College kids

A friend, Dave Moriarty, sent The Ten Most Ridiculous College Protests of 2015 to me yesterday. 

I hadn't even heard of some of those causes.

But it occurred to me, a big part of the problem is the way the media takes them seriously. Young people have always felt the need to do crazy stuff to blow off steam. Once it was panty raids and seeing how many students could fit inside a Volkswagen Beetle. 

A little later it was protesting the Viet Nam War, then, streaking. 

Now it's all the silly stuff described in the article linked above (plus a lot of racial tension which the author carefully sidestepped). 

But really, some of this should be written off to hormones and youthful stupidity. As in, you know, kids will be kids.

Not all of it, though. Some of the more recent protests -- not the ones listed above -- have taken on a more sinister hue, setting students off against each other on the basis of race. 

Different personalities

In the previous post I mentioned how Austin Shifflett was unrecognizable after he lost all that weight. It appears to go deeper than that: he looks as if he has a different personality in each of the shots:

But what if the three photos actually were of three different people? What would each be like?

The guy in the center looks like a Bubba, a friendly, somewhat slobbish type who'll wrap his arm around you in a friendly gesture (he won't feel awkward about it, but you will). He likes to drink beer and watch football. He actually played football his freshman year, but decided not to go out his sophomore year because he didn't like having to do the wind sprints. He's relaxed, outgoing, and would probably like both the fellow in the left and the one on the right.

The guy on the left looks like the type who'd run for Class President. He's a future businessman, an aggressive go-getter who'll give you a hearty handshake and an insincere smile. He likes to brag about his conquests to his buddies. He has nothing but contempt for the "lardass" and "faggot" (his words) in the other pictures.

The guy on the right is a bit of a fashionista (who else would wear a scarf and semi-matching hat indoors?) He despises the guy on the left, but doesn't say anything because he's afraid of him. He likes the fellow in the center, who seems to accept him for who he is, and has even encouraged him to try to lose weight so he can wear more stylish clothes.

Okay, I've just indulged in a lot of obvious cliches. And I'm obviously not suggesting that there's any truth to these stereotypes, at least as far as Austin is concerned. But I don't think I'd be alone in imputing those personality types to each physique.

What's amazing, of course, is that he looks as if he has a different personality in each picture, even though it can't possibly be true.

But it would be interesting to find out if Austin Shifflett's personality has actually changed at all since his physical transformation. You occasionally hear about the "pretty girl personality" (expects the world on a silver platter, thinks she's more interesting than she is). You never hear of the "handsome boy personality." But it's probably just as real.

Don't get fat

Articles about people who've lost large amounts of weight are a staple on the internet, and I often find myself clicking on them out of curiosity. It's not that I want to see how different their bodies look, since that's a given. I'm more interested to see how different their faces look afterward.

Sometimes their faces don't change that much, but sometimes they look like completely different people. A couple of days ago I stumbled across this article, which featured two people, one of whom, Austin Shifflett, was unrecognizable after his weight loss:

At first I thought they'd made a mistake; the guy on the right seems to have a different nose and mouth, and darker eyebrows. But then I Google-Imaged Austin Shifflet and came across this triptych, which made it apparent it hadn't been a mistake:

In both sets of pictures, he looks like a different person on the right. I was also struck by the fact that Shifflett somehow looks a little gay after the weight loss, but that may be partially the effect of his Zoolander-style pose in those shots.

In any case, Austin was one of the lucky ones: he looked good afterwards, as opposed to looking like a former fatty with saggy skin. The fact that he'd lost the weight while still young undoubtedly helped.

I've said this before, but I think at least 75% of women would be attractive if they were exactly the right weight. Bone structure is a wonderful thing, always better apparent than not. The problem is, very few women -- or men -- hit the appropriate target.

There have certainly been plenty of instances of people going in the other direction. Roberto Duran, the great boxer, went from looking like this --

-- to this:

Granted, we all get old, and granted, our metabolisms slow down as we age. But it seems sort of a shame with Duran; he had a sort of feral beauty when young, and now he's almost unrecognizable.

Duran was famous for his toughness and untamed ferocity in the ring. One of my favorite Duran stories happened after he beat Davey Moore for the junior middleweight title in 1983 in a bruising, bloody battle of attrition. After the fight, instead of taking a shower and changing -- the way a civilized human would -- he simply threw his clothes on over his boxing trunks and went out into the night to celebrate with his friends.

That tends not to be the type of guy who spends the latter half of his life obsessively counting calories. And, it might only diminish Duran's legend if he had.

Still, it seems unfortunate, as it always does when someone loses his or her looks. Better to go in Austin's direction.

Muhammad Ali, segregationist

In all the hoopla over Muhammad Ali's "statement" about Islam a couple weeks ago, none of the major newspapers which celebrated his defense of Islam thought to remember what Ali used to say about race mixing: he was against it.

Take a look at this clip from an interview he gave on British TV in 1971.

Here are a few quotes from that interview:

"I'm sure no intelligent white person watching this show, no intelligent white man in his or her right white mind, want black boys and black girls marrying their white sons and daughters, and in return, introducing' their grandchildren as half-brown, kinky-haired black people."

When the white host interjected that he wouldn't mind, Ali continued, "Well you don't have it, you say you do, but you don't have it, you really ain't gonna have it, you on your show, you gotta say that."

When the host said, again, that they were the same, Ali said, "Oh, we're different, you know we're different…..No, not society, God made us different…..Listen, bluebirds fly with bluebirds, red birds gonna be with red birds. Listen, listen, tell me when I'm wrong. Pigeons want to be with pigeons…..I don't see no black and white couples in England or America, walkin' around proud, holdin' their children."

"Life's too short for me to be catchin' hell for something like that. Again, I'd rather be with my own, have a beautiful daughter, a beautiful wife, they look like me, we all happy, and I don't have no trouble.  Now I ain't that much in love with no woman to go through all that hell, ain't no woman that good."

When the host said that he thought Ali's attitude was sad, Ali replied, "It ain't sad that I want my child to look like me, every intelligent person wants his child to look like him. I'm sad because I want to blot out my race and lose my beautiful identity?"

This, by the way, is the same Muhammad Ali who called Sonny Liston a "big black ugly bear" and Joe Frazier 'King Kong." Of course, he also once said that all white men are the devil.

But one stance Ali never wavered on was racial separatism. Somehow George Wallace and Lester Maddox have ended up demonized ("devil-ized?") for that view, while Ali remains a liberal icon. And neither Wallace nor Maddox ever went so far as to say that all black men are the devil. Gee….you'd almost think there was a double standard at work here.

In any case, while the newspapers were so triumphantly quoting Ali's defense of Islam -- words he almost certainly never said -- it would have been nice, for the sake of balance, if they had quoted some words which he actually did say.

But since those quotes don't fit with the media's narrative, they will remain buried.

BBC productions

Netflix doesn't have a great selection of movies; most are "B" productions with low ratings from Rottentomatoes.

What makes Netflix worthwhile are its TV shows.

And its best TV shows are generally the BBC productions. The best of those may be Broadchurch, The Fall, and Luther.

Broadchurch features a great ensemble of "real" actors (meaning, none look like movie stars) acting exactly as real people would if a young boy had been found murdered in their midst.

The Fall is about the search for a serial killer in Belfast. As I mentioned this past January, it may feature more beautiful women per reel than any show since the original 1967 Casino Royale. It's an excellent drama, and it also seems to have that indefinable quality known as "cool."

Idris Elba is appealing as the star of Luther, a London detective who must cope with a wayward wife, a corrupt colleague, and various criminals. He's got issues himself, but the various misfits he must deal with make him seem well-adjusted by comparison.

The Killing is also great, even though it's an American (AMC) show. It takes a few episodes to warm up to, but once you're into it, you'll be hooked. As an example of how well done it is: one of the two main characters, a detective, is both a wigger and a drug addict, but by the end of the show you'll see him as both likable and heroic -- as hard as that may be to believe.

I don't think you'll regret watching any of these series.

If I had to sum up the difference between the BBC shows and the typical American TV show (The Killing excepted), it's this: the British writers create their characters as real people, whereas Americans create their characters act as they think TV characters are supposed to be. 

One cause the SJW's need to take up

It's hard to argue with the original civil rights causes. A government shouldn't mandate segregation and exclusion. Women shouldn't have their opportunities limited just because they're women. And it's unfair to ask gays to stay in the closet.

Most fair-minded people would agree that people ought not be penalized for something they have no control over -- but that they shouldn't be rewarded for those things, either.

But some of the original causes have since been turned on their heads: minorities and feminists now demand discrimination in their favor.

Given the direction that many of these original liberation movements have taken, one movement seems conspicuous by its absence: liberation for the low-IQed.

Prejudices of all sorts are now analyzed and even invented by social justice warriors. Yet nobody ever seems to complain about prejudice against the dumb. To be honest, it's what some of these other movements have sort of morphed into anyway. So why not call it what it is?

In an era in which tests themselves are deemed "discriminatory," it's high time someone took up this cause.

Are dumb people not human too? Being dumb does not make you a bad person. Should they not have civil rights? Why should dumb people be excluded from the better colleges? Why should they not have a chance at the highest-paying jobs?

Why should this be the disability that dare not speak its name?

Just think of the great slogans that they could (mindlessly) chant:

"We're dumb, but we're not scum!" (To the lower-IQed, rhymes seems to imbue more meaning and truth to whatever they're saying.)

"'Dumb' is a four letter word!" (Or, perhaps, more in character, "'Stupid' is a four letter word!")

"America was built on the backs of dumb people!"

"Abolish intelligencism!"

"Stupid pride!"

A dumb person could say, with that vague but unmistakable sense of hysterical victimhood/entitlement, "I am a person of stupidity."

In fact, instead of trying to win arguments by logic, they could simply fall back on, "You're an intelligencist!" in the same way in which liberals try to end arguments by calling names.

There's really no argument against that. 

Stupidity, unnatural beauty, natural beauty, and wisdom

By now you've undoubtedly heard of the mix-up at the Miss Universe contest, when emcee Steve Harvey mistakenly announced that Miss Colombia was the winner over Miss Philippines.

It was actually sorta funny -- if you have a twisted sense of humor.

The funniest thing may have been Steve Harvey's subsequent Tweet:

(To the best of my knowledge, that Ivy League school does not hold a beauty contest. "Philippians" is a New Testament epistle, not a country in Asia. And while Harvey made both an honest mistake and a terrible one, was it really "terribly honest" as well?)

This sends a clear message to all young students: hit those geography books, study your syntax, and you, too, might become successful enough to announce the Miss Universe contest.

You can't really be angry at Harvey, though. It was an honest mistake, he owned up to it, and he obviously felt bad about it afterwards.

What I was really struck by when I first saw a clip of the incident was how unnatural Miss Colombia looked:

She seems to have had a lot of work done. Those big lips simply don't go with that narrow nose, which makes it appear as if at least one, and probably both, were surgically altered. Her cheeks look unnaturally full, as if she's had implants. Her eyebrows are obviously painted on. And she's wearing heavy makeup.

The overall effect is, one of the less wholesome showgirls in a Vegas topless revue.

Speaking of which, her skinny arms contrast sharply with her ample breasts, which indicate that those may have been enhanced as well:

It would have been more in keeping with the rest of her look to get double-D's rather than small C's, though.

Brazil, Venezuela, and Colombia have reportedly all gone plastic surgery-crazy in recent years. And a high percentage of Brazilian athletes seem to be on steroids these days. When those things are just part of the culture, it's a little harder to blame people who simply go along.

But should a contest which essentially celebrates young beauty really be encouraging that much artifice?

(The pageant now sparks the same feeling you get when you see a picture of the Mr. Universe contestants: wow, that's a lot of store-bought enhancement.)

The third place finisher, Olivia Thomas, Miss USA, has a much more natural look:

There's real hair in those eyebrows, and her face is in balance. (Which is to damn her with faint praise: she's stunningly beautiful.)

Anyway, back to the mix-up. Donald Trump, who sold the contest six months ago, at first said that this would never have happened when he owned the contest. That's a little ridiculous, as human error is always a possibility whenever humans are involved.

But then he proposed that the Miss Universe title be awarded jointly this year, which actually isn't a bad suggestion. Miss Colombia may not deserve the title based on her natural beauty, but she does deserve something as recompense for her humiliation.

Ah, the wisdom of Solomon.

Just what we'd want in a President.

And if there is zero chance that any errors would ever happen on his watch, all the better.

A sociopath's ability to perform

The AP recently ran an article titled, "Actor decapitated neighbor, performed in musical soon after."

The relevant excerpts: 

SANTA ANA, Calif. — A Southern California man who killed two people and dismembered one in a scheme to steal money and cover his tracks was convicted Wednesday of first-degree murder. Daniel Wozniak, 31, was convicted by an Orange County jury that must now decide whether to recommend life in prison or the death penalty.

Wozniak was convicted of killing two Orange Coast College students on May 21, 2010.

Wozniak was deeply in debt, needed money for his upcoming wedding and was facing eviction when he concocted a plan to kill a neighbor, Samuel Herr, and steal $50,000 that the Army veteran had saved from his service in Afghanistan, prosecutors said.

Wozniak shot the 26-year-old Costa Mesa man in the attic of a Los Alamitos theater where Wozniak performed in community theater productions — including playing the lead in a musical the night after the killing. He later dismembered Herr and dumped the remains in a park.

Prosecutors said Wozniak used Herr’s phone to text the victim’s friend, Julie Kibuishi. He pretended to be Herr and got the 23-year-old to come to Herr’s apartment to talk so he could shoot her and make it appear that Herr had raped and killed her before fleeing.

Wozniak was arrested days later at his bachelor party….

A 16-year-old boy testified that Wozniak hired him to use Herr’s ATM card to withdraw money from the victim’s bank account.

Jurors also saw video of a police interview in which Wozniak confessed to the double killing.

Asked about motive, Wozniak replied: “Money and insanity.”

“I don’t know why I did it,” he added. “Mainly it was the money, and it seemed so easy.”

There are several aspects to this crime -- beyond the obvious one of the double murder -- which exude sociopathy.

Most of us would get nervous at the thought of singing in front of an audience. And we'd be absolute wrecks if we had just murdered someone, hacked up his body, and were worried about getting caught. Wozniak just got up on stage and sang his heart out, feigning love for the female lead -- all while plotting his next murder.

Sociopaths are always the best performers going, as they never suffer from self-doubt.

Wozniak was arrested at his bachelor party. Sociopaths have the unique ability to want to party even when their world is tumbling down. (This is why you'll see Ponzi schemers seeming to enjoy their riches, even as the Feds close in.) 

When asked why he did it, Wozniak replied, "Mainly it was the money, and it seemed so easy." Well, of course it was the money. But that aside, why did he do it? Most of us would respond, tremulously and shamefacedly, "I don't know, I don't know what came over me, I'm just really a horrible person, I guess" -- or something to that effect.

But Wozniak's shrugging response? He did it because "it seemed so easy." Sociopaths tend not to look inward.

(Wozniak's words are reminiscent of Richard Speck's response when asked why he killed those eight student nurses in Chicago on that fateful night in July of 1966: "Just wasn't their night, I guess.")

That Wozniak had thought pulling off a murder would be easy illustrates another aspect of sociopathy: they overestimate their own abilities. In particular, they overestimate their ability to fool others. 

Here's a picture of Wozniak, sitting in court last week: 

Look at that serene, untroubled, almost cherubic face. He's on trial for murder, yet he looks as if he's still looking forward to the rest of his bachelor party. You know, the good part, where he gets to have sex with the hired stripper in front of all his buddies.

A certain smugness also seems to be etched into that face: "Hey, I really am pretty cool."

All of this shows why it's so misleading when young sociopaths are labeled as "troubled youths." They are, in fact, the least troubled people in the world -- things that would tear the rest of us apart simply don't faze them in the least.

On the other hand, sociopaths are always a lot of trouble -- for other people. 

The religion of peace

Donald Trump has gained a lot of publicity, most of it negative, for his suggestion that the US stop allowing Muslims to immigrate until we can "figure out what's going on."

His statement elicited the usual howls of outrage from the Democrats and from the mainstream media (pardon me for being redundant). Even many in the Republican establishment have taken pains to distance themselves from Trump's suggestion.

They point out that not all Muslims are terrorists, in fact only a miniscule percentage of Muslims are, and that the vast majority of them are peace-loving and will fit in well in this country.

But is that actually the case? Take a look at the results of these polls:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

The polls date back to a few years ago, but the last three conducted in 2015, under the category of terrorism, are quite telling:

A full 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).

25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the "global Jihad (64% disagree).

Following the November attacks in Paris, 1 in 4 young Muslims in Britain (and 1 in 5 overall) said they sympathize with those who fight for ISIS.

One in four, or one in five (depending on which poll you look at) is not a miniscule number.

If just one in ten of those 25% of Muslims-Americans who believe in violent jihad act on their beliefs, we could see a lot more San Bernadinos.

But hey, Obama's right. It would be un-American not to let more of them in. 

Let's not "invade their privacy"

Obama's edict that immigration officials not be allowed to check the social media of would-be Muslim immigrants on the grounds that it would "invade their privacy" is completely disingenuous, especially coming on the heels of the San Bernadino massacre, which could have been prevented had immigration officials only checked the Facebook postings of Tashfeen Malik, who had openly advocated jihad.

I used to think that people who said that Obama hated America were crazy. I thought, well, his loyalties are obviously racial, and his mission seems to be to transfer as much money and power as he possibly can from whites to blacks. But it's not as if he actually hates this country.

But it's hard to think of any other reason why he would want to prevent immigration officials from screening potential immigrants for terrorist leanings. How is it "invading their privacy" when they post these things on social media?

It's especially galling when you consider that the US government (until this past June) regularly spied on its own citizens by tracking their telephone conversations, which were never meant to be made public. Yet now they will not even look at the public postings of foreigners from fundamentalist Islamic countries who want to immigrate here?

My Martin Shkreli story

In the fall of 2012, I had a friend who owed me $21,900. Martin Shkreli owed him a similar amount, so he told Shkreli to just send me a check for $21,900. Shkreli then wrote out a check to me, photocopied it, and sent the picture to my friend as "proof" that he was paying me. My friend then forwarded me the email Shkreli had sent him.

Although I had never heard of Shkreli before this, I knew the minute I got that email that Shkreli would not send the check. If he had intended to pay, he would have simply sent the check. No one would go to the bother of photocopying it and sending the picture if he actually intended to pay.

I couldn't really say anything to my friend at that point because he was operating in good faith, and I didn't know anything about Shkreli, but I knew I wouldn't be getting it.

Three weeks later I told my friend that Shkreli hadn't sent the check, and my friend apologized and sent me a check himself.

I have no idea whether Shkreli ever paid my friend, as my friendship with him ended soon after.

But I haven't been all that surprised by what I've read about Shkreli since. Like all sociopaths, he thinks he's fooling people when he's not, and I have to admit I was gratified to hear that the Feds caught up with him yesterday.

Finally, a substantive cause we can get behind

The latest brouhaha on campus is taking place at Oberlin College, where students are claiming to be offended that the ethnic cuisine in the cafeterias isn't prepared authentically enough.

The more we hear about these various student protests, the more it seems that it's all one big contest to demonstrate how refined their sensibilities, or, in this case, their palates are.

It's hard not to wonder how these students will feel about their behavior twenty years from now, as they look back on their college years.

Will they be proud that they had the courage to stand up and fight for justice this way? Or will they feel just a little bit embarrassed?

Hate crime hoaxers and Munchausen's Syndrome

It's tempting to think that all of these hate crimes hoaxes are the work of slick political operatives who are merely trying to make the opposition look bad, raise awareness of "hate crimes," and get their own side fired up. But the more you look at these hoaxers, the more it becomes clear that many are just not right in the head.

What some have is a variety of Munchausen's Syndrome, that "mental illness" where people pretend to be ill in order to gain attention and sympathy and affection. But, Munchausen's Syndrome, as I've written in the past, is not so much a separate syndrome as it is simply a manifestation of sociopathy.

Think of Martha Nicholas, who claimed to have Stage 4 ovarian cancer when she didn't, and held fundraisers to help her pay for her (nonexistent) treatment. To keep a scam going as long as she did, you'd have to be utterly without shame.

The clearest proof that people with Munchausen's are sociopaths is provided by those who have Munchausen's-by-proxy, like Lacey Spears, who gradually poisoned her son, making him sick, and eventually killing him, in order to gain attention and sympathy for herself. Her actions were so utterly dishonest, shameless, and unspeakably cruel, that a nonsociopath simply wouldn't have been able to pull them off.

Bear in mind, Spears' case wasn't just an uncharacteristic moment of insanity, it was a long, ongoing process that required lots of planning and subterfuge.

Think of Jackie Oakley, the University of Virginia student who falsely claimed to have been raped by eight fraternity boys. The temptation at first might be to think that she was just a mixed up girl, but in fact she, too, was a sociopath who kept her scam going until her story finally fell apart.

Oakley's case is exceptional in that it garnered so much publicity, and was used, most (in)famously by Rolling Stone, as a way to highlight the "plague" of campus rape. But none of the political ramifications changed the fact that Oakley was simply a conniving little sociopath with a bottomless need for attention and sympathy.

I've had personal experience with this phenomenon too: the woman who educated me about sociopathy claimed to have cancer when she didn't.

Munchausen's Syndrome is not all that rare: you've probably heard of cases where someone, usually a woman, claims to have cancer and garners all sorts of attention and sympathy, and sometimes, even admiration for her "courage." Then it turns out she never had it.

While writing the previous post, it occurred to me that the parallels between Munchausen's and hate crime hoaxes are striking.

Not every last hoax is purely about getting personal attention and sympathy. Some of these hoaxers were covering up other misbehaviors. And they had varying amounts of politically motivation.

But all require a level of ongoing dishonesty so extreme that almost by definition, the perpetrator of the hoax has to be a sociopath.

Another distinctly sociopaths trait is wanting to sow discord: faking a "hate crime" fits that bill perfectly.

Imagine the mentality of a hate crime hoaxer. You prefer to believe that your own frustrations in life are due to racism or homophobia than to anything intrinsic to you. And you keep hearing about how racist and homophobic our society is, but you don't really see all that much in the way of overt examples. People seem to generally ignore you around campus, or, even worse, act as if you're not even there. And while you are incensed about racism or homophobia, some of your fellow blacks or gays don't seem to be as riled up as they should be.

What to do?

Solve all those problems at once by staging a hate crime. If you're black, you can put up a swastika made out of human feces in the bathroom. Or post anonymously on Yik Yak that you plan to shoot every black you see on campus the next day. Or hang a noose somewhere people will be sure to see it.

If you're gay, you can spray paint "Faggots get AIDS and die" on a convenient wall. Or maybe carve "gay" into your own arm. Or, if you have a fight with your boyfriend which leaves some nasty bruises, report that some gay bashers beat you up.

Once you've started, of course, you're committed to following through. You have to give a complete report not only to campus authorities but also to the police. You have to act like a traumatized "victim."

You'll be the center of attention, and people will act very sympathetic to you. Your cause will be promoted, and the narrative about what a racist or homophobic society we live in will be reinforced. The right people will be riled up at this injustice, and your cause may even gain a few converts. And people will admire you for your "bravery."

If you're a sociopath, this is how you think.

It's curious that the Left seems to attract so many of them.

Tyrants

Two sociopaths made the front page of the NY Post in the last couple days. One is Father Miqueli, a closeted gay priest who skimmed money from the collection plates at his parish in the Bronx and spent it on S&M sessions with his master, expensive liquor, and a house in NJ.

It turns out that Miqueli was, according to the Post:

a holier-than-thou blowhard who denied sacraments to “unworthy” parishioners, railed against gays at baptism class, yelled at the faithful on the Communion line and conducted his own vindictive war on Christmas, say members of his flock.

The other is James Burke, a former police chief in Suffolk County, NY. He was in the news for having purposely stymied an FBI investigation into the Gilgo Beach serial killings for several years, and also for having beaten up a handcuffed man who was accused of breaking into Burke's car and stealing his sex toys and pornographic tapes. Burke is also alleged to have broken into the suspect's apartment to retrieve those stolen items, and to have intimidated potential witnesses, including police who worked for him.

(To get the full flavor of each man's personality, look at the linked articles.)

Father Miqueli and James Burke both illustrate what happens when you give a sociopath power: they become tyrannical.

Miqueli was more of a petty tyrant, as he could only make life miserable for his parishioners in small ways. Burke was a little scarier, as he had real power. It's possible that if Burke had allowed the FBI more access to information about the Gilgo Beach murders, the killer might have been caught and stopped by now.

Unfortunately, sociopaths are more adept at rising to positions of power, as they will do anything to achieve those. If you doubt that, just think about Miqueli's and Burke's actions.

A guy who embezzles money from his church and does his best to make lit miserable for his parishioners would not have felt any qualms about currying favor with the right people in the Catholic hierarchy in order to land that plum parish in the first place.

And a police chief who beats a handcuffed suspect in front of his officers, intimidates those officers, and stymies an FBI serial killer investigation would certainly not have hesitated to campaign aggressively for the position of chief in the first place.

One thing you can always count on with a sociopath is that he will always act in character, and will abuse whatever power he is given.

Today's look-alike gay couple

This morning's NY Times featured a wedding announcement for David Taylor and David Bergad:

They were married Thursday in San Francisco. Once again, they wouldn't be mistaken for twins, but they could be brothers.

Gay men often look as if they have pleasant dispositions. Is it partly because they look unthreateningly non-hyperandrogenized?

I'm also struck by what an overwhelmingly white phenomenon gay marriage is. The NY Times has shown pictures of hundreds of gay couples, yet I can't recall seeing a single picture of a black or Hispanic (Amerindian) man as part of such a couple, and I think I've only seen one or two Asians.

Where's the diversity? Does this mean that white homosexuals only want to marry white, or that the New York Times covers only white gay weddings?

Muhammad Ali's "statement"

Most of the major news outlets reported yesterday that Muhammad Ali had issued the following statement in response to Donald Trump's suggestion that further immigration of Muslims be temporarily suspended:

“I am a Muslim, and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world. True Muslims know the ruthless violence of so-called Islamic Jihadists goes against the very tenets of our religion … We, as Muslims, have to stand up to those who use Islam to advance their own personal agenda. They have alienated many from learning about Islam. True Muslims know or should know that it goes against our religion to try and force Islam on anybody.”

“Speaking as someone who has never been accused of political correctness, I believe that our political leaders should use their position to bring understanding about the religion of Islam and clarify that these misguided murderers have perverted people’s views on what Islam really is.”

Most of the newspapers which reported this statement had a triumphant tone to their articles, as if to say, see? We have this great icon on our side!

USA Today said that Ali was "an inspiration" and described his statement as "touching" and a "beautiful response after Donald Trump's anti-Muslim comments."

The Washington Post said that Ali was "clearly unhappy with the businessman's politics." 

NBC News' headline was, "Muhammad Ali Hits at Trump and 'Misguided Murderers' Sabotaging Islam." The first sentence of the article started out, "Like the champion fighter he is, Muhammad Ali took jabs Wednesday…."

The New York Times at least said that Ali had said these things "in a statement delivered to NBC." In other words, nobody heard him say these things himself. Of course, this is not atypical of celebrities; they often have PR firms which release statements for them. 

The question is, to what extent are these actually Ali's thoughts? He has suffered from Parkinson's since the early 1980's, and his own brother Rahman said in 2013 that he is basically a helpless captive of his wife, Lonnie, who is only interested in his money.

Ali remains a huge icon to liberals, to boxing fans, and especially, to the black community. During the past 15 years, he has made occasional public appearances in which people always fawn over him, tell him how great he is, and tell him that he's their hero. He smiles, mumbles something unintelligible, then totters off the stage, usually with someone helping him. 

When Ali was young, he was quick-witted as well as quick-handed, beautifully coordinated, and robustly healthy. No matter what you thought of his politics, it was impossible to deny that he was a lively, energetic, uninhibitedly playful and charming presence. 

Now he is the pretty much the opposite. So it's always a little painful to watch when he gets trotted out for a public appearance.

Most of the news reports yesterday included undated photos of Ali, either from roughly 15 years ago, like this one --

-- or pictures in which he is seen with Donald Trump, like this one:

But Ali doesn't look like that anymore. Here is a more recent picture of him:

Given the advanced nature of his deterioration, it seems highly doubtful that he would be following the news closely these days and be cogent enough to analyze it the way his official statement implied.

That statement read in part, "We, as Muslims, have to stand up to those who use Islam to advance their own personal agenda."

But who is going to stand up to those who use a senile old man to advance their own personal agendas?

Certainly not any of the major newspapers. 

"You won't believe the wild tales of this 'White House chef'"

A funny story by -- and about -- a sociopath.

Sometimes it's mind-boggling what pathological liars think they can get away with.

Pistol-packin' Pinch

The NY Times had a front page article about gun control yesterday, their first official front page editorial since 1920. (Everything that appears on the front page of the Times is spun in some way, but this is the first article that's actually been labelled as an editorial.)

No one's name was attached, but it's unfortunate in a way that the editorial didn't come with publisher and CEO Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger's byline. He's actually one of the rare New Yorkers who has been able to obtain a carry permit from the NYPD.

Pinch just doesn't think the rest of us should be allowed to get one.

Hard not to wonder what kind of gun Pistol-Packin' Pinch carries. A snub nose .38, whose compact size makes it ideal for concealed carry?

A Glock 21 semiautomatic? The cops use it, so it must be good, right?

A Sig Sauer P220? This one is a favorite among gun aficionados. It was featured in Rambo: First Blood Part II. Wait a sec, the Times didn't like the Rambo movies, so, nah.

Perhaps he favors the Walther PPK, the one James Bond carries. Don't worry Pinch, we've all seen the movies. We'd understand.

Or maybe Pinch prefers the Heckler & Koch VP9. Okay, so maybe the Times has mentioned the Holocaust a time or two. But let's face it, those Germans make reliable guns.

Maybe he likes the Kahr CM9, available for just $460. Although, given the fact that Pinch pays himself $6 million a year (at a time when The Times is laying off reporters), he can probably afford a more expensive gun.

Many gun owners tend to think of their guns as "cool." Does Pinch show off his gun(s) to his friends? To his wife? How many guns does he have?

Does Pinch compare notes with Carlos Slim? Surely the world's richest propaganda-buyer does not travel unarmed. Or, as is much more likely, with a retinue of armed bodyguards.

How often does Pinch go to the range? How many rounds has he shot, total? Does he ever worry about the anti-environmental effect of all that gunpowder going off? (Every shot he's fired does contribute a little to global warming.)

Does Pinch load his gun with standard ammo, or does he prefer the more deadly hollow points, which expand once inside a man's body?

We know what Pistol-Packin' Pinch's favorite publication is. But does he also make time for Guns 'n Ammo?

Whatever the answers to these questions, don't expect the Times to report them.

(Is it just my imagination or does Pinch have the soft-faced, wimpy, pencil-necked look of a mass killer?)

Of all places…..

Whenever there's been talk of possible terrorist targets, the usual list includes Times Square, The Lincoln Tunnel, various football stadiums, bridges, and nuclear facilities, as well as reservoirs (to be poisoned).

No one ever thought to mention The Inland Regional Center, a facility for the mentally deficient in San Bernadino, California. To most Los Angelenos, San Bernadino is pretty much Nowheresville. It's hard to imagine a less glamorous place.

Of course, this attack seemed to be a weird mix of Muslim fanaticism and personal animosity. (Had someone made the mistake of wishing Syed Farook a Merry Christmas at that ill-fated office Christmas party?) So maybe it was unique in that San Bernadino just happened to be where some Muslims who happened to be ripe for jihad just happened to live.

Farook had been described as quiet but well-liked at the Center, where he worked. Like many American men, he had tried multiple dating websites before eventually getting a mail order bride from Pakistan. Until his neighbors started noticing a lot of strange packages arriving at his house -- which they didn't report for fear of being labeled racist -- no one ever suspected Syed of being a terrorist.

In any case, if San Bernadino isn't safe, it's pretty obvious that no place is.

ISIS doesn't seem to care if you work at packing plant in Enid, Oklahoma, are going to school in Orono, Maine, or work as an usher at a cinemaplex in Raleigh, North Carolina.

They're coming soon, to a theater near you.

If history were recorded by fashion writers

Every now and then, after stumbling across an article on fashion, I'll wonder, what if these were the scribes who wrote the final draft of history? How would our textbooks read? Where would the emphasis lie?

Attila looks stylishly equestrian in piped breeches with a gold breastplate and sandals to match. But with the always well turned out Attila, form follows function: the high-riding body armor allows for ease of movement as he pivots on his bay mare to let loose another volley at the enemies of fashion. And that cute rabbit fur hat keeps him toasty on those cold Teutonic nights! This Hun is the scourge of everybody who finds grunge acceptable!

Alexander's armored mini-skirt reveals a scandalous amount of leg, but who can blame him when he has such manly quadriceps? Ooh la la! And how jaunty he looks with that over-the-shoulder scarf tossed just so! They don't call him "The Great" for nothing! Even his horse is stylishly attired! And note Alex's haircut, short in front and long in back: wear a mullet and conquer the world! That's our Alex -- subduing the Balkans, Asia Minor, Macedonia, Persia, the Levant, Assyria, Babylonia, and India, all for the right to marry his boyfriend!

Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, isn't shy about sporting fancy bling! That ermine cap (dyed red with the blood of his enemies) with pearl headband provides a perfect backdrop for the giant ruby set in a solid gold star, which emphasizes the prince's piercing gaze. If fashion were a car race, Vlad would definitely be sitting in the pole position! Note the fancy brooch holding together the finely textured cape: Count Dracula wouldn't be caught dead wearing anything less!

Tamerlane looks regal in his royal headdress with egret plume, and those spikes on his crown show that he means business! His blue tunic with the paisley/Islamic crescent motif and red lapels set off his flowery silk robe perfectly, while his white undergarment symbolizes the fact that even after all those bloody sieges, his soul is still pure. Think of that stern visage as yet another accessory: it just wouldn't be right to sack a city while looking sheepish!

Atahualpa had absolutely no choice but to bow before the superior fashion sense of Francisco Pizarro! The Incan must have been overwhelmed by the spiked helmet with the sumptuous feathers streaming behind, the royal blue shirt, and contrasting red sash. Long live conquistador chic! And check out the long sword and brown tights -- Francisco is one macho peach, you can't deny that!

Benito makes a bold statement in a cap with red braid and a beautiful gold-plated eagle. The bird matches his epaulets, buttons, and eagle on his arm, adding just the right touch of color coordination. The black shirt reflects Benito's point of view perfectly! And the hands of his German Leica sweep reliably around their axis, letting Il Duce know when it's time to get rid of those pesky limits to his power. Whether you're talking fascism or fashionism, Benito rules!

A true leader doesn't have to wear loud clothes that scream, look at me! Adolf's brown jacket may seem more peahen than peacock, but it exudes an understated, quiet authority which does far more for him than any loud zoot suit would. It's just enough to keep him warm on those cool Alpine evenings! Adolf's unique mustache shows that he is a fashion leader, not a follower. And while some fuhrers might be torn between wearing a swastika or iron cross, Adolf's final solution was pure genius: he sported both!

Political power may come from the barrel of a gun, but fashion power comes from timeless simplicity and austere elegance, and the buttoned up Mao Zedong embodied both! There is nary a wrinkle in sight, either on Mao's minimalist jacket or on his serene, youthful countenance. It may seem to come easy for the Chairman, but it's actually a long march to such revolutionary elegance.

No one -- but no one -- could rock a camouflage outfit and matching cap like Manuel Noriega! The man was equally at home in a jungle and behind a microphone! Señor Noriega may have been dogged by some nasty rumors about torturing and homosexually sodomizing his prisoners, but he also never forgot his friends: he helped Pablo Escobar export his product, and Fidel Castro export his revolution -- all while retaining his common touch!

The medals that Idi Amin wore, like the titles he bestowed upon himself, were all richly merited. One does not earn that kind of hardware by cannibalizing others' heroism! Even more impressive is the way Idi wore them: with understated good taste and a finely tuned sense of proportion. Amin's well cut uniform perfectly reflected his quiet refinement, proving yet again that high moral standards do go hand in hand with high sartorial standards.

If you have to think of one word to describe Saddam Hussein, it would probably be…..dapper. He looks as if he had practically been born in a homburg, with dark blue overcoat and suit to match! Even his tie, with subtle white dots, adds to his air of savoir faire. Those sheikhs in Kuwait, with their traditional dish dashes and keffiyehs, could never have hoped to be a match for this Beau Brummell! Let others learn from Saddam's example -- his every last accoutrement should be regarded as a weapon of mass instruction!

No man on earth could ever hope to outshine Muammar's breathtaking fashion range. Whether he is sporting a sky blue military ensemble, a wool-lined aviator jacket with Mongol hat, or a color-coordinated kepi with semi-traditional Arab robe, you can always pick Muammar out in a crowd! All those outfits must take some serious storage space though, and he probably uses his formidable all female Praetorian Guard to protect it. Woe to the man who does not let that locker be!

(The "answer key" to this post is located here; you can see how many references you got.)