct of a personality which is incapable of remorse (7), and never sees himself as being at fault, therefore always blaming others for whatever goes wrong in his life. And actual physical assaults are "grounds for arrest"(1).

What is a "reckless disregard for safety" (5) other than irresponsibility (6) combined with a failure to plan ahead (3)?

"Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations" (6) usually incorporates deception (2), since sociopaths almost always promise to work hard and pay their debts. Inconsistent work behavior is usually a result of "impulsivity" (3), going off to do something more fun than working. And not keeping one's promises is the behavior of one who has a "lack of remorse" (7).

It's not an accident that these traits and behaviors cluster.

Much of the literature on sociopathy states that you have to see several of these behaviors before you can accurately diagnose sociopathy. But if all you get is a little snapshot of someone, and one of the behaviors described above is extreme enough, you can pretty much count on the others being there as well.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

How whites react to black misbehavior

About a week ago commenter Puzzled sent in a link to an excellent article -- Protest Thugs and the Real Evil in Charlotte -- describing what was really going on in North Carolina the week before.

The mainstream media, of course, covered the goings on predictably. Keith Lamont Scott, who had a long record of assault, including assault with a deadly weapon, was described as a quiet family man.  The rioting, which involved much violence and the looting of several stores, was described as a peaceful protest. And the fact that the cop who shot Scott was black was usually buried fairly deeply. That the black mobs were attacking random whites because of their race went completely unreported by most of the MSM.

None of this is surprising. In fact, the public now routinely expects this kind of see no evil-hear no evil-speak no evil dishonesty from the media.

But it's not just the media. In general, when whites are individually confronted with blacks who misbehave, or do something dumb, they just pretend not to notice.

When I was 14, in 1968, I got sent to a small private school. The headmaster, Charles Merrill, was the son of the Merrill who founded Merrill Lynch. (He was also the brother of poet James Merrill.) Charles Merrill gave scholarships to a certain number of poor black students from Dorchester and Roxbury, to balance out the sheltered upper middle class whites who comprised the bulk of the students.

One of the black students was named Johnny Barnes; he was two grades ahead of me. One time we were sitting at a lunch table with a group of other students and he reached his hand across the table to touch a girl's breast. The girl was also black, so she just pushed his hand away brusquely, without making a fuss about it. Johnny then got this mischievous little boy smile on his face and said, "Sorry Michelle, I forgot where I was."

I found it hilarious that he would just do that in front of everybody, so cracked up laughing. But when I looked around, no one else at the table was laughing. They were all just looking away.

Johnny must have realized that he had a receptive audience in me, though, because he reached across the table to touch Michelle's breast once again, a sly grin on his face. This time she brushed his hand away with a little more annoyance, but maintained her stolid disposition. Johnny cracked that little boy smile again, and said, once again, "I forgot where I was."

I tried to contain my laughter, but that somehow made it worse, and so laughed even harder. Meanwhile, everyone else at the table just continued to studiously ignore him.

Later that year there was a party at someone's house. Johnny was there; I saw him smoking marijuana on the front lawn. Later he came into the house and started to dance, by himself, to the music.

Johnny started to mimic a guy masturbating, but he did it while dancing, and keeping perfect rhythm with the song. As he continued, he pretended that his penis was continuing to grow, until he was using both hands to masturbate an imaginary organ roughly two feet wide and four feet long. As he did it, he had his eyes closed and wore a blissful expression, as if consumed by passion. Never once did he crack a smile, and never once did he lose his rhythm.

It was the most outrageous, coolest, and funniest thing I'd ever seen. It was also, of course, the most socially inappropriate. I can't recall ever having laughed harder. This time, there was one other guy who seemed to be watching him, and he too was beside himself with laughter. He walked over from the other side of the room to where I was, but neither of us was capable of coherent speech, all we could do was point at Johnny and sort of splutter with laughter. We were both, literally, in tears.

But even with all that mirth, I noticed that this one other guy and I were the only ones paying Johnny any attention at all. Everybody else was acting as if they hadn't even noticed his dancing. And it wasn't as if it was easy to miss. He was doing that dance with big, dramatic, impassioned gestures. Actually, it was impossible to miss.

But of the twenty or so people in the room, only two of us seemed to find it noteworthy and funny.

You could say I was laughing at Johnny, but really, I was mostly laughing with him. I think.

(I have to wonder what he would have thought had he known that someone would write about that incident 48 years later.)

In any case, most of us have noticed similar situations. A friend once told me that there was a black student at his majority white high school who got away with all sorts of things a white student would not have. One time a teacher was asking questions of the students to see if they had completed a reading assignment. He then asked the black student a question. The black student replied, "Man, you wanna know that shit so bad, why don't you look it up yourself?" (He wasn't trying to be funny, he was just annoyed that the teacher would call on him.)

I asked my friend what the teacher did. My friend said, "Nothing."

I asked, what would have happened if a white student had replied that way? My friend shrugged, "He would probably have been reprimanded."

On another occasion the students were told to fill out some sort of official form (I'm not sure what the form was). The same black student just crumpled his form up and threw it on the floor, saying, "This is bullshit," and walked out.

And, once again, he didn't get into any trouble.

When I was in business school, I took a class which required us to break up into four man groups, with each group assigned to come up with a solution to a problem. Our team included one black student. He obviously didn't know what was going on, and every now and then he would say something completely nonsensical, but with a business buzzword or two thrown in, just to appear as if he was contributing to the discussion. I would always look at the other two students, curious what their reaction would be. They would look at him, deadpan, listen politely, and then continue the discussion as if he had never spoken. But they never laughed, smirked, or questioned him.

(I found their reaction almost as funny as his comments, though I managed to repress my laughter this time.)

When I lived in New York City, back in the 80's and 90's, I would often see black people acting out in some way in the subway: smoking, panhandling, having his music turned up too loudly, etc. Never once did I see a white person object to their behavior. Most wouldn't even look at the miscreant. (In all fairness, white miscreants are usually ignored too; in big cities, people learn to simply avoid those who might be crazy.)

But even with blacks who are obviously civilized, whites pretend not to see them make mistakes. When Vice President Dan Quayle misspelled "potatoes" back in 1992, the media went wild. When George W. Bush mispronounced "nuclear" (he said "nucular"), the comedians went wild. But when Obama said, back in 2008, that he had visited 57 states, there was only a deafening silence from the MSM.

Obama has actually been comedy gold over the years, as I pointed out here and here. But no comedian has been willing to mock him. Some of this, of course, has to do with the media's liberal bias. But even a Democrat who was white and made similar gaffes would have attracted more comedic attention than Obama has.

(If a tree falls the woods and there are only liberals there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does, even though the liberals act as if it did not.)

Mostly, whites have just been brainwashed into knowing that they're not supposed to show disapproval of, or laugh at blacks, because to do so would demonstrate "racism." It's a sort of paralysis by political correctness.

I understand that feeling; I've felt it myself. It's two parts wanting them to feel comfortable, two parts wanting to be liked, three parts wanting to prove you're a good person because you're not "racist," and about eight parts not wanting to set them off.

It's that last part, the fear, that's actually the strongest -- though tacit -- acknowledgment of racial differences. Whites instinctively sense that blacks are much more volatile, and will fly off the handle and scream racism and make a scene and possibly even turn violent at the slightest provocation. So, whites keep their heads down and pretend not to notice anything.

The dynamic involved is not entirely different from the way that a sociopath will manipulate people: with the constant, implicit threat of a completely unrestrained reaction to anything you might do which displeases him. People end up walking on eggshells around someone like this.

Just as whites do around blacks.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Looking up old flames

Google-searching exes seems to be a fairly universal activity. With the internet, it's a lot easier to keep tabs on people.

Actually contacting them is less common, but certainly not unheard of. Whenever the subject is broached, it's almost invariably presented as a bad idea. This has actually been the theme of a few movies, where it always seems to backfire in one way or another.

But curiosity is hard to extinguish. What is your ex doing these days? How has he or she aged? What is the ex's love life like? Facebook can answer some of these questions, but theres no substitute for actual contact.

Getting in touch often has to do with wanting to show off. If you're doing better than the last time you saw each other, you want the ex to know that. The desire to boast can never be overestimated.

And there's always the hope that the flame might be rekindled. Which makes the potential for awkwardness immense, given that that hope is likely to be one-sided.

Part of it also has to do with wanting to revisit one's own youth. I've always found that whenever I see people from way back when, I feel as if I'm the age I was when I last saw them. If I see someone I haven't seen since I was 25, in some weird way I feel 25 again, psychologically if not physically. The natural tendency is to pick up right where you left off -- for better or worse.

In a way seeing old friends is the closest we can come to time travel.

Seeing and thinking a little more clearly

From about age 55 to 61, I was congratulating myself on not needing reading glasses. Other people my age used them, but I didn't seem to need them. 

Last year, at 61, I finally gave in and got some. Now that I have them, reading is much, much easier. 

I should have gotten them years ago, back when I was congratulating myself for not needing them while squinting at the crossword every morning.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Why CEOs support Clinton

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on Friday, No Fortune 100 CEOs Back Republican Donald Trump. It turns out that 11 of those 100 have donated to Hillary Clinton. An excerpt:

Altogether, the 11 CEOs have donated more than $30,000 to Mrs. Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records....

Individuals are capped at donating $5,400 to a candidate, so the financial loss for Mr. Trump’s campaign is small. But gathering such support is traditionally a goal for candidates, because it sends a signal to voters about their competence, particularly on economic issues.

After all, if anyone understands the economy and what it would take to get the economy moving again, it would be these CEOs, right?

The NY Times jumped on board thee days later with an article titled, Trump's a Businessman. Where's His Business Backing?

That article provided the expected anti-Trump spin.

But yesterday, Real Money ran an article, Cramer: We Could Be Setting up for Some Presidential Bargains, which offered a far more insightful and honest appraisal of why these execs donate. The salient paragraph, buried deep in the article:

Now let's circle back to the 11 CEOs who have given to the Hillary camp and discuss the difference between Clinton and President Obama. Clinton, by virtue of her many years in politics, has built up a huge number of friends, both liberal and pragmatic, who know she will take their calls. Most of the CEOs I have talked to during the last eight years have been deeply frustrated because President Obama either didn't take their calls or they believe he didn't take them seriously. I know plenty of Republican and Democrat CEOs who tell me that Clinton's the opposite. In the crazy year since this campaign really took off, I have only talked to one CEO of all the scores I talk to who is for Trump and has given him money. Other than that one CEO, I haven't talked to anyone who thinks Trump would listen to him and act on his or her advice.

When a chief exec says that Trump won't "listen to him and act on his or her advice," what that means is that Trump won't twist policy to suit the interests of the CEO's company because of his campaign donation.

Hillary, on the other hand, made it perfectly clear while Secretary of State that she would make herself available and amenable to anyone who gave a large enough donation to the Clinton Foundation.

CEOs don't get to be CEOs by being starry-eyed idealists. They attain their positions by being extremely self-interested, conniving sharks. And by being realists.

They recognize that Clinton is for sale, and Trump is not.

Hence the contributions.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Tonight's debate

A friend recently wrote to say that his main interest in the upcoming debates was ghoulish: to see if Hillary would manage to make it through them. He concluded that she would be pumped full of drugs.

Hillary probably will be on something.

But the most interesting thing is going to be how they pick at each other's weaknesses.

You can be sure Hillary's camp has been brainstorming on things she can say to get Trump to blow his stack. Trump's Achilles heel does seem to be that if insulted, he will almost always take the bait. Trump has claimed that he hasn't practiced much for the debate; he seems to consider it beneath him, and doesn't want to come across rehearsed.

So what does Hillary have planned? What is Trump sensitive about? Will she talk about his businesses which have gone bankrupt? ("Donald, for someone who claims to be a successful businessman, you seem to have had an awful lot of businesses which have gone bankrupt. The Taj Mahal, Trump Air....")

Will she mention Trump University, possibly in a scathing aside? ("That sounds like something they'd teach at Trump University.")

Will she talk about his foundation? ("At least at the Clinton Foundation we never spent $6000 on an oil portrait of either Bill or me.")

Will she question his children's role in his campaign?

Will she mention that he had originally said he would spend a billion of his own money on his campaign but has only spent a small fraction of that? ("It makes people wonder if you're as rich as you claim.")

Will she make a remark about his appearance? ("I'm overweight and know it, and I never criticize anyone else's looks. Which is why I don't understand why someone as fat as you would feel as free as you do to criticize other people's appearance.") By mentioning her own weight, she would defuse his most stinging retort. And although it makes her look bad, it's almost sure to bring a response that would make him look even worse.

Will she refer, even obliquely, to his record with women? ("Judging a man like Mr. Putin is not as easy as judging the Miss Universe contest.")

Will Hillary reference Trump's lack of knowledge when it comes to foreign leaders and international politics? ("How can the Donald say he has a plan for resolving our difficulties in the Mideast when he doesn't even know the names of half the leaders over there?")

But Trump should have a counterpunch ready for this, as for many of these barbs. ("Where has all of your knowledge gotten us, Hillary? The Middle East is a far more dangerous place than when you started as Secretary of State. In fact, the entire world is. And it's because the Obama/Clinton team has been so weak.")

If she references his record with women, he can play his ace in the hole: Bill. ("But Hillary, you were in charge of the war room dealing with Bill's bimbo eruptions, as I think you called them. When Monica came forward, you said it was a vast right-wing conspiracy, and you called Monica a narcissistic loony tune. That doesn't speak very well of your record on feminism.")

Or, "Hillary, at least I made my money legitimately, not by taking back door bribes from countries which don't give women full rights and which prosecute gays."

Trump could point out that she would be nothing if not her husband. ("I'm a little surprised to hear you questioningly my business record given that you rode into politics on Bill's coattails.")

If she questions any of his views, Trump can reply, "Hillary, you flip flop more than those things people wear on their feet. You voted for the Iraq war, now you say you were against it. You were for the Trans Pacific Partnership, now you're against it. You were strongly against gay marriage, now you support it and call yourself a champion of LGBT rights. How can anyone be sure that you're not going to change your current positions depending on which way the wind blows?"

Or, "I'm just curious Hillary, when they talk about your platform, are they referring to your misguided attempts to side with criminals rather than cops, your burning desire to bring more potential terrorists into this country, or that stool you're standing on?" -- The Clinton camp has evidently requested a stool for her to stand on so that she looks taller.)

When she questions any of his views, he can reply, "I know it's complicated Hillary, but don't worry, I'll send you an email on it. Oh, wait a sec; maybe I shouldn't."

Of course, Trump doesn't want to appear to be too much of a bully, since he is dealing with a sick old woman. And no matter what insults he throws Hillary's way, the media will describe them as nasty and small-minded and a reminder that he doesn't have the temperament to be President. While simultaneously describing Hillary's insults to Trump as zingers that really hit the mark, or something to that effect.

So, maybe Trump should rein himself in. As Pat Buchanan recently said, all Trump really has to do to win the debate is to not appear the monster that the media has portrayed him as.

Refraining from hurling any insults be a tall order, though, especially if Hillary tries to provoke him.

Get your popcorn ready.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Still more on Hillary: her laugh

Hillary Clinton -- that great feminist -- once, as a young lawyer, got a child rapist off the hook. Here is a clip of her boasting about how she did so. Note her laughter when she talks about how her client passed a polygraph, and how that forever destroyed her faith in polygraphs. (Meaning, she knew her client was guilty.)

And here is an article in the Daily Mail about the woman who was raped -- at age 12 -- by the 41-year-old drifter whom Hillary defended. Hillary evidently smeared the 12-year-old by questioning her credibility, and by suggesting that she sought out older men. 

Some have questioned how could Hillary have defended a child rapist, as if that in itself is an unethical act. To be fair, a lawyer's job is to provide the best representation possible to whomever their client may happen to be. Hillary was in private practice at the time, so theoretically could have turned down this case. But young lawyers in a large firm are expected to work on whichever case is assigned to them, at least if they want to keep their jobs.

The code of ethics that Hillary did violate was the legal one, by talking about the case afterward and indicating her client's guilt (by saying his having passed the polygraph forever destroyed her faith in them). There's a reason you don't hear criminal defense lawyers saying afterward that they knew their client was guilty, but they got them off anyway. It violates the client confidentiality rules.

Did you ever hear Johnny Cochrane quoted as saying, after the OJ trial, "Yeah, I knew the Juice had killed Nicole, but did you see the snow job I pulled at that trial? That stupid bitch Marcia Clark didn't know what hit her. I got the brother off and everybody knew he was guilty" -- and then laughing about it? No, you didn't, because, as sleazy as Cochrane was, at least he observed the legal code of ethics, unlike the even sleazier Hillary.

What was even more telling than Hillary's indiscretion -- from a psychological point of view -- is the way she laughed about the case. What exactly was funny about having gotten that rapist off?

Here is a clip of Hillary boasting and laughing about having killed Muammar Gaddafi. She says, "We came, we saw, he died," and then laughs.

Now, Gaddafi was unquestionably a horrible guy. He was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, among other things, and probably deserved to die. But Hillary's joke, a slight twist on the "Veni, vidi, vici" boast, was, truth be told, not all that funny.

So what was all the laughing about?

I wrote back in 2010 about how one of the surest signs of narcissism is to laugh at one's own jokes. this tends to go beyond an innocent "I crack myself up" laughter at a funny joke one is repeating. It's more, "Laugh with me in exultation about the way I pulled off this great coup!" Narcissistic laughs tend to have an aggressive, staccato quality to them. Just like Hillary's.

But as I outlined four days ago, Hillary is a sociopath, a far scarier diagnosis than mere garden variety narcissism. And what's really telling about Hillary's laughter is that only a sociopath finds other's misfortunes funny

Schadenfreude is universal: we all feel a certain satisfaction in seeing someone we hate get hurt, even if we don't admit it. We may even enjoy a quiet inner smile. But actually finding it laugh out loud funny is altogether different. Only a sociopath would laugh when he sees someone he doesn't even know crash his bicycle into a wall, or take a bad fall. Stitches have him in stitches, so to speak. It's a distinct sociopathic tell.

Someone ought to ask Hillary what she found so funny about those incidents. 

Friday, September 23, 2016

A little more on Hillary

After the sociopath alert on Hillary from three days ago, commenter "Rifleman" linked the following anecdote about Hillary from Staff Sgt. Eric Bonner, but added that he couldn't confirm its authenticity:

I'm not Voting for Clinton.

It has nothing to do with her views. It really doesn't even matter about all the laws she broke.

It's because She actually talked to me once. Almost a sentence. But first, some background.

Being a K9 handler in the Military I got to do a few details involving Distinguished Visitors. Mostly Generals, DOD Officials, and Secretaries of Defense. I was lucky enough to pull two awesome details. George W Bush, and Obama.

GW looked at me, said "Man, who'd you piss off" high fived me, and continued on. I was climbing down from a catwalk I stood on for 4 hours with nothing but Dust and a radio to keep me company. The radio died early on. It was pretty sweet.

Obama, as he was walking out to his plane in Turkey, said "What the hell kind of dog is that?!" In reference to Suli.

One of my Last details was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State. She was in Turkey for whatever reason. I helped with sweeps of her DV Quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me? "Get that Fucking dog away from me." Then she turns to her Security Detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in her quarters. For the next 20 minutes while I sit there waiting to be released she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she's done. The Detail lead walks over apologizes and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in trouble. His words "Happens every day, Brother"

Hillary doesn't care about anyone but Hillary.

Commenter "Puzzled" then found this Snopes analysis of the incident, which confirmed that Staff Sgt. Bonner was a K-9 handler, and he was in Turkey at the time Hillary visited Ankara. 

Puzzled then added:

Bear in mind that Snopes is not impartial. It's a very left-wing site. It used to be good but it's become infected by leftism over the years and the majority of its debunking is highly partisan left-wing propaganda. They tried to debunk Bonners story but they couldn't. Snopes confirmed every particular of Bonners story. He really is or was a military K-9 Handler. he really was in turkey. Why on Earth would he lie about this? What possible benefit could he get from lying about this?

In other words, it's true. 

Thank you to Rifleman and Puzzled for providing this colorful example of Hillary being herself.