Search Box

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Hollywood vs. Richard Matt, Part II

The NY Post ran a fairly lengthy article about the Dannemora prison escape today, with more colorful examples of Richard Matt's sociopathy. Some excerpts (with my comments in parentheses):

‘Ricky’ Matt

Even as a child, Richard Matt was menacing. “He would terrorize kids on the bus,” Randy Szukala, a former chief of police for North Tonawanda, told the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. “Friends of mine knew him. He would just terrorize people. Even in elementary, junior high, he had issues.”

(If you start terrorizing people in elementary school, your path in life is pretty well set early on. A lot of the psychology textbooks say you can't diagnose sociopathy before the age of 18; but character emerges pretty early on.)

Matt was arrested eight times, from 1985 to 1991, on everything from misdemeanor harassment to felony assault. “One time he beat up a girl pretty bad,” Tonawanda Police Capt. Frederic Foels told the paper….

(Hard to picture George Clooney beating the crap out of Jennifer Lopez in Out of Sight; or Tim Robbins having actually beaten up his wife before being falsely convicted of murder.)

In 1993, Matt was back in prison for attempted burglary. He did three years, but violated parole once out and wasn’t released again until 1997. That year, Matt was hired by William Rickerson, a Tonawanda man who had a small business re-selling nearly expired food. Matt lasted just a few months before getting fired, and so one snowy night that December, he and ­accomplice Lee Bates attempted to rob Rickerson, then 76.

They bound Rickerson with duct tape and beat him repeatedly, even though he insisted he had no money stashed. The two men ate pepperoni pizza, drank wine and then, as Bates would later testify, Matt dumped the rest of the wine over Rickerson, who was dressed only in pajamas. Then Matt tore off Rickerson’s toupee, shoved it in his pocket and put him in their trunk.

(Exhibiting a normal appetite during the commission of a violent crime is a distinctly sociopathic trait. Most people in such a situation would be far too upset to even think about eating, but if you're utterly remorseless, even committing murder simply don't affect you.)

They drove for nearly 30 hours, crossing state lines. At one point, Matt opened the trunk and bent Rickerson’s fingers back until they broke. Eventually, Matt killed Rickerson with his bare hands, breaking the man’s neck. Then he dismembered the body with a hacksaw and threw the remains in the Niagara River.

(Try to imagine just bending a 76-year-old's fingers back until they break. What kind of person would have the stomach for that?)

A few weeks later, Rickerson’s remains washed up, and Matt told his half-brother, Wayne Schimpf, that he was in trouble and needed to leave town. “I remember his words,” Schimpf later testified. “ ‘I can do another seven years, but I can’t do life.’”

Matt asked for Schimpf’s car. Schimpf refused and would testify that Matt said: “You’re my brother. You’re my blood. I love you, but I’ll kill you.”

(A sociopath's definition of "love" is a little different from most people's.)

Matt took the car and made his way to Mexico where, in 1998, he was imprisoned for stabbing an American engineer to death in a bar. He spent nine years in prison there before his unexpected extradition to the United States in 2007. Mexican authorities simply put Matt on a plane.

(Previous accounts had merely said that Matt had killed a man in a bar fight; the fact that he pulled a knife is illuminative.)

“The United States had a deal with the Mexican government to extradite a drug-cartel kingpin,” veteran court reporter Rick Pfeiffer told the Democrat and Chronicle. “He was being flown back to Texas and . . . this second guy gets off the plane. It took federal marshals almost a day to figure out who this guy was. There had been no discussion with the American government. He had just been such a difficult prisoner — if you can imagine a guy who seemed too difficult to stay in a Mexican prison.”

(Mexican prisons have a reputation for being some of the harshest around; that they would just disgorge an American prisoner because they couldn't handle him is almost hard to believe.)

Matt returned with metal front teeth and a bullet wound — sustained, he said, while attempting yet another escape.

(Metal front teeth in and of themselves are no indication of character, but in Matt's case they did seem to add to his fearsomeness.)

His trial lasted one month, and it took the jury only four hours to find him guilty. He was sentenced to 25 years to life, which he had been serving at Clinton. “Of all the cases I’ve tried,” said prosecutor Joseph Mordino, who had 250 homicides behind him, “this would top my list for the death penalty.”

(Mardino's statement speaks for itself.)

Friday, June 26, 2015

Hollywood vs. reality

As you've probably heard, Richard Matt, one of the two escaped killers from Dannemora Prison in upstate New York who have received so much publicity since, was shot and killed by police in the woods about 50 miles west of the prison.

Much of the initial coverage likened their escape to that of the Tim Robbins character in The Shawshank Redemption. Matt and David Sweat,  the other killer, had an accomplice on the inside. But even so, their escape took a lot of planning and ingenuity.

There's one crucial difference between the the movie and the recent escape though. In Shawshank, the mild-mannered character played by Tim Robbins is innocent of the murder of his wife, for which he was convicted. Richard Matt and David Sweat, were far from innocent. Sweat was convicted, along with two others, of the murder of a New York State Trooper, and was serving life without parole.

Of the two men, however, Matt was definitely the scarier one. A few excerpts from the NY Times article about him which came out a couple weeks ago, A Convicted Murderer's Escape Alarms Investigators From His Past:

It was 1997, and when investigators identified the remains as those of William L. Rickerson, they zeroed in on Richard W. Matt, a former convict who had been hired by Mr. Rickerson, and whose name was familiar to law enforcement officials in and around this town north of Buffalo.

Eventually convicted of killing his boss, Mr. Matt is now at the center of the biggest manhunt in the nation after and he and another inmate, David Sweat, escaped from a maximum-security prison in Dannemora, on the northeastern edge of the state. Mr. Matt was serving a sentence of 25 years to life with no chance of parole before 2032.

For the authorities who investigated the murder of Mr. Rickerson, who was beaten and dismembered, news of the escape was an alarming reminder of Mr. Matt and his brazen efforts to elude the police.

In 1986, he had escaped from a jail in Erie County. About a decade later, after Mr. Rickerson’s death, Mr. Matt fled to Mexico, where he killed an American man at a bar and served several years in prison before being brought back in 2007 to stand trial here in Niagara County.

“You can never have enough security with him,” said Gabriel DiBernardo, a retired captain with the North Tonawanda Police Department who was the chief of detectives leading the investigation into Mr. Rickerson’s death. “You can never trust him. You can never turn your back on him.”

Mr. DiBernardo, who retired in 1998, offered a sentiment echoed by others in law enforcement here: “He is the most vicious, evil person I’ve ever come across in 38 years as a police officer….”

Mr. Matt was someone to be regarded as “extremely dangerous,” said one retired law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, not wishing to remind Mr. Matt of his name. “A lot of people get killed,” he said. “Not many killers take the time to dismember the body...”

When Mr. Matt returned to the United States to face trial in Mr. Rickerson’s death, officials took extraordinary security measures: A sniper watched over the outside of the courthouse. Double the usual number of deputies were posted inside the courtroom. The defendant was required to wear an electric stun belt.

And the glass that covered the wood counsel tables was removed, out of concern that Mr. Matt could break the glass and used the shards as weapons, according to the retired law enforcement official.

At the time, Mr. Matt’s lawyer argued that the security measures were excessive and would negatively influence the jury. But the precautions reflected just how wary he made the authorities. “It can never be overdone with Rick Matt,” Mr. DiBernardo, 78, said, pointing to Mr. Matt’s unusual physical and mental abilities. “He’s certainly not a dumb individual,” he said. “He’s a cunning individual, and a strong individual, physically strong. There’s no question he can handle himself.”

David Bentley, a retired detective who was with the City of Tonawanda Police Department for 29 years, said he had known Mr. Matt for nearly three decades. In the 1980s, he used him as a criminal informant, he said.

Mr. Matt had long been willing to flout the rules. Mr. Bentley recalled a story his informant had shared: When Mr. Matt was 14, he ran away from a youth home and stole a horse to make his escape. Over time, Mr. Bentley said he saw him spiral down, becoming more violent and unpredictable.

“I’m very concerned that people are going to get hurt the longer he’s out,” Mr. Bentley, 67, said. “I’ve seen him inflict wounds on himself, cut himself; break his collarbone and not seek any treatment. He’s just totally, totally fearless, and doesn’t respond to pain.”

Here is the picture the Times ran with the article: 

Here is his more recent, widely circulated mugshot: 

In both pictures he exudes a certain glowering malevolence. It goes without saying that Matt was a sociopath. There is much about him beyond the two murders that screamed sociopathy. For instance, that he didn't just kill Rickerson, but tortured him first

Matt he escaped from his "youth home" when he was 14 by stealing a horse. That sounds dramatic and daring -- like something out of a movie. And it shows the kind of resourcefulness and nerve that we like our cinematic protagonists to have. But in real life, the people who show that kind of recklessness are far more likely to be sociopathic.

A "youth home" can refer to either a foster home or a facility for juvenile delinquents. If it was the former, it means his own background was dysfunctional; if the latter, that he exhibited his criminal tendencies from a young age. 

The best criminal informants are, of course, people who are absolutely without loyalty -- sociopaths.

Perhaps the scariest thing about Matt was how scared the law enforcement officers themselves seemed to be of him. Those extra security measures -- the snipers, that electronic stun belt, and the removal of glass from the tables -- were evocative of Hannibal Lecter. 

Matt was scary because he was, like Lecter, so capable. He was strong, crafty, and impervious to pain. A weak, dumb, fey little sociopath simply wouldn't inspire the same fear. 

According to a NY Post article about his accomplice:

Sources said the worker may have been wooed by one of the escaped cons, Richard Matt, 48, an infamous lady killer.

“He has a way with the ladies,” the source said.

Another source, retired Detective David Bentley, who helped put away Matt for the 1997 murder of a North Tonawanda businessman, added, “When [Matt’s] cleaned up, he’s very handsome and, in all frankness, very well endowed. He gets girlfriends any place he goes.”

Charm is, of course, another sociopathic trait. And it just makes Matt all the more scary. (A far as I know, penis size is independent of character.) 

But when he couldn't charm women, Matt was not averse to raping them, according to the Daily Mail, a crime for which he was also convicted.

He also attacked a nurse in 1991 with a knife.

Cool Hand Luke, played by Paul Newman, was a decorated Korean War vet who was arrested for cutting the heads off parking meters one drunken night. He never hurt anybody to get into jail, and once  there, he adhered to a strict code of honor.

Papillon (Steve McQueen) was framed for the murder of a pimp. 

When George Clooney escapes from the Glades prison in Out of Sight, he acts like a perfect gentleman to Jennifer Lopez even after semi-accidentally taking her hostage.

None of these movie characters is a truly bad guy, so we root for them to escape from their prisons, which are usually run by evil wardens. 

But that's Hollywood. Richard Matt was real life. Don't ever mistake the two.

Unless you're watching Silence of the Lambs.

All that said, I have to admit, I can't help but feel a certain admiration for Matt. He was strong, smart, charming, resourceful, and impervious to pain. The world is better off without him, but he was unquestionably a formidable guy. 

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Ben Affleck's moral vanity

It was announced today that PBS has suspended the Finding Your Roots series because of Ben Affleck's having put undue pressure on Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., the show's host, to delete a reference to his slave-owning ancestors.

When I first heard about this controversy a year ago, it struck me as silly. Does something that happened in your family several generations ago reflect on you? No one is held responsible for his parents' sins, let alone his great great great grandparents'. And even those distant ancestors were merely creatures of their time.

The fact is, we're all swayed by whatever's currently fashionable to think. The Puritans, for instance, didn't just happen to be a bunch of people who all happened, just coincidentally, at the same time to have similar values. They were simply molded by the culture they grew up in to think of certain things -- such as premarital sex -- as sinful. And other things -- such as killing Indians -- as not. Had any of us grown up in that era, we would likely have felt the same.

People who claim that they would have had their current values had they grown up in another era are simply self-deluding. In fact, they tend to be the very types so heavily influenced by fashionable thought that they would have almost undoubtedly would have shown equally mindless acceptance of the status quo 100, or 300, years ago.

So, while slaveowners were participating in a system that was inherently unfair, mostly, they were merely creatures of their time. Their individual characters were expressed by how they treated their slaves, not whether they were for or against slavery.

In any case, my first reaction to hearing about Affleck's request was that he was evidently unable to see this, and had an overdeveloped sense of guilt. Why should he feel responsible for something he had absolutely no control over?

But then it hit me that it was probably more a matter of vanity. Affleck didn't want his otherwise impeccably liberal credentials to be tarnished by any association -- however remote -- with the institution of slavery.

The ironic thing, of course, is that by making a stink about it, Affleck drew far more attention to his slave-owning ancestors than he would have gotten had he merely let the program air. (How many people actually watch Finding Your Roots?)

When Affleck made his demand, Professor Gates was too intimidated by this huge Hollywood star to stick to his principles and face him down. So, he asked his producers at PBS for guidance; in the end, they acquiesced and deleted the reference.

Gates had no such doubts about how to behave with the Cambridge cop who arrested him for disorderly conduct back in 2009: he screamed at him hysterically.

It would have been far more appropriate if Gates had shown a little more forbearance with that Cambridge cop, and screamed at Affleck instead.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

The black reaction to Charleston

While all the white liberals have been going ballistic bewailing -- or, depending on your viewpoint, crowing about --  Dylann Roof's rampage, the black reaction has been remarkably muted and gracious.

Some of the relatives of the victims at the Emanuel African Methodist Church actually forgave Roof. Or, at least, they pretended to -- which, for all practical purposes, is just as good. Either way, they certainly showed more equanimity than I would have in those circumstances.

And, it must be noted, there hasn't been any rioting since then either, just as there wasn't any rioting after the killing of Walter Scott by North Charleston police officer Michael Slager.

Even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been mercifully absent.

It does seem that on those rare occasions when whites commit undeniably unjustified violence against blacks, and they are immediately arrested and condemned by other whites, there is rarely a black outcry.

It's when blacks think a white is getting away with murder that they riot. And even in those cases, it hasn't always been entirely their fault: the media would often draw a premature portrait of white guilt (as in the Michael Brown shooting) where there wasn't any. And Obama, Holder, Sharpton, and Jackson would subtly egg the mob on by invoking racism, police brutality, and so on -- while nominally calling for restraint.

Anyway, the black reaction to Roof has been admirable, and duly noted.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

"'Clinton Cash' author demolishes Hillary's self-defense"

A must-read from the NY Post.

It's amazing that more hasn't been made of Hillary having sold out 20% of the US's uranium production to Russia in return for some hefty contributions by various mining interests to the Clinton Foundation.

Mainstream media, where are you?

Oh, that's right, in the Dem's pocket, as usual.

If Hillary were a Republican, this would be a major scandal. And the word "treasonous" would have been invoked, many times.

Monday, June 22, 2015

NY Times coverage of the Charleston shooting

The Times has gone multi-orgasmic over the South Carolina shooting. But, you can't really blame them. In the recent past they've given extensive coverage to "crimes" committed by their preferred villains -- white males -- like the Duke lacrosses case, the University of Virginia rape case, and the Michael Brown shooting, most of which turned out to be not quite as advertised.

Now, they finally have a story which can't possibly backfire.

Dylann Roof is both white and male. He was motivated by racial animus, and even left a manifesto behind as proof. The victims were not only all black, they were mostly sweet old church ladies, along with a few male ministers. It was an incredibly ugly crime.

In fact, Roof not only gave the Times raw red meat to sink their teeth into, he even served them dessert in the form of his penchant for Confederate flags and his use of a handgun. He had everything they could have possibly asked for.

So, the New York Times has, predictably, gone to town.

The shooting occurred on Wednesday night. On both Friday's and Saturday's editions of the Times, there was no room above the fold on the front page for anything other than coverage of the Charleston killings. On Sunday, coverage still dominated. Today, four and a half days after the shootings, the story still merited four of the six columns above the fold.

Omar Thornton, a black employee at a warehouse in Hartford, CT, shot and killed eight white employees because of their perceived "racism" in August of 2010. (Their "racism" took the form of objecting when surveillance videos showed Thornton stealing beer from the warehouse.) The day after the killings the Times didn't even cover the story as a national news item, but only as a regional NY story. And their focus shifted almost immediately to the question of how much racism Thornton mighty have actually experienced.

The contrast in coverage is both stark and predictable.

But, you have to be happy for the Times. It's such a perfect "teachable moment" for them. Dreams really do come true.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Brave new world

Before Caitlyn and Rachel slip off the radar screen entirely, I'm thinking of taking advantage of the possibilities opened up by these courageous pioneers.

I plan to walk around on stilts and say I'm seven feet tall.

I'm going to wear a prosthetic and claim a ten inch penis.

I may start speaking in a British accent and say I'm an earl.

Or I may get some Ta moko tattoos, learn how to do a war dance, and claim to be a Maori.

What I want most, however, is to get a fake ID that says I'm only 25 years old. I'll be the pioneer there.

Actually, I'd be far from the first to lie about his age. But, I'll probably be the first to refer to himself as "trans-age."

The fact is, I just don't feel right in my (old) skin. This grouchy, querulous old 61-year-old just isn't me. Inside, I'm a lithe 25-year-old who wants to -- and can -- do a lot of women.

And the important thing is, I identify as 25-years-old.

Anyway, since I'll undoubtedly have the media on my side, don't you dare contradict me, or you'll be denounced as a reprobate.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Wimps with guns

One striking thing about many of these recent mass shooters is that they seem to be very wimpy physical specimens. The latest in what is unfortunately a long line, Dylann Roof, is no exception:

He looks both short and slight, and has a somewhat girlish face.

Here's James Holmes, the Aurora Colorado shooter from July of 2012:

Here is Elliot Rodger, the Santa Barbara shooter from May of 2014:

And here is Adam Lanza, of Newtown  CT fame:

What do they all have in common? They're small, even frail, and appear to have low testosterone levels. It's pretty obvious that before they took a bunch of lives, nobody took much notice of them except perhaps to note what losers they were. None were athletic, and most were probably virgins. They were all disappointments to their parents, and unpopular with their peers.

And, wimps that they were, they all needed guns as equalizers.

In a way it makes sense that these guys would turn out to be killers, because they had nothing to lose. And they were all resentful, so they wanted to take others with them. Roof's bitterness was focused on black people; but his basic psychology was undoubtedly the same.

I wrote a sample article once before, about Adam Lanza, as an example of what a responsible media would say about these guys: emphasize what dweebs and losers they are. If these potential killers knew beforehand that their actions would cause them to be held up to public ridicule, most would just take their own lives, and leave the rest of us alone.

The new $10 bill

News has just come out that Alexander Hamilton will be replaced as the figure on the $10 bill. The new bill will feature a woman. According to the NY Post:

Just which woman will wind up gracing the sawbuck will be decided later this year, after officials take input from citizens online and at local discussions.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew hailed the move.

“America’s currency is a way for our nation to make a statement about who we are and what we stand for,” he said.

Some might say that Lew has already accomplished that goal, merely by announcing that the next picture will be chosen on the basis of gender. But it will still be interesting to see who is eventually picked.

Harriet Tubman has been mentioned as a possibility. Susan B. Anthony may be another. Perhaps they'll consider Amelia Earhart, or Sally Ride.

My guess is they'll go with Tubman, since she's a twofer.

But since it hasn't been decided yet who the woman will be, I'd like to propose a few candidates, with an eye to Lew's statement about "who we are and what we stand for."

My first candidate is Kim Kardashian. Is there anybody who represents modern American culture better than her? She is rich, successful, and -- in some people's opinion -- beautiful.

My only hesitation in proposing Kardashian is that using her image on a mere ten dollar bill doesn't really do her justice, considering how she has been so successful at that uniquely American form of alchemy, transforming mere shamelessness into an empire worth millions.

My second candidate is Jackie Coakley, the woman behind the University of Virginia rape hoax. Is there a better example of political correctness run amok, the current atmosphere on campus, the power of the media, and crowd psychology? She, too, is a perfect symbol of who we have become and what we stand for.

My final -- and strongest -- candidate is a woman who started with none of the natural advantages that the other women did: Caitlyn Jenner. She is a groundbreaker in a way that none of the other women ever even dreamed of, having had to work for her femininity.

Think about her accomplishment this way: how many women do you know who could put a shot 15.35 meters, run 400 meters in 47.51 seconds, high jump 6' 8", pole vault 15' 8", throw a discus 169' 7" -- and then, 39 years later, look this glamorous?

What is it about Charleston, South Carolina?

2014 was the year that the police spent in the doghouse, what with the Michael Brown killing, the Eric Garner death, and a few other well publicized incidents. But the only police shooting which was obviously an actual murder was the killing of Walter Scott by North Charleston police officer Michael Slager.

Now, after a lot of of hate crimes which were not quite as advertised, or even hoaxes, we have an actual hate crime. Again, it took place in Charleston.

The odds of such happening in the same state are .02 x .02, or .004, meaning, four chances in a thousand. The odds of it happening in the same metropolitan area are even lower.

It's probably just coincidence. But it's quite a coincidence.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

A strange silence from the Left

While the forces of political correctness pressured us to kowtow to Jenner's new identity, they have been strangely quiet about Rachel Dolezal. It's hard not to conclude that Dolezal's scam has raised a number of questions that the Left doesn't want raised.

First, how did Dolezal benefit from being perceived as black? What exactly are the benefits that she wanted for herself? Did she enjoy her new "victim" status? Did it help her get ahead? How so? And how could that possibly occur in a world of white privilege?

Second, what does it say about the Left that so many who are drawn to its ideology -- or, at least, who exploit its ideology for personal gain -- are sociopaths like Dolezal?

Third, given that the "hate crimes" Dolezal claimed were committed against her now appear to be fictitious, and given that so many "hate crimes" the media has chosen to focus on turned out to be not as initially advertised, is this simply not one more piece of evidence that the hate crime industry is more often than not based on lies?

And fourth, isn't a fraudulent white-on-black "hate crime" in fact an actual hate crime against whites?

How does Jenner feel about Dolezal?

It's gotta sorta suck for Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner that right after his moment in the spotlight, right after the Left had worked so hard to celebrate his coming out, along comes Rachel Dolezal to not only steal his thunder, but to effectively make a mockery of his transformation.

A number of people have pointed out that if one person can be transsexual another ought to be allowed to be transracial. They have a point: if gender is a social construct, then so is race. (In fact, haven't some on the Left actually been saying all along that race is a social construct?)

And if people are using pictures of the early Dolezal to prove that she is in fact white, couldn't you do the same with pictures of the young Jenner to prove that he is in fact a man?

Given all of which, it's hard not to wonder what Bruce/Caitlyn's take on Rachel is. Does he see her as a fellow warrior in the trans movement? Or does he see her as an embarrassment who's opening the door for people to scoff at him as well?

Jenner recently said that he is a Republican. Is he discomfited at all by the fact that the people who enforced the celebration of his new identity were all liberals? Will this incline him to switch political allegiances here? One would think that a lifelong Republican would not switch parties this late in life.

Then again, one would also think a thrice-married father of six would not switch gender identities at his age either. Switching one's political affiliation actually seems the less drastic step.

Another question: why is there so little media attention on the fact that Bruce/Caitlyn still has male genitals? Until such time as he has them chopped off, he is still indisputably a he, however he feels inside.

(And if you insist on acquiescing to Jenner's wishes by referring to him by female pronouns, then you ought to extend the same courtesy to Dolezal and refer to her as black.)

But really, Jenner really ought not be referred to with female pronouns as long as he keeps his male genitals intact.

Up to you, Bruce. The ball's in your court.

Or rather, the balls are in your court.

Dolezal, Part III

It just keeps getting better.

Commenter Steven just pointed out that Rachel Dolezal had advocated a boycott of Exodus because it cast white actors as Africans.

Evidently she felt it was just not right for white people to pose as black.

Yesterday, Dolezal was interviewed by Matt Lauer about her long masquerade. What I took away from that was how Dolezal seemed to be completely without embarrassment or shame. Lauer asked her some fairly pointed questions, and she answered in a matter of fact tone, with a lot of obfuscatory language.

When asked if she were African-American, Dolezal replied, "I identify as black…..I did feel that at some point I would need to address the complexity of my identity….."

(Wrong: she is white, period.)

When asked about Albert Wilkerson, the black man Dolezal passed off as her father, she replied, "He actually approached me in north Idaho. And you know, where, we just connected on a very intimate level as family. Albert Wilkerson is my dad. Any man can be a father, not every man can be a dad.”

(Wrong: Wilkerson is not her biological father, nor did he raise her. He is not her father, period.)

When asked about the critics who said she was merely in blackface, Dolezal replied, “I have a huge issue with blackface. This is not some freak ‘Birth of a Nation’ mockery blackface. This is on a very real, connected level — how I’ve actually had to go there with the experience, not just a visible representation.”

Listen to that misleading language: she had to go there (i.e., become black). Evidently it was forced upon her, and she had no choice.

When Lauer showed Dolezal a picture of herself as a blonde, light-skinned young girl and asked if that was a Caucasian or African-American girl, she replied, "“I would say, visibly, she would be identified as white by people who see her.”

The correct answer, of course, would have been, "Caucasian." But Dolezal larded her answer with so many meaningless qualifiers that she made it sound as if there were extenuating circumstances involved. First, "I would say," as if this were only one person's opinion. Second, "visibly," as if Lauer might have been asking in any other sense. Third, "would be identified," to emphasize the theoretical nature of the discussion and to allow for another layer of possible mistakes, since, as we all know, misidentifications occur all the time. And fourth, "by people who see her," as if it's necessary to clarify that she is not referring to people who don't see her.

This is how sociopaths talk. Even when caught red-handed, they explain away their lies with more lies, and they couch their answers with a lot of flowery language that you have to wade through to get to their real meaning.

And, they never feel embarrassment or shame.

The whole thing was reminiscent of Lance Armstrong's interview with Oprah after he was found out; he, too, didn't betray even a glimmer of embarrassment or shame.

Nor surprising in either case: sociopaths are incapable of feeling either emotion.

Monday, June 15, 2015

Rachel Dolezal, Part II

More and more juicy stuff keeps coming out about Rachel Dolezal. Turns out that just like every other sociopath who's ever lived, she's been acting in character her entire life.

Today the NY Post reported:

The embattled NAACP leader accused of spending years pretending to be a black woman once sued Howard University — because she claimed the school discriminated against her for being white.

Rachel Dolezal -- who quite her post as president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP Monday -- insisted that she lost out on teaching opportunities and scholarship money because of her white skin, according to court documents.

The Post article added that:

Meanwhile, Dolezal’s artwork is also sparking controversy, with accusations that at least one of her paintings bearing an uncanny resemblance to a famous landscape by the artist J.M.W. Turner.

“Rachel Dolezal plagiarized a painting that has its own damn wikipedia article,” one stunned Twitter user wrote.

Hypocrisy, plagiarism, and a nuisance lawsuit. All sociopathic signatures.

Quartermain pointed this article out earlier today:

The relevant excerpt:

The student said that the incident occurred within the first three weeks of an introductory course on race and culture. Dolezal introduced an activity she called “Fishbowl,” in which one student sat in front of the class as others were invited to ask them questions about their racial and cultural experiences.

In the first round of Fishbowl, the student said Dolezal sought out a volunteer of Hispanic background to be questioned.

The student, who told BuzzFeed News that she identifies as Hispanic, grew up in a Spanish-speaking country, speaks the language fluently, and, while she has light skin, believes she has a “pretty solid experience of what it’s like to be Spanish.” She raised her hand to participate.

“I think we should ask another student,” the student recalled Dolezal saying in class.

The student asked why she could not participate.

“Rachel said I didn’t look Hispanic,” she said, and that her instructor “doubted that I could share experiences of racial or ethnic discrimination because I didn’t have the appearance of looking Hispanic.”

Even more hypocrisy. 

In fact, it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle white. 

Looks can be deceiving, but….

…..really, would you want to have to look at this face for four whole years?

Jeb Bush just looks too soft to be President. There ought to be, along with a threshold IQ requirement, some sort of toughness quotient that all Presidents have to meet. Maybe an oldster's version of a two week boot camp, something like that.

Jeb looks more as if he belongs at fat boy camp.

This just isn't a visage which would command fear or respect from our adversaries. Vladimir Putin would look at that Porky Pig Face and laugh.

I know, you can't judge a book by its cover, etc etc. And this is not an entirely serious post. And for all I know, Jeb Bush may be the toughest hombre around. ("Hombre" being the applicable word here, given that in 2009 Bush actually listed his ethnicity as Hispanic.)

But in truth, people do react to others' appearances. And Jeb looks like the kind of guy who would….actually enjoy attending a corporate retreat. The kind who'd bore you to tears at a party.

Michelle Malkin recently anointed Jeb the US Chamber of Commerce's Waterboy, which seems accurate. He certainly looks the part.

In fact, while writing this, I realized who Bush reminds me of: the Ned Beatty character in Deliverance:

Call me superficial, but Squeal-like-a-pig-boy with the eminently punchable face isn't getting my vote.

Fitness, now vs. then

You see a lot more people in their 20's and 30's who look fit than you did 40 years ago. It's not surprising, given the proliferation of various fitness routines.

There's CrossFit. Pilates. P90X "muscle confusion" workouts. Boxercise. Taebo. TRX suspension exercises. Kettlebells. Spinning. Yoga. Zumba and other "dancercise" classes. Various "boot camps." The Navy Seal workout (running interspersed with various calisthenics).

Triathletes have their own culture, as do runners and swimmers.

Forrty years ago, most of these forms of exercise hadn't been dreamed up yet. Forty years ago, guys used to actually be proud of their beer bellies. You'd see a guy put his hand on his belly, say something about his beer consumption, and look as if he thought he'd done something manly.

(Young people will hear this with disbelief, but old people will remember.)

Forty years ago, anybody who worked on his physique was regarded as either abnormally macho or a likely homosexual.

Today, it's just normal.

Forty years ago, people would talk about becoming "musclebound" as if it meant being placed into a cage, never to be able to move freely again.

Today, people understand the correlation between strength and athletic performance.

Forty years ago, the jogging craze was just getting started. Triathlons hadn't yet been invented, and athletes who competed for their schools were expected to give up their sport the moment they graduated.

Today, every other adult you talk to has some athletic goal in mind.

Forty years ago, you could aspire to either be a freakish body builder, or a skinny runner.

Today, you have a plethora of choices.

Forty years ago, the YMCA was, as the Village People suggested in 1978, often just a place to hook up with other guys.

Today, young people hear the song and don't really get the reference.

Forty years ago, for the few guys who did pursue strength and fitness as a goal in itself, the standard measure of how good you were was your bench press. These days, you rarely hear one guy ask another, "How much you bench?"

Forty years ago, you never heard anyone talk about "core strength."

Today, people are far more sophisticated.

Of course, part of the reason you see more guys who are really jacked these days is because of the prevalence of steroids. Forty years ago, a lean, muscular physique was a marvel of nature. Today, if you see one, it's likely there's something unnatural involved.

But even without the steroids, fitness -- in some form or other -- is pretty much a universal goal these days. Forty years ago, that was definitely not the case.

Again, young people will have a hard time believing this, but this post is only a slight exaggeration.


It's just a silly comedy, but it's well done and surprisingly enjoyable. You won't regret seeing it.

Friday, June 12, 2015

Sociopath alert: Rachel Dolezal

Rachel Dolezal, the head of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP who teaches Africana studies at Eastern Washington University, has gotten a fair amount of publicity in the past 24 hours for having lied about her ethnicity.

Here she is in her current incarnation:

And here are two pictures as a child which her parents provided:

Steve Sailer has already asked the philosophical question, if Bruce Jenner can have implants and wear a dress and call himself a woman, why can't Donezal dye her hair, curl it, get a tan, and call herself black?

(His point, of course, being that neither can do so, at least not honestly.)

In any case, it's hardly a surprise that Donezal is a pathological liar in other ways as well. This morning the NY Daily News ran an article detailing some of her other lies. An excerpt:

Rachel Dolezal, who heads Spokane’s NAACP chapter and teaches Africana studies at Eastern Washington University, refused to directly answers any questions about her alleged racial ruse after it was exposed.

A KXLY reporter bluntly asked her, “Are you African American?”

After a stunned pause, she replied: "“I don’t understand the question."

The question of her race "is not as easy as it seems," Dolezal told the Spokane Spokesman-Review.

"We're all from the African continent," she added…

“It is very disturbing that she has become so dishonest,” Dolezal’s mother, Ruthanne Dolezal, told the Idaho newspaper.

Her parents also alleged a much wider web of warped lies Dolezal spun about her background. A black man who Dolezal has publicly claimed to be her son is in fact her adopted brother, they said — a fact Dolezal confirmed to the paper.

Dolezal also lied about growing up in a teepee, hunting for her own food with bows and arrows, being abused by a stepfather and once living in South Africa, her parents said.

Some of her family members did live in South Africa for four years, but “Rachel did not even ever visit us there,” her mom said.

Dolezal initially maintained that she is African-American, telling the Coeur d'Alene Press: "They can DNA test me if they want to…"

Donezal's initial bluster -- offering to be DNA-tested -- is typical of a sociopath. (They never lack for nerve.) 

Her later lawyerly evasions ("I don't understand the question…. We're all from the African continent.") are also typical of sociopaths. It's sort of lying without lying, though Dolezal is not particularly good at it. 

Wanting to appear noble is another sociopathic trait. (Dolezal was on a police oversight committee in Spokane, meaning, she was posing as a protector of the "oppressed.") 

And wanting to appear as a victim (of abuse from her stepfather) is also typical. In fact, the whole idea of a white who wants to pose as a black speaks to that as well, given the current political climate.

What's surprising about Dolezal is that she was outed by her parents, who seem to be upset by her lies. Usually sociopaths come from very dysfunctional backgrounds, with families which are fundamentally dishonest themselves. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Exactly what was it that turned Dolezal into a sociopath? We'll probably never know. 

What we do know is that she is one. 

(Thank you to Birdie for having pointed this case out.)

Update: this post now has a Part II and Part III

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Statistics never mentioned, Part III

According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention:

For many years, the suicide rate has been about 4 times higher among men than among women. In 2013, men had a suicide rate of 20.2, and women had a rate of 5.5 [per 100,000 people]. Of those who died by suicide in 2013, 77.9% were male and 22.1% were female.

Imagine if these numbers were reversed. The outcry from the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post would be tremendous. They would anoint this a national crisis, and wail endlessly about the horrible pressures of being a woman. We would hear endlessly about the despair of women who must live in a man's world.

The Times and Post would leave no doubt that sexism was a factor in driving these poor women to suicide. 

But, the numbers are not reversed. So….crickets.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Why domestic violence is more common among lesbians

I mentioned on May 23rd that the rate of women who've been abused in lesbian households is 35.4%, compared to only 20.4% of those living with a male partner.

Women, in general, know that if they hit a man, it probably won't cause much damage, so develop fewer inhibitions about lashing out that way.

If a woman hits a man, it's simply not taken that seriously. A woman who, say, punches a man in the arm is probably not going to be strong enough to cause any real damage, even if she hits him as hard as she can. In fact, she's likely to be laughed at.

So if she does hit the man she lives with, chances are that act won't feed into the statistics on domestic violence. (If men did report such incidents, the statistics would look much different.)

On the other hand, if a man hits a woman, that is taken much more seriously. So normal men develop inhibitions against that sort of thing.

When two lesbians set up house, they will each have a lifetime of not being seen as physical threats, and therefore don't see themselves that way. Yet, eventually, they will get on each other's nerves just like any housemates do. And, when they do, they are less likely to have inhibitions about hitting each other. And sometimes hitting can escalate.

Thus, the higher rate of domestic violence among lesbians.

That's the only theory I can come up with, anyway.

Friday, June 5, 2015

Statistics never mentioned by the mainstream media, Part II

Although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses. (From the Family Research Council.)

Why the disparity?

Although only 5% of the overall population is gay, over half of all serial killers are gay. (From Adherents.)

I'm not sure I buy this second statistic, but whatever the percentage of gay serial killers, it's obviously far higher than the overall percentage of gays in the population. (I'd guess at least close to half.) Of course, only an extremely tiny percentage of gays are serial killers. Nonetheless, the disparity is striking, and you'd think some psychologist would take a crack at figuring out why this is so.

Or why a third of all pedophiles are homosexual.

Or are these subjects too radioactive to hold up to the light of day?

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Gethin, on Remnant, on Jenner

Gethin is another commenter who is operating at a higher level than I am. I like to talk about whether I would have wanted to do Christine Jorgensen, or my gut reaction to Jenner's picture. Gethin has a more sophisticated way of looking at things; here are his comments from yesterday, in reaction to Remnant's post. (I'm also transcribing Remnant's reply to Gethin, and putting that in the comment section below, along with Gethin's response to that.) 

As someone who is in the Nature camp of the 'Nature vs Nurture' debate, I felt compelled to respond to Remnant's piece on Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. I felt his piece was based on pre-conceived ideas rather than research. (The one bit I did agree with is that it is senseless to say that Jenner has "never" been a man: if Jenner wasn't male, what makes Jenner transsexual now?)

1. I'll start with Remnant's frog analogy: In the process of embryonic and foetal development, do humans and frogs undergo a process of differentiation between human and frog, remaining human (or frog) unless specifically triggered to develop as a frog (or human)? Does the human/frog brain also differentiate between human and frog, sometimes incompletely? Have there been identified (and surprisingly common) cases of “inter-species” conditions similar to intersex conditions, where people or frog have been observed to have partial features of both humans and frogs, or have human DNA with a frog-appearing body, or frog DNA with a human-appearing body? If any of this actually happened, Remnant's analogy would be sound.

2. Dr Harry Benjamin hypothesised in the 1950s that transsexualism is probably caused by an influx of oestrogen during gestation, permanently feminising their brains, with modern science confirming this:

The brains of transsexuals react to certain smells in a 'female' way:

In contrast to Dr Benjamin, early SJWs like Dr John Money theorised that all gender-related behaviour was learned and there weren't any neural differences between males and females. We now know that, not only are there innate behavioural differences established before individuals are born, but these differences can be manipulated via hormone injections. It would be unethical to do this to a human foetus, but it has been tried with animals:

"In animal models such as the development of birdsong in finches, exposing chicks to androgens or aromatisable estrogens during critical windows of development permanently masculinises the female brain so that later exposure of the female to androgens will result in the development of birdsong. In females not so exposed to androgens, the administration of androgen as an adult cannot induce birdsong...A similar situation occurs in rodents where the application of androgens to XX animals can masculinise elements of reproductive behaviour in later life...These hormonal manipulations can only alter behaviour during certain temporal windows in development. Outside these critical periods hormonal exposure has no effect on future behavioural patterns"

(Barrett: 2007: 158)

3. You don't know whether Jenner is XY or not. No one knows what their karyotypes are until they're tested. A recent study showed that mosaicism is far more common than previously imagined.

Furthermore, scientists have found numerous chromosomal differences in transsexuals:

Androgen receptor genes in transsexuals are much longer than those of normal men:

58% of female-born transsexuals have Polycystic Ovary Syndrome:

Another study shows female-born transsexuals to have a significant difference in their sex steroid gene compared to female controls:

4. It used to be understood that "a man" was someone with a flat chest and a penis and "a woman" someone with breasts and a vagina. Now that transsexuals have arrived on the scene, the goalposts have been shifted and "a man" is someone with XY chromosomes and "a woman" XX. So where do XX individuals born with functioning testicles and penises fit into this - are they women? And what about XY individuals born with vaginas who naturally develop breasts as teenagers - should we class them men?

Scientists have now found a way of changing the genetic sex of mice. A single gene has been identified - FOXL2 - which keeps females female. Switch this gene off, and ovaries morph into testes and begin pumping out testosterone. Is a mouse with testes female if it was born with ovaries? If so, how does that fit in with the "genetic sex" standards you're setting? Would we have to move the goalposts again if such technology became available for humans?

5. I am NOT arguing that Jenner is a full woman here. I accept that transsexuals are not women in the same way as, say, Queen Elizabeth II is a woman. But what I am arguing is that transsexualism is not fantasy-based as Remnant claims. Remnant's view that transsexualism "denies biological reality" reminds me of the 1960s view that autism, homosexuality and schizophrenia were all down to "poor parenting" or similar environmental factors and that people with such behaviour could be 'cured' with enough psychotherapy. We now know that autistics don't react to the hormone oxytocin properly, that schizophrenics have faulty dopamine receptors and that homosexuals have a difference in their hypothalamuses in comparison to heterosexuals. This is why no amount of psychotherapy has managed to cure any of the three groups.

Homosexuals, if left alone, can lead completely normal lives - leading to the RCPsych view that homosexuality is in no way a disease. Autistics have shown promising results in experiments with oxytocin therapy, and schizophrenics have a better prognosis with antipsychotic medication. Psychotherapy for any of them is snake oil, seeing as human behaviour is BIOLOGICAL, NOT ENVIRONMENTAL. Transsexuals are the same: psychotherapy has never worked on them and 98% of them carry on living as women until death after they have surgery.

6. You don't have to teach your children that this is normal, any more that you have to teach your kids that autism is normal, because it isn't. SJWs and the left-wing media wants us to accepts all sorts of things, including the idea that Islam is a tolerant, peaceful religion. Hardly anyone accepts that about Islam, but most people still treat Muslims politely. From Jan Morris to Lynn Conway to Joan Roughgarden, transsexuals have demonstrated that they can be productive members of society. Let's just have an "each to his own" attitude to them, seeing as they can no more help the way the pre-natal hormones altered their brains than autistics can help their genetic differences.

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Remnant, on Jenner

It's a little embarrassing, but Remnant, Gardner, and a few others sometimes write comments on this blog which are far better than the posts they're commenting on. In any case, Remnant has put a lot more thought into the whole Bruce Jenner situation and what it means for society than I have. Here are his thoughts: 

I’ve been meaning to comment on the Bruce Jenner thing, but any thoughts I formulate in my head seem to me so obvious as to not bear mentioning. Then I realized that this is really the point of this Orwellian farce: the SJWs, media and entertainment industries that are foisting this upon us are relying on that reluctance to point out the obvious in order to shift the public consciousness on the issue. If the media can acclimate society to repressing their natural reactions to things, they can continue to lead society in unnatural directions. So stating the obvious is our duty. An analogy will explain why it feels so strange to have to do so in this case. Suppose my daughter bursts into the room, starts hopping around and saying “ribbit”, and then turns to me and says “Daddy, I’m a frog!!” If I then turn to the house guests who happen to be present and earnestly explain to them that my daughter is in fact a human being and that she is just pretending to be a frog as she finds it amusing etc etc etc., I expect that my guests would consider me, not my daughter, the weird one. And this analogy may not go far enough, because Jenner has so little to do with any of us. It’s more like if I walked by a playground, see a little girl pretending to be a frog, and then walked over to a bunch of total strangers in the vicinity and explained to them that the girl is really a human being etc etc. That’s the meshuggah world we live in right now! Those who state the obvious appear crazy!

With that prelude, let me point out the following:

1. The moment Jenner was conceived, the very first Jennerian (!) cell contained … drum roll please … one X and one Y chromosome. Each cell into which it then subdivided, and each of the approximately TEN TRILLION cells currently comprising his body today, continue to contain one X and one Y chromosome. There is, thus, no biological evidence or support for the concept that he is a woman. We are asked to accept that he is a woman based merely on his bare assertion and on nothing else. Why is this assertion privileged by the public over all biological and physiological evidence to the contrary? If the DNA evidence doesn’t matter, can we also claim to be a race we are not? How about asserting that one does not have a disease dictated purely by DNA or cellular mutations (e.g. sickle-cell anemia)? If assertions are all we need muster to change reality, why do we need a criminal justice system? When a perp asserts he is innocent, is that not sufficient? Why are newspapers so skeptical and conservative in referring to perps as “alleged perpetrators” or “suspects”? If physical evidence can be overridden by a mere assertion, why are they not “innocent men” and “falsely accused men”. (Remember, according to these people, Jenner has NEVER been a man; likewise, doesn’t the perp’s assertion change history retroactively too? Why not?)

2. The only different between the Jenner of two days ago and today is that he has changed his name. That, plus the above-mentioned bare assertion. I don’t want to hear about his surgeries – shaving his Adam’s apple, facial adjustments, etc. – those are known as “cosmetic” surgeries. Cosmetic, as in appearance. If I take my mashed potatoes and shape them into the form of a banana, will the world accept that it has become a banana? Notice that when a woman has “breast augmentation surgery”, they are known in common parlance as “fake boobs”. Got that? Fake boobs, not real boobs. If Jenner takes the further step of cutting off his balls (which I highly doubt he will), he will then become what is known as a “eunuch”. They have existed in various cultures for thousands of years, and they are not women. I repeat: women are not simply male eunuchs. Is this a controversial statement? And it he then further undergoes surgery to rejigger the shape of his genitals and have doctors poke a new hole in his pelvis area, he will then be …. repeat after me … a “mutilated eunuch”. Not a woman, a mutilated eunuch. Still clear? Do we all understand that a mutilated eunuch and a woman are not the same thing? Am I presenting controversial ideas? To me it’s all as obvious as the weather.

3. Jenner likes to wear earrings, apply lipstick and rouge and to paint his toenails. He also likes to wear women’s clothing. This phenomenon is known as “cross-dressing” or “transvestitism”. Sorry to do this people, but I’m going to ask: Do we all understand that a cross-dressing man is not the same thing as a woman? (And for those who aren’t good at extrapolating, I’ll even draw the preceding two points together: A eunuch who cross dresses is also not the same thing as a woman.)

Again, it is almost embarrassing to have to point all of this out.

Now, what is so wrong about what has been going on is not really Jenner himself. I agree with John, that Jenner is essentially a pitiable or simply grotesque figure. Harmless eccentrics have always existed and should largely be humored or left alone. But we are not being asked merely to humor him, and WE are not being left alone: he is being forced down our throats as something we must endorse and celebrate. He is being used as a propaganda piece to brainwash us and our children into accepting that something bizarre and marginal is normal and wonderful. The issue is the institutions – media, journalistic, entertainment, academic and even governmental – that want us to accept these lies, and that promote these lies themselves. The same journalists whose very vocation is founded upon questioning and skepticism are acting as mouthpieces and bullhorns for outright untruths. Liberals who pride themselves on being part of the “reality-based community” and “pro-science”, and who mock conservatives as being the opposite, are denying biological realities and taking the fantasies and delusions of disturbed individuals as having some kind of sacred and inviolable authority. And the SJWs enforce this with totalitarian viciousness: people have had to shut down their own Twitter accounts for posting innocuous statements like “He’ll always be Bruce to me.” This is the nadir of a twisted and decadent age.

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

The gays' reaction to Caitlyn

It was hard not to notice that a lot of the positive comments about Caitlyn yesterday were from gay people. And it's hard not to suspect that a lot of their enthusiasm for Jenner's transformation is because it makes them appear normal by comparison:

Hey, we may enjoy what you consider perverted sex, but at least we don't mutilate ourselves.

Christine Jorgensen

The overwhelmingly positive reception Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner has gotten from her Vanity Fair photo spread has reminded me of Christine Jorgensen and the morbid curiosity which greeted her after her sex change operation.

Christine was born George Jorgensen in 1926 to a Danish-American carpenter and his wife in the Bronx. He was drafted into the US Army in 1945, attended a few schools, and felt increasingly uncomfortable with his male identity. In 1951, in Copenhagen, Jorgensen had an orchiectomy (had her testicles removed). In 1952, also in Copenhagen, Jorgensen had a penectomy (which is what it sounds like). And she later had a vaginoplasty in the US.

When the NY Daily News obtained a three page letter Christine had written her parents, and wrote a front page article on her in 1952, she became an instant celebrity. She later capitalized on this with a career as a singer and a nightclub act.

Here's George Jorgensen, circa 1951:

And here are two pictures of Christine in her later incarnation:

I have to admit, if I didn't know who she was, I'd have found her attractive, at least at first glance. And even if I didn't know who Caitlyn used to be, I would never have found her attractive.

The difference between the receptions each got was striking. All of the public pronouncements about Jenner have been supportive, even if much of the private commentary has not. Even President Obama weighed in by saying that Jenner showed "tremendous courage" in sharing her story.

Back in 1952, nobody felt obliged to be so supportive to Jorgensen. She was universally viewed as something sick, twisted, and unhealthy, an object of horrified fascination. She immediately became a cautionary tale, a walking punchline.

Are we a better society for welcoming -- or at least pretending to welcome -- Jenner with open arms?

I don't know.

One thing I do know: it took a lot more courage to be Christine Jorgensen than it took to be Caitlyn Jenner.

Monday, June 1, 2015


I know we live in more liberated times, and I'm glad for that.

I don't think gays or lesbians or other sexual minorities should have to live in the closet.

I think everybody should feel free to be themselves, as long as they're not physically harming anyone else.

And I sympathize with people who don't feel comfortable in their own skins, I honestly do.

But it's hard to look at that picture of the transformed Bruce Jenner and not feel just a little…..ill.

A lot of celebrities are Tweeting positive, encouraging messages about Caitlyn, but they seem to be doing so to demonstrate their own virtue.

It also seems that Vanity Fair, despite its sympathetic words about Jenner, is trying to profit from that cover shot the same way circuses used to profit from the bearded ladies and midgets in their freak shows.