A murderer from Central Casting

You may have read of the Louisiana state trooper who was shot and killed yesterday after stopping to help a stranded motorist. From the AP article:

Senior Trooper Steven Vincent, 43, died Monday, a day after an apparently stranded motorist shot him in the head and then stood over him to tell him he was going to die soon, state police said.

Authorities plan to charge Kevin Daigle with first-degree murder in the trooper’s slaying. Vincent had been trying to help a man whose pickup truck was stuck sideways in a ditch, Col. Mike Edmonson said.

Killing someone who is only trying to help you is a particularly vile form of murder. And standing above him to tell him he's about to die is about the most vicious form of gloating imaginable.

Now it turns out that Daigle is also suspected of having murdered his roommate right before killing Vincent. This would, technically, make him a serial killer. 

I was struck by this photograph of Kevin Daigle taken after he was in custody:

He really looks evil. There's not only no remorse in that expression, there actually seems to be a look of triumph. He's looking straight into the camera lens as if daring us to do something about it. His eyebrows have a somewhat devilish arch. And he has those thin lips I keep seeing on Caucasian sociopaths.

Plus, he has that triangular shape to the top of his head -- a vestigial sagittal crest -- which I keep seeing on violent men. 

I was surprised to read that Daigle is only 54.   

And I was glad to read that Louisiana has the death penalty. Hopefully he'll never get to be as old as he already looks. 

Sociopath alert: Shaun King

Shaun King has been dubbed "Dolezal II" by a number of outlets this past week for having perpetrated a similar scam.

What kind of person keeps up a long-running subterfuge like that? A brief glimpse into King's life, and his own words, as reported in this CNN article, tell you all you need to know: he is indeed a sociopath. A few excerpts (in italics):

"I refuse to speak in detail about the nature of my mother's past, or her sexual partners, and I am gravely embarrassed to even be saying this now, but I have been told for most of my life that the white man on my birth certificate is not my biological father and that my actual biological father is a light-skinned black man," he said.

Have you ever heard the expression, "He's the type of guy who'd throw his own mother under the bus"? Meet Shaun King. King is essentially trying to maintain his scam here by calling his own mother a whore.

Note that he says he "refuse[s] to speak in detail about the nature of my mother's past" -- what a gentleman! Also note that he claims to be "gravely embarrassed." Except that sociopaths don't feel embarrassment.

Shaun King's statement is even less credible given that he looks just like "the white man on my birth certificate," Jeffery Wayne King:

If in fact Jeffery Wayne King were not his biological father, that would be a remarkable coincidence.

"It is horrifying to me that my most personal information, for the most nefarious reasons, has been forced out into the open and that my private past and pain have been used as jokes and fodder to discredit me and the greater movement for justice in America," King wrote [on his blog at the Daily Kos].

But the one who "forced" this "personal" and "private" information out into the open in the first place was King himself, by claiming to be black.

Wrapping oneself in the flag is typical sociopathy. King tries to imply here that those who have exposed him as white are trying to discredit the movement for "justice" in America. This is a time-tested technique for trying to deflect attention from oneself.

King later Tweeted, "This attack isn't about me so much, but is about derailing Black Lives Matter and the movement against police brutality."

Translation: if you claim King is white, you are supporting police brutality.

CNN's Don Lemon exchanged text messages with King on Wednesday night and asked him directly whether he was black or white.

"Initially, he did not answer but later referred to himself as biracial," Lemon said. "But then when I asked him if that's what it shows on his birth certificate I did not hear back from him. No answer on that."

It takes a little while to get your lies together, which is why sociopaths are often slow to answer personal questions.

In one of a series of tweets Wednesday, King said, "First off, the key facts about my biological relatives are all wrong. They tried, but my family, like many of yours, is one big mess."

After all, all families are just big, complicated aggregations of imperfect humanity, are they not? So why should his be any different?

He also compared his situation to President Obama's "birther" controversy. "In essence, what is happening to me now, is like conservatives demanding Obama's long form birth certificate," he tweeted.

Yet another tactic from the sociopathic playbook is equating oneself to someone perceived (by some) as noble and exalted. In other words: Don't you even see? I'm another Barack Obama!

(Note to Shaun: next time, aim for Nelson Mandela.)

On Thursday, King wrote: "Never have I once identified myself as white. Not on forms, not for convenience or privilege, and not for fun and games, have I ever identified myself as white. I was never a white guy pretending to be black. Not once, ever, did it occur to me that I was being phony or fraudulent or fake."

This sort of overemphasis is also typical of liars: Never…once…not…not…not…ever….never..not once, ever. And it wasn't enough to say that it never occurred to him that he was being phony. He had to say that it never occurred to him that he was phony OR fraudulent OR fake. (What's the diff?)

King is not only innocent, he is, like OJ Simpson, absolutely, 100 percent, not guilty.

And, since we already know King is lying about his race, for him to say it never occurred to him that he was lying is simply another lie. In any case, describing his own feelings, falsely or not, would hardly constitute proof of his veracity.

Another charge against King is that he lied about being the victim of a hate crime 20 years ago when he was a high school student in Versailles, Kentucky.

King said he was beaten by a "racist mob of rednecks" so badly that he missed almost two years of school while recovering from fractures to his face and ribs as well as severe injuries to his spine. A Forbes magazine profile called it "one of the first registered hate crimes" in Kentucky history.

"In March of 1995, it all boiled over and a racist mob of nearly a dozen students beat me severely, first punching me from all sides, then, when I cradled into a fetal position on the ground they stomped me mercilessly, some with steel-toed boots, for about 20 seconds," wrote King.

"I had fractures in my face and ribs, but most badly damaged was my spine. I ended up having three spinal surgeries and missed 20 months of school over it. My entire family endured this deeply painful time in my life ranging from the surgeries, the brutal recovery, physical therapy, and professional counseling. It was rougher than my words will ever do justice."

The Blaze disputes King's claims, citing police reports and witness statements that describe his injuries as minor and the incident as a fight between him and another person, not a beat down from a racist mob. The Blaze also reported that the FBI didn't have any record of hate crime incidents reported in Versailles in 1995.

According to the Blaze report, the detective assigned to the case said that witnesses reported that King threatened to break a female student's neck if she didn't repay him the $8 he felt she owed him, and shoved her against a wall. The girl's ex-boyfriend then defended her and got into a fight with King, which resulted in "minor" injuries to King.

Falsely claiming to be a victim is of course another typical sociopathic behavior. And it's exactly the kind of hoax you'd expect from someone who wrongly labels his own mother a whore.

You needn't be part of "a racist mob of rednecks" to recognize that Shaun King is a sociopath. 

Gorilla muscle

I stumbled across this picture of a gorilla yesterday --

-- and was struck by how much his musculature resembled a man on steroids. From time to time, usually in connection with various athletes, I've pointed out that the most common steroid signatures for men are (A) the emphasis they bring to the definition between the pectoral muscles, (B) humped, convex trapezius muscles (the ones running from the shoulders to the neck), and (C) notably convex deltoids, especially for Caucasians (who generally don't get them otherwise). Other signs include convex but well defined stomach muscles.

Here is are two more indicative photos of gorillas:

If you Google-image "before and after steroids" you'll get a lot of pictures like these:

Both men show the typical transformation.

(What would happen if you put a gorilla on steroids?)

It seems that men who go on steroids want to get in touch with their inner gorilla. Or, at least, their outer gorilla.

Can't say I blame them.

But it all looks more natural -- and therefore more magnificent -- on a gorilla. The humans, with their store-bought muscles, mostly just look silly.

My testosterone level

I had my first checkup in four years a week ago. I asked the doctor if he could get my testosterone number along with the usual set of statistics when they analyzed my blood sample.

A few days ago my doctor reported back that my testosterone level was 502 nano grams per deciliter, or, as he put it, "perfectly normal."

I then looked it up and found that the average healthy adult male ranges from 270 to 1070, but that after the age of 30, testosterone tends to decline roughly 1% per year.

I had, of course, secretly been hoping that my number would come in above average, so was a little disappointed to be so middle of the road. I suppose I can still hope that they caught me on a day when I was at low ebb (levels do fluctuate).

Then again, maybe they caught me at high tide.

But, the doctor confirmed what I had always suspected: I am merely average.

In any case, that finding confirms that this is in fact not a ballsy blog, merely an honest one.

Two serial killers in one

Commenter "Runner Katy" recently alerted me to the above woman, 68-year-old Tamara Samsonova, who evidently murdered 14 people and is thought to have eaten some of them.

Women serial killers are extremely rare. The most famous is probably Aileen Wuornos, a prostitute who killed several of her johns in order to rob them. There have been a couple of female landladies who killed their tenants in order to be able to cash their pension checks. And a few women have been given the label after accompanying their serial killer husbands or boyfriends.

But a woman who is a lone serial killer without a financial motive is almost unheard of. From what's known so far, Tamara Samsonova seems to be one such, and has admitted as much in her diary. She started at a relatively advanced age, too, which is also extremely rare.

Samsonova seems to have incorporated elements from a couple other infamous serial killers' playbooks into her modus operandi.

Many of Samsonova's victims had their lungs removed from their bodies; she is thought to have eaten those, and possibly other body parts -- just like Jeffrey Dahmer.

And she claimed she was "tortured" by a maniacal spirit which forced her to perform these gruesome acts -- just like Son of Sam.

To the end, her only concern was for herself. She told the assembled reporters, "I knew you would come….It's such a disgrace for me."

Despite her words, though, she seemed completely unashamed, as is shown by the way she blew kisses to reporters in court. (See video here.)

Despite her commonalities with Dahmer and Son of Sam, as far as is known, Samsonova was not particularly interested in either of them. She was, however, reported to have been obsessed with prolific Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo:

And like Chikatilo, Samsonova had those thin lips I keep seeing with Caucasian serial killers:

(I know it makes no sense, and I can't explain why that would be, but I keep seeing it, as I've said several times elsewhere in this blog.)

In a way, Samsonova is scarier than most serial killers simply because you never expect it from a little old lady. It's almost as disconcerting as finding out that an 8-year-old is a serial killer. There's no financial reason for it, and there's no sexual reason for it. All that's left is pure, raw malice, of which there has to be more than the usual amount given the lack of other motivations.

There's simply a hunger -- literally, in Samsonova's case -- to kill.

Donald Trump's appeal

The more I listen to Trump, the more his honesty seems not just a breath of fresh air, but oxygen in a room which otherwise has none. The pre-digested pap we hear from afraid-to-offend-anybody politicians who utter only focus group-tested banalities is completely honesty-free -- and therefore suffocating.

Yes, Trump is a narcissistic buffoon. But no one beside him, Republican or Democrat, has spoken about immigration honestly. All we get from Democrats are little homilies about how we're a nation of immigrants, and the usual accusations of racism at the slightest hint of realism. And all we get from the other Republicans is talk of a big tent as well as a need for secure borders. This is nothing but a straddling of the fence their constituents want them to build.

If your main concern is not offending people, that pretty much precludes any sort of straight talk.

Judging from the polls, a lot of people seem to be responding the same way. Trump says something -- for instance, that John McCain is not a war hero -- which would sink any other politician, but then keeps rising in the polls. And it's not because the voters identify with New York real estate tycoons -- it's because Trump actually says what he thinks.

Of course, that same bluntness about immigrants extends pretty much to everything.

Trump's recent comment about Megyn Kelly, "She was bleeding from her eyes, she was bleeding from her wherever," is typical. If he feels you've insulted him in any way, he'll lash out at you with anything he can think of. Anything. (A thin skin may not be an asset for a politician, but it makes for fun spats.)

This morning he backtracked a bit by saying that he wasn't referring to her time of month, and that you'd have to be "sick" to say -- or think -- that. (Well, even Trump's honesty has its limits.)

He also said this morning that if elected, he'll be "phenomenal to women." (Not "fair" or "good," mind you, but phenomenal. Trump only uses superlatives when it comes to himself.)

The comment about Kelly's "wherever" was Trump at his most Trumpish. Eventually, his Trumpishness will be his downfall. But as someone said to me at the gym the other day, "If he got elected, how bad could it be? We do need to secure that border. And look at the alternative -- Hillary."

It could certainly be worse from an entertainment point of view. With his grandiloquence and bombast and inability to tolerate criticism, Trump comes across more like one of the more amusing African dictators. Or maybe Kim Jong-il.

Maybe if Angela Merkel obliquely criticizes President Trump's tactics, he can later explain to the American people, "The bitch was on the rag."

Then, when queried about his statement, instead of apologizing, he'll just shrug and say, "Well, she probably was. And, hey, she's a fat, disgusting little toad as well."

It probably wouldn't do a lot for international relations. But wouldn't you rather hear that than the usual lies and obfuscations you hear from politicians?

Self-reporting studies

A friend sent this article the other day: Provocative new study finds bullies have highest self-esteem, social status lowest rates of depression.

The researchers said that bullies in general tend to be more popular, get more sex, and have higher self-esteem.

I'm sure they have a point, and the "bullies get more sex" part of their conclusion is both tangible and quantifiable. But how do they measure popularity?

It's hard to put stock in any theory that doesn't define its terms better. "Bullying" encompasses a wide array of behaviors, and also two major categories: verbal and physical. You'd also have to categorize all the different types of verbal bullying. There's a lot of behavior -- like classic one-upsmanship -- which some might classify as bullying but others would not.

Virtually everyone would say that mocking someone for being in a wheelchair constitutes bullying. But is asking what someone got on his SAT's and then citing your own (higher) score bullying? Most would say not. But what about saying, nyah nyah, I had better SAT's than you? Or what about stating, I'm way smarter than you? Or how about calling someone a moron? Most would say that last constitutes bullying, but exactly where do you draw the line?

Do practical jokes constitute bullying? Some can be mild, and some can be cruel. Your perception of which constitute bullying might depend on whether you're perpetrator or victim.

And what about all the moral preening -- along with attempted moral shaming -- we see from liberals: they probably don't think of that as bullying, but it could be classified as such.

This blog could easily be accused of bullying. I make fun of all sorts of people, from FEMEN to fashion designers to Donald Trump. One man's truth-telling is another man's bullying. It all depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on.

Another vaguely defined term is "self esteem." Some people define "self esteem" at thinking you're good at a lot of things. But others define "low self esteem" as thinking you're good at things when you're not. Which is it? It's all too vague to be particularly meaningful.

It's all a little reminiscent of those articles you sometimes see on the internet with titles like, "Which countries has the happiest people?" How exactly do they measure "happiness?" They ask people if they're happy.

Gee, that sounds pretty scientific.

If you were to be asked if you were happy, how would you respond? You'd probably think, hmm, have things been going well for me recently? Then you might take a step back and think, am I content with my lot in life? But since we've only experienced our own lives, none of us really knows how our emotional set points compare to other people's.

Our general frame of mind is probably determined by the level of serotonin in our brains, our hormones, our energy levels, and various other neurobiological factors.

But do the researchers consider any of that? No -- they simply ask, are you happy? Then, they take people at their word. (How many people are motivated to lie one way or the other?)

All that said, there's probably something to this study on bullying. After all, we all do it to some extent. And the extent to which we do probably depends largely on what we think we can get away with.

But, I suppose that depends on how you define "get away with."