If Torontonians re-elect this guy they'll be no better than than the electorate of Washington DC was for having re-elected Mayor Marion Barry after his crack bust.
I have to admit, though, Mayor Ford does sound like a party. And he'd be a lot less boring than whoever his opponent turns out to be.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Naughty vs. evil
One thing I've noticed over time is that naughty people will say the wrong thing but usually do the right thing, whereas evil people will say the right thing but do the wrong thing.
Naughty types often likes to pose as bad, sometimes as a joke, sometimes because they're wannabe tough guys.
Evil people, on the other hand, seem to like to pose as noble, beneficent, and kind -- which is the opposite of what they really are.
All this is brought to mind by the recent case of Frank Incognito. At first he seemed like a stereotypical evil bully: he took pleasure in humiliating Jonathan Martin, to the point of driving him away from the Miami Dolphins. He had even threatened to gang rape Martin's sister.
Then it turned out that despite his use of the n-word, Incognito's black teammates, who considered him an "honorary brotha," refused to condemn him. And he and Martin had supposedly been friends, and Incognito had stuck up for him in several previous situations. At that point Incognito just looked like a dumb wigger who tried too hard.
But then I saw Incognito in an interview saying that everything he said to Martin "came from a place of love" -- which is exactly the kind of thing a sociopath would say. So I'm not sure what to think.
In any case, I've known a lot of nonsociopathic guys who liked to appear "badder" than they actually are. They may have prided themselves on their drinking ability, or bench press, or daredevil driving, or the number of girls they'd had. And they could be obstreperous, obnoxious, and even rude. But they weren't nasty by nature; they simply felt they had to live up to a certain macho standard.
This undoubtedly rings a bell; maybe you're even thinking, hey, that's most guys.
Now think of famous sociopaths, and the touchy-feely, compassionate image they often like to project.
Think of Bill Clinton saying, "I feel your pain."
Think of Karen Sypher going on and on about her devout Catholicism, her dying grandmother, and her misgivings about having had an abortion.
Think of Jack Kevorkian portraying himself as someone whose only motivation was allowing people to die with dignity.
Think of Lance Armstrong and his Livestrong foundation.
Think of Anna Benson saying, "I'm all about good, I'm all about love."
Think of all those murderous prison pen pals who talk about how empathetic and caring they are, and how much they love children and animals.
I've known one or two evil men who liked to pose as naughty to disguise the fact that they were truly evil. One Wall Street sociopath comes to mind. He would say something extremely insulting to someone, then turn away and wince, as if mortified by his own rudeness. But mortification was in fact not part of his emotional repertoire.
Still, for the most part, guys who like to pose as bad are not. And practically everyone who feels the need to appear compassionate and beneficent is the opposite.
Naughty types often likes to pose as bad, sometimes as a joke, sometimes because they're wannabe tough guys.
Evil people, on the other hand, seem to like to pose as noble, beneficent, and kind -- which is the opposite of what they really are.
All this is brought to mind by the recent case of Frank Incognito. At first he seemed like a stereotypical evil bully: he took pleasure in humiliating Jonathan Martin, to the point of driving him away from the Miami Dolphins. He had even threatened to gang rape Martin's sister.
Then it turned out that despite his use of the n-word, Incognito's black teammates, who considered him an "honorary brotha," refused to condemn him. And he and Martin had supposedly been friends, and Incognito had stuck up for him in several previous situations. At that point Incognito just looked like a dumb wigger who tried too hard.
But then I saw Incognito in an interview saying that everything he said to Martin "came from a place of love" -- which is exactly the kind of thing a sociopath would say. So I'm not sure what to think.
In any case, I've known a lot of nonsociopathic guys who liked to appear "badder" than they actually are. They may have prided themselves on their drinking ability, or bench press, or daredevil driving, or the number of girls they'd had. And they could be obstreperous, obnoxious, and even rude. But they weren't nasty by nature; they simply felt they had to live up to a certain macho standard.
This undoubtedly rings a bell; maybe you're even thinking, hey, that's most guys.
Now think of famous sociopaths, and the touchy-feely, compassionate image they often like to project.
Think of Bill Clinton saying, "I feel your pain."
Think of Karen Sypher going on and on about her devout Catholicism, her dying grandmother, and her misgivings about having had an abortion.
Think of Jack Kevorkian portraying himself as someone whose only motivation was allowing people to die with dignity.
Think of Lance Armstrong and his Livestrong foundation.
Think of Anna Benson saying, "I'm all about good, I'm all about love."
Think of all those murderous prison pen pals who talk about how empathetic and caring they are, and how much they love children and animals.
I've known one or two evil men who liked to pose as naughty to disguise the fact that they were truly evil. One Wall Street sociopath comes to mind. He would say something extremely insulting to someone, then turn away and wince, as if mortified by his own rudeness. But mortification was in fact not part of his emotional repertoire.
Still, for the most part, guys who like to pose as bad are not. And practically everyone who feels the need to appear compassionate and beneficent is the opposite.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Sociopathy as an evolutionarily adaptive behavior
As long as only 3% of population is sociopathic, sociopathy may in fact be evolutionarily adaptive. And this may have been truer in the past -- before there were police with modern technology, and before birth control -- than it is now.
Sociopaths make great first impressions. They are exciting, dynamic, charming, even electrifying. No one is better at seduction than a sociopath. Back in the days before birth control, this meant that a sociopath was likely to spread his seed more widely.
To call people manipulative is to disparage them. But most successful manipulators are that way because people don't recognize them for what they are. And the ability to hide one's true natures is another sociopathic specialty.
Sociopaths are dishonest, disloyal, and treat others inhumanely. In the long run, these traits cause others to seek revenge. But a sociopath would be good at making his exit before his true nature was discovered, but after he had impregnated a few females.
(This is why so many serial killers have been characterized as "drifters." They leave places as soon as their acquaintances -- or marks -- catch on to their true character.)
Their percentage is key. If sociopaths were, say, 20% of the population, people would be more familiar with them, and be on their guard against them, perhaps to the extent of assuming everyone to be guilty until proven innocent (of being lying, conniving, backstabbing, irresponsible, hypocritical, and downright evil).
Another evolutionary benefit of sociopathy is narcissism. (All sociopath are narcissists, even if only a relatively small subset of narcissists are sociopaths.) Narcissism boosts confidence, which in turn can help performance. When it comes to swaying others, having the right body language is crucial, and having enough confidence can often make the difference.
For a man, there's little genetic payoff to being shy around women. (There is a benefit to being fearful in general, but that is a different quality.)
Sociopathy could be viewed as simply another evolutionary strategy. It's a high risk strategy, since people will want their revenge on you. But it's also high reward, since before others try to exact their revenge, you're more likely to have planted your seed widely.
Perhaps the fact that it is a more viable strategy for men than women (whose reproductive capacity is limited) accounts for the fact that the incidence of sociopathy is generally reported to be three times higher among men than women.
Sociopaths make great first impressions. They are exciting, dynamic, charming, even electrifying. No one is better at seduction than a sociopath. Back in the days before birth control, this meant that a sociopath was likely to spread his seed more widely.
To call people manipulative is to disparage them. But most successful manipulators are that way because people don't recognize them for what they are. And the ability to hide one's true natures is another sociopathic specialty.
Sociopaths are dishonest, disloyal, and treat others inhumanely. In the long run, these traits cause others to seek revenge. But a sociopath would be good at making his exit before his true nature was discovered, but after he had impregnated a few females.
(This is why so many serial killers have been characterized as "drifters." They leave places as soon as their acquaintances -- or marks -- catch on to their true character.)
Their percentage is key. If sociopaths were, say, 20% of the population, people would be more familiar with them, and be on their guard against them, perhaps to the extent of assuming everyone to be guilty until proven innocent (of being lying, conniving, backstabbing, irresponsible, hypocritical, and downright evil).
Another evolutionary benefit of sociopathy is narcissism. (All sociopath are narcissists, even if only a relatively small subset of narcissists are sociopaths.) Narcissism boosts confidence, which in turn can help performance. When it comes to swaying others, having the right body language is crucial, and having enough confidence can often make the difference.
For a man, there's little genetic payoff to being shy around women. (There is a benefit to being fearful in general, but that is a different quality.)
Sociopathy could be viewed as simply another evolutionary strategy. It's a high risk strategy, since people will want their revenge on you. But it's also high reward, since before others try to exact their revenge, you're more likely to have planted your seed widely.
Perhaps the fact that it is a more viable strategy for men than women (whose reproductive capacity is limited) accounts for the fact that the incidence of sociopathy is generally reported to be three times higher among men than women.
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Tinder
Someone just explained to me what Tinder is: an app through which you can hook up with women. What happens is you scroll through the Facebook pictures of everybody who signs up for the service, and you notate those women who strike your fancy. If any of those women like your picture, they do the same. Whenever two people both "like" each other, they are informed, and can get in touch, usually for some brief texting, then a hook up.
Evidently you specify beforehand how far of a radius you're willing to look within (twenty miles from your home, etc.)
It's a little like Match.com, except it's about sex, not relationships.
Evidently gay men have had a similar service for years, called Grindr.
One of the cool things about this is that you never really get rejected. You're only told about the women who fancy you. As far as you know, no other women even saw your picture.
Where was this service when I was young? When I was growing up it seems that all guys did was have crushes on girls they saw across a classroom, or in the lunch hall.
Well, that's all I did, anyway.
In my twenties, I had to go places to meet females. Sometimes this meant going to smoky bars. Or discos. It was obvious you were only there to look for a girl, which made it doubly awkward. And if they turned you down, you knew it. Which made the whole process excruciating for the faint of heart -- like me.
Now you just post your picture, with no chance of rejection. (Or if you are rejected, at least you don't know about it.)
Why did I have to grow up in the Dark Ages?
If you use any online service, of course, you're assuming the risk of misleading pictures. And it's always possible you might get together with someone whose personality can get in the way of even a one night stand.
Still, Tinder allows you keep all that icky human stuff to a minimum. No "dry" first and second dates so that the girl won't feel she's consigning herself to eternal whoredom or getting a bad reputation by sleeping with you too quickly. No having to pretend you have feelings for her that you don't (beside lust). No pretending you're "serious" about her (other than seriously wanting to get her into bed). And most importantly, no having to listen to her boring hive-mind opinions.
I was born forty years too early.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say I'm actually quite angry with my parents about that.
Evidently you specify beforehand how far of a radius you're willing to look within (twenty miles from your home, etc.)
It's a little like Match.com, except it's about sex, not relationships.
Evidently gay men have had a similar service for years, called Grindr.
One of the cool things about this is that you never really get rejected. You're only told about the women who fancy you. As far as you know, no other women even saw your picture.
Where was this service when I was young? When I was growing up it seems that all guys did was have crushes on girls they saw across a classroom, or in the lunch hall.
Well, that's all I did, anyway.
In my twenties, I had to go places to meet females. Sometimes this meant going to smoky bars. Or discos. It was obvious you were only there to look for a girl, which made it doubly awkward. And if they turned you down, you knew it. Which made the whole process excruciating for the faint of heart -- like me.
Now you just post your picture, with no chance of rejection. (Or if you are rejected, at least you don't know about it.)
Why did I have to grow up in the Dark Ages?
If you use any online service, of course, you're assuming the risk of misleading pictures. And it's always possible you might get together with someone whose personality can get in the way of even a one night stand.
Still, Tinder allows you keep all that icky human stuff to a minimum. No "dry" first and second dates so that the girl won't feel she's consigning herself to eternal whoredom or getting a bad reputation by sleeping with you too quickly. No having to pretend you have feelings for her that you don't (beside lust). No pretending you're "serious" about her (other than seriously wanting to get her into bed). And most importantly, no having to listen to her boring hive-mind opinions.
I was born forty years too early.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say I'm actually quite angry with my parents about that.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Smells like a witch hunt
SAC Capital, the hedge fund run by Steven A. Cohen, just settled with the government on Monday. The government was unable to obtain an indictment against Cohen himself, but the $1.8 billion dollar settlement seemed justified given that Cohen's fund has always had a bad smell about it. The extraordinary number of insider trading cases involving it did not seem coincidental.
The way that Eric Holder's Department of Justice is going after JP Morgan, though, seems almost personal.
The biggest fine being levied against the bank is for their role in the mortgage debacle. But the mortgage mess had many authors. Bill Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act pressured the banks to make riskier loans with smaller down payments to people with shakier credit. George W. Bush pushed further in the same direction by declaring in 2002 that he wanted more minority families living in their own homes. FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC both insisted that the mortgages they bought include a higher percentage of minority owners than had been the case in the past. Individual mortgage brokers encouraged people to buy more house than they could afford. And speculators took advantage by buying irresponsibly, knowing they didn't have the resources to pay off their mortgages, but figuring that rising home values would bail them out.
So who is the government going after? JP Morgan. This seems particularly unfair given that most of the mortgages in question were originated by Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns before they were acquired by JP Morgan, and that the government pressured JP Morgan to buy those two entities at the height of the financial crisis.
The Department of Justice also insisted JP Morgan pay a fine for the bad trade engendered by the London Whale. They claimed that the controls JP Morgan had in place were not adequate, and that they didn't reveal the extent of the losses quickly enough. Wall Street banks do bad trades -- as well as good ones -- all the time; that's the nature of the game. And their controls are only as good as the people who oversee them. If every financial institution had to pay a penalty for every bad trade they did (as well as lose the money they lost on the trade), all would soon go out of business.
But it's only JP Morgan which is being prosecuted for this.
The Department of Justice is also looking into allegations that JP Morgan hired the sons and daughters of prominent Chinese politicians in order to gain business. Why not go after Goldman Sachs for the same thing? I've heard it's virtually impossible to get a job at the firm fresh out of college unless you have some sort of high-powered connection.
For that matter, why not go after Goldman for hiring influential former Fed governors? Why not go after lobbying firms in DC for hiring ex-politicians? Almost every major politician sells his connections in one way or another after leaving office.
Why not go after these other firms? Because they make nice with the current administration, and don't criticize them publicly.
Jamie Dimon's mistake was to speak out against Obama, and against Dodd-Frank. If he hadn't, this focus on JP Morgan would likely not have taken place.
The way that Eric Holder's Department of Justice is going after JP Morgan, though, seems almost personal.
The biggest fine being levied against the bank is for their role in the mortgage debacle. But the mortgage mess had many authors. Bill Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act pressured the banks to make riskier loans with smaller down payments to people with shakier credit. George W. Bush pushed further in the same direction by declaring in 2002 that he wanted more minority families living in their own homes. FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC both insisted that the mortgages they bought include a higher percentage of minority owners than had been the case in the past. Individual mortgage brokers encouraged people to buy more house than they could afford. And speculators took advantage by buying irresponsibly, knowing they didn't have the resources to pay off their mortgages, but figuring that rising home values would bail them out.
So who is the government going after? JP Morgan. This seems particularly unfair given that most of the mortgages in question were originated by Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns before they were acquired by JP Morgan, and that the government pressured JP Morgan to buy those two entities at the height of the financial crisis.
The Department of Justice also insisted JP Morgan pay a fine for the bad trade engendered by the London Whale. They claimed that the controls JP Morgan had in place were not adequate, and that they didn't reveal the extent of the losses quickly enough. Wall Street banks do bad trades -- as well as good ones -- all the time; that's the nature of the game. And their controls are only as good as the people who oversee them. If every financial institution had to pay a penalty for every bad trade they did (as well as lose the money they lost on the trade), all would soon go out of business.
But it's only JP Morgan which is being prosecuted for this.
The Department of Justice is also looking into allegations that JP Morgan hired the sons and daughters of prominent Chinese politicians in order to gain business. Why not go after Goldman Sachs for the same thing? I've heard it's virtually impossible to get a job at the firm fresh out of college unless you have some sort of high-powered connection.
For that matter, why not go after Goldman for hiring influential former Fed governors? Why not go after lobbying firms in DC for hiring ex-politicians? Almost every major politician sells his connections in one way or another after leaving office.
Why not go after these other firms? Because they make nice with the current administration, and don't criticize them publicly.
Jamie Dimon's mistake was to speak out against Obama, and against Dodd-Frank. If he hadn't, this focus on JP Morgan would likely not have taken place.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
"8.8 billion just-right planets in our galaxy"
The NY Post ran an AP article yesterday which raised the possibility of extraterrestrial life:
WASHINGTON — Space is vast, but it may not be so lonely after all: A study finds the Milky Way is teeming with billions of planets that are about the size of Earth, orbit stars just like our sun, and exist in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot and not too cold for life.
Or maybe they are the occasionally-reported little green men with large heads and big eyes who travel around in spaceships and can't wait to stick probes up our behinds.
Perhaps they can help us solve our problems. Maybe we can ask for an interstellar handout to balance our budget. (At the moment, that seems the most realistic solution to this intractable problem.) Maybe we should ask extraterrestrials to referee at the Olympics so we don't have all that biased gymnastics judging. Maybe they can even referee international disputes between countries.
Maybe the aliens will end up being the ultimate Daddy figure. Or maybe they'll act more like querulous children. If they come here, it means they're far smarter than us, so the former seems more likely.
Maybe the extraterrestrials can tell us whether we're really causing global warming.
Maybe Al Gore is an alien and we should pay more attention to him. He does have a certain not-quite-comfortable-as-a-human quality about him.
WASHINGTON — Space is vast, but it may not be so lonely after all: A study finds the Milky Way is teeming with billions of planets that are about the size of Earth, orbit stars just like our sun, and exist in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot and not too cold for life.
If there were 8800 planets in our galaxy which had the right conditions for life, it would be both amazing and thrilling. If there were 8.8 million, it would be mind-boggling.
But 8.8 billion? It's hard to even conceive of such a number.
Every now and then you hear people speak of how things would be in a "parallel universe." Well, we don't have to go to a parallel universe. We don't even have to go to another galaxy. Right here in our own Milky Way, there are 8.8 billion potential alternate realities. And the Milky Way is supposed to be one of the smaller galaxies.
Now, most of those planets are obviously not going to have life. But out of that many, there must be some that do. If life evolved here, it can elsewhere, too.
One wonders: do the extraterrestrials look more like us, or more like those creatures in the Star Wars bar scene? Or perhaps like the extras in Men in Black?
Or maybe they are the occasionally-reported little green men with large heads and big eyes who travel around in spaceships and can't wait to stick probes up our behinds.
Perhaps they can help us solve our problems. Maybe we can ask for an interstellar handout to balance our budget. (At the moment, that seems the most realistic solution to this intractable problem.) Maybe we should ask extraterrestrials to referee at the Olympics so we don't have all that biased gymnastics judging. Maybe they can even referee international disputes between countries.
Maybe the aliens will end up being the ultimate Daddy figure. Or maybe they'll act more like querulous children. If they come here, it means they're far smarter than us, so the former seems more likely.
Maybe the extraterrestrials can tell us whether we're really causing global warming.
Maybe Al Gore is an alien and we should pay more attention to him. He does have a certain not-quite-comfortable-as-a-human quality about him.
All kidding aside, how many planets have plant life but no animal life? Or are those distinctions irrelevant on some of these other planets? How many have life forms which don't fall neatly into either the plant or animal categories? How many have sexual reproduction? How many are as silly about sex as we are?
How many have oxygen in an atmosphere that we could breathe? How many could we exploit? How many types of beings could wipe us out if they ever came to planet Earth? (If they can travel all the way here, that seems a safe bet.) How many would destroy us, given the chance?
How many have oxygen in an atmosphere that we could breathe? How many could we exploit? How many types of beings could wipe us out if they ever came to planet Earth? (If they can travel all the way here, that seems a safe bet.) How many would destroy us, given the chance?
Are any of the other planets like Pandora, that luscious planet in Avatar?
How nice to be able to speculate about this and think about how petty our own problems here on earth are. Or better yet, not think about those problems at all.
Addendum, three hours later: today the NY Times came out with its version of this news, but they reported that there were 40 billion planets which met the criteria; not sure why the discrepancy.
Addendum, three hours later: today the NY Times came out with its version of this news, but they reported that there were 40 billion planets which met the criteria; not sure why the discrepancy.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Overheard recently from a young Afghanistan vet:
"I hear a lot of soldiers say it really pisses them off when they hear about guys who've never even been in the military claim they've been to war. I think it's called stolen valor or something. Personally, I couldn't care less. I lie to girls all the time in order to get laid. If some idiot wants to claim he's had my stupid job in order to get laid, go right ahead. It doesn't bother me in the least."
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Control vs. self control
One consistent theme I've noticed throughout my life is that the less self control people have, the more control they want over other people.
The lack of self control I refer to does not necessarily refer to indulging in all the seven deadly sins all the time; it is more a lack of emotional self control. Controlling types may be extremely disciplined in some ways; but inevitably there is a complete lack of self control in some basic way.
They may be able to get themselves down to the office every day, dress neatly, and keep their houses immaculate. They may keep their own eating and drinking under control. But they tend to become enraged at things that wouldn't bother most of us. And if they are not in a position to assert power over others, they try to do so indirectly through constant, carping disapproval.
We all get angry if someone does something which harms us directly. But we tend not to get angry if people do things which don't affect us personally. A certain type of person will talk about someone else's dress, or spending habits, or taste in paramours, as if it is a direct, personal affront to him.
It's a direct correlation: the less self control a person has, the more control he wants over others.
Sociopaths are the ultimate example of this, and serial killers are the ultimate sociopaths: they kill partly for the pleasure of being able to control their victims' destiny. It is often said serial killers will sometimes slow down the killing process just so they can draw out that pleasure.
I was reminded of this last night when I watched a show about Wichita's BTK ("Bind Torture Kill") Killer, Dennis Rader, who would start to strangle his victims, and then, just when they were about to die, loosen the ligature around their necks so that he could do it all over again.
When he wasn't killing women, Rader was a dogcatcher and supervisor in the Compliance Department in Park City. He was locally famous for his extremely strict enforcement of regulations, in one case having a dog euthanized for no good reason.
The lack of self control I refer to does not necessarily refer to indulging in all the seven deadly sins all the time; it is more a lack of emotional self control. Controlling types may be extremely disciplined in some ways; but inevitably there is a complete lack of self control in some basic way.
They may be able to get themselves down to the office every day, dress neatly, and keep their houses immaculate. They may keep their own eating and drinking under control. But they tend to become enraged at things that wouldn't bother most of us. And if they are not in a position to assert power over others, they try to do so indirectly through constant, carping disapproval.
We all get angry if someone does something which harms us directly. But we tend not to get angry if people do things which don't affect us personally. A certain type of person will talk about someone else's dress, or spending habits, or taste in paramours, as if it is a direct, personal affront to him.
It's a direct correlation: the less self control a person has, the more control he wants over others.
Sociopaths are the ultimate example of this, and serial killers are the ultimate sociopaths: they kill partly for the pleasure of being able to control their victims' destiny. It is often said serial killers will sometimes slow down the killing process just so they can draw out that pleasure.
I was reminded of this last night when I watched a show about Wichita's BTK ("Bind Torture Kill") Killer, Dennis Rader, who would start to strangle his victims, and then, just when they were about to die, loosen the ligature around their necks so that he could do it all over again.
When he wasn't killing women, Rader was a dogcatcher and supervisor in the Compliance Department in Park City. He was locally famous for his extremely strict enforcement of regulations, in one case having a dog euthanized for no good reason.
Scratch an officious busybody, find a nasty control freak.
Your average controlling personality acts more like Rader-the-dogcatcher than Rader-the-serial-killer; but the basic psychology is not dissimilar.
I racked my brains trying to think of a single example to the contrary: either a decent person who constantly tried to exert his dominion over others, or a nasty type who didn't. But I couldn't.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Blackfish
Just saw Blackfish, the documentary about orcas kept in captivity. It makes its message convincingly, and leaves you feeling that we ought not to keep these creatures confined. The interviews with the former SeaWorld trainers are particularly effective.
Orca brains are not only larger than ours, but apparently have more highly developed limbic systems -- the part of the brain which governs emotion.
I was struck by how similar orcas are to elephants. Both creatures are huge, and also hugely intelligent. Both live in extended three generation family groups. Both grieve when their offspring die. Even the high pitched sounds they make when distressed sound somewhat similar. Elephants have better memories than we do; it is unclear whether orcas do.
It might prove impossible, but it would seem worth our while to have researchers attempt to follow these creatures in their natural environment and attempt to learn their "language" in some sort of Berlitz-with-the-aid-of-high-tech fashion. There's probably something to be gained.
Orca brains are not only larger than ours, but apparently have more highly developed limbic systems -- the part of the brain which governs emotion.
I was struck by how similar orcas are to elephants. Both creatures are huge, and also hugely intelligent. Both live in extended three generation family groups. Both grieve when their offspring die. Even the high pitched sounds they make when distressed sound somewhat similar. Elephants have better memories than we do; it is unclear whether orcas do.
It might prove impossible, but it would seem worth our while to have researchers attempt to follow these creatures in their natural environment and attempt to learn their "language" in some sort of Berlitz-with-the-aid-of-high-tech fashion. There's probably something to be gained.
Gravity
Saw Gravity last night. It won't make you want to get up in a plane again, and it certainly won't make you want to get into a spaceship. The moviemakers basically took a half hour story and spun it out to an hour and a half, but it was never boring.
Sandra Bullock was better than usual: she didn't do her standard overacting job (since her role actually called for some histrionics). George Clooney got to act heroic, which he does well, and seems to enjoy doing.
The special effects will probably get some kind of Oscar.
I can't say the movie was enjoyable; it was almost too gripping for that.
But it certainly makes you forget about your own problems while you're in the theater. Which is all a movie is supposed to do anyway.
Sandra Bullock was better than usual: she didn't do her standard overacting job (since her role actually called for some histrionics). George Clooney got to act heroic, which he does well, and seems to enjoy doing.
The special effects will probably get some kind of Oscar.
I can't say the movie was enjoyable; it was almost too gripping for that.
But it certainly makes you forget about your own problems while you're in the theater. Which is all a movie is supposed to do anyway.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
George Will and Charles Krauthammer
The two smartest guys in Washington DC are now both on Fox News, and sometimes you can see them together on the 6 PM show.
George Will and Charles Krauthammer are both extremely analytical, commonsensical, eloquent, and incisive. Both have original insights. And maybe most impressively, both express those insights not just in complete sentences, but in complete paragraphs.
It just hit me last night what I love about listening to them most: both men speak more eloquently than I write.
I think I sound fairly smart on paper -- but there are many people, who, when given ample time for rewrites, can manage to do so. If you meet me in person, you won't be impressed -- I can pretty much guarantee that. I sound just like everyone else. And by "everyone else" I mean like half the teenage girls you know. I pepper my speech liberally with "like's" and "you know's" and plenty of swears.
So, maybe a teenage girl crossed with a truck driver.
On top of that, I'm just not quick on my feet. Give me ten minutes and I can come up with the perfect one line response. (If you want two lines, I'll need twenty minutes.) But I can almost never come up with the perfect response on the spur of the moment.
But Will and Krauthammer speak in polished essays. I can only hope -- after numerous revisions -- to write a sentence as well-constructed as the sentences they utter. (Will actually sounds as if he's reading one of his own essays when he speaks.)
I went to Harvard and worked at Goldman Sachs, so I've met a fair number of smart people in my life. And I've met far, far many more arrogant types who merely think they're smart. (As I said, I went to Harvard and worked at Goldman.)
But none of them, not even the few who actually were really smart, spoke in polished essay form.
There are no other talking heads who do it, not on Fox, nor on any of the other news channels. Not even Megyn Kelly, Fox's newest prime time host, who comes across smarter than O'Reilly and Hannity, does it. Only Will and Krauthammer can do it.
Both men are undoubtedly given the topics to be discussed ahead of time, and thus have some time to prepare their comments beforehand, which helps. Still, the other members of the panels are also afforded that opportunity, yet none come across nearly as eloquent as Will and Krauthammer. And many of Will and Krauthammer's comments are responses to the other panelists, which are by necessity ad libbed.
It's humbling to listen to them. My usual reaction: "That's so true….why couldn't I think of that?" (A rhetorical question.)
Let me put it as I would if I were speaking to you in person: Will and Krauthammer are just, like, you know, fucking geniuses! I mean, shit!
George Will and Charles Krauthammer are both extremely analytical, commonsensical, eloquent, and incisive. Both have original insights. And maybe most impressively, both express those insights not just in complete sentences, but in complete paragraphs.
It just hit me last night what I love about listening to them most: both men speak more eloquently than I write.
I think I sound fairly smart on paper -- but there are many people, who, when given ample time for rewrites, can manage to do so. If you meet me in person, you won't be impressed -- I can pretty much guarantee that. I sound just like everyone else. And by "everyone else" I mean like half the teenage girls you know. I pepper my speech liberally with "like's" and "you know's" and plenty of swears.
So, maybe a teenage girl crossed with a truck driver.
On top of that, I'm just not quick on my feet. Give me ten minutes and I can come up with the perfect one line response. (If you want two lines, I'll need twenty minutes.) But I can almost never come up with the perfect response on the spur of the moment.
But Will and Krauthammer speak in polished essays. I can only hope -- after numerous revisions -- to write a sentence as well-constructed as the sentences they utter. (Will actually sounds as if he's reading one of his own essays when he speaks.)
I went to Harvard and worked at Goldman Sachs, so I've met a fair number of smart people in my life. And I've met far, far many more arrogant types who merely think they're smart. (As I said, I went to Harvard and worked at Goldman.)
But none of them, not even the few who actually were really smart, spoke in polished essay form.
There are no other talking heads who do it, not on Fox, nor on any of the other news channels. Not even Megyn Kelly, Fox's newest prime time host, who comes across smarter than O'Reilly and Hannity, does it. Only Will and Krauthammer can do it.
Both men are undoubtedly given the topics to be discussed ahead of time, and thus have some time to prepare their comments beforehand, which helps. Still, the other members of the panels are also afforded that opportunity, yet none come across nearly as eloquent as Will and Krauthammer. And many of Will and Krauthammer's comments are responses to the other panelists, which are by necessity ad libbed.
It's humbling to listen to them. My usual reaction: "That's so true….why couldn't I think of that?" (A rhetorical question.)
Let me put it as I would if I were speaking to you in person: Will and Krauthammer are just, like, you know, fucking geniuses! I mean, shit!
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
"Girl crawls out of grave after being raped, buried alive"
If they gave a Nobel Prize for Toughness, this Pakistani girl should be a nominee. The scene could have been straight out of Kill Bill Volume 2.
Local police didn't even want to investigate the incident at first. This is the type of thing feminists (and other) should focus their energies on -- not whether men in Western societies look at women the wrong way.
Local police didn't even want to investigate the incident at first. This is the type of thing feminists (and other) should focus their energies on -- not whether men in Western societies look at women the wrong way.
Monday, October 28, 2013
People who need distraction
One measure of a person's self-sufficiency -- and really, overall worth as a human being -- is how easily bored he gets. To what extent can he rely on his thoughts to entertain himself? How much distraction does he need?
We all need distraction; but the more frantic its pursuit, the higher the potential downside of the activity, and the less tolerance for a few moments of quiet reflection, the lower the quality of the person.
(Think fast cars, loud music, fireworks, games, guns, gambling, vandalism, alcohol, drugs, and ever-present smartphones.)
It's almost mathematical: the greater and more dramatic the distraction needed, the worse the person. (The "proof" of this theorem is that sociopaths are easily bored and will do anything to distract themselves.)
People who need loud music and drugs and the types of things that make one feel one is "out of one's mind" are making a tacit admission that, under normal conditions, their minds are not pleasant places to be. Which is another way of saying, they don't like themselves.
And if they can't stand themselves, why should you? If they spend much of their time essentially trying to crawl out of that hellhole of a brain, keep your distance.
How many times have you heard people say, "I drink to numb myself, to drown out the noise in my head," or words to that effect?
Spend enough time with that person and you'll eventually be "hearing" that noise, one way or another.
You probably won't find it a pleasant sound.
We all need distraction; but the more frantic its pursuit, the higher the potential downside of the activity, and the less tolerance for a few moments of quiet reflection, the lower the quality of the person.
(Think fast cars, loud music, fireworks, games, guns, gambling, vandalism, alcohol, drugs, and ever-present smartphones.)
It's almost mathematical: the greater and more dramatic the distraction needed, the worse the person. (The "proof" of this theorem is that sociopaths are easily bored and will do anything to distract themselves.)
People who need loud music and drugs and the types of things that make one feel one is "out of one's mind" are making a tacit admission that, under normal conditions, their minds are not pleasant places to be. Which is another way of saying, they don't like themselves.
And if they can't stand themselves, why should you? If they spend much of their time essentially trying to crawl out of that hellhole of a brain, keep your distance.
How many times have you heard people say, "I drink to numb myself, to drown out the noise in my head," or words to that effect?
Spend enough time with that person and you'll eventually be "hearing" that noise, one way or another.
You probably won't find it a pleasant sound.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Hypocrisy, small and large
One of the best ways to judge someone's character is to determine whether he would get along with himself. If he constantly criticizes others for things he does himself, then he wouldn't. And that means he is that lowest form of life, a hypocrite.
With someone like that, you should take everything he says with a grain of salt, and discount his opinions. You certainly don't want to befriend him.
Likewise, if you ever want to know which politicians are credible, look for the hypocrisy.
A politician who has taken both sides of an issue, depending on which happens to be politically convenient at the time, renounces his credibility.
Such a politician is nothing but a spin artist, no more credible as those campaign staffers who will always come out after a debate and opine that their man won.
Whenever there's a racial flare up, ask yourself what would have happened had the races had been reversed in that situation. Would the usual agitators have flown in to make hay out of the situation? Would they be saying the same thing?
Figure out who the hypocrites are, and it gives you a much better sense of the right and wrong of any situation.
For instance, if one side accuses the other of electoral fraud or intimidation, but ignores that which their own side encourages, that's all you need to know.
If one side accuses the other of being "haters," but seems to be much more spiteful and ill-mannered and gratuitously insulting themselves, that tells you everything about the "character" of that side.
Likewise, it's always illuminating to see what the media prefers to pay attention to. Which scandals are kept in public view and which are allowed to slip down the memory hole? Which types of crimes are given a lot of publicity and which are ignored?
If a newspaper or television station prefers to only give attention when the criminal is one race and the victim another, but studiously ignores crimes going in the other direction, that tells you everything you need to know about that media outlet, and their credibility.
People manifest their character through their hypocrisy, or lack thereof, and so do political parties and the media.
With someone like that, you should take everything he says with a grain of salt, and discount his opinions. You certainly don't want to befriend him.
Likewise, if you ever want to know which politicians are credible, look for the hypocrisy.
A politician who has taken both sides of an issue, depending on which happens to be politically convenient at the time, renounces his credibility.
Such a politician is nothing but a spin artist, no more credible as those campaign staffers who will always come out after a debate and opine that their man won.
Whenever there's a racial flare up, ask yourself what would have happened had the races had been reversed in that situation. Would the usual agitators have flown in to make hay out of the situation? Would they be saying the same thing?
Figure out who the hypocrites are, and it gives you a much better sense of the right and wrong of any situation.
For instance, if one side accuses the other of electoral fraud or intimidation, but ignores that which their own side encourages, that's all you need to know.
If one side accuses the other of being "haters," but seems to be much more spiteful and ill-mannered and gratuitously insulting themselves, that tells you everything about the "character" of that side.
Likewise, it's always illuminating to see what the media prefers to pay attention to. Which scandals are kept in public view and which are allowed to slip down the memory hole? Which types of crimes are given a lot of publicity and which are ignored?
If a newspaper or television station prefers to only give attention when the criminal is one race and the victim another, but studiously ignores crimes going in the other direction, that tells you everything you need to know about that media outlet, and their credibility.
People manifest their character through their hypocrisy, or lack thereof, and so do political parties and the media.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
My revised Ancestry.com results
Back in July I reported that I had gotten my Ancestry.com results and they had been as follows:
22% British Isles
13% Central European
8% Finnish/Volga-Ural
8% uncertain
Yesterday I got an email from the company headlined:
"Come see your new Ancestry.com results."
Below, the text read, "AncestryDNA has evolved. And the results are amazing."
Below, the text read, "AncestryDNA has evolved. And the results are amazing."
This is basically their Marketing Department's way of saying, "We screwed up the first time. Here are your more accurate, detailed results, with our apologies."
Here are the new results they sent:
REGION APPROXIMATE AMOUNT
Africa 0%
Other Regions Tested:
Africa Southeastern Bantu 0%
Africa South-Central Hunter-Gatherers 0%
Senegal 0%
Africa North 0%
Ivory Coast/Ghana 0%
Benin/Togo 0%
Cameroon/Congo 0%
Mali 0%
Nigeria 0%
America < 1%
Native American < 1%
Asia 49%
Asia East 48%
Asia Central < 1%
Asia South 0%
Europe 48%
Great Britain 15%
Iberian Peninsula 12%
Europe West 8%
Ireland 4%
Scandinavia 4%
Finnish/Northern Russia 2%
Italy/Greece 2%
Europe East 1%
European Jewish 0%
Pacific Islander 0%
Polynesia 0%
Melanesia 0%
West Asia 2%
Caucasus < 1%
Near East < 1%
There are two ways of looking at this. The first would be: geez, I'm even more of a mutt than I'd thought. The second would be to rejoice that I can claim kinship with so many different groups.
If diversity is indeed strength, then I must be truly powerful.
However, even the briefest glance at myself -- and my position in society -- puts the lie to that saying.
If diversity is indeed strength, then I must be truly powerful.
However, even the briefest glance at myself -- and my position in society -- puts the lie to that saying.
I'm almost -- almost -- a little disappointed not to be just a smidgen African. It would have provided a neat little defense every time someone accused me of racism: "What are you talking about? I'm part black myself!" -- spoken in a tone of injured wonderment at the unfairness of the accusation.
It's surprising that one of the African sub-groups was described as "Africa South-Central Hunter-Gatherers." In this politically correct age, isn't that description considered a tad insensitive? Why was that the only group whose means of subsistence was mentioned? And, for that matter, in this country, doesn't "South Central" most commonly refer to that section of Los Angeles where the, uh, hunter-gatherers reside?
It turns out I do have some Native American blood, even if it's less than 1%. This is sort of ironic, considering I look somewhat like a Native American. Or, rather, Indian, as we prefer to be called. Personally, I don't even mind being called a "redskin" -- especially if it qualifies me to open up a casino.
The new results show that I'm 48% East Asian, and 1% Central Asian. I do try to overcome my Japanese heritage by being rude as often as possible. (This post is yet another attempt.)
I'll just assume the 1% Central Asian means that I'm a direct descendant of Genghis Khan. Expect me to emphasize that "fact" in the future -- especially when in my cups.
I'll just assume the 1% Central Asian means that I'm a direct descendant of Genghis Khan. Expect me to emphasize that "fact" in the future -- especially when in my cups.
The 15% Great Britain is even less than the 22% in the original analysis I received in July, and that was far less than the roughly 50% I had believed all my life until a few months ago.
The 12% Iberian Peninsula is the biggest surprise; the previous analysis had not mentioned that ethnicity at all, and I had no inkling that I had any Spanish blood. Again, it's sort of ironic, since I look vaguely "Hispanic." But Spaniards and Portuguese -- have little in common with the Central American Amerindians who are referred to as Hispanics in this country. And even though I look "Hispanic," I am part Iberian. So maybe I should learn to bullfight. Or rather, given my courage level, to do the flamenco.
Instead of being 13% Central European, I'm now 8% "Europe West" and 1% "Europe East." Europe West on the Ancestry.com map includes Germany, France, Austria, and the Czech Republic, but nothing east of that. I could go crazy wondering whether I'm French or German, since they are such culturally opposite places. But given that my father thought he was part "Pennsylvania Dutch," which is in fact German, it's probably Heil Hitler for me.
Europe East, on the other hand, ranges from Latvia to Bulgaria, Poland to the Ukraine. That covers a lot of territory. But considering that only 1/100th of me comes from there, I'm not going to waste much time wondering which country.
Europe East, on the other hand, ranges from Latvia to Bulgaria, Poland to the Ukraine. That covers a lot of territory. But considering that only 1/100th of me comes from there, I'm not going to waste much time wondering which country.
I'm 4% Irish. I suppose it makes sense that I'm such a watered down bottle of Guinness, since I only feel as if I've kissed the Blarney Stone around 1/25th of the time. (The other 24/25ths, I'm tongue-tied.)
I'm 4% Scandinavian. Even if Hollywood is not breaking down the door attempting to cast me as Thor, it's nice to know I'm distantly related to the Swedish Bikini Team.
I'm now 2% -- and no longer 8% -- Finnish/Northern Russian. Come to think of it, Moscow did seem a pretty alien place when I visited back in 1968.
I'm 2% Italian/Greek, also a surprise. Evidently Ancestry.com has not gotten to the point where they can separate those two ethnicities yet. And maybe, given the scope and dominance of both the Greek and Roman Empires, they'll never will.
Either way, it won't stop me from telling the Italians I know that I'm a paisan. Maybe I'll even start dressing a little flashier and hinting that I'm connected. ("You think you can talk that way to me? Hey -- I know people.") I draw the line at going full Jersey Shore, however.
And if a myopic person ever decides to tell me I'm built like a Greek God, I'll demur. But inside, of course, I'll be thinking: Ain't it the truth -- in more ways than one!
Either way, it won't stop me from telling the Italians I know that I'm a paisan. Maybe I'll even start dressing a little flashier and hinting that I'm connected. ("You think you can talk that way to me? Hey -- I know people.") I draw the line at going full Jersey Shore, however.
And if a myopic person ever decides to tell me I'm built like a Greek God, I'll demur. But inside, of course, I'll be thinking: Ain't it the truth -- in more ways than one!
I'm roughly 1% "Caucasus." Given my ornery nature, that portion is probably Chechnyan.
And while I'm 0% European Jewish, I am almost 1% "Near East." This means that while I have no Ashkenazi blood, there is a possibility of some Sephardic. So there's hope yet for a career in -- and positive coverage by -- the media. If my "Near East" is not Sephardic, I'll happily settle for being a member of the Saudi royal family.
I'm 0% Pacific Islander, which makes it a bit hard to explain my lifelong inchoate yearning for that part of the world.
Given my father's original belief that he was almost entirely British Isles-descended, my guess is that my Scandinavian blood came from the Vikings who invaded Scotland and Ireland, that the 2% Italian/Greek dated back to the Roman invasion of Britannia, and that the 12% Iberian was at least partly some form of "Black Irish" dating back to the Spanish Armada.
All of those groups demonstrated horribly bad manners with those invasions. But now that I know their blood runs in my veins, I find myself less inclined to castigate them.
Although I like to consider myself above such things, tribal identity does influence outlook.
All of those groups demonstrated horribly bad manners with those invasions. But now that I know their blood runs in my veins, I find myself less inclined to castigate them.
Although I like to consider myself above such things, tribal identity does influence outlook.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Ted Cruz's expression
I know this will make me sound superficial and probably downright idiotic, but whenever I see someone who looks just extremely pleased with himself, I feel an immediate instinctive dislike. (I don't think I am alone in this reaction.) In many photographs one sees of Ted Cruz, he seems to just radiate conceit:
Cruz is probably best known for the recent government shutdown, the result of a particularly ill-conceived, unrealistic attempt to derail Obamacare. Did he really think that popular sentiment would be won when the media was inevitably going to blame the Republicans for the shutdown?
Obamacare has been a disaster in both conceptualization and execution thus far, but defeating it in the long run will require more adroit tactics. Cruz gives off the air of someone so narcissistic as to be unrealistic about what he can and cannot accomplish.
Barack Obama's self-satisfied look also reflects his personality.
Obama and Cruz may not have much in common politically, but they do seem to have a certain similarity of character.
Cruz is probably best known for the recent government shutdown, the result of a particularly ill-conceived, unrealistic attempt to derail Obamacare. Did he really think that popular sentiment would be won when the media was inevitably going to blame the Republicans for the shutdown?
Obamacare has been a disaster in both conceptualization and execution thus far, but defeating it in the long run will require more adroit tactics. Cruz gives off the air of someone so narcissistic as to be unrealistic about what he can and cannot accomplish.
Barack Obama's self-satisfied look also reflects his personality.
Obama and Cruz may not have much in common politically, but they do seem to have a certain similarity of character.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Filial respect
Yesterday I raced my son for 200 meters. He beat me, 27.6 to 27.7. Immediately after the race I bent over, my hands on my knees, gasping for breath. He walked up behind me, and, in front of his uncle and sister, put his hands on my hips and made a pumping motion, to symbolically express what he felt he had done to me in the race.
When I told him that I hadn't had time to get in shape for the race, and that with another couple weeks' training I could have gone a second faster, he just shrugged and said, "Dad, if you had gone a 26.7 I would have just gone a 26.6."
This morning I finished the NY Times crossword in under five minutes, a good time for me for the Monday puzzle. Afterwards I jokingly exulted to my son, "I'm a freaking genius!"
His immediate response: "Dad, just 'cause you run like Stephen Hawking, that doesn't make you a genius."
When I told him that I hadn't had time to get in shape for the race, and that with another couple weeks' training I could have gone a second faster, he just shrugged and said, "Dad, if you had gone a 26.7 I would have just gone a 26.6."
This morning I finished the NY Times crossword in under five minutes, a good time for me for the Monday puzzle. Afterwards I jokingly exulted to my son, "I'm a freaking genius!"
His immediate response: "Dad, just 'cause you run like Stephen Hawking, that doesn't make you a genius."
Melba Ketchum, Part II: Sociopath alert
Three posts ago I mentioned that Melba Ketchum, the sasquatch hoaxer, was most likely a sociopath. Another blog, Top Secret Writers, has provided some background on her business dealings.
Ketchum's company, DNA Diagnostics, has an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau:
The Bureau provided 16 factors in providing the worst business rating possible, not the least of which included accepting payment from customers without providing sufficient or any DNA results in turn. In most cases, Ketchum failed to respond to the Better Business Bureau’s investigations.
She had also founded a company called Biogen Diagnostics, which is “not in good standing with the State of Texas”.
In 2010, Ketchum had partnered with Robert Schmalzbach and Richard Stubstad in a business called Science Alive, LLC, where they originally noted a “statistical anomaly in mitochondrial DNA results”. Ketchum went on Coast to Coast in 2010 to call for more Bigfoot samples and made claims about Bigfoot which Schmalzback felt was premature. She disagreed with him, formed her new company, and cut Stubstad and Schmalzbach out of the loop. (This of course contradicts Ketchum’s claim that she never “went after” Bigfoot samples).
Ketchum's company, DNA Diagnostics, has an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau:
The Bureau provided 16 factors in providing the worst business rating possible, not the least of which included accepting payment from customers without providing sufficient or any DNA results in turn. In most cases, Ketchum failed to respond to the Better Business Bureau’s investigations.
She had also founded a company called Biogen Diagnostics, which is “not in good standing with the State of Texas”.
In 2010, Ketchum had partnered with Robert Schmalzbach and Richard Stubstad in a business called Science Alive, LLC, where they originally noted a “statistical anomaly in mitochondrial DNA results”. Ketchum went on Coast to Coast in 2010 to call for more Bigfoot samples and made claims about Bigfoot which Schmalzback felt was premature. She disagreed with him, formed her new company, and cut Stubstad and Schmalzbach out of the loop. (This of course contradicts Ketchum’s claim that she never “went after” Bigfoot samples).
A record of dishonesty and disloyalty and irresponsibility like that usually spells sociopathy.
I was also struck by Katchum's picture:
You can ignore the dyed hair and bright red lipstick; these are, if garish, not uncommon. She has the "nothing behind the eyes" look that sociopaths are often said to have, though in this case that could be a function of this particular photograph. Another layman's expression for this is, "a smile that doesn't quite reach the eyes;" that seems to be the case here, too.
But most telling is Katchum's cross. Most people who wear crosses tend to have a small cross on a thin necklace which they usually wear discreetly behind their shirt. Anybody who wears a fairly large cross on a longish gold chain on top of her shirt is generally advertising her Christianity -- her "goodness."
And there's no one who advertises her "goodness" more than a sociopath.
On both of these counts -- the blank eyes and the advertising of Christianity -- Ketchum reminds me of Karen Sypher, the sociopath who tried to extort $10 million from basketball coach Rick Pitino:
I wrote about Sypher here, back in 2010.
(The two women also share the same taste in hair dye and lipstick, although these are, as I said, incidental.)
Beware of those who brandish their religion like a shield, against any suspicion that they themselves might not be above reproach.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Melba Ketchum
I got an email from my nephew two days ago asking what I thought about this article about the Sasquatch Genome Project, headed by one Melba Ketchum.
I had read a little about this study, but hadn't followed it all that closely because I'd heard of Melba Ketchum before, and gotten the impression she was a hoaxer. In any case, this latest "study" just confirmed that impression.
There are several suspicious things about this study. Why would NYU say they never received a DNA sample from Ketchum when she says she sent them one? And why would one of the other labs Ketchum cited, the North Louisiana Crime Lab, also deny that they had analyzed a DNA sample?
No serious scientist would lie like that. (And anybody with compelling evidence wouldn't have to lie.)
The group's video (which is embedded in the above-linked article) shows a big hump of "fur" which appears to "breathe" one time. Why wouldn't they videotape it from a different angle, which showed its face, or at least head? And why didn't they get a video of when it woke up, or when its mother came to get it? That would have made for an infinitely more convincing video. Also, if the group was able to take a video of a sleeping juvenile sasquatch, why not attach a tracking collar to it as well?
Ketchum claims that sasquatch is descended from modern human females. But it is hard to believe that a primate so vastly different from humans is fully human.
Note that Ketchum says others don't want to believe her because of what she terms "the Galileo Effect." Evidently, she sees herself as another Galileo. (Sorry, honey.)
Also, her moral posturing is troubling. She says that the fact that others don't believe her is "perhaps for the better," given that others might be tempted to hunt them if convinced of their existence. But if she really feels that way, why is she going to such an effort to prove their existence?
Verdict: a hoaxer. (And probably a sociopath, given her dishonesty and moral posturing.)
Perhaps Ketchum thinks the whole sasquatch phenomenon is a sham and just wants some attention. Or perhaps she believes in its existence and wants credit -- falsely -- for being a pioneer in the field. Either way, she is a hoaxer.
But there have always been hoaxers, and their existence doesn't change my belief in the existence of the creature.
My guess is that my nephew saw through Ketchum, and was merely curious as to how much of a "true believer" I am.
I am a believer, but my belief is based on the ample evidence for its existence, not on wishful thinking.
I had read a little about this study, but hadn't followed it all that closely because I'd heard of Melba Ketchum before, and gotten the impression she was a hoaxer. In any case, this latest "study" just confirmed that impression.
There are several suspicious things about this study. Why would NYU say they never received a DNA sample from Ketchum when she says she sent them one? And why would one of the other labs Ketchum cited, the North Louisiana Crime Lab, also deny that they had analyzed a DNA sample?
No serious scientist would lie like that. (And anybody with compelling evidence wouldn't have to lie.)
The group's video (which is embedded in the above-linked article) shows a big hump of "fur" which appears to "breathe" one time. Why wouldn't they videotape it from a different angle, which showed its face, or at least head? And why didn't they get a video of when it woke up, or when its mother came to get it? That would have made for an infinitely more convincing video. Also, if the group was able to take a video of a sleeping juvenile sasquatch, why not attach a tracking collar to it as well?
Ketchum claims that sasquatch is descended from modern human females. But it is hard to believe that a primate so vastly different from humans is fully human.
Note that Ketchum says others don't want to believe her because of what she terms "the Galileo Effect." Evidently, she sees herself as another Galileo. (Sorry, honey.)
Also, her moral posturing is troubling. She says that the fact that others don't believe her is "perhaps for the better," given that others might be tempted to hunt them if convinced of their existence. But if she really feels that way, why is she going to such an effort to prove their existence?
Verdict: a hoaxer. (And probably a sociopath, given her dishonesty and moral posturing.)
Perhaps Ketchum thinks the whole sasquatch phenomenon is a sham and just wants some attention. Or perhaps she believes in its existence and wants credit -- falsely -- for being a pioneer in the field. Either way, she is a hoaxer.
But there have always been hoaxers, and their existence doesn't change my belief in the existence of the creature.
My guess is that my nephew saw through Ketchum, and was merely curious as to how much of a "true believer" I am.
I am a believer, but my belief is based on the ample evidence for its existence, not on wishful thinking.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Talking to dogs
I've always regarded people who speak to animals as if they're humans as particularly idiotic. And those who speak to them as if they're cute little babies are even worse.
My wife is away for a week, so all the dog-walking and feeding duties have fallen on me.
When trying to get Tyke to come inside, or get him away from some particularly alluring smell by the roadside, I've found myself talking to him -- in English, which he doesn't understand -- using an emphatically expressive tone of voice. Somehow it just seems like the most natural thing to do.
I don't talk to him as if he's a cute little baby, though, but more as if he's a recalcitrant three-year-old.
Gotta draw the line somewhere.
My wife is away for a week, so all the dog-walking and feeding duties have fallen on me.
When trying to get Tyke to come inside, or get him away from some particularly alluring smell by the roadside, I've found myself talking to him -- in English, which he doesn't understand -- using an emphatically expressive tone of voice. Somehow it just seems like the most natural thing to do.
I don't talk to him as if he's a cute little baby, though, but more as if he's a recalcitrant three-year-old.
Gotta draw the line somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
