Search Box

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Arguing like a liberal

After the recent sociopath alert about Al Sharpton, I got a comment from Glen Filthie in which he talked about racial differences and used the n-word.

I replied that while I don't disagree about group differences, the post wasn't about that, it was about Sharpton's character, and that character is not a matter of political stance. I also asked Glen not to use the n-word. I explained:

I'm in trouble enough for talking honestly about race and IQ, etc, without people pointing out that people on my site use the n-word. There's no point to it, it adds nothing to the discussion, and in fact once you use it, it means people who are sitting on the fence about various issues will stop listening to you.

I've always posted whatever comments people make, as long as they're relevant to the post -- and no matter how insulting they are to me. But use of the n-word is gratuitously ugly. I hate the hypocrisy and dishonesty shown by people like Sharpton, and I don't mind talking about group differences, especially as they impinge on public policy. I'll even make fun of black given names. But I don't hate anyone because of his race, and using a term like that insults all the members of a race.

Likewise, I never use the c-word to describe radical feminists, because that would insult all women, not just the feminists. And I try to steer clear of using the f-word to describe anything other than a bundle of burning embers.

Actually, all of these words are a little like calling someone a "fucking asshole." All it does is express your anger and expose your lack of eloquence. If you're really angry with someone, it's far better -- and more stinging -- to explain exactly why you feel that way about him.

Glen replied here (I'll leave you to judge the accuracy of what each of us said). His conclusion:

I'll leave you with the last word, John. Unfortunately you seem to be another intellectual poseur that is actually more politically correct and less objective and intelligent than he would care to admit.

It's actually sort of ironic -- I expect personal insults from liberals, it's how they argue. I expect it from women, too, as a high percentage of them seem unable to argue without resorting to ad hominem attacks. (I know one woman who loves to ask me about political subjects, but invariably will start talking over me as soon as I start to reply, and will just as invariably turn the argument into a personal attack; I avoid her as much as possible.)

But I generally don't expect it from conservatives. (At no point did I attack Glen personally, I merely took issue with what he said.)

In any case, I have received all sorts of insults on this blog.

I have had an Aspie accuse me of having Aspergers.

I have had a homosexual accuse me of being gay.

I have had a sociopath accuse me of being a sociopath.

And now, I have had Glen Filthie accuse me of being "an intellectual poseur that is more politically correct and less objective and intelligent than he would care to admit."


Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Editorializing by photo

Newspapers can always slant their articles slightly by their choice photographs. Two recent examples came in NY Post articles about Obama.

The first article, from two days ago, was headlined Obama says US less racially divided and used this photo:

This is not a picture selected to inspire confidence. Obama actually looks as if he's telling a whopper. And an upraised finger often hints at an arrogant, pedantic personality.

The second article was headlined, Soldiers' dream wedding forced to move for Obama's golf game. The story didn't turn out to be particularly damning: Obama didn't schedule his own golf game, had no idea about the planned wedding, and personally phoned the couple afterward to offer both his apologies and congratulations.

But, the Post used this photo to go along with the article:

If all you saw was the headline and the picture, you'd be left with the impression that our self-involved President was running roughshod over other peoples' lives in order to indulge his own leisure time pursuits -- pursuits he seems to be a tad egotistical about.

These photos haven't been retouched or anything like that. But they were selected for effect.

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Sociopath alert: Al Sharpton

Al Sharpton has led a life characterized by shamelessness, hypocrisy, dishonesty, and self-promotion. He doesn't even seem to make an effort to hide these traits, which makes him something of a rarity among sociopaths.

Sharpton first gained national attention with the Tawana Brawley "rape" case. Since then he has managed to insert himself into practically every major racial flareup in the country.

His history of race-baiting is generally well known, so there's no need to go into detail about all the incidents he has involved himself in: the Jena Six, the Trayvon Martin case, the Michael Brown case, and so on.

People have often ended up dying after Sharpton has inflamed passions, as happened in the Freddie's Fashion Mart fire, the Crown Heights riots, and the Ismaiiyl Brinsley killings. Sharpton has always  subsequently distanced himself from the killers. But in all of these cases he did his best to stir up resentment, whether or not it was justified.

Sharpton's credibility and point of view might best be summed up by this quote, from 1994: "White folks was in caves while we was building empires.... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."

Sharpton and his for-profit corporations currently owe the IRS a total of $4.5 million in back taxes; he has been taking his time about paying the money back. On two separate occasions when the IRS was supposed to collect documentation from him, those documents were destroyed by suspicious fires.

Sharpton has never been able to fully account for how contributions to his National Action Network have been spent, either.

In any case, his hypocrisy in all of these instances has been amply documented elsewhere. What's far more interesting are the things that get much less publicity: his being an FBI informant, his early years as James Brown's manager, his even earlier years as a child preacher, and his family background.

Sharpton was born on October 3, 1954. He graduated from high school in 1972, and attended Brooklyn College for two years, dropping out in 1975.

In 1972, he became the national youth director for Shirley Chisholm's Presidential campaign. It's hard not to wonder what sort of 17-year-old has the nerve to apply for that job? What kind of fast talking and self-promotion did that entail?

Between 1973 and 1980, Sharpton served as singer James Brown's tour manager. He was still a teen-ager when he got that position as well. What kind of teen-ager thinks he's qualified to serve in that capacity, and actually manages to finagle that job? What kind of nerve and fast talking did that entail?

The fact is, no teenager really has either the knowledge or experience to take on these jobs. In order to get them, a teenager would have to pretty much dissemble about his qualifications. So not only did Sharpton exhibit tremendous nerve to get hired, he must have been something of a con artist as well.

And if you scratch a con artist, you'll almost always find a sociopath.

Even more revealing is Sharpton's history as an informant for the US government, though much of the information on a topic like this by its nature tends to remain shrouded in secrecy.

According to a 1988 NY Times report:

The Rev. Al Sharpton, a Brooklyn minister who has organized civil disobedience demonstrations and has frequently criticized the city's predominantly white political leadership, assisted law-enforcement officials in at least one recent criminal investigation of black community groups, Government sources said.

He also allowed investigators to wiretap a telephone in his home, the sources said.

But Mr. Sharpton disputed much of an account published yesterday in New York Newsday that said he had cooperated in several Federal investigations….

''I think the idea of this setup is either killing me or scaring me into running out of town,'' the 33-year Pentecostal minister said on a program on radio station WLIB. ''But I won't back down. When God made me, he forgot to put reverse in my transmission.''

As a young man, Sharpton managed to insinuate himself into the inner circles of Shirley Chisholm, James Brown, Don King, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., and Jesse Jackson. If he did want to further himself by informing on prominent blacks, he had plenty of opportunity.

Disloyalty, of course, is another hallmark of sociopathy.

Note Sharpton's own words: [God] "forgot to put reverse in my transmission." In other words, there is no room in his personality for qualms, shame, acknowledgment of error, or apologies.

But how did he become this way?

Sharpton evidently preached his first sermon at age four, and was ordained as a Pentecostal minister at age nine. (Smell a stage parent?) If you're preaching at an age when you're not old enough for kindergarten, what sort of narcissism does that encourage?

When Sharpton was nine, his father left his mother to have a relationship with Sharpton's 18-year-old half-sister (they had a baby together). What standard of loyalty must that have instilled in the young Sharpton? What level of ill will must that have fomented in that household?

It seems to have set a precedent in Sharpton's life which he has repeated over and over again, instigating discord wherever he goes.

One side note: Both of the two (white) sociopaths I knew best had a habit of over enunciating each of their words, as if every single thing that came out of their mouths deserved special emphasis. It's a weird sociopathic tic, reflective of feelings of self righteousness, narcissism, and a bullying nature. Think of the way Sharpton often bellows, not only overemphasizing every word, but sometimes even every syllable. It's the same tic.

Easy verdict: Sharpton is a sociopath. 

Friday, December 26, 2014

Pure Obama

The NY Post ran an article this evening with the headline, Obama says US less racially divided.

An excerpt:

President Obama says the United States is less racially divided despite the tensions raging from deadly police shootings and emotional protests. Compared to six years ago...when he made history as the first black president, Obama says American race relations are on the upswing.

Americans, however, seem to disagree.

A Bloomberg Politics survey out this month found a majority of Americans – 53 percent – feel interactions between white and black communities have deteriorated since Obama took office.

This is vintage Obama. First, he's saying something that's not true: there is obviously more racial enmity now than there was six years ago. Take a look at the comments section of that Yahoo article mentioned six posts ago if you have any doubt. 

Then, he takes credit for this nonexistent detente.

In fact, by installing the clearly racialist Eric Holder as Attorney General, and by hosting Al Sharpton in the White House on 62 different occasions, Obama has done more to set back race relations than any other President within memory. 

Another excerpt:

Obama also expressed optimism the New Year will usher in cooperation in Congress under GOP control. “Now you’ve got Republicans in a position where it’s not enough for them simply to grind the wheels of Congress to a halt and then blame me.”

After all, what better way is there to usher in this new spirit of cooperation than with a gratuitous insult?

The brave women of FEMEN

An AP headline today read, "Vatican arrests activist who bared chest in square."

The accompanying photo:

Yana Zhdanova, a member of FEMEN, snatched a statue of the Baby Jesus from a Nativity scene in St. Peter's Square and screamed, "God is a woman!"

Who knows, maybe she's right.

The women of FEMEN do not make headlines the way they used to, but evidently they have been quite active with their protests against the Vatican.

Just last month, three activists simulated anal sex with crucifixes in order to protest the Pope Francis's appearance at the European Parliament on November 25th..

The women chanted, "God is not a magician, pope is not a politician!"

Who knows, maybe they're right about that as well: God, to my knowledge, has never performed card tricks, and the Pope is not a secular leader.

But I can't help but wonder how these women feel about the Islamic practices of clitoridectomy, and forcing women to wear burkhas, and not allowing girls to attend school.

And I can't help but wish that these brave women would demonstrate their disapproval of these practices by traveling to Mecca and wiping their asses with the pages of the Koran.

It would certainly be instructive to see what sort of reception they got.

The real -- if unintentional -- message FEMEN is delivering by protesting in Vatican Square rather than Mecca is that the Catholics are a far, far more liberal and humane group than the Muslims.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Filial respect, Part V

Yesterday my son told me he wanted to hasten my death in order to sooner receive his (meager) inheritance.

He chortled, "I'll make it look like a suicide. But not just any suicide. A gay, angst-ridden suicide, with gay love letters strewn around your body."

He then thought better of it. "No, I'll make it look as if you died of autoerotic asphyxiation while jerking off to gay porn. I'll pull your pants down and put some gay porn near your body."

When he finally stopped laughing, he concluded, "David Carradine's death is going to look dignified by comparison."

I never once spoke to my father that way.

Life….. a long, winding journey of discovering how much of a nobody you really are.

That's been my experience, anyway.

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Obama and Sony stand firm against tyranny

Sony Pictures -- urged on by President Obama -- announced yesterday that it will not cave to threats of terrorism and will release The Interview in 200 independent movie theaters on Christmas day.

All of Hollywood was up in arms about having their artistic output censored by Kim Jong Un. The prevailing attitude in Tinseltown was, if the little dictator can't take a joke, that's his problem. We're a free society, even if they don't understand this in a benighted place like North Korea!

Even George Clooney took up the cause, denouncing North Korea and sticking up for his pals at Sony.

But isn't this the same George Clooney who got incensed at a reporter who referred to Obama as "Obama" a few years ago and gave the reporter an earful about how it was disrespectful not to refer to "President Obama?"

All of which leads me to wonder, what if Sony had made a movie -- even a lighthearted comedy -- about assassinating Obama, and at the end of the movie Obama's head had exploded?

Would the same people who are so adamantly insisting we stick up for freedom of expression be voicing the same opinions?

As it was, plenty of people in our country tut-tutted when Amy Pascal of Sony and producer Scott Rudin, in a series of private emails, made a few harmless jokes about Obama's probable taste in movies.

After that was made public, Pascal had to beg for absolution from that pillar of moral rectitude, Al Sharpton. (That was really the only truly funny joke that came out of that episode.)

Question: did George Clooney feel that his friend Amy Pascal was being "disrespectful" by implying that Obama's taste in movies might be limited to black-themed movies? Pascal certainly did not refer to our leader as "President Obama" in that exchange.

It was noteworthy that Obama said that Sony had made a mistake during that same week that he himself knuckled under to another communist dictator, Raul Castro. Obama restored full diplomatic and economic relations with Cuba in return for the exchange of Alan Gross, an American who should never have been imprisoned by Cuba in the first place, and an American spy. (Cuba also got three of their spies back.)

The Castros have long occupied a fond place in the hearts of American leftists. Perhaps it's because they have never hesitated to put any of their Cuban critics in jail. Perhaps it's because Fidel sent us a batch of his most incorrigible prisoners in the Mariel boat lift. Perhaps it's because he has long aided Colombian cartels who wanted to use his island as a waystation for their drug dealing operations, and has managed to amass a tidy fortune of $200 million for himself while heading his socialist paradise.

I must admit, I'm a little confused by all these goings on. Is kowtowing to communist dictators a good thing, or a bad thing? Is freedom of speech and mocking national leaders a cherished American value, or not?

After this past week, I just don't know what to think.

Monday, December 22, 2014

Lance Armstrong's false emotionality

I've written about Lance Armstrong's sociopathy before, here and here and here and here. I thought I'd covered the topic fairly exhaustively. But when it comes to lessons about sociopathy, Armstrong is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Yesterday, commenter "Remnant" forwarded an article titled Lance Armstrong: I'd never cheat playing golf.

The relevant excerpt:

In an essay for Golf Digest, Armstrong writes he is drawn to golf because of its honor code -- the opposite, he says, of what he found in cycling.

"Cycling, it was the Wild West. Nobody considered doping cheating," Armstrong wrote. "It was an arms race where absolutely anything went, and it was every man for himself. You might consider me the last guy to have anything to say about cheating, but golf is different. I love adhering to a code of honor that we in cycling didn't have. If I moved my ball in the rough and got caught, I wouldn't just regret it, I'd be heartbroken forever. When I think about reform in cycling, I think about golf."

Armstrong actually has a valid point about cycling: it was, and probably still is, a dirty sport. (That, of course, doesn't come close to justifying the vicious way Armstrong went after those who said he was doping.)

But what betrays Armstrong's sociopathy here is his penultimate sentence: "If I moved my ball in the rough and got caught, I wouldn't just regret it, I'd be heartbroken forever." 

If most of us got caught moving our ball in the rough, we'd be ashamed. And when our friends kiddingly brought our trespass up to us later on, we'd feel a twinge of embarrassment. Unless, of course, they continually brought it up, in which case, after a certain point, the embarrassment would probably give way to annoyance. 

But Armstrong? He's such a saint that he'd be "heartbroken forever." 

With sociopaths, it's never enough to pose as an ordinary, decent person. They must show that they are morally superior to ordinary human beings. So they overdo it, and make ridiculous claims like that. 

But sociopaths are in fact morally inferior to ordinary people -- so extremely inferior that they have no sense of what an ordinary person feels. So, they make wildly inflated claims about their own supposed morality, not realizing that they're actually giving themselves away this way.

And Armstrong didn't just exaggerate his emotion: he used the wrong one. Heartbreak is what we feel when a loved one dies. Some people also use the term in the context of romantic disappointment. If we get caught cheating, what we feel is embarrassment, or shame. But sociopaths feel neither embarrassment nor shame. And, metaphorically speaking, they are heartless. So, they confuse the normal emotions. 

Note his three words, "and got caught." It's hard not to hear an echo of his cycling career here: Armstrong didn't really regret the doping, he only regretted getting caught. Here he unwittingly admits it would be likewise with golf.

Note also that Armstrong claimed, "I love adhering to a code of honor…"

If most of us are in a situation where there is a code of honor involved, we would feel obliged to conform to its dictates, especially since we would fear the consequences if we broke it. And we would probably take a certain measure of comfort in knowing that others are probably conforming as well. 

Those would be the prevailing emotions. 

But Armstrong? He's such a honorable guy that he absolutely loves adhering to the code!

Keep it coming, Lance.

If you ever stop acting like a sociopath, I'll be heartbroken forever.

Friday, December 19, 2014

El Caballo

One of the three greatest athletes Cuba ever produced was Alberto Juantorena, who won the 400 and 800 meter runs at the 1976 Olympics. (The other two were probably Teofilo Stevenson, the three-time Olympic heavyweight boxing champion, and Javier Sotomayor, the high jumper whose world record of eight feet and one half inch has now stood for over twenty years.)

Juantorena was a magnificent specimen:

Back then, with his bushy unkempt Afro, and extraordinary running talent, I just assumed that he was a light-skinnned mulatto. In fact, that swarthy, somewhat racially indeterminate appearance would have made him look right at home fighting alongside Fidel and Che twenty years earlier.

But to look at pictures of Juantorena now, with his shorter, straighter hair and light eyes, it's hard to discern any black blood:

And with his strongly androgenized, Anglo-ish features, he looks almost like the chief of a police department in the South.

(Bull Connor?)

In any case, there are worse fates than going through life looking like El Caballo ("The Horse"), as Juantorena was known in Cuba.

I was reminded of Juantorena because Cuba has been in the news this week. But when I Googled him to see what he looked like now, I stumbled across the following picture, which made me wonder about something that had never occurred to me before. Is it possible Juantorena was on steroids?

He certainly dwarfed his competitors in the 800, both in terms of height (6' 2.5") and musculature. Usually when I say on this blog that someone is juicing, I'm completely convinced of it; I'm far from convinced about Juantorena.

But, it would be naive to entirely discount the possibility. He ran for a communist country at a time when the Eastern bloc was heavily doping its athletes. And his Polish coach would have been familiar with the advantage conferred by steroids.

On the other hand, Cuba, unlike East Germany, has never had the reputation of being a hotbed of doping. So, I'm agnostic on the issue. I just don't know.

What I do know is that as big a star as Juantorena was, and as good-looking as he was, he must have led a good life.

Even in Cuba.

Viva la revolucion!

Some conservatives seem to be seeing the recent normalization of relations with Cuba as Barack Obama having once again driven a very poor bargain. He basically restored full diplomatic relations, lifted the embargo, and freed three Cuban spies in return for a man (Alan Gross) Cuba should never have arrested in the first place, along with a US spy, and some vague talk about improving human rights. But there is nothing binding about that talk, any more than there was from China in the climate change treaty Obama signed with them.

A lot of liberals are probably reacting to the lifting of the embargo by thinking, ah, Barack's heart is in the right place; that embargo is silly an outdated.

What few have mentioned is Obama's most heartfelt desire: not that Cuba become more like us, but that we become more like Cuba. (Does anyone really doubt that the "fundamental transformation" of this country he had hoped for lay in that general direction?)

Fidel had a long history of trying to export his glorious socialist revolution abroad. Most of those efforts  eventually ended in defeat.

Who'd have thought that the one country whose leader would still be most receptive to that notion would be the United States?

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Kim Jong Un has no sense of humor

As wrong as the release of Sony's hacked emails is, it's hard not to feel some schadenfreude at each new development -- and the studio's reaction to them.

Two days ago a couple of Hollywood figures denounced the news media for quoting from the emails. The NY Post succinctly analyzed that hypocrisy here.

Most recently, the "Guardians of Peace" hackers announced that there might be terrorism at theaters which showed The Interview, and advised people to stay away from any such complex. (Those hackers are peacekeepers in the same sense that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy.)

Their exact words: "Warning. We will clearly show it to you at the very time and places ‘The Interview’ be shown, including the premiere, how bitter fate those who seek fun in terror should be doomed to."

(That incredibly awkward phrasing definitely lends credence to the theory that the hackers are North Korean in origin.)

The thing is, even without the threat of terrorism, this movie was (bitterly) fated to be a bomb anyway. If you doubt that, check out this trailer.

Did you see anything remotely funny? Did it not seem to you that the two leads were pretty much sleepwalking through their roles? And this was the trailer, which is theoretically a short clip of the funniest moments that make you want to see the movie.

But the biggest takeaway of this entire affair is that the North Korean leader, who was mocked in this less-than-serious film, has absolutely no sense of humor about himself. Charismatic leaders have the ability to ingratiatingly mock themselves at times. Kim Jong Un is demonstrating himself -- as if we needed any further proof -- to be the opposite of charismatic.

In fairness to Kim Jong Un, he's been brought up to be the supreme leader of a country from birth, he has the luxury of being able to execute political enemies without consequence, and he is surrounded by fawning sycophants. That's not exactly the ideal environment in which to nurture a normal sense of give and take.

In any case, things have become quite tense, and it's probably not an exaggeration to call this a full scale international crisis that demands a serious response.

It's time we sent Dennis Rodman over there to straighten things out.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Hack attacks

It's been fun to follow this Sony saga, and see a liberal Obama donor like Amy Pascal get shown up for the hypocrite she is.

But, realistically, practically every large corporation could be shown in a similarly bad light if their emails were made public. None of us speak about people to their faces the same way we do behind their backs. So if all of our statements were made public, we'd all be in big trouble.

Just think of all the politically incorrect jokes that get forwarded in private. People do get in trouble for that kind of stuff. Or think of the porn so many men watch. What if their viewing habits were made public?

This is essentially what happened to Donald Sterling. His private conversations were made public. Even worse, in his case, his comments were taken out of context.

There should be a law that somehow indemnifies people from losing their jobs if their private conversations are made public, as happened to Sterling, and as may happen to Pascal.

Of course, no one can be indemnified against the personal fallout from such hacking attacks. Pascal's relationship with Angelina Jolie will certainly never be quite the same.

Pascal's emails, of course, are far more interesting to read about than those of most corporate execs, because her comments are about celebrities. Most of us would far rather hear the inside dirt on Jolie than, say, one oil exec's opinion of another.

This whole thing is thought to have started when Sony Pictures made the film, "The Interview," which ends with Kim Jong Un's head exploding. (Some have suggested that the hackers, who call themselves the "Guardians of Peace," are linked to the North Korean regime.)

At last report, the North Korean leader was fine; but Amy Pascal's career does seem to be exploding.

If it does, I won't shed a tear, because she's a typical liberal hypocrite. But do bear in mind, we're all vulnerable.

(By the way, the writer of this blog adores Kim Jong Un.)

Friday, December 12, 2014

Sony executives apologize

As I mentioned yesterday, it's always interesting to see how people have to grovel after making an un-politically correct comments. Sure enough, yesterday both Scott Rudin and Amy Pascal released statements.

Pascal's statement, in particular, seemed an exercise in disingenuousness:

"The content of my emails to Scott were insensitive and inappropriate but are not an accurate reflection of who I am…."

The truth, of course, is the polar opposite: those emails reflect exactly who she is. It's the apology, obviously written with the help of her PR people, that has nothing to do with who she is. 

Which do you think is the more telling indicator of someone's true personality: an unguarded, off the cuff email -- or an official corporate memo, vetted by lawyers in a desperate attempt at damage control? 

Not that either of these executives should have to apologize. All they did was privately joke about a public figure. But the current social climate is one where even joking is not permissible. 

Now that Rudin and Pascal have taken themselves out to the woodshed, that will probably be the end of it. If they were Republicans, of course, they'd have to resign in disgrace. But they're Democrats, so all is forgiven. 

Thursday, December 11, 2014

"Sony emails reveal racist slams on Obama"

I have to say, I don't think private emails should be hacked and made public.

But I also have to admit, I'm certainly enjoying reading how these rich, liberal Hollywood power brokers who donated money to Obama's campaigns talk in private.

How often do you actually get to be the proverbial fly on the wall?

The jokes weren't really all that "racist," by the way, though I'm sure both Scott Rudin and Amy Pascal are cringing right now.

It'll certainly be edifying to see exactly what form their groveling and apologies take.


There's been a fair amount of publicity about Columbia and Harvard Law Schools allowing their students to postpone their final exams because the students are upset by the recent grand jury decisions in Ferguson and New York.

Much of the reaction to these moves could be characterized as disapproval.

I disagree; I think Columbia and Harvard are on the right track.

In fact, I think I'll follow in their footsteps.

I'm very upset by the recent CIA torture report. So upset that I'm going to have to numb myself with a bottle of Jack Daniels every afternoon.

I'm in a huge tizzy about the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Such a tizzy that I'm going to have to have a pint of Haagen Dasz chocolate chip cookie dough every night just to calm my nerves.

I've been in a complete snit about global warming recently. Given which, I couldn't even contemplate having to shovel the snow which will accumulate in our driveway this winter.

I'm extremely saddened because of all the vandalism and looting by the Ferguson protesters. So sad I couldn't even consider taking out the garbage anymore.

But most of all, I've worked myself into a lather from Obama's drone bombings, what with all the innocent children he's slaughtered. Since I can no longer even think clearly, I'm going to take a break from my self-assigned chore of writing this blog.

See you next year.

Party's over.

Every spring graduating college students fling their caps up into the air in a frenzy of mass exultation.

It's as if they're saying, "We're finally out of this prison! We're free now!"

Free from what? Having around ten hours of courses a week, doing a little homework, and partying the rest of the time?

I can see why kids are happy to get out of high school. In most high schools they're confined to classrooms for roughly thirty-five hours a week, have little choice about what they study, eat lousy high school cafeteria food for lunch, and at the end of the day get to go home to their parents.

In college, you get to live in a dorm with other young people, all of whom have as few responsibilities as you. It's your first taste of real freedom, far away from Mom and Dad's prying eyes. You're young and energetic and at the peak of your looks. So is everyone else. Everyone is single, which means they're pretty much available. And everyone likes to drink -- which makes them even more available.

You have to wonder about those joyful faces at graduation. Do they have any idea of what they're facing? The lucky ones -- or the smart ones, who majored in something practical -- have jobs. A job means responsibility. You have to show up on time, make an effort to get along with people you don't like, and keep your boss happy. (You may not see yourself as an ass kisser in college, but that'll change soon enough.) You don't get to choose your coworkers, and you spend an awful lot of time with them. And they're all way older than you.

The unlucky grads will be going home to live with their parents again.

So why the celebration? College graduation should look more like a funeral. Because all you're "celebrating" is that the party's over.

Good luck, and enjoy that forty hour work week with old people.

(Not a very timely post, I realize, but I was reminded of this by the recent decisions by Columbia and Harvard Law schools to allow their students to postpone finals because of the recent grand jury decisions.)

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Jackie, Part III

One of the things I expressed curiosity about in the first post about Jackie Coakley was her parents.

While looking for news about Jackie Coakley last night, I stumbled across this excerpt from the original Rolling Stone article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely:

Jackie had a strained relationship with her father, in whose eyes she'd never felt good enough, and always responded by exceeding expectations – honor roll, swim team, first-chair violin – becoming the role model for her two younger brothers. 

Where would Erdely have heard this? Obviously, from Coakley. So it can't be taken at face value -- except for the description of Coakley's relationship with her father as "strained." That much is probably true: even if they'd had a good relationship, which seems unlikely, characterizing it to a national audience as "strained" would by itself be enough to put a strain it.

It's doubtful that anyone who's ever lived has always exceeded expectations; but we can mark that down to sloppiness by Erdely.

The most telling part of the excerpt was the way Erdely describes Coakley as a "role model" for her two younger brothers. Again, this is something she could only have heard from Coakley. Only one type of person refers to herself a role "model," and actually sees herself as an inspiration to others: a narcissist. (Sociopaths are a subset of narcissists.)

Anyway, the snapshots of Coakley's personality continue to fall into a consistent pattern, as they always do with a sociopath.

Coakley won't be turning into a serial killer, despite not having the slightest concern for others' lives. (Her fantasies seem to revolve more around being raped.) But, whatever her path in life, three dynamics will never change: her instinctive dishonesty, her craving for sympathy, and her inability to feel shame.

Monday, December 8, 2014

Her real name: Jackie Coakley

Commenter "Jokah Macpherson" pointed out today that the UVA false rape accuser has been named.

The wheels of poetic justice certainly turn quickly: one day after I suggested that her name be made public, released it.

I also said I was curious as to what other lies Jackie had told in the past. Sure enough, the article said:

We can also confirm that Jackie Coakley has misled other students at both her high school and her college about her past sexual relations with men.

(Details will evidently be forthcoming.)

Here's her picture:

This is the scary thing about sociopaths: they rarely look scary. Look at her picture, then look at my picture at the right of the blog. Who looks more like your mental image of an evildoer?

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Sociopath alert: UVA rape accuser "Jackie"

There have been a lot of words written about the University of Virginia Rape-gate scandal over the past two weeks. But the one word which seems to be missing from all the accounts is "sociopath."

Steve Sailer, as usual, had the best take on it, A Rape Hoax for Book Lovers. He did an excellent job of analyzing in detail how the purported rape victim's story didn't add up. He also touched on the essential dishonesty of a media all too willing to suspend disbelief in the service of political theater.

But Sailer also referred to "Jackie," as the self-styled victim wanted to be known, as "unsettled," a vague word which misses the key point about her personality. She is a pathological liar, ergo, a sociopath. (The only surer sign of sociopathy is serial killing.) And while sociopaths may unsettle other people, they rarely suffer from nerves themselves. (It actually takes a lot of nerve to run with a huge lie the way Jackie did.)

Jackie was described in other accounts as "troubled" and "unhappy," which also miss the point. Sociopaths trouble others, but generally don't suffer from self-doubt. And "unsatisfied" is a better description of a sociopath than "unhappy." A sociopath always wants more: more fame, more admiration, and more sympathy.

It was this last desire which motivated this entire charade. Jackie has Munchausen's Syndrome, whose "sufferers" (sociopaths all) invent various maladies in order to quench their bottomless need for sympathy and affection. But instead of inventing an illness in order to gain attention and sympathy from doctors and nurses and friends, Jackie invented a rape in order to gain attention and sympathy from her friends and the UVA dean and even real rape victims in the campus support group she joined.

She even tried to get sympathy from Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and by extension, her readership. It was that national exposure which ultimately proved her undoing.

A non-sociopath would never try to perpetrate such a hoax. Try to imagine yourself doing what Jackie did. First, you tell your friends that you were raped by nine guys. Then, you go to the dean of the university and report your "rape" to her. Then, you tell a reporter from a national newsmagazine about it.

These actions require a level of shamelessness that goes far beyond what a nonsociopath is capable of. They also require the confidence that you can always fool other people with your lies, a confidence only sociopaths seem to have.

The only other alternative here is that Jackie is psychotic. But her actions reek of dishonesty, not insanity. She can't even be that dumb, either: it's hard to get into the University of Virginia. (Of course, as a sociopath, Jackie must have gamed the system as much as possible: cunning often trumps IQ.)

Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of the original Rolling Stone article, is probably not sociopath. (If she were, she'd have seen through Jackie.) But she is dumb, and also somewhat dishonest, in that peculiar way that so many liberals are. She wanted so badly to believe that this rape took place, and she wanted so badly to believe that all those WASPy frat boys were capable of such evil, that she never looked critically at the "victim." And, she never bothered to let the accused speak.

When the Rolling Stone article first appeared, the usual people saw this as a great opportunity to "raise awareness" of campus rape. But the only thing this sordid episode should raise awareness of is sociopathy. Unfortunately, that angle will undoubtedly be lost amid all back and forth about feminism, politics, and the media. 

So far Jackie's real name hasn't been given, a courtesy traditionally extended by the press to all rape victims. But should that courtesy be extended to those who make false rape accusations? 

I'm curious to find out more about Jackie. What were her parents like? Was she adopted? What was her childhood like? How did her siblings turn out? What other lies has she told? 

I'm not sure what the appropriate penalty should be for Jackie. She never tried to get those fraternity brothers sent to jail (she never filed charges with the police), so it's probably not a jail sentence. But she should be expelled from UVA for the ruckus she caused. And, she did name some of her "rapists," to the dean and others. So her real name should be made public. 

And, if justice is truly served, this story will hound her for the rest of her life. 

Monday, December 1, 2014

How Obama sees himself

Obama's comments at the news conference he held right after the Republican sweep in early November put his narcissism in stark relief.

First, he said that "the American people sent a message" that the public expects their elected leaders to work as hard as they do. That is ridiculous: they sent a message that they didn't like Obama's policies.

After being asked why the election was so devastating for Democrats, Obama responded that the American people felt that Washington wasn't responsive to their needs. Again, he tried to make it sound as if they were dissatisfied with Washington in general rather than with the Democrats in particular, a typical Obama dodge.

Then he added that "every election is a moment for reflection," once again implying that this election was no different than any other -- and essentially saying that he refused to draw any conclusions from the Democrats' resounding defeat.

Obama also emphasized the two thirds of the electorate who didn't vote. His clear implication was that had more people turned out, the results might have been different. But turnout is traditionally low in non-Presidential election years, and the energized Republicans base sent a strong message.

A few minutes later, Obama said that he wanted Congress to act on immigration and that America needs policies which allow "the best and the brightest" to live here. Obama's definition of the "best and the brightest" seems to mean, "those who can cross the Rio Grande without getting caught."

Obama also said that he would give Congress six weeks to act on such a bill. Two and a half weeks later, he issued his executive order.

Much has been made of how Obama has circumvented the Constitution with his order. But as any psychologist will tell you, narcissists never feel the rules apply to them.

A few days later, Obama stated that had he been allowed to campaign more actively, the Democratic candidates would have fared better. (This, after an election during which virtually every Democrat put as much distance between himself and the President as possible.)

The statements from that press conference all seem jarringly at odds with reality, but they were in fact normal for Obama, who has always been a case study in narcissism.

Just last year Obama said, “Kindness covers all of my political beliefs. Empathy, the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success, is what gets me up every single day.”

In other words, "I do what I do because I'm a kind and empathetic person."

The same rule that applies to prison pen pal advertisements applies to politicians: people who actually have those qualities never feel obliged to advertise them.

This is a man who has said, in one of the two autobiographies he had written by the age of 45, "I find comfort in the fact that the longer I’m in politics the less nourishing popularity becomes, that a striving for power and rank and fame seems to betray a poverty of ambition, and that I am answerable mainly to the steady gaze of my own conscience."

Another rule which applies here is that people who have consciences don't talk about their own as distinct entities. (It's also true that no one says he doesn't care about his popularity who doesn't, in fact, care a great deal about it.)

Obama has claimed that the reason he did not make the varsity basketball team at Punahou is because the coach just didn't "get" his style of street play. The fact is, Obama just wasn't good enough. But since becoming President, he's felt he's good enough to play with NBA players. They undoubtedly don't play their hardest against him and let him score on them. But that probably doesn't stop him from indulging his fantasy that he's far better than he actually is.

When he was at Harvard Law School, the other students coined a term, the "Obamometer," to measure the extent to which someone seemed pleased with his own glibness. The term actually outlasted Obama at the law school. (Think about that: at a place which must attract an inordinate share of grandstanding egomaniacs, one ego stood out above all the rest.)

This is a President who looks in the mirror and sees, as he said on The View, "eye candy."

This is a man whose self-regard is such that he once told an aide, "I think I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm a better political director than my political director."

Obama also evidently thinks he's a better military strategist than his generals, since he routinely disregards their advice.

When Obama first met Queen Elizabeth, the gift he gave her was an iPod filled with his own speeches. Even most narcissists would be too embarrassed to do that.

Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2008 was famously staged in front of fake styrofoam pillars. It was never clear whether that was meant to evoke Plato, Socrates, or Demosthenes.

In that speech, Obama famously proclaimed that would be remembered as the day the rise of the oceans started to slow. He evidently sees himself as Moses as well.

The list of narcissistic transgressions is far to long to list here, but it's apparent every time he opens his mouth.

Every time he shifts blame for a national problem.

Every time he attributes the best of motives to himself and the worst of motives to his opponents.

Every time he feels that his charisma will be enough to win over intransigent foreign leaders.

Every time he tries to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public.

Once you recognize the sound of a confirmed narcissist, you don't even have to listen that closely. It's impossible to miss.