Search Box


Sunday, September 14, 2014


Yesterday one of the article about Adrian Peterson's suspension from the NFL happened to show a picture of his son's bruises. I noticed that his son seemed to be much more lightly complected than Peterson, so, wondering what his wife looked like, I Google-Imaged "Adrian Peterson and wife."

It turned out that the mother of two of his children, Ashley Doohen, was white:

This is the woman he married this year, the former Ashley Brown:

While looking for these pictures, I also saw a picture of Peterson without his shirt, from, in an article entitled, "The 25 most jacked players in the NFL." Curious as to how many of these players were black, and who they would name, I looked at the list.

It turned out that 23 of the 25 players, or 92%, were black. This is higher than the 60% of all NFL players who are black. It's not really all that surprising: black running backs and linebackers tend to be better defined than the white linemen or quarterbacks who make it into the NFL.

I scrolled through the list. It's an intimidating group. These guys seem to almost be a different species. Many of them are obviously on steroids (note the trapezius muscles which jut up from their shoulders and the well defined line between the pectoral muscles.

Still, white guys, even when they juice, don't end up looking like this. Nor do they end up with this type of speed and athleticism. The athletic gap between the races, especially at the elite level, yawns almost as wide as the IQ gap.

Here's Adrian Peterson himself, ranked #6:

Here's #15, Jon Beason:

Here's #13, Robert Turbin:

Here's #3, James Ihedigbo:

And here's #1, Laron Landry:

Maybe a few of the football players pictured are natural, but my guess is that most are juicing. Football players from the 1970's, even the black ones, weren't built like this. Remember OJ Simpson, Gale Sayers, and Jim Brown? All were magnificently athletic, but none of them looked freakish like this.

Here's Jim Brown at his peak:

And here's OJ from his playing days:

Jim Brown and OJ were two of the all-time greats, but both look downright wimpy by comparison to today's stars.

I have to admit, by the time I had scrolled through all the pictures, what I was left with was…...a burning desire to try steroids.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

"The lessons of Ferguson"

Another must-read from Steve Sailer.

Read that, then ponder the following:

If the mainstream media were a person, it would have to be classified as a sociopath.

It constantly and uninhibitedly lies, to the point of being pathological about it.

It never admits it has lied, or even acknowledges its "errors."

When caught in a lie, it distracts its audience from the lie by glibly changing the topic and directing their attention elsewhere.

No matter how many times it's lied before, it expects us to believe its new lies.

And it is utterly without shame in the way it does all these things.

All the classic signs.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

How sociopaths are dumb

Sociopaths, like the rest of us, come in a full range of IQ's. The dumber ones tend to engage in carjackings and bank robberies. The smarter ones gravitate more towards Wall Street and politics, and some do quite well for themselves.

But no matter how smart a sociopath is, he will inevitably have certain intellectual weaknesses that stem primarily from his narcissism. Sociopaths inevitably think themselves better at everything than they are, and this is often their downfall.

Sociopaths often think they're fooling people when they're not. When a normal person is onto a sociopath, and realizes he's being lied to, he may just be too polite to say so, at least at first. The sociopath will take this as proof he's getting away with whatever lie he's promoting at the moment. Or, because he's successfully fooled people in the past, he thinks he will continue to get away with it in the future -- since, after all, he's so much smarter than everyone else.

Sometimes the lie is harmless, like insisting he hasn't had any plastic surgery when he obviously has. Other times, it's more sinister.

Similarly, sociopaths expect people to believe them when they claim to be turning over a new leaf, no matter how many times they've made similarly false statements in the past. And sociopaths always seem to think that they're fooling others with their displays of false emotionality. A sociopath always thinks he is disproving Abraham Lincoln's dictum.

Sociopaths, despite being masters of manipulation, are, ironically, quite easy to manipulate themselves. Because their egos are so out of control, they tend to believe whatever compliments they get. This makes them extremely susceptible to flattery. All you need to do is couch your request in a compliment ("You're far too smart to be doing that").

A sociopath is far more likely to surrender to his impulses, and compromise his future as a result. The seven deadly sins are in fact far more deadly when it comes to a sociopath. He'll let wrath get the better of him, and pull that trigger, or set that house on fire. He'll let lust get the better of him, and rape that girl. He'll let greed overcome him, and embezzle those funds. He'll even let curiosity get the better of him, and see how fast that car will go. And he's far more likely to indulge in drugs and drink, whatever the long term consequences.

He may regret all these things later, but it matters not at the moment, because "live for today" is the sociopath's motto.

Because a sociopath thinks little of the future, he is fearless when he should be fearful. ("I'm way smarter than those dumbass detectives, they'll never catch me."/"I know how to handle heroin, I'm not going to get addicted like those other idiots."/"I'm a great driver, I won't get in an accident.")

An alternative sociopathic motto might be, "Live fast, die young, and leave a surgically enhanced corpse."

Sociopaths tend to see themselves as victims, even when they are victimizers. So they never have a clear view of any complicated situation in which they have a vested interest. In their minds, everything that goes wrong is always someone else's fault. Since wisdom can only be gained by learning from one's mistakes, if you can never admit you're wrong, you can't learn.

So, sociopaths never develop good senses of judgment.

Sociopaths don't have the kind of patience it takes to calmly mull things over, so never really figure things out on their own and make great intuitive leaps -- the essence of true creativity. This, of course, does not stop them from taking credit for others' ideas, as Steve Jobs did.

(They are good at spur of the moment improvising, coming up with glib lies, and delivering them in a way so as to seem credible; but that is a different matter.)

In any case, all these egotistical quirks effectively render every sociopath stupid, no matter his IQ.

If you're aware of this, it will help you to deal with them more effectively. It should also help you avoid being sucked into a sociopath's self-destructive vortex.

Monday, September 8, 2014

Bruce Levenson latest member of KKK

In case you haven't heard, Bruce Levenson, partial owner of the Atlanta Hawks, has outed himself as a "racist" and has volunteered to sell his stake in the NBA franchise for having sent an email in which he said the following:

Regarding game ops, I need to start with some background. for the first couple of years we owned the team, I didn't much focus on game ops. then one day a light bulb went off. When digging into why our season ticket base is so small, I was told it is because we can't get 35-55 [-year-old] white males and corporations to buy season tixs and they are the primary demo[graphic] for season tickets around the league. When I pushed further, folks generally shrugged their shoulders. then I start looking around our arena during games and notice the following:

-- it's 70 pct black
-- the cheerleaders are black
-- the music is hip hop
-- at the bars it's 90 pct black
-- there are few fathers and sons at the games
-- we are doing after game concerts to attract more fans and the concerts are either hip hop or gospel.

Then I start looking around at other arenas. It is completely different. Even DC with its affluent black community never has more than 15 pct black audience.

Before we bought the Hawks and for those couple years immediately after in an effort to make the arena look full (at the NBA's urging) thousands and thousands of tickets were being giving away, predominantly in the black community, adding to the overwhelming black audience.

My theory is that the black crowd scared away the whites and there are simply not enough affluent black fans to build a significant season ticket base. Please dont get me wrong. There was nothing threatening going on in the arena back then. I never felt uncomfortable, but I think southern whites simply were not comfortable being in an arena or at a bar where they were in the minority. On fan sites I would read comments about how dangerous it is around Philips yet in our 9 years, I don't know of a mugging or even a pick pocket incident. This was just racist garbage. When I hear some people saying the arena is in the wrong place I think it is code for there are too many blacks at the games.

I have been open with our executive team about these concerns. I have told them I want some white cheerleaders and while i don't care what the color of the artist is, I want the music to be music familiar to a 40 year old white guy if that's our season tixs demo. I have also balked when every fan picked out of crowd to shoot shots in some time out contest is black. I have even bitched that the kiss cam is too black.

Gradually things have changed. My unscientific guess is that our crowd is 40 pct black now, still four to five times all other teams. And my further guess is that 40 pct still feels like 70 pet to some whites at our games. Our bars are still overwhelmingly black.

This is obviously a sensitive topic, but sadly I think it is far and way the number one reason our season ticket base is so low.

And many of our black fans don't have the spendable income which explains why our f&b and merchandise sales are so low. At all white Thrasher games sales were nearly triple what they are at hawks games (the extra intermission explains some of that but not all).

This strikes me as an exceedingly innocuous email. All of this is just stuff that takes place in every marketing department of every large corporation across the country. Advertisers have always targeted specific demographics, including every ethnic group and every age bracket. 

Nowhere in this email did Levenson express any personal antipathy to blacks, or use any ethnic slurs, or even mention verifiable-but-still-controversial facts like IQ differences or crime rates. It was all just Marketing 101. 

Levenson mentions the ticket giveaway in the black community, and even dismisses any talk of the area surrounding the arena being dangerous as "racist garbage."

This, of course, hasn't stopped outlets like the New York Times from writing hand-wringing editorials about Levenson being an example of "racism" in the NBA. 

Here's the real question: why would a hard-edged businessman like Levenson choose to "out" himself two years after sending this email? 

There's been some talk about how he may have been blackmailed, or he might have realized the email was about to be exposed anyway because of the private detectives Donald Sterling had hired to root out other examples of "racism" among NBA owners. 

That's certainly possible. But it seems far more likely that Levenson simply wanted, for business reasons, to sell his interest in the Hawks and used this as a convenient excuse. My guess, he's hoping some mogul like Steve Ballmer is willing to give him more than the franchise is currently valued at. 

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Judging women

In a post on August 16th, I quoted a feminist who had commented on this blog that "men aren't judged primarily on their appearance, as women are."

This is something that a lot of feminists seem to believe, and is worth exploring.

What feminists don't understand is that judging a woman as a human being and judging her as a potential sex partner are two completely different things. Some women seem to think they are one and the same. I'm a fairly typical guy in this regard: I judge women the same way I judge men: on their intelligence, toughness, sense of humor, friendliness, honesty, and lack of egocentrism.

Now, judging a woman as a potential sex partner is another matter entirely. A woman's sexual desirability is almost purely a matter of her looks.

But I don't conflate the two.

(Likewise, I'm capable of saying, wow, he's a good-looking guy, and not mistaking that quality for character.)

Do a woman's looks affect her personality? I'd say IQ and sociopathy are distributed more or less randomly. But it's my vague impression that the women with the most pleasing personalities tend to be 6's, 7's, and 8's. (And yes, I'm using the numerical ratings so despised by feminists, but I'm using them for the sake of convenience, not as a measure of anyone's overall worth as a human being.)

Women who are 9's and 10's tend to be spoiled, and to think themselves far more interesting than they are. Most have developed somewhat passive personalities, as so much in life just gets handed to them. I also tend to associate them with a certain type of craziness, as a fair number of the ones I've known have had eating issues.

Women who are 3's, 4's, and 5's tend to be a little boring, as they sometimes lack social confidence. But they also tend to be the most accomplished. (Go to any Ivy League campus and you'll see they predominate.)

Women who are 1's and 2's can end up bitter against men. Sometimes to the point where they become fire-breathing feminists.

Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to all of these tendencies. And I have no scientific basis for any of this, just some vague personal impressions.

But, the main point here is -- and I think I can speak for most guys when I say this -- I never confuse looks with character.

Nor do I confuse gender with personality, as the feminist quoted above seems to do.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Joan Rivers

It looks as if Joan Rivers is about to go, which is unfortunate. She was an utterly fearless comedian. She was sharp, and unafraid to be offensive, and stayed that way right up until the day she went into a coma.

The best tribute I can give her is simply to link some of her standup acts.

This is about nine minutes from a 2010 documentary about her called Piece of Work, which shows how  ferocious she was. At about the four minute mark she does a wonderful job of facing down a heckler in Wisconsin, actually working in a little humor while doing so. The clip also shows her offstage, and you get a sense of how tough she is.

Here she is in Live at the Apollo, Part I and Part II. Some of what you'll see here is regular old-timey schtick, but her nerve and timing and humor are faultless.

Rivers was the anti-Robin Williams. She was iconoclastic, disrespectful, profane, scathingly sarcastic, and almost always on target.

The fact is, you can't be funny if you're not those things. (Who was the last politically correct person you met who was truly funny?)

Rivers was -- along with Kathy Griffin -- one of the two best female comedians I've ever seen.

Addendum, next day: Rivers died a few hours after I put up this post. RIP. 

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Pamela Anderson, then and now

I've never found Pamela Anderson attractive. Even in her Baywatch phase, with those puffed up lips and silicone monstrosities on her chest, to me she had all the sexual appeal of a public urinal:

She probably hit her peak when she first started out as an aspiring model, before she became famous. Here she looks like the young Michelle Phillips, of The Mamas and the Papas fame:

Even at that point, she had already had some work done, as this high school yearbook photo of her attests:

As time went on, her post-Baywatch photos showed her looking more and more like a walking mug shot:

So I was shocked to see this makeover yesterday on the cover of NoTofu:

She looks downright elegant. I don't know how much airbrushing was done, but she looks lean, and healthy, and her skin looks good as well. The remains of those puffed up lips are still there, but otherwise, she's beautiful.

Hope she sticks with the look.

While searching for photos to illustrate this post, I stumbled across an article in which Anderson described the sexual abuse she had undergone from an early age. Evidently she was molested by a female babysitter from age 6 to 10, raped at 12 by a 25-year-old man, and gang-raped at 14 by six of her boyfriend's friends.

There seems to be a pattern where young victims of sexual abuse end up presenting themselves as sexual objects for the rest of their lives. That was certainly the case with Anderson. She didn't look like a battered woman early on, if those youthful photos are any indication, though as she got older she seemed to take on that look. But that may also have partly been a function of the normal process of aging.

Perhaps, if that latest photo is any indication, Anderson has finally recovered from that early abuse.

I doubt it, though; it's probably more just a function of some stylist's efforts. No one ever completely gets over their formative experiences.

(That's why they're called "formative.")

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

New police procedural

As time went on, the story of the Michael Brown killing gradually changed. At first, the media quoted eyewitnesses who claimed either that Michael Brown was shot in the back as he was running away, or that he was shot when his arms were upraised.

However, the autopsy commissioned by the Brown family found that he had been shot from in front, not in back. One of the original eyewitnesses (Brown's partner in that convenience store robbery) turned out to have a previous conviction for filing a false police report.

The video from the convenience store robbery gave the lie to the "gentle giant" description which had circulated right after the shooting. And more than a dozen new witnesses came forward to say that the officer's account was correct: that Brown had reached into the police car to punch Officer Wilson, walked away, then turned around and charged him.

As these conflicting accounts began to emerge, the media started to lose interest in the actual evidence (though they still gave full coverage to the protests). But the shifting evidence didn't stop certain people from sticking to the original narrative. Among them is Al Sharpton.

At Michael Brown's funeral last week, Al Sharpton said "America, it's time to deal with policing," and "This will be remembered as the time of change," calling for "Congress to have legislation about guidelines in policing."

So, what exactly are the changes in store for the police? Given the way the incident seems to have gone down (and I emphasize "seems," as all the evidence isn't in yet), here are some of the guidelines Sharpton probably has in mind:

Police will no longer be allowed to ask pedestrians not to walk down the middle of the road, even if they're holding up traffic.

Police will no longer allowed to object when someone reaches in to the patrol car to punch them in the face and reach for their guns.

If a man charges them, police are no longer allowed to use their guns to defend themselves, even if the man is 6' 4" and 290 pounds.

And if by chance a policeman does defend himself, the governor of his state should call for a vigorous prosecution, regardless of whether the officer has been charged with a crime.

Ferguson has also set a wonderful precedent for the media to follow. At least one major outlet -- like CNN -- should print a map to the policeman's house for all to see.

Finally, justice.

Monday, September 1, 2014

What gets airtime, and what doesn't

There's been a lot written about Ferguson in the past three weeks. You're all familiar with the story, so I won't rehash it.

This is of course part of a larger pattern, of publicizing killings of blacks by whites (whether justified or not), and ignoring their opposite numbers. Which brings me to the point of this post -- numbers.

From The Color of Crime:

Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery

Yet, to listen to the one-sided coverage of such incidents, one would think that we're still living in the Jim Crow South, with lynchings commonplace.

An equivalent (slightly more extreme) scenario:

As we all know, rape is primarily committed by males against females. It is also committed, not infrequently, by males against males, especially in prison. It is occasionally committed by females against females.

And on rare occasions, it has been committed by females against males, in the non-statutory sense, as Wikipedia explains here:

A study done by the CDC found that 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they had been forced to penetrate someone else, usually a woman; had been the victim of an attempt to force penetration; or had been made to receive oral sex.

Two myths that men are not able to be raped by women include: Men always want sex, so women do not have to force themselves on men, and men must be aroused to have an erection. However, much like female erectile response, male erectile response is involuntary, meaning that a man need not be aroused for his penis to become erect and be placed in a woman's vagina.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 1% of those convicted of rape are female. (Of course, this includes female-on-female rape as well as cases of statutory rape).

So, it's safe to say that cases of female-on-male rape are a small minority of forcible sex crimes, and that all the "stereotypes" regarding such crimes are true. Even liberals -- actually, particularly liberals -- would agree that this popular perception is based on fact.

Now imagine for a moment that the media, for whatever reason, decided to only focus on female-on-male cases of forcible rape. Whenever such occurred -- and there probably are several such instances every year -- the media would descend on whatever town it occurred in, put it on the front pages for a few weeks running, write anguished editorials about the epidemic of female-on-male violence.

Meanwhile, the national media could just ignore the vast majority of cases where males are the perpetrators and females the victims.

After years of such coverage, some women might object. But every time a female complained publicly about the biased media, they could just be called sexist and shouted down.

Such coverage, and such perceptions, could rightly be termed intrinsically dishonest, could they not?

Friday, August 29, 2014

"Feminists are not just ugly, they're manly too!"

Chateau Heartiste isn't known for pulling punches. Although most wouldn't give voice to it, it's hard to argue with his observations about the results of a study measuring the testosterone levels of feminists vs. those of other women.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Spreading the good word

Last night I asked a friend who is a Middle East expert what he thought we should do about ISIS, what with their convert-or-die ultimatums, their killing of journalists, their intent to commit genocide against the Yazidis, and their desecration of sacred Muslim relics.

He shrugged helplessly and said the situation over there is as bad as he's ever seen it. He said they would have to be stopped eventually, and that Iraq would probably have to be carved up into three parts. The Kurds, in the north, will have oil. And the Shiites, in the south, will also have oil. But the Sunnis, in the West, will be left without oil. These ancient blood rivalries and the unequal distribution of wealth are why ISIS, essentially a Sunni movement, plans to capture the oil fields in the Kurdish north.

It was when I was driving home after dinner that it hit me: the only reason there is so much strife in Iraq is, they don't yet appreciate that their diversity is their strength!

All we need to do is go over and instill this philosophy, which has worked so well here in the U.S. In fact, that's all we need to do all over the globe.

The Israelis and Palestinians will learn to coexist in peace, as soon as they realize that their diversity is their strength.

Ditto for the Ukrainians and ethnic Russians in the Ukraine. All their problems will be over, as soon as they get the good word.

The Chechnyans and Russians? Same simple solution.

All we Americans need to do is export our superior wisdom.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

A hypothetical question about immigration

Yesterday's NY Times had an editorial titled Deported From the Middle of Nowhere, about the plight of the young illegal immigrants at our southern border. A few excerpts:

When the influx of young Central American migrants to the border erupted as a crisis this summer, President Obama correctly called it a humanitarian crisis….But the treatment of hundreds of these migrants in a makeshift detention center in Artesia, N.M., is appalling evidence that this promise was empty, according t a lawsuit filed Friday in federal District Court by a coalition of civil rights organizations…..

For weeks after the center was opened, there were no protocols that even allowed lawyers inside, raising fears that people may have been deported without representation at all…..The solutions are obvious: Mr. Obama needs to suspend all deportations until he can create a system that meets the basic standard of giving a fair hearing to every detainee who expresses a fear of persecution. He should allow the 300 women and children who have already been deported to return and have their cases re-examined. 

Now, let's conduct a little thought experiment.

Imagine for a moment that these young immigrants were not of Hispano-Indian stock, but of European stock. Let's say, for argument's sake, that they were of German and Polish and Irish descent. And let's say that there was zero chance they'd join the Mexican Mafia or Nuestra Familia or MS-13, and that their loyalty would not be to La Raza. But, let's say that a few of their illegal brethren who had slipped over the border in the past had eventually joined the Aryan Brotherhood, Christian Identity, and the Ku Klux Klan. And let's say that when they did get their citizenship, instead of becoming automatic Democrats, they would almost certainly vote Republican.

Would the New York Times continue to see this invasion as a "humanitarian crisis?" Would they continue to agitate for the legal rights of these teenagers who weren't getting adequate legal representation? Would they demand not only an immediate suspension of all deportations, but also the return of those who have already been deported so that they could have their cases reexamined?

And what, for that matter, would President Obama's attitude be? Would he still be considering a blanket executive amnesty on humanitarian grounds?

Something to ponder.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014


Saw Sabotage last night. I'd been expecting just another dumb action movie, mindless entertainment for a Monday night. It wasn't bad. It had a nice, complicated plot with some unexpected twists. The dialogue was occasionally clever. And Arnold Schwarzenegger actually underacted, the first time I can ever recall seeing that.

The movie got mostly lousy reviews. gave it a 20% positive rating by critics, no surprise. The 37% rating by audiences was a little unexpected though: who goes to a Schwarzenegger flick about a group of rogue DEA agents expecting anything more than a shoot 'em up? (There was enough gore to sate the most bloodthirsty palate.)

But what I was most struck by were the two main female characters. In this strange, wondrous land called Hollywood, white policewomen evidently disparage their black male colleagues' masculinity, and intimidate big steroided up biker types. And female DEA agents evidently empty their machine guns clips into Mexican cartel members and then exult by pumping their fists in the air and bellowing with joy.

I watched the movie with an Afghanistan vet, who seemed to feel that this portrayal of swaggering, gun-toting females was, to paraphrase him, a tad misleading.

Poor guy. He must have just been with the wrong unit.

Verdict: worth watching, just for the insight into the Hollywood mindset.


I got the following comment this morning on the Robin Williams post: 

wow most of these comments are so venomous and hatefilled it makes me cringe and I bet most of you claim to be coos [good] christians. I'm so ashamed of all of you, try operating thru love and compassion. nobody knows what this person suffered thru and he was far more humanitarian than any of you hatemongers.

I replied:

Loving anonymous person --
One person's hatemonger is another person's truth teller.

And, after all, what are you doing here but being judgmental and condemnatory -- and hateful -- yourself?

By the way, I don't call myself a good Christian. I'm somewhere between atheist and agnostic. But it sure sounds to me as if you're "hatemongering" against Christians.

"Hate" is an interesting term. Liberals love to ascribe it as the motivating force behind anyone guilty of pattern recognition. This thought process seems to involve a lot of projection. I've known a lot of liberals in my life, and also a lot of conservatives. (I grew up surrounded by liberals.) And it's always seemed to me that most of the conservatives I've known have been polite and well-mannered, whereas the liberals were much more jeering, sneering, posturing, bilious types. There are certainly exceptions, but in my experience, they are usually just that.

(I'd bet good money that commenter is a liberal.)

To call someone a "hater" is an argument of last resort. It's a little like when an argument about affirmative action, race, and IQ breaks out and the liberal calls his opponent a "Nazi," or a "racist." Name-calling is what you do when you don't have the facts on your side. It's essentially an admission that you've lost the argument, and an attempt to intimidate your opponent into shamed silence. (Shame on you, for bringing up hate facts like that.)

Fortunately, more and more people seem to be catching on to this game. 

Monday, August 25, 2014

Mystery of Baer supporter solved

The person who had been commenting on the Prison pen pals VII post about Fredrick Baer sent in another batch of comments on that post again recently.

The case for Baer's sociopathy is open and shut, as I detailed on that post and again here and here. But no matter how clearly I explained this, the commenter, who claimed to be a therapist, kept making ridiculous excuses for him, blaming all of his actions on crystal meth, and saying he was a caring and empathetic individual who was now doing wonderful work for children.

I eventually started to wonder about the commenter, so I asked what kind of therapist he or she was, and whether the commenter was male or female. (I had gradually gotten the sense that the commenter was female.)

The commenter wouldn't answer my questions, but instead lashed out at me. She called me a destructive sociopath, said I must have come from a bad family background, and even suggested I might be a murderer myself.

Right after this, another commenter wrote in, asking the first commenter if she were Baer's German girlfriend/pen pal. (Up until then, I hadn't heard about her.)

At that point, the scales finally fell from my eyes. That must be who this commenter is, and she obviously suffers from hybristophilia. (Think in terms of those unbalanced women who have been drawn to killers like Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez, and who flocked to their trials and essentially become their "groupies.")

All this time, I was using facts and logic to convince this commenter that Baer was a sociopath, but I was basically talking to a crazy person. Which sorta makes me crazy as well, for thinking I could talk sense to her.

My other mistake was in assuming that when she said she was a "therapist," that she was a psychotherapist of some sort. She could be an aromatherapist, an occupational therapist, a massage therapist, or any number of other things. To call oneself "a therapist" if you're one of the latter, particularly in the context of a discussion of psychology, seems intentionally misleading; but I still shouldn't have made that assumption.

When I told my son that I had finally gotten the sense that the commenter was a woman, he laughed at me. "Of course it's a woman," he scoffed. "No one else could be that mushy-headed. It took you that long to figure it out? You're an idiot."

Guilty as charged.

But, she's not just any woman. She's a very special kind: a hybristophiliac.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

What kind of women do black men prefer?

Some of you may remember how, during the Presidential campaign of 2008, it was said that Barack Obama was a particular favorite among black women voters because he had chosen a real (i.e., dark-skinned) black woman to be his wife.

The fact is, most extremely successful black men, if they don't marry white, choose to marry light-skinned black women. It doesn't matter whether the men succeeded in politics, sports, entertainment, or business. It doesn't seem to matter whether the men themselves are light-skinned or dark-skinned; it doesn't seem to matter how much they dislike whites. They all want a wife with as much white blood as possible.

There are all sorts of questions that such an observation raises, not least among them: are blacks are themselves "racist" against darker-skinned blacks?

Note: the subject of this discussion is not black men who eschew black women altogether, like Tiger Woods or A-Rod or James Earl Jones. Nor is it black men who marry black early in their lives but then dump their wives and subsequently marry white women, like Sidney Poitier or Michael Jordan or OJ Simpson. Nor is it black men who get married before they become successful. The subject is black men who marry black women after they've become successful.

Here are some successful black men in entertainment:

Eddie Murphy with first wife Nicole:

Murphy with second wife Tracy Edmonds:

Don Cheadle and longtime partner Bridgid Coulter:

Ving Rhames and second wife Deborah Reed:

Idris Elba and baby mama Naiyana Garth:

Forrest Whitaker and wife Keisha Nash:

Jay Z with his (equally famous) wife Beyonce:

There are famous black actors, like Denzel Washington and Samuel L. Jackson, who have dark-skinned wives. But both of their marriages pre-dated their stardom, and both men seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

Athletes seem to follow the same pattern.

Mike Tyson with first wife Robin Givens:

Tyson with second wife Monica Turner:

Mike Tyson with third wife Lakhia Spicer:

The list of top athletes with light-skinned wives is far too lengthy to do any justice to here, but at least three-quarters of the time, whenever I see a picture of a famous black athlete with his wife, I'm struck by the pattern.

I don't blame any of these men for choosing those women; I actually find some of them attractive myself. The guys pictured above are neither political figures nor racial agitators. They are simply entertainers or athletes or who have been successful, and want to enjoy their lives. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

But blacks who have made a career based partly on racial animus are another matter. Spike Lee is well known for his incendiary comments about race. Most recently he decried the white people who have been moving into Bedford Stuyvesant for ruining the character of the neighborhood. Did he marry a "real" black woman? Here he is with his wife:

Spike actually managed to find himself a black wife with blond hair.

Or how about Eric Holder, our Attorney General, who for years ignored the knockout game as not being worthy of his attention, but then, the very first time a white guy did it to a black man, brought federal hate crimes charges against him? (His other initiatives generally reflect that mindset.) Here's Holder with his wife:

Holder is Barbadian, or "Bajan," as they call themselves. (Holder was brought up mostly in New York, but was always conscious of his Barbadian roots.) In Barbados, the government is run by blacks, but they are mostly blacks with skin color the hue of Holder's. Upper class Bajans are careful to only intermarry with other light-skinned blacks.

Holder has famously said that after Trayvon Martin's death he sat his son down and had a serious talk with him once about how he should deal with the police, who will discriminate against him because of his skin color. Should dark-skinned blacks sit their children down and have a serious talk with them about how some light-skinned blacks like Holder subtly discriminate against them?

In cases like Lee's and Holder's, gravitating towards such extremely light-skinned spouses does seem a bit hypocritical. After all their fulminating against "racist" whites, it appears they are actually practicing some subtle "racism" themselves.

I'm not suggesting marriage should be a political statement -- it is, theoretically, a matter of love -- but the uniformity of choice of skin tone among successful black men does make a loud statement. (The fact that nobody is willing to talk about it in polite company makes an even louder statement.)

Question: if Barack Obama has a real black woman for a wife, then, by that definition, are all of the women pictured above merely fake black women?

My impression is, the only rich and famous black guys willing to marry a woman darker-skinned than themselves are gay guys who want a beard.

Monday, August 18, 2014

What type of women do lesbians prefer?

The feminist mentioned two posts below scolded me about how the average woman is programmed by "a lifetime of insidious brainwashing so subtle she doesn't notice it" by Barbie dolls and the like, and how "men aren't judged primarily on their appearance, as women are." After getting that tongue-lashing, I thought to myself, well, lesbians themselves -- who tend to be the most vocal and militant wing of the feminist movement -- must certainly have better values than men.

I thought, these right-thinking liberal lesbians must not subscribe to the unfair standards of beauty promulgated by the patriarchy. They must be happy to be with another woman who is overweight, with ordinary features, and who looks, in the immortal words of feminists, like a "real woman."

And what better proof of this could there be than the partners of rich and famous lesbians, who obviously have their pick of women? I would certainly hope that these successful role models and powerful spokespeople for the movement, would lead by example and not subscribe to those male-dominated standards of beauty which feminists so bitterly denounce.

So, I Google-imaged Rosie O'Donell, Ellen Degeneres, Martina Navratilova, and Melissa Etheridge and their partners, confident that all these rich lesbians must have happily settled for women who looked, well, like them.

Here are some of the results of that search:

Rosie O'Donnell and her first wife Kelli Carpenter:

Rosie O'Donnell and her subsequent girlfriend Tracy Kachtick-Anders:

Rosie O'Donnell and current wife Michelle Rounds:

Ellen DeGeneres and former girlfriend Anne Heche:

Ellen DeGeneres and former partner Alexandra Hedison:

Ellen DeGeneres and wife Portia de Rossi:

Martina Navratilova and (former Miss Texas contestant) Judy Nelson:

Martina Navratilova and more recent girlfriend (and former Miss Universe contestant) Julia Lemigova (on left):

Melissa Etheridge and former partner Tammy Lynn Michaels:

I admit, these pictures were culled for effect. There are prominent lesbians, like Rachel Maddow and Cynthia Nixon, who have partners who look more like stereotypical lesbians. But enough of the rich and powerful ones have paired up with traditionally pretty women (Jodie Foster recently married Alexandra Hedison, who is pictured above with Ellen DeGeneres) that it can't possibly just be coincidence.

It's not just those piggish men who, when given their druthers, prefer Barbie doll types.

Saturday, August 16, 2014


The weather is warm, so the residents of Ferguson, Missouri, are using the death of Michael Brown as an excuse to loot the stores of people who had nothing to do with Brown's death. (Riots never seem to occur in winter.)

This is a scene we have witnessed countless times. Sometimes the reason is a police killing (which may or may not have been justified). Sometimes it's a police beating. Sometimes it's just a hurricane or power outage.

Whatever the excuse, when the temperature is balmy, a young man's fancy turns to arson…and vandalism…..and stealing.

C'mon, what would you rather do, pay $35 apiece for those bottles of Johnny Walker Red, or just smash the store window and get them for free? You don't have to have taken Econ 101 to know which is the better deal.

So, as the warm breezes blow and the sun gently sets in the West, the young men gather to take advantage of the low, low prices. It's sort of like the day after Thanksgiving sales, but better.

Ah, youth.

A feminist at her best

Got two comments on Thursday on Finally, a worthwhile protest, the post about the topless FEMEN protester who burned a Barbie doll in effigy in May of last year at the opening of a giant dollhouse in Berlin, Germany.

One comment:

"Which would you be more traumatized by, that scene -- or a doll which does not have precisely correct anatomical proportions?"

Well, gosh, lets see –
one more weird 2-minute incident among the thousands that make up an average childhood, or a lifetime of insidious brainwashing so subtle she doesn’t notice it, that causes the kind of neurotic crazy that men always bitch about?

Gee, that’s a tough call, huh?

This comment is wrong on several different levels. First, the demonstration had to have lasted more than two minutes. Second, it's highly doubtful that an "average" girl witnesses "thousands" of incidents as weird as that. 

Third, the question I posed compared witnessing that scene to owning a Barbie doll. This feminist changed the question into which was more traumatic, witnessing that scene or a lifetime of "insidious brainwashing so subtle she doesn't notice it."

(Why is it that some people can only "win" arguments by putting words into your mouth?)

Fourth, note her use of the word "bitch," a term feminists usually object to on the grounds that it's "gender-loaded."

And fifth, as to that subtle insidious brainwashing, aren't both sexes exposed to idealized stereotypes? You never hear men complain about the "insidious brainwashing" of a lifetime of watching action/adventure movies with impossibly heroic protagonists.

The other comment:

"why do only women protest this sort of thing?"

good question. Maybe because men aren't judged primarily on their appearance, as women are.
Maybe because men just passively accept whatever metric they’re judged by and dive right into the competition, and never question whether it makes any sense at all….

It is true that women are judged more on their looks than men are (she did use the word "primarily" as a qualifier), although men too are judged on their looks. (Women have better values: they often judge men more on earning power than appearance.) 

I'd guess there are as many men as women who question basic values, though that's certainly hard to quantify.

But there's another, more essential difference here. The post was not a condemnation of all women; only of those who would protest a Barbie house. The vast majority of women have far too much common sense to get incensed about Barbie dolls, and realize that -- as I said in the post -- there are far more worthwhile things for women to be concerned about, such as their treatment in Muslim countries.

The feminist, on the other hand,  is happy to condemn all men as a group, saying that they "just passively accept whatever metric they're judged by and dive right into the competition, and never question whether it makes any sense at all…." That is a blanket condemnation of an entire gender, not only for being "passive" but also for not being logical. Isn't that the kind of assumption that feminists are forever castigating men for making? Yet this feminist seems perfectly comfortable doing it herself. 

I like -- or at worst, am indifferent to -- the majority of women. This feminist seems to harbor a deep resentment against all men.

The other thing it's hard not to notice is her bitter sarcasm. By using this sem-hysterical tone -- one you rarely hear from men -- she is demonstrating how feminists are essentially unequal. Mission accomplished.

(I expounded on that inequality theme at more length here.) 

Thursday, August 14, 2014